home

A Civil Suit in the Duke Case?

By TChris, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:44:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

People who are injured by the design or neglect of another are entitled to seek redress in civil court, but most crime victims wait for the criminal prosecution to resolve before they consider civil remedies. Eyebrows raise when an alleged crime victim is eager to pursue civil remedies. The prospect of a cash settlement can be a powerful incentive to embellish or fabricate a criminal accusation, and questions about the credibility and bias of a complainant who has a financial stake in her accusation are sure to arise.

The mother of the accuser in the Duke case says she is "very interested" in retaining a high profile civil litigator for her daughter. This story says the lawyer in question is playing the role of "family adviser" and hasn't spoken to the alleged victim.

Nicknamed "the Giant Killer," attorney Willie E. Gary is a litigator renowned for winning huge settlements. In 1995, for example, Gary won a $500 million verdict against the funeral home company Loewen Group on a contract claim that was worth less than $10 million; the award was almost 20 times the damages requested by plaintiffs.

Perhaps hoping for similar legal magic (according to media reports, all three defendants come from backgrounds of considerable wealth and privilege), the parents of the accuser met with Gary in April. ...

Clearly, her parents wish to explore a civil proceeding. Gary is conspicuously available. Mark Simeon -- the attorney for Kim Roberts -- the "2nd stripper" at the alleged rape scene -- also wants a civil suit.

< Tony Snow's First Press Conference | Verizon Denies Released Phone Records to Government >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? | 165 comments (165 topical)
    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    Gee, when I saw the headline I thought, What's the point of these guys suing the AV? Well, if a rape was committed, a civil suit is appropriate. I'm guessing that there's not going to be a payoff for the AV. Or Roberts, either. If this case falls apart, as it seems to be doing, the defense now has reason to go for blood. You thought it was rough so far, now it gets real ugly. And past criminal records, past assault claims. Whew! Now here's the answer to why the AV had a reason to lie about a rape.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    Gloria Allred the ambulance chaser?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Lora on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:52:34 PM EST
    OK, is Nifong bad? If he's incompetent and has utterly jeopardized the case as so many here have said, then how can you blame the AV if her mother seeks another avenue for justice?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:10:49 PM EST
    Lora, In a civil case just about everything comes in. Then we can find out about her mental illness last year, we can find out all details about her past charges against other men. We can find out the details about how she was kicked out of the navy. We can expect to hear all about her one-on-ones. It'll be even more entertaining than the criminal trial.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#5)
    by chew2 on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:11:32 PM EST
    TChris, Shame on you. You link to Wendy McElroy a conservative "feminist" on Fox, who is pushing her own conservative agenda. She is commenting on an old Essence magazine article, that was discussed by me and many others, including TL, a month ago. Jesse Jackson put the family in touch with Gary. There has been no news about Gary since that Essence article. There is no news that the AV has ever met with him. So weeks later, McElroy with no new evidence wants to spin the gold digging false accuser story. And you fall for it hook line and sinker. This is the same Wendy McElroy who mistated research by Scheck and Neufeld of the Innocense Project to come up with a bogus claim that up to 25% of rape claims are false and the rape never occurred. That claim was publicized by Fox News also. Show some integrity.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:18:58 PM EST
    Sharon,
    Please tell me how I am violating her by calling her by her first name? Yes, yes, yes, I DO believe the Duke students/lacrosse players/ take your pick or description, it doesn't matter to me, more than I do her. But give her a name, give her her first name. Personalize her, for goodness' sake. Tell me how my using her first name does her the slightest bit of damage.
    You were the one who made the argument that nobody should be allowed to publish the Duke boys names, am I right about that? Did you write her and ask whether she thought there was any harm in using her first name? Or did you just unilaterally decide "oh, what harm would it do. Let's humanize her." Will anyone here feel the slightest shame if it is ever proven that this woman in fact was raped at that party? Because I'll tell you right now, none of you seem like people who would.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:21:38 PM EST
    LOVE you Bob, but don't agree. Then realized I better read the article. Just did, and I feel sicker than I did ever before. The one element missing, the one element that I prayed would not come into play was the civil suit talked about before the criminal case has had a chance to move forward. Now, the public revelations about the appraised value of the players' families homes? Someone here, PLEASE, tell me the relevance of that.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:21:55 PM EST
    This might be a thread late Orinico I guess you didn't get my point. I know she's dead and that is a crime. As far as I know, Littlejohn hasn't been convicted. What strikes me, and apparently escapes you, is that the investigators and prosecutors threw his face and name to the press prior to any charges, there is some confusion about the late night circumstances surrounding the crime, some indication of witnesses supporting the prosecution's case who may be vulnerable to credibility challenges, and DNA (given, according to press reports, Littlejohn's DNA issues are more problematic than the Duke men. Striking differences are the race/class of the accused and that Littlejohn is represented by a public defender (and is unlikely to be able to mount the kind of close examination of physical evidence that people with substantial resources, e.g. Michael Jackson can.) Your position seems to be that there is no basis for comparison because one is a crime and the other isn't. While I can see your reasoning, it seems as premature as saying the three men charged are guilty. I do enjoy speculation or I wouldn't be here, but I'd like to keep my options open. If anyone has thoughts on the comparison between these cases or a reference to some speculation on Littlejohn, I'd be interested. Orinoco, thanks for your insight.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:29:36 PM EST
    PB: Sitting here, shaking my head. Ok, let me respond, point by point: Yes, I used the name Crystal. How did I learn this name? Public knowledge, the wonders of the internet. Did I use her last name? No. And, no, I did not say that the names of the accused should be hidden, not even their faces. Just not OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, as the lead pic for every story about this case. I will leave it for the rest of the posters to sit in judgment of my use of her name. But I would love to hear you explain to me how I have harmed her. By repeating her first name, after it has been published online, and spoken on air? What problem do you have with giving her a name, a name that will do nothing to hurt her any more than she has already been hurt? Do you think, do you really think, that she is so fragile that the mere mention of her first name will hurt her? Do you really think that calling her by name will hurt her?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#10)
    by james on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:41:47 PM EST
    The AV's name is used both on national TV and on some local publications (mostly small ones). Photos with her face blurred have also been shown - I know Tucker put them on his show. Kim Roberts has said that she should be able to profit from her story to 'feed [her] kid' while saying 3 sentences earlier that she stole 25k for no apparent reason since '[I] had a good job'. (N&O) Umm, yah those two match up great. I doubt much is going to come out of the criminal case besides a dismissal or not guilty verdict but sure, she'd win a civil suit. All sorts of irrelevant stuff will come in. Which is stupid because the kids don't really have that much money. She's a gold digger, yes, but you're looking in the WRONG PLACE. She will sue Duke because the alleged rape happened on DUKE PROPERTY and concerns players whose conduct the university was aware of and failed to take adaquate action. Seriously, let's not overlook that the place is Duke property that was leased to 3 players. On a side note, the property was purchased by Duke as part of a kind of 'buffer' buying program to appease the locals who disliked the noise/proximity to campus.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:45:20 PM EST
    They always talk about how rape victims get raped twice. The first time by some assailant and the second time figuratively by the justice system. This website, for all its "liberal" themes, is pretty much a magnet for the people who have an interest in that second "figurative" rape. Gangs of prurient, intrusive, and malicious louts preying on the vulnerable anonymously with little fear of liability. It's a sport really. All that's missing is the broom. Was there a first rape? I don't know. And I've read pretty much everything all of you have read. Will you catch me joining in the second rape? No thanks. Sometimes the fact that there's no I in T-E-A-M is a good thing.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:51:19 PM EST
    Here is an article I read about Willie Gary's meeting with the accuser. PB, Of course bringing up issues of public concern to discuss does not make one fundamentalist. However, if someone told me that "as a woman, you should not doubt the AV," that would be suspicious. It is making argument based on personal identity. I'd be interested in knowing what part of racial history you would like to talk to the Panthers. Are you going to tell them that reverse racism is also a kind of racism? (btw, when you talk about "racial history," are you going to tell only the white over black, or are you going to tell about the relationship between other non-whites such as early Asian railway workers and current immigrant issues?) Don't you think that the Panthers are also exploiting the case to boost their own publicity? The AV's family declined their offer for protection, but they still took the opportunity to insert themselves into the show. Do you think that the way they rode on the opportunity is fair to the AV's family who do not want them to be there and get involved? I hope the AV will get a fair trial, too, and so will the players. It is exactly because there are so many Afro-American defendents wrongly jailed that we don't want to see more people wrongly jailed or falsely accused. Now we've seen how Nifong prosecutes his case. If he could treat the Duke players this way now, he could treat other Afro-American defendents in the same way in the future (since he now has had "precedence"). We all know what went wrong in the past; however, a better way to redress the past would be to ensure that the system could be fair for all. Jason Whitlock wrote an very wise and intelligent commentary on this case and I admire him a lot for having written it.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:55:28 PM EST
    Sharon wrote:
    What problem do you have with giving her a name, a name that will do nothing to hurt her any more than she has already been hurt? Do you think, do you really think, that she is so fragile that the mere mention of her first name will hurt her? Do you really think that calling her by name will hurt her?
    You know, I think of all those photographers snapping pictures of Princess Di as she lay dying in an automobile accident. And one of those photographers, the last of them to get there, late to the party, might well have been reluctant to start snapping. And he said "What harm am I doing. All the pictures are already taken. It's going to be all over the news anyway." And I think of Princess Di seeing that guy snapping away, and I ask myself, what did she think of him. I don't think she thought he was a good person. And that's how I feel about you.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:59:58 PM EST
    Sharon, I disagree to call the accuser by her first name. If you want to use a name, let's just make one up or use the first name in her dancer-pseudonym. I don't think it is right that because the names of accused is widely distributed, we should do the same to the accuser, too. Ideally, both sides should be kept secret. Somehow I think over the discussion of this case, seeing how the accused are hurt by their names being publicized before the trial, we should head for the better direction to ensure the names of both sides are concealed, rather than going backward to have a second though about protecting rape victim's identity.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 10:02:33 PM EST
    Let's imagine for a moment that there was no rape at the frat house that night. If so, who is being raped by the legal system?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#16)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 16, 2006 at 10:54:19 PM EST
    Most of people posting [here: DUKEOBSRVR.COM] claim to be Duke students, I hope it's not true.
    Uhhhh, yeah. Duke students have no need for sympathy from the Durham community. We had, in my case, and continue to have no need of anything from the Durham community but a chance to get through 4 years without being assaulted or falsely accused of a crime. We'd all be very happy to have no interaction with a good deal of the Durham community. The University itself has quite enough for all its students, the vast majority of which will go on to endeavors and communities far superior to those that can be found in Durham.* As for the Lax players, they simple took to extremes what every other Duke student knows intuitively. ** Almost all Duke students are polite, considerate and generally plesant to everyone they encounter, but none of them have any reason to consider, even for a second, the sympathies of the Durham community, nor do they need them.
    **********
    Is there any reason to think that this woman is intelligent enough to have thought about the possible obstacles/implications of accusing, falsely or otherwise, and convicting a group of Duke students. Can someone defend NCCU as being anything more than a glorified trade school? ** Why are we to assume this woman, who strips/prostitutes herself for a living and has previously attempted to rundown a cop with a stolen taxi, is intelligent enough to fully comprehend this situation.
    **********
    Nigel, I don't know about the trade school thing, but Dukie is an idiot for asking if everyone at Duke must be smarter than everyone at NCCU. I'm sorry, but if you are an intelligent minority, schools are more than happy to make up for your financial shortcomings to get you there. NCCU is a low grade state school. They might not all be absolute idiots, but if you line up 20 people (even lets say black people)***, and ask someone to find the Duke students, I suspect you could. [by 20 people I mean 10 NCCU and 10 Duke students, sorry.]
    * Yikes! I thought 7duke4 already graduated. ** I don't know what the writer means, but it gives me a very bad feeling. ** To borrow a phrase from Or*n*c*, "WOW." *** ((Cringe)) In the interest of being sort of fair and somewhat balanced:
    Dukeobsrvr may be pleased to hear this, but a large cross-section of this country is reading blog comment threads like these. Use your intelligence to show people the character and sense of community that I have seen in the vast majority of Duke students - in fact, where is the high profile blog in support of the LAX players???
    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 11:05:19 PM EST
    mmyy, You wrote:
    I'd be interested in knowing what part of racial history you would like to talk to the Panthers.
    I'm mostly interested in what they have to say. Although I'm happy to talk about what you want to talk about as well, if you need an emissary. I have plenty to say as well, but it doesn't belong here. You wrote:
    Don't you think that the Panthers are also exploiting the case to boost their own publicity? The AV's family declined their offer for protection, but they still took the opportunity to insert themselves into the show. Do you think that the way they rode on the opportunity is fair to the AV's family who do not want them to be there and get involved?
    Sure, they're self-promoting. As far as their being fair to the family, it's sort of hard to compare them to Or*n*co* or Bean, though, isn't it? The New Black Panthers are the least of the family's problems.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 11:21:59 PM EST
    J. Pierpont Flathead,
    Let's imagine for a moment that there was no rape at the frat house that night. If so, who is being raped by the legal system?
    Guilty or innocent, the defendants will be figuratively raped by the justice system. No need to imagine there was no rape. Trials are non-consensual even for the guilty.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:15:39 AM EST
    PB said:
    This is the same Wendy McElroy who mistated research by Scheck and Neufeld of the Innocense Project to come up with a bogus claim that up to 25% of rape claims are false and the rape never occurred.
    Shame on you PB. You seem to have a problem reading. She never claimed that 25% of rape claims were false. She claimed that they were a combination of false claims and incorrect identifications.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:23:39 AM EST
    beenaround,
    Shame on you PB.
    My head is bowed, and I feel tremendous self-esteem problems coming on right now, except for one small detail. I didn't actually write that one. Not that I would have gotten it right had I read it.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#21)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:30:49 AM EST
    beenaround posted:
    Shame on you PB. You seem to have a problem reading. She never claimed that 25% of rape claims were false. She claimed that they were a combination of false claims and incorrect identifications.
    beenaround, Don't let Or*n*c* catch you "red handed" making an honest mistake, he'll brand you "A LIAR!"

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#22)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:05:41 AM EST
    *Charges that some of the players used false names and called each other by jersey numbers. *Charges some of the players used false team affilations (baseball team and track team). *Dancers ordered under a false name and false pretenses - why did Adam (Dan) pretend it was a bachelor party for five guys? Were they hoping a small party for guys a bit older would prevent the agency from sending a bouncer? A false mustache doesn't sound so preposterous when all things are considered. 'The Abrams Report' for May 15
    ABRAMS: Right. Larry, look, you're also a criminal justice expert.
    KOBILINSKY: Yes.
    ABRAMS: You're not just a forensic expert...
    KOBILINSKY: Yes.
    ABRAMS: She says the guy had a mustache.
    KOBILINSKY: Right. Well...
    ABRAMS: She said she was 90 percent sure. If they can show he did not have a mustache at that time, case over against him, right?
    KOBILINSKY: Well, Dan, actually, you know people can wear false mustaches...
    ABRAMS: OK. Fine.
    O.K. Fine. hahahahaha! I love it when Dan builds up his expert's credentials, leads him down the path and then BAM! The expert says the exact opposite of what Dan wants to hear. It also happened with the ex-FBI digital photo expert that said the time stamps and sequence of the photos could be changed and even an expect could not detect it. Both times, the look on Dan's face was priceless, his eyes narrowed and his jaw set, as he delivered his curt, "O.K. Fine."

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:10:44 AM EST
    IMHO: By the tone of your post above here, I guess you have answered my question. Given the kind of gloating cruelty you sometimes seem to revel in, perhaps it was too much of me to ask you in the name of common charity for a post about what you are faulting David Evans for at this point. Or perhaps relent and admit that maybe you might have been a little too harsh on him -- all things considered. But that's not how you chose to spend your time today. I am deeply saddened by it. I had hoped for something much more dignified than that coming from someone of your stature. But I guess it was not meant to be. Good night.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#24)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:23:14 AM EST
    SharonInJax You are the second female who went atomic on my using "gal". I happen to frequently use "guy" and "gal". When playing basketball I also frequently use "dude". I'm a staunch progressive and push harder for results to help those who have previously been oppressed. I grew up the only white kid in an all black neighborhood and could care less what you call someone as long as you treat them with respect. When in decision making positions, I've personally advocated promoting women in order to help them better represent their base. However, I draw the line at the whole PC crap that doesn't allow us to use popular colloquialisms. Personally I've found that most females who are offended by the term "gal" are just populist feminists (read: strawfeminists) or closet mysandrists. To both classes, I say - get a real life and a real life and an honest opinion.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#25)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:36:19 AM EST
    IMHO, Good post on the Duke website blog. Unfortunately, my own experience with Duke started with the three people from my class who went there. All three were good friends from the classes we shared. Two were open minded folk who later shyed away from admitting they went to Duke. The third was a clear closet racist. She always had some sly underhanded insult for the one black guy in our graduating class. (Just so people don't get confused by my posts, until I was 15, I was the only white kid in an all black classs. Then I moved to almost the opposite situation. We only had one black guy (dude)) Anyway, the third gal (sorry Sharon) who went to Duke clearly wanted to belong to some "special" club. The only problem was that the entire senior class knew she cheated more than anyone and her mom was on the PTA and sucked up to the teachers. Luckily the "gal" in question did not receive favorable grades from our teachers, but certainly got a letter or two. Just ran into her last year and got an eeirie feeling when she told me how proud she was for going to Duke. (Sorry, it was clearly because she didn't have to 'associate' with the other crowd.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#26)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:42:15 AM EST
    IMHO:
    Don't let Or*n*c* catch you "red handed" making an honest mistake, he'll brand you "A LIAR!"
    More importantly don't let them defray your questions about specifics by making spurrious claims about lying. I do beleive there are four or five specific claims which have not been substantiated. Ahh, tactics, tactics, tactics.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#27)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 17, 2006 at 03:22:12 AM EST
    Orinoco, Seriously, you openly called me a "liar" for stating that the defense has leaked information to the press. I clearly provided at least four instances of the defense team leaking information to the press. On Monday, the defense team openly discussed providing more leaks to the press. You proposed that the press had successfully unsealed a warrant. This is the third time I'm asking you to identify this warrant. You have not answered these requests. I'm not saying that the press did not unseal a warrant. I am saying you claim they did but cannot identity what warrant they unsealed. I've only seen references to "attempts" of the press to unseal warrants. I look forward to your response. (for the fourth time)

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:55:23 AM EST
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/breathing_while_white.html /article in the Orlando paer regarding the whole sorry mess this is and will continue.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:16:51 AM EST
    I had a case against Willie Gary. He can be very effective, but he also can lose focus because he just sees the forest and not the trees. There are many things that could derail a case here, both civll and criminal. Gary flies in his own personal plane called "Wings of Justice." You get the picture. Here are a couple of thoughts in response to what's been asked re Nifong. If he had lost the PRIMARY, he would have stayed in office until November or maybe January when the Democratic candidate Freda Black presumably would have won. There's no good blood between them. He would have had plenty of time to get another position, probably on the defense side, maybe in the Attorney General's staff, etc. As I see it, if there is a trial, it will be very very difficult for the accuser ( Sharon, I'm with you on this) to withstand cross examination and I have predicted that she will not to go through with it. Actually, I also predict that one of the other men whose DNA was taken will turn out to have interesting evidence. The defense will also scorch the earth on the other rape charge from her past, find those men, discredit her twice. If there are 3 men recently whose identities she presumably gave to the DA because they might be sources of the male DNA found, any one of them, the boyfriend included, could turn on her, or at least paint her as someone who had numerous partners in a short period of time. this alone, presumably would not make the boyfriend happy. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Again, not trying to say that affects in any way whether she was raped. It is very very tough for her credibility. Combined with everything else, cross will be brutal. If she gets through it, I think it will be hard even to win a civil case. Nifong will shoulder on as long as he has to, and then his 15 minutes will be over. My two cents.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:38:09 AM EST
    Oops. Make that Nifong will "soldier" on.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#31)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:38:51 AM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    IMHO:
    By the tone of your post above here, I guess you have answered my question.
    No, I haven't. I literally fell asleep a few hours ago while answering it - your post is quite good, but my reply is not - I'm still working on it. SLOphoto posted:
    Given the kind of gloating cruelty you sometimes seem to revel in, perhaps it was too much of me to ask you in the name of common charity for a post about what you are faulting David Evans for at this point. Or perhaps relent and admit that maybe you might have been a little too harsh on him -- all things considered. But that's not how you chose to spend your time today.
    I started answering you several times yesterday, but kept getting sidetracked by other half finished posts I had here on my desktop. I also did a fair amount of goofing off. "the gloating cruelty you sometimes seem to revel in" *ouch* That Dan Abrams post was not meant to be a gloat about the case, my target was very narrow - Dan Abrams. I didn't even mean it to be a gloat, but I did take delight in his dismay, so I guess it fits the definition. I don't know if you've seen any of his interviews on this case, but his performance is a sight to behold. I'm surprised colleagues have not pulled him aside to tell say, "Dan, your 'reporting' of this case is stunningly biased. Why are you are throwing your credibility down the crapper?" Though I'm thinking Abrams must know this, but is enjoying fighting the good fight for his alma mater and his insider status with the defense, almost as much as he is enjoying his good ratings. Credibility is so over-rated theses days, anyway. SLOphoto posted:
    I am deeply saddened by it. I had hoped for something much more dignified than that coming from someone of your stature. But I guess it was not meant to be.
    I wouldn't describe my postings here as dignified nor would it occur to me that they would result in my achieving any kind of stature. If you are serious about being disappointed that I haven't answered sooner, I do apologize. I have been thinking about your question while finishing up other posts and wasting time on frivolous posts. There is still plenty of mystery surrounding what all went on that night, but what keeps me interested in this case is the part the defense lawyers are playing - their influence on the players' decisions to not come forward. Maybe Dan Evans is an example of one that has finally disregarded his lawyers advice. I'm off now to think more about David Evans.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:43:04 AM EST
    SLOphoto: IMHO was making jokes about my charred stumps yesterday. A real delightful person, eh? I find all the Duke-bashing beside the point and pretty boring. +++ I do think that every time her mom or dad says something the AV looks worse. I would not doubt that the AV is looking for a civil suit. Can't imagine that Roberts has a basis for a civil suit. The problem I see with this whole mess is that it's ultimately going to be held up as an example of why rape shield laws, access to civil trials, etc., need to be made harder to file. We in Cali got "three strikes" in the wake of Polly Klaas and the Bundy murders. As some famous guy once said, "Great cases make bad laws."

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:10:59 AM EST
    I love the "fake mustache" argument. So classic. And I would put the chance of a civil suit at around 100%, regardless what happens in criminal court (which I think will be dismissed). The AV is probably hearing advice from all corners, and much of that advice is probably telling her she could be a millionaire many times over if she pursues this in civil court. Shameful.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#34)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:14:20 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO was making jokes about my charred stumps yesterday. A real delightful person, eh?
    SLOphoto, I told you my posts were not dignified, but if any post could enhance my credibilty and stature here, that would be the one:
    Bob, I've noticed your charred stumps are still enjoying the heat of the campfire.
    Bob, why don't you chase down your proof that the accuser's father says she filed a false rape report? Bob in Pacifica posted:
    That is, the AV's father said that his daughter filed a false rape charge back then.
    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:35:35 AM EST
    Gary flies in his own personal plane called "Wings of Justice."
    Localone, I thought you were spinning an elaborate metaphor at first, then realized you were stating the bald truth. "Wings of Justice." My, my. Thanks for the info about Nifong. I'm still working on my personal portrait of him as desperate fellow, obsessed with the unscrupulous Freda Black, worn down by 27 years in the DA's office, made more reckless by having faced and beaten cancer. I had hoped the potential loss of health ins. and subsequent bankruptcy of family could feed into all that, but I see it won't. There's that screenplay to consider, you see. Honey, this is going to make Crash look like Mrs. Washerberg's civics class Civil Rights Week presentation. At some point in the movie "Wings of Justice" will go down in flames, of course. Perhaps in the Duke quad.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:45:40 AM EST
    IMHO, Got the magical mystery witness that the AV's dad reported on April 3rd? We're up to what, 44 days now? Not even an ID. Oh, she'll be comin' around the mountain when she comes. Maybe the magical mystery witness will be in a big evidence package for release, along with the "good news DNA," eh? She'll be marched into the FOX studios with a New Black Panther Party military accompanyment. Yes, the father said that there was no rape back in 1993. You said that the mother and AV lied to him about that rape and that that was the basis for his knowledge (although you never explain how you know that the father could not have or did not have any other source of information over the intervening decade-plus of time that elapsed). So if I believe you that the AV lied to him about that rape, and as it becomes more apparent that the AV lied to him about the broomstick sodomy (unless he lied about his daughter telling him), I guess I'll have to reevaluate my position of the father to this: The father is honest but gullible. It's the people around him, like his daughter, who lie to him. Except that the jury is still out on whether the father is lying about the existence of the magical mystery witness. So in conclusion the father only said that the rape did not occur even though she filed a rape charge on a rape that did not occur (or, in other words, a false rape charge) because his daughter lied to him about whether or not a rape had occurred. Got it! Thanks for straightening it out, IMHO.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:47:49 AM EST
    IMHO, By the way, I guess when you made the comments about my "charred stumps" you didn't know I had to retire because of my hand injuries, right? Sometimes talking like an a**hole is being one.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#38)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:47:57 AM EST
    David Evans' Polygraph Test Results

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#39)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:49:42 AM EST
    IMHO,
    By the way, I guess when you made the comments about my "charred stumps" you didn't know I had to retire because of my hand injuries, right?
    Of course I did, that's what makes it so funny, Bob.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#40)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:11:08 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    DURHAM - District Attorney Mike Nifong said today that a previous rape reported by the woman who accused three men of sexually assaulting her at a Duke University lacrosse team party will have little bearing on his case. Nifong said in a prepared statement that the decade-old allegation -- which the woman's father said was false -- likely would never arise in court
    the woman's father said was false

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#41)
    by chew2 on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:13:05 AM EST
    Beenaround,
    Shame on you PB. You seem to have a problem reading. She never claimed that 25% of rape claims were false. She claimed that they were a combination of false claims and incorrect identifications.
    McEroy lied or misrepresented in her Fox article. She fails to mention that in the FBI data she was using the vast majority of that 25% false claim figure were incorrect identifications, not false claims. So let's say 10% of that 25% were false claims and not mis-identifications, you get 2.5% false claims from that FBI data. But she goes on the trumpet that 25% figure as a "false claim" figure. Look at the Fox headline
    False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought? Is it the new 1-in-4 statistic?
    Look at McElroy's conclusion.
    But even a skeptic like me must credit a DNA exclusion rate of 20 percent that remained constant over several years...False accusations are not rare. They are common.
    She lied or misrepresented. McElroy's figures came from a Barry Scheck comment which she purposely misrepresented, and which I quoted in an earlier post:
    Scheck makes clear that the FBI only performed DNA tests when the identity of the assailant was not otherwise known (no date rape cases) and when semen in the vagina or anus would almost certainly identify the assailant. So almost all of these were cases where a rape most probably occurred but the identity of the assailant was in doubt. Scheck
    It must be stressed that the sexual assault referrals made to the FBI ordinarily involve cases where (1) identity is at issue (there is no consent defense), (2) the non-DNA evidence linking the suspect to the crime is eyewitness identification, (3) the suspects have been arrested or indicted based on non-DNA evidence, and (4) the biological evidence (sperm) has been recovered from a place (vaginal/rectal/oral swabs or underwear) that makes DNA results on the issue of identity virtually dispositive.
    Scheck
    My earlier comment with cite to Scheck

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#42)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:44:35 AM EST
    Bob In Pacifica posted:
    Got the magical mystery witness that the AV's dad reported on April 3rd? We're up to what, 44 days now? Not even an ID. Oh, she'll be comin' around the mountain when she comes.
    This will be the third time I have posted that I was not offering the father's story about the neighbor for the truth of her story - I was teasing you about your posting "no evidence of crying" suggests the accuser made "yet another false report of fact by the AV in the morning of the 14th." But you knew that. Here's the claim you made, but still have not proven:
    We really need to know what the AV was saying and to whom. Yesterday there was the story that the AV said that both dancers were crying, but there seems to be no evidence, photos or what Roberts said or what Bissey observed, that either woman was crying while they were at Buchanan. This would suggest, like the "20 rapists"*[ALSO NOT PROVEN] yet another false report of fact by the AV in the morning of the 14th.
    Bob In Pacifica posted:
    I guess I'll have to reevaluate my position of the father to this:
    The father is honest but gullible. It's the people around him, like his daughter, who lie to him.
    I'm not sure there is proof the daughter lied to him. Now Kalidoggie's definition of a liar makes liars of a lot of us every time we talk to our parents, every time we tell someone, "No, those jeans don't make you look fat,' (when they do), everytime we say, "I hope that was as great for you as it was for me." Heh, heh. Even some of the lacrosse players lied to their parents under that definition. Bob In Pacifica posted:
    Except that the jury is still out on whether the father is lying about the existence of the magical mystery witness.
    I would have to agree with that. The jury is still out on whether Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans are rapists. Bob In Pacifica posted:
    So in conclusion the father only said that the rape did not occur even though she filed a rape charge on a rape that did not occur (or, in other words, a false rape charge) because his daughter lied to him about whether or not a rape had occurred.
    There you go again. You have not proven that the accuser made a false rape charge, nor have you proven that the accuser lied to her father about what happened that night (unless your definition of a lie is keeping things from your parents that you think might hurt them, or in this case, might get her father hurt). Bob In Pacifica posted:
    Got it! Thanks for straightening it out, IMHO.
    You're not quite there, but you are almost trying to get straightened out.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:56:58 AM EST
    Well, PB, it seems that I owe you an apology. It was chew2 who has a problem with reading.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:58:07 AM EST
    Please forgive my legal ignorance: Can the AV decide not to press charges? If so, would Nifong be likely to go ahead with the trial without her cooperation? If the criminal case didn't go to trial, could the AV still sue in civil court?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#46)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:10:39 AM EST
    Hi ding777, I wouldn't expect everyone to know this, it wasn't widely reported, but when the prior rape report story broke, the father knew about the Creedmore incident but had not been told his daughter had been raped. He still didn't know when he was interviewed a few times. I saw a reporter standing ourside the father;s house. He had just spoken to the family. He said the father was not told until after the story broke. HERE
    To: Howlin The father didn't know about this until about a day ago. Father weights about 120 lbs and mother was afraid he would charge up there to go after the ex-boyfriend and his friends. 207 posted on 04/27/2006 7:03:02 PM PDT by maggief
    saw the same video I did.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#47)
    by chew2 on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:13:25 AM EST
    beenaround,
    Well, PB, it seems that I owe you an apology. It was chew2 who has a problem with reading.
    You seem to have the problem with reading also. You should have noticed that it was my post not PB's. But that's only a small error. Perhaps you would like to read the Scheck article and respond to my arguments.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#48)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:21:12 AM EST
    Hi ding777, I wouldn't expect everyone to know this, it wasn't widely reported, but when the prior rape report story broke, the father knew about the Creedmore incident but had not been told his daughter had been raped. He still didn't know when he was interviewed a few times. I saw a reporter standing ourside the father;s house. He had just spoken to the family. He said the father was not told until after the story broke. This blogger saw the same video I did.
    To: Howlin The father didn't know about this until about a day ago. Father weights about 120 lbs and mother was afraid he would charge up there to go after the ex-boyfriend and his friends. 207 posted on 04/27/2006 7:03:02 PM PDT by maggief
    Bob knows about this report. I have posted it here at least twice: Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 4, 2006 10:03 PM
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Do you believe that the father was right saying that the three men she accused of raping her in 1994 didn't do anything to her? Because that would seem to indicate that she made a false claim of rape in the past, according to her father.
    If someone does not tell their father they have been raped, then they haven't been raped? I know a woman that was raped at gunpoint in a parking garage. The guy whacked her on the head with his gun. She didn't tell her father, she was afraid it would break his heart. The accuser's mother said they did not tell the father because they were afraid he would drive to Creedmore, confront the 21 year-old boyfriend and get himself hurt. A reporter described the accuser's father as "120 lbs - dripping wet." **************** Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 7, 2006 10:06 PM Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO, You make a false rape accusation, you are blaming someone else for a serious problem that you have.
    We don't know it is a false accusation. What problem was she blaming on the people she says raped her? Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Her father said something to the effect that "those boys did nothing to her." So if you believe the dad, take your pick. She lied or she hallucinated.
    This discrepancy has been explained many times here. The mother said they didn't tell the father because they were afraid he would drive to Creedmore and confront the boyfriend and get himself hurt. The father is described as being "120 lbs, dripping wet."

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#49)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:22:32 AM EST
    OOPS! That first one was posted by mistake. I wasn't finished.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:34:11 AM EST
    Any other deal horse lying around that can be beat unmercifully?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    deal = dead sheesh, typing skills of congressman's secretary.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    I submit the following pop quiz to gauge your bias as a news consumer. After reading the following characteristics, please select the college group that most likely fits the description: The group has a 100 percent college graduation rate. Sixty percent have a 3.0 grade point average or above. During the past four years, 80 percent have made a national honor roll. Members regularly volunteer at more than a dozen community agencies, building houses for the homeless and serving in soup kitchens, while raising more money than any other group for the Katrina Relief Fund. Answer: (a) Tri-Delta sorority at the University of North Carolina; (b) women's rowing team at Clemson University; (c) synchronized swim team at Harvard University; (d) men's lacrosse team at Duke University. OK, I know, you're smart. You're onto this trick. Obviously, it's (d), the infamous Duke men's lacrosse team, that rowdy drunken white-boy club that rapes black women forced to strip to put themselves through college and feed their fatherless children. The photo lineup included only team members!?!?!?!?! The father of the non-profit seeking female involved said in an interview that his daughter was not raped in the earlier event/accusation. The incident at Duke was a business deal that went sour. I wonder if she considered what her life will be like when the lawyers for the rich, deep pocket, now falsely accused team members ruin her in civil court for the next ten years. There are not enough bachelor parties in NC to pay her legal bills.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:43:57 AM EST
    From AV/FA's cousin:
    The cousin of the alleged victim, known as "Jakki" responded to Evans' news conference. She called it a well-rehearsed production, designed to make the accuser look bad. "I was angry and I was hurt that they were attacking her and that this young man was saying listen, we're the lacrosse team, we're unified and we're standing here and my cousin is basically not speaking up, not because seh's lying or because she's this gold digger, it's because she's frightened." Jakki said.
    I find it interesting that the cousin's reaction is to dispell "gold-digging" when there was no mention whatsoever of this in DE's press conference. This sounds like some projection by the cousin. Cheshire was asked what he thought the AV/FA's motive was and he politely refused to speculate. This little snippet has much more meaning given that the Gary discussions and civil suit news is out. With regard to Gary I believe it was stated that he has been a "family advisor" since April. Did he become an advisor before or after the photo line-up? Is it a coincidence that the three players ID'd happen to be 3 of the most wealthy families of all the players' families? The roster and names of all the players was plastered all over Durham and well before her lineup. This makes the Blue Wall of Silence conspiracy theory look like patty cake.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#54)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:51:13 AM EST
    LateModel posted:
    The father of the non-profit seeking female involved said in an interview that his daughter was not raped in the earlier event/accusation.
    gmax, This is why this dead horse must be beaten

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:55:29 AM EST
    These threads really get tedious on a non-news day...

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    So we know 1. The AV lied to her father about the age 14 alleged rape (ostensibly with good intent, we are now told) at the time, which explains why he didn't think it happened. The stated reason was the fear that the father would attack the boyfriend and get hurt. Is an unstated reason that the father would have gotten the police involved in this age 14 alleged rape if he had known about it? 2. So much time has gone by that we will never know what happened all those years ago unless the AV recants or one of the three men confess. 3. What does this have to do with there is enough evidence to subject the defendents to a trial which is a year long process and then set them up for a years long civil suit? 4. Lora says that witnesses should testify at trial for an acquittal. Maybe the AV should have testified and been cross-examined in front of the grand jury under oath before they indicted anyone. 5. Why do people root for the guys? People are afraid of things they can't control. They think, "I won't be raped because I won't work as a stripper." They can control that. They think "Gee, I've been in situations where someone could accuse me of rape and if they are uncritically believed without careful assessment of evidence I'll have a long trial even if acquitted". Why in heaven's name shouldn't Seligman's alleged alibi or Evans' "mustache" or boyfriend's DNA result been presented to the Grand Jury so they could have decided whether to indict in the first place. If they thought the alibis had holes then people would feel a lot better about the whole process. 6. Just like KOBE, I bet some of the defendents' rich families pay the AV to drop it all, and then we can debate whether they paid her for her pain or paid extortion money.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:02:21 AM EST
    gmax wrote:
    Any other dea[d] horse lying around that can be beat unmercifully?
    Only if it has a fake moustache!!!

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:06:53 AM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one wrote:
    These threads really get tedious on a non-news day...
    This will liven it up.... transpose the characters from the Duke case to the video and identify who is who.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:17:03 AM EST
    Taken from reports of the previous rape accusation: According to the Creedmoor police report in August 1996, when the woman was 18, she told officers she was raped and beaten by three men "for a continual time" in 1993, when she was 14. She told police she was attacked at an "unspecified location" on a street in Creedmoor, a town 15 miles northeast of Durham. The report lists the names of the three men, but no other details. Creedmoor police Chief Ted Pollard said Thursday he had no recollection of the report, and his staff has been unable to find any additional information about it. Durham police Officer Brian Bishop, who interviewed the accuser in 1996 while working on the Creedmoor force, said Thursday he had a vague recollection of the report but couldn't remember any details.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#60)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    rogan1313 posted:
    1. The AV lied to her father about the age 14 alleged rape (ostensibly with good intent, we are now told)* at the time, which explains why he didn't think it happened. The stated reason was the fear that the father would attack the boyfriend and get hurt. Is an unstated reason that the father would have gotten the police involved in this age 14 alleged rape if he had known about it?
    It could be. The accuser and/or her mother obviously did not want to report it. The mother and cousin or aunt claims the boys threatened the accuser's life. I read that the two men that are brothers now have an extensive arrest record. The link is dead now, but here is the cached page:
    In the 1996 case, the alleged Duke lacrosse victim told Creedmoor police that three years earlier, when she was 14, she had been raped and beaten by three men "for a continual time" at an unspecified location in the city. She named the three men and provided addresses for two of them, but authorities in Creedmoor, in Granville County, never brought criminal charges against any of them.
    Court records confirm that two of the men she named lived at the address she provided and have extensive criminal records.
    The accuser's mother told The Herald-Sun her daughter decided not to pursue the case, but didn't say why. Family members told Essence magazine, which was the first to report the 1996 incident, that the woman feared for her safety.
    *Thank you for including that, rogan1313. One dead horse spared another beating.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#61)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:27:58 AM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    Only if it has a fake moustache!!!
    What? You didn't like Dan Abrams' criminal justice expert Lawrence Kobilinsky agreeing with imho? Dan didn't either.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:29:25 AM EST
    If youre in it for the money there is no use in filing charges against someone with an extensive criminal history and a low rent address.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:29:47 AM EST
    4. Lora says that witnesses should testify at trial for an acquittal. Maybe the AV should have testified and been cross-examined in front of the grand jury under oath before they indicted anyone.
    There's no cross examination in front of a grand jury and the defense doesn't get to present evidence. It's not a trial.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#64)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    LateModel posted:
    If youre in it for the money there is no use in filing charges against someone with an extensive criminal history and a low rent address.
    I didn't catch the address, was it in a "low rent" district? I know she was only fourteen, but if she was in it for the money she could have picked better targets for her "false allegation."

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:39:50 AM EST
    If youre in it for the money there is no use in filing charges against someone with an extensive criminal history and a low rent address.
    The same can be said for the defendants. Their parents may have a lot of assets, but I doubt the players do unless it's in a trust(which could be hard for the AV to get at). If she gets a 5 million dollar verdict, all the players have to do is pay the 50K they might have in assets (which will barely cover her filing, travel, copying and other expenses for her lawyers) and declare bankruptcy before they ever earn a real paycheck.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#66)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    There's no cross examination in front of a grand jury and the defense doesn't get to present evidence. It's not a trial.
    In some states, if not all, grand jurors can ask questions.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    In some states, if not all, grand jurors can ask questions.
    Very true. I don't think of that as "cross examination" but arguably it is.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 10:52:29 AM EST
    "Low rent" is a conclusion I jumped to without considering the implications. Maybe that address had a moustache on it when I read it. If the Police failed to investigate a sexual assault against a minor, then the family should sue them. My conclusion is that the Police did not believe the veracity of the claim.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#69)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 11:06:20 AM EST
    Very true. I don't think of that as "cross examination" but arguably it is.
    I didn't mean it was. I'd guess it's more a fact finding procedure than a challenge of the witnesses.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#70)
    by chew2 on Wed May 17, 2006 at 11:09:05 AM EST
    localone
    The defense will also scorch the earth on the other rape charge from her past, find those men, discredit her twice.
    I'm betting they will find them currently in jail or with a long criminal history. In any case, even if they claim the prior rape complaint was false, this will not likely be enough to permit the defense to cross examine the AV on it. We've discussed here before some NC Ct. App cases which state that "some definitive evidence of falsity" must first be shown before such questioning can occur. I don't think conflicting testimony between the AV and the alleged rapist will be enough to carry that burden.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#71)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 17, 2006 at 11:12:36 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    [They] didn't tell the father because he weights about 120 lbs and the mother was afraid he would charge up there to go after the ex-boyfriend and his friends
    That might sound plausible in 1993 but not in 1996 when she finally reported it to the authorities -- in 1996 she was engaged, so the burden of protecting her honor would not have been the father's alone

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#72)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    LateModel posted:
    My conclusion is that the Police did not believe the veracity of the claim.
    The Police Cheif said that it was the victim that did not pursue the charges after filing them. There is no indication that the police questioned her veracity.
    Ted Pollard, Creedmoor's chief of police, said earlier today that aside from this report, he had no other documents or recollection of the case. The district attorney and assistant district attorney in office at the time of the 1993 incident don't either, he said.
    Pollard said, "When [a rape case] comes to you four years later, you must have the alleged victim in order to pursue it. ... I have no idea why she did not."
    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#73)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 11:37:42 AM EST
    ding7777 posted:
    That might sound plausible in 1993 but not in 1996 when she finally reported it to the authorities -- in 1996 she was engaged, so the burden of protecting her honor would not have been the father's alone
    I agree. The 1996 reporting sounds like it was initiated by her fiancee. She went in, made the initial report, they asked her to bring in a detailed timeline, but she never came back. I don't know if she ever told her mother that it was reported in 1996, much less her father.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Lora on Wed May 17, 2006 at 11:40:41 AM EST
    Rogan, I entered into a good-faith discussion with you, and you are taking my words and twisting them to imply that I would like nothing better than to see the three indicted men (I will NOT call them boys) hung out to dry for as long as possible, innocent or guilty. You know that isn't true, so stop doing it.
    The AV was severely damaged and possibly raped at some time by someone
    If true, Rogan, do you care? I hope so. Sharon, I have no problem with using the AV's first name. It might cut down on some of the crap we've all seen posted here about her. She's a human being, not an object. Out of deference to our host, I think TL should approve/disapprove of it, as she had asked us to keep her name off the site. Bob, What were those three men doing at the time that the AV's own father said held her against her will in Creedmore? if not poker, tiddlywinks, perhaps? Kali, I too appreciated the chance for discussion with you. With regard to the gold-digging comment, that's what many people have accused the AV of doing since the beginning, isn't it? So I don't see how it necessarily relates to the possible civil suit, though it could.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#75)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 11:56:07 AM EST
    I find it interesting that the cousin's reaction is to dispell "gold-digging" when there was no mention whatsoever of this in DE's press conference. This sounds like some projection by the cousin.
    Evans called the accuser's version of events "fantastic lies." The accuser's cousin is well aware of one of the motives attributed to these "lies." I've heard her answer to that charge in an interview quite awhile back.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#76)
    by weezie on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    I'm getting a little dizzy here, are we off the moustache now and on to what papa weighs in at, what 120lbs? Who cares what he ever weighed! Wouldn't the smart move to have been to pursue the previous rape allegations through the police and the courts? Aren't we supposed to laugh loudly at mama and little C being scared he was going get beaten up by them bad boys? Yeah, RIGHT! Can the indicted lax players file a civil case NOW against the FA for defamation? What would legally stop them from going after he right this very minute? Thanks to any lawyers with answers.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    Lora wrote:
    With regard to the gold-digging comment, that's what many people have accused the AV of doing since the beginning, isn't it? So I don't see how it necessarily relates to the possible civil suit, though it could.
    I think the gold-digging is more an after-the-fact motivation than the intial claim. I have always felt that the AV/FA was so wasted that she either: (1) said she was being raped to get out of trouble with PD 7 avoid a child service issue; or, (2) given her mental health problems, believed she was raped in a flashback type situation with her first encounter when she was young or even one she never told anyone about (her business past). I think the second scenario is entirely possible. I have had 2 girlfriends who were raped and they both have told me that certain situations spark overwelming "flashback" feelings, which get trigger and significantly magnified by excessive drinking. I found out about this firsthand at wedding I attended with one GF. She got stumbling wasted that when we got back to the hotel room she passed out in her clothes on the bed. I basically did the same right next to her while watching TV, drinking a beer and eating peanut MMs from the mini bar. In the middle of the night, she jumped up and began screaming that she was raped. She did not even recognize me and was asking where the others went and looked int the closet and bathroom. She finally calmed her down and came back to reality (and was annoyed that she was still in her clothes!). I have never experienced anything like it. It was surreal!! We talked about it the next day and she told me the "flashback" had happened a couople times before. She was a huge boozer and her therapist told her that alcohol was a significant trigger for these "flashbacks". The AV/FA's situation sounds very similar. I feel for her, if this is the case. But I think she is being used by people with alternative agenda (Nifong, NBP, Gary, Kim, etc.), and at some point she became an accomplice to their agendas for her benefit. This is further evidenced with the whole Gary, 3 players from 3 of the wealthiest lacrosse families, civil suits that is now coming to light.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#78)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    I don't know if she ever told her mother that it was reported in 1996, much less her father.
    ESSENCE.COM
    The mother also told ESSENCE that when her daughter was 17 or 18, she was raped by several men, one of whom was someone she knew. The attack took place in the town of Creedmoor, about 15 miles northeast of Durham, and was a "set up," according to the accuser's mother. Although other family members confirmed that the alleged victim reported the incident to police in that jurisdiction, the young woman declined to pursue the case, relatives say out of fear for her safety.
    After this appeared, the mother said ESSENCE misrepresented what she said. My guess is the misrepresntaion is that the AV wasn't 17/18 years old when the 1st alleged raped happend but that is how old she was when she reported it Anyway, it just seems odd that the mother and other family members knew in 1996 of the 1993 incident but no one told the father

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    IMHO wrote: Evans called the accuser's version of events "fantastic lies."

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    I'm betting they will find them currently in jail or with a long criminal history. Why just because they are black? Your slip is showing, or it is finely pressed whilte linen sheet?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:37:13 PM EST
    Lora, I am not saying that you "want" these boys to twist in the wind as long as possible. I simply want to know whether you see any way to prevent such a twisting short of a trial. Just because the AV was victimized by someone doesn't justify victimizing three other people if there is an insufficient basis to believe that they were the ones who did it. No one can help the AV's pain/rape right now, but if it is true that Nifong lacked sufficient evidence and has indicted ham sandwiches in the case of one, two or three of the arrested students, then that pain can be fixed right now. Correction: It only causes the AV more pain if a bumbling prosecution of innocents proceeds. Maybe she was dissociating and doesn't exactly know who did what that night. The Nifong method has sure held her up to needless scorn.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#82)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:37:42 PM EST
    Kalidoggie, Interesting story about your GF/FA.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:39:21 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Evans called the accuser's version of events "fantastic lies."
    You are just covering for her. It is the press that has suggested the gold-digging. The only motivation suggested by the defnese in a press conference has been along the lines of "well, she was in the back of a squad car when she made the claim, what does that suggest?" I see nothing in the characterization that even intimates gold-digging. To falsely claim a racially charged gang rape is a pretty fantastic lie, in and of itself.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    Your slip is showing, or it is finely pressed white linen sheet?
    Well, I for one would assume that if they gang raped a 14-year-old and held her prisoner all night, it might well be one in a long string of crimes. Black or white. And as far as them being in jail, I am sure I have read statistics about disproportionate numbers of the African-American male population being in jail at any given moment. Just because the NBP are involved in this case, must we drag in white sheet references as well? I hope not. What's more, I don't think your modern Klansmen can afford linen sheets. Percale is about as high as they go.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    IMHO, So you're saying that the AV lied to her father about the first alleged gangrape?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    IMHO, So you have evidence that Roberts and the AV were crying at Buchanan house?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#87)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    ding7777 posted:
    Anyway, it just seems odd that the mother and other family members knew in 1996 of the 1993 incident but no one told the father.
    Stranger things happen ding7777. I'm not even saying it is true, I'm saying we don't know it is a lie that the father hadn't been told before the reporters interviewed him. The guy seems totally guileless to me. I don't know if you are a guy or a "gal" (heh, heh, azbbf), but ask a female friend if there are serious things they've told their mothers, but were kept from their fathers. A friend's abortion comes to mind. Even things guys do are kept from one parent and not the other. I know a woman that never told her father she was raped. They lived in the same town as her father. She saw him all the time. She was very close to him. She felt she let him down. She was raped at gun point, by a stranger, in her apartment parking garage, in the morning while on her way to work. It "sounds odd" that she would feel that way, but she did.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#88)
    by chew2 on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    gmax, Funny how white male conservatives like you are always sticking up for the minorities whom you resent so much. Gmax said this:
    But right now I could only convict these boys of being white in Durham County. I see no other evidence to support a rape that passes a beyond reasonable doubt test.
    Now he says this:
    Chew2 said: I'm betting they will find them currently in jail or with a long criminal history.
    Why just because they are black? Your slip is showing, or it is finely pressed whilte linen sheet?
    I didn't say they were black. But of course you assumed they were black so you could attempt to make a racial issue out of it. Such a hypocrite. The poor white conservative man raising the banner of black civil rights.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#89)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    IMHO, Using both "guy" and "gal" in the same post certainly proves that you are guilty of both mysandry and mysogyny. (just kiddin)

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    IMHO, Father believes nothing happened with the 1993. Daughter files rape charges three years later. I know the logic here is tough. But try, try, try. Either the father believes she was gangraped in 1993 or he doesn't. You say he believes that, apparently exclusively to any other source of information because he has made a determination of the facts solely on what the AV and his wife, her mother, told him, that nothing happened. He does not have to say another word on this subject, and he probably won't. You say (and in fact I believe either the mother or AV said this) that his belief was based on an untruth, that in fact she had been raped by these three men and that she did not tell him to protect him. So she told him a version of events that was not true. This is simple logic. If he believes she wasn't raped, he cannot believe that filing charges of rape against three innocent men is not filing false rape charges. I guess you can maintain that the father still does not know that his daughter filed rape charges three years after the rape did or did not occur, or that now he knows and has changed his mind and believes that she was raped, although he hasn't made a statement to that effect of which I'm aware. Perhaps he now believes that she was lying to him then about the first gangrape accusation, but now actually believes that she was gangraped then. So she was a liar in order to help her father. Is she lying now about this gangrape in order to get a civil suit to fill the family coffers? Did she lie to him about the broomstick in order to explain to him about the lack of DNA evidence or did she just forget to tell the police about being sodomized with a broom? I know you have to spend your requisite time pushing over wheelchairs for the ha has, but try to put your brain to this one.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#91)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:13:10 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO, So you have evidence that Roberts and the AV were crying at Buchanan house?
    No. My position is we don't know if they were crying or not. Your position was no evidence of crying suggests "yet another false report of fact by the AV in the morning of the 14th." Here's the claim you made, but still have not proven:
    We really need to know what the AV was saying and to whom. Yesterday there was the story that the AV said that both dancers were crying, but there seems to be no evidence, photos or what Roberts said or what Bissey observed, that either woman was crying while they were at Buchanan. This would suggest, like the "20 rapists"*[ALSO NOT PROVEN] yet another false report of fact by the AV in the morning of the 14th.


    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:31:24 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Interesting story about your GF/FA.
    Quite smug of you, but wrong. She never accused me or identified anyone in particular, so the "FA" is inapplicable.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#93)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:36:17 PM EST
    Bob, Regarding the 1993 incident, the mother of the AV stated she was glad the AV dropped the case because one of the alleged perps was a family friend (the AV's boyfriend and the mom's were friends), had a criminal record and didn't want the boy to suffer prison time.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#94)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:42:50 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    Quite smug of you, but wrong. She never accused me or identified anyone in particular, so the "FA" is inapplicable.
    Smug? Why did you assume I was trying to be anything but descriptive in my label? That's all you're doing isn't it? I didn't say she accused you or anyone of the false rape. GF/FA = girl friend/false announcer

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lora on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    Rogan, Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate it. Frankly, I don't know. It seems that the defense thinks that their evidence is sufficient to get the three off the hook now, if only Nifong would pay attention to it. I feel like I've spent a lot of time shooting holes in some of the defense statements, using mostly logical, factual, and a couple (shall we say to be kind) less likely *coughmustachecough* arguments. We don't really know what Nifong has. I can only hope that what he has outweighs whatever the defense has, otherwise, using the reasonable doubt criteria, innocent men have been indicted. Short of disclosure/leaks/etc. I don't know how we will find out before trial. Gotta run for now.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#96)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 01:54:55 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Father believes nothing happened with the 1993.
    Daughter files rape charges three years later.
    I know the logic here is tough. But try, try, try. Either the father believes she was gangraped in 1993 or he doesn't. You say he believes that,...
    I don't know what the father believes. I'm saying we don't know it is a lie that the father hadn't been told about the 1993 rape or 1996 report before the reporters interviewed him. I have never seen it reported that the "father said that his daughter filed a false rape charge back then." Here's what you posted:
    And if you believe that, then you have to weigh the father's comments about the 1993 (1994?) rape, about which he said something to the effect that "those boys didn't do nothin' to her." That is, the AV's father said that his daughter filed a false rape charge back then.
    You have yet to prove he said that, so why you keep bringing it up is beyond me.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    by Thomas Sowell May 17, 2006 The worst thing said in the case involving rape charges against Duke University students was not said by either the prosecutor or the defense attorneys, or even by any of the accusers or the accused. It was said by a student at North Carolina Central University, a black institution attended by the stripper who made rape charges against Duke lacrosse players. According to Newsweek, the young man at NCCU said that he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted, "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past."

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#98)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    From the article excerpt LateModel posted:
    According to Newsweek, the young man at NCCU said that he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted, "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past."
    I posted the link to the DUKEOBSRVR.COM message board earlier today, if you want to read some ugly stuff by posters claiming to be Duke students, give it a look-see.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#99)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:26:09 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    and a couple (shall we say to be kind) less likely *coughmustachecough* arguments.
    Lora! Haven't you heard? Dan Abrams' criminal justice expert has affirmed the *coughmustachecough* argument. There is no shame in it now! It has been validated on the Abrams Report! Just like those time-stamped photos....Oh yeah....uh....nevermind.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#100)
    by JK on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    Re: An "Ace in the Hole" Most AV supporters think Nifong "must" have something more than he currently has shown. Most AV doubters think Nifong doesn't have anything substantially more than he has shown, because if he did, he would have leaked it already. I really have no idea who is right. BUT, if I were Nifong, and I did have some substantial evidence that was not yet disclosed (e.g., tox report with date rape drug, witness, etc.), and I was not obliged to share all my discovery yet, I would not leak my ace in the hole. Why? [Warning - the following is a purely hypothetical construct.] 1. I have leaked information before, but only when it was strategic. For example, I leaked the DNA "consistent with" findings, but I had to disclose the DNA report to the defense anyway, and they were going to spin it anyway, so I might as well get my interpretation out first. 2. There might be some marginal value to leaking it now in fighting the PR war, but I already have my indictments, I have been largely silent since my initial 70 interviews, and based on all the criticism, I now want to look as responsible as possible. 3. The suprise value in springing the evidence later is stronger than the PR value in leaking it now. I don't know when all info must be exchanged, but the greater the delay, the better. Even when I do disclose, I want to disclose in the least useful way to the defense. For example, I probably need to exchange a witness list. But I don't think I need to flesh out the expected testimony of each witness. If one of the team members had "flipped," I might include in my witness list every single member of the lacrosse team. Leave the defense guessing as to who the "rat" is. None of this means that any of this magical evidence does exist. But I would not presume it does not exist simply because it has not been leaked yet. [Also note the above hypothetical profile is completely consistent with those who think Nifong is an unethical attorney who is gaming the system to maximum advantage.]

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#101)
    by jen on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:34:13 PM EST
    Talkleft should have checked out the anti- woman right wing agenda from the ifeminist website before posting their "FOX" article. Anyway, Why won't the defense release the DNA report if it is so helpful? The accuser may have been drunk but how drunk and violent was the accused that night? Didn't the accuser have bruises such as a swollen face when she arrived at the hospital? Aren't there pictures showing her just fine when she arrived and unable to walk when she left? Was she drunk or drugged? was she in so much pain from the rape that she couldn't walk? isn't there further DNA tests to be done on the white male's hair that was found on her? Is her boyfriend a white male, if no which player's hair is this? Has anyone that has concluded this is a hoax actually seen the medical reports or rape kits, or pictures of the victim from the hospital? WHo forwarded the disgusting email to the DA? Did this person rat out other players? Do we know? A lot of uninformed media folks are defending possible sex predators without even knowing all of the facts... I will wait to the trail.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    I posted the link to the DUKEOBSRVR.COM message board earlier today, if you want to read some ugly stuff by posters claiming to be Duke students, give it a look-see.
    So you are equating an ugly asinine comments about Duke separtism from Durham (which includes black, asian, etc. students) with unjustly imprisoning an innocent person? Furthermore, the comment at NCCU was given in the context referring to past wrongs by white against blacks NOT Duke v. NCCU. That is pitiful and repugnant!!

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    croc_choda. You wrote:
    I would put the chance of a civil suit at around 100%, regardless what happens in criminal court (which I think will be dismissed). The AV is probably hearing advice from all corners, and much of that advice is probably telling her she could be a millionaire many times over if she pursues this in civil court.
    Shameful. For future archeologists interested in figuring out what the 21st century term "yahoo" meant, your post is a pretty conspicuous example. You make a personal negative assumption about the accuser (that her interest is suing), assign a probability to it (certainty) without presenting even a hint of a rationale for how you derived that quantification, and then declare the accuser "shameful" for intending something that, as far as anyone really knows, she may never have even contemplated. It's a sport, akin to shooting buffalo from the back of railroad trains. There's no critical thinking involved... just intellectual hooliganism. You see the yahoo heuristic throughout the thinking world of man, but for some reason this case is a wicked yahoo magnet. Oh great future archeologist, pray tell me this? What is it about this case that gives it its particular yahoo allure?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#104)
    by scribe on Wed May 17, 2006 at 03:32:13 PM EST
    The new indictee is a "son of power and privilege". Per the New York Daily News, his mom is a lobbyist, chairwoman of the LPGA and a tennis partner of Marilyn Quayle, his dad is a partner at Reed Smith, and they are "close" to the Bushes.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#105)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 17, 2006 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    scribe,
    The new indictee is a "son of power and privilege". Per the New York Daily News, his mom is a lobbyist, chairwoman of the LPGA and a tennis partner of Marilyn Quayle, his dad is a partner at Reed Smith, and they are "close" to the Bushes.
    Oh no. Until now I thought I wanted a fair trial. Now the family is "close to the Bushes". Is it just me or is there a collective urge to have people "close to the Bushes" feel a little pain of association?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:25:52 PM EST
    Bean, You wrote:
    The Duke men are so innocent it is ridiculous. If only after it is a fact, people like you would APOLOGIZE for your wrong conclusions from faulty facts.
    Now,now. Mother Theresa is so innocent it is ridiculous. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are right that the Duke men are innocent of the charges that have been brought against them. No rape. Where do you feel that the purse and the shoe are now, and what are the factual grounds upon which you base your answer? Oh yes. And the money. Where did the money go? Another question. I suppose this one should be addressed to Orinoco. When you hire an exotic dancer, is the price different if they are to dance for five people and if they are to dance for forty people?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#107)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:38:59 PM EST
    Seligmann's attorney hopes to argue motions Thursday

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:40:10 PM EST
    IMHO, Jeez, I thought we were talking about the essence of what the father said, you want an exact quote. So let's try it once again. Really simple. If the father said that the 1993 rape did not happen and as late as April of this year still believed that that rape had not happened, how can he think that the rape charges she filed three years later in 1997 were true charges of events that happened. I see the problem. By me saying that the father, by saying that the 1993 gangrape hadn't happened was saying that the rape charges she filed in 1997 were false was my interpretation of his original statement. You see, once there is a belief that there is no rape you have to believe that charges of rape HAVE TO BE false. When I wrote "That is" I was making an interpretation of the father's statement. "That is" equals "In other words." If I were quoting him I would have used a pair of these: ". How about this? Think really hard and try to follow: If the father doesn't think that a rape occurred, and presuming he had knowledge of his daughter filing rape charges on a rape of which she had convinced him had not occurred, then the father, if indeed he continued to believe his daughter telling him that no rape had occurred, would have to believe that his daughter had filed a false rape charge. That is, the father said that his daughter filed false rape charges.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:43:13 PM EST
    IMHO, Do we know if she lied about the gangrape not happening or did she file false rape charges? Can you think of a scenario where it wasn't one or the other? If she lied to her father about the first gangrape not happening, did she lie to him about the broomstick sodomy?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:50:41 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    Oh yes. And the money. Where did the money go?
    How about Kim, the second stripper? As they say, motive and opportunity... Remember she was with the AV/FA for over a half an hour and she has kids to feed!! The $400 could have been on the AV/FA's person. Kim easily could have snatched the $400 from someone she doesn't know who is passed out in her car becasue...hey, she has kids to feed! Who is to say the money was in the purse? It could have fallen out when the purse was on the front lawn and Kim picked it up because...hey, whose to say she can't have it, if it belonged to someone it should not have been on the lawn, she has kids to feed!! Kim could have collected the cash for both strippers when she got there and just not given the AV/FA her cut because she was so drunk becasue....hey, she has kids to feed!! When you deal with someone whose mentality is the means justify the end, then that person should never be discounted.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#112)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:51:35 PM EST
    OOPS! Wasn't ready to send that one, I keep hitting post instead of preview. The Herman Veal incident was in 1984 and I don't know if the people called "Duke's Cameron Crazies" are even students. I hope not.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:55:58 PM EST
    IMHO: "That is" = "In other words" = "In essence." You'll do anything to argue, and yet you're losing the war. The AV either lied to her father about the 1993 gangrape or she lied when she filed rape charges three years later. So you've got someone today claiming yet another gangrape who's lied the last time she claimed she was gangraped. You still don't want to admit it, but after a point your exercise is rather pathetic. When did she lie? 1993? 1997? 2006?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    Anyone, as I understand it, it was her makeup kit that was left in the bathroom, not the purse. Can someone confirm?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:01:34 PM EST
    Kalidoggie, You wrote:
    How about Kim, the second stripper?
    I wasn't asking for something hypothetical. The cab driver could have noticed the purse, shoe, and money on the ground and snuck off with them. Bean, You wrote: Where are the purse, the shoe and the money?? Well THAT says rape. A drunken/drugged prostitute loses her shoe, her purse and her money and the men are guilty? I just asked what you think happened to these items. And on what basis you think it? Wasn't trying to get you all bent out of shape. You wrote: BTW these things are all in possession of the DA (according to earlier reports). AND even if they are covered with DNA (which they weren't I guess) it wouldn't mean a God blessed thing. You think? The shoe and purse were listed on the search warrant as items the police were looking for, but I don't recall them being items that were found. and while some money was found, I don't know that the account was settled. You wrote:
    She was drunk and bruised when she got there (and now we know probably had just been raped by her *boyfriend*) and the boys refused to pay for NOTHING. Can you blame them???
    I thought the dancers were paid in advance. Orinoco, You wrote:
    You are pond scum with no credibility.Now back to your pond scummy ways.
    Integer vitae scelerisque purus non eget Mauris iaculis neque arcu nec venenatis gravida sagittis, Fusce, pharetra

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:12:38 PM EST
    The items left at the house included a make-up bag, not a purse, along with a cell phone, and some money.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:12:39 PM EST
    From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Wed, May. 17, 2006 A judge in Durham, N.C., yesterday acquitted a Duke lacrosse team captain of violating a noise ordinance and said authorities "could make better use" of the court's time without bringing such minor offenses to trial. The misdemeanor charge against Dan Flannery stemmed from a Jan. 10 party, when a neighbor called police to complain about what sounded like a drumbeat coming from a nearby house. Flannery and roommate David Evans were cited for noise violations. Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md., is one of three players charged with raping a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a March 13 team party, which was held at the house Evans and Flannery shared with a third teammate. Flannery, 22, of Garden City, N.Y., declined to comment. Brad Bannon, one of Evans' lawyers, said he expects the complaint against Evans to be dismissed.
    It appears that at least one judge in the Durham area has now made it clear that he finds Nifong's tactics at reinstating some of the petty little charges against the lax players to be reprehensible. With all of the allegations of Nifong refusing to meet with the players, refusing to look at exculpatory evidence, even with defense attorneys saying, "I've known Nifong for 25 years and he's never refused to see me about a client," it was claimed -- and I was willing to withhold judgment -- that these were still the statements of defense attorneys advocating their clients' position. But not now. Not when it is coming from a sitting judge in Nifong's own district. When a sitting judge in his own district starts criticizing Nifong's tactics, then something is wrong with Nifong's tactics. I am no longer willing to defend Nifong's current actions based on any past precedent he may have shown. I am now convinced that some of his more dubious actions from the very beginning of this case are and have been all along, in fact, indefensible. I no longer believe him to be an honest -- albeit tough -- DA. I now believe his actions in this case to be motivated primarily by personal ambition, and I predict that events will eventually bear that out. The result will be a disaster for all, and will end in some similar form -- to borrow from a passage in the Dover decision of Judge John E. Jones III -- as follows: "The breathtaking inanity of [Mr. Nifong's] decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and [citizens] of the [Durham] Area deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:20:09 PM EST
    The search warrant can be found at www.thesmokinggun.com I'll try to link here http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke4.html

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:22:43 PM EST
    SLOphoto says:
    It appears that at least one judge in the Durham area has now made it clear that he finds Nifong's tactics at reinstating some of the petty little charges against the lax players to be reprehensible.
    You know, reprehensible is such a strong word. It would seem to me to be a mild rebuke. Kind of like, don't send me this crap, send me something more substantial ... Also, Orinoco, it is possible to have a disagreement without calling people names of any kind. Bean should remember that too. I imagine that those Duke guys have realized by now that a little respect, especially when you are treating a woman as a sex object, goes a long way, no matter what her circumstances.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#110)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:28:57 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    So you are equating an ugly asinine comments about Duke separtism from Durham (which includes black, asian, etc. students) with unjustly imprisoning an innocent person?
    Furthermore, the comment at NCCU was given in the context referring to past wrongs by white against blacks NOT Duke v. NCCU.
    That is pitiful and repugnant!!
    Actually Kalidoggie, I didn't take it that deep. I was pointing the way to more sophomoric comments by college students. I didn't even link it, out of courtesy to you, believe it or not. The last person to call me pitiful was Or*n*c*. Here's a few repugnant comments: deleted

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:37:27 PM EST
    The letter from the firm which conducted the polygraph is now available. link

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:43:52 PM EST
    Pat, You wrote:
    The items left at the house included a make-up bag, not a purse, along with a cell phone, and some money.
    The items sought, but not found, at the house included a purse, a shoe, and some more money. Bean,you wrote:
    BTW these things are all in possession of the DA (according to earlier reports).
    Do you have any of those earlier reports? I think a lot of people, TL included, have surmised that the boys got in a scuffle of some kind with the dancers, at which point they may have taken their money back. And it would be nice to find a couple of facts that put the lie to this inexcusably defammatory story.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 06:51:42 PM EST
    While doing some other searching, I ran across this article - obviously pro-defense - but, it included some information about the time-line that seems consistent with what others have said. Specifically, the time-stamps on the digital pictures are allegedly confirmed by the watches of the players included in (some of the) photos. Another thing that seemed new, at least to me, was that the pictures apparently showed the players to all have short-sleeve (polo, no doubt) shirts. The third issue that seems to interest me, anyway, is that there apparently is a picture of the AV (what has been decided with regard to her identity?) with new nail polish. Finally, while I don't have first-hand information about this, I believe that Finnerty's defense is that he was at a restaurant - and arrived at the party after the dance started. If true, this would explain the "tag-team" approach of Seligmann's attorney and Finnerty's attorney - If the DA is forced to move-up the time-line to include Seligmann, he makes it more difficult to prosecute Finnerty. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060428_spilbor.html

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:04:03 PM EST
    Posted by beenaround
    You know, reprehensible is such a strong word. It would seem to me to be a mild rebuke. Kind of like, don't send me this cr*ap, send me something more substantial ...
    Well, I respect your opinion, but I stand by mine. The judge was well aware of the circumstances under which he/she received the case. When the judge said authorities "could make better use" of the court's time, it cannot be separated entirely from the context in which it was received -- don't send me THIS cr*ap. It came before the court as part of a petty and mean-spirited campaign by Nifong, to single out a particular group -- lax players at Duke -- for selective application of the law over petty offenses which are otherwise being dismissed for other individuals not part of that group. I stand by my statement that I now believe this is part of a pattern of reprehensible conduct by Nifong from the very beginning of this case. And I believe that events will eventually bear that out.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:23:37 PM EST
    Pat posted: Specifically, the time-stamps on the digital pictures are allegedly confirmed by the watches of the players included in (some of the) photos.
    This is true, and I have seen at least one of the pictures that does. Another factor that is commonly being overlooked in the date/time stamp controversy is in two parts. 1) While it is theoretically possible to modify the internal records of the digital camera, it does take downloading a program from the Internet to do that, the knowledge of how to use that program and the motivation to do so. It strains credibility to assert that the lax players were that informed and that motivated, and managed to get people at the party to reset their watches to match the altered pictures ahead of time -- which if you have seen them are little more than party snapshots. In other words, if any planning had been involved, they would most likely have planned to take better pictures in the first place. 2) It absolutely assumes the players are guilty. If they are not they have absolutely no motive for changing the time/date stamps at all.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:39:53 PM EST
    Pat posted: Interestingly, while I was doing the obligatory google search on duke lacrose pictures, the NBC 17 site had some "exclusive" pictures - one of which has Reade Seligmann's photo at 12:09.
    I've never been clear on this, but unless two cameras were used for the digital photos -- and one camera was an hour off on the time -- the picture you are referring to shows Reade Seligmann at 11:09, not 12:09.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#127)
    by weezie on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:41:14 PM EST
    Strange pictures of FA on "www.dilby.com" Not confirmed but pretty scary all the same!

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:46:12 PM EST
    While this may be old news, I'd prefer that we talk about issues, such as the time-line of events. The following link is from WRAL's inspection of the defense photos. As mentioned earlier, the defense claims that the time-stamps agree with the watches that the players were wearing in some of the photos. I presume the neighbor's testimony, along with the cabbie and Kim's 911 calls also establish the beginning and end of the dancer's appearance at the party. For what it's worth, their testimony appears to agree with the photo time-stamps. link Interestingly, while I was doing the obligatory google search on duke lacrose pictures, the NBC 17 site had some "exclusive" pictures - one of which has Reade Seligmann's photo at 12:09. link You have to click on the hot link labeled "Exclusive Pictures" [try again on the links. Please follow instructions in the comment box. I fixed these two but you'll have to repost the rest correctly]

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:47:09 PM EST
    SLO: Yes, you're right - my bad on the time - it must be time to go to bed. Way late for us old people.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:53:05 PM EST
    SLOphoto Was that a direct quote from the Judge in the petty misdemeanor case? Did he use the phase "breathtaking inanity"? In other words he said "I am speechless to the point of loss of breath from the Prosecutor's senseless or foolish pursuit of this." given normal court decorum, I would say you are correct. He took him to the woodshed metaphorically.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#130)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:55:02 PM EST
    Bob in Pacicifia posted:
    IMHO,
    Jeez, I thought we were talking about the essence of what the father said, you want an exact quote.
    The essence of what he said to reporters before he was, supposedly, told about the 1993 rape and 1996 report? Because that is the paraphrase from the father from which you derive your "that is." Bob in Pacifica posted:
    If you believe that, then you have to weigh the father's comments about the 1993 (1994?) rape, about which he said something to the effect that "those boys didn't do nothin' to her." That is, the AV's father said that his daughter filed a false rape charge back then.
    If the reporters told him his daughter filed a 1996 rape report before he was told that she was raped in 1993 and he said "those boys did nothing to her." What does that prove? Does, "those boys did nothing to her,"{in essence} translate to "my daughter must have filed a false police report?" No. Even if he said, "Oh my goodness! She must have filed a false rape report because no one told me she was raped in Creedmore in 1993!" Would that prove she filed a false police report? No. Would that suggest no one told him she had been raped in 1993? Yes. Bob in Pacifica posted:
    How about this? Think really hard and try to follow: If the father doesn't think that a rape occurred, and presuming he had knowledge of his daughter filing rape charges on a rape of which she had convinced him had not occurred, then the father, if indeed he continued to believe his daughter telling him that no rape had occurred, would have to believe that his daughter had filed a false rape charge.
    That is, the father said that his daughter filed false rape charges.
    If the father doesn't think that a rape occurred, Before he was told a rape occurred he must not have believed a rape occurred. After the story broke he was told a rape occurred in Creedmore 1993. He claims to believe it now that he has been told. and presuming he had knowledge of his daughter filing rape charges on a rape Just after the prior rape report story became public, he learned she filed the 1996 rape charge from a reporter. Whether he believed the reporter or not we donot know. I would assume very shortly thereafter, but not before he talked to a reporter, he learned she was raped in 1993. of which she had convinced him had not occurred, I don't know if it took any convincing. They may just not have told him. then the father, if indeed he continued to believe his daughter telling him that no rape had occurred We don't know if she told him no rape accurred, he may not have asked, she may not of volunteered, we don't know. would have to believe that his daughter had filed a false rape charge. If the reporters told him his daughter filed a rape report before his wife told him the daughter was raped, he may not have believed the reporters. We don't know. "Those boys did nothing to her," does not translate, even in essence, to her "father said that his daughter filed false rape charges." It just doesn't, Bob. That is, the father said that his daughter filed false rape charges. You're not there yet, Bob. I'm not sure why you need to put so much effort into proving the father said that his daughter filed a false police report, but you haven't done it yet.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:57:11 PM EST
    And is it too late to suggest the obvious, that with doctored photos and a fake mustache makes it obvious what a grand conspiracy we have uncovered here. these guys thought through all of this very very carefully. Evil geniuses I tell you.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 07:58:08 PM EST
    Dead horses to beat for sale, inquire within.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    Does anyone have any theories as to why they quit taking pictures for 20 minutes? I tend to believe the players are innocent (and what's more, I vote Democrat, bean) but it does seem a little strange that all the cameras would just stop clicking for all that time. Kali, the idea that Kim stole the $400 makes sense to me too. If they let her leave with that big stack of twenties, and she was passed out in Kim's car, and Kim was already pretty pissed off at the world, the boys, and probably her "dance partner" too, I don't see her as letting that opportunity pass her by. She may even have felt entitled to it for having to take the trouble to deal with this messed-up, unprofessional dancer, who had been sent by a different agency. She'd have plenty of opportunity to ditch both the purse and the shoe later if they got left in her car. I can't imagine anyone was looking for those items when they were prying AV off the wheel and into the cop car. Kim seemed willing to let the AV swing in the wind at first; only later did she realize that "come to think of it, she was glassy-eyed."

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:06:43 PM EST
    IMHO, You win. Anything you say. Just stop making fun of my charred stumps. Just one little thing: Did she lie about the 1993 rape or did she file false rape charges in 1997?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#135)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:23:22 PM EST
    Just one little thing: Did she lie about the 1993 rape or did she file false rape charges in 1997?
    I don't know what she said about the rape other than what I read in the redacted police report.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:27:46 PM EST
    For just a second there I thought the flogging of the equine carcass was over. We should be so lucky. Carry on.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    Posted by gmax SLOphoto Was that a direct quote from the Judge in the petty misdemeanor case? Did he use the phase "breathtaking inanity"?
    It was a civil case -- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District -- Dec. 2005. The case was an attempt by a local school district in Pennsylvania to introduce Creationism (Intelligent Design) into local public school science classrooms. Parents and science teacher objected to the decision by the fundamentalist school board and it went to court. John E. Jones III was the judge, a conservative Republican and Lutheran appointed by George Bush II. Conservatives had high hopes, but they were strongly rebuked by the judge. For that reason his 136 page decision -- one of the most eloquent ever written in legal history, if you care to read it-- was a stunning defeat for fundamentalists. Judge Jones used phrasing like that -- breathtaking inanity --in the decision to severely castigate the school board -- and then awarded the plaintiffs -- parents and teachers -- damages for all their legal fees -- in excess of one million dollars. Some of Judge Jones' phrasing has now become famous in many circles. Here is a portion below: The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. .... Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:33:58 PM EST
    gmax wrote:
    Dead horses to beat for sale, inquire within.
    Do you have any with a fake moustache?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    Sorry Kali All fake mustache are under lock and key we are going to do forensic super duper tersting on them. We might need more than one lab and if it does not match it wont matter we will just pretend like we never said it would matter.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#140)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:56:26 PM EST
    All fake mustache are under lock and key we are going to do forensic super duper tersting on them. We might need more than one lab and if it does not match it wont matter we will just pretend like we never said it would matter.
    Hey guys, Get a criminal justice expert to validate one of your "hair-brained" theories, then you can talk. Lawrence Koblinsky was down with mine.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#141)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 08:56:54 PM EST
    gmax posted:
    Evil geniuses I tell you.
    According to Chesire, not all of them. At the press conference he said David Evans didn't have "the mind" the other players have. Worse yet, he said he didn't have the skill of the other players. Not as brainy, not as skilled, but longer on character, apparently. Finnerty and Seligmann should take polygraph tests and release them to the public. That took guts. If I had one of those lapel pins I would wear it. They should make lapel pins using the photo of him at the party showing he had no mustache. If I was Evans I would have blown up that photo and taped it to the podium. Who cares if Nifong won't meet with them? Release the photos and the redacted DNA report. What's Nifong going to do when everyone has the exculpatory evidence but him? Why didn't they just mail it to him?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#142)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:08:38 PM EST
    Kali, I've been meaning to get back to you about the financial motive angle. I recall mention that Finnety and Seligmann were two of the wealthier kids on the team. This was in the paper, soon after they were indicted. That same day or the next, Kerry Sutton made some comment about the arrests not being random, she said she thought there was a "method to the madness" something like that. I'll see if I can find the quote. She didn't come out and say she thought they were chosen for their parent's wealth, but I thought she implied it. She was being coy, as I recall.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    hair brained theories. That was an intentional pun right? And Larry who? Did he have a brothers Moe and Shemp?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:22:09 PM EST
    IMHO:
    Not as brainy, not as skilled, but longer on character, apparently. Finnerty and Seligmann should take polygraph tests and release them to the public. That took guts. If I had one of those lapel pins I would wear it.
    Now that took guts. I believe that is one of the noblest posts I've ever seen you make. Coming from you I think that's one of the highest tributes to David Evans I've yet seen. I deeply admire you for making that statement. That is what I meant by your stature. Thank you, IMHO. And if I had one of those lapel pins I would wear it, too. Have a nice evening. Good night.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#145)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:26:59 PM EST
    Larry Koblinsky, forensics professor at John Jay College and a leading expert on sex crimes
    Agrees with imho! And they all laughed at me.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 17, 2006 at 09:29:10 PM EST
    Nope evil geniuses I said and evil geniuses its gonna be. That my story and I am sticking to it. I am reading from page one, paragraph one of the Nodong playbook. Its says "topedos be damned, full speed ahead."

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:14:11 AM EST
    The photographs that Dan Abrams has up on the web are what is known as "doctored" photos. The "time-stamps" depicted in those images have been added through the use of a character generator function in a digital image processing program to the image area of the frame. Probably the "culprit" is someone who works for Dan Abrams. The actual time-stamp information we should all be concerned with is embedded within the file created at the time the picture is taken. The defense has told us that their photo collection came from several cameras and that their expert used watches in one or more of the images to confirm (or was it to correct?) the accuracy of the original stampings. In the one picture that was released to the public that included a wrist-watch in it, it was not possible to read the time on the watch. SloPhoto writes,
    Another factor that is commonly being overlooked in the date/time stamp controversy is in two parts.
    [I'll skip the first part for the moment]
    2) It absolutely assumes the players are guilty. If they are not they have absolutely no motive for changing the time/date stamps at all.
    The time-stamp data that we have can be quite wrong without the players or their attorneys being guilty of tampering with evidence. The times are manually set on most of those cameras, after all. I know when I set my digital camera I set it to a battery-operated wall clock in my den. If I had to guess, I'd bet that clock is as much as five minutes off from reality. If two cameras set the way I set my camera were found in the street, I would expect them to be off from each other by a few minutes. They could even be off by as much as 10, obviously. The defense attorneys presumably have the actual cameras, and so they presumably can check each of those to compare their time settings to the real time. And maybe that's what they did first when they started evaluating the time-stamps. What I don't know is whether the doctored time stamps we are being shown by Dan Abrams correspond to the original time-stamps from the cameras themselves, or whether they have been corrected via this or some other procedure. Without knowing that, I'd be hesitant to build my timeline around their claims, even if it would make the players look more innocent if I did that. Pat, You wrote:
    I believe that Finnerty's defense is that he was at a restaurant - and arrived at the party after the dance started.
    I'd read that was at a restaurant, but I hadn't read of an admission that he returned.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#148)
    by azbballfan on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:41:25 AM EST
    If two cameras set the way I set my camera were found in the street, I would expect them to be off from each other by a few minutes. They could even be off by as much as 10, obviously.
    Seriously, how many of our DVD players still have the flashing 12:00 on it? They could have set the times accurately. They could have gotten close. They could also have set the times on the files after the event. All this said, Dave Evans did a good job of coming off convincingly. He needs to fire his lawyer who undermined public opinion of the voraciaty of his defense. Cheshire was ridiculous.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:27:37 AM EST
    I think it was his voracity that got him in trouble. I think justice in this country is in trouble because the system spends so much time on dope cases. Testilying by police. Plea bargains by the indicted to avoid the hammer of draconian sentences. Prosecutors and police get lazy. Sloppy. BTW we got similar results from alcohol prohibition.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#150)
    by weezie on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:19:09 AM EST
    Wendy Murphy is gonna get'ya!

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#151)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:10:25 AM EST
    bean posted:
    You are trusting a black prostitute with everything to gain and NOTHING to lose rather than 3 boys who have worked extemely hard in their life, hours of studying to get into highly prestigiuos Univ., hours of practicing to become all Americans and EVERYTHING to lose.
    College students that have as much to lose as these guys participate in gang rapes. google: gang rape university or gang rape fraternity It's an eye-opener, guys risking lucrative pro careers to take their place in line and have a go at a passed out coed. bean posted:
    Plus all 40 men have to give up their hard work to keep quiet and support 3 rapists????? I DON'T THINK SO MAN.
    They didn't have to keep quiet. If they hadn't, in my ever so humble opinion, almost all of them would be playing lacrosse right now, maybe even Ryan McFadyen. bean posted:
    Not to mention where thosle boys are from they woulen't even touch something like that much less have sex her.
    See, I'd like to think "where those boys are from," is a place that raises young men to just say no to hiring strippers. If they had, in my ever so humble opinion, their coach would still have the job he "worked extemely hard" to get and keep. Their disrespect for him should not be over looked. bean posted:
    The story is they were mad they sent such a PIG from the stripper business, and a drunk PIG to boot.
    You'd think they'd be able to get women to attend their party that were more to their liking, maybe not even have to pay them to show up. I know it was spring break, but every single one of these popular guys' girlfriends and females friends was out of town? bean posted:
    They refused to pay (hurt the strippers feelings, boo friggin' hoo)....good for them.
    Yeah, if that is all that happened, "good for them." No one is going to rip them off. No skanky 'ho' is going to get the best of them. They're too smart! She's too dumb! They've proved that. bean posted:
    Only blind unadulterated hate for success is the reason for this DA support.
    I'm not even going to pretend I know more about blind unadulterated hate than you do, bean. bean posted:
    Man haters.
    Their seems to be more than just man-hating going on here. What does the accuser being black have to do with the point you were making?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#152)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:51:44 AM EST
    bean asked:
    BTW, Should those 40 men make up a lie to say it happened to please you?
    I said they didn't have to keep quiet. They still don't. You forgot to tell me what the stripper being black had to do with your point?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:01:50 AM EST
    azbballfan, Back in the very early nineties I wrote a country-western song, "Always Midnight On My VCR." In this part of town the power always goes out. I was left in the dark regarding your whereabouts. That flashin' blue LED marks the time that you walked out on me. Wherever you are it's always midnight on my VCR.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#154)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:23:28 AM EST
    the men have not been quiet-they have tried to contact the DA on MANY OCCASIONS and been rebuffed-
    All 40+ of them?
    Not a crime to hire strippers
    I didn't say it was a crime, I said if they had not hired strippers their coach would probably still have the job he "worked extemely hard" to get and keep. Their disrespect for him should not be over looked. I wasn't asking why the players asked for White and Hispanic dancers, I was asking what the dancer being black had to do with the point you were making:
    You are trusting a black prostitute with everything to gain and NOTHING to lose rather than 3 boys who have worked extemely hard in their life, hours of studying to get into highly prestigiuos Univ., hours of practicing to become all Americans and EVERYTHING to lose.
    Was it the trust issue? Everything to gain, nothing to lose?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:59:30 AM EST
    In the meantime, the taxi driver who provided the first airtight alibi for one of the accused Duke lacrosse players has been picked up by the police on a flimsy, three-year-old charge, supposedly about shoplifting. He was held for five hours for questioning -- reportedly not about shoplifting, but about the Duke rape charges. Does this smell to high heaven or what? The taxi driver himself is not accused of shoplifting. But two women who were passengers in his cab were. Since when are taxi drivers held responsible for what their passengers did before or after being in their cab? What purpose can this harassing of the taxi driver serve? His account of what happened in the Duke rape case has already been corroborated by a surveillance camera at the bank to which he took one of the lacrosse players, as well as by other time-stamped records indicating where his passenger was during the time when he was supposed to be raping a stripper.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#156)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:12:46 AM EST
    Latemodel posted:
    He was held for five hours for questioning -- reportedly not about shoplifting, but about the Duke rape charges.
    Source please? Latemodel posted:
    Since when are taxi drivers held responsible for what their passengers did before or after being in their cab?
    I don't know the details of this case, but a warrant was issued over two years ago. The police didn't intitiate the warrant in order to arrest him. If the police interview someone that has a warrant and don't arrest him, then what? Favoritism? Would you accuse them of trying to get him to testify to the prosecution's benefit? They arrested Kim Roberts after she gave them a statement.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#157)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:41:32 AM EST
    Posted by LateModel In the meantime, the taxi driver .... He was held for five hours for questioning -- reportedly not about shoplifting, but about the Duke rape charges. Does this smell to high heaven or what? What purpose can this harassing of the taxi driver serve?
    That's a very good point. But with at least one correction. Newspaper articles have stated that he was held for 5 hours until someone posted his bond. In other words he still is being charged by the DA's office. I have seen nothing anywhere that the charge has anything other than to do with the already resolved shoplifting case, and nothing to suggest that the police are interested in talking with the taxi driver about any other issue than the alleged rape case. Nifong's is again being petty and mean-spirited.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:02:57 AM EST
    IMHO posted: The police didn't intitiate the warrant in order to arrest him. If the police interview someone that has a warrant and don't arrest him, then what? Favoritism?
    They did arrest him.
    From The Durham Herald-Sun By John Stevenson : May 11, 2006 : 10:47 pm ET In another lacrosse case development this week, a cab driver who is an alibi witness for Seligmann was arrested Wednesday on a 2 1/2-year-old misdemeanor larceny charge, accusing him of stealing five pocketbooks from the Hecht's store at Northgate Mall in September 2003.
    (link to story.)

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:17:11 AM EST
    My source is the Internet, the source of all random,irrefutable knowledge. These girls are not dancers, as dancers would have shown up with bodyguards. They are prostitutes, not that there is anything wrong with that. Prostitutes tend to be addicts prone to erratic behavior. You want the source of that too? That would be personal experience.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#160)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:30:58 AM EST
    They did arrest him.
    Yes, I know. That's what police are supposed to do when they run a warrant check and a warrant comes up - arrest the person. I was asking Latemodel what he/she would say if he had NOT been arrested. Would that be a sign of favoritism? Were they trying to influence his testimony? It is a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation. Was the witness coerced or favored?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#161)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    Latemodel posted:
    My source is the Internet, the source of all random,irrefutable knowledge.
    Do you have a link? Latemodel posted:
    These girls are not dancers, as dancers would have shown up with bodyguards. They are prostitutes, not that there is anything wrong with that. Prostitutes tend to be addicts prone to erratic behavior. You want the source of that too? That would be personal experience.
    I hope you've conquered your addiction

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#162)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:43:15 AM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    That's a very good point. But with at least one correction. Newspaper articles have stated that he was held for 5 hours until someone posted his bond. In other words he still is being charged by the DA's office.
    Latemodel has not produced a source for this:
    He was held for five hours for questioning -- reportedly not about shoplifting, but about the Duke rape charges.
    I know they arrested him:
    If the police interview someone that has a warrant and don't arrest him, then what?
    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:58:34 AM EST
    Comments now closed, a new thread is here.

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    IMHO:
    Latemodel posted: He was held for five hours for questioning -- reportedly not about shoplifting, but about the Duke rape charges.
    Source please?
    I know I have seen the exact source Latemodel is referring to, but don't yet have it for you. Meanwhile an even more damning article from the attorney representing the cab driver.
    "Reasonable people can draw an inference from that," said Thomas Loflin, who is representing cab driver Moecelden Ahmed Elmostafa" -- [i.e. that the taxi driver was being questioned and harassed about the alleged rape charge.] Loflin called the larceny charge "entirely frivolous." He said it was "striking and surprising" that two principal investigators in the lacrosse case served the warrant instead of the usual lone uniformed officer. "Detectives don't serve warrants unless it's a murder or something extremely serious," Loflin said. "This is the first case I know of where that has happened, in Durham at least."
    Detectives don't serve warrants unless -- link

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    Sorry for a dumb question, but could Nifong have called all 40 players into the grand jury, granted immunity for any crime but rape/kidnapping, and asked each one questions one at a time? If he could have, wouldn't that have forced the alleged "blue wall of science" if the boys had something to hide unless they wanted to be set up for possible perjury charges? Rove and Libby were suspects who were called in front of grand juries--couldn't the Duke boys been too?

    Re: A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? (none / 0) (#166)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    I know I have seen the exact source Latemodel is referring to, but don't yet have it for you.
    You have a source stating [in essence]"He was held for five hours for questioning -- reportedly not about shoplifting, but about the Duke rape charges?" I haven't read that.

    A Civil Suit in the Duke Case? | 165 comments (165 topical)