home

Duke Lacrosse Open Thread

The Dukesters haven't had an open thread all week and they are busting the comments at the seams, so here's one for them.

< Waas: Bush Told Cheney to Discredit Joseph Wilson | Late Night Music: Songs for America >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lora on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 08:23:28 PM EST
    Posted by SomewhatChunky July 3, 2006 05:36 PM
    Nice try.
    Thanks! (and thanks JSwift)
    Your scenario requires that many if not most of the partygoers were aware what was going on and that many would lie or coverup what happened. The old "blue wall of silence." I strongly believe that would not happen. This is too serious.
    I'd like to think so.
    It doesn't explain the lack of physcial evidence.
    I guess I still would like to know what's on the rest of the medical reports, and find out what the head nurse meant when she referred to the story of someone (AV I think) being consistent with the injuries found, what the ESPN source actually saw and heard, etc.
    It requires an "adjustment" of a number of eyewitness reports in regards to time etc.... In other words, you need to make up or edit what people who were there said.
    As far as time goes, Bissey is the only one, really...his times don't match up with the first set of photos or with Kim's first 911 call, so it isn't a stretch to think he's off on the other ones. If I give him "midnight," all we know is that everyone was inside the first time when he looked at his cell phone, but we don't know how long they were there. He seems about 15-20 minutes fast all night.
    You need to make something completely up (the part about the Kim and "paid" sex).
    Yeah, that's completely made up. But...from the little I know about such parties, not out of the question.
    You just ignore the statements of the players, Kim and most of what the AV said.
    I'm mainly sticking with the AV's story (from Shelton's report and the search warrant and her interview). I'm suggesting she didn't protest as much as she says, and more than Kim says. The players say the women didn't return to the house once they left. That's contrary to Bissey's story. Kim has already officially changed her story. I view hers as incomplete and exaggerated about how caring she was for the AV.
    Since timestamped photos don't fit your timeline, you ignore them. Hard to ignore the watch photos, so you just leave those out.
    I'm suggesting that the first set of photos were taken by a different camera than the last set, and that the camera clock on the first set was fast, and the dance happened earlier. You're right, that would blow the matching watch out of the water. The picture I saw of the watch, I couldn't make out the time. I don't know, maybe they can enhance it and see the time. Nice to see that enhancement and verify what they say about it.
    You really give Reade and some other unidentified players for some quick thinking to establish alibis. If they were so bright, don't you think that the idea of a gang rape in a house full of people with multiple witnesses wasn't a good idea.
    I think the cover was paid sex...in fact I think they may have figured they already paid for it and didn't really view it as a real rape, got mad when she resisted, and let her have it (IF it happened). Then it was like "Oh sh*t."
    It doesn't address the multiple stories of the AV.
    True...I still am not sure how much she said, how much was inferred or perhaps misunderstood. Personally I am fairly convinced that her "recantation" to Shelton was a misunderstanding (she hadn't been raped yet), and her 4 dancers was a misunderstanding, (she was listing the employees of the escort service). I try to go by her own words from her interview, although I'm not sure that she was as dramatically scared and protesting (and actively resisting?) as she said.
    You throw in the old "we just don't know" in an effort to add credibility. It doesn't. I would submit that a prosecutor should "know" a few things before he or she proceeds with a case.
    Eh..well, the "We just don't know" was mainly a meager attempt at humor. But...yes I'm still hoping that within those 1800 pages is some more information.
    If your story relies on the need to alter almost every fact or eyewitness acoount that is known, accuses a large number of eyewitnesses of lying or a coverup, disregards all known physical evidence, add a few facts of your own with no evidence from anyone and places your faith in one victim's statement who has made a number of differing statments - well, that is what you wind up with - a story.
    Well I agree with you on the sentence I put in bold. But I think mainly the facts I "altered" were Bissey's timing, the first camera time, and suggesting that the two sets of photos came from two cameras.
    Not a prosecutable case.
    Not from what we've seen.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    Bob,
    Would you say "Hispanic" is a true race? It's something you can check on a box on a U.S. government form defining one's own race, but an Hispanic can be Mexican, Dominican, Cuban, Brazilian, Chilean, Argentinian, etc. His genetic makeup may or may not contain unequal parts of various Native American subgroups, European or African ancestry. An Argentinian whose ancestors all migrated from Germany can be an Hispanic like a dark-skinned Cuban.
    Agreed, Hispanic is clearly a made up construct to describe certain Spanish speaking peoples. It did not exist until very recently as a category of race.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 08:53:39 PM EST
    Bob, Read carefully your last post and agree with everything except for the last sentence of which I am not sure. Thank you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 08:56:13 PM EST
    farenham, thank you I will remember to look for meta-analysis in the future.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by JK on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:08:14 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    True...I still am not sure how much she said, how much was inferred or perhaps misunderstood. Personally I am fairly convinced that her "recantation" to Shelton was a misunderstanding (she hadn't been raped yet), and her 4 dancers was a misunderstanding, (she was listing the employees of the escort service). I try to go by her own words from her interview, although I'm not sure that she was as dramatically scared and protesting (and actively resisting?) as she said.
    What about the Sutton report? How do you account for the 5 attacker version? How do you account for the accusation that Nikki participated by trying to coerce her to do a trick?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:20:32 PM EST
    Bob, upon further consideration I do agree with your last sentence, thank you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:30:32 PM EST
    Bob:
    Hispanic can be Mexican, Dominican, Cuban, Brazilian, Chilean, Argentinian, etc.
    Just to confuse thing more I will add that Brazilians are not Hispanic. Also, people within Spanish speaking Latin American countries most definitely seperate themselves into different races (usually depending on skin color).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:36:10 PM EST
    Another question would be why did the LAX captains show such an alarming lack of leadership to allow this whole thing to happen? I have stood up for the LAX team in this case more than anyone else on this board but I do feel that the captains let everyone down and showed remarkably poor judgment in having strippers over to their house. Nothing good could have come from this. The captains essentially set themselves and the rest of the team up for this sort of thing to happen. I'm sure they now know this and feel very bad about what the indicted underclassmen are going through. If I were a captain, I would be devastated. The captains have learned the hard way that it is important not to put yourself and teammates in a position where bad things can happen.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:44:47 PM EST
    Noname, Brazilians speak Portugese and I suspect many consider themselves white, correct?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lora on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:35:32 PM EST
    jk, I think Kim/Nikki was more into the return trip than the AV, but the AV went along with it, if only to get her shoe back. Then Kim could have misread the AV's fear and clinging or discounted it, and the coercion was so that each could get to her job. I admit the Sutton version is over the top. But if the AV was hysterical at the time, you'd have an almost impossible task getting a sensible story out of her. Did Sutton provide a description of the AV? Calm? Crying? Hysterical? The ESPN source said hysterical and the search warrant said behavior consistent with going through a traumatic experience. I guess I'm still having a hard time believing that that evidence was just made up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 11:02:12 PM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 11:11:55 PM EST
    PB asked:
    And what percentage of the people tried and found innocent of the charges for which they were tried would you guesstimate were in fact guilty?
    80%.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 11:25:33 PM EST
    Where's Roy Cooper?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 11:53:31 PM EST
    Lora, You're letting your desire to want to believe the victim trick yourself into thinking you are not making stuff up when you are.
    I guess I still would like to know what's on the rest of the medical reports.
    Eventually you will. For now, this is "We just don't know." You're making stuff up to imply otherwise. You do know the defense cannot release the medcal report. Those who do know what the reports contain and are talking say there is nothing there. We beat the comments of the nurse to death - most felt she was talking generically, not about the AV at all. She was not specific.
    As far as time goes, Bissey is the only one, really
    No he's not. The players timeline, the cabbie and the physical evidence all say the same thing. You agree you made up the part about paid sex. Yet this fabrication is key to your story.
    I'm suggesting she didn't protest as much as she says, and more than Kim says.
    You're making that up.
    I'm suggesting that the first set of photos were taken by a different camera than the last set, and that the camera clock on the first set was fast, and the dance happened earlier.
    You made that up as well.
    I think the cover was paid sex.
    You said that before. That is a complete fabrication and it is key to your story. Neither the players, the AV or KIM have brought that up or suggested it.
    I am fairly convinced that her "recantation" to Shelton was a misunderstanding (she hadn't been raped yet), and her 4 dancers was a misunderstanding, (she was listing the employees of the escort service). I try to go by her own words from her interview, although I'm not sure that she was as dramatically scared and protesting (and actively resisting?) as she said.
    Why are you convinced? Any factual reason? It seems to me just another thing you made up.
    But I think mainly the facts I "altered" were Bissey's timing, the first camera time, and suggesting that the two sets of photos came from two cameras.
    See above. Almost all of your scenario was made up based upon things you think. Things without any shred of evidence. Indeed, you are repeatedly willing to disregard or modify evidence we do have to fit your beliefs. That's not the sign of an objective observer. I know form your previous posts and the course you are taking that you must be interested/concerned about the whole area of rape. I agree that it can be a very difficult crime to prosecute, especially when there is liitle or no evidence. It is especially difficult when the accused claims it was consensual. I think that a highly publicized case of this type is the worse thing that could happen for future rape victims. If the AV turns out to be lying (and the evidence we know to date makes that appear likely), the effect will be cause people to make it even harder for both victims and AVs to move forward with charges in the future. Especially because of the amount of publicity this case has received. People tend to extrapolate the recent past - fewer rape victims will be believed or trusted, especially ones with less than stellar backgrounds. This case will be used as an example of why they should not. Ask yourself how you feel about that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 11:53:55 PM EST
    An oldie, but a goodie: Posted by Lora May 4, 2006 08:40 PM All right, you want evidence? Here's evidence. If anybody wants any of my links, I'll post them. Search Warrant: Medical records and interviews...revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience. Theresa Arico, sexual assault nurse examiner and coordinator of Duke Hospital program (Herald-sun via NCCU Eagles fan page): "You can say with a high degree of certainty that there was a certain amount of blunt force trauma present to create injury." "I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told." ESPN hospital source: "She was hysterical," the source said. "She was crying, she was pretty banged up. She said she was sexually assaulted, but she didn't say by whom." The source says...She was walking on her own, but there were bruises on her face, neck, and arms. A triage nurse attended to her, but the woman did not want him to touch her because he was a man. She was then examined by a sexual assault nurse. There were injuries to the woman's pelvic area, the source said. "She never said one thing about Duke, any athlete or anything," the source said. "She just kept hollering and screaming. She never said who did it." Nifong (via Abrams report and Rita Cosby): "Duke University Hospital is the best trauma center in the area. This nurse was specially trained in sexual assault and I would just point out that my conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke Hospital." "There is evidence of trauma in the victim's vaginal area that was noted when she was examined by a nurse at the hospital. And her general demeanor was suggestive of the fact that she had been through a traumatic situation." "The victim's demeanor, the fact that when she was examined by a nurse who was trained in sexual assault, there was swelling and pain in the areas that would have been affected by the rape. The victim gave signs of having been through a traumatic situation. She seemed to be absolutely honest about what had occurred to her." AV's father (via NBC17): "Her face was all swollen up, her jaw. She couldn't half walk. One of her legs was hurt."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:08:03 AM EST
    fahrenam posted:
    However, if you do an article search in general for genetic variation among races, you will find that virtually all scientists believe that race is a social, not a genetic construct.
    I don't believe this is accurate. If you look at a large number of genes and a population sample and use an objective mathematical procedure to divide the sample into clusters based on the gene values I believe you will get groups which are very similar to the commonly accepted racial groups. For example suppose you look at 1000 genes and each has two alleles one (African form) found in 2/3 of Africans and 1/3 of Europeans and the other (European form) found in 1/3 of Africans and 2/3 of Europeans. Suppose further the values of the alleles for each diferent gene are independent. Then no single gene will tell you much but if you look at all 1000 genes in a 1000 dimensional space, Africans and Europeans will form two distinct fuzzy clusters. A hyperplane going through points with 500 "African" alleles and 500 "European" alleles will divide the two clusters with almost no people on the wrong side. Of course this assumes "pure" types. There was always some mixing between the main racial groups and with improved transportation it has increased. People with one African parent and one European parent will lie between the two clusters (think of two large star clusters with a few stars scattered in between) and are best thought of as being of mixed race, assigning them all to one race is an arbitrary social convention. Note different reactions to a drug may depend on a single gene in which case prescribing on the basis of race would mean 1/3 of the patients in each race would get the wrong treatment. It would be much better if feasible to look at the gene directly and give everybody the appropriate treatment for people with their allele.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:36:32 AM EST
    Regarding scenarios in which the AV actually was raped, I am a little reluctant to give Nifong ideas but I will offer one. Kim raped the AV with an object when they were in the bathroom together and the AV was too messed up from from some combination of alcohol, drugs and mental problems to accurately remember what happened. The AV just knew her v*g*n* hurt and she made up something to account for the pain. Note I don't actually believe the above but it seems more plausible than scenarios in which the three accused gang raped the AV.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:47:38 AM EST
    James B., Do you have a link for the mathematics behind multidimensional space and hyperplanes?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:53:20 AM EST
    How many different alleles are there for any given gene? How many genes on a chromosome are genotyped for the purposes of DNA testing in a criminal case?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by JK on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:17:46 AM EST
    James, Re: Race and hyperplanes Do you know of any studies that provide empirical support for this theory? Of course, one could define a hyperplane that will almost perfectly divide "racial" clusters in hyperspace, but upon what objective criterion do you define the equation for the hyperplane? R[Race] = ??? How do you know ex ante that this hyperplane will divide the data more "cleanly" than any other hyperplane (or even more than an "average" hyperplane)? I don't think those who say race is a social construct are saying that genetic characteristics are completely randomly distributed between races. They are saying the variation within racial groups is greater than variation between racial groups. I don't think they would deny that there are fuzzy racial clusters in hyperspace with predictive value for certain attributes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:56:43 AM EST
    David in Ct. You wrote:
    Another way to ask the question is if someone came to you and said you must go to jail for 20 years and be branded forever a rapist or we have to let 1000 rapists free, what would you do? My rule of thumb is if I don't have the balls to do it myself I wouldn't ask someone else to do it for me.
    I continue to be amused by this quote. How many rapists do you think you would let go free before you would be willing to do the twenty years? Would a million do it? Would it matter if they had raped your wife? Or yourself? Would you prefer to be raped a thousand times than to do the twenty years? Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    PB, care to try to construct how a gang rape could have possibly occurred given the evidence that is known?
    Sure. It's an initiation gone wrong. The plan is to hire hookers, but Kim gets spooked by the rowdiness. The accuser winds up in the bathroom but things very quickly go South and she winds up getting hurt, somewhat in the manner of Elizabeth Shue's character in Leaving Las Vegas. This all happens between 11:50 and 12:05. Most of the people at the party have no idea what went on in the bathroom, but they are well aware who was in the bathroom with who, and they are aware that, to the extent that they were hooting and hollering outside the door, they might be regarded as complicit. The captains try and make it go away, but their stories don't jibe well enough. Ever since they've been relying on the fact that she's "just a stripper." The players who weren't at the party believe that. The parents believe that. The loyal Duke alumni believe that. And they're ready to run with it. You wrote: Don't mean to be churlish, but saying that something may exist doesn't make it so. Coming from you, Bob, that is churlish. You are the King of speculative fact-generation here. You spend most of your time begging me to do the same thing. Then criticize me for doing it. Neat-o, little man. Neat-o. You wrote:
    PB, so that means you have nothing to lead you to believe that a gang rape occurred?
    The fact that I can't say that a rape didn't occur doesn't mean I believe that it did.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:21:30 AM EST
    There's only a one problem with your theory PB, the initiation part. Duke athletic teams don't generally have initiation rituals other than maybe making the freshman make the gatoraid and carry it to the field. It would also be unlikely that two sophmores and a senior would be receiving an initiation, and finally spring break might be a little late for initiation. Although we used to make the freshman do skits, that was our "hazing." They liked doing it though. Why do you hate Bob so much?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:26:07 AM EST
    If I was presented with David in Connecticut's conundrum by an all powerful god, I would turn down the offer to go to prison, and let the rapists go free. Since my life had essentially been forfeited by taking freedom over prison, I would then turn into a Charles Bronson type character and hunt down and kill the 1000 guilty rapists.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:10:41 AM EST
    to PB
    I continue to be amused by this quote. How many rapists do you think you would let go free before you would be willing to do the twenty years? Would a million do it? Would it matter if they had raped your wife? Or yourself?
    I would allow vigilante justice for the rapist(s) before I was willing to do 20 years in prison
    Would you prefer to be raped a thousand times than to do the twenty years?
    OUCH! The women would probably be dead. But if she was raped a 1000 times over a 20 year period (avg once a week for twenty years) - that's a tough choice.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:12:30 AM EST
    lora says, in part:
    But...yes I'm still hoping that within those 1800 pages is some more information.
    for all intents and purposes, we know what's in those 1800 pages, and it isn't damning evidence. if it were, it would've been leaked already. it hasn't been. btw, i have a bridge in brooklyn for sale.................... lora said, in part:
    Well I agree with you on the sentence I put in bold. But I think mainly the facts I "altered" were Bissey's timing, the first camera time, and suggesting that the two sets of photos came from two cameras.
    which makes them not facts, but speculation. Lora said, in part:
    The ESPN source said hysterical and the search warrant said behavior consistent with going through a traumatic experience. I guess I'm still having a hard time believing that that evidence was just made up.
    this would be the search warrant based on a then non-existent medical report? yes, that's certainly a credible source of information. again, if that medical report contained any damning evidence, we'd know about it by now because, again, it would've been leaked. it hasn't been, so it doesn't. frankly, i'm getting a whiff of tawana brawley from all this. the only difference (a huge difference really) is that there isn't a national black "leader" (ala al sharpton) standing at the AV's side. could it be they too suspect they're being "brawley'd"?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:32:33 AM EST
    Does anyone have the link to the ESPN report Lora keeps referring to?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:10:19 AM EST
    Newport
    Noname, Brazilians speak Portugese and I suspect many consider themselves white, correct?
    Yeah. My point was that while a white guy in the US refers to a Hispanic race, supposedly Hispanic people actually tend to divide themselves into black, white, Jewish, ect. A white Argentine, for example, would call himself white, not Hispanic. So race is less a definative difference in populations than a socially contructed marker.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:14:23 AM EST
    PB's theory of the case: Sure. It's an initiation gone wrong. The plan is to hire hookers, but Kim gets spooked by the rowdiness. The accuser winds up in the bathroom but things very quickly go South and she winds up getting hurt, somewhat in the manner of Elizabeth Shue's character in Leaving Las Vegas. This all happens between 11:50 and 12:05. Do you mean that the rape happens before they enter the house and before they finish dancing? Unique.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:17:14 AM EST
    PB howls: You are the King of speculative fact-generation here. I take facts and speculate. Different from "fact-generation." But you can go back and show me all the facts I've generated.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:22:31 AM EST
    I asked PB: PB, so that means you have nothing to lead you to believe that a gang rape occurred? PB then didn't respond: The fact that I can't say that a rape didn't occur doesn't mean I believe that it did. That's a very funny, very wobbly tightrope you're on. I asked you about evidence and you answered with a garbled, confused statement about your beliefs. That's a good enough answer for me. You've got nothing on which to base a belief that there was a rape. Just your belief, which you won't admit to.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:27:16 AM EST
    Ah, Newport! On the Fourth of July we should all go out and rent a Charles Bronson movie. I remember a parody of Bronson movies with him doing "Hamlet." Think it may have been in Mad Magazine. A hoot.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:27:46 AM EST
    To be or not to be... BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:28:42 AM EST
    I continue to be amused by this quote. How many rapists do you think you would let go free before you would be willing to do the twenty years? Would a million do it? Would it matter if they had raped your wife? Or yourself? Would you prefer to be raped a thousand times than to do the twenty years?
    And just how many times in prison would you get raped in 20 years? I really find this whole subthread amusing. We are comparing a one time rape with repeated rapes over a much longer period of time. We are also forgetting that MOST rape victims have men in their lives who would, if given the chance, harm the rapist in various ways. Lastly they have society's sympathy and many support services and victim's advocate. The unjustly convicted rapist or child molester gets none of that while he is in prison paying anally for his crime. But who cares if we have to sacrifice him? He's just a man, after all, and women NEVER lie about rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:32:08 AM EST
    This hasn't been discussed as much recently, but who here thinks there's a good chance the ID of the three players will be inadmissable in court because proper procedure (use of fillers) wasn't followed? I think this is one of the biggest problems the prosecution has (and there are A LOT). If that happens, the case is over before it begins. On another point, "hispanic" is not considered a race, it is an ethnicity. Seems like semantics, but it's not. Turns out that those people who consider themselves hispanic also consider themselves white, black, native american, etc. So it's procedure now in the national census, scientific studies, etc to ask first "what race are you?" with the options including white, black, etc but NOT hispanic. Then there is a question that asks "Do you consider yourself hispanic or Latino?" So, someone brought up Brazilians--they definitely consider themselves latino, but there is a range from blond, blue-eyed Brazilians to dark black Brazilians, to Asian Brazilians, the whole range. They ALL consider themselves latino, but would all list different races.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:34:42 AM EST
    He's just a man, after all, and women NEVER lie about rape.
    Only somewhere above 9 percent and below 40 percent of the time do woman lie about rape. I would guess it's about 25 percent of the time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:45:13 AM EST
    The idea of race had more appeal when there was less science around. Black v. white was okay when the government was trying to figure out who were slaves without rights and who were free. That carried over with the post-Civil War suppression of blacks' rights. Kim Roberts grew up in a cultural context that wasn't Korean, but if you were to look at her genetic makeup, half of it came from her mother, so she's presumably 50% Asian. If her father is like most African Americans, she's got a mixture of black, white and Native American, so chances are that she is more Asian than African as far as her genetic makeup. That has nothing to do with her self-identification or how the good citizens of Durham identify her. You can find subsets of populations that carry certain genetic markers, but all people whose genetic makeup derives from African ancestry don't carry sickle cell, for example. Race, as it was known a couple hundred years ago, was a means for organizing and dividing societies, something necessary for European conquest and the subsequent justification of colonizing forces' actions. Most of the "science" regarding race that arose back then has been utterly disproven or shown to be irrelevant to any real scientific discussion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:51:49 AM EST
    The legal question, a matter of constitutional law, is whether the identification procedure used was so unduly suggestive as to lead to unreliable results. There may be cases with more tainted id procedures but this one ranks right up there. The failure to use fillers in violation of the DPD's own internal guidelines (should have been 5 fillers per suspect arranged in a book, i.e., 46 pages of 6 photo's each) should constitute prima facie evidence that the lineup used was unduly suggestive and unreliable. Multiple lineups using the same photo's is also problematic and evidence of a constitutionally infirm procedure. Suggestive comments during the id procedure another problem. Telling the FA that all the photo's were LAX players allowed her to make any pick she liked without having the possibility of a wrong answer. Her credibility was not tested by the procedures used. This creates an unreliable procedure that promotes misidentification. Any in court id would also be tainted from the photo id procedure and would have to be supressed because it would be unreliable and carry the very real risk of misidentification.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:54:52 AM EST
    fahrenam, yes, you got me. Hispanic is an "ethnicity," which is not race. But as with your examples, race is also ethnicity. There is an African American ethnicity that overlaps is not entirely consistent with any genetic makeup. As I said, Kim Roberts is more Korean than African American, but from the quotes I've seen, she speaks in a patois that is certainly American, probably greatly informed by the African American community in Durham. Does culture trump genetics? Depends on who's making the judgment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:59:07 AM EST
    Actually, Bob, I think we're in agreement about race, ethnicity, and genetics. I was making the point about hispanics to clear up some earlier points where other posters thought Brazilians would be considered white, not hispanic or latino. I actually thought your post was insightful and showed a good understanding of what I've been trying to say over the past day or two.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:11:26 AM EST
    Regarding the IDs, think about this: NIFONG AS THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRITE Nifong has this case. He knows it stinks from the start. He sees it as a way to win the primary, but he doesn't believe there was any gang rape. He doesn't particularly have any love for Duke or its rich boy athletes, but he doesn't want to send anyone up to prison for a crime that they didn't do. He knows the identification guidelines set down by the state but does his whole little ID game precisely so that the case will eventually be thrown out. This would ensure his primary victory and would eventually free the innocent. +++ Of course, it would mean that Nifong is an incredibly evil man to be holding the office of DA, playing with people's lives in order to get reelected. On the other hand, even before the DNA evidence came back Nifong knew what a crappy case he had in his lap. Despite comments to the contrary, he may also have known all about the lack of evidence about the 1993 rape claim, the complaint against the AV's estranged husband, certainly her criminal record. We don't know but there may have been police involvement with her hospitalization for mental illness last year which would have given him further insight into the character of the AV. He undoubtedly knew the contents of the SANE report and how they didn't match the AV's various stories. And he knew she had various stories. In short, he should have had plenty of reason to move cautiously, but instead jumped into this case with many public inflammatory statements which motivated a large segment of the population to vote for him. He also should have known that the three ID sessions without any fillers were way out of line and would certainly be questioned in court. Now, subsequent to the primary Nifong is either playing the greatest rope-a-dope round in history, or he's just letting the case fall apart. +++ Yeah, I know, it's speculation, but anyone else wonder about this? I don't think Nifong is dumb and I don't think he's crazy. How about calculating and evil?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:27:11 AM EST
    I think he's just dumb and a fool and was an easy mark (white guilt, liberal prosecutor, didn't like Duke because of some grudge, etc.) for the sob story the FA was peddling and he got duped into believing her. Now, he's backed himself into a corner from which face-saving extraction is impossible, so he further convinces himself that he believes her. I really don't think he thinks he did anything wrong with the lineups. He was playing poker with the lineups. He figured if she fingered the wrong guys than the wrong guys would roll on the right guys. All's well that end's well so to speak.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:31:32 AM EST
    You know what else I think, he never put her under cross and tried to find out if she was making the whole story up. That is inexcusible.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:11:27 AM EST
    Newport, I think he didn't question her story precisely because he knew how bad it was. That, to me, shows an intent to push this case despite knowledge of how weak it was. I don't think he acted because of any white guilt on his part, or because he is stupid or nuts. I think he knew what he was doing, considered the consequences and went ahead with the case in the way he did because it was going to be politically beneficial to him. That's not guilt. It's lack of guilt. Of course, as PB would point out, it's all speculation. As imho would say, WE DON'T KNOW!!! Until Nifong writes his confession, we don't know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:00:48 AM EST
    PB:
    I continue to be amused by this quote. How many rapists do you think you would let go free before you would be willing to do the twenty years? Would a million do it? Would it matter if they had raped your wife? Or yourself? Would you prefer to be raped a thousand times than to do the twenty years?
    Letting rapists go free does two things. It gets the rapists out of being punished and also gives them a chance to do it again. Giving up my life so that someone else can be punished is not a trade I am willing to make. This is not to say that if someone hurt someone in my family that out of my own emotional needs I would not want to wreak some serious havock on their body and soul. As for the part about rapists being able to do it again and so by sacrificing my life I would be able to save others from the pain and suffering of the trauma of rape that would be a more difficult decision. It would probably come down to numbers and certainty and how much it would effect my immediate family mostly my kids. If the attacks were to happen in some far off land (like NC) the answer would probably be no. In some ways I make this decision every day by not stopping the life I currently have and crusading for people who are poor and or under siege. There are wars and famines going on daily all over the planet that I guess if my sole focus was to help I could probably make some marginal difference. So in the end I guess I am not suited for sainthood. Perhaps when I get older and my responsibilities to my kids diminish I will put forth a greater effort to save the world.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    Catching up on the comments, after a wonderful few days spent at my brother's (another Duke alum, to balance out the two Tarheel brothers) beach house. Jeez: been reading for half an hour and I'm still on June 30, so don't know if this possibilitiy has been mentioned, re the artificial nails: many of them come already "painted" so the AV could have unstuck a few, replaced a few, whatever. This would not have left smears on the railing, I don't think, but would explain the ones found in the trash. Back to my reading: Still trying to picture the actor who should play Nifong. Laroquette is good, but he'd have to hitch his pants up a few notches and add some padding. Plus there's have to be some prosthetics to recreate the Nifong Schnozz with that weird bump in it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:28:52 AM EST
    imho:
    Forced anal sex does not need to be physically violent.
    You're kidding, right? noname said it well:
    Would it seem strange to you that there was swelling of the vagina but not the anus in this case?
    I said much the same, a while back, when I was wondering if Kim's car was searched: an*l rape by two men would almost certainly result in bleeding, hence blood, and other material, on the passenger seat of Kim's car

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    cib: gotta let it go, buddy. Don't you know that imho is the only one who gets to make jokes about mothers? Now she will bring up what you said whenever she is at a loss for words (not that it happens all that often) to counter any legitimate argument you make.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    cib: gotta let it go, buddy. Don't you know that imho is the only one who gets to make jokes about mothers?
    It's not about the joke, Sharon. It's cib's "cute and funny" cover up. cib's always saying those "cute and funny" things about imho. hahaha. SharonInJax posted:
    Now she will bring up what you said whenever she is at a loss for words (not that it happens all that often) to counter any legitimate argument you make.
    What legitmate argument have you made that I countered with your humanization of the accuser? Never happened. Kinda funny that cib claimed her jab at parents who tend to their children was an effort to "humanize" imho. hahaha.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by january on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:08:01 PM EST
    It's not about the joke, Sharon. It's cib's "cute and funny" cover up.
    Now that azbbfan's gone, nobody's better at manufacturing cover-ups than IMHO.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:21:26 PM EST
    Back to my reading: Still trying to picture the actor who should play Nifong. Laroquette is good, but he'd have to hitch his pants up a few notches and add some padding. Plus there's have to be some prosthetics to recreate the Nifong Schnozz with that weird bump in it.
    Yeah, the Fungus just won't buy a bigger belt to ease his gut. I guess he doesn't want to buy bigger duckheads either. Too cheap probably. Better to suck it in and hop around like a duck with a case of the roids.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    Sharon In Jax posted:
    Back to my reading: Still trying to picture the actor who should play Nifong. Laroquette is good, but he'd have to hitch his pants up a few notches and add some padding. Plus there's have to be some prosthetics to recreate the Nifong Schnozz with that weird bump in it.
    Speaking of noses, I was thinking Pinocchio could play Bill Thomas:
    Durham attorney Bill Thomas said some of the photographs, taken when she arrived at the house, indicate the woman was injured before getting to the party March 13. They show extensive bruises and scrapes on her legs, especially around the knees, he said.
    ...but who does that leave to play Cheshire?:
    The photographs show the accuser has bruises and cuts on her arms, legs and feet," Cheshire said. "These are visible at the very start of the dance.
    ...after which all but a cut on one knee and one foot, they disappeared....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    Re whether or not the SANE report included photos:
    fahrenam posted: Oh, and photos are not taken during a rape kit. The physician or nurse has diagrams of the genitalia and the body and they draw on the diagrams where they see injuries. I don't know why that's the case, but that's how it's done.
    Then imho posted:
    Every S.A.N.E. protocol I have come across includes detailed intructions on taking photographs. Nongenital injury (snip) evidence.
    So there might be pictures of her "nongenital injuries" but not the genital ones, just as fahrenam described, only diagrams with injuries indicated.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by Lora on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    fahrenam, Here's the link for the ESPN article (source's comments in second column, gray box, part way down). Newport, Thanks for the repost. I say Nifong, Himan, et. al. were not lying about what they say. I say the defense photos' showed at least some cuts and bruises. They were not all artifacts. We really do not know if the rest of the medical reports contain anything to substantiate the AV', Himan's, Nifong's, the ESPN source's, and her family's descriptions of her injuries. And I do think the head nurse was discussing the AV. You don't go to the press stating that an alleged victim's story is consistent with her injuries if you have good information that in this highly publicized case there were no injuries to speak of. That would be misleading and unprofessional. And if you're talking about exams and such that happened where you're in charge, you'd better know what's in those reports. Somewhat Chunky (and cpinva), Are you sure the defense can't release the medical reports? Can they not describe them? Why then the description of the SANE trainee's report? If it was a mistake, did they get in trouble for it? Do you have a source that says they can't talk about them? re: timeline. The player's timeline and the cabbie match. Bissey's times are full of holes. His Time of Arrival doesn't match with the first set of photos (unless Kim is a Superman speed-changer). Bissey's time of everyone being outside at the end was wrong. He said 1 AM in an interview I believe; the defense affidavit had 12:50, maybe? Still too late. The 911 call was 12:53 and they had driven away by then. So that's why I also don't trust/believe his 12:20 - 12:30 for the intermission. I think he's at least 20 minutes fast all along. And quoting "midnight" on his cell phone is just a little strange if he was going to be precise. I don't think those letters appeared. Was it 11:57? 12:00? 12:03? I don't think he really knows what time it was. The paid sex is of course speculation. Come on, now. Are you going to tell me paid sex doesn't happen at stripper parties with an all-male audience? Can you concede it was possible? Short of the denials by the defense, the hedging and changing of Kim's story, the negotiations that occurred at the car window, the AV's story, and Bissey's observations that no one was left out after the first time they went to the car (so they both returned to the house), do tend to support such an event. I made it up, but it fits as a possiblilty. That would be something no one would want to admit. As far as the protesting of the AV, it's human nature to present yourself in as best light as possible. If the AV was raped, she's going to present herself as resisting to the utmost, and being afraid and demonstratively unwilling, even if she was more passive in actuality. Kim will try to present herself as the one who wanted to leave and the one who was concerned about the safety and whereabouts of the AV, even if she was out for the money and didn't really think or care whether the AV was in danger. Her first version was, It's a crock, she was just drunk, nothing happened etc. Then if a rape could have happened, why didn't Kim do something? She had to look good. I know I'm speculating, all right? There were two cameras, according to some articles. I didn't make that up. I dont know which pictures came from which camera; that I speculated about. I didn't make up that the defense experts couldn't vouch for the times, either. I read that, too. I'll hunt for the links if/when I get time. As far as the misunderstandings, that makes a lot more sense to me than wildly different versions. That makes no sense, rape or invented rape. So yeah, I think a lot of things. And I was up front about the "facts" I questioned. And yes I think this case will make it less likely for rape victims to come forward.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    Still trying to picture the actor who should play Nifong.
    I know! I know! Will Farrell. What do you think?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    Bob - that's an interesting hypothesis you have for Nifungus. In early June, I was wondering the same thing, limited mostly to the photo lineup. It does, however, imply a very unorthodox strategic move on his part as well as an enourmous level of evil within. I'm not sure which I would prefer - this potential scenario of evil planning with no intent to cause lasting individual harm, or Newport's or Sharon's thoughts that he is a clumsy buffoon or a benevolent despot. Any of the options should terrify anyone interested in fairness and justice.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    I like it, mik, I do. My first reaction was, "no, he's strictly a comedic actor," but upon further reflection . . . it works, since Nifong has made a joke of the judicial process.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Lora - what good would it do in the arena of public opinion for the defense to describe the medical reports? Av supporters would dismiss it offhand as defense spin. Wholeheartedly agree with you that Kim has been hedging to paint a better picture of herself. For instance, in the VF article, she went way out of her way to say to the cops that the AV should be respected. That was a very odd addition to her first report.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    If black collegiate athletes today were indicted on rape charges on grounds as flimsy as those facing the white Duke lacrosse players, the civil rights community - aided and abetted by the national media - would by now have turned the case into a litmus test of racial equity. The men would have been likened to the Scottsboro boys of Depression-era Alabama; to Emmet Till, who whistled at a white woman in Mississippi and paid for it with his life; or to Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney, who became martyrs of the civil rights movement, also in Mississippi.
    Prisoners of a False Paradigm

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    Can't remember which TH it was, but he wondered what would happen if the defense subpoenaed the Nifong campaign's electronic records to see if the effect the lax case would have on the race, with different scenarios, was discussed by the Nifongites. Maybe the woman who jumped from Nifong's campaign to the opposition could provide some info.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sunny on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:16:35 PM EST
    What about James Woods as Nifong?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:16:50 PM EST
    Lora: not sure how reliable the ESPN source is, as they have never had any follow-up about it. And she was wearing a "red nightgown" when she arrived? Hardly sounds like standard issue from the Durham Access Center, nor does it sound like her dance outfit.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:26:14 PM EST
    Re: The photo IDs. This won't be a wildly popular opinion, but I rather think that the photo ID session has a strong chance of being admitted into evidence. Re-reading the introductory parts of the transcript, it seemed to me as though the whole thing was orchestrated the way it was (against recommended protocol) deliberately, but with a deliberate CYA slant to it. I think that the argument for inclusion will be along the lines of "in the course of proper case investigation, as we tried only to determine who was at the party (ergo, no need for 'proper' lineups, as we weren't determining criminal activity). The AV then organically identified her attackers." In some weird way, I'm sure it'll be parallelled to a detective walking w/a victim through a crowd, trying to re-create her steps and she spontaneously says "look at the man over there, he raped me!" Yeah, it's a slick way to dance around the issue, and it'll take some semantics games (and a sympathetic judge) to make it fly. But this reading of events takes the burden off of the 'Fong so he can say "Who, me? I just wanted help with the guest list!" So he's not a crap investigator or a crap lawyer (in this scenario), she's just a crap remember-er.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    Are you sure the defense can't release the medical reports? Can they not describe them? Why then the description of the SANE trainee's report? If it was a mistake, did they get in trouble for it? Do you have a source that says they can't talk about them?
    They have released them - to a reporter. Dan Abrams claims he has read them. He has not related if there are photos included.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:50:58 PM EST
    thinkandtype posted:
    I think that the argument for inclusion will be along the lines of "in the course of proper case investigation, as we tried only to determine who was at the party (ergo, no need for 'proper' lineups, as we weren't determining criminal activity). The AV then organically identified her attackers."
    Yep. Just an investigation tool - indentify witnesses to be questioned.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#65)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    And she was wearing a "red nightgown" when she arrived?
    Brian Taylor article:
    "She asked my opinion," he said. "The first one was this black outfit, and I said, 'No.' When she came out in the red one I said, 'That's better.'
    April 24th Newsweek article:
    She's wearing only her scant red-and-white outfit and one shoe.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:12:04 PM EST
    And yes I think this case will make it less likely for rape victims to come forward.
    it shouldn't have any such effect. so far, the person who's really being villified is nifong. the AV hasn't been, except in the abstract. most people don't even know her name. pity the accused can't say the same. should this turn out to be a false charge, why should it result in reluctance, on the part of real victims of rape, to report it?
    In some weird way, I'm sure it'll be parallelled to a detective walking w/a victim through a crowd, trying to re-create her steps and she spontaneously says "look at the man over there, he raped me!"
    except, it won't. they only used pics of those at the party, she wasn't walking through a crime scene, she was trying to pick out her alleged attackers. this would be the only legitimate reason to have her review them in the first place, since the police already pretty much knew who was at the party. they had no need of her to try and confirm it. allowing the photo "id's" in as evidence would, i think, result in reversable error on the part of the judge. take that out, and there's no there there (with apologies to gertrude stein) in this case. btw, anyone know what the vegas line is on this case actually going to trial?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    Sorry, imho, but I'm not giving an "eyewitness" a whole lot of points for getting one out of two colors right. Maybe "nightgown" must be given unusual definition to make it fit what the AV was wearing, just as "mustache" needs creative definition to make it describe anything close to what Evans looked like that night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    Even if the ID's were obtained "by accident" while trying to figure out who was at the party, they could be found inadmissable in court. Proper procedure has to be followed and if the judge feels it wasn't in this case, the identifications will not be allowed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    So, having read the ESPN "source" report, I'm very skeptical of this person. I strongly believe that this was not a doctor or a nurse, because there are extremely strict federal laws (HIPAA) that prevent medical personnel from discussing a patient with ANYONE--even the DA. This is why it took awhile for the DA's office to get those reports. I suspect this person was either the desk clerk in the ER or another patient and did not actually examine the patient themselves but overheard some conversations secondhand. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the report--particularly since the medical report itself seems to refute this "witness."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    Lora,
    You don't go to the press stating that an alleged victim's story is consistent with her injuries if you have good information that in this highly publicized case there were no injuries to speak of.
    An ethical and honest DA wouldn't. As you know, many feel Nifong posses neither quality - at least in this case. He may have been motivated by reasons external to this case. I think he either lied or purposedly avoided the truth numerous times. Please attempt to give me one good reason why he wouldn't even meet with the defense to hear what they had to say about alibis. Just one reason.
    That would be misleading and unprofessional.
    No kidding. You think nobody has pointed that out?
    Are you sure the defense can't release the medical reports? Can they not describe them?
    This is from the NYT. You can go find the motion.
    The filing by defense lawyers on Thursday also quoted details from the medical examination of the woman by doctors and a sexual assault specialist. Twenty-three pages of medical records were attached in a sealed envelope.
    I think they are not sure. There are laws dealing with this. They asked the court for permission to do so. It would be difficult to do so now without the court's persmission.
    The paid sex is of course speculation.
    Yes it is. Wild speculation. It is also the cornerstone of your story. It has no basis in fact.
    Come on, now. Are you going to tell me paid sex doesn't happen at stripper parties with an all-male audience? Can you concede it was possible?
    Of course not. Anything's possible.
    Short of the denials by the defense, the hedging and changing of Kim's story, the negotiations that occurred at the car window, the AV's story, and Bissey's observations that no one was left out after the first time they went to the car (so they both returned to the house), do tend to support such an event.
    That is ridiculous. Though they may not be mutually exclusive, they do not support such an event at all. That is pure speculation. I'd call it fantasy.
    As far as the misunderstandings, that makes a lot more sense to me than wildly different versions. That makes no sense, rape or invented rape.
    I disagree. It makes perfect sense. Ever been around a person under the influence of something? Or just someone who lies? Or a person who continually makes up stories to get out of things? The world is full of wierdos. People tell different stories all the time. Cops see this all the time and develop a good "BS" detector. This probably while the cops tended to discount her at first.
    So yeah, I think a lot of things. And I was up front about the "facts" I questioned.
    Yes you were. It was a "nice try." And it is a story based almsot entirely on speculation. Not just one thing but a series of "guesses" on your part, all of which have to compound to make your story possible. You can state what you assumed, but let's call it what it is and move on. After a point, you cannot really debate a fictional story. The author holds all the cards. My point: Prosecutors should not try cases based upon speculation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    The lineup as an investigative tool is not persuasive. The police officer asked follow-up questions to determine who the alleged perpetrators were and what they did. It was a lineup and no amount of quibbling is going to change that fact.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#72)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    Sorry, imho, but I'm not giving an "eyewitness" a whole lot of points for getting one out of two colors right. Maybe "nightgown" must be given unusual definition to make it fit what the AV was wearing, just as "mustache" needs creative definition to make it describe anything close to what Evans looked like that night.
    Brian Taylor, who got a real good look at it described it as red. I don't see how you can fault the espn witness for doing the same.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    Are you sure the defense can't release the medical reports? Can they not describe them? Why then the description of the SANE trainee's report? If it was a mistake, did they get in trouble for it? Do you have a source that says they can't talk about them?
    Lora, I provided a source for you but you don't like to listen to things that you don't want to here and you keep at it after things have been explained. THE MOTION TO RELEASE THE MEDICAL FILE BY THE N&O WAS DENIED. I assume the motion by the defense was denied as well. The defense wants the medical report out. Please look it up. It really is ridiculous that the defense would quote from the medical report in their motion papers but not file the motion under seal if they felt the need to file the medical report under seal. That makes no sense, but that is what they did.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#74)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted about the defense releasing the hospital records:
    I think they are not sure. There are laws dealing with this. They asked the court for permission to do so. It would be difficult to do so now without the court's persmission.
    They have released them - to a REPORTER! Dan Abrams is not a member of the defense team he is a reporter.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#75)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    THE MOTION TO RELEASE THE MEDICAL FILE BY THE N&O WAS DENIED. I assume the motion by the defense was denied as well. The defense wants the medical report out. Please look it up. It really is ridiculous that the defense would quote from the medical report in their motion papers but not file the motion under seal if they felt the need to file the medical report under seal. That makes no sense, but that is what they did.
    Do you think Dan Abrams is lying? He says he has read it. The defense team released it to him. They can release it to the N & O also. They are choosing not to. Why?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    lora wrote,
    Come on, now. Are you going to tell me paid sex doesn't happen at stripper parties with an all-male audience?
    Tell that to imho, she doesn't think sex happens at one on ones at 5:30 am in hotel rooms. Just games of chance and intellectual conversation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    They did not release the medical report to Abram's. They let him read it. Probably wasn't a good idea if they have a pending motion to release the medical report because they are worried about violating some privacy law. I agree with you that this whole thing has been badly mishandled by the defense. They could and should allow the N&O to review the file if they let Abram's do it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#78)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    Tell that to imho, she doesn't think sex happens at one on ones at 5:30 am in hotel rooms. Just games of chance and intellectual conversation.
    I didn't say that. I said (all together now): WE DON'T KNOW.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    IMHO posted:
    They have released them - to a REPORTER!
    Do you think Dan Abrams is lying?
    No. Do you? What about his comments that this is a really weak case? Not quite (and IMHO knows this). They let Abrams look at the discovery. He does not have it.
    They can release it to the N & O also. They are choosing not to. Why?
    Who knows. Who cares. Another IMHO diversionary question. The answer doesn't change the facts of the case. Maybe they wanted national coverage. Maybe they wanted to be on TV. Maybe they like Abrams. Maybe they didn't want to deal with a rinky-dink local paper with low quality reporting.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    A bigger question which no one dare broach is why would anyone on the Duke LAX team want to rape this woman. What would be the motivation when if they were that interested in sex with her (which I most seriously doubt) they could have just paid for it. She would have been down for anything that, after all, is her profession. She was obsessed with "making more money." The whole thing stinks to high heaven and it has stunk since day one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#81)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    They did not release the medical report to Abram's. They let him read it. Probably wasn't a good idea if they have a pending motion to release the medical report because they are worried about violating some privacy law. I agree with you that this whole thing has been badly mishandled by the defense. They could and should allow the N&O to review the file if they let Abram's do it.
    Someone does not have to walk off with a document for it to be released to them. We are talking about information not paper. It was released to him. He could have copied it verbatim if he wanted to. Other than quibbling over that point, yours was a very civilized post, Newport. Happy 4th of July to you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:15:45 PM EST
    Newport,
    They could and should allow the N&O to review the file if they let Abram's do it.
    Why do you think that? I though the N&O did a hatchet job on the players in the first few days of the case. They seemed to have more unbiased lately, but why should the defense release what they have to any news organization that wants it? I accept the fact that the defense spins things. They should do what is best for their clients.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#83)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    Who knows. Who cares. Another IMHO diversionary question. The answer doesn't change the facts of the case. Maybe they wanted national coverage. Maybe they wanted to be on TV. Maybe they like Abrams. Maybe they didn't want to deal with a rinky-dink local paper with low quality reporting.
    Maybe they know they could count on Dan.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:16:36 PM EST
    When you are right, which is not often, I will agree with you. I am not afraid to be wrong or to give credit to others when due. You should adopt this strategy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:17:49 PM EST
    Newport and jk asked for references. This paper describes a study in which the commonly accepted races are reproduced by a clustering algorithm run on genetic data. The abstract is:
    We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity--as opposed to current residence--is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.
    This paper describes the algorithm used in the above paper to derive clusters from genotype data.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:20:12 PM EST
    Maybe they know they could count on Dan.
    Maybe they thought other people might. That's what counts.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    Because SomeWhatChunky, the defense allowed the medical file to be reviewed by one reporter already. They want the medical file to be made public. They want to release it to the N&O, but they can't now because they are worried how that would look to the court given that the N&O's motion for access was denied. The whole thing has been badly mishandled as I have discussed before.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#88)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:23:06 PM EST
    Pass the popcorn and the D.S.Kool-Aid to wash it down.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#89)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    Lora:
    Come on, now. Are you going to tell me paid sex doesn't happen at stripper parties with an all-male audience?
    I can't say for sure what the Duke players were looking for, but I can say this: when I was in college I went to two house parties with strippers and all-male audiences. Paid sex was not asked for, offerred, or even considerred (out loud at least). Frankly, even if someone had wanted to pay for sex, no one would have done so in that situation where everyone would know. Do you really think that would stay a secret? Anyway, just from personal experience I can tell you that paid sex is not necesarily a part of stripper parties with all-male audiences.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    Would some geneticist please respond to my 1:53 am post?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:30:16 PM EST
    Pass the popcorn and the D.S.Kool-Aid to wash it down.
    What was this crack in response to?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#92)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:34:58 PM EST
    Not you, Newport. I like you again.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    Somewhatchunky told me to chill on you and to give you credit so I am taking that advice. You made a good point. The defense screwed the pooch on the medical file -- they should have just released it when they filed their motion quoting it at length, and then no one would be talking about any of this stuff now and Lora would realize that Nifong, Himan and the ESPN source were all making stuff up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    imho said, re the photo ID:
    Yep. Just an investigation tool - indentify witnesses to be questioned.
    Right: "indentify witnesses to be questioned," and then never try to question them. And not only that, refuse to talk to one of their attorneys (Seligmann's) when he says he has evidence. The lineup might be allowed; it might not; but if Nifong is going to make the case that it was merely an investigative tool, he's going to have to show that it was used as such. I disagree on the defense releasing the medical reports without the approval of the judge. Had they done so (especially given the judge's rejection of the N&O's motion), they could have opened themselves up to sanctions, and at the very least alienated the judge, thereby harming their clients.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#95)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:48:36 PM EST
    Newport:
    and Lora would realize that Nifong, Himan and the ESPN source were all making stuff up.
    We just don't know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#96)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    Newport, I'm pretty sure it was directed at me. Another in the long line of BS IMHO comments to try and divert the fact that she has no arguments about the substance of the case with any merit. The defense submitted a motion to the court with the medical records under seal. Is that spin? Is so, please enlighten me as to how. We've been over the Abrams argument many times. I think he's an honest guy. Maybe you don't. So you have your opinon and I have mine. I'm sure there are plenty of others. I'll readily admit the defense tries to present things to their advantage -spin if you will. What would you propose they do? Maybe Newport's right - the defense mde a mistake here. So? If they had released the records to the N&O, I think you'd be on here complaining about how they didn't release them to x or y. Given their job is to defend their clients, please enlighten us all as to why they should have? How would that have helped their case? I think the defense has an overall plan. Maybe one that is changing and still under development, but a plan. Maybe you could enlighten us all as to the details of the defense strategy as part of your explanation as to why they should do what you suggest? Or is it easier for you just to sit back and take cheap shots? Do you, with your vast knowledge of what is known about this case, have any coherent theory of the case other than "We just don't know." An opinon that may be, but one that's hard to discuss.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:52:51 PM EST
    Kartoum, they did release the medical reports without the approval of the judge, and they did it at least twice. Once when they quoted the medical reports in their motion papers, which were not filed under seal, and twice when they let Abram's look at the medical report. Abram's is the public and if they had confidentiality concerns as expressed by their request to the court to have the medical report itself unsealed, they shouldn't have shown the report to Abram's. They should have released the medical report in the original motion and not placed it under seal because it was not produced to them under seal. It is the responsibility of the DA, not the defense, to designate the confidentiality of documents that the DA produces. They were overly cautious and they screwed up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#98)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:57:37 PM EST
    Newport asked: How many different alleles are there for any given gene? How many genes on a chromosome are genotyped for the purposes of DNA testing in a criminal case? The standard used in the U.S. is the 13 core loci system. There are 2 alleles for each of the 13 markers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    I know it's a small matter, but imho, I was not disagreeing with the color of the garment. Do you call what the AV had on as a "nightgown"? That was my point, as you surely realized.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:01:00 PM EST
    I don't think I am being understood here. The defense moved to unseal the records which they voluntarily placed under seal themselves. They want the records made public. They want the N&O to have them. They want imho and Lora to see them. They wanted Abram's to see them and they allowed that to happen. That was a mistake, not because Abram's is dishonest, he is not as I have said many times before. It was a mistake to provide voluntarily sealed medical records to Abrams when you have a pending motion to unseal them because until such time as the records are unsealed by the court the records can't be shown to any member of the public. I hope that someone will agree with me on this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:03:51 PM EST
    lora said:
    And yes I think this case will make it less likely for rape victims to come forward.
    Actually I think the main bad effect of this case is that it will give some police and prosecutors an excuse to dismiss without an appropriate investigation some cases where the accusor is of less than perfect character. Since this case is generally seen as a hoax I don't see why it would necessarily discourage actual rape victims from coming forward. On the good side this case may discourage false accusations and encourage appropriate skepticism among police and prosecutors towards uncollaborated accusations. It may also encourage potential rape victims and potential false accusation victims to avoid risky situations which is desirable (at least up to a point).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#102)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    I agree with you, Newport, to a point. But I would not be surprised if Abrams was told that, because the records were under seal, he could look at them but not report on anything that wasn't yet in the public domain, i.e., contained in the motions. I realize that Abrams did not describe any limitations on his reading of the discovery, other than only being allowed to take notes. There may be a lot of information about the AV's medical conidition and/or history that are not germane to the case, and as such the records as a whole should not be opened up to every "inquiring mind."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#103)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    khartoum posted:
    Right: "indentify witnesses to be questioned," and then never try to question them.
    Police tried to interview team members

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#104)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:11:23 PM EST
    Sharon, if the records were under seal, and they were, Abrams should not have even been allowed to look at them let alone report on them. Sealed records are just that, they are sealed and no one can look at them who is not associated with the case. The public certainly can not "look" at them. Abram's is the public.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#105)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:11:43 PM EST
    btw, and this honestly is not a slight or slam of you, imho, but I find the phrase "drinking the Kool Aid" or some variation on that, disturbing. I have heard it other places, often on ESPN talking about a team buying into and believing in a coach. But when I consider the origin of the phrase, I find it to be one that I think we could do without. That is, of course, unless one is likening the defense attorneys in this case to Jim Jones. Just a mini-rant by me: I hear or see that phrase and I get a mental image of that compound filled with the bloated bodies of men, women, and children, all of whom "drank the Kool Aid."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    The standard used in the U.S. is the 13 core loci system. There are 2 alleles for each of the 13 markers.
    This is essentially meaningless to me, do you have a link.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#107)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    Sharon, O'Reilly uses that phrase all the time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#108)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:20:08 PM EST
    Newport, I guess I'm wondering whether it makes a difference whether the records are sealed by the defense, at their own initiative, or by the judge. Had Stevens ruled on unsealing the records before Abrams looked at them? And, of course, there may be the ever-present HIPAA considerations. imho: I couldn't get the link you last gave to work, but is it an article about the team cancelling the group interview? If so, then I don't think it is on point. IF the "lineup" was only to identify witnesses, and to rule out those who the AV said weren't there, then why did not Nifong contact, individually, the players she said were there? Other than the initial cancellation of the group grope, do you have any knowledge or information to indicate that Nifong contacted any of the players, contacted any of their attorneys to set up interviews, after that? And, if he did not, do you have any suggestions, any plausible explanation, as to what his reasons for that would be?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#109)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    Re: Photo IDs as an investigatory tool. I didn't say that I believed that they were ever designed to be an investigatory tool. I just figure, from looking at the transcripts, that that's how they'll be spun. Kind of like when a cop pulls over a car for an illegal U-Turn, and the driver just happens to blow enough for a DUI. It would make sense too, in the light of the "blue wall" story that ran rampant at the time, that they could claim that they really were just trying to get a guest list to corroborate the Captain's list(s), and the other players weren't talking. I think it's all BS, and that it really was a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-Dukie, at least after she started with the "it was this one and this one and this one who wronged me" (early in the lineup). BUT there was enough advance reasoning/planning laid down for a quasi-reasonable cover-your-a** by the prosecution (who no doubt hoped this wouldn't be one of the few slivers of evidence they had for this case). And I think Le 'Fong is a blame-shifter. If it's not the blue wall thwarting him, it's his political opponents maligning him, it's the press being mean to him, the defense attorneys spinning (witness the profanity-laced attack on Sutton), the AV not remembering well, or the stinky appeals court judge who'll have an unhealthy attachment to the Constitution. (Cue images of Nifong stomping his feet--"it's not faaaaaaiiiirrrrrr!!!!!"). Somehow I just don't see 'Fong owning up to taking a weak case and bungling it in a real public way.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:22:33 PM EST
    I don't watch O'Reilly that much, but I don't care who uses that term, I find it offensive. I can't see how anyone who remembers the photographs of that carnage can use that phrase without shuddering.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:23:33 PM EST
    SharonInJax - Isn't the phrase "drinking the Kool Aid" a reference to Ken Kesey in Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test"?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    Sealed records are sealed records they are placed in a manilla envelope and sealed with appropriate marking e.g., "filed under seal" and handed to the clerk for filing. I don't think the court had not ruled on any motion as of time the records were shown to Abrams and if he had it would have been "denied" because that is what happened here. If the motion was not denied we would all be looking at medical reports right now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#113)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    I know it's a small matter, but imho, I was not disagreeing with the color of the garment. Do you call what the AV had on as a "nightgown"? That was my point, as you surely realized.
    Apparently, I'm not as smart as many commenters here keep insisting I am, because no, I did not realize you were not disagreeing with the color of the garment. Here's what you posted:
    Sorry, imho, but I'm not giving an "eyewitness" a whole lot of points for getting one out of two colors right. Maybe "nightgown" must be given unusual definition to make it fit what the AV was wearing, just as "mustache" needs creative definition to make it describe anything close to what Evans looked like that night.
    From the ESPN article:
    The source says the woman entered the hospital well after midnight March 13 wearing a red nightgown and nothing on her feet.
    Kinda weird that the source would randomly guess the color of the garment and the type of garment, but only get the color right. There are quotes throughout the article, but the word "nightgown" is not in any of them. For all we know the source said "nightie" or "teddy" or "unmentionables." WE DON'T KNOW.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    Here it is: "Drinking the Kool-Aid"
    The idiomatic expression "drinking the Kool-Aid" was originally a reference to the Merry Pranksters, a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey who in the early 1960's traveled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD was legal at that time). Those who "drank the Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test." "Drinking the Kool-Aid" in that context meant accepting the LSD drug culture, and the Pranksters' "turned on" point of view.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    You may be right, noname: I never read the book, although I've heard of it, of course. Thank God for the internet: I'll do a little checking.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#116)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    Regarding Lora's proposed theory: I remember months ago speculating about prostitution at the party. In fact, I presumed that the defense would have that as a fallback position and wondered why they claimed from the start that no sex happened there that night. It would have explained how Roberts "got separated" from the AV. But that was long before a few rounds of DNA testing and 1800 pages of discovery. Roberts has (so far) never confirmed the separated/pulled apart story. From the timeline we have it doesn't look like either of them had time to turn tricks (and there's no evidence of it), and while the AV may have wanted to it doesn't appear that the men at the house were all that interested. Roberts sounded like she had had a long evening and wanted to get home and was stuck with trying to get rid of the drunk.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    We were both right. It originally referenced LSD culture, but later came to be associated with Jim Jones as well. Go figure.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#118)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:31:50 PM EST
    Newport, I just skimmed this, but it looks like it will answer your questions. I'll look for something better when I have a bit more time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#119)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:36:06 PM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion posted:
    When I see all of the evidence, regardless of the verdict, if there ever is one, I would be glad to publically annouce that I think the players are innocent if that is what I decide, though since I have never stated otherwise, it would neither be a change of mind nor an admission.
    This seems a bit disingenuous. We are never going to see all the evidence even if there is a trial. And we will never know with 100% certainty what happened so any opinion of guilt or innocence is really an estimate of the probability of guilt. Such an estimate could just as well be offered now based on the existing evidence. Someone uninterested in case might reasonably defer studying the evidence and estimating the probability of guilt until after a trial but inmyhumbleopinion does not appear to fall in the category of people uninterested in the case. So I think inmyhumbleopinion must have other reasons for withholding an estimate of the probability of guilt. By the way inmyhumbleopinion, what is your estimate of the probability that Skakel is actually guilty?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#120)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:37:53 PM EST
    I'll look at it thanks. The wonderful thing about the world of DNA and biology is that it is not that hard to understand, no real hard science except the underlying chemistry, just a matter of understanding terminology.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#121)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    You found what I did, noname. But I still don't like the phrase, especially when I wonder if the user understands what images he or she is evoking when he or she uses it. Bob: I was surprised from the start that the team, to a man, denied that there was any sexual intercourse between any of the players and strippers that night. The consent defense, or commercial transaction argument, seemed much easier to get the public to believe. But from the very beginning, their version of that evening is that nothing of an intimate sexual encounter took place. I wonder when the players knew which one of the strippers was the one claiming to have been raped? Their statements, through their attorneys at any rate, is that none of the players had sex of any variety with either of the ladies of the evening.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:45:02 PM EST
    imho: I was not questioning whether or not the ESPN "eyewitness" was there at DMC, nor that he/she saw the AV. I was looking at the accuracy of that one descriptive comment and applying to the credibility of the rest of the report. Do you really think the reporter would substitute "nightgown" for any of the other options you gave? And the color was not in quotes either, was it, so is that just as suspect? I'm sorry, I just do not see how what the AV had on that night could be called a "nightgown." Small matter, I know, so I'll let it go.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#123)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 04:51:04 PM EST
    James B, I estimate the probability of the three accused players raping the AV at 0 percent. I do think that one can reach a definitive yes or no answer in certain situations, and this is one of them. For example, and you would agree with this I think, that one could arrive at a zero percent probability of an accused person commiting a murder if the accused person was in jail on the day the person was murdered. I don't buy the argument that no one knows because they weren't there, as offered by that luminary Andrew Cohen in a recent article.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#124)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:06:13 PM EST
    Sharon, having been a child of the sixties, and having lived in San Francisco in the mid-70s when Jim Jones was coming to power I tend to agree with your interpretation. The Jim Jones people used to leave fliers on everyone's doorsteps and I even toyed with the idea of going down there to see if was a good place to pick up chicks. Didn't though. As I recall, it wasn't until after the awful mass slaughter down in Guyana, when people drank the poisoned kool-aid because Jones exhorted them to do it, that the phrase caught on. Even if the expression originally came from Kesey's book (I never read it) it took on an awful resonance after the People's Temple. By the way, the site of the old People's Temple ended up being a new Post Office.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#125)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    I'm sorry, I just do not see how what the AV had on that night could be called a "nightgown." Small matter, I know, so I'll let it go.
    We don't know that is what the source called it. Do you think the source could have said "nightie" and the reporter, having no idea what she was wearing may used the word "nightgown" instead? I wouldn't discredit the source over it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#126)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion posted:
    The standard used in the U.S. is the 13 core loci system. There are 2 alleles for each of the 13 markers.
    Actually the link you gave newport indicates there are at least 7 alleles for each marker. With 2 there would only be 2**13=8192 possibilities.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#127)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    The source was making stuff up just like you do imho. Where would the FA get the red night gown? Is this standard issue at Duke hospital? She showed up in her dancing outfit and there was no mention of any red nightgown. Shelton did not mention it and was able to see her privates apparently since she had no undergarments. I suspect standard issue patient garb at Duke is the ubiquitous white half-ass gown.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#128)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    All I'm trying to get an answer on is how much of the humane genome do they have to isolate to get a match and what is the standard level of certainty given for said match. 1 in a billion? 1 in 10 billion? Do they have to genotype all 23 chromosomes? Is one chromosome enough? Is one gene on one chromosome enough? What is enough?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#129)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    imho posted:
    Police tried to interview team members There are federal rules of procedure in this country--which, believe it or not, even apply in North Carolina--that deem it improper for police to question targets of an investigation they know to be represented by counsel outside the presence of counsel. That's what occurred here. So I'm afraid that Nifong isn't going to be able to use this as an excuse to claim that the photo ID that was just an "investigative technique," since any judge would ask him why he didn't follow the rules and contact the players' lawyers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#130)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:33:48 PM EST
    newport posted:
    I estimate the probability of the three accused players raping the AV at 0 percent. I do think that one can reach a definitive yes or no answer in certain situations, and this is one of them. For example, and you would agree with this I think, that one could arrive at a zero percent probability of an accused person commiting a murder if the accused person was in jail on the day the person was murdered. I don't buy the argument that no one knows because they weren't there, as offered by that luminary Andrew Cohen in a recent article.
    O% might be a reasonable estimate in the sense that the actual probability is near 0. I don't believe the probability is 0% exactly. Regarding your person in jail this would be strong evidence of innocence but jail records can be wrong or the person could have arranged for the murder to occur while he was in jail. People have been convicted for ordering murders from jail.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#131)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:39:17 PM EST
    I anticipated you might say something about the jail house ordered murder. Let me modify my hypo then to the case where there is a videotaped confession of the decedent commiting suicide.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#132)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    There are federal rules of procedure in this country--which, believe it or not, even apply in North Carolina--that deem it improper for police to question targets of an investigation they know to be represented by counsel outside the presence of counsel. That's what occurred here.
    Interesting. I did not believe this to be true, can you provide a source?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#133)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:45:14 PM EST
    James B. Shearer posted:
    Actually the link you gave newport indicates there are at least 7 alleles for each marker. With 2 there would only be 2**13=8192 possibilities.
    Humans, being diploids, have two alleles at each marker. One from each parent. The pool of alleles for each marker varies, but only two from that pool are at each marker. Once the alleles are identified for each marker, a value can be obtained for the frequency of each allele pair. The 13 frequency values are multiplied to obtain the profile probability. This number can come out to one in several quadrillion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#134)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:46:53 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Interesting. I did not believe this to be true, can you provide a source?
    It's not true. The police can ask them questions. They don't have to answer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#135)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:53:30 PM EST
    Here is an interesting account of a man wrongly jailed based on on a 6 loci match. Note even if the probability of a random match is one in 37 million as claimed for this test the suspect was identified by searching a database of 700000 profiles. This raises the probability of a random match to about 2% and given the other evidence of innocence the man should not have been arrested. This case shows the important of context in evaluating the meaning of a match.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#136)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:55:15 PM EST
    Newport:
    Where would the FA get the red night gown? Is this standard issue at Duke hospital? She showed up in her dancing outfit and there was no mention of any red nightgown.
    Is there any reason to think they left her in her red [whatever you call what she performed in]? One would think she would be put in a hospital gown, unless there is some investigative procedure I am missing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#137)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:02:22 PM EST
    Kartoum, are you refering to federal constitutional law which gives the accused a right to not answer questions and not even be questioned in a custodial interrogation? There was no custodial interrogation here. Moreover, the police are always free to ask questions of a person whether in custody or not or whether they have a lawyer or not. The key point is that the police may not continue to question a suspect in a custodial interrogation when the suspect tells the police that they don't want to answer any more questions or when the suspect tells the police that they want to see their lawyer. Again, that was not the case here. There are ethical rules promulgated by the several states that prevent lawyers from contacting directly opposing parties who are known to be represented in a civil matter. Again this is not relevant here. I do remember the defense lawyers raising some stink about the police questioning players in the dorm when the police knew the players were represented. As far as I know there is nothing at all wrong with that and I was surprised that competent defense lawyers would make such comments. I note that they quickly dropped the matter.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#138)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:25:26 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    The source was making stuff up just like you do imho. Where would the FA get the red night gown?
    Shelton called it a see through red outfit. Someone else might call it a "teddie" or "lingerie" or "nightie" or a "negligee." A nightgown is far from a "teddie," but not so far from a "nightie" or a "negligee." We don't know what word the source used. Duke lacrosse case has many angles, points of view
    The woman was working for an escort service to pay for college. When she arrived at the party about 11:30 p.m., she was wearing a negligee and shiny white strappy high heels. She and a second dancer, Kim Roberts, entered the house by the back door.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#139)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:31:56 PM EST
    noname posted:
    Is there any reason to think they left her in her red [whatever you call what she performed in]? One would think she would be put in a hospital gown, unless there is some investigative procedure I am missing.
    In a S.A.N.E. protocol I read they would have had her stand on top a sterile sheet to remove her clothing. The source talks about the accuser "entering" the hospital and her "arrival." She would still have been wearing the red garment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#140)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:33:26 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    I do remember the defense lawyers raising some stink about the police questioning players in the dorm when the police knew the players were represented. As far as I know there is nothing at all wrong with that and I was surprised that competent defense lawyers would make such comments. I note that they quickly dropped the matter.
    Yep. That's how I remember it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#141)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:33:49 PM EST
    The source was BS in my humble opinion. Probably a desk clerk or janitor who was relying on overheard gossip.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#142)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:49:44 PM EST
    Rule 4.2(a) of North Carolina's rules of professional conduct prohibit a lawyer from communicating about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer (unless the other lawyer consents to the communication, or it is authorized by law). Rule 5.3 prohibits a lawyer from doing through an agent that which the lawyer is himself or herself prohibited from doing. These are ethical rules (not procedural rules--and btw, this is a state case, not a federal case, so NC's state rules of procedure would apply); these prohibitions are pretty much standard in every state as far as I am aware. (I am not a NC lawyer). In this case, I believe that Mr. Nifong has indicated that he was directing the police investigation; therefore, the officers would have been acting as his agents, and it would have been improper for them to attempt to question players who were already known to be represented by counsel (unless the lawyers consented to the questioning).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#143)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:49:46 PM EST
    Bob: Figured it would take another of the elder statesmen here to understand my discomfort with the KoolAid term. I know we haven't done an "ASL" check here, but I have a feeling there are a lot of posters here who do not have the gut reaction that I do when I hear the KoolAid phrase, because they did not see the pictures because they weren't born yet or were too young to appreciate the horror of the pictures that came out of there, after Ryan and his fact finders were gunned down on the tarmac. Maybe their consciousness does not contain that nightmare. Again, I was not singling imho out, not about this. I shudder every time I hear it, no matter who is saying it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#144)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:50:47 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Just a mini-rant by me: I hear or see that phrase and I get a mental image of that compound filled with the bloated bodies of men, women, and children, all of whom "drank the Kool Aid."
    Well, that's sad. I have much happier memories of drinking Kool-aid - running through the sprinklers with my brothers, lying on the warm brick patio, Mother calling out, "Who wants Kool-Aid?" She'd say, "Drink up, it's good for you!" And so drank the Kool-Aid.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#145)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:55:17 PM EST
    coyote99 said:
    Rule 4.2(a) of North Carolina's rules of professional conduct prohibit a lawyer from communicating about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer (unless the other lawyer consents to the communication, or it is authorized by law).
    Quite so, and comment 6 of Rule 4.2(a) holds the following: "When communicating with the accused in a criminal matter, a government lawyer must comply with this Rule in addition to honoring the constitutional rights of the accused. The fact that a communication does not violate a state or federal constitutional right is insufficient to establish that the communication is permissible under this Rule." So regardless of how imho "remembered it," Nifong's actions were procedurally improper. Then again, he hasn't followed any other rules in this case, either. The issue here is the contention that Nifong could claim that the procedurally flawed eyewitness ID wasn't really an eyewitness ID, but just an "investigative technique." If he made no attempt to follow up the "investigative technique" in a procedurally proper way, it seems rather unlikely a judge would but this argument. But, of course, we just don't know. Maybe the judge will say state bar ethics rules don't apply to Mr. Nifong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#146)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:12:56 PM EST
    Imho Worte:
    I have much happier memories of drinking Kool-aid... She'd say, "Drink up, it's good for you!"
    So THAT's what you meant.....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#147)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:15:49 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    So THAT's what you meant.....
    No, it's not. I just wanted to share.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#148)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:25:16 PM EST
    khartoum, you said, responding to imho's once again talking about the cancelled group interview, in part:
    So I'm afraid that Nifong isn't going to be able to use this as an excuse to claim that the photo ID that was just an "investigative technique," since any judge would ask him why he didn't follow the rules and contact the players' lawyers.
    But imho does use that as an excuse, every chance she gets, as proof that Nifong really, really, really wanted to talk to the players but they refused, because their attorneys told them to. Imho seems to think that if the team had gone ahead with that group grope of an interview, they would now, all of them, be in the clear. Something along the lines of that, if they hadn't "lawyered up" (my term not hers) then they would not have brought all this down on themselves. But she has yet to give me, or anyone here, one shred of proof that other than that one time when the players were to come in as a group and they cancelled, which was before they had individually hired their own counsel, the players were even asked to come in and talk. Oh, maybe it's because they would have come in with their attorneys? That would be unacceptable to Le Fong? (Attribution to follow, but I like that name tonight.) That would have given him answers he did not want to hear? Someone here, please, even if it takes playing devil's advocate (or anti-Blue Devils' Advocate), give me one plausible, prosecutorial ploy that would explain Le Fong's unwillingness to meet with the attorneys for the various lax players. IT MAKES NO SENSE. I spent a little time with a criminal defense firm here in Jacksonville. FL, not NC, so this is simply how it was in this jurisdiction, and it is from a long time ago. Prosecutors will ALWAYS meet with you, and they are never more eager than when you tell them you want to share information with them. I could cede everything else to those who want to believe in the AV, or who want to believe in Le Fong, or want simply to believe in the integrity of this case, but not that. If Le Fong really did want to seperate the guilty from the innocent, he would have met with every single attorney who contacted him. He might even, if he really wanted to find the truth, have made the first contact. If Le Fong really did want to know who committed the horrific rape he believed happened, he would have been willing to see alibi evidence, exculpatory evidence, offered even before indictment by potential suspects. Prosecutors should want to get the right guy, the guy who really did it, the guy they can prove did it. Why would Le Fong not want to hear, or see what the players and their attorneys had to say, had to show him? If he really wanted to find the truth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#149)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    khartoum, Here we go again. That "the accused" phrase. No one they spoked to had been formally charged. No violation. "When communicating with the accused in a criminal matter, a government lawyer must comply with this Rule in addition to honoring the constitutional rights of the accused. The fact that a communication does not violate a state or federal constitutional right is insufficient to establish that the communication is permissible under this Rule." The defense attorneys claimed they were going to ask a judge to rebuke the police. If they ever filed that motion, I never saw any media report about it. I think they figured out there was no violation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#150)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    khartoum, you said, responding to imho's once again talking about the cancelled group interview, in part:
    I wasn't talking about the cancelled interview. The linked article has nothing to do with the cancelled interview. SharonInJax posted:
    imho: I couldn't get the link you last gave to work, but is it an article about the team cancelling the group interview? If so, then I don't think it is on point. IF the "lineup" was only to identify witnesses, and to rule out those who the AV said weren't there, then why did not Nifong contact, individually, the players she said were there? Other than the initial cancellation of the group grope, do you have any knowledge or information to indicate that Nifong contacted any of the players, contacted any of their attorneys to set up interviews, after that? And, if he did not, do you have any suggestions, any plausible explanation, as to what his reasons for that would be?
    The link works for me. It is an article from April 14th ten days after the accuser indentfied several people she remembered being present that night. I posted it in response to khartoum saying after she indentified them they never tried to interview anyone. That is incorrect. Police tried to interview team members
    By Michael Biesecker and Benjamin Niolet, Staff Writers Durham - Durham police visited Duke lacrosse players on campus, a move that on Friday drew fire from defense lawyers who said investigators tried to grill the players without their attorneys present.
    The university confirmed that on Thursday night, two detectives visited Edens Residence Hall, where several lacrosse players live, as part of their criminal investigation into rape allegations stemming from a March 13 team party.
    No search warrants were executed, the university said in a statement, and the officers stayed about an hour and 15 minutes.
    James Butch Williams, who represents one of the team captains, said the players declined to speak without lawyers present.
    Police went over there to try to do some interviews, to try to determine who was at the party and who wasn't Williams said. They didn�t do it right. They didn't go through the attorneys.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#151)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:38:55 PM EST
    Thanks, imho, that one. Similar enough to me: once the police know that someone, even someone they simply want to question, has counsel, they arenot supposed to try to talk to them. Is it a technical violation? Maybe not, if one wants to abide by the letter and not the spirit of the rule. But it simply is not done in a normal police investigation. The players that the police were wanting to talk to had not been cleared, had they? Was there not the promise from Le Fong of a third indictment? You don't have to invoke the Fifth Amendment protections expressly: the cops and the DA knew they had retained counsel. To try to talk to the "suspects" or "witnesses" in their "homes" without their counsel present is flat out stupid, and we don't even have to reach the constitutional issues.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#152)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:42:13 PM EST
    Lest ye forget: Florida judge just had to throw out a confession by a child rapist/murderer because of that pesky right to counsel part of the constitution. What if one of the guys they were talking to fell to his knees, overcome by guilt and shame, and confessed all? They were interviewing him, in his home, without his counsel present, even though they knew he had retained counsel. Boneheads.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#153)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:50:19 PM EST
    IMHO said:
    she remembered being present that night.
    Now, now, IMHO, she claims she remembered. We just don't know

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#154)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:51:25 PM EST
    Khartoum and Coyote99, Sorry, but those ethical rules have nothing to do with this case. First of all, the police are not subject to the state rules of professional responsibility governing lawyer conduct. They are entitled to conduct their own investigation. Second of all, the police are not the agents of Nifong, they are an independent agency with their own chief. Finally, the police are always free to question subjects in an investigation whether they have lawyers or not. To say otherwise would be ridiculous because the police would have to know whether everyone they talked to had a lawyer and a person could avoid police questioning on the street just by hiring a lawyer. It doesn't work that way. When questioned by police, witnesses or subjects do not have to answer. That is where the investigative grand jury with subpoena power comes in to compel testimony if people are not talking voluntarily. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that the DPD did in this particular instance. It happens every day in every state in the country.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#155)
    by james on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    In NC the DAs rule:) Seriously they do look out for each other to a certain extent; we have only had out of state prosecutors (such as those from the District of Columbia) making comments along the lines of 'unlike in NC we don't make comments on pending cases'. We also have the DA (now a judge) who withheld info on a trucker who was murdered but seen alive during the only time the defendant (who was sent to death row) could have killed him. He is still a judge. The other ada still has his law license. Look no further than the presiding judge - a former DA (note: not ADA). What are the chances of being unfortunate enough to pick such a judge? DAs are politicians and so are the judges - they are all elected. The case is going to trial. No sane judge (one who wants to keep his/her job) will dismiss it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#156)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:12:10 PM EST
    Coyote99, if you are refering to my previous post when you commented that "this is a state case" you missed my point. Whether it is a state case or not, federal constitutional law protects the rights of the accused insofar as custodial interrogation is concerned. The Supreme Court's 5th Amendment jurisprudence on the right against self-incrimination covers the custodial interview situation where the Court's decisions protect criminal defendants from overreaching police interrogation practices. I mentioned the state ethical rules in my post, but they don't apply for the reasons stated.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#157)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:17:56 PM EST
    It's not about the joke, Sharon. It's cib's "cute and funny" cover up. cib's always saying those "cute and funny" things about imho. hahaha.
    I've criticised you before, I've made fun of you before, I've given you answers to questions you've asked once or twice before, and I've even given you a compliment on one occasion. And truthfully, I've done more criticism of you than anything else. But I'll be dammned if I can find one other time that I've ever made a remark about you and asked you to consider it made in jest. Care to enlighten me as to when this alleged other time might be? Or is this just another smear? I asked you to give me the benefit of the doubt as to that particular phrase, instead you chose to spin it as negatively as possible. Hey, your choice, fine by me. I think what you did was so transparent that it merely added to any credability problems you already have on this board, but that is just imho.
    Kinda funny that cib claimed her jab at parents who tend to their children was an effort to "humanize" imho. hahaha.
    cib is a "he". First name starts with "C". I can't say I'm pleased to make your acquaintance, inmyhorribleopinion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#158)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:27:08 PM EST
    newport said:
    Second of all, the police are not the agents of Nifong, they are an independent agency with their own chief.
    But that, of course, is the bizarre thing about this case. Because of the police chief's very odd absence (tending to a sick mother for months, yet not on leave?), Nifong effectively directed the investigation, at least after the final eyewitness ID session (4/3, I believe), when the two investigators made sure (probably for CYA reasons) to put in the record that they had been ordered not to follow the Actual Innocence Commission guidelines by Nifong, and thus confine the photo ID to lacrosse players. The way the system was supposed to have worked, of course, would have had the police making this kind of decision (just as the police, not the district attorney, would have been making any public statements about the case early on). But even if Nifong is acting as a de facto police chief, rather than as a prosecutor (as he was between 4-3 and 4-19), he's still subject to state ethics guidelines.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#159)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:33:14 PM EST
    imho: the ethics rule I referenced prohibits a lawyer from communicating with any "person" who is known to be represented by counsel in the matter. The comment to the rule (which is what you quoted) merely points out that when that "person" is an accused in a criminal matter, he or she has additional constitutional rights that must also be considered. Note that the comment states that the government lawyer "must comply with this Rule in addition to . . . ."). You are simply incorrect, in my opinion, when you assert that there was no ethical violation because the players whom the police sought to interview were not the "accused." The rule is much broader than that. Newport: I agree that the police are not subject to the rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers' behavior; however, Mr. Nifong is, and I believe it was Mr. Nifong who stated that he was conducting the police investigation. The police chief in Durham, at least according to what I have read, is MIA. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about Mr. Nifong's statement). If, in fact, the police were acting under Mr. Nifong's direction, then they most certainly were his agents, and Mr. Nifong is responsible for the ethical violation if he instructed them to interview team members whom he knew were represented by counsel in this matter. It is not a close call. Some posters on this board have suggested that the defense lawyers were incorrect or even "incompetent" for objecting to Mr. Nifong's conduct in this regard. They have also suggested that the defense lawyers let the matter drop because they knew they were wrong. I suggest that the reason you have not heard more about it is because the police officers' attempts to talk to the players were unsuccessful. Since no evidence was obtained from this ethically questionable conduct, it wasn't really a matter for the trial judge. The defense lawyers' complaint was more properly addressed to the state bar, since that is the body that disciplines lawyers for ethical violations (not trial judges). I suspect that the defense lawyers made their complaint to the judge because they wanted to bring the judge's (and the public's) attention to Mr. Nifong's continued willingness to play fast and loose with the ethical rules, and not because they expected the judge to take some action against Mr. Nifong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#160)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:34:24 PM EST
    Khartoum, If you could provide facts to show that the police were not acting in their statutorily defined independent role but rather were mere agents of the DA then your argument may fly. We would need a lot more facts than we have to make it fly. This is the least of Nifong's transgressions in this case. The lineup flaws are monumental.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#161)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:46:32 PM EST
    Coyote99,
    If, in fact, the police were acting under Mr. Nifong's direction, then they most certainly were his agents, and Mr. Nifong is responsible for the ethical violation if he instructed them to interview team members whom he knew were represented by counsel in this matter. It is not a close call.
    If you can prove this, then I agree with you. I just haven't seen the facts that Nifong usurped the independence of the police officers to the point where he directed and controlled their actions. We would need the police officers' testimony and Nifong's testimony to show that they were acting as Nifong's agents. There may be other statutory problems with trying to make the police out to be Nifong's agents. I don't think it will wash.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#162)
    by Lora on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:49:46 PM EST
    Somewhat Chunky, from my earlier post:
    You don't go to the press stating that an alleged victim's story is consistent with her injuries if you have good information...there were no injuries to speak of...That would be misleading and unprofessional...
    Sorry I wasn't clear. I was not talking about Nifong this time, I was referring to the head nurse of the SANE program. Folks disagree about who she's referring to, but whoever she's referring to, if she knows she has a hot case with next to no injuries, she's not going to make comments about blunt force trauma and someone's injuries being consistent with the story she told. She's going to chill on the blunt force stuff, describe the procedure, and just make her disclaimer that a SANE nurse can't make a judgment about whether or not a rape occured. Period. She's certainly not going to imply that some unidentified alleged victim has injuries consistent with her story, if the AV she DOES has information on doesn't have any injuries that even come close to matching her story.
    I think they are not sure. There are laws dealing with this. They asked the court for permission to do so. It would be difficult to do so now without the court's persmission.
    How convenient.
    Ever been around a person under the influence of something? Or just someone who lies?
    Maybe someone who was tripping would come up with all those stories. Any good liar or anyone attempting to be a good liar would pick one believable story and stick to it. Newport,
    Lora, I provided a source for you but you don't like to listen to things that you don't want to here and you keep at it after things have been explained.
    I feel your pain. James B,
    Since this case is generally seen as a hoax I don't see why it would necessarily discourage actual rape victims from coming forward.
    Legitimate rape victims experience the same discrediting and smearing that the AV has experienced in this case (though not on this large a media scale obviously) Sharon,
    Someone here, please, even if it takes playing devil's advocate (or anti-Blue Devils' Advocate), give me one plausible, prosecutorial ploy that would explain Le Fong's unwillingness to meet with the attorneys for the various lax players.
    Sharon, what would have been the good of Nifong looking at stuff he wasn't allowed to examine and verify? Just take their word for it that it's good? Give me one good reason the defense lawyers didn't copy the evidence they had and hand-deliver it to Nifong's office in plenty of time for him to consider it, THEN request a meeting?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#163)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:52:57 PM EST
    Newport: In one of your previous posts, I believe you referred to the federal rules of procedure. I was simply pointing out that in this case, a state case, the applicable rules of procedure are the NC rules. Procedural rules and substantive law are two different animals. Of course, any criminal defendant (regardless of whether he or she is in state or federal court) is entitled to the protections afforded by the US Constitution -- I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Sorry if I wasn't clear. With regard to your assertion that NC's rules of professional conduct are not applicable here, I respectfully disagree with you, for the reasons I discussed in my last post.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#164)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:54:38 PM EST
    Agent's of the government lawyer, Nifong, would typically be someone like the infamous Linwood Johnson who was recently looking for a hole to crawl into. I do agree with you that this is an unusual case where the DA appears to have intervened to prevent the police from conducting a proper investigation. I have been saying this since the beginning.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#165)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:58:06 PM EST
    Coyote99, I'm sure I did refer to the federal rules as those are the only ones I know. They provide some insight into the deficiency of the NC rules or rather the lack of NC rules of procedure. No worries, reasonable people can disagree.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#166)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:14:37 PM EST
    While the police are independent from the DA's office, they are supposed to stop questioning a subject as soon as they say they want their lawyer present. If they continue with the questioning and obtain any information, that information is inadmissable in court. So when the police went to the Duke dorm and the players said they wouldn't talk without their lawyers present, the police should have stopped. It sounds like they continued to try to question them, but got no useful information. If they had, it would have been thrown out. that is true in every state, I believe.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#167)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:27:05 PM EST
    Now wait a minute, Lora. You don't think it's odd that Nifong refused to look at ANY information on alibis for these players? If you don't think it's odd, you are th eonly one. On every talk show even the DAs that still support Nifong think that was an odd move. They ALL say they take every opportunity possible to meet with defense lawyers and subjects when it is offered to them. Nifong's refusal to hear any alibi information is criminal and stupid in my book. And what makes you think he couldn't examine and verify the information? That is exactly what Seligman and his lawyers would WANT him to do. They want him to verify it so the charges would be dropped.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#168)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:40:24 PM EST
    The original Tom Wolfe phrase "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" from 1968, referred to drinking LSD ("acid") mixed with Kool-Aid as a test of someone being "cool" in the sense of being reliable and genuine. Passing "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" meant you could rely on the person's genuineness, trustworthiness, sincerity and veracity. It was completely the opposite of any suggestion that the person was simply being delusional under the influence of a drug. To refer to the defense team's "Kool-Aid" version of events -- using Tom Wolfe's original definition of the term -- means that the defense team is being genuine, reliable and truthful in everything they are saying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#169)
    by Alan on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:45:54 PM EST
    imho fabricated:
    Here we go again. That "the accused" phrase. No one they spoked to had been formally charged. No violation.
    What is your authority for the proposition that 'the accused' means 'the indicted' instead of 'the accused'? Please avoid irrelevant counter-questions such as 'Did I say the accused were on the grand jury?'

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:46:41 PM EST
    fahrenham, that only applies to custodial interviews where the police are required to stop questioning. The dorm scene was not a custodial interview unless the police backed them into a room and so intimidated the players that they felt they couldn't escape. The rule you cite has no application outside of custodial interviews. The players didn't provide any information in the instant case as far as I know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#171)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:14:14 PM EST
    The dorm scene was not a custodial interview unless the police backed them into a room and so intimidated the players that they felt they couldn't escape.
    . . . hence they were in custody. You don't always have to be under arrest to be considered "in custody" it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In any event, there are no facts to suggest the players were "in custody" in the dorm interview. The police could question them as much as they wanted. The players didn't have to answer and apparently they were smart enough to know that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#172)
    by Lora on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:38:14 PM EST
    fahrenam, I don't watch talking heads...I get too angry. But I'll take your word for it that they all thought Nifong was being ridiculous not to look at the evidence. But I recall at least one instance of the defense wanting to meet to "show" him evidence (the photos I think), not just let him have it. Or copies of it. All I can say is, if it were my a** on the line, and I had evidence I thought would exonerate me, I wouldn't care how the DA got it, I'd make sure he got it (copies of it at least). I wouldn't play games of "he doesn't want to meet with me so I can't show him my evidence." I'd get it to him. THEN if he refused to meet with me I'd raise bloody h*ll.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#173)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:43:43 PM EST
    Sharon, re Kool-Aid:
    I don't watch O'Reilly that much, but I don't care who uses that term, I find it offensive.
    I agree with you. Like Bob, as a long-time resident of the SF Bay Area, I associate the phrase "drank the Kool-Aid" with Jim Jones rather than Ken Kesey, whatever its history. Furthermore, an argument that the phrase is used by O'Reilly is no defense at all, in fact quite the opposite -- most of what O'Reilly says is offensive.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#174)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:59:17 PM EST
    James B, Excellent article on the innocent man arrested on the basis of a 6 loci "match." Now, I understand the U.S. uses 13 loci tests. Where are these 13 loci? Are the loci simply randomly chosen points in the DNA molecule? So the 13 loci could be 13 random genes located on some random sampling of the 23 chromosomes? Where's Madison when you need him.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#175)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:01:29 PM EST
    I disagree re O'Reilly as I find him to be extremely fair although not quite conservative enough for me. To each his own Cyro.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#176)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:05:02 PM EST
    Lora wrote,
    I was referring to the head nurse of the SANE program.
    We discussed what at length she said about 10,000 comments ago. I and others thought her comment was generic (i.e. if you see these injuries, you can then say that). We all agreed (even you I think) that it was poorly reported and thus not clear. Since it has gone nowhere since then, I'd assume it was not specific, but generic as it would be big news if it applied to this case. In any event it will be easy to find out. I'm sure the nurse could tell us what she meant.
    I think they are not sure. There are laws dealing with this. They asked the court for permission to do so. It would be difficult to do so now without the court's persmission. Lora wrote "How convenient."
    Convenient or not, that's what they did. The court is the right place to bring these issues up. Somehow, I don't think the defense really cares what Lora or Somewhatchunky think. Why are you so dismissive of their efforts to work through the proper venue? You'd think as a person concerned about the victim, you'd want some protection of the AV's medical records. The defense acted in a conservative manner here for that reason. Others have pointed out that may not have been in the defense's best interest. What do you think they should have done and why?
    Any good liar or anyone attempting to be a good liar would pick one believable story and stick to it.
    Any backup for this, or does it just fit with what you want to hear? It seems to me you have limited experience with experienced liars and con artists. Teh ones I've dealt with can weave a story as they go that would bring one to tears, but also can weave a different tale with each telling. Storytelling, not consistency is what matters when you rarely tell the story to the same audience twice.
    Legitimate rape victims experience the same discrediting and smearing that the AV has experienced in this case.
    Maybe some do. Not a good thing, but neither are false accusations. The AV has gotten what she deserves in this case. Hopefully she'll get even more - she should be charged. She is neither a legitimate victim nor a rape victim. Rape is a serious accusation with serious consequences for the accused if convicted. You shouldn't get a free shot at someone if you falsely accuse them. False accusations only make the future climate more difficult for legitimate victims.
    Sharon, what would have been the good of Nifong looking at stuff he wasn't allowed to examine and verify? Just take their word for it that it's good? Give me one good reason the defense lawyers didn't copy the evidence they had and hand-deliver it to Nifong's office in plenty of time for him to consider it, THEN request a meeting?
    Are you serious? Any seeker of the truth should want to... seek the truth. It doesn't always come to you on a silver platter. Who knows what Nifong might have learned in a meeting. He sure didn't. What did he have to lose -- a 30 minute meeting? It is fairly common for someone with bg news in almost any setting to want to present it in person. Nifong didn't say "Mail it me first and we'll meet next week." He simply refused to hear what they had to say. Trying to turn this around and say the defense should have done this or that is absurd.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#177)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:31:06 PM EST
    Imho posted,
    Newport asked: How many different alleles are there for any given gene? How many genes on a chromosome are genotyped for the purposes of DNA testing in a criminal case? The standard used in the U.S. is the 13 core loci system. There are 2 alleles for each of the 13 markers.
    This is misleading. While there are 2 alleles expressed for each of the 13 markers, there are numerous possible alleles (i.e., expressed genes) for each marker. See, e.g., this

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#178)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:33:36 PM EST
    lora posted:
    Sorry I wasn't clear. I was not talking about Nifong this time, I was referring to the head nurse of the SANE program. Folks disagree about who she's referring to, but whoever she's referring to, if she knows she has a hot case with next to no injuries, she's not going to make comments about blunt force trauma and someone's injuries being consistent with the story she told. She's going to chill on the blunt force stuff, describe the procedure, and just make her disclaimer that a SANE nurse can't make a judgment about whether or not a rape occured. Period. She's certainly not going to imply that some unidentified alleged victim has injuries consistent with her story, if the AV she DOES has information on doesn't have any injuries that even come close to matching her story.
    This has been discussed before. I agree with those who think it is possible the head nurse was speaking generically. Bear in mind her comments passed through a reporter and possibly an editor. Quotes have been known to get "better" (as in making a better story) during this process.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#179)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:37:32 PM EST
    I wouldn't mail any exculpatory evidence to a prosecutor. He could say he never got it. I also would demand to be present during the unveiling of the exculpatory evidence to answer any questions the prosecutor may have and gauge how the prosecutor viewed the exculpatory evidence. Somewhatchunky is absolutely right Lora, what you have done once again is turn this around and put the blame on the defense attorneys and not the prosecutor. I have met with state prosecutors on minor stuff pro bono and they always wanted to hear what I had to say and review what I had. Why wouldn't they?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#180)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:40:54 PM EST
    She's certainly not going to imply that some unidentified alleged victim has injuries consistent with her story, if the AV she DOES has information on doesn't have any injuries that even come close to matching her story.
    I thought she was talking about the PROCESS, not a victim.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#181)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:43:22 PM EST
    Not the head SANE nurse again. What difference does it make what she said? She didn't conduct the examination and she can't testify as to the examination so what she says is worthless or worse.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#182)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:48:32 PM EST
    Newport asked:
    Excellent article on the innocent man arrested on the basis of a 6 loci "match." Now, I understand the U.S. uses 13 loci tests. Where are these 13 loci? Are the loci simply randomly chosen points in the DNA molecule? So the 13 loci could be 13 random genes located on some random sampling of the 23 chromosomes?
    No the loci are not chosen randomly, they are chosen to be at places where there is a lot of variation. Actually it appears the variation takes an unusual form which is easier to test for. At certain points the dna sequence tends to "stutter" with a short piece repeated multiple times. The number of repetitions varies from individual to individual. A might have 17 repetitions at a certain loci, B might have 23 repetitions etc. So the dna test just counts the number of repetitions at each loci. The number of alleles at a loci is the number of different repetition counts which have been observed to occur at that loci.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#183)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:53:56 PM EST
    Thanks, finally an answer. I don't dare ask to see the math that goes into turning the DNA results at the 13 loci into a predictive probability.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#184)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:59:21 PM EST
    Newport:
    I disagree re O'Reilly as I find him to be extremely fair although not quite conservative enough for me. To each his own.
    Indeed! It is astonishing to me that someone who otherwise appears to be an intelligent contributor to TL can find O'Reilly to be (a) extremely fair and (b) not quite conservative enough. You must inhabit a strange world that I am not familiar with. Despite their ridiculous slogans, there is nothing "fair and balanced" about O'Reilly and the rest of the Faux News lineup. I'm with Al Franken, whose book Lies, and the Lying Liars who Tell Them sums up O'Reilly perfectly.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#185)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:29:39 AM EST
    lora posted:
    Maybe someone who was tripping would come up with all those stories. Any good liar or anyone attempting to be a good liar would pick one believable story and stick to it.
    There have been a number of cases where innocent people have been convicted on the basis of false confessions. These people are not trying to lie themselves into jail, they are just suggestible and eager to please. Generally they don't start with a believable story (as they are innocent and don't know what actually happened) instead they are guided by an interrogator who repeatedly challenges them on the parts of the confession that don't fit the evidence until after making many changes they arrive at a story which is at least superficially plausible. I imagine a similar process can guide a person making a false accusation into a story that fits the evidence as much as possible. Note also a SANE nurse trained to be kind and understanding with rape victims may inadvertently encourage a false accusor desperate for sympathetic attention.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#186)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:30:36 AM EST
    Ah, Cymro, please do not assume that intelligence and conservatism are tragic enemies. Many of the most intelligent people I have ever met are quite conservative. I do watch Fox news and like it very much.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#187)
    by Alan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:47:56 AM EST
    I'm not sure how O'Reilly is on-topic, unless imho has a conjecture placing him in the bathroom at the relevant time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#188)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:58:44 AM EST
    It's not, but some poster's are apparently sensitive to imho's favorite admonition to avoid drinking defense "Kool Aid." I find this turn of a phrase to be harmless fun and noted that Bill O'Reilly is fond of the expression as well. I think he refers to crazies as "the Kool-Aid people." I think we are being a little too sensitive here. One thing imho is the master of is detecting sensitivity on the part of certain posters and then turning the tables and using that sensitivity to embarrass the poster or to gain advantage. It is a favorite game imho plays, but it is of limited applicability.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#189)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:11:44 AM EST
    For those interested, here is a fairly good discussion of what constitutes a custodial interrogation and what Constitutional rights of the accused are triggered in such a situation. Here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#190)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:04:14 AM EST
    Hi Bob in P. You wrote:
    You've got nothing on which to base a belief that there was a rape. Just your belief, which you won't admit to.
    I'll admit to my belief. I believe a rape could have occurred. I also believe it could not have occurred. My second belief is currently stronger than my first, but not by enough to get all yahoo over it like you are. My belief could turn on a dime, and my expectation is that there's over a dollar being hidden by the defense. The "evidence" on which I base my first belief is quite plentiful. The accuser says it occurred. Kim Roberts, who I fully expected would be the Rosetta Stone, does not deny that it could have occurred. The defendants are acting like scaredy cats. The prosecutor claims to have a case. The defense attorneys are toying with the evidence and with public sentiment. The testimony of most neutral witnesses seems to be that the accuser was not impaired when she arrived at the party and was severely impaired when she left beyond what would be expected from her alcohol intake and consistent with rape in the considered opinion of medical professionals. As for the secondary question of whether Nifong has acted unethically, I don't believe that. As to whether he can win the trial, I would doubt it. I would find it an inexcuseable ending, however, if he dropped charges on that basis.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#191)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:38:29 AM EST
    imho posted:
    It's not about the joke, Sharon. It's cib's "cute and funny" cover up. cib's always saying those "cute and funny" things about imho. hahaha.
    To which cib replied (in part):
    But I'll be dammned if I can find one other time that I've ever made a remark about you and asked you to consider it made in jest. Care to enlighten me as to when this alleged other time might be? Or is this just another smear?
    I didn't say you have, you haven't. That's my point. I am saying if your remark was intended to be "cute and funny" it would be a first and totally out of character with the other comments you have made about me as would be your claim you were attempting to humanize me just before you got in your "REAL jab." I'm not buying it. I think you took someone else's "bored housewife" jab to a new level and in doing so revealed something about your own biases. But like I said, not to worry, I don't think anyone cares what you think of people who devote the better part of their day tending to their little ones. Both insults missed their mark. As someone commented, if I had a husband he would have runaway screaming by now, I would imagine as soon as any children of mine could walk they'd quickly run too, even the cat risked death by coyote to get away from imho. Alas, I have no one to call in for a refreshing glass of Kool-Aid. hahaha.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#192)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:53:27 AM EST
    cpinva said:
    . . . for all intents and purposes, we know what's in those 1800 pages, . . .
    We do? How? Link to them, please.
    and it isn't damning evidence. if it were, it would've been leaked already.
    By whom?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#193)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:09:24 AM EST
    See what you did Somewhatchunky. You held a seance and a spirit thought dead has arisen. Now what are you going to do?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#194)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:22:18 AM EST
    As to whether he can win the trial, I would doubt it. I would find it an inexcuseable ending, however, if he dropped charges on that basis.
    Prosecutors make decisions like that every day.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#195)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:27:16 AM EST
    Lora: The Arico quote is at best ambiguous and at worst incorrect (as she was not the nurse performing the SANE exam). To my mind it's also a dead horse, and so a poor choice for continued flogging in your arguments. If you were bound and determined to continue pushing the medical reporting cover up scenario, perhaps you could focus on how the AV was (by Jack/ie, Aunt Shirley and her Father) all beat up the next morning--but that was missed in the exams. Maybe we'll develop a new timeline in which Seligman, Finnerty and Evans, after sneaking into her hospital room via the ductwork, beat and raped the AV at six the next morning, after the SANE exam found minimal injuries. (Hey! Maybe that's why Le 'Fong wanted the key card info!). On a more serious note: There are people who lie frequently and there are people who lie well. The two are neither mutually exclusive nor are they automatically in the same group. In this case's Venn Diagram, I'd hazard that the AV might find herself in the category of someone who lied frequently, but not particularly well. It doesn't mean that one of her stories couldn't have happened, I just seriously doubt that the aggregate could be true.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#196)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:37:25 AM EST
    Hi MrPrecedent, They thought I'd given up posting as you. Sorry no link. I'm afraid cpinva misspoke, we don't know "for all intents and purposes," what's in those 1800 pages.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#197)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:49:03 AM EST
    Newport said:
    The legal question, a matter of constitutional law, is whether the identification procedure used was so unduly suggestive as to lead to unreliable results.
    Using only Lacrosse players probably made it MORE difficult for the Accuser to choose the correct assailants, since she could easily be confused by so many FAMILIAR faces, especially if she was impaired at the time of the alleged assault. Several of the men in the line-ups did not attend the party - so presumably, she'd never seen them - and thus, THEY acted as "fillers". It would be EASIER, I think, to choose 3 suspects out of a group of UNFAMILIAR faces.
    There may be cases with more tainted id procedures but this one ranks right up there. The failure to use fillers in violation of the DPD's own internal guidelines (should have been 5 fillers per suspect arranged in a book, i.e., 46 pages of 6 photo's each)
    She didn't claim to be raped by 46 men, thus there were not 46 suspects.
    Multiple lineups using the same photo's is also problematic and evidence of a constitutionally infirm procedure.
    The same photos were not used in all lineups.
    Suggestive comments during the id procedure another problem. Telling the FA that all the photo's were LAX players allowed her to make any pick she liked without having the possibility of a wrong answer.
    If there were 46 photos and only 3 perpetrators, she had 43 chances to get the wrong answer.
    Her credibility was not tested by the procedures used.
    Of course it was. As with any other possible lineup, if she happened to choose 3 men who were not even at the party, they likely have airtight alibis and are in no danger of being convicted.
    This creates an unreliable procedure that promotes misidentification.
    Misidentification would work IN FAVOR of the Defense. If they're innocent, the Defense would be nuts to have the lineup thrown out if there is irrefutable evidence that the three she picked were NOT there or NOT involved. Their obsession with questioning the police department's methods INSTEAD of the accuracy of the Accuser's CHOICES is very interesting, IMO.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#198)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:00:47 AM EST
    Some arguments are not worth discussing. Mr. P's take on the photo lineup is one of them. Maybe you could learn a little about proper lineup procedures before wasting TL's bandwidth. They do have them you know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#200)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:05:36 AM EST
    Newport, Sorry about the seance. Does acting "not smart" fool you?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#201)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:10:02 AM EST
    SharoninJax said:
    re the artificial nails: many of them come already "painted" so the AV could have unstuck a few, replaced a few, whatever. This would not have left smears on the railing, I don't think, but would explain the ones found in the trash.
    Does anyone know whether there has been clarification on whether the fingernails were the cheap, plastic, do-it-yourself, press-on kind or the salon acrylic kind?
    Still trying to picture the actor who should play Nifong.
    Edward Hermann

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#202)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:15:04 AM EST
    Mr P asked:
    Does anyone know whether there has been clarification on whether the fingernails were the cheap, plastic, do-it-yourself, press-on kind or the salon acrylic kind?
    Most accounts of the nails in this case describe them as the former. I've never seen anything that would indicate they were the latter.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#203)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:26:31 AM EST
    Both insults missed their mark. As someone commented, if I had a husband he would have runaway screaming by now, I would imagine as soon as any children of mine could walk they'd quickly run too, even the cat risked death by coyote to get away from imho. Alas, I have no one to call in for a refreshing glass of Kool-Aid. hahaha.
    Actually, I do feel sorry for you. Supposedly none of the comments on here means anything to you, and nothing has hurt you in the slightest, but I think this paragraph puts paid to that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#204)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:04:16 AM EST
    Lora said:
    There were two cameras, according to some articles. I didn't make that up.
    " . . . [Thomas] declined to identify the player he represents and said he would not release the photos, taken by at least two cameras, until pending DNA tests are completed. . . . "
    I dont know which pictures came from which camera; that I speculated about. I didn't make up that the defense experts couldn't vouch for the times, either. I read that, too. I'll hunt for the links if/when I get time.
    I don't know if this is what you're referring to, but the defense released a photo that conflicts with the cab driver's statement, which makes the timestamp (or the cabbie's recollection) suspicious. Multiple cameras, videocameras, memory cards, recorders, DVD-R's, cell phones, and computers were seized by police. To my knowledge, the defense has only publicly interpreted and/or released a handful of photos.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#205)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:30:44 AM EST
    Lora said"
    All I can say is, if it were my a** on the line, and I had evidence I thought would exonerate me, I wouldn't care how the DA got it, I'd make sure he got it (copies of it at least). I wouldn't play games of "he doesn't want to meet with me so I can't show him my evidence." I'd get it to him. THEN if he refused to meet with me I'd raise bloody h*ll.
    I thnk they HAVE been raising bloody hell, yet the accuser's supporters view this somehow as defense tactics.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#206)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:35:02 AM EST
    SLOphoto, So if the original "kool-aid test" was to show reliability and trustworthiness, then the Jim Jones' "drinking the kool-aid" means showing gullibility and following a false leader unto death. Thus, I think most usage of the phrase now is at least informed by the latter. If you "drink the defense kool-aid" you are gullible, or so it was presented here previously. If you drink the AV's kool-aid, don't take flexerils.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#207)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:48:32 AM EST
    imho hissed: Here we go again. That "the accused" phrase. No one they spoked to had been formally charged. No violation. Alan correctly answered: What is your authority for the proposition that 'the accused' means 'the indicted' instead of 'the accused'? We could probably list a few of Nifong's public comments, too, and find some that sound like accusations. With the discussion here resurfacing Nifong's bizarre behavior around refusing to review exculpatory information can anyone here really doubt that the DA knew how bad this case was? He knew there were various disparate accounts by the AV. He knew that Roberts' version didn't match the AV's. He knew what the cops were saying. He should have known the AV's history. His heavy-handedness in trying to question players without their lawyers seems, a few months later, to be a way to avoid talking with them. By contacting lawyers he would have gotten exculpatory information which would have made the case unsustainable. By avoiding exculpatory information he could continue the farce through the grand jury indictments and after the primary. The greater crime here is Nifong's.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#208)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:51:30 AM EST
    PB:
    I'll admit to my belief. I believe a rape could have occurred. I also believe it could not have occurred My second belief is currently stronger than my first... As to whether he can win the trial, I would doubt it. I would find it an inexcuseable ending, however, if he dropped charges on that basis.
    This is an interesting set of statements. We know with certainty that either a rape occured or it did not. In either situation a prosecutable crime has occured. Either the AV is making this up and should be prosecuted or the lax players did what she said and they should be prosecuted. According to your statement your current belief is that the AV is more likely to be the one guilty of the crime. Since you also believe that the trial should go forward even if the prosecutor believes he can not win the case, I would suggest that a consistent position should have you banging the drums for the AV's indictment. In fact this position should be extrapolated to each and every one on one crime, robbery, rape, assault etc. As a matter of course the DA should indict and try both parties. In order to get around the absurd justice system your statements imply, in the criminal justice system we currently have the prosecutor is supposed to act as a gatekeeper and should not prosecute cases he can not win, period. He is not entrusted to act as judge jury and executioner so that he can extract a pound of flesh at trial even though he knows he can not win. That is known as malicious prosecution. In this case in particular, regardless of the verdict, both the lax players and the AV are going to suffer mightily if this goes to trial. If the lax players are 100% innocent they are still going to be out some serious money, and will inevitably be smeared by the prosecutor with various rhetorical questions and arguements to the jury. Their boorish behavior, either in the form of their alleged taunts (broomstick or racial) is going to be highlighted. If the lax players are 100% guilty the AV is still going to be presented for all the world to see including her children as a mentally disturbed, substance abusing, hooker. Complete with photos. Before I went about doing this much damage to peoples lives I'd want to be damn sure that I had a solid winable case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#209)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:54:02 AM EST
    July 5, 2006 07:51 AM sorry i screwed up the quotes above. PB:
    I'll admit to my belief. I believe a rape could have occurred. I also believe it could not have occurred My second belief is currently stronger than my first...
    As to whether he can win the trial, I would doubt it. I would find it an inexcuseable ending, however, if he dropped charges on that basis.
    This is an interesting set of statements. We know with certainty that either a rape occured or it did not. In either situation a prosecutable crime has occured. Either the AV is making this up and should be prosecuted or the lax players did what she said and they should be prosecuted. According to your statement your current belief is that the AV is more likely to be the one guilty of the crime. Since you also believe that the trial should go forward even if the prosecutor believes he can not win the case, I would suggest that a consistent position should have you banging the drums for the AV's indictment. In fact this position should be extrapolated to each and every one on one crime, robbery, rape, assault etc. As a matter of course the DA should indict and try both parties. In order to get around the absurd justice system your statements imply, in the criminal justice system we currently have the prosecutor is supposed to act as a gatekeeper and should not prosecute cases he can not win, period. He is not entrusted to act as judge jury and executioner so that he can extract a pound of flesh at trial even though he knows he can not win. That is known as malicious prosecution. In this case in particular, regardless of the verdict, both the lax players and the AV are going to suffer mightily if this goes to trial. If the lax players are 100% innocent they are still going to be out some serious money, and will inevitably be smeared by the prosecutor with various rhetorical questions and arguements to the jury. Their boorish behavior, either in the form of their alleged taunts (broomstick or racial) is going to be highlighted. If the lax players are 100% guilty the AV is still going to be presented for all the world to see including her children as a mentally disturbed, substance abusing, hooker. Complete with photos. Before I went about doing this much damage to peoples lives I'd want to be damn sure that I had a solid winable case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#210)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:20:48 AM EST
    David, I think you fully demolished PB's basis for continuing this farce. But I did find this of "evidence" from PB curious: The "evidence" on which I base my first belief is quite plentiful. The accuser says it occurred. Kim Roberts, who I fully expected would be the Rosetta Stone, does not deny that it could have occurred. The defendants are acting like scaredy cats. I'll ignore "evidence" that it could have happened because the AV "says occurred." But on what statement is PB relying for Roberts' support, Roberts' support being that she "does not deny that it could have occurred"? Certainly not when she called the possibility of the rape "a crock." This is the thinest gruel I've ever seen manufactured. If Roberts said it absolutely hadn't happened, like the several dozen men there, the logical question would be how Roberts could have known it hadn't happened. So how does PB think that because Roberts hasn't said it could not have happened does it make the rape a possibility? Whew. The comment, "The defendants are acting like scaredy cats," really strikes me as a window into PB's thinking processes. What constitutes being a scaredy cat? Getting an attorney? Was the Bill of Rights constructed for the benefit of scaredy cats? Is the fact that a guy in court was talking about "dead man walking," a reference to the death penalty or perhaps a death threat, and the defendant's reaction a show of "scaredy cattedness"? If I were being indicted and someone was making what could be interpreted as death threats, I would be disturbed. In fact, most people that I have observed who are charged with crimes have a healthy respect for the possibility, however remote, of being convicted. This is regardless of guilt or innocence. Saying that she thinks people may be guilty because they are scaredy cats is such a weird admission on PB's part. Imagine the uproar if people dismissed the AV for being a "scaredy cat." This is why I find PB's mental processes so disturbing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#211)
    by weezie on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:41:14 AM EST
    Entirely superfluous, I know, but I'm scared for the players. And for the life of me, I cannot connect how, if the players are being falsely accused, a positive outcome proving their innocence should be seen as a threat to other legitimate rape victims. Several posters have bemoaned how this case will cause other rape victims to hesitate to come forward but if there was no rape at the lax party, how could this deter women from demanding justice in the future?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#212)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:29:47 AM EST
    cpinva:
    it shouldn't have any such effect. so far, the person who's really being villified is nifong. the AV hasn't been, except in the abstract. most people don't even know her name. pity the accused can't say the same.
    Are you kidding? Her name is plastered all over the internet, and the national media and public have been very obviously biased against her. Many of those demanding that the ACCUSED be considered innocent until proven guilty are perfectly willing to proclaim that the ACCUSER is guilty of lying WITHOUT the SAME benefit of PROOF. It's very likely that the next rape(s) in Durham will be approached with a "here we go again" kind of feeding frenzy, especially by national news programs trying to make a buck and locals trying to settle political vendettas. That is bound to (and maybe already has) make other victims hesitant to report assaults for fear that they or their families will be similarly hounded by reporters and that their privacy, in addition to their dignity and sense of security, will be violated. If it's not okay to do it to the accused, it's not okay to do it to the accuser, either.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#213)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:30:42 AM EST
    cib made a good start, but we haven't fully plumbed the foolishness of MrP's 5:49AM message.
    Using only Lacrosse players probably made it MORE difficult for the Accuser to choose the correct assailants, since she could easily be confused by so many FAMILIAR faces, especially if she was impaired at the time of the alleged assault.
    That comment begs the question by presupposing that three of the lacrosse players did, in fact, assault the AV. If (as seems very likely) she was lying, on the other hand, the object of the game, for her, was simply to pick any three players who were present at the relevant time.
    There may be cases with more tainted id procedures but this one ranks right up there. The failure to use fillers in violation of the DPD's own internal guidelines (should have been 5 fillers per suspect arranged in a book, i.e., 46 pages of 6 photo's each)
    She didn't claim to be raped by 46 men, thus there were not 46 suspects.
    Non sequitur. All 46 were under suspicion when the photos were shown to the AV.
    Suggestive comments during the id procedure another problem. Telling the FA that all the photo's were LAX players allowed her to make any pick she liked without having the possibility of a wrong answer.
    If there were 46 photos and only 3 perpetrators, she had 43 chances to get the wrong answer.
    You're begging the question again. If there were no perpetrators, the only "wrong" answer would be picking someone with an airtight alibi. The PD did not deliberately include anyone in the lineup who they knew was not present, and Himan attempted to minimize the possibility of a misstep by coaching the AV to concentrate, in the first place, on identifying those whose faces she remembered having seen at the party.
    Misidentification would work IN FAVOR of the Defense.
    You mean, fingering someone with an airtight alibi would work in favor of the defense. Right. That's why Seligman said "I'm glad she picked me."
    If they're innocent, the Defense would be nuts to have the lineup thrown out if there is irrefutable evidence that the three she picked were NOT there
    We know that Seligman has alibi evidence, and there've been reports that Finnerty does, too, but there's no reason to assume the third defendant does. If the lineup is thrown out all three will be off the hook.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#214)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:38:15 AM EST
    cib posted:
    Actually, I do feel sorry for you. Supposedly none of the comments on here means anything to you, and nothing has hurt you in the slightest, but I think this paragraph puts paid to that.
    hahaha. cib, I thought the others' comments that a husband would be able to run off, but they'd hate to be my cat were clever and very funny. I like that kind of stuff.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#215)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:04:24 AM EST
    Mr.Precendent posted:
    Many of those demanding that the ACCUSED be considered innocent until proven guilty are perfectly willing to proclaim that the ACCUSER is guilty of lying WITHOUT the SAME benefit of PROOF.
    ---
    If it's not okay to do it to the accused, it's not okay to do it to the accuser, either.
    Good luck selling that undenialble truth here. They don't want to hear it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#216)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    Mr Precedent and IMHO, what yout two don't seem to realize is that the there is a burden of prrof on the accuser, not the accused. THEY don't have to prove she lied, she (and the DA) have to prove the rape happened. It's not a two way street. Anyway, for most of us on this blog, we already have enough evidence to believe she is lying. For me the lack of findings on the medical exam (particularly the normal apearing anus), alibi of at least Seligman (we don't know enough about Finnerty), the ridiculous line up in which she couldn't ID Evans the first time and the second time only if he had a mustache, together with the lack of any conclusive DNA absolutely convinces me she is lying. There is honestly not ONE piece of evidence at this point that supports the accuser's story. THAT is why so many of us think she is lying. Before all of that came to light and when Nifong was spouting what we now know o be false evidence, I did think the rape was possible. To believe so now is naive, I think.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#217)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:37:53 AM EST
    cpinva stated:
    except, it won't. they only used pics of those at the party,
    No, they included photos of ALL 46 white members of the team, INCLUDING several who were NOT at the party (i.e. "fillers"), and at least one that the team captains did not list as attending, who WAS present, according to the Defense's own photos.
    she wasn't walking through a crime scene, she was trying to pick out her alleged attackers. this would be the only legitimate reason to have her review them in the first place, since the police already pretty much knew who was at the party.
    Maybe the police/DA wanted her to go through all of them so to determine how good her memory was regarding who was there and who was not. Apparently, the team captains had trouble remembering that, and it was THEIR party. It probably also gave the Prosecution a good list of which players they might want to call as witnesses.
    they had no need of her to try and confirm it.
    The purpose on 4/4, as clearly stated, was to identify which ones SHE recalled being at the party, what SHE remembered them doing, and any interraction SHE had or observed, if any, with each one. If she recalled seeing some at the party that were definitely NOT there, then obviously, that BENEFITS the Defense, as it makes her recollection not entirely reliable.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#218)
    by barry on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:51:38 AM EST
    I'll ignore "evidence" that it could have happened because the AV "says occurred." But on what statement is PB relying for Roberts' support, Roberts' support being that she "does not deny that it could have occurred"? Certainly not when she called the possibility of the rape "a crock."
    Ironically, it's Roberts' statements that pretty much convinced me that no rape happened. Nothing in her orginal account, handwritten statement, or the added details in the recent Jaun Williams interview support a key part of the AV's story to police -- the story that was used by Law Enforcement to obtain a search warrent. The women were apologized to, persuaded back in, and eventually separated. The AV's words, "three men grabbed Nikki and Adam, Brett, and Matt grabbed me. They separated us at the masterbedroom door s we tried to hold on to each other.". Robert doesn't support that, and she can't alter her story to corroberate the AV without discrediting herself entirely. What she told Jaun Williams effectively painted herself in a whole. She went back in the house (not in her original account), but couldn't find her. So hence her comment "there was oppurtunity". But still no support for what the AV said. This is why Lora's wild specualtion has Roberts being the big liar. In order for the AV to be telling the truth, Kim Roberts has to be the BIG LIAR. HAS TO BE! Funny thing is, she tried to help out the accuser by giving opportunity -- a detail that was not in her original account. That tells me that she didn't witnessed what could have REALLY given credibilty to the AV -- the dramatic separation. Oh, Lora, no one has both women going back inside the house together, unless you count Bissey's statements to Rita in which he also said they arrived in a car together. But in his sworn affidavit, he only had the accuser entering the house. There is nothing really wrong with his timeline either. Kim changed inside a car, she could definitely change in a bathroom in a minute or even less. Bissey's cell phone clock may have been off by five minutes -- giving enough time for the events before the first dance. Strange that some think that would not be possible when these same people think that a rape consisting of anal, vaginal, and oral could happen inside of a few minutes. LOL!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#219)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:52:06 AM EST
    fahrenam posted:
    Mr Precedent and IMHO, what yout two don't seem to realize is that the there is a burden of prrof on the accuser, not the accused. THEY don't have to prove she lied, she (and the DA) have to prove the rape happened. It's not a two way street.
    fahrenam, Some commenters here are the accusers. They are accusing the woman who reported the rape of filing a false police report - a crime. They routinely referred to her as the FA [false accuser]. No one here refers to the players as "the three rapists." The idea that "most" of you already have enough evidence to believe she is lying is not enough to declare her a false accuser and wouldn't be even if you were sitting on her jury.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#220)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    The difference, IMHO, is that no one on this blog has brought actual charges. The accuser has, so she's the one with the burden of proof.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#221)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:06:27 AM EST
    he idea that "most" of you already have enough evidence to believe she is lying is not enough to declare her a false accuser and wouldn't be even if you were sitting on her jury.
    Well, since *to repeat for the 3000th time* no gang rape occured she is a false accuser.You've yet to come up with a scenerio to explain away the total lack of DNA evidence, and you've yet to even show you can be as brave as Lora and try for a timeline. I have no doubt she's a false accuser, and I have almost no doubt that Nifong does not have even so much as a slice of evidence that might strengthen his case at all. What she has alleged is impossible, and it remains impossible even without seeing the rest of that 1800 pages of evidence you go on and on whining about. My bet is when it finally is released, and there is nothing in it, you won't admit to being wrong. You, yourself, say you would bet for the accused and against the accuser at this point, but you nevertheless keep insisting that unless we are God or were there we can know nothing. Here ya go IMHO: Let me know precisely what evidence has to be available before you will declare CGM to be a false accuser. Also, if the case is thrown out, is that good enough evidence for you?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#222)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:07:39 AM EST
    fahrenam said:
    Proper procedure has to be followed and if the judge feels it wasn't in this case, the identifications will not be allowed.
    Based on state guidelines, investigators should use a picture of the suspect and at least seven pictures of people who resemble the suspect. In this case, the accuser was shown the photos of 3 suspects and OVER 40 pictures of people who resemble them. 43>7

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#199)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:11:08 AM EST
    Mr P, I'd say that 2 out of the 3 men she chose from her roulette deck have strong alibis. Thus effectively blowing this case out of the water.
    Misidentification would work IN FAVOR of the Defense. If they're innocent, the Defense would be nuts to have the lineup thrown out if there is irrefutable evidence that the three she picked were NOT there or NOT involved. Their obsession with questioning the police department's methods INSTEAD of the accuracy of the Accuser's CHOICES is very interesting, IMO.
    Actually this entire paragraph shows either your stupidity or dishonesty or both imo. It's very hard to absolutely proove you weren't anywhere unless you happen to have receipts or some time-stamped photos. Most people don't have receipts or time stamped photos for most parts of their days. More to the point, a good defense lawyer doesn't just try one strategy. The lawyers for 2 of the three that we know of are claiming their clients couldn't have been there during the time frame when a rape would have occured; this isn't made any easier by Nifong's refusal to provide the defense the prosecution's timeline. Be that as it may, Mikey violated NC's lineup guidelines - which were put in place due to past miscarriages of justice- and that alone is reason to mistrust him, not to mention for the defense to try and make the process even easier on their clients by having the whole tainted thing thrown out. By the way, did you forget that Reade S said "I'm glad they picked me", as he felt he had an airtight alibi? Those confident words aren't the words of a criminal.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#223)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:16:25 AM EST
    Mr Precedent, That's when the police HAVE a suspect. At this point, the suspects could have been any one of the players, the police had no reason to think beforehand that it would be three she identified. And based on the accuser's varying stories, she could have named as many of twenty of them as rapists. Even if they had had a subject or two in mind, the fillers are supposed to be people the police absolutely know were not involved. It's sloppy police work anyway you look at it and I predict the Id will be thrown out.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#224)
    by january on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    Mr. P
    According to the identification report, the accuser picked the two players from a photo lineup on April 4, three weeks after the incident. WRAL has learned police only used mugshot pictures of the 46 players for the lineup. Attorney Mark Edwards, who is not involved with the case, said that procedure is like leading the witness. "I can't believe they didn't put in some other photos," said Edwards. "She's going to know that this is the group of people from which I'm to choose someone."
    This is from the article you linked to - are you sure that's the point you meant to make?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#225)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:25:58 AM EST
    The idea that "most" of you already have enough evidence to believe she is lying is not enough to declare her a false accuser and wouldn't be even if you were sitting on her jury.
    Rubbish! The AV has a constitutional right not to be jailed for perjury and malicious prosecution unless she pleads guilty or is convicted after a trial. We, having no power to prosecute, convict, or sentence her, have the right to come to any conclusion, at any time, as to the veracity of her accusations and have a constitutional right to express any such opinion publicly (and dispute anybody else's opinion).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#226)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:27:48 AM EST
    But imho, she hasn't been indicted for anything yet, so using your logic that excuses Le Fong's statements to the media, the AV is not an accused, not yet anyway. There is no presumption, except in Le Fong's mind, of accusations being truthful, or accurate.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#227)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:28:24 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky requested:
    Please attempt to give me one good reason why he wouldn't even meet with the defense to hear what they had to say about alibis. Just one reason.
    If the Prosecutor has irrefutable photos or videos of the Accuser being raped by the three suspects he really doesn't need to hear what they have to say about alibis.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#228)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    In this case, the accuser was shown the photos of 3 suspects and OVER 40 pictures of people who resemble them. 43>7
    How many times do you have to be corrected before you'll stop repeating a fallacy? ALL of the players whose photos were shown to the AV were suspects when she examined the photos. The suspect list wasn't narrowed down to three until she purported to identify three perps.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#229)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    Oh Mr. P, are you serious? Nifong has such evidence, but hasn't turned it over? Tsk, tsk. Or do you think Abrams thought something like that not worth mentioning? And the videographer/photographer whose camera was seized hasn't alerted the defense attorneys? If your point was simply to come up with a "smoking gun," no matter how ludicrous the possibility is, then you succeeded.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#230)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    MrP wrote:
    If the Prosecutor has irrefutable photos or videos of the Accuser being raped by the three suspects he really doesn't need to hear what they have to say about alibis.
    If Nifong has such photos or videos, he should be disbarred for flagrantly violating the discovery rule.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#231)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:35:55 AM EST
    cib posted:
    Well, since *to repeat for the 3000th time* no gang rape occured she is a false accuser.
    Then you have no problem with the people outside the courthouse who referred to Seligmann as "rapist?" cib posted:
    You've yet to come up with a scenerio to explain away the total lack of DNA evidence, and you've yet to even show you can be as brave as Lora and try for a timeline.
    I think it only fair that I see all of the evidence that is to be presented at trial before I attempt a scenario. cib posted:
    I have no doubt she's a false accuser, and I have almost no doubt that Nifong does not have even so much as a slice of evidence that might strengthen his case at all. What she has alleged is impossible, and it remains impossible even without seeing the rest of that 1800 pages of evidence you go on and on whining about. My bet is when it finally is released, and there is nothing in it, you won't admit to being wrong.
    Being wrong about what? Being wrong that I don't think it should be up to Dan Abrams to decide what is damaging to the defense and what is not? I didn't say there is evidence in the discovery that benefits the prosecution's case. I said WE DON'T KNOW. We don't. As far as your ability to predict anything about me - you're batting zero. I pegged you, you did not peg me. cib posted:
    You, yourself, say you would bet for the accused and against the accuser at this point, but you nevertheless keep insisting that unless we are God or were there we can know nothing.
    I've never mentioned God here. There are plenty of things about this case that we do know, why do you object to the notion that there are things we don't know? cib posted:
    Here ya go IMHO: Let me know precisely what evidence has to be available before you will declare CGM to be a false accuser. Also, if the case is thrown out, is that good enough evidence for you?
    I choose to not answer that question, on principle. If you want to reword it, I will.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#232)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    Hmmm, Mr. P. And why would the DA break the law at this point by not turning those tapes or photos over to the defense. He HAS to turn over everything by law. Do you really think that if this evidence you've invented existed and the defense knew they wouldn't be scrambling for a plea bargain? Don't be stupid about this, please.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#233)
    by january on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    If the Prosecutor has irrefutable photos or videos of the Accuser being raped by the three suspects he really doesn't need to hear what they have to say about alibis.
    But....since Nifong doesn't have any of that, for all the reasons outlined above, why would he not meet with defense attorneys? It could only help him.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#234)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion Do you have the link from TalkLeft to you, where she explained what a foil is? I'm sure it would help MrPrecedent overcome his misconception of what fillers are.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#235)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:03:04 AM EST
    Le SharonInJax Thong posted:
    But imho, she hasn't been indicted for anything yet, so using your logic that excuses Le Fong's statements to the media, the AV is not an accused, not yet anyway.
    There is no presumption, except in Le Fong's mind, of accusations being truthful, or accurate.
    Did Nifong indentify anyone by name before they were formally charged? No. There are no ethics violations and the indicted players have no civil case against him. He never accused them of anything by name except in formal charges which, of course, are exempt form civil action. The blog system of justice works differently. Was it only after the indictments that the "innocent until proven guilty" cries came from commenters on this board? I DON'T THINK SO.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#236)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#237)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:07:48 AM EST
    Then you have
    /blockquote> no problem with the people outside the courthouse who referred to Seligmann as "rapist?"
    Of course I do. They weren't waiting for evidence to come in. I did and it did. An alleged gang rape in muliple "ports" without condoms or sex toys does not occur without leaving traces of DNA among many other things. Once we got that info, we had all the information we needed to make a decision on this case - that is, unless you are saying the DNA results are wrong.
    think it only fair that I see all of the evidence that is to be presented at trial before I attempt a scenario. Cute. So why are you even here? A trial won't occur- assuming one even takes place- until spring of 2007. You can thank that crony judge and former boss of Nifarts for this as well as blame him for not making it clear that the defense can release the information- thus putting the onus on them to do so. Right now the onus is on what is very possibly a corrupt judge.
    Being wrong about what? Being wrong that I don't think it should be up to Dan Abrams to decide what is damaging to the defense and what is not? I didn't say there is evidence in the discovery that benefits the prosecution's case. I said WE DON'T KNOW. We don't.
    And yet you've yet to reveal a good reason why DA might want to lie about the evidence he saw. Nor why we should trust IMHO's reading of the evidence more than DA.
    As far as your ability to predict anything about me - you're batting zero. I pegged you, you did not peg me.
    Pegging? Kinkkkkkkkkky. Oh IMHO, I didn't know. Perhaps if you are gentle... Seriously, you even got my sex wrong. Pegged me? I make a comment that brings a smile to my face and laughter to my heart and from that single isolated comment you claim to know a universal truth about me. Considering you misread the intent of the comment in the first place, I'm afraid Dear IMHO, that you haven't pegged me at all. As for pegging you? I don't care.
    There are plenty of things about this case that we do know, why do you object to the notion that there are things we don't know?
    I object to the idea that there exists an argument -with any dece
    nt probablility of being correct factually- that suggests there are any IMPORTANT facts in this case we do not know. Important being defined as pointing towards guilt or innocense. The lack of DNA, as I've said, is probative.
    I choose to not answer that question, on principle. If you want to reword it, I will.
    There was actually two questions there, so perhaps you misunderstood something. Here: What evidence will it take for you to admit that the gang-rape accusation is false? And the second question: If the case is dismissed, will that be evidence enough?


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#238)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:14:13 AM EST
    There are no ethics violations and the indicted players have no civil case against him.
    Oh really? Then how come prosecutors and defense attorneys with presumably far more experience than yourself seem to think there were? What, you think only the people on this board believe there were ethics violiations by NoDong? That A**hole made statements accusing the team of covering up a crime. He blamed the entire team and this resulted in much hardship for many innocent people. And this was well before the indictments. He shouldn't have opened his big mouth until he had some evidence to work with. Heck, to this day he can't provide a timeline for his alleged perps to have worked within. But NiFart had an election to win, and so he said things that a more honest and prudent attorney wouldn't have. Hopefully he'll pay, though it looks like it will take alot of national pressure before the Powers That Be in Durham cut him loose.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#239)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:25:19 AM EST
    IMHO:
    Then you have no problem with the people outside the courthouse who referred to Seligmann as "rapist?"
    Do you really think that shouting threats and imprecations at Seligman within his hearing when he was indicted is morally equivalent with opining in this forum that the AV's accusation is false? Some important distinctions: 1) there's far better reason to conclude from publicly-available information that the AV is lying than to conclude that Seligman is guilty as charged; 2) the shouting at the indictment might well have caused Seligman to fear that he'll be a target for vigilante violence and was probably intended to instill that fear; discussion in this forum is not addressed to the AV and is not published with any intention of intimidating her; 3) Seligman is being prosecuted and will be imprisoned if a jury finds that the AV's accusation against him is true; the AV, however, is currently in no legal jeopardy, and it's far from clear that she'll be prosecuted for perjury in the event that the defendants are cleared. BTW, are you sure it only happened outside the courthouse? If it happened in the presence of the judge he should have ordered the bailiff to eject the shouters.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#240)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:27:18 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion Thanks, IMHO, but that's not it. What I'm looking for is where TalkLeft specifically responded to you in the Comments

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#241)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:28:32 AM EST
    cib, I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but I'm a SAHM to two preschoolers. I didn't take offense at your comments. I understand that I have more flexibility re: internet access than most who work outside the home. I often post at unusual times because that is my schedule. It also means I'm not here all day, every day. I have other (read: more important) responsibilities. ding7777: Was this what you were looking for? MrPrecedent: If Nifong had the video and/or photos, why would he even need identifications by the accuser? He would be able to arrest (and also probably prosecute) without any assistance AT ALL from the accuser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#242)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    thanks mik but what I'm looking for is where TalkLeft corrected IMHO for stating the use of 46 players in the lineup had 6 fillers since only 40 were at the party (MrPrecedent is making the same mistake) p.s. I'm shocked that IMHO, didn't point out MrPrecedent's error. IMHO is usually quick to highlight other people's mistakes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#243)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    You know, ding, I often agree with a lot of what is posted here, but I don't think most agree 100% with another poster to the point where they make the same exact mistakes. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#244)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    Good points all, mik. I used to be a SAHM, and now my ankle biters/rugrats/pablum pukers are grown. I, too, found nothing the least bit offensive about what cib said. I do find it odd that imho is now rushing to the defense of mothers, especially those of us who "work(ed) inside the home" when she was so quick to make snide and rude comments about the mothers of the Duke players. And, cib, re Nifong: don't forget, (and this is one of his worst violations, to me), that he basically denigrated and disparaged the players, called into question their innocence, because they wanted to have counsel present for any interviews. For a lay person to have the attitude that "if you are innocent, why do you need an attorney present?" is one thing, for one of the three supposed pillars of our criminal justice system to suggest such a thing is deplorabe. And, imho, a couple things: (1) no one in their right mind would want to see me in a thong, although you have made suggestions to that effect before (or maybe you just wanted to see me in a "nightgown" such as the AV was wearing). Believe me. I try to fold my daughter's thongs when she's home and I'm doing her laundry, and I always end up laughing hysterically. I mean, something that small, why bother? And (2) unless you are an ethics scholar, preferable based in NC, do not presume that you know what is and is not an ethics violation. Even if a bar ethics panel found no explicit violation, District Attorney Nifong (there, like me calling him that better?) could still face sanctions for what are to some, especially the attorneys here and in other outlets, violations of the spirit and intent of the ethics code for prosecutors.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#245)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    IMHO meekly squeaked: I think it only fair that I see all of the evidence that is to be presented at trial before I attempt a scenario. Translation: I can't admit to being wrong. PB, doesn't that make imho a scaredy cat?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#246)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion I found it

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#247)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    somewhatchunky lamented,
    Newport, Sorry about the seance. Does acting "not smart" fool you?
    No, it wouldn't ordinarily, but the level of "not smart" of Mr. P had already led me in other directions. Thus, I concluded some time ago that Mr. P was not imho's sockpuppet. Just goes to show you that some do "slip through the cracks" in any admission system, no matter how benevolent the intentions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#248)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    to MrPrecedent re your filler post above, here's what Talkleft said to IMHO
    IMHO, players not at the party would not be "known innocents."
    "Known innocents" also called fillers or foils, are persons who resemble the description of the perpetrator given by the accuser but who are known to have no involvement in the incident.
    For example, if she described her assailant as blond, blue eyed, mustached and about 20 years old, a "known innocent" would be someone not connected to the incident who is blond, blue eyed, mustached and about 20 years old.
    The DA should have shown her at least eight photos, one by one, for each of the three suspects she described. For each of the suspects she described, only one would be of a duke player matching that description, while seven would be of known innocents who resembled her description of the perpetrator, not the Duke student.
    The DA waited three weeks to show her a photo lineup. By that time, he had to have a pretty good idea which of the players were suspects according to her description
    .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#249)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:17:38 PM EST
    Mik, do you have an NC ethical rule that addresses the following scenario: The prosecutor likely believes that he cannot prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, but he believes the accuser with all his heart. What ethical guidance do the rules provide to this troubled prosecutor? I am just curious.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#250)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    I like how Mr. P capitalizes a lot of words for emphasis. Pretty funny. LOL.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#251)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    The DPD had no suspects other than all 46 members of the LAX team because the FA provided no description of her attackers other than "white boys." A rather interesting question arises, however, when one considers that the DPD did actually have three suspects given the FA's providing the attackers names to the police. The FA claimed that Bret, Matt and Dan/Adam raped her. It would seem to me that the appropriate way to proceed would be to do exactly as TL points out above with pictures of the three "suspects" and 5-8 fillers for each mug shot. I suspect this may have happened in the early lineups but no hits were registered. Thus, the opening up of the suspect list on the April 4 lineup to include all 46 members of the team relying on the false name theory, and pin the tail on the Dukie that followed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#252)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:33:54 PM EST
    Sorry, Newport, I can't help you there. It does bring to mind the paternity suit against Wesley Snipes a couple of years ago. Do you remember it? A woman claims she had relations with Snipes in a crack house, and he fathered her child. The judicial system in Illinois threw out her paternity suit, so she filed her claim again in Indiana. A judge in New York (?!?) issued an arrest warrant for Snipes because he refused to submit for DNA testing. If I recall correctly, another man was proven to be the father and Snipes' claims against New York were never heard. It sounded to me like the judge in New York REALLY REALLY wanted to believe Snipes was responsible, regardless of the facts in the case. Sounds a lot like that in Durham these days, too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#253)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    The three posts starting with BIP's at 7:48 am are very good in my humble opinion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#254)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    Maybe Khartoum or Coyote99 has the ethical rule (or lack of an ethical rule) that would possibly address this strange scenario I posited. I ask this question because I really do think Nifong believes the accuser, but knows that he has no reasonable possibility of prevailing at at trial absent reverse jury nullification.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#255)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:46:44 PM EST
    to Newport I think Nifong believed the AV until he was forced to get DNA samples from her b/f and drivers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#256)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    Wumhenry posted,
    BTW, are you sure it only happened outside the courthouse? If it happened in the presence of the judge he should have ordered the bailiff to eject the shouters.
    The court room shouter should have been arrested on the spot and charged with making terroristic threats.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#257)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Uncivil war highlights local race A view of Nifong before the Duke scandal emerged.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#258)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:13:40 PM EST
    Ding, no link.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#259)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:16:14 PM EST
    Ding, Nifong was certainly "jarred" a bit when the DNA came back, but I think he has found ways to rationalize the DNA results against innocence of the accused.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#260)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:24:11 PM EST
    Newport:
    I like how Mr. P capitalizes a lot of words for emphasis.
    Is it Mister? I thought it stood for 'em are precedent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#261)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#262)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:29:39 PM EST
    How do you do that, imho? Please tell.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#263)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:35:13 PM EST
    What a petty man this Nifungus amungus is. That Durham DA's office is an open sewer pit and the stench arising is overpowering. I can smell it all the way in Newport Beach. Nifongus should have stuck to traffic court, more time to visit Corky's all you can eat for the pork special on Tuesday nights.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#264)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    mik, it is a rather odd name for someone who knows nothing about precedent other than the precedent created in his own disturbed mind.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#265)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:39:20 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    And, imho, a couple things: (1) no one in their right mind would want to see me in a thong
    I'll take your word for it. I, of course, was not poking fun at your waning nubility, but at your use of the term "Le Fong." SharonInJax posted:
    (2) unless you are an ethics scholar, preferable based in NC, do not presume that you know what is and is not an ethics violation. Even if a bar ethics panel found no explicit violation, District Attorney Nifong (there, like me calling him that better?) could still face sanctions for what are to some, especially the attorneys here and in other outlets, violations of the spirit and intent of the ethics code for prosecutors.
    I predict he will face no sanctions for comments about unnamed individuals nor will he be judged liable for anything in civil court. The experts I've seen are all full of bluster. They blink when asked what specific violations they think he'll actually be called on.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#266)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    to Newport OT - this link is in a comment about Ken Delay but did you know that Lay will be deemed to have died without a conviction and without a criminal record

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#267)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:41:55 PM EST
    Newport asked:
    How do you do that, imho? Please tell.
    Do what?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#268)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:44:05 PM EST
    Imho said,
    The experts I've seen are all full of bluster. They blink when asked what specific violations they think he'll actually be called on.
    Those experts are dunderheads with a brain injury. The people on this board know much more about the facts of the case and the ethical and procedural rules of NC than any of the so-called experts to which you refer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#269)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Those experts are dunderheads with a brain injury. The people on this board know much more about the facts of the case and the ethical and procedural rules of NC than any of the so-called experts to which you refer.
    Do you have any quotes from "experts" that make specific claims about Nifong's ethical violations?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#270)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    Ding, no I didn't know that at all.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#271)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    Imho:
    I predict he will face no sanctions for comments about unnamed individuals nor will he be judged liable for anything in civil court. The experts I've seen are all full of bluster. They blink when asked what specific violations they think he'll actually be called on.
    I'm curious, is this just an opinion of the legalities or do you also believe that his conduct has actually been ethical? As a hypothetical, if a DA on his way to the grand jury preparing for an indictment, stood on the corner and gave and interview with the press and said that 'the crime we have before us is a heinous one, and that we already know beyond a shadow of a doubt who did it, and if they were hung from a tree and tortured it would be ok by me' and then proceeded to get an indictment against a specific person, would this iyho, be a violation of the NC ethical guidelines, and would you condone such a statement by the DA?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#272)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    There is more to the Freda Black rule case than is referred to in the article ding linked. Court deal outside policy A man dating a Durham prosecutor fared better than what DA guidelines called for

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#273)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:57:22 PM EST
    Do you have any quotes from "experts" that make specific claims about Nifong's ethical violations?
    Yeah, they're all over this board. Scroll back some and you will find them. Many have pointed out that your arguments based on your reading of certain ethical rules are not found persuasive.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#274)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:00:16 PM EST
    david_in_ct, Why the hypothetical? We have the facts of exactly what Nifong said and when he said it. Dig those up and we can see what violations he actually did or did not commit.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#275)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    blockquote> Posted by Newport July 4, 2006 08:34 AM He's just a man, after all, and women NEVER lie about rape. Only somewhere above 9 percent and below 40 percent of the time do woman lie about rape. I would guess it's about 25 percent of the time. Sorry I missed this earlier Newport. This is a fascinating and scary (for men, mostly) subject: How common are false accusations of the big 3: rape or other sexual crimes, child abuse(unfounded reports -in some jurisidctions up to half called in - affect hundreds of thousands of men and women a year), and domestic violence? Quite common, it turns out. Once you weed out biased sources for studies (any women's studies research not done in a scientifically peer reviewed journal {same with any "mra" studies if not done properly}), biased political organizations, and soundbites what one comes up with is statistics from the FBI (themselves incomplete and not perfect)the only partially useful conflict tactics scale, and a few studies by authors who have actually published in peer reviewed journals and admit their results are not definitive. The Innocence project is also good for this kind of research though it is not their primary goal. That being said, here's my take: It seems from common sense and some of the studies I've read that the percent of false accustations of any crime increase as you decrease the penalties for false accusations and increase the rewards. It also helps if you have areas of the law that are murky and subject to interpretation and I doubt anyone -Lora included- would deny that the definition of rape has expanded into some murky territory over recent years. Still, I'll try to put some numbers out realizing they are educated guesses: False accusations of rape (all rapes: stranger, acquaintance, multiple) 6-25 percent, almost just as you said. Broken down: Acquaintance: closer to 25 Stranger: Closer to 6 multiple: I have no clue, supposedly such rapes are rare, and rapes of non-whites by whites by far the rarest of all. The highest rate I ever saw reported was 40 percent: But the author himself said that his study couldn't be extended beyond the small town he conducted it in, and he also said he couldn't identify a factor that explained why the amount was so high. This study is respected and he had a pretty high definition of "false accusation": If I remember correctly he only applied the term to where the evidence didn't fit, or where the accuser recanted. So he didn't include cases that were simply non-substantiated. No one has ever followed up on this study, nor explained the results. Maybe this has something to do with the amount of false cases that never make it court as someone on an earlier thread posted about. Lastly, often a "false accusation" is simply a mistaken identification. Studies in the late 90's have lead to police departments nationwide revamping their methods of conducting photo lineups (though Nifong apparently didn't get the memo, being stuck in traffic court and a timewarp) so that some of the past miscarriages of justice wouldn't occur again. Sexual abuse (sexual harrasment etc) Up to 50 percent false. Lots of real abuse goes on, conversely most of it isn't very serious. The penalties aren't generally very serious (except in sexual harrasment law where money and jobs are at stake), and because of this people to cover themselves feel free (imho) to make up lots of stuff. With sexual harrasment, because money is involved (and getting that coworker of yours fired can be a form of revenge for real or perceived slights even if you don't get mullah) their tends to be quite a substantial portion of false accounts, though it is probably a bare minority. I wouldn't bet on any numbers for this percentage though. Child sexual abuse: The milder forms *e.g fondling* tend to get almost a fifty percent false accusation rate when it's divorce time. However, the more serious ones (oral genital contact, etc) tend to be reported more accuratly and most false accusations are the result of mistakes, not willful malice nor custody positioning. Child abuse: An over used term if there ever was one. This one any of you can google: I've heard again and again from interviews with people in the system that about half the calls they receive are unfounded. Now this doesn't mean that unfounded= false. Most are the result of well-meaning, if mistaken people. Still, I don't think anyone would deny there are a substantial portion of "revenge" calls. Domestic violence: Probably around 9 percent of women and 2 to 4 percent of men are examples of real prolonged domestic abuse. That is, where the physical or mental violence is prolonged, consistent, and severe on the scales that are commonly used to measure such things. I speak not of the occasional bruising words, slammed doors, and mutual shoving that are often thrown into these stats by various advocacy organizations and government departments. Note also I said physical AND mental abuse; severe physical abuse is common enough to be a big problem but nowhere near as big as the inflated DV stats would have one believe. It seems to be about one half of one to two percent of couples. This MAY be also correlated with poverty and other stressors. Restraining order abuse: Somewhere around 25 to 50 percent according to whom you believe, unless you believe some of the feminist organizations in which case this never happens. I'm sure everyone remembers David Letterman having a RO taken out against him earlier this year or late last year by a woman in Texas who claimed he was mentally abusing her via psychic powers and that he would put messages in his show that only she could understand. Eventually it was quashed, but it shows just how easy these things are to get. Anyway, even if you disagree with my numbers here are lessons that every man and woman should come away with: Men: Somewhere around 1 to 2 percent of women you date will be crazy or dishonest enough to charge you with one of these three crimes. They may or may not bring this to the police; what they will do is tell their friends/family or your friends/family and maybe your boss as well. These women also tend to make multiple FA's: That is, look at our "victim" here. She had already accused 3 young black men of gang-raping her years ago. Then 3 young men from the Duke Lacrosse team. Gang rapes rare; gang rape white on black almost unheard of , and she accuses 3 players, none of whom have a repuation with the women in their lives for having sexual boundary problems. She's bad news. I think most false accusations are the result of a minority of women who offend repeatedly, same as most rapists tend to be multiple offenders. They can be hard to spot and/or avoid, and if you date enough you are bound to run into a few. Women: Same goes with abusive men. If you date alot you will run into severe abusers of some type or another probably 5 to 10 percent of the time. Unless you only chase "bad boys", in which case your odds are significantly increased. There aren't many male FA's of this or that, but they do exist, so beware of them as well. The system is a bit screwed up: I've started collecting any examples I can find of FA's being punished: such punishments are rare, in a year, I've only found 5 examples in the national/international press. Add to that the ever expanding definitions of sexual and physical abuse and it's a wild dangerous world out there, that many of you in long-term committed relationships can't really understand. Be thankful of what you have. As for me, if anyone's interested I'll post some links to some of the studies I referenced later tonight. I'm not really interested in debating rates though: I can guarantee we'd never convince each other and it would be a bit off-topic. Take this post for what it is worth: guestimates based on several y ears of reading studies and newspaper articles, debating, and living my own life and putting my personal experiences into a larger perspective. I also don't have time to do these long posts very often; as I'm sure some of you have guessed by my usually once or twice a day appearances. I just feel this needs to be put out for Lora to consider and to balance some of the stuff she's rather uncritically accepting her in class, and for the others on this board to consider to understand part of the strange new legal world we've created in family and sexual law over the last 40 years.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#276)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:02:54 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Yeah, they're all over this board. Scroll back some and you will find them. Many have pointed out that your arguments based on your reading of certain ethical rules are not found persuasive.
    imho has done her share off scrolling back and researching things others have asked for. If you can find any specific violations he has been accused of violating post them. You are the one saying they exist.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#277)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    Forget it. It doesn't matter. The people here know what I am talking about.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#278)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:06:21 PM EST
    cib, what did you do!!! Cat on the keyboard maybe, this sometimes happens to me to cause problems when at home.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#279)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    newport said:
    The prosecutor likely believes that he cannot prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, but he believes the accuser with all his heart.
    There seems to be nothing in the NC code of professional responsibility, at least that I know of, that directly covers this hypothetical. The closest items, I suppose, are comments 1 and 2 in Rule 3.8: "A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate; the prosecutor's duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict . . . A systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4 . . . The prosecutor represents the sovereign and, therefore, should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of government powers, such as in the selection of cases to prosecute. During trial, the prosecutor is not only an advocate, but he or she also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all." The specific obligation that a prosecutor exercise discretion "in the selection of cases to prosecute" would seem to me to suggest that if a prosecutor knew he couldn't prevail, the case shouldn't be brought.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#280)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    The Rule 8.4 referenced in my above post deals with misconduct that threatens the integrity of the profession.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#281)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    cib, what did you do!!! Cat on the keyboard maybe, this sometimes happens to me to cause problems when at home.
    hahaha! You are too kind, Newport.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#282)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:19:09 PM EST
    blockquote> Posted by Newport July 4, 2006 08:34 AM He's just a man, after all, and women NEVER lie about rape. Only somewhere above 9 percent and below 40 percent of the time do woman lie about rape. I would guess it's about 25 percent of the time. Sorry I missed this earlier Newport. This is a fascinating and scary (for men, mostly) subject: How common are false accusations of the big 3: rape or other sexual crimes, child abuse(unfounded reports -in some jurisidctions up to half called in - affect hundreds of thousands of men and women a year), and domestic violence? Quite common, it turns out. Once you weed out biased sources for studies (any women's studies research not done in a scientifically peer reviewed journal {same with any "mra" studies if not done properly}), biased political organizations, and soundbites what one comes up with is statistics from the FBI (themselves incomplete and not perfect)the only partially useful conflict tactics scale, and a few studies by authors who have actually published in peer reviewed journals and admit their results are not definitive. The Innocence project is also good for this kind of research though it is not their primary goal. That being said, here's my take: It seems from common sense and some of the studies I've read that the percent of false accustations of any crime increase as you decrease the penalties for false accusations and increase the rewards. It also helps if you have areas of the law that are murky and subject to interpretation and I doubt anyone -Lora included- would deny that the definition of rape has expanded into some murky territory over recent years. Still, I'll try to put some numbers out realizing they are educated guesses: False accusations of rape (all rapes: stranger, acquaintance, multiple) 6-25 percent, almost just as you said. Broken down: Acquaintance: closer to 25 Stranger: Closer to 6 multiple: I have no clue, supposedly such rapes are rare, and rapes of non-whites by whites by far the rarest of all.The highest rate I ever saw reported was 40 percent: But the author himself said that his study couldn't be extended beyond the small town he conducted it in, and he also said he couldn't identify a factor that explained why the amount was so high. This study is respected and he had a pretty high definition of "false accusation": If I remember correctly he only applied the term to where the evidence didn't fit, or where the accuser recanted. So he didn't include cases that were simply non-substantiated. No one has ever followed up on this study, nor explained the results. Maybe this has something to do with the amount of false cases that never make it court as someone on an earlier thread posted about. Lastly, often a "false accusation" is simply a mistaken identification. Studies in the late 90's have lead to police departments nationwide revamping their methods of conducting photo lineups (though Nifong apparently didn't get the memo, being stuck in traffic court and a timewarp) so that some of the past miscarriages of justice wouldn't occur again. Sexual abuse (sexual harrasment etc) Up to 50 percent false. Lots of real abuse goes on, conversely most of it isn't very serious. The penalties aren't generally very serious for the smallest stuff(except in sexual harrasment law where money and jobs are at stake), and because of this people to cover themselves feel free (imho) to make up lots of stuff. With sexual harrasment, because money is involved (and getting that coworker of yours fired can be a form of revenge for real or perceived slights even if you don't get moolah) there tends to be quite a substantial portion of false accounts, though it is probably a bare minority. I wouldn't bet on any numbers for this percentage though. Child sexual abuse: The milder forms *e.g fondling* tend to get almost a fifty percent false accusation rate when it's divorce time. However, the more serious ones (oral genital contact, etc) tend to be reported more accuratly and most false accusations of these are the result of mistakes, not willful malice nor custody positioning. Child abuse: An over used term if there ever was one. This one any of you can google: I've heard again and again from interviews with people in the system that about half the calls they receive are unfounded. Now this doesn't mean that unfounded= false. Most are the result of well-meaning, if mistaken people. Still, I don't think anyone would deny there are a substantial portion of "revenge" calls. Domestic violence: Probably around 9 percent of women and 2 to 4 percent of men are examples of real prolonged domestic abuse. That is, where the physical or mental violence is prolonged, consistent, and severe on the scales that are commonly used to measure such things. I speak not of the occasional bruising words, slammed doors, and mutual shoving that are often thrown into these stats by various advocacy organizations and government departments. Note also I said physical AND mental abuse; severe physical abuse is common enough to be a big problem but nowhere near as big as the inflated DV stats would have one believe. It seems to be about one half of one to two percent of couples. This MAY be also correlated with poverty and other stressors. Restraining order abuse: Somewhere around 25 to 50 percent according to whom you believe, unless you believe some of the feminist organizations in which case this never happens. I'm sure everyone remembers David Letterman having a RO taken out against him earlier this year or late last year by a woman in Texas who claimed he was mentally abusing her via psychic powers and that he would put messages in his show that only she could understand. Eventually it was quashed, but it shows just how easy these things are to get. Anyway, even if you disagree with my numbers here are lessons that every man and woman should come away with: Men: Somewhere around 1 to 2 percent of women you date will be crazy or dishonest enough to charge you with one of these three crimes. They may or may not bring this to the police; what they will do is tell their friends/family or your friends/family and maybe your boss as well. These women also tend to make multiple FA's: That is, look at our "victim" here. She had already accused 3 young black men of gang-raping her years ago. Then 3 young men from the Duke Lacrosse team. Gang rapes rare; gang rape white on black almost unheard of , and she accuses 3 players, none of whom have a repuation with the women in their lives for having sexual boundary problems. She's bad news. I think most false accusations are the result of a minority of women who offend repeatedly, same as most rapists tend to be multiple offenders. They can be hard to spot and/or avoid, and if you date enough you are bound to run into a few. Women: Same goes with abusive men. If you date alot you will run into severe abusers of some type or another probably 5 to 10 percent of the time. Unless you only chase "bad boys", in which case your odds are significantly increased. There aren't many male FA's of this or that, but they do exist, so beware of them as well. The system is a bit screwed up: I've started collecting any examples I can find of FA's being punished: such punishments are rare, in a year, I've only found 5 examples in the national/international press. Add to that the ever expanding definitions of sexual and physical abuse and it's a wild dangerous world out there, that many of you in long-term committed relationships can't really understand. Be thankful of what you have.As for me, if anyone's interested I'll post some links to some of the studies I referenced later tonight. I'm not really interested in debating rates though: I can guarantee we'd never convince each other and it would be a bit off-topic. Take this post for what it is worth: guestimates based on several y ears of reading studies and newspaper articles, debating, and living my own life and putting my personal experiences into a larger perspective. I also don't have time to do these long posts very often; as I'm sure some of you have guessed by my usually once or twice a day appearances. I just feel this needs to be put out for Lora to consider and to balance some of the stuff she's rather uncritically accepting her in class, and for the others on this board to consider to understand part of the strange new legal world we've created in family and sexual law over the last 40 years.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#283)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:20:42 PM EST
    Sorry about the doublepost, TL, and the waste of bandwidth. I wanted to delete the first one as it has too many spaces and wasn't formatted properly, but alas, I could not. If you wish to delete the earlier post and leave the long one I just posted, I'd appreciate it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#284)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    Khartoum, thanks. Kind of fuzzy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#285)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    Another clarification is that the 40 percent study was talking about ALL alleged rapes not multiple perp ones; my formatting problems today are driving me crazy :(

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#286)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    cib posted:
    Of course I do. They weren't waiting for evidence to come in. I did and it did.
    cib, the people who called Seligmann "rapist" had seen enough evidence, by their standard, to warrant their actions just like you've seen enough, by your standard, to warrant your own actions. cib posted:
    Cute. So why are you even here? A trial won't occur- assuming one even takes place- until spring of 2007.
    I didn't realize one had to offer up scenarios or draw a conclusion to as guilt or innocence to comment here. Maybe Talk Left can straighten that out for us. cib posted:
    And yet you've yet to reveal a good reason why DA might want to lie about the evidence he saw. Nor why we should trust IMHO's reading of the evidence more than DA.
    I don't know what you are talking about. What evidence did he lie about? cib posted:
    I make a comment that brings a smile to my face and laughter to my heart and from that single isolated comment you claim to know a universal truth about me. Considering you misread the intent of the comment in the first place, I'm afraid Dear IMHO, that you haven't pegged me at all. As for pegging you? I don't care.
    Calm down, cib. I told you, I doubt anyone cares if you find their choices to be denigrating or not. cib posted:
    I object to the idea that there exists an argument -with any decent probablility of being correct factually- that suggests there are any IMPORTANT facts in this case we do not know. Important being defined as pointing towards guilt or innocense. The lack of DNA, as I've said, is probative.
    You object to the idea that an argument exists that Dan Abrams may not be objective in what he thinks is important for us to know? Wow. And what of the 500+ pages he hasn't judged not damaging to the defense? You object to the idea an argument exists that there is anything damaging to the defense in that part of the discovery? cib posted:
    What evidence will it take for you to admit that the gang-rape accusation is false?
    If the prosecution lays out its case and it doesn't work with what we do know, that's all it would take. cib posted:
    And the second question: If the case is dismissed, will that be evidence enough?
    I would like to see the reasons for dismissal. Lewis Cheek could get elected and just drop the case. He need not justify it with anyone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#287)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    cib, Please tell me your cat wrote about the percentage of women you've dated that were crazy. Do you have a figure on the percentage of women you have dated that thought YOU were crazy?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#288)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    Funny imho, hahaha. Do you have a figure on the number of men you have dated, if you have in fact dated any, who you have driven to insanity or worse? Please include all male cats in this figure as well.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#289)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:19:45 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Funny imho, hahaha. Do you have a figure on the number of men you have dated, if you have in fact dated any, who you have driven to insanity or worse?
    Don't be jealous. I told you - you were the first.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#290)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:29:59 PM EST
    blockquote>cib, the people who called Seligmann "rapist" had seen enough evidence, by their standard, to warrant their actions just like you've seen enough, by your standard, to warrant your own actions. I wasn't aware, IMHO that all standards of evidence are the same. Apparently, their standard was that an accusation was made and that the alleged perps were white, male, and athletic. My standard, I'd say, is a bit higher. Indeed, you agree with it. I have yet to hear you deny that a gang rape, as described by the AV wouldn't leave DNA traces behind at the minimum. No traces were found, viola, my conclusion. Not hard, and certainly not unreasonable. I doubt you'd find a single forensic scientist at this point who thinks the gang-rape as described by the FA could have occured. And I'm sorry but I'll take forensic science over testimony and shifty DA's with confident smiles any day of the week.
    I didn't realize one had to offer up scenarios or draw a conclusion to as guilt or innocence to comment here. Maybe Talk Left can straighten that out for us
    Well apparently you just want to use this site to vent about something, as you keep insisting on seeing evidence that you know we almost certainly won't see till early 2007 at least. Must be fun to gripe and complain about it.
    I don't know what you are talking about. What evidence did he lie about?
    Oh, according to you, it seems, that evidence the defense showed him. Those 1300 pages that he said didn't help the prosecution's case. He seems impartial to me: Like me, he already changed his mind about this case once as more evidence came in. I don't see him wanting to get a rep as partial, nor as a stupid dumbass, so I just can't fathom why he would say what he did if it wasn't true.
    Calm down, cib. I told you, I doubt anyone cares if you find their choices to be denigrating or not.
    Other people have cared enough to put their two cents in about what they thought about my comment. And I appreciate the time they took and honesty they brought to the table. Too bad for you, they don't seem to feel like you do about my alleged disdain for stay at home parents.
    And what of the 500+ pages he hasn't judged not damaging to the defense? You object to the idea an argument exists that there is anything damaging to the defense in that part of the discovery?
    I said anything
    important There's a very slight chance, I suppose that some evidence exists that all 3 of the players indicted were indeed, at one point -for any length of time from one minute to 20- alone in the bathroom with the false accuser. Such evidence could potentially blow one or more of the alibi's out of the water. So? Let me put it to you in a real simple manner since you sometimes either ARE obtuse, or play obtuse. I consider you playing obtuse more likely as you do seem rather intelligent. Anyway there are two evidentary hurdles that together make it more likely that the moon is made of green cheese than that a gang rape could have occured, and even separate and isolated still provide more than reasonable doubt: A. Least important: Time stamped photos, computer records, atm machine records, dorm swipe cards. In short, the alibi's. B. Most important: Lack of DNA ON her or IN her. ANY DNA except her "boyfriends". So even if you somehow get the three indicted into the bathroom with her and for a long enough period of time for something to have happened you still have to explain what I shall now and henceforth refer to as "The Impossible GangRape". Dang, wish I knew how to put that little trademark symbol in :) I'll be dammned if I can see how anything can be left that would explain this lack of physical evidence, esp after two rounds of discovery, and esp with what NoDong has claimed in open court.
    If the prosecution lays out its case and it doesn't work with what we do know, that's all it would take. I'll hold you to that, if you are still around come trial time -assuming there IS a trial. Of course that means you are NiFart's mercy as he hasn't bothered to lay out one yet. Must be all the impressive hidden evidence he has is making him so confident, he just can't be bothered.
    I would like to see the reasons for dismissal. Lewis Cheek could get elected and just drop the case. He need not justify it with anyone.
    And what if he gets elected, looks into the case, and declares it the biggest pile of horse manure he's ever seen before dropping it. Would that be enough for you?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#291)
    by Alan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:31:06 PM EST
    imho concocted:
    Some commenters here are the accusers. They are accusing the woman who reported the rape of filing a false police report - a crime. They routinely referred to her as the FA [false accuser]. No one here refers to the players as "the three rapists."
    You have not answered my question about the authority for your proposition that 'the accused' means 'the indicted'. Your answer was always expected to be amusing. It is going to be even funnier now that you have used 'accusers' to mean something other than 'indictors'.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#292)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    IMHO:
    You object to the idea that an argument exists that Dan Abrams may not be objective in what he thinks is important for us to know? Wow.
    Is there any reason to suspect that Dan Abrams would've said that there's nothing more in the discovery file that helps the prosecutor's case even if he knew that weren't true? He'd have to be crazy to do that, as he'd consequently have egg all over his face once Nifong laid his cards on the table at the trial.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#293)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    cib posted:
    I wasn't aware, IMHO that all standards of evidence are the same. Apparently, their standard was that an accusation was made and that the alleged perps were white, male, and athletic. My standard, I'd say, is a bit higher.
    And mine is a bit higher than yours, that's all.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#294)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:39:28 PM EST
    IMHO
    imho has done her share off scrolling back and researching things others have asked for.
    Yes you have. Be careful with the 3rd person references, though. You're turning into Rickey Henderson (#5 is the most relevent).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#295)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    cib, Please tell me your cat wrote about the percentage of women you've dated that were crazy. Do you have a figure on the percentage of women you have dated that thought YOU were crazy?
    I don't have a cat, and, even if I did, cats can't type. I'm surprised Mommy or Daddy never told you that. Also, Santa doesn't exist, and it was someone in your family that put the money under your pillow when you lost those teeth. More to the point, I said 1 to 2 percent of women were either crazy enough or dishonest enough to make a false accusation and that, if you dated enough, you were bound to run into someone either abusive or crazy or dishonest. This applies to both sexes. I don't see anything controversial in my statment, and it does pass the test of r/l experience, so I'm sticking with it. By the way baby, don't listen to that NewPort guy anymore. He's the past. I'm just so "crazy" about you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#296)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:45:01 PM EST
    And mine is a bit higher than yours, that's all.
    I think the DNA is definitive. Go to any higher standard of evidence, and you might as well call God to the witness stand. But I'll leave it at that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#297)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:06:13 PM EST
    noname, the Ricky quotes were priceless. I always have been a Ricky fan.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#298)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    cib, I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but I'm a SAHM to two preschoolers. I didn't take offense at your comments. I understand that I have more flexibility re: internet access than most who work outside the home. I often post at unusual times because that is my schedule. It also means I'm not here all day, every day. I have other (read: more important) responsibilities.
    I don't deny your responsibilities are important. Thanks for understanding I meant no harm with my comment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#299)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    cib - I don't know how to do the trade mark, but copyright is Alt+0169 (type in the numbers while holding down Alt). © See?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#300)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:25:58 PM EST
    And, cib, re Nifong: don't forget, (and this is one of his worst violations, to me), that he basically denigrated and disparaged the players, called into question their innocence, because they wanted to have counsel present for any interviews. For a lay person to have the attitude that "if you are innocent, why do you need an attorney present?" is one thing, for one of the three supposed pillars of our criminal justice system to suggest such a thing is deplorabe.
    Yep, and very stupid as well. Standard advice from the ACLU is to always have an attorney present because the police are not your friends. If I had kids, and they were accused of this, even if I thought they were as innocent as Bambi before his mother was shot, I'd make sure they lawyered up. You can never be too careful when dealing with our criminal "justice" system. I hope you found my comment to IMHO re the imhorugrats and the couch funny or cute as I did. I didn't put it out there to disturb anyone. Too bad IMHO can't stand cuteness. She seems to prefer clever but bitter. By the way, you are one of the nicest posters here, and I often look forward to your posts. Speaking on a personal level.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#301)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:36:05 PM EST
    cib - I don't know how to do the trade mark, but copyright is Alt+0169 (type in the numbers while holding down Alt). © See?
    The Impossible GangRape© Thanks mik! :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#302)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:44:35 PM EST
    cib posted:
    By the way baby, don't listen to that NewPort guy anymore. He's the past. I'm just so "crazy" about you.
    Wow. That makes me 2/2. I'm batting 1.000 for driving men crazy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#303)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:46:14 PM EST
    to cib and mil google to the rescue again! How to use the ALT Keys Example: Alt 0169 = © or Alt 0174 = ® or Alt 0153 = ™

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#304)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:48:19 PM EST
    cib posted:
    By the way, you are one of the nicest posters here, and I often look forward to your posts. Speaking on a personal level.
    Oh, stop all ready. You're embarrassing me. Newport was much more discreet.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#305)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:54:18 PM EST
    noname, imho enjoyed the Rickey Henderson link.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#306)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:00:52 PM EST
    Alan posted:
    You have not answered my question about the authority for your proposition that 'the accused' means 'the indicted'.
    Your answer was always expected to be amusing. It is going to be even funnier now that you have used 'accusers' to mean something other than 'indictors'.
    I didn't say every use of the phrase "the accused" means anything, but even if I had how would that apply to the word "accusers?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#307)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:06:06 PM EST
    Lora: The paid sex is of course speculation. SomewhatChunky: Yes it is. Wild speculation. But there is this, for what it's worth. Here is says that a piece of paper was found in Ryan McFadyen's vehicle that said, "SUCKIE SUCKIE $5.00."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#308)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:20:20 PM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion July 5, 2006 05:48 PM cib posted: By the way, you are one of the nicest posters here, and I often look forward to your posts. Speaking on a personal level. Oh, stop all ready. You're embarrassing me. Newport was much more discreet.
    Ouch. I've been owned. Even though, you are aware, that comment was for SharonInJax? Hmm. What to say about IMHO? Here, I'll amend the sentence for you, IMHO darling. By the way, you are one of the ... posters here

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#309)
    by Lora on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    barry,
    Oh, Lora, no one has both women going back inside the house together, unless you count Bissey's statements to Rita in which he also said they arrived in a car together. But in his sworn affidavit, he only had the accuser entering the house.
    Bissey's own words, too. (Yet he has more credibility than the AV, even though when she tells the story in her own words, it's consistent with the search warrant?) In the affidavit, Bissey doesn't say Kim didn't enter the house, does he? He doesn't have her cooling her heels waiting for the AV. He said there was no one left in the alley. He had a good view of the car. If Kim stayed behind, he would have said something, or should have. Clearly it's important. cib, holy cow. Let me read.... I've heard that 1 in 4 women, and...1 in 7 men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. In my personal experience, when I took the class and told some of my friends, at least 2 spontaneously said, "Sexual assault? Unfortunately I know a few people who could help you out with information for you class." Sad, isn't it?
    Sexual abuse (sexual harrasment etc) Up to 50 percent false. Lots of real abuse goes on, conversely most of it isn't very serious.
    cib, (with apologies to Sharon) whose koolaid are you drinking? That is just outrageous, like most of your post. The only thing I can find there that I can agree with is that lots of real abuse goes on. I will grant you that there is a continuum of severity and harm done, but it takes its toll, often in a big way. And the "little stuff" serves to intimidate, bully, keep in one's "place," erode self-esteem and confidence. It is serious. And I have an easy definition of rape for you. No means no.
    ...put out for Lora to consider and to balance some of the stuff she's rather uncritically accepting her in class...
    child abuse: In PA 2004 substantiated reports from Children & Youth (class handout): sexual injuries: 4,562 Physical injuries: 2,087 perp = father: 1,150 perp = mother: 1,143 Chew on those stats. imho posted,
    Don't be jealous. I told you - you were the first.
    I told you imho was a guy! ;-)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#310)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:29:31 PM EST
    cib posted:
    By the way, you are one of the ... posters here
    *blush* *blush* That's better.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#311)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:30:38 PM EST
    I told you imho was a guy! ;-)
    hahaha.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#312)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:38:49 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    Yes it is. Wild speculation.
    fillintheblanks posted:
    But there is this, for what it's worth. Here is says that a piece of paper was found in Ryan McFadyen's vehicle that said, "SUCKIE SUCKIE $5.00."
    No wonder they were angry. $800 bucks buys a lot of SUCKIE SUCKIE in McFadyen's neighborhood.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#313)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:46:51 PM EST
    Still one of my all-time favorite South Park episodes. And thank you, cib, for your kind words. Not a bad on-base percentage, imho. Sharon thinks Rickey would be jealous. I must say, though, that you and Newport and cib would make a menage a strange. Lord, next thing we know, you will have bewitched and mesmerized Bob in Pacifica.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#314)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    David, You wrote:
    According to your statement your current belief is that the AV is more likely to be the one guilty of the crime. Since you also believe that the trial should go forward even if the prosecutor believes he can not win the case, I would suggest that a consistent position should have you banging the drums for the AV's indictment.
    Sophistry will get you nowhere. There are many consistent positions available, including mine. Had Nifong indicted the accuser for a false allegation, I would not object. He didn't. He is privy to knowledge from the police investigation that I am not. That's proper. So I'm content to wait for trial. Bringing charges against someone for a trial that one does not believe is winnable is not malicious prosecution, unless there is malice involved, I would think.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#315)
    by Lora on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:49:17 PM EST
    imho, Wait...Nifong was the first, not Newport! How quickly you forget, imho. And maybe you forget you posted that it was a same-sex marriage. (And yes I know you didn't specifically say YOU called it that, you sort of attributed it to whoever suggested you marry Nifong, but I know THAT person didn't call it a same sex marriage. Heh!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#316)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:58:17 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    And maybe you forget you posted that it was a same-sex marriage.
    Newport suspected I was married to Nifong. I then merely asked if same sex marriages were legal in N.C. You didn't think I was implying anything by that question, did you?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#317)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:00:15 PM EST
    OOPS! I meant Orinoco, not Newport! How did I ever confuse those two?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#318)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:04:17 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    sexual injuries: 4,562 Physical injuries: 2,087 perp = father: 1,150 perp = mother: 1,143
    Wow, this is almost like shooting clay pigeons. Pennyslvania has a population of approx 12 million of which to quote wikipedia: 23.8 percent were listed as under 18 thus making a total of approx 3 million children. So out of 3 million children approx 6500 had substantiated physical or sexual abuse against them for a staggering rate of approx one fifth of one percent. And you didn't bother to give me the number of unsubstantiated reports, which I assure you I can easily get you quotes from workers themselves that these approach fifty percent. Google is a wonderful thing, assuming I didn't save any to my hard drive when I've researched crap like this in the past. And you didn't give me the source material's origin. What study or state or federal department collected those stats? And I don't know the name of your university or the name of your class. I don't know the name of your professor or what he/she studied as a major, what journals he/she publishes in. When you first started posting this stuff I secretly suspected you were the professor him/herself. But you've shown remarkable navaite, and I doubt any professor would be able to resist using proper academic form and trying to convince me with a blitz of papers (some of whom I've probably already read, I doubt you can say as much). I have to wonder further about that course you are taking. Does it have a unit on the costs of false accusations? Does it include any investigation into the preschool ritual satanic abuse panic of the 1980's? Do you know who Dr. Elizabeth Loftus is, or anything about the False Memory Society, or heck, anything about the phenomenon of false memories? Does your course teach you anything about the politics behind many of our sexual laws and who wrote them? Are you ever given dissenting viewpoints? Ever heard of the Rind Study? Aware of how "statuatory rape" statutes vary by state and nation? Heck, these are a just a few questions I've come up with off the top of my head and I'd like to believe you are not as naive as you seem, but somehow I doubt it. By the way, I know a victim of a violent stranger rape. And I've been the victim of a false accusation myself (although it was only an accusation that I THREATENED to rape, and it only cost me a job that I wasn't planning on making a career of anyway) so I have some experience in the trenches from both sides of this issue. I doubt you can say the same. Which explains your almost desperate attempts to find someway, anyway, for the players to be guilty. I think this might be a good lesson to you and your class. As for studies and links and such: I think I will post a few tomorrow. I have no intention of debating you on this perse: If it's me versus you it will be a massacre and I'll feel real bad pounding you into the ground; if it's me vs your professor (assuming you get some one else involved) it will get long, involved, boring, and probably end up in a bunch of endless circle chasing. No, I'll put some dissenting views and contrasting stats up for you and everyone else and hope that someday you will overcome your ideological blinders and actually investigate this stuff more fully. Lesson one, lil one: This is a very contentious area. And yes, compared to me you probably are a little one: I'm 35, and if this is your first year in college you are probably around 20 to 22.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#319)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Lord, next thing we know, you will have bewitched and mesmerized Bob in Pacifica.
    I'll leave that to you, Sharon.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#320)
    by Lora on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:11:07 PM EST
    Newport suspected I was married to Nifong. I then merely asked if same sex marriages were legal in N.C. You didn't think I was implying anything by that question, did you?
    imho, I think you stated it more definitively than that...but I am way too lazy to look THAT post up (Did you? lol. I was wondering for a minute there if the cat had got your tongue.). It's all right, apparently just another of my wild speculations.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#321)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:15:49 PM EST
    cib, Not that it means anything, but I'd guess Lora is older than you are. cib posted:
    And I've been the victim of a false accusation myself (although it was only an accusation that I THREATENED to rape, and it only cost me a job that I wasn't planning on making a career of anyway) so I have some experience in the trenches from both sides of this issue.
    Someone told your prospective boss you threatened to rape her?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#322)
    by Alan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:17:03 PM EST
    imho expostulated: I didn't say every use of the phrase "the accused" means anything, but even if I had how would that apply to the word "accusers?" Did I say you had? Are you seriously contending that the meaning of 'accuser' and 'accused' vary except in the agentive/patientive aspect? Do you propose to answer the original questions?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#323)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#324)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:29:17 PM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion July 5, 2006 07:07 PM SharonInJax posted: Lord, next thing we know, you will have bewitched and mesmerized Bob in Pacifica. I'll leave that to you, Sharon.
    Ya know. Sniff. Breaks my heart to say it, but Bob really is your one and only true love, IMHO. No need to deny it anymore. I understand, darling. When he rejected you, your world fell apart. And I know that me and Newport together will never be in your heart one ten thousandth of what he was, and still is.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#325)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:33:51 PM EST
    Someone told your prospective boss you threatened to rape her?
    No. Coworker got pissed at me for basically refusing to do her job and mine, so she and one of her friends on another shift got together and said that. I didn't have the money or time to waste in court, and truth be told, I didn't much like the job, so I settled for a neutral reference and moved on. It taught me how easy these things are to get started and that a company will always value expedience over justice.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#326)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:34:24 PM EST
    PB posted:
    He [Nifong] is privy to knowledge from the police investigation that I am not.
    Perhaps you could share with us exactly what type of evidence this is. Are you suggesting that he hasn't turned over material to the defense?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#327)
    by weezie on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    Good Grief! What in the heck is going on here? You rascals had all better get off my lawn and get yourselves home. Silly lovesick puppies! Now can someone refresh my memory as to when the next real world legal action is scheduled to take place?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#328)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:42:06 PM EST
    Yeah, cib I've seen that sort of stuff happen before. A lot of it came about after the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and the Anita Hill accusations. A lot of work places set up sexual harrassment police that went around trying to sniff out and a lot of times fabricate sexual harrassment charges. It was a pretty pathetic time in the mid-90's. I have no personal experience with this, but I did know a few people that got accused of various bogus things. Even cursing could be turned into sexual harrassment. All that seems to have died down now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#329)
    by Lora on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:49:40 PM EST
    cib, I'm not giving out any identifying information about myself (that goes for you too, imho! btw, thanks for the link! And to answer your question...yup.) I don't have all day to look up a bunch of stats for you. The ones I gave you are from Children and Youth, the state of PA's child protective agency. And you'd have to multiply those numbers by 18 (years of childhood.) Then understand that just because a report is unsubstantiated doesn't mean it isn't true. And..yes, I know there are false reports. I worked on a crisis line and I took some. Mainly an ex trying to get the custodial parent into trouble. So I know it happens. (That's how I know that child protective agencies don't really care where the mom is or if she's out drunk or wherever as long as her kids are being looked after and taken care of.) Many cases are not even reported. I have personal knowledge of one. It would seem "minor" yet caused major havoc with the young person, including a psychiatric hospitalization, serious diagnoses and dangerous behavior, heavy duty medications and resultant serious health problems, social exclusion, taunting, isolation, family stigma...in short, several years of this young person's life were ruined due to a few non-violent ("fondling" type) incidents by a trusted family member. Yes, we read a whole book on traumatic memories and I learned about the False Memory Society. From what I learned the truth lies, not surprisingly, in the middle. There have been false memories and there have also been recovered substantiated memories. I am not desperate to find the players guilty. You misunderstand me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#330)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    Sorry weezie, I can't control them. I think July 10th for Finnerty in DC and July 17th for all three indicted players in Durham.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#331)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    Posted by khartoum July 5, 2006 07:34 PM
    PB posted:
    He [Nifong] is privy to knowledge from the police investigation that I am not.
    Perhaps you could share with us exactly what type of evidence this is. Are you suggesting that he hasn't turned over material to the defense?
    Since Nifong is alleged to have "directed" at least part of the police investigation, he must be privy to information that we are not. And since he was not required to turn over a lot of his notes about that, we never will be privy to it either, will we? Sorry, am I missing something obvious here?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#332)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:55:03 PM EST
    No.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#333)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:56:11 PM EST
    But he can't use it either, unless he wants to take the stand.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#334)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:01:43 PM EST
    Posted by Newport July 5, 2006 07:56 PM
    But he can't use it either, unless he wants to take the stand
    Meaning that he cannot use it in court, not that he cannot use it to prepare his case and know which avenues to avoid for example, right?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#335)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:05:55 PM EST
    cib posted:
    Ya know. Sniff. Breaks my heart to say it, but Bob really is your one and only true love, IMHO. No need to deny it anymore. I understand, darling. When he rejected you, your world fell apart. And I know that me and Newport together will never be in your heart one ten thousandth of what he was, and still is.
    I think the Kool-Aid reference has been replaced as rock bottom for a bad taste joke.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#336)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:07:11 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Meaning that he cannot use it in court, not that he cannot use it to prepare his case and know which avenues to avoid for example, right?
    Good point, SLO.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#337)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:09:56 PM EST
    Thank you, IMHO.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#338)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:10:39 PM EST
    weezie: is it time to turn the hose on them?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#339)
    by Lora on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    And cib, if you have a state with 67 counties and close to 6700 substantiated cases of child abuse in a year, that comes out to around 100 cases per county per year. Think about your county. You want, within a single year, 100 ++ ( add the ones we didn't hear about or couldn't prove) instances of abuse of children, the majority sexual abuse/assault, the majority done by their own parents, to have happened in your county?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#340)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:37:52 PM EST
    SloPhoto said,
    Meaning that he cannot use it in court, not that he cannot use it to prepare his case and know which avenues to avoid for example, right?
    Correct. If he had some investigative material in his notes that he wanted to use at trial he would have to waive the work product doctrine, produce the notes to the defense as part of normal discovery, and take the stand to testify himself. This is why DA's (and lawyers in general) let the police/investigators do the investigating because they don't want to get made into witnesses and have to deal with all the problems that come from that conflict of interest.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#341)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    Does anybody know anything about the ex-husband (the one Precious taught to read and the one she accused of trying to kill her in the woods) and the current 38 year old sperm donor boyfriend, Murchison, rotting in a Durham jail as we speak?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#342)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:04:07 PM EST
    Does anybody know anything about the ex-husband (the one Precious taught to read and the one she accused of trying to kill her in the woods) and the current 38 year old sperm donor boyfriend, Murchison, rotting in a Durham jail as we speak?
    I saw that elsewhere as well. Will try and find a link. Maybe Nifon needs them to testify.....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#343)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:04:56 PM EST
    Haven't heard a whiff of that, Newport. I'm still wondering if she is still out of touch with her family.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#344)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:08:05 PM EST
    Who owned the cell phone that was found in the yard and thought to belong to the FA?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#345)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:11:39 PM EST
    I think the charges on the ex-hubby are pretty serious. The boyfriend has a long criminal history and was apparently picked up around the time he became a witness. Nifungus has a habit of picking up every witness in the case. On the other hand, the DPD probably ran wants and warrants on these guys as they popped up and found outstanding warrants -- so they got popped. Everyone in this case, except Bissey and the FA herself, has been charged with something.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#346)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:17:23 PM EST
    My previous post said,
    If he had some investigative material in his notes that he wanted to use at trial he would have to waive the work product doctrine, produce the notes to the defense as part of normal discovery, and take the stand to testify himself.
    This assumes, of course, that he had no other sponsoring witness for the investigative material -- like a cop. Bottom line: if he wants to use some report or document at trial, he has to produce it. Add to this the fact that the police are supposed to record all their investigative activities and turn that material over to the DA for production to the defense, and you have a situation where there will be no trial by ambush -- the defense should have everything. That's the way it's supposed to work anyway.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#347)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:26:18 PM EST
    No wonder that fine paper the N&O hasn't done a long investigative piece on Murchison; Nifong has him tucked away at the iron bar hotel. I also wonder how Johnson, Taylor and Bunny Hole got through with warrant checks. I did hear Cheshire say, however, that he was shocked in the recent discovery to find out how much effort the DPD put into investigating the cabbie, while nothing was done to investigate the escort agencies. Nifungus is real worried about Seligman's alibi -- that's why he spontaneously burst into that unprofessional laugh at the first court hearing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#348)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:32:24 PM EST
    The local papers down there are really lame. They haven't done one single bit of investigative work on this case other than the pathetic interview with Taylor where they didn't nail down key facts. Why haven't they investigated the escort agencies, Johnson, Murchison, Cousin Jack, Aunt Shirlie, etc.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#349)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:35:15 PM EST
    Check out Johnsville's take on imho's buddy and perhaps alter ego "Orin Starn." The pathetic fool that she directed us to a few days ago.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#350)
    by weezie on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:37:16 PM EST
    N&O has always had an anti-Duke bias and the Herald Sun only slghtly less so. It might inflame the readership to cast any strong light into this mess, especially after both papers went head over heels when the story first broke.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#351)
    by weezie on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:41:55 PM EST
    Orin Starn also signed the "88" list of Duke professors. He comes across as a boob in the classroom, according to some kids I know who have had to suffer through his windbag presentations. Cultural anthropology is his gig. And no, that isn't a knock against cultural anthropologists if anyone finds offense.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#352)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:47:32 PM EST
    After reading this article, I will never give Duke University one single American dollar.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#353)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:50:12 PM EST
    Cultural anthropology? What the hell is that? What a joke. Try making a living at that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#354)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:02:01 PM EST
    Weezie, I am tearing up and throwing out some Duke solicitation that I got in the mail today right now as I speak. Tell your Duke buddies down there that they should be ashamed of their university for having people like the gang of 88 and Starn and Wood teaching young impressionable kids. No wonder so many kids come out of college brainwashed today. How do they avoid it?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#355)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:03:17 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Cultural anthropology? What the hell is that? What a joke. Try making a living at that.
    Margaret Mead did O.K. for herself.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#356)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:06:53 PM EST
    The only people down there with the balls to stand up against this railroading of their own students are a liberal African American law professor and Coach K? Disgraceful.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#357)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:07:57 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Weezie, I am tearing up and throwing out some Duke solicitation that I got in the mail today right now as I speak.
    You do know how to make me laugh, Newport.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#358)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:08:21 PM EST
    She's dead.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#359)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:13:27 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Check out Johnsville's take on imho's buddy and perhaps alter ego "Orin Starn." The pathetic fool that she directed us to a few days ago.
    hahaha. I have tears streaming down my face.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#360)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:43:03 PM EST
    OOPS! I meant Orinoco, not Newport! How did I ever confuse those two?
    Why was this person banned, what exactly did he do? He must have been a person of keen intellect from what I can tell.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#361)
    by january on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:17:11 PM EST
    Hey, Newport - Orinoco definitely shared some of your sentiments. He did not suffer fools gladly, however, and his remarks were less temperate than yours. That article you linked to was painful to read, but thanks. I'll remember it the nex time they call to ask me for money!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#362)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:47:42 PM EST
    SharoninJax:
    IF the "lineup" was only to identify witnesses,
    If you are referring to the viewing of photos on 4/4, the report states that it was being done INSTEAD of doing a line up.
    and to rule out those who the AV said weren't there, then why did not Nifong contact, individually, the players she said were there?
    Perhaps he tried to, or had already talked to some of them. If so, maybe the results are part of what is contained in the 1600+ pages the defense has not released.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#363)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:04:55 AM EST
    That's a really convincing argument Mr. P. The viewing of photo's wasn't a lineup because the DA said it wasn't. Is that the legal standard you go by!! LOL You definitely need more training and experience. Under your standard there would never be a "lineup" and the Constitutional protections attendant thereto because the police or DA could just say it wasn't a lineup or that they were just having an accuser look through a set of mug shots to see who was there. It's merely an "investigative tool" as one of your slightly smarter colleagues would say. Brilliant!! Mr. P's arguments have some congruence with rap albums. Gangsta Rapper's invariably rap on one or more of several never changing themes: making money, bagging on other rappers, abusing ho's, gettin drunk and high, and street violence. Every rap song draws its "lyrics" from some set of these themes. With Mr. P, the set of "themes" is even smaller. Those themes are: the defense hasn't released all the documents, the grand jury indicted so they must go to trial, every thing the DA has done is correct, or we just don't know. Mr. P is really a gangsta rapper as applied to the Duke case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#364)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:07:21 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica said:
    I remember months ago speculating about prostitution at the party. In fact, I presumed that the defense would have that as a fallback position and wondered why they claimed from the start that no sex happened there that night.
    If they had consensual sex with her, maybe they didn't want to risk being charged with soliciting a prostitute.
    Roberts sounded like she had had a long evening and wanted to get home and was stuck with trying to get rid of the drunk.
    Based upon her words, actions, and personal history, it sounds to me like Kim didn't want to be associated with a case in which there might be police involvement, for fear they'd come after HER.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#365)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:07:52 AM EST
    How's that for suffering fools, January!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#366)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:12:12 AM EST
    Mr. P teed up,
    If they had consensual sex with her, maybe they didn't want to risk being charged with soliciting a prostitute
    Right, they'd rather get hit with a first degree rape charge.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#367)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:15:16 AM EST
    Mr. P you should wait a little while before posting further, because if you don't, I'm going to make you into even more of a clown than you already are. I'm about to go to bed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#368)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:22:00 AM EST
    SharoninJax posted:
    I was not questioning whether or not the ESPN "eyewitness" was there at DMC, nor that he/she saw the AV. I was looking at the accuracy of that one descriptive comment and applying to the credibility of the rest of the report.
    Similarly to how one might look at an inaccurate statement on Officer Sutton's police report and wonder about the credibility of the rest of it?
    Do you really think the reporter would substitute "nightgown" for any of the other options you gave?
    Definitely possible, especially if he/she was disturbed by words such as "nightie" or "negligee". I've been paraphrased by reporters several times, and I've also had articles I've written slightly reworded by an editor. Generally, it is not enough of a difference to be outright FALSE, but sometimes is enough to be not quite completely accurate.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#369)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:32:01 AM EST
    Mr. P, I'll say one thing for you, you have no shame. Mr. P wrote:
    Similarly to how one might look at an inaccurate statement on Officer Sutton's police report and wonder about the credibility of the rest of it?
    Yes, Mr. P. that is an excellent rule of evidence. If there is one inaccuracy in Ms. Sutton's report the whole report is to be rejected. By this same rule of evidence you will, no doubt, have rejected the FA's entire story based on a single inaccuracy like perhaps the number of attackers? Have you called for dismissal of the indictments on these grounds? Mr. P continued:
    I've been paraphrased by reporters several times, and I've also had articles I've written slightly reworded by an editor
    Would that be for the Journal of Abnormal Psychology MAGAZINE?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#370)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:35:23 AM EST
    All right Mr. P, enough for tonight. I'll let others handle you tomorrow. They'll probably be more gentle and sensitive.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#371)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:47:39 AM EST
    Khartoum, You wrote:
    Perhaps you could share with us exactly what type of evidence this is. Are you suggesting that he hasn't turned over material to the defense?
    I haven't seen the medical reports, the interviews with the captains, or the interviews with the accuser, except for what is in the transcription of that Powerpoint presentation. Have you? I've actually seen very few police reports. Actually, if you add up the number of pages I've seen from the 1800+ pages of discovery it probably amounts to less than 2%, all selected prejudicially by people with a vested interest in the outcome of the case. That's not much for me to build a credible story from.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#372)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 04:29:17 AM EST
    Newport, january, and others - I returned my annual Duke pledge card with $0 and a note that I needed to see 88 very public apologies, as well as apologies from certain Administrators and groups for their apparent rush to judgment before I would send any cash. Instead, I sent the cash to the Duke lax defense fund (found at Friends of Duke University website).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#373)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 04:49:50 AM EST
    khartoum said:
    There are federal rules of procedure in this country--which, believe it or not, even apply in North Carolina--that deem it improper for police to question targets of an investigation they know to be represented by counsel outside the presence of counsel. That's what occurred here.
    None of the players had been charged. The police are free to attempt to interview any person relevant to an alleged crime, whether or not he/she is represented by an attorney. The defense doesn't have to like that, and is free to advise their clients not to speak to police without counsel present. The witnesses are free to refuse to talk to police about the case until/unless they are subpoenaed to testify. Duke Police were notified before Durham Police approached the residence hall or students, and Duke University encouraged EVERYONE with information to cooperate with the police.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#374)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 05:03:45 AM EST
    Khartoum posted:
    Quite so, and comment 6 of Rule 4.2(a) holds the following: "When communicating with the accused in a criminal matter,
    None of the players were "the accused" at the time of the questioning. The legal definition of "accused" is a person charged with a crime.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#375)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 05:19:19 AM EST
    These two by Mr. P are real gems. Mr. P playing lawyer in a very complicated area that he knows nothing at all about. The first one above is interesting, because he appears to have parroted some of what I wrote yet still managed to not quite get it right. The second is even more amusing because he is parroting imho's rebuttal to Khartoum and Coyote99 of a few days ago seizing on a tortured definition of "accused." Of course this was not the revelant issue regarding the applicability of the ethical rule raised by Coyote99, but Mr. P has no way of knowing that, he just saw that imho wrote it and parroted it back. What an amazing case study this Mr. p.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#376)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 05:21:28 AM EST
    Ha, Mr. P. you thought I went to bed didn't you? But, I came down to get a drink and saw that you were at it again. So remember I am watching you and waiting, waiting to turn you inside out.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#377)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 05:29:37 AM EST
    You are a good man Sundance. Now, back to bed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#378)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 05:36:01 AM EST
    SharoninJax said:
    Lest ye forget: Florida judge just had to throw out a confession by a child rapist/murderer because of that pesky right to counsel part of the constitution.
    Couey's confession was thrown out because he had ALREADY been ARRESTED, and his repeated requests to consult with a lawyer were ignored by police. No Duke players had been arrested at the time of the attempted interviews.
    What if one of the guys they were talking to fell to his knees, overcome by guilt and shame, and confessed all?
    The players are free to disregard their attorneys' advice to refuse to speak to the police, if they wish.
    They were interviewing him, in his home, without his counsel present, even though they knew he had retained counsel.
    The players, choosing to follow the advice of their attorneys, refused to talk to the police, as is their right.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#379)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 05:57:06 AM EST
    Fahrenam asks:
    Now wait a minute, Lora. You don't think it's odd that Nifong refused to look at ANY information on alibis for these players? If you don't think it's odd, you are th eonly one. On every talk show even the DAs that still support Nifong think that was an odd move. They ALL say they take every opportunity possible to meet with defense lawyers and subjects when it is offered to them. Nifong's refusal to hear any alibi information is criminal and stupid in my book.
    Has Nifong SAID that he refuses to look at any information on alibis, etc., or are you making that assumption based upon the Defense's claims?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#380)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:00:35 AM EST
    Nifong didn't say "Mail it me first and we'll meet next week." He simply refused to hear what they had to say.
    Please give your source where Nifong himself said he refused to hear what they had to say. Thanks in advance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#381)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:06:38 AM EST
    Newport posts:
    For those interested, here is a fairly good discussion of what constitutes a custodial interrogation and what Constitutional rights of the accused are triggered in such a situation. Here.
    Thanks for the link. Some might also want to check out the legal definition of "accused": The generic name for the defendant in a criminal case. A person becomes accused within the meaning of a guarantee of speedy trial only at the point at which either formal indictment or information has been returned against him or her, or when he or she becomes subject to actual restraints on liberty imposed by arrest, whichever occurs first.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#382)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:17:50 AM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion says:
    They thought I'd given up posting as you.
    LOL. I'll try to post Official Notice next time I go on vacation for a few days, so they won't get their hopes up unnecessarily. Y'know, when you think about it, it IS pretty amazing that there are TWO separate people with internet access in a city of 200,000 or so. I can see why they'd be confused. ;)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#383)
    by weezie on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:27:29 AM EST
    The Duke Annual Fund is well aware of the anger out there in alumni land. Things originally flared up back in the early spring when a senior female appeared on Oprah discussing her sex addiction. No, not a very good year for the Devilnation. But, I know, this is not pertinent to the ongoing legal hairsplitting here ;-), and boy are you folks masters of the universe on that one!!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#384)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:35:01 AM EST
    MrPrecedent, Your posts about the definition of "accused" amount to didactic quibbling or glorified obfuscation. It's reminiscent of Bill Clinton's, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." The point is that Nifong crossed an ethical line in his statements to the press during the first weeks of this case's notoriety. Essentially, he indicted and accused the entire white population of the lacrosse team during those early, career-enhancing, intoxicating days. The donkey was guilty, he said, and all that remained was to pin a tail on it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#385)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:37:13 AM EST
    weezie: "masters of the universe" they may be, but are they "masters of their domain"?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#386)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:40:59 AM EST
    Mr. P: the definition of "accused" you cited is interesting, but did you read it yourself? I draw your attention to the words "a person becomes accused within the meaning of a guarantee of a speedy trial . . . In other words, that definition is explicitly for use in that context. Damn, weezie, now I'm doing it too. Enough on that relatively minor issue.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#387)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:28:51 AM EST
    Wrong Mr. P. Accused is not is narrow is you hope. Try this on for size since you are a student of the law. From the famous Miranda decision in 1966:
    "the prosecution may not use statements ... stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed."
    The warning Chief Justice Earl Warren referred to is now called the Miranda Warning, and is delivered by police before interrogations. Justice Warren's use of accused in the context of the above statemnet clearly contemplates preindictment "accusations" such as the "accusation" the police make when they take someone into custody. You continue to bat 0 here Mr. P. I was very disturbed to hear that you poped back up merely because you had gone on vacation. I thought somewhatchunky's seance had raised you from the dead, but alas I was wrong. You are now forgiven somewhatchunky.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#388)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:31:09 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky posts:
    Some arguments are not worth discussing. Mr. P's take on the photo lineup is one of them.
    It is thoughtful of you to let us know that your comments will be limited. By all means, save your energy for posting more about Kool-aid instead.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#389)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:34:23 AM EST
    when a senior female appeared on Oprah discussing her sex addiction.
    I would have liked to see that one. I can only imagine what she looked like. Do tell Weezie.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#390)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:41:18 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky continues:
    Maybe you could learn a little about proper lineup procedures before wasting TL's bandwidth.
    The recommendations made herein are not intended to create, do not create, and may not be relied on to create, any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Jurisdictional or logistical conditions may preclude the use of particular procedures. a) Lineups should be presented sequentially (individuals or photos are shown to the witness one at a time) rather than simultaneously. b) The individual conducting the photo or live lineup should not know the identity of the actual suspect. c) Witnesses should be instructed that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup. d) A minimum of eight photos should be used in photo identification procedures. e) A minimum of six individuals should be used in live identification procedures. f) Witnesses should not receive any feedback during or after the identification process. g) Witnesses should be asked to give feedback in their own words regarding their level of confidence in their identification.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#391)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    Somewhatchunky did not post anything on Kool-aid at all that I can recall.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#392)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:20:42 AM EST
    cib guesses:
    Mr P, or whoever you are behind your sock-puppetry:
    No sock-puppetry here. The internet is accessible all over Durham, so, believe it or not, like it or not, more than one resident can participate in online discussions. We have electricity and indoor plumbing here, too.
    I'd say that 2 out of the 3 men she chose from her roulette deck have strong alibis. Thus effectively blowing this case out of the water.
    Well, if you end up on the jury then they'll only have 11 more people to convince. They probably do have strong alibis according to the Defense's timeline and interpretation of events. This should not surprise anyone. If their alibis remain strong against the Prosecution's timeline and the other 1600+ pages of evidence, then surely they will be acquitted. Isn't America wonderful?!?
    It's very hard to absolutely proove you weren't anywhere unless you happen to have receipts or some time-stamped photos.
    The Defense has claimed they HAVE receipts and time-stamped photos, even though they don't have to prove anything. So what's the problem?
    Most people don't have receipts or time stamped photos for most parts of their days.
    Most people aren't being tried for the rape of this woman. The only ones who'd need to worry about coming up with an alibi for half an hour of time are the three who've been accused.
    More to the point, a good defense lawyer doesn't just try one strategy.
    He certainly shouldn't if he wants to win the case.
    The lawyers for 2 of the three that we know of are claiming their clients couldn't have been there during the time frame when a rape would have occured; this isn't made any easier by Nifong's refusal to provide the defense the prosecution's timeline.
    If they are innocent and have alibis, it doesn't matter what the Prosecution's timeline is. The Defense seems to think it has offered the only possible timeline. If so, they have nothing to worry about.
    By the way, did you forget that Reade S said "I'm glad they picked me", as he felt he had an airtight alibi? Those confident words aren't the words of a criminal.
    Plenty of criminals confidently claim they are innocent and will be exonerated before they're sent off to prison. Were you expecting Seligmann to speak unconfidently and behave as if he was guilty instead?
    Anyway, I suggest you get off your lazy trollish butt and google NC line up procedures so you'll know more about what you are talking about the next time you pull some bile out of your butt.
    I don't need to Google them. I have regular access to them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#393)
    by Alan on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:21:17 AM EST
    MrPrecedent forgot to post: Recommendations For Eyewitness Identification
    f) If there is more than one suspect that fits the description of the perpetrator, there can be more than one suspect in the lineup; however the number of fillers should be increased to a minimum of seven (or five for live lineups) per suspect. Whether to include one suspect and seven fillers per line-up, or to include more than one suspect and increase the number of fillers to keep the proportion of suspects to fillers constant at 1 to 7, is a discretionary decision. By keeping the proportion of fillers to suspects constant, the reliability of the identification remains constant.
    No-one ever said these guidelines are intended to create, do create, or may be relied on to create, any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nifong's departure from them will, all the same, raise serious questions about the reliability of his procedures and the weight the lineup should bear as evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#394)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:26:40 AM EST
    From thinkandtype:
    Most accounts of the nails in this case describe them as the former. I've never seen anything that would indicate they were the latter.
    Do you recall WHERE or FROM WHOM you heard them described as the former?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#395)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    Glad to see, Mr. P, that you are accepting and going forward with the thirty minute time frame. Interesting, because of all the statements by the AV, that is the one I am most willing to cut her some slack about. Also, to clear up a couple things: 1. It was I who expressed dislike of the "drinking the kool aid" phrase, for the reasons stated. I understand that it is part of the modern vernacular, but I took advantage of this forum to explain why I find it offensive. 2. I was way off about the legalities of the DPD attempting to interview some of the players. My ConLaw professor would be very unhappy with me forgetting the custodial aspect of the argument. However, I still maintain that it was one more example of the way Nifong and the DPD have gone against standard, or at least accepted, procedures. And as a side note, is Mr. P suggesting that imho lives in Durham? Are we back to worrying about packs of coyotes roaming between East and West Campus?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#396)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:37:30 AM EST
    The definition of "the accused" discussion is in relation to when the ethical guidelines were triggered. You are never going to find a definition that encompasses unnamed suspects.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#397)
    by january on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    How's that for suffering fools, January!
    Measured and temperate, Newport! ;-)
    I returned my annual Duke pledge card
    Good idea, Sundance - will definitely contribute to the lax defense fund. Mr. P, I can't figure out for the life of me what the point of your 10:20 post was...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#398)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:45:18 AM EST
    I still think MR P's is IMHO sockpuppet. He/she seems sensitive to that claim. A surprising command of the facts for one who asks such absurd questions. I found it hard to believe the naive lineup questions right after we had discussed this at length. I think you'll recall the surprising similarities between both posting styles, quantities and off-hour times when this was first pointed out. I often found the wee AM hour exchanges where they patted each other on the back cute. Of course, all that changed once observed. And how did Mr. P know where IMHO lives? Both seem to have the same motive - to annoy and tweak others, rather than have a theory of the case. With no news, there isn't much that IMHO hasn't discussed. But Mr. P can reopen everything. Even come at it from a uneducated or different point of view. The tweaking can start anew.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#399)
    by Alan on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    Both seem to have the same motive - to annoy and tweak others, rather than have a theory of the case. With no news, there isn't much that IMHO hasn't discussed. But Mr. P can reopen everything. Even come at it from a uneducated or different point of view. The tweaking can start anew.
    Let's not get into this. TL's said that imho's identity is off topic. I'd be unsurprised if MrP and imho are the same posters or different posters. Either way, let's focus on their arguments. There's already enough tauroscatology on this thread without adding another layer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#400)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:06:13 AM EST
    weezie said:
    Entirely superfluous, I know, but I'm scared for the players. And for the life of me, I cannot connect how, if the players are being falsely accused, a positive outcome proving their innocence should be seen as a threat to other legitimate rape victims.
    A Not Guilty verdict isn't proof of innocence.
    Several posters have bemoaned how this case will cause other rape victims to hesitate to come forward but if there was no rape at the lax party, how could this deter women from demanding justice in the future?
    Rape victims in Durham (and possibly elsewhere) will likely be afraid to report their assaults in the future because of the frenzied REACTION of the public and press in this case, NOT because of the true/false details of the case itself. How is another victim to know whether SHE might be the NEXT woman accused of lying? Would YOU want your, your daughter's, sister's, girlfriend's, wife's, or mother's assault and character detailed on every front page and discussed on the national news - or to have reporters camped outside your home demanding to know intimate details and family history - even if you/she was telling the truth? I wouldn't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#401)
    by Alan on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:22:22 AM EST
    MrP fulminated:
    How is another victim to know whether SHE might be the NEXT woman accused of lying?
    Perhaps by telling the truth?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#402)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    Alan:
    tauroscatology
    Never heard that one, but laughing my a** off now that I have. Thanks for the chuckle.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#403)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    Mr. P, you said, in part:
    Would YOU want your, your daughter's, sister's, girlfriend's, wife's, or mother's assault and character detailed on every front page and discussed on the national news - or to have reporters camped outside your home demanding to know intimate details and family history - even if you/she was telling the truth? I wouldn't.
    Of course not, but if she were telling the truth, then the tide of public opinion would, as information supporting her story came out, return back to a dissection of the potential suspects and/or accused. But change the perspective of your question: if YOU, or a loved one, were a Duke lacrosse player, would you want that same treatment? How would you feel about that? Do you think the scrutiny they have been given is fair?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#404)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    Sundance posted:
    I returned my annual Duke pledge card with $0 and a note that I needed to see 88 very public apologies, as well as apologies from certain Administrators and groups for their apparent rush to judgment before I would send any cash. Instead, I sent the cash to the Duke lax defense fund (found at Friends of Duke University website).
    How about some very public apologies from the three captains who hosted the party, and the fourth captain if he was involved, the broomstick jokester and the player who made "cotton shirt" remark? It seems these guys' behavior led to the situation that is costing Duke University a whole lot of alumni dollars to go along with the decrease in number of top candidates that accepted Dukes offer to enroll for the coming semester. Thanks, guys.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#405)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    Alan posted:
    Let's not get into this. TL's said that imho's identity is off topic.
    Yet, the fascination continues...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#406)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 11:18:10 AM EST
    IMHO posted:
    How about some very public apologies from the three captains who hosted the party, and the fourth captain if he was involved, the broomstick jokester and the player who made "cotton shirt" remark?
    They don't compare. None are abnormal behavior. Those actions might not be how adults normally should act, but lots of things college kids do fall into that category. The broomstick remark (whatever it was) was a tasteless crude joke. The cotton shirt remark was reported to be part of a two way series of insults. It's disingenuous of AV supporters to try and equate the these actions with the actions of the AV. So is the complaining about underaged drinking. All of those crtics must have led the lives of a saint. And none of the lax players actions should have led to this situation. If we were discussing a murder, instead of a false accusation, would that be their fault as well? At what point does someone have to be held accountable for their own criminal actions?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#407)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    The definition of "the accused" discussion is in relation to when the ethical guidelines were triggered. You are never going to find a definition that encompasses unnamed suspects.
    This, dear madame, is a ridiculous comment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#408)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    Somewhat Chunky As you say, and as Cheshire said at the Evans conference and as anyone with teenaged children who listen to rap music knows, unforgivably racist things are said all the time rapped all the time, sung all the time mostly by people who you'd think would want to avoid racist talk. On that topic, related to Finnerty, politically correct or not, if you haven't been around high school or college kids in a while, you may not know how common it is to say about someone "you are so gay" or "that is so gay." It's not pretty but it's utterly common among people of a certain age group, who have, btw, more tolerance for people who really are gay than most adults who refrain from talking that way. People talk ugly, as my mother used to say. It's not pleasant but it's not a crime, and mostly what happens is that people talk ugly back.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#409)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 11:39:05 AM EST
    The only people the three captains (or is it 4) should be apologizing to for their terrible lapse in judgment in having a stipper party at their house and allowing themselves to be set up, are the three wrongly indicted and persecuted players. That would be a very private apology and I suspect it has happened many times. They owe no other agologies and they sure as hell don't owe the public an apology for a broomstick comment and a lame racist insult hurled in response to other racist insults. If you want people to start publically apologizing for that sort of stuff you need to see a proctologist to have some extractive work done.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#410)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    Alan, I like the word fulminate and tauroscatology too. Never heard of either one, although I had a pretty good idea on tauroscatology. I am going to start using it soon. You are the master of vocabulary.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#411)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:37:30 PM EST
    Mr P, you asked about Nifong refusing to meet with defense attorneys about alibis. The following is from a Newsweek article:
    On April 18, when the two players were arrested and charged with rape and kidnapping and more vaguely defined sexual offenses, Seligmann's lawyer, Kirk Osborn, went to Nifong's office to try to speak to him. "I thought, 'Surely he'll talk to me'," said Osborn, who has known Nifong for 25 years. But after Osborn had waited for 20 minutes, Nifong's assistant emerged with a message, according to Osborn: "Mr. Nifong says that he saw you on TV declaring your client totally innocent, so what is there to talk about?"
    I'm not sure what the defens attorneys would gain from lying about this. Nifong, of course, has refused to comment on whether he has met with defense attorneys.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#412)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    Didn't realize you are a fellow Duke alum, imho. If you are not, I do not think you should presume to tell those of us who are where we should aim our displeasure about this case. Once again you seem to be blaming the players for being accused and making Duke "look bad," and not the more culpable parties who clearly have agendas of their own. I echo the comments of SomewhatChunky, localone, and Newport. Should some of the behavior of the players be condemned? Most certainly, but is it a systemic, endemic problem at Duke? I doubt it, and expect the behavior in question could be found in any college or university in the country. But if my son were going to be attending Duke next fall, and playing a sport there, I would be far, far, FAR more concerned with the reaction of the administration, and too large a segment of the faculty, who were so quick to believe the worst of these students, their students. Even McFayden with his unfortunate attempt to channel the culture of American Psycho (he should have stuck to South Park for his material) was summarily judged and sent home without, it seems to me, following Duke's normal student court procedures. All I can hope is that when this case is finally heard, there will be some very public apologies, as Newport said earlier.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#413)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:47:30 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    The only people the three captains (or is it 4) should be apologizing to for their terrible lapse in judgment in having a stipper party at their house and allowing themselves to be set up, are the three wrongly indicted and persecuted players. That would be a very private apology and I suspect it has happened many times. They owe no other agologies and they sure as hell don't owe the public an apology for a broomstick comment and a lame racist insult hurled in response to other racist insults. If you want people to start publically apologizing for that sort of stuff you need to see a proctologist to have some extractive work done.
    Their actions that night hurt a lot more people than the three indicted players. The "Hey, b!tch thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt" will be associated with Duke University for a very long time. Its ugliness runs deep. Sundance is calling for a "very public" apology from the faculty and administration, yet you think the trangressions of the players only require "very private" apologies? Face it. Duke has been publically shamed and knocked down a notch in the eyes of many. Alumni dollars may be down for a while and the caliber of the incoming freshman class is not what it would have been. The players' behavior set the whole fiasco into motion. They owe plenty of people apologies. THE DAMAGE DONE
    It got worse. On April 10 Pressler's daughter flew back into Durham. She had grown up with the team -- "my boys," she called them -- and had an eight-year-old's certainty that the family would stay in Durham forever. Hadn't they just put an addition on their house? The grass hadn't even grown in yet.
    Pressler told her, "Daddy's going to have to move on. I'm not going to coach your boys. But I promise you, your life won't be affected, you can go to all your camps in the summer." She asked if she could have a boat if they move near the water, a horse if they move out West. She asked about friends. "Your friends will always be your friends," Pressler told her. "We'll visit them, they'll visit you. But guess what? You're going to have another group of friends. So...."
    Her lip began to quiver. He felt his eyes sting. Daddy spoke softly, trying hard not to crack.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#414)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:56:01 PM EST
    I don't know IMHO, according to this report, things still look pretty good at Duke, just a tiny drop in yield of students
    Even after weeks of relentless media coverage of the Duke men's lacrosse scandal, the university has managed to enroll the most competitive class on record for the fall -- though the percentage of students who accepted Duke's offer dropped a bit, according to a status report on admissions.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#415)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:57:09 PM EST
    sorry, there was a url for that: http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/443211.html

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#416)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    On April 18, when the two players were arrested and charged with rape and kidnapping and more vaguely defined sexual offenses, Seligmann's lawyer, Kirk Osborn, went to Nifong's office to try to speak to him. "I thought, 'Surely he'll talk to me'," said Osborn, who has known Nifong for 25 years.
    Was Seligmann with Osborn?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#417)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    imho: you said, in part:
    and the caliber of the incoming freshman class is not what it would have been.
    I think it's too early for you or anyone to know that. I understand that some kids (excuse me, men and women) who were accepted decided not to attend. That happens every year, at every school, even the most elite ones, but their overall freshpersons profile is little changed. And I find your sudden sympathy for Pressler and his family remarkable. But even he does not seem to blame his players for what happened to him. That fault lies squarely at the feet of those who hired, and then fired, him. The "fiasco" as you called it did not start with the party. It started when the AV decided to claim that she was raped. Everything else that the players did would not have mattered, would never have become an issue, had she not made that claim. And even if she had, the next blameworthy person is Nifong, the ringmaster (more Gollum allegory) of this circus.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#418)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:02:11 PM EST
    imho:
    The definition of "the accused" discussion is in relation to when the ethical guidelines were triggered. You are never going to find a definition that encompasses unnamed suspects.
    You are right in that no definition of accused is going to encompass unnamed suspects, probably because the group that drew up the guidelines didn't envision a prosecutor who would claim that slandering all suspects and making inflamatory statement prior to indictment was ok as long as you stopped after indictment. You are also probably right in assuming that Nifong will face no sanctions from the NC bar or anyone else in NC. Afterall the NC judicial system is ranked 50th out of 51st by halt.org in terms of what we might broadly called 'fairness' which include things such a sanctions against 'bad lawyers'. In a state where ethics actually mattered, I contend that he would be disbarred and with good reason. Refusing to meet the defense attorneys willing to proffer important evidence in a felony case should be prima facie evidence of gross misconduct. His forty hours of playing to the press would be another. His statements could have and should have been limited to about two lines. We have a citizen that has alleged a crime, and it is under investigation. At such time that the investigation reveals sufficient evidence to go forward with an indictment we will do so. Nifong is an employee of the citizen's of NC. Let's assume for the moment that you were the CEO of NC and had complete hiring and firing authority. If your employee was Nifong, would he still have his job? Nifong's real troubles are much more likely to arise from a civil action of malicious prosecution. I doubt your theory that the prosecutor can slander all potential suspects up until the time of identification/indictment will fly. Along the same lines, I would expect Nifong be eliminated from the prosecution by the defense lawyers. Since many of his statement prior to indictment, directly contradicted known statements by the AV. I would think that the defense would want to call him as a witness to clear this up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#419)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    The "Hey, b!tch thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt" will be associated with Duke University for a very long time.
    Is this a fact, or something "we just don't know?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#420)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    IMHO wrote,
    Their actions that night hurt a lot more people than the three indicted players. The "Hey, b!tch thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt" will be associated with Duke University for a very long time. Its ugliness runs deep.
    Your ugliness runs deep for making such a statement. The only people hurt by the players actions that night were the players themselves. If that stupid cotton shirt comment is the worst thing ever said by a Duke student in an argument I can live with that. I cannot, however, live with the actions of the faculty in this case. Not a single undergraduate professor standing up against this travesty? That is unpardonable. At this point, I don't care if Duke University loses some ground and it drops out of the top 5 universities based on this incident because it revealed for all the world to see that the faculity of Duke University is undeserving of a parent's trust in placing their young men and women under their care. If I had children, I can assure you they would not be going to Duke University and/or Durham for their education based on what I have seen.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#421)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    In 2001, when the Princeton Review ranked Duke as the least tolerant of gays, Franek said the university took action. That included distributing thousands of T-shirts with the slogan "Gay? Fine by Me." Even the university president wore one.
    Maybe Finnerty should where one of these to his July 10th court appearance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#422)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    Sorry, in my not so humble opinion, I forgot the coach. Yes the team owes him a huge apology and I expect that it has been given more than any of us will ever know. His unjust firing was another true trajedy of this event.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#423)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    If that stupid cotton shirt comment is the worst thing ever said by a Duke student in an argument I can live with that.
    Minimize it all you have to to live with it, but in my ever so humble opinion, it is incredibly ugly. At least Devon Sherwood and his parents, both Duke Alums, know what type of things they can expect to be said when he leaves the room. Nice.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#424)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    His unjust firing was another true trajedy of this event.
    His "boys" let him down and forced him to let his daughter down.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#425)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:25:51 PM EST
    to David in Connecticut, I agree with your post. I would add the simple fact, however, that members of a readily identifiable known group, i.e., the Duke LAX team, were "accused" by the DA Nifong of commiting a horrible crime before any indictments were handed down. There is nothing in the ethical rule that limits the definition of an "accused" person to be one that has actually been indicted. That is utter nonsense.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#426)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    Minimize it all you have to to live with it
    I don't have to minimize it one single bit to live with it. I live in the real world, not your bubble of political correctness where you walk around on eggshells to avoid offending someone. Maybe you never come out of your house or maybe you limit your contact with the real world to Russian tea houses in San Francisco, I don't know. But in the real world, people don't get real worked up about insults in an argument. They are common. They are normal. Especially a trading of insults, and especially a trading of insults after two strippers have completely ripped off the people throwing the insults.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#427)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    There's a kind of Maoist self-confession mode to imho today. The lacrosse players have been punished extraordinarily for the acknowledged "crime" of holding a party and having one of the 46 players on the team issue a racially charged taunt in response to a racially charged taunt from Kim R.--their season was cancelled, many lost summer of full-time jobs, all their parents faced at least $12,000 in legal bills. Perhaps, for imho, this isn't punishment enough. But I can't think of any group that's ever been punished more for one racially charged taunt. On the other hand, the 88 faculty remain in their places and have faced no sanction. I'd settle for a private apology from even 10 of the 88 to the lacrosse players. Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing one. Mr. P earlier today was reminding us that the Actual Innocence Commission guidelines carry no legal weight. The Durham Police's own guidelines, however, do: the police department has a photo ID policy that resembles the AIC guidelines, except for it requires five filler photos for every suspect, not seven.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#428)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    There is nothing in the ethical rule that limits the definition of an "accused" person to be one that has actually been indicted. That is utter nonsense.
    There is nothing in the ethical rules that extends the accused to unnamed suspects.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#429)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    imho: more concern for another person connected to Duke lacrosse, this time Sherwood and his family. Considering the positions you have taken, and your comments about Duke, I doubt they would appreciate your using them to promote your way of thinking in this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#430)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    khartoum posted:
    But I can't think of any group that's ever been punished more for one racially charged taunt.
    A fair summation of their trangressions. hahaha.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#431)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    fahrenam: don't bother imho with facts, like the one you cited about Duke's Class of 2010. She, like her hero Nifong, seems to want to be able to continue to say "we just don't know" when the truth does not fit her hypotheses or opinions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#432)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:38:25 PM EST
    There is nothing in the ethical rules that extends the accused to unnamed suspects.
    Exactly, now you are getting it. And it will not be for you or Nifong to figure this out. It will be up to the state bar which I presume does not include you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#433)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    Guttentag could not be reached for comment Wednesday, and Duke is still crunching the numbers. But in a memo to Duke Provost Peter Lange, Guttentag wrote that despite Duke's overall success in attracting top applicants, the lacrosse situation may have had some impact. So far, there is a 5 percent decrease in both white and black students accepting Duke's offer but no drop in the percentage of Hispanic or Asian students.
    And so, this year, Duke will be taking about 125 more students from its waiting list of 900.
    So an EXTRA 125 students that the Duke admission process deemed "better and brighter" than those placed on the waiting list, decided to go elsewhere.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#434)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Exactly, now you are getting it. And it will not be for you or Nifong to figure this out. It will be up to the state bar which I presume does not include you.
    No named suspects. That will make for a great civil case. hahaha.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#435)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    Somebody should post up the story about how nicely the white members of Duke lax team treated Sherwood when he showed up at Duke and how Sherwood was so impressed with his acceptance as a player, just a player, by the Duke lax team that he did not join black fraternities that had some separatist elements, but preferred to hang with his white teammates. They were his family. So, imho, what a ridiculous name, you need really need to hop on the BART and get over to your proctologist for cranium removal.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#436)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    imho said:
    No named suspects. That will make for a great civil case. hahaha.
    The civil case, should one ensue, would almost certainly be against the city of Durham--which, in the "crimestoppers" photo, did name suspects. As for Nifong, his remarks were about the lacrosse team--it's true he didn't name the players. But, as he made his remarks at the same time as the "crimestoppers" poster was floating around, the identity of those he attacked was not exactly unknown. Perhaps you'd care to cite us another NC case where the prosecutor gave inflammatory remarks against a group of people under suspicion just before indicting some of them?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#437)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:52:26 PM EST
    imho: it's unclear from your quote: is that 125 more than they usually take from their waiting list, or 125 in total?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#438)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    And one other thought about that quote, imho: I'm not sure that "may have had some impact" even comes close to proving anything. I mean, we know that lacrosse players who had been offered scholarships are going elsewhere, as a direct result of the "situation." But even with them we do not know the details. Was it because of the way the administration/faculty reacted, or was it the players' behavior? If the former, then good: maybe it will open Brodhead et al's eyes to a real problem at Duke. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#439)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    imho: more concern for another person connected to Duke lacrosse, this time Sherwood and his family. Considering the positions you have taken, and your comments about Duke, I doubt they would appreciate your using them to promote your way of thinking in this case.
    It is a fact that they now know what someone on that team thinks of African Americans. Many Duke alum are not bothered by that fact. Maybe they are among them. At least they know now. And you think they would appreciate you using them to promote your way of thinking in this case? SELECTIVE INDIGANTION ALERT!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#440)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    Imho spewed,
    Newport posted: Exactly, now you are getting it. And it will not be for you or Nifong to figure this out. It will be up to the state bar which I presume does not include you. No named suspects. That will make for a great civil case. hahaha.
    You just don't get it, do you? The issue is whether Nifong slandered a readily identifiable group of people. The fact that there were no named suspects at the time of the slanderous statements does not answer this question. The entire team was under suspicion in the press, on wanted posters, and under the words of Nifong. Some members of a readily identifiable group were slandered and "accused" by the DA's statements before they were charged or arrested for anything. Moreover, the issue of malicious prosecution does not have anything to do with "no named suspects." It has to do with whether in pursuing this case for political gain and lying about the facts and other things, whether Nifong can be shown to have had the wrongful intent to wrongly prosecute innocent people.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#441)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    How about this? Maybe Nifong's son is on the waiting list, and he wanted to discourage the 125 ahead of him to go elsewhere. Or maybe his son is a lacrosse player who needs a scholarship. WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#442)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    imho, per your 11:50 AM comment how would you rank the "offenses" of the team (the party, the broomstick comment, the cotton shirt comment)? Which is the worst, and which is the least worst?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#443)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion Assuming Bissey heard the "grandpa" statement correctly, how do you know it was said by a LAX team player? Also, why aren't you upset about the sexism of the statement?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#444)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:06:58 PM EST
    SharonInJax asked:
    imho: it's unclear from your quote: is that 125 more than they usually take from their waiting list, or 125 in total?
    About 125 MORE than average, actually more like 150 MORE than from last year.
    The decline means Duke plans to enroll about 175 students from its waiting list of 900, up from 22 last year when the school was overenrolled, Guttentag said. He said Duke typically aims to enroll about 50 students from the waiting list.
    A yield of 40 percent this year would match the mark set in 1997 as the lowest in the past 10 years, but would still be within a normal range that peaked at 44 percent in 2001, Guttentag said.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#445)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    imho: The Sherwood's have already come out, loud and clear, in support of the team. And that was after the cotton shirt comment was known. Get off it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#446)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:11:51 PM EST
    And, Newport, I believe Sherwood's dad played lax for Duke, way back when. I seem to remember reading that he said that he thought he was the only black lacrosse player in the country at that point (post- Jim Brown, obviously). Anyone think he would appreciate imho's using him to make one of her points?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#447)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:15:18 PM EST
    Ding, OT -- LA Times said today that Ken Lays' conviction, under 5th Circuit law, will have to be tossed because his dying eliminated the possibility of appeals. Hence, without the ability to appeal, the thinking goes, the conviction must be expunged. So the prosecutor over on the other thread you directed me to was right.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#448)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    More imho "fascination"
    It is a fact that they now know what someone on that team thinks of African Americans.
    No, dear, that is not so. But it is a fact that the Sherwoods now know what one person on the team thinks of African American strippers who ripped him off and challenged his manhood in a racial context.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#449)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    Sharon, of course not, but that will not stop her in her crusade to vilify the players and promote Nifong, the FA, and cousin Jack, aunt Shirley, etc. as fine examples of all that is wholesome and good. I'm not going to waste any more time on this she is a crazie Kool-aid drinker and not worth responding to.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#450)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:29:42 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    You just don't get it, do you? The issue is whether Nifong slandered a readily identifiable group of people. The fact that there were no named suspects at the time of the slanderous statements does not answer this question. The entire team was under suspicion in the press, on wanted posters, and under the words of Nifong. Some members of a readily identifiable group were slandered and "accused" by the DA's statements before they were charged or arrested for anything
    Guidelines not triggered. No violation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#451)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:30:19 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    How about this? Maybe Nifong's son is on the waiting list, and he wanted to discourage the 125 ahead of him to go elsewhere. Or maybe his son is a lacrosse player who needs a scholarship.
    WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
    ding7777 asked:
    Assuming Bissey heard the "grandpa" statement correctly, how do you know it was said by a LAX team player?
    After reading Sharon's post, I'm thinking Nifong positioned his son in front of 610 N. Buchanan and had him yell out the "Hey b!tch..." remark. The defense attorneys are not denying someone from the party said it, are they? ding7777 asked:
    Also, why aren't you upset about the sexism of the statement?
    I'm not upset about any of their statements. I am amazed at the denial of some of the commenters. I know the remark has been characterized here as "convoluted" and "nonsensical", but I think its meaning is obvious. To me, it is much uglier than shouting "N!ger, N!ger, N!ger." I can't imagine an image of a Duke student that could be worse for town/gown relations.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#452)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    No, dear, that is not so. But it is a fact that the Sherwoods now know what one person on the team thinks of African American strippers who ripped him off and challenged his manhood in a racial context.
    Sharon, what do you think this remark means? "Hey b!tch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#453)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    IMHO, I hardly think 125 students will make that much of an impact on the school. Considering this whole scandal exploded while kids were making their decisions, I see that as a insignificant dent. Particularly with how slim the line often is between those accepted and those who end up on the wait list. The yield will be back to normal next year.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#454)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:34:28 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    she is a crazie Kool-aid drinker
    SHARON!!! SELECTIVE INDIGNATION ALERT!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#455)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    So it looks like Lewis Cheek is about half-way there to garnering the signatures he needs should he decide to run against Nifong. Despite what some other Durham residents posting here might think, my circle is pleased to potentially have an option come November. Oh and cib, I have to chase a rugrat now. Boy, am I p*ssed at you! ;)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#456)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    fahrenam
    IMHO, I hardly think 125 students will make that much of an impact on the school. Considering this whole scandal exploded while kids were making their decisions, I see that as a insignificant dent. Particularly with how slim the line often is between those accepted and those who end up on the wait list. The yield will be back to normal next year.
    About 125 more students said "Thanks, but no thanks" than usual. That's 125 "first tier" candidates that were replaced by waiting list candidates. If that doesn't mean anything to as the quality of this year's yield, then the admissions process is flawed. At the time the article was written the resulting yield was expected to be a ten year low.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#457)
    by weezie on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:43:11 PM EST
    Newport, I can't post the link but the original Chronicle article about the senior girl's Oprah appearance is in the "Best of 2006" series that was published on 6/15/06. No pictures but you'll get the drift. And in regards to Sherwood, was he at the party? Has that been established? Another alarming development, many more rising Duke seniors are deciding to take the LSATs and give law school a go. Seems they are angry at how their school has been besmirched. Now that's scary!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#458)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    We can talk about flawed admissions policies, including affirmative action, at a different time. Who, knows, maybe these will be better qualified candidates...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#459)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    imho: The Sherwood's have already come out, loud and clear, in support of the team. And that was after the cotton shirt comment was known. Get off it.
    You keep bringing them up, Sharon. I wonder if they have had their "very private" apology yet?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#460)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:48:04 PM EST
    After reading Sharon's post, I'm thinking Nifong positioned his son in front of 610 N. Buchanan and had him yell out the "Hey b!tch..." remark. The defense attorneys are not denying someone from the party said it, are they?
    uh, imho, ding said "LAX team player," not "someone from the party," as you well know. He was reponding to your
    the player who made "cotton shirt" remark?
    comment. And as you also well know, there were reportedly non-team members at the party. Please, don't make yourself look even more slimy by suggesting that your comment could have been with regards to the non-LAX players at the party who may in fact have been "players" albeit of a different sport... btw, what do you think this comment means?
    "Hey b!tch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt."
    And how do you rank it in offense, compared to the party itself and the broomstick comment? Don't be scared, you can answer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#461)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:49:32 PM EST
    fahrenam posted:
    We can talk about flawed admissions policies, including affirmative action, at a different time. Who, knows, maybe these will be better qualified candidates...
    WE DON'T KNOW. We do know they did not the admissions committe's first cut.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#462)
    by weezie on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    imho, you are truly a gentle person (no matter how much you like to poke people here.) I don't think anyone would be racially insulted by being called the African country of Niger, but they would probably be deeply confused. Bless your heart!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#463)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:51:31 PM EST
    weezie asked:
    And in regards to Sherwood, was he at the party? Has that been established?
    His father said Devon was at the party, didn't know about the strippers and left before they showed up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#464)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:52:31 PM EST
    To fillin who wrote,
    The point is that Nifong crossed an ethical line in his statements to the press during the first weeks of this case's notoriety. Essentially, he indicted and accused the entire white population of the lacrosse team during those early, career-enhancing, intoxicating days. The donkey was guilty, he said, and all that remained was to pin a tail on it.
    Thank you. As I have said, the entire team was "accused" by virtue of the wanted poster, and Nifong's politically motivated statements.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#465)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    weezie posted:
    I don't think anyone would be racially insulted by being called the African country of Niger, but they would probably be deeply confused. Bless your heart!
    hahaha. Is that how I spelled it? Too much World Cup Soccer. "N!ger! N!ger! N!ger!"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#466)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    Oh, IMHO, there's something endearing about how strongly you believe you are right about everything and how you refuse to give up. I pity those who live with you, but respect you for sticking to your guns. I also look forward to your admission of being wrong when this whole thing falls apart.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#467)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:00:27 PM EST
    The point is that Nifong crossed an ethical line in his statements to the press during the first weeks of this case's notoriety.
    It is going to come down to when the ethical guidelines are triggered. Has anyone found an "expert" that makes a specific claim of ethics violations?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#468)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    Y'all keep talking about taking students off of the waiting list as if it were a static line of demarcation, above which are "first tier" candidates and below are "less desirable" ones. It's not so. Imagine, if you will, the line equates to something along the lines of 1400 on their SAT and a 3.75 GPA. Above that line, Duke accepts all comers. Students between that line and 1200 SAT and 3.25 GPA are placed on a waiting list. Continue, if you will, in my illustration and see what would happen if Duke had 12,000 applicants with 1400 on their SATs and 3.75+ GPAs. Duke could not possibly accept that many students. Its entire undergraduate population is just over 6,000. Ergo, the "definition" of a "first tier" candidate changes from year to year. Therefore, any correlation of the academic achievements between students coming from last year's waiting list and this year's are comparing apples to oranges.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#469)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    what do you think this remark means?
    The 1st time I heard the remark I was in the middle of watching the 2 season series of the BBC OFFICE and it reminded me of the closing song of each episode
    So what becomes of you my love When they have finally stripped you of The handbags and the gladrags That your poor old Grandad had to sweat to buy you
    So I didn't think it was a particularly vile insult... but then again I don't live in Durham

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#470)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    fahrenam posted:
    Oh, IMHO, there's something endearing about how strongly you believe you are right about everything and how you refuse to give up. I pity those who live with you, but respect you for sticking to your guns. I also look forward to your admission of being wrong when this whole thing falls apart.
    Wrong about what? What have I said that I will have to admit I was wrong about?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#471)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    Imho said,
    Guidelines not triggered. No violation.
    You know, imho, you have no practical experience as a lawyer, you admit you have never practiced law, yet you continue to make pronouncements of the law which you know nothing about. You have done this many times and you are most often wrong about legal issues as other more knowledgeable people have pointed out. Why can't you just leave this issue as "we just don't know" like you do everytime you encounter a fact you don't like. Why can't you just admit that it is for the state bar to decide the legal boundaries of the term "accused" in its own guidelines and whether that term could include the pre-indictment members of the Duke lax. I would note that the search warrants at the time of Nifong's prejudicial statements identified three members of the team by name as the perpetrators, i.e., Matt, Brett, and Dan/Adam. Perhaps, they felt they were the "accused" at that time. I know I would have if I were on the team and named Matt, Brett or Dan/Adam. There are arguments on both sides. Your's is Nifong's. Let's leave it at that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#472)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    mik posted:
    Ergo, the "definition" of a "first tier" candidate changes from year to year. Therefore, any correlation of the academic achievements between students coming from last year's waiting list and this year's are comparing apples to oranges.
    This year they had to pick 125 more apples from the waiting list than other years. Plain and simple - 125 MORE top candidates thna expected went elsewhere. Unless the admissions process is HOOEY, I'd guess the University would have been better off with those 125 top candiadtes choosing to go to Duke.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#473)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:14:05 PM EST
    imho fulminated,
    About 125 more students said "Thanks, but no thanks" than usual. That's 125 "first tier" candidates that were replaced by waiting list candidates. If that doesn't mean anything to as the quality of this year's yield, then the admissions process is flawed. At the time the article was written the resulting yield was expected to be a ten year low.
    We already knew that. Mr. P claims to have a degree. I'll take my chances with the waiting list students any day of the week and twice on Sunday. The margin between those on the waiting list and those not on the waiting list is probably wisker thin and in many cases the waiting listers are probably more deserving due to flawed admissions standards promulgated by an extremely liberal faculty.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#474)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Let's leave it at that.
    O.K.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#475)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    Sorry, mik and fahrenham, did not see your posts re admissions before I put mine up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#476)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:19:49 PM EST
    IMHO, you are showing your total ignorance of admissions at top universities. The difference between those on the wait list and those admitted is often nonexistant at a place like Duke. They simply have so many talented applicants they can't accept all of them. Thus the kids on the wait list are often more than qualified to attend the school, particularly when you are only talking about 125 kids. I guarantee those 125 are valedictorians, great athletes, have done tons of community service, etc. It simply isn't a big deal. And I say this as someone who was accepted early at a top Ivy. My friends who came off the wait list were just as driven and smart and ultimately successful as everyone else. No difference whatsoever. In fact, many of my friends who were rejected from my school and ended up at "lower" schools were also just as driven and smart. The process doesn't always make sense.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#477)
    by weezie on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    Why all this picking on students accepted off the wait list? They're probably hysterically happy, hard-working kids who are over-joyed to be entering the Gothic Wonderland. I can reasonably venture that there aren't too many total dumbells at Duke and even if they accepted just one (like me, but not off the waitlist if anyone is wondering) those accepted do manage to learn something while there...unless that medical degree I have on the wall is written with slowly disappearing ink.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#478)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:27:54 PM EST
    Weezie said,
    I can reasonably venture that there aren't too many total dumbells at Duke
    Let me introduce you to Orin Starn and Mr. P.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#479)
    by weezie on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:31:33 PM EST
    Well said, my man Newport...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#480)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:33:17 PM EST
    Imagine, if you will, the line equates to something along the lines of 1400 on their SAT and a 3.75 GPA. Above that line, Duke accepts all comers.
    Maybe this year they accepted anybody with a 3.75 GPA and 1400 or better on the SAT, but I bet they were pickier last year.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#481)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:38:20 PM EST
    Weezie, I didn't know you are a Duke M.D. Wow! I know they don't take any dummies there. Do you have any insight in how NutFungus and Hinan could have obtained (or read) the medical report on or before March 23 when the subpoena for the report was only issued on March 21, the document wasn't printed until March 30 and wasn't picked up by Hinam until April 4, as I recall.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#482)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:48:24 PM EST
    Re Admissions Also, do not forget that Duke, like all other top universities, takes a number of legacy candidates each and every year that would not otherwise be accepted through the normal admissions process. Duke also accepts a number of students who would not otherwise get in from families of large financial donors. There was a big article about this in the Wall Street Journal a year or so ago.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#483)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    How about a new thread? Comments are close to 500 and closing here.