home

Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense

Ok, there's not much news in the Duke case but it's time for a new thread. Here's an article on how defense lawyers are presenting a unified defense. Dave Evans' lawyer Joe Cheshire says:

Unindicted players and their lawyers would not be sticking together unless "every single one of them knows that they're innocent."

< Supreme Court Limits Whistleblower Protection | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lora on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    From the end of the previous thread: (posted by GSD fan from the search warrant)
    He apologized and requested that they go back inside and continue to dance.
    There is no inconsistency here. A couple of players still could have pulled the AV out of the car, EASILY groped her with no one else noticing (people, especially men who post here, please understand that women can be quickly and furtively groped with no one around them ever being the wiser!!), and then escorted (dragged) her back inside. Here's a speculation (reasonable I believe, and from the perspective that the rape could have happened): Kim, who wanted to go back inside, did in fact go in on her own, and attracted the majority of attention and interest. We still have no idea what she did during the time of the alleged rape. The AV may have stayed right in the car, until she was pulled out, groped, brought to the bathroom, and assaulted and raped. This way, few if any other players might have had any idea of what went on, as they would have been eagerly and busily (and noisily perhaps) watching Kim. I have another speculation as to the reports by the defense that the two women were in the bathroom together. They may have entered the bathroom together before they began to dance, to get ready. Kim had to change, remember. If I were waiting for my dance partner to change, I would not want to be alone with a roomful of rowdy young men. I'd go with her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#2)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:10:02 AM EST
    Jo posted:
    I find it funny (odd, coincidental) that these two (Nifong and AV) have "worked together" before. It would be silly to think Nifong had her "lying in wait", but it isn't hard to think that he remembers working with her, that perhaps in person she appears credible, impressive, charismatic, sincere, etc. Nifong may have felt this would be a dream prosocution to carry him through election day. If he "lightened her load" at their last encounter, he may feel she owes him. I also wouldn't be surprised to find that Nifong is now threatening the AV with jail-time and/or loss of custody of her children if she backs out of these charges.
    From the article Sharon linked:
    But District Attorney Mike Nifong, who is handling the rape case, and who was an assistant prosecutor in 2002, said Wednesday he had nothing to do with the plea deal four years ago. He said he didn't know which local prosecutor negotiated it.
    Jo, I'm not sure how this plan would have worked: The case is brought to Nifong's attention, presumably, because they need a rather unusual court order to force the lacrosse team to cooperate. The investigators tell him, "We don't know how credible she is." Nifong looks at her record, remembers her (even though he says he doesn't know who prosecuted her case) and thinks, "Hmmmm, I don't care if she was raped or not. She's the ticket to my election for DA. Six days for someone that was "willing to kill a cop?" she owes me Big-Time (he even though he says he doesn't know who prosecuted her case). I'll get her stick by this bogus story. I don't care if these Dukies have to postpone their lives for a while. I need to stir up something if I am going to beat Freda Black! btw: I followed Cymro's directions, it was easier. Thank you, Cym.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#3)
    by azbballfan on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    Lora wrote:
    If I were waiting for my dance partner to change, I would not want to be alone with a roomful of rowdy young men. I'd go with her.
    Who's your booking agent?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:24:06 AM EST
    Lora, I never thought that I was going to convince you. I think most other people who study the case find the "pulled her from the car, groped her but no forced sex" story is inconsistent. I imagine that Nifong abandoned that story completely, since none of the elements have appeared in any search warrants or indictments. My guess is that the AV is not trying to reconcile that early version of events, just ignoring it. We'll see. Most of us.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    Lora wrote:
    They may have entered the bathroom together before they began to dance, to get ready. Kim had to change, remember.
    She also went to the bathroom and changed her clothes after the broomstick remark. The 12:41 photo shows Kim in the driver's seat of the dark Honda while the accuser is getting in the car. I think she made up her mind the dance was over after the broomstick remark, changed her clothes and got in her car. I don't think she was persuaded otherwise by anyone. She has hinted she was in the bathroom after the show because she said that the lacrosse players were lying when they claimed to slip $100 bills under the door trying to persuade them to return. She doesn't deny being in the bathroom. She denies that the accuser painted her fingernails in the bathroom. If she wasn't there, she would theoretically say she wasn't there so she doesn't know. Nope, the accuser's story is full of holes because she has told too many different versions of what happened.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:30:54 AM EST
    Sorry, should be: Theoretically she would say she wasn't there so she doesn't know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    thinkandtype, Exactly. Roberts makes no mention of a group of men pulling the AV out of the car and groping her. This is, as I've said, the kind of behavior that crosses the line from verbal to physical. If Roberts were told that the AV had been raped, even if she hadn't thought it happened initially and then changed her mind, if such an event happened she would have mentioned it. The moving papers describe one man coming out of the house and talking to the women to return. Bissey doesn't see any men escorting the AV into the house. While the theory that maybe the AV was confusing being pulled out of a car with being helped up from the back porch, I'll have to defer. If she was that intoxicated then anything she says should not be believed, especially without any physical evidence to support her story. I offer her "pulled from car, etc." story, if the AV were coherent enough to know what was happening around her, as an example of the AV lying about events at the house. If AV believers, see no inconsistencies, that speaks to their powers of deduction.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#8)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    Assuming the defense supplied time stamp [12:41]on the defense supplied photo of the accuser being helped into the car is correct: Mostafa drops Seligmann and Wellington off about 12:46. As a crow flies, he's not the far from 610 N. Buchanan, but he has to drive around the "Duke wall." I think yahoo maps has the trip taking 5 or 6 minutes (I ran it awhile back). When Mostafa got there around 12:51, Kim was not in her car, though she had been when the accuser was poured into the car about ten minutes earlier. Was Kim coaxed back into the house again at 12:41? Was the accuser "pulled out of the car and groped" and pulled into the bathroom and attacked then? Bissey didn't see Kim's car drive off until a few minutes before the police arrived at 12:55. Kim's 911 call is made at 12:53, most likely right around the time she drove off. What happened from 12:41 to about 12:51 when Mostafa saw Kim arguing with a group of guys while walking toward her car? Why did she get out of her car AFTER the accuser had been helped into the car? Mostafa said when he arrived to pick up his second fare, a woman that probably is Kim was walking to her car "mad". He picked up four "boys."
    "When I look back, he look like he mad at the stripper. Or the stripper, she going to call the police and she just a stripper. ... It look to me like somebody get hurt. But what kind of harm, ... I have no idea.
    *****
    Four of the lacrosse players then got into the cab; Mostafa described them as agitated. He then heard one player say to another, "don't worry, she's just a stripper." He also said, "it look to me like somebody get hurt. But what kind of harm ... I have no idea."
    *****
    "One of the guys said, 'She's just a stripper, she's going to call police,' " Mostafa said Thursday. "I knew something was going on, so I told the customers to get in the car."
    Who are the four "boys" that got in that cab?
    While driving Seligmann home, Mostafa received a call at 12:29 a.m. from the cell phone of lacrosse player Tony McDevitt, requesting another ride from the party, the records show.
    Reade was gone , but what about Tony?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    While the theory that maybe the AV was confusing being pulled out of a car with being helped up from the back porch, I'll have to defer. If she was that intoxicated then anything she says should not be believed, especially without any physical evidence to support her story.
    Bob, I didn't suggest that she confused two incidents. What I suggested simply if she required help to go to the car when she left the house, it is very probable she required "help" to get out of the car 30 minutes before she fell down unconscious on the porch.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#10)
    by james on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:14:02 PM EST
    The problem in this case (for both AV apologists and those that subscribe to the 'false accuser' approach) is that real guilt or innocent, in the absolute sense, is meaningless (from a legal standpoint). The only point is whether there is 'reasonable doubt' that the 3 did nothing. I would say that there is 'substantial doubt' that the 3 did nothing or at least did not do what they are *charged* with doing. Nifong would have had an easier time charging them with groping the AV. The amusing things about some of the poster's 'bathroom speculations' etc is that they bring in substantial doubt. There are so many 'different' scenarios with multiple conflicting statements that there is, indeed, doubt. Doubt is what the defense is trying to instill - not some sort of absolute innocence standard. After all, the burden is on the prosecutor - not the defence - and the standard is 'reasonable doubt' for aquittal. As long as the jury composition is 'balanced' there will likely either be a hung jury or an aquittal. Nifong does not have a case he should bring to trial - he needs to meet an 'internalized' burden that is at least somewhat short of 'reasonable doubt' to proceed. He's way short here. The 'absolutists' fail to acknowledge that there are multiple conflicting accounts by the AV - all of which will instill reasonable doubt. The DNA is a joke, the lineups are a joke, etc. The problem, imho, is that NC does not guarantee the right to a speedy trial (which would probably sink Nifong earlier than he wishes - I'm sure they'd like to 'call his bluff') and that the pretrial hearings are setup to virtually guarantee that the proceedings lead to a jury trial. The judge will make a decision on the evidence/lack thereof but the prosecutions burden isn't that high. Incidentally, I feel Evans would be better off splitting with the other two. He'd have an 'easy' time getting an aquittal because of the lineup uncertainty.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#11)
    by james on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:23:17 PM EST
    Another minus for Nifong: Majority of the examination was done by an *in-training* SANE nurse, ie, not one with much experience. Her testimony will be relevant more on her emotional state than her physical one. The doctor's opinion will be more important but the SANE exams are structured to minimize contact with them (build a trust with the AV). This same SANE nurse failed to complete half of the required forms. That's negligent. She also failed to perform a toxicology test which is pretty standard when someone is visibly impaired. The defence should have been able to know if she was taking, say, Xanax which does not show up as real impairment until you mix liquor with it (I use Xanax to 'stretch' my liquor). They would also have been interested in any other sorts of drugs. I would imagine they are looking for a 'lost' or 'incomplete' form that specifies whether she refused a Tox screen.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#12)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    mik posted:
    She has hinted she was in the bathroom after the show because she said that the lacrosse players were lying when they claimed to slip $100 bills under the door trying to persuade them to return. She doesn't deny being in the bathroom. She denies that the accuser painted her fingernails in the bathroom. If she wasn't there, she would theoretically say she wasn't there so she doesn't know.
    Nope, the accuser's story is full of holes because she has told too many different versions of what happened.
    Sorry, should be:
    Theoretically she would say she wasn't there so she doesn't know.
    AP interview:
    ROBERTS: Then they say they slipped a $100 bill under the door. That's such a... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) ROBERTS: Under the bathroom door is what I heard. Lie, turkey (ph) lie, ain't going to go into it, turkey (ph) lie. They also said fingernails were painted while we were in the bathroom. I never--all I can say is I never saw any fingernails painted. Never saw it, that's all I can say. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you go into the bathroom at all? ROBERTS: (INAUDIBLE) I'm not going to talk about it.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#13)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    Hicht posted:
    I didn't suggest that she confused two incidents. What I suggested simply if she required help to go to the car when she left the house, it is very probable she required "help" to get out of the car 30 minutes before she fell down unconscious on the porch.
    Good point, Hicht. The defense says she was "substantially impaired" when she arrived at the party and she was too blotto to dance, so they asked her to leave. They say they have photos of her with her face in the carpet as soon as the dancing began.
    Attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V told the Raleigh News & Observer the dancer was "substantially impaired" when she arrived at the party.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#14)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    James posted:
    I would imagine they are looking for a 'lost' or 'incomplete' form that specifies whether she refused a Tox screen.
    If they still have a urine or blood sample, it is not too late to test it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    As I recall, the players never said they were slipping benjamins under the door, just paper money. It was the interviewer with Kim who used that denomination, which Kim denied. Looking for the link, which of course begs the question of whether or not I can post it here once I find it. It's when the defense attorneys gave a fairly detailed account of what the players said happened that night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    which of course begs the question of whether or not I can post it here once I find it.
    Sharon, you funny! Anyway, here's my way to link, fwiw... To link, with apologies if it's too basic: -highlight the URL of the web-page that you want to link to. -copy the URL ("edit" then "copy"). -come back to TL and write something in the "Comments:" box. -highlight the word(s) in that comment that you want to be the link. -click the "URL" button above the "Comments:" box. -hold down the "Ctrl" button on your computer's keyboard and then type "v". -click "OK." -click the "Preview" button below the "Comments:" box. -if the preview looks good, click the "Post" button below the "Comments:" box.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    The way I used to do it was: Highlight the "Address" bar of the link I'm looking at, click "copy". Paste it with my comments in the comment box. Highlight it and click URL. In THAT box, I click ok, and it fills in the pasted info. I swear that's what I used to do, and it worked. Now, no such luck.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:16:35 PM EST
    It never ceases to amaze me, how these commenters continue to worry this case and every development in it like my dog does with an old bone. TL said it, and I agree, y'all have formed a small ecosystem and seem to be self-sustaining just on air and breaking down this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    Sharon, not sure about your old method, but just so there's no confusion, when I speak of the "URL of the web-page you want to link to" that's the same thing you call the '"Address" bar'...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    Here we go. Cross your fingers.
    Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains.
    Okay. That's a quote from the Newsweek article FINALLY! Can't help it: I'm hearing the Oratorio from Handel's Messiah in my head right now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    I think my old way was ending up with one too many "http"s in it, or something. NOW, the question is: will I remember how I did it the RIGHT way? "Thank you" to everyone who helped. I have often relied on the kindness of strangers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    James, You wrote:
    The only point is whether there is 'reasonable doubt' that the 3 did nothing. I would say that there is 'substantial doubt' that the 3 did nothing or at least did not do what they are *charged* with doing.
    I really don't understand why anyone imagines that the case Nifong is going to present is the case we at present have in our hands. Of course we have substantial doubt today. If Nifong can put those three boys alone in the bathroom with that woman, her testimony will matter more to the jury than any theory Bob in Pacifica might have about Officer Shelton and his sentence structure. And the whole nation will start to have a bad feeling about the defense team. If he can't get them near the bathroom, he'll become a world-famous fool. Don't know which it will be.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    imho: remarkable resemblance between Reade and Tony. Maybe Tony was the "4th man" from the photo id, the other one the AV said kinda/sorta looks like one of them. Wonder if Tony had a mustache that night?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#24)
    by wumhenry on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    from ABC News:
    A handwritten narrative report by Sgt. J.C. Shelton that is attached to the motion says the accuser first reported being raped after officers had decided to involuntarily commit her.
    If anyone's been wondering what ulterior motive the AV could have had for *falsely* alleging she'd been raped, here you go.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    Posted by scribe May 30, 2006 02:16 PM It never ceases to amaze me, how these commenters continue to worry this case and every development in it like my dog does with an old bone.
    It is only happening "like [a] dog does with an old bone" because the commentators have no personal stake in it. Academic arguments are particularly contentious precisely because the results are of no consequence. Want to see your amazement cease immediately? Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    Jo:
    I didn't know you could highlight the link text first and the closing tag would be put in automatically (thanks Cymro)
    imho:
    btw: I followed Cymro's directions, it was easier. Thank you, Cym.
    My pleasure. If you think about it, the way it works is natural, because it follows the same data entry model as other buttons, all of which deal with methods of formatting the text of a post. In each case, first you select the relevant text, then you click the appropriate button to obtain the desired formatting. The only difference is that in the case of the URL button, you are asked to supply an additional piece of information (the url) to complete the operation. BTW, every visual text editor I have encountered works this way, because this approach is fairly standard for today's graphical interfaces (think of Microsoft Word, etc.). It's called the Target-Action paradigm, an interface style in which you first select a target (an object of interest), then specify the action to be performed on it. Before graphical interfaces, most programs worked the other way -- you would select the action to be performed, than select an object to perform the action against. Modern interfaces contain instances of both paradigms. (No doubt this is somewhat boring to non-specialists, but those of us in the computer business spend our lives worrying about this kind of stuff).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    scribe wrote:
    TL said it, and I agree, y'all have formed a small ecosystem and seem to be self-sustaining just on air and breaking down this case.
    A shrink would call it co-dependency and projection. SLO wrote: Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:13:57 PM EST
    scribe wrote:
    TL said it, and I agree, y'all have formed a small ecosystem and seem to be self-sustaining just on air and breaking down this case.
    A shrink would call it co-dependency and projection. SLO wrote:
    Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?
    I'll put up 1G for the lax players. Not because I think there was or was not a rape, but because I beleive that the existence of the BF's DNA creates an incredible reasonable doubt barrier to conviction. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a gambling website giving odds.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#30)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:31:52 PM EST
    Cymro posted:
    My pleasure. If you think about it, the way it works is natural, because it follows the same data entry model as other buttons, all of which deal with methods of formatting the text of a post.
    Cymro, I agree your method is simpler, I am glad you shared it. What I thought was funny about your post was that you found it necessary to opine that following my "confusing" directions was the cause of Sharon's troubles (I'd never shared with her how I linked articles before posted she had a problem) and your declaration that she wouldn't have trouble if she had done it "the right way." You could have just said, "Sharon, this is how I do it....." I wonder why you didn't?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    GSDFAN, You quoted from the search warrant:
    "The victim and her fellow dancer decided to leave because they were concerned for their safety. As the two women got into a vehicle, they were approached by one of the suspects. He apologized and requested that they go back inside and continue to dance. Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated."
    Now this from Bissey:
    "I noticed a car drive up and two young women get out, met with the gentleman and then walked back to the back of the house. Two young women, one of them dressed in a short skirt and high heels, and the other woman was dressed a little more conservatively spoke with the gentleman outside of this door here briefly, and then at this point, all of the young men were inside. They spoke amongst themselves for about five minutes or so and then entered the house"
    The women did not arrive together. And both were at the house by 11:30 according to the defense and the prosecution. What Bissey witnessed is most probably the women being induced into returning to the house after the dance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:43:15 PM EST
    "I noticed a car drive up and two young women get out,
    PB, how does that jibe with this:?
    What Bissey witnessed is most probably the women being induced into returning to the house after the dance.
    iow, from what Bissey said, he saw a car "drive up" and then two woman got out, not two woman were inside a parked car and a guy talked to them and then they got out.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    And both were at the house by 11:30 according to the defense and the prosecution.
    According to WRAL's website, their timeline has the accuser arriving at 11:53 p.m. I don't know their source for the information, but I doubt the defense concedes the accuser arrived 30 minutes before they say the dancing begins at 12:00 a.m.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:10:31 PM EST
    SloPhoto, You wrote:
    Want to see your amazement cease immediately? Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?
    I'm not a betting person, even when the bet is a sure thing, but if I were I would put my $1000 on the lax players to walk. As I've said before, I don't think the players have ever been at risk, even if they did it. The reason I "support" the AV is because she may have actually been raped, and if she was that's not something I'm willing to be wrong about. I'm unwilling to participate in the second rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    SUO, You wrote:
    from what Bissey said, he saw a car "drive up" and then two woman got out, not two woman were inside a parked car and a guy talked to them and then they got out.
    That's my point. The two women never drove up together. So it's not what Bissey actually saw. He's interpolating. He saw them get out of the car, and he assumed it was when they were arriving. This is not the only example of Bissey interpolating.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:26:20 PM EST
    PB, fair enough.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    Unindicted players and their lawyers would not be sticking together unless "every single one of them knows that they're innocent."
    or, for the cynical among us (and i've raised it to the level of an art form), because they hope by doing so, that mr. nifong will somehow be swayed to end this, without trial. doesn't appear that's going to happen though, mr. nifong is simply too invested in it at this point, and he's using other people's money. be assured, were i the father of one of the unindicted players, and i learned that the 3 indicted ones had, in fact, committed the crime they've been accused of, i would drop my financial support in a heartbeat. no hesitation, no remorse. lora: i notice you speculate a lot. i don't, i deal strictly with the facts as presented. think of it, for me, as an occupational hazard. as far as i can ascertain, nowhere was it stated that the AV was left in the car by herself, after both ladies left the house the first time. ms. roberts has stated that the AV was not pulled from the car, by anyone, while it was parked in front of the party house. what she has said is that at least one partygoer came out and tried to coax them both back in. apparently, at some point, he was successful. while i'll agree that a woman can be furtively groped, with no one else seeing it, the key here is the AV being pulled (dragged) from the car first, with groping said to have occurred during said pulling. absent the pulling, and the groping goes out the window. did i miss the part where ms. roberts said she left the AV in the car alone, and went back into the house by herself? if i did, just delete all that! lol that aside, this case has more holes in it than the proverbial slice of swiss cheese. forget "reasonable doubt", this hasn't even achieved "semi-believable" status yet.
    The problem, imho, is that NC does not guarantee the right to a speedy trial............
    true, but i believe the u.s. constitution does. i'll put 5 grand on the lax players, should it go to trial. not, because i think they're choir boys, but because this case screams out "reasonable doubt", at least from what's been released so far. on the other hand, so did the scott peterson case, where the medical examiner wasn't even able to state the actual cause of mrs. peterson's death. pretty much complete lack of any forensic or eyewitness evidence, tying mr. peterson to his wife's disappearance and subsequent death, didn't stop a jury of his "peers" from convicting him. i believe that would be a case of "reverse nullification". it's always a risk one takes, as a defendant, should you choose to go to trial. actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#39)
    by Lora on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    It's a bit hard to follow what Bissey says. From Rita Cosby ,Bissey says (after he takes his shower):
    And when I came out, this entire alley was full of men kind of yelling, and I overheard a lot of talk about getting money back and the money they'd spent or whatever. And the young women were back in the car in front, and one of the young men was leaning into the driver's side door, speaking with her. But at that point, the situation seemed to calm down a little bit, and they were able, I guess, to convince one of the girls to go back inside.
    And that's at the point where I overheard her talking about going back and getting her shoe. So the young ladies went back into the house, and at that point, nobody was out in the alley. The situation seemed pretty calm.
    Which is it? One, or both? Or possibly, as I suggested before, first "one of the girls" (Kim), who, according to the AV, wanted to go back anyway, then the AV. When or where did all the men go? Some with Kim, and some with the AV? Maybe most went with Kim and a few pulled the AV out, and brought her back in, groping her along the way. Speculation, of course, but how is it inconsistent with Bissey's account, or any other account? slo, To take you up on your offer would mean that I believed that the evidence (of which there is plenty, Bob's protestations notwithstanding) constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that all parties will have a fair trial with an impartial jury. (Also, I'm not convinced of the truthfulness of her story, but I am not convinced of any of the challenges to it that I've yet heard.) So, sorry, no dice. azb, What's it to ya? ;-)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:51:55 PM EST
    PB posted: The reason I "support" the AV is because she may have actually been raped, and if she was that's not something I'm willing to be wrong about.
    Which, if you will notice, is the same reason I have never ceased to refer to the accuser as the "AV" instead of any of the other less flattering terms being used. It is something I don't want to be wrong about, either. And until I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not raped, I will continue to use it. But I am convinced that these three young men should not have been indicted on what little evidence we have seen so far, and even less should they be condemned on the basis of some of the flimsy conjecture being offered here to try to prop up that weak evidence. It was in that sense I offered up the wager -- if you really believe your own conjecture and are willing to attack other people's conjecture so vigorously -- then be willing to put your money where your mouth is.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:57:59 PM EST
    imho: Maybe more like this: 12:04 - Kim and AV retreat to the bathroom. Kim changes clothes. 12:15 - Kim and AV get into Kim's car. A partyer, talking to Kim (the sober one of the two) on the driver's side of the car, persuades them to go back in the house. I doubt Kim is willing to change her clothes again. 12:18 - AV reenters the house, if for no other reason than to get her shoe, etcetera. Kim and AV are separated. Kim may have reentered the house or maybe not. AV ends up in the bathroom without Kim. (Kim - "I was not in the bathroom at that particular time.") AV is in bathroom for 12 minutes at most. There she is raped, groped, or does her nails (pick 'em). 12:2x - Kim goes back to her car. Perhaps she never got out to go back in (as stated above). 12:30-12:40 - AV is negotiating the back steps (per the photos). 12:41 - AV is poured into Kim's car. 12:4x - Kim sees AV still minus one shoe. Kim gets out of the car to go get the shoe. 12:4x-12:50 - Partyers do not let her back in the house. Verbal altercation ensues. 12:50 - Moez Mostafa arrives. He sees and hears altercation; sees Kim get back in her car. 12:53 - Kim drives away and calls cops.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lora on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    cpinva, Where does Kim Roberts state that the AV was not pulled from the car by anyone? I must have missed that. Although some here don't believe she is credible either, still, that would be important to me if she actually said that. But not saying it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sure, I speculate. I appreciate feedback. I try to make my speculations consistent with what we think we know. I don't mean them to be taken as what actually happened, but what could have happened given the likely facts of the case. If what could have happened still supports a rape allegation, then I would say that it is possible a rape occurred.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    SloPhoto, You wrote:
    But I am convinced that these three young men should not have been indicted on what little evidence we have seen so far,
    Are you convinced that what little evidence we have seen so far is what got these three young men indicted? I'm not. You wrote:
    and even less should they be condemned on the basis of some of the flimsy conjecture being offered here to try to prop up that weak evidence.
    Who has condemned them at this website? The ONLY person who has been condemned here has been the accuser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:38:45 PM EST
    evidence of today's slow news
    A second exotic dancer who performed at a March 13 Duke University lacrosse team party where a woman says she was raped and assaulted by three athletes made an obscene gesture at a television camera during court proceedings on Tuesday. When Kim Roberts noticed WRAL's camera in the courtroom, she made the gesture and then stuck out her tongue.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:45:54 PM EST
    fillintheblanks wrote:
    12:4x - Kim sees AV still minus one shoe. Kim gets out of the car to go get the shoe.
    or "Nikki" sees AV/FA's purse in front yard (brown spot from photo), goes and gets it for her. samething, basically but different motive to get out of car. I think I read that "nikki" thought she was being ripped at some point by the AV/FA. Making sure she was not ripped off would also motivate her to make sure the AV/FA did not lose her purse. (make-up bag was definitely left behind)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    It's hard to believe full payment was not made in advance. Not sure what's customary here. Maybe it's half now, half later.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#48)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    SLOphoto, did you suggest everyone put one thousand dollars of their own money in an escort account?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:08:12 PM EST
    Mik, You wrote:
    According to WRAL's website, their timeline has the accuser arriving at 11:53 p.m. I don't know their source for the information, but I doubt the defense concedes the accuser arrived 30 minutes before they say the dancing begins at 12:00 a.m.
    I haven't been able to locate it, but I do recall reading that one of the defense lawyers gave 11:30 as the time of the arrival... not that they aren't allowed to change their minds at any time... Theresa, little help! You once wrote:
    If Kim arrived at 11 and the accuser at 11:30 (this is per the player's attorney) then why were they walking to the back of the house together at 11:50.
    Can you recall where that one came from?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#50)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:18:49 PM EST
    I believe a search warrant said the AV arrived 11:30. Other sources say that Roberts arrived a half hour earlier at 11. The time on the search warrant would have probably come from the AV. She may have wanted to appear prompt. A Newsweek article linked in this thread said the AV arrived at 11:45. That was by one of the defense attorneys. If nothing else is settled about this case, I want to know the damned timeline.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#51)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:23:49 PM EST
    What time did the driver say the AV got there?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    [The AV's father] said she did call him to say she safely reached her destination -- about 11:30 p.m., about the start of a late-night talk show he was watching.
    That's two confirmations...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:32:55 PM EST
    Brian Taylor, the man who drove the AV to the party, doesn't say exactly when they arrived, but claims that they left for the party at about 10:45, and had difficulty finding the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    imho:
    What I thought was funny about your post was that you found it necessary to opine that following my "confusing" directions was the cause of Sharon's troubles (I'd never shared with her how I linked articles before posted she had a problem) and your declaration that she wouldn't have trouble if she had done it "the right way." You could have just said, "Sharon, this is how I do it....." I wonder why you didn't?
    Very simple, because I believe your instructions were confusing, and because, as a software designer, I believe there is a "right way" to use this interface -- namely to enter text, select a word or phrase, and attach a link to the selection. Maybe to you all methods are equivalent if they work, and as long as you can muddle through and get the job done, who cares which one you use. But I do not think about it like that, and I am fairly confident that my post described how the designer intended this interface to be used, for the reasons I explained in my last post. Furthermore, it was becoming apparent that instructions on how to use the interface were being posted by people who also did not understand how to use it properly, and you were a prime example. That's because I recalled having seen you posting similar instructions previously, and although they had struck me as obscure and overly complicated at the time, I had not bothered to post about it. But upon seeing your post yesterday, I recalled your previous post, in particular the suggestion that one needed to click the URL button twice, the second time to "close" the link. So in the interests of promoting better understanding, I posted what I hoped would suppress those confusing instructions, and document what I believed to be the intended (and easier) method. Although I obviously don't know exactly what Sharon was doing wrong, from the evidence it seemed likely that it had something to do with posting the link before the text, and that mistake was what I was trying to correct. I have previously posted instructions on linking in response to others who have asked about it, so I was not singling you out as the only person who was getting it wrong -- I know there are others. It was your proposed method that I was objecting to, and the easiest way to identify that in the context of yesterday's thread was to refer to it as "imho's" method. I hope you find this post as amusing as my previous ones. At least it will provide a temporary diversion from the events (or, more recently, non-events) in Duke :).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    Kim Robers filmed today shooting the bird and making faces at her probation violation hearing today. Link to WRAL clip: wral.com

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:39:01 PM EST
    Lora-
    Which is it? One, or both? Or possibly, as I suggested before, first "one of the girls" (Kim), who, according to the AV, wanted to go back anyway, then the AV. When or where did all the men go? Some with Kim, and some with the AV? Maybe most went with Kim and a few pulled the AV out, and brought her back in, groping her along the way. Speculation, of course, but how is it inconsistent with Bissey's account, or any other account?
    Good point. Plus, we're getting a free-flowing description here, being "pulled" from a car and "groped", so it could be plenty of things. At any rate, if somebody did grope the AV or do what she characterized as "pulling (her) out", Kim need not have seen it and it doesn't rule out the man also apologizing (the description given). SloPhoto-
    and even less should they be condemned on the basis of some of the flimsy conjecture being offered here to try to prop up that weak evidence.
    The only thing close to that I've seen here were people criticizing the behavior of the men, and even that was minimal and exclusive. The accuser, on the other hand, as PB points out has been condemned, based on not only interpretation of the evidence but her actions and demeanor.
    I feel like Kim was more careful than any of the other side players to be cagey in switching only her "interpretation" not the facts of her story (as much as I've been able to ascertain).
    That is another issue I addressed before I got tattled on. I keep wondering what people are talking about when they characterize Kim's actions as "changing her story". All she changed was her opinion. Speaking of whom-
    A second exotic dancer who performed at a March 13 Duke University lacrosse team party where a woman says she was raped and assaulted by three athletes made an obscene gesture at a television camera during court proceedings on Tuesday. When Kim Roberts noticed WRAL's camera in the courtroom, she made the gesture and then stuck out her tongue.
    Despite being a woman who is provocative and therefore responsible for the actions of the men around her, I'm really liking this woman. She's had more guts than about anybody in this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:48:18 PM EST
    PB:
    [The AV's father] said she did call him to say she safely reached her destination -- about 11:30 p.m., about the start of a late-night talk show he was watching.
    That's two confirmations...
    Your idea of a "confirmation" is different from mine then. All we know from this is that the father claims that the AV called him at 11:30pm. We don't know whether she actually did do that, as he claims, and we certainly do not know that she was at the house, all we know is what he claims she told him. And even if she did tell him that she had "reached her destination," and that conversation did happen at 11:30pm, this still does not confirm that she was in fact at the house when she made that statement. She could have been calling from somewhere else.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:49:06 PM EST
    kali: can't remember the details, but I did listen to an interview with a betting website where, yes, one could place a wager on this case. That was a fair while ago, I think pre-indictment. America, what a country.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:56:16 PM EST
    fillin: the AV herself said she was given $400 when she got there. That is tied to the "robbery that is not charged in the indictment" accusation she made.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    PB: NOTHING the AV's father says can be taken for confirmation of anything, unless one is willing to accept all of his statments, even the ones that contradict her story.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:03:00 PM EST
    Durga:
    Despite being a woman who is provocative and therefore responsible for the actions of the men around her, I'm really liking this woman. She's had more guts than about anybody in this.
    Takes a lot of "guts" to steal $25,000 from an employer who trusted you, doesn't it? Takes a lot of "guts" to try to profit from anothe woman's nightmare. This woman had a 4 year degree, from a great university, and she blew it and ended up dancing naked in front of drunk guys. That is not "guts." That is stupidity

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    Re: Kim - Correction My memory said she had graduated. No way to tell, but this was in the article: Her father, who was in the Air Force, is black. A 4.0 average got her into UNC-Chapel Hill, where she studied psychology. N&O See, Cymro? I can DO IT NOW.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:21:54 PM EST
    Takes a lot of "guts" to steal $25,000 from an employer who trusted you, doesn't it? Takes a lot of "guts" to try to profit from anothe woman's nightmare.
    Looks more like she is profiting from the dog and pony show to me. Didn't you post her first name?
    This woman had a 4 year degree, from a great university, and she blew it and ended up dancing naked in front of drunk guys.
    Which has everything to do with how straight forward and direct she has been... These guys made it onto a great team, in a reputable school, and have a promising future and blew that by hiring strippers, making demeaning overtones, using racial slurs, assisting in underage drinking, one getting into a (possibly hate-motivated) over the childish use of the word "gay", and continually disrespecting their neighbors...
    That is not "guts." That is stupidity
    But that's not their fault, in a world where women are provocative.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    Kim, I don't think is stupid. I don't think she's as smart as she thinks she is, but I think she has a certain sense of cunning about her that is (ultimately) doing more harm than good to the AV. I get the sense that when she was first saddled with the AV (as an incapacitated passenger in her car), she must have been, on some level, pissed. The evening had been a debacle, they may or may not have been paid. I doubt they made any extra 'tips' that evening, and then she's got a passed-out stranger riding shotgun. I doubt she was any too compassionate during the process of dumping the AV out at Kroger/turning her over to police. So, maybe when the s*** hits the fan with all of this, it looks (per Nifong's public statements) to be pretty cut and dried against the accused. So here's Kim's big chance to be the star witness, make a dramatic statement on the stand, rescue the privileged sons of deep-pocketed, grateful parents, and come out smelling like a rose. Incidentally, she gets back at the AV for the shambles of an evening, and those who made vulgar/disrespectful statements owe her. But then along comes Butch Williams, who indicates that yeah, they need her, but maybe not as much as she thinks. And maybe she won't be the start witness, but just an angry exotic dancer adding her part to a larger narrative. Less glory for Kim, so she shops her experience around to a different audience. An element of the public sentiment in Durham (the most visible, element, attracting the most media attention) is very pro-AV/anti-Duke. So if she throws her slant to that crowd, she can be a hero again. The timing is interesting--her big interview comes when serious holes start to be poked in the tidy Nifong scenario. She goes public, she claims, as some kind of preemptive strike, because she feels that she'll be named either way, hindering her ability to find gainful employment. I somehow doubt that, given that her current line of work was not noticeably damaged by her previous (more serious) run-ins with the law. But Kim is cagey. On some level we don't know what her "story" is, because she's kept tangible facts out of the media. She hasn't changed her story, per se, but stories have been made out of her impressions. . .which I argue are quite changeable, based on how she feels like she can or cannot benefit from her role in this affair. It's not complimentary to Kim, certainly, but it's neither pro/anti the AV or the ARs. More than anything, i feel sorry for anyone who doesn't look at her with a healthy dose of skepticism, since I think her #1 priority is how her (well-chosen) words represent not the truth, but Kim. And I wonder if she would have felt as comfortable making her faces/gestures in court today if she hadn't already had her bond fees reduced by Nifong. I'm sure that has to give the ego a l'il boost--to feel that you have the DA over a barrel in a rapidly-sinking high-profile case with few other eyewitnesses who could prove as compelling.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    Alan, You wrote
    the idea of a salaried public prosecutor long postdates the grand jury. At the time of the American Revolution, there were no salaried prosecutors and indictments were farmed out to private counsel after the grand jury had found an indictment. [...] Those who wrote the US constitution may shown a certain prescience, but I doubt they were prescient enough to create the grand jury to restrain prosecuting officials who did not then exist.
    Richard Bradley was the Attorney General of the Provence in 1735 when he prosecuted Peter Zenger in the famous libel case. When the grand jury refused to bring an indictment against Zenger, Bradley brought the case forward by information. I'm no expert. There is a strong argument that something like a grand jury was used before jury trials replaced trial by battle. But are you sure "prescience" was required by the founders? The Zenger case was a pretty big deal, and it was hardly ancient history at the time of the Revolution. The Attorney General who convened the Grand Jury in the case of Captain Preston and the other soldiers who were involved in the Boston Massacre was a salaried prosecutor, was he not? That's 1770, not too far from the time of the revolution.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:32:49 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    PB: NOTHING the AV's father says can be taken for confirmation of anything, unless one is willing to accept all of his statments, even the ones that contradict her story.
    What rule is that? Might as well make a rule that says we shouldn't believe the players when they say they're innocent because they used fake names.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:33:26 PM EST
    Didn't you post her first name?
    Thought we were talking about your admiration for Kim Roberts, were we not?
    Which has everything to do with how straight forward and direct she has been...
    "Straight forward and direct"? She lied on the 911 call, she lied to the Kroger security guard, she lied to the reporting police officers. No matter her reasons, did she not lie each of those occasions? My point was, at some point, Kim had her life going in a good direction. For an in-state female to be accepted at Chapel Hill is a major accomplishment. Unlike the AV, Kim seems to have a better start at life, and what is she doing now? I am not attacking her credibility because of how she has chosen to make a living. I am attacking it based upon a prior fraud conviction and a history, in this case, of lying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    PB: okay, let's take her father's statement that she called him at 11:30 to say she had arrived at her job, as "confirmation" that she had, in fact, arrived at 610 Buchanan. Do we also take as "confimation" his statement that the two of them went to the store at 10:00 that evening, or the driver's statement that she arrived at his house at 9:00? Do we take the father's statements that the AV told him she was sodomized with a broom, or no such charge in the indictment? Do we take the father's statements that he knew about the Creedmore incident and that "nothing happened, she wasn't raped by those boy,s" or her mother's insistence that she was? Do we take her father's statements that her face was bruised and swollen, or no simple assault charged in the indictments? He is not a credible witness, PB. That was my point. He seems like a dear, injured man, but he is not a source I would rely upon for confirmation of anything about this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:42:49 PM EST
    "Straight forward and direct"? She lied on the 911 call, she lied to the Kroger security guard, she lied to the reporting police officers. No matter her reasons, did she not lie each of those occasions? My point was, at some point, Kim had her life going in a good direction.
    Whatever she told the cops on the phone is probably because of her legal issues and that is understandable like the men giving different names and lying about the occasion is said to be. I'm saying she was the only one of this whole thing who has been unapologetic about anything, and - at least I think - she deserves credit for it. She isn't being coy, she isn't getting sentimental ("the best bunch of guys I..." yeah, that's going to help ya). She flips the media who made this a circus the bird and, as far as I'm concerned, it's about da*n time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:48:30 PM EST
    Oops, cut off-
    Thought we were talking about your admiration for Kim Roberts, were we not?
    "We" weren't talking about it, I expressed something and you chipped away at it and brought up something that made me raise an eye-brow.
    [The AV's father] said she did call him to say she safely reached her destination -- about 11:30 p.m., about the start of a late-night talk show he was watching.
    Sounds like Jay Leno where I am. ;)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    Okay, but she might do well to remember that it is the media attention to this case that she, at least at one time, hoped to exploit. If she had gotten a positive response from the PR firm, think she would have behaved that way? And it is the same media attention that got her cash bond waived, the way I see it. It's all well and good to say f*ck you to the system, to the MAN. But the purity of her protest is lost in the smarminess of her attitude and her actions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:53:44 PM EST
    Durga: you brought up my use of the AV's name, in a post long ago for which I have made as many, and more, apologies and explanations as I can. What does my, one time use, of the AV's first name have to do with my comments about Kim?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:55:02 PM EST
    Hi Sharon: You wrote:
    PB: Do we also take as "confimation" his statement that the two of them went to the store at 10:00 that evening, or the driver's statement that she arrived at his house at 9:00?
    I don't know which is true. Haven't heard from the AV on that.
    Do we take the father's statements that the AV told him she was sodomized with a broom, or no such charge in the indictment?
    Haven't heard from her on that either. Don't know whether she said it, why she said it if she did, what might have made him think she said it.
    Do we take the father's statements that he knew about the Creedmore incident and that "nothing happened, she wasn't raped by those boy,s" or her mother's insistence that she was?
    He's speculating. That's no different than what you do here. It doesn't go to your credibility when you are not speculating.
    Do we take her father's statements that her face was bruised and swollen, or no simple assault charged in the indictments?
    Do you think her face wasn't bruised or swollen for some reason? You wrote:
    He is not a credible witness, PB. That was my point. He seems like a dear, injured man, but he is not a source I would rely upon for confirmation of anything about this case.
    I find him more credible than I find you. I don't mean that as any kind of insult. Maybe its just his delivery. He doesn't seem like he's trying desparately to prove something.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    But, whether or not one likes Kim Roberts, that action today hurts the AV, hurts Nifong if he wants to put her on the stand for anything.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    What does my, one time use, of the AV's first name have to do with my comments about Kim?
    Sharon, I'm over it, but you know for a fact you used it twice. The second time was for needle. No respect.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:06:31 PM EST
    PB: I've asked this before: if the AV had been beaten, kicked, etc. what reason could Nifong have for not charging that? That is one of my favorite mysteries about this case. Her father, her aunt, her cousin, all have said that the day after the alleged rape occurred, the AV showed obvious, clear injuries. Why was not the beating, choking, kicking charged? That was, to me, one of the strongest "stories" that made me think something horrible had happened that night. Where is the charge? In the photo lineup, the AV says that Finnerty was not the one who choked her. Seligman was in front of her, according to her. That leaves Evans. No charges on that against him. Your theory on that? You said:
    He doesn't seem like he's trying desparately to prove something.
    I think he is. He is desperately trying to prove she is what he thinks she is, as all fathers should think their daughters are, namely a "good" girl. He wants to help her. But neither he, nor I, is a credible witness in this case, about any fact in this case. No insult taken. But if you allow me my bias, you have to admit to his.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    Sharon:
    See, Cymro? I can DO IT NOW.
    I see! I'm proud of you :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:15:58 PM EST
    PB: Another example of differing memories and meanings: there was one night when I used her first name. I don't remember being "needling" about it, but I will be the first to admit that this case pushes buttons for me. But that still doesn't explain why Durga brought that up in the context of a comment about Kim Roberts. I mean, what more can I say about using the AV's first name that one night? All of you who are so willing to accept, at face value, what the AV, or her family, or Kim, say about anything, will not take me at my word about my motivations that night. I guess I just need to accept that some never will, and move on. That is what I have tried to do, but Durga bringing it up, completely out of context, pushed one of those buttons. (Button still depressed) Re: the needling: if it was, and I will look it up, refresh my memory, ever think it was aimed, not so much at the AV, as at people on the board?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    PB:
    He doesn't seem like he's trying desparately to prove something.
    Well, even if we set aside the very valid point that Sharon just made about a father's natural bias, there is still the following to consider. He may be being completely honest in reporting exactly what he was told by his daughter, but logically you still cannot use any of his statements as evidence to confirm that she was being truthful, either in what she told him or in what she told the police. After all, if she didn't want him to know what she was doing that evening, she wouldn't tell him the truth, would she?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:26:38 PM EST
    Thanks Cym. Still not entirely sure how I'm doing it, a little of everyone's suggestions added together, and it works. Magic. But as I read a lot of the explanations, including yours, my eyes did glaze over in that Over 50, functionally computer illiterate way us old folks who are doing their best in the age of computers have. I hate feeling stupid, but I love being challenged, and I guess that's why I keep coming back here for the abuse: it reminds me of my older brothers, who would challenge what I said, how I said it, why I said it in every discussion my family had. As strongly as I want to be right about the accused in this case, I keep looking for what I have overlooked, keep looking for a way to be wrong about them and about what happened that night. I want to see what imho and PB have to say, because they make me THINK about by position, about my take on this case. There are others, who shall remain nameless. who make me think less and react more. Not a good thing to let one's emotions get in the way of a legal matter. I should know better.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#81)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:30:05 PM EST
    Sharon, why did Durga bring up that you mentioned the AV's name a couple of weeks ago? Because Durga drops by to score points. I would ignore him whenever he brings it up. Wait until he actually has something about the case to respond to his posts.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    I know, Bob, the high road and all that. But sometimes, sometimes it feels personal and I feel the need to react. I am reminded of what my mother used to tell me, when my older brothers were "picking on me." She told me, if you ignore them, they will stop. Yeah, right, easy for her to say, she wasn't the one hung by her heels over the laundry chute. But I will try not to let those who are vexatious to the spirit get to me. Back on point: I am still puzzled as to why Kim and the AV went back in, if what made them leave was that horrendous. The AV said she had already received her $400, so I doubt that the same was not true for Kim. What was the down side of simply driving away?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#83)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:48:10 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Thanks Cym. Still not entirely sure how I'm doing it, a little of everyone's suggestions added together, and it works. Magic.
    Sharon, I know you are trying to make peace [since you are the one who started all this trouble ;)], and I appreciate it, but Cymro is not going to to like that you even considered anyone's else's method. :(

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#84)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:50:16 PM EST
    SharonInJax:
    Yeah, right, easy for her to say, she wasn't the one hung by her heels over the laundry chute.
    hahahahaha

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:51:58 PM EST
    thinkandtype:
    More than anything, i feel sorry for anyone who doesn't look at [Kim] with a healthy dose of skepticism, since I think her #1 priority is how her (well-chosen) words represent not the truth, but Kim.
    I guess that means you feel sorry for me then. I've had the glib psycho-biography bit done to me, and it was so distasteful I resolved not to do it to others. Call me gullible. But her opinions and prior crimes don't actually matter much to me. What matters is what she saw. If she says the accuser was dropped off at 11:30, will that be a lie? from Bissey: Two young women, one of them dressed in a short skirt and high heels, and the other woman was dressed a little more conservatively spoke with the gentleman outside of this door here briefly, and then at this point, all of the young men were inside. The cab driver described Kim as wearing jeans... Obviously she wasn't wearing jeans during the dance. Which outfit do we think she was wearing when she walked in the door with the accuser sometime just before twelve? Had they already danced?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 09:10:28 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    But sometimes, sometimes it feels personal and I feel the need to react.
    Mmmmm. Sorry about all that... You're no quitter. I appreciate that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#87)
    by Alan on Tue May 30, 2006 at 09:15:57 PM EST
    Pb posted:
    I'm no expert. There is a strong argument that something like a grand jury was used before jury trials replaced trial by battle. But are you sure "prescience" was required by the founders? The Zenger case was a pretty big deal, and it was hardly ancient history at the time of the Revolution. The Attorney General who convened the Grand Jury in the case of Captain Preston and the other soldiers who were involved in the Boston Massacre was a salaried prosecutor, was he not? That's 1770, not too far from the time of the revolution.
    The answer is no. Colonial attorneys-general, like modern ones, were not salaried public prosecutors. They very rarely went to criminal court because their other functions, advising the government and its officers, on legal issues, managing legal affairs for the government, etc etc took too much time. You occasionally get attorneys-general turning up for big ticket numbers like the Zenger trial, but it's actually quite rare. The vast majority of prosecutions were farmed out after indictment. Bradley may have appeared in Zenger because the case was so dubious no-one else was prepared to take it. For the record the first mention of a grand jury dates from 1166 Assize of Clarendon and the first appointment of an attorney-general seems to have been 1407, although there are arguments.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 09:32:27 PM EST
    Alan, You wrote:
    The answer is no. Colonial attorneys-general, like modern ones, were not salaried public prosecutors.
    You mean they weren't paid to be Attorneys-general? Or they weren't paid to do prosecutions... Are you claiming that the fifth amendment grand jury provision had nothing to do with protecting people from government prosecutions by information, such as occurred in the Zenger case?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#89)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 09:36:57 PM EST
    imho: cym will understand, I'm sure. But, seriously, I tried all of y'all's careful, idiot-proof instructions, and I still was . . . an IDIOT about it. I can cut and paste with the best of them but can become confused with technical help. I am a "hoot" when I call for tech assistance, of that you may be sure. PB: I agree. Wouldn't it be nice, at this point, to have some idea of the basic timing of that evening? Kim and the AV sitting in their car for 20 minutes or so makes no sense, if they arrived at 11:30. But even if Bissey saw them re-entering the house after being coaxed, or pulled, back in, at 11:50 or so, rather than that being their first entry to the house, does that really clear anything up? We still, really, know too much and too little. And yes, I have a hard time quitting, even when I should say "uncle." Three older brothers in a household that valued argument/discussion of everything: they could smell fear, and backing down was a "girl" thing to do. Non-jocks, but intellectual bullies at times. As most big brothers can be, I suppose. Sorry, more personal perspective info about me that is neither germane nor probative of anything. "It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying . . . nothing."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#90)
    by Alan on Tue May 30, 2006 at 10:03:35 PM EST
    PB posted:
    You mean they weren't paid to be Attorneys-general? Or they weren't paid to do prosecutions...
    I mean both actually. Until fairly late in the piece, attorneys-general took their income from various fees rather than a salary. Their principal role was not appearing in criminal prosecutions.
    Are you claiming that the fifth amendment grand jury provision had nothing to do with protecting people from government prosecutions by information, such as occurred in the Zenger case?
    Not at all, and it comes close to misrepresenting my position to do so. Colonial authorities abused the criminal information, just as contemporary prosecutors abuse the grand jury indictment. The question is what was the grand jury intended to control. I say it was improper prosecutions and that function only survived while the grand jury remained independent of the prosecutor. You have a slight logical problem if you're arguing that the grand jury is good both because it controls prosecutors and because the grand jury does not control prosecutors. The obvious remedy is the preliminary hearing:
    Felony suspects who desire to contest the existence of probable cause to support a formal accusation against them presently face a substantial handicap when accused by a grand jury indictment as opposed to being accused by information. Under the latter procedure, they are entitled to the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses and the right to present evidence--rights which protect fundamental interests at a critical stage of the proceedings.[105] Yet, those rights may be entirely denied in the absolute discretion of the district attorney to proceed by grand jury indictment in lieu of prosecution by information.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#91)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 10:26:56 PM EST
    James posted:
    Incidentally, I feel Evans would be better off splitting with the other two. He'd have an 'easy' time getting an aquittal because of the lineup uncertainty.
    From the first DNA newsconference:
    REPORTER:
    There was no DNA taken from any of the materials in the bathroom - the towels, the rugs, the paper towels?
    CHESHIRE: There was, and I will say this to you all, there was DNA found of two of the boys on a towel and on the floor, but you need to remember that none of that matches up with her in any way, shape or form and that the bathroom where this DNA was found happened to be the bathroom of the two boys that the DNA was found
    ***
    One sample was from a player's semen and another was a different type of DNA, Cheshire said. He said that was to be expected in a bathroom shared by the three men who lived in the house.
    ***** We don't know if the DNA that was semen was found on the towel or on the floor. I wonder if either sample belonged to David Evans?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 10:54:30 PM EST
    Posted by PB May 30, 2006 04:36 PM GSDFAN, You quoted from the search warrant: "The victim and her fellow dancer decided to leave because they were concerned for their safety. As the two women got into a vehicle, they were approached by one of the suspects. He apologized and requested that they go back inside and continue to dance. Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated." Now this from Bissey: "I noticed a car drive up and two young women get out, met with the gentleman and then walked back to the back of the house. Two young women, one of them dressed in a short skirt and high heels, and the other woman was dressed a little more conservatively spoke with the gentleman outside of this door here briefly, and then at this point, all of the young men were inside. They spoke amongst themselves for about five minutes or so and then entered the house" The women did not arrive together. And both were at the house by 11:30 according to the defense and the prosecution. What Bissey witnessed is most probably the women being induced into returning to the house after the dance.
    PB, Did you think I thought I was describing their arrival at the party? It's well established that they came separately, and the top of the SW p.4 also says as much. For the purposes of brevity, I just copied the Search Warrant decription from when Roberts and the AV decided to leave the party, until they returned to the house. If I'm misreading your post let me know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:31:52 PM EST
    GSD Fan, You wrote:
    Did you think I thought I was describing their arrival at the party?
    No, no. My post wasn't actually a response to you at all, (although perhaps it began as such, I can't remember)and I'm sorry if it seemed to be. It's been people's assumption, because the defense has been trying to control the timeline, that Bissey witnessed the women's arrival. The section you published of the search warrant made me think that might not be the case for the reasons I gave. Bissey's second sighting of the dancers, when one of the dancers appears to have been coaxed back in, happens in a driveway that is crowded with complaining players. That doesn't seem so good a match for the description in the search warrant. I'm just working that angle.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:01:05 AM EST
    Posted by Lora May 30, 2006 12:03 PM From the end of the previous thread: (posted by GSD fan from the search warrant) He apologized and requested that they go back inside and continue to dance. There is no inconsistency here. A couple of players still could have pulled the AV out of the car, EASILY groped her with no one else noticing (people, especially men who post here, please understand that women can be quickly and furtively groped with no one around them ever being the wiser!!), and then escorted (dragged) her back inside. Here's a speculation (reasonable I believe, and from the perspective that the rape could have happened): Kim, who wanted to go back inside, did in fact go in on her own, and attracted the majority of attention and interest. We still have no idea what she did during the time of the alleged rape. The AV may have stayed right in the car, until she was pulled out, groped, brought to the bathroom, and assaulted and raped. This way, few if any other players might have had any idea of what went on, as they would have been eagerly and busily (and noisily perhaps) watching Kim. I have another speculation as to the reports by the defense that the two women were in the bathroom together. They may have entered the bathroom together before they began to dance, to get ready. Kim had to change, remember. If I were waiting for my dance partner to change, I would not want to be alone with a roomful of rowdy young men. I'd go with her.
    Lora, The inconsistency is that the description of events is based on the AV's statement to police on 3/15 (the lacrosse party was 3/13-3/14). The Warrant was completed on the 16th and the house was searched that same day. The AV is used as a source repeatedly in the Warrant's description of the party, not Roberts, Bissey, players, etc... Search Warrant For your scenario to be correct, the AV would have to lie (or completely cover up the mass groping/dragging to the house) about what happened at the car to Officer Himan. Or are we going to get Himan conspiracy theories now?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#95)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:33:45 AM EST
    Posted by PB May 31, 2006 12:31 AM GSD Fan, You wrote: Did you think I thought I was describing their arrival at the party? No, no. My post wasn't actually a response to you at all, (although perhaps it began as such, I can't remember)and I'm sorry if it seemed to be. It's been people's assumption, because the defense has been trying to control the timeline, that Bissey witnessed the women's arrival. The section you published of the search warrant made me think that might not be the case for the reasons I gave. Bissey's second sighting of the dancers, when one of the dancers appears to have been coaxed back in, happens in a driveway that is crowded with complaining players. That doesn't seem so good a match for the description in the search warrant. I'm just working that angle.
    PB, No worries. Keep working that angle for whatever it's worth. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#96)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:10:57 AM EST
    Alan, You write:
    You have a slight logical problem if you're arguing that the grand jury is good both because it controls prosecutors and because the grand jury does not control prosecutors.
    Yes, well you would have a logical problem if you were arguing that as well. I understand that that is not your argument, but I'm not quite sure why you think it is mine. When have I claimed that grand juries are good because they are controlled by prosecutors? You wrote:
    Until fairly late in the piece, attorneys-general took their income from various fees rather than a salary.
    The Attorney General in New York received a salary of 50 pound in 1693, raised to 150 in 1702, down to 100 in 1729, and 150 added in 1763. (So I suppose Bradley's salary was 100 pounds a year when he prosecuted Zenger.) The Judicial Act of 1789 created the office of Attorney General, an office with a salary of $1500 a year. I'm finding this dialogue more sophistricated than relevant. Let's go back to Durham, shall we?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:29:46 AM EST
    PB,
    I guess that means you feel sorry for me then. I've had the glib psycho-biography bit done to me, and it was so distasteful I resolved not to do it to others.
    Not at all. I don't mean "sorry for" anyone on this board, regardless of which slant to Kim's story they're more likely to believe. I meant in the context of the case, I'd feel sorry for either the prosecutor or the defense, were they to put too many of their lawyerly eggs in the Kim basket. I think she's too much of a maverick to be reliable for either side. What I'm saying about Kim is that she has been pretty careful to preclude hard-and-fast facts from her public narrative, and I think that doing so gives her lots more leeway to change her "impressions" without leaving herself as open to cross examination of her inconsistencies in the way, say, the AV's father has. Kim's playing the system. She's good at it, but eventually, I think it'll come back to bite her. And I legitimately wonder if she would have made the faces/gesture if she didn't feel that, in some sense, the prosecutor was enough reliant on her that she wasn't going to get called on it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#98)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:38:01 AM EST
    Their constant presence is "extraordinarily telling," said Cheshire. He said unindicted players and their lawyers would not be sticking together unless "every single one of them knows that they're innocent."
    "You're talking about young men running the risk of being kicked out of college, of having their names in the newspapers and losing jobs, and they're standing in there because they know what the truth is," Cheshire said. "And the lawyers are standing in there because they've reviewed this case with great care and they know what the truth is."
    Defense uniquely united in Duke lacrosse case Anyone know what Cheshire is talking about? What are the unindicted players doing that could get them kicked out of college?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:01:04 AM EST
    I would guess that IF Nifong wins his case against any of the three indicted, the others might get into some kind of trouble for aiding and abetting/covering up that could get them into trouble with the University's honor code.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#100)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:24:45 AM EST
    thinkandtype posted:
    So, maybe when the s*** hits the fan with all of this, it looks (per Nifong's public statements) to be pretty cut and dried against the accused. So here's Kim's big chance to be the star witness, make a dramatic statement on the stand, rescue the privileged sons of deep-pocketed, grateful parents, and come out smelling like a rose. Incidentally, she gets back at the AV for the shambles of an evening, and those who made vulgar/disrespectful statements owe her.
    What is your basis for this statement? thinkandtype posted:
    But then along comes Butch Williams, who indicates that yeah, they need her, but maybe not as much as she thinks. And maybe she won't be the start witness, but just an angry exotic dancer adding her part to a larger narrative. Less glory for Kim, so she shops her experience around to a different audience. An element of the public sentiment in Durham (the most visible, element, attracting the most media attention) is very pro-AV/anti-Duke. So if she throws her slant to that crowd, she can be a hero again.
    She claims Williams was urging her to sign a sworn statement, when she hesitated he mentioned the photos he had of her "dancing." newsobserver.com
    As the national media seized on the story, Roberts called James "Butch" Williams Jr., who told her he represented a player and couldn't advise or represent her. When Williams asked whether she thought a rape occurred that night, Roberts said no. When Williams asked her to give a sworn statement, Roberts said she would sleep on it.
    Several days of discussion ended when Williams brought up pictures taken of the dancers at the party, Roberts said.
    "He kept mentioning my statement and the pictures in the same breath," Roberts said. "What are you trying to say, Butch? Are you trying to say if I don't sign my statement there will be pictures? And that's when I said, 'You have the opportunity to tear me apart in court,' and that's when he said, 'I can tear you apart right now.' "
    Roberts said she told Williams she'd call police and hung up.
    "That did not occur," Williams said. "Never. My dealings were straightforward with her. She got upset about the pictures and totally shut down."
    Who's version rings true here? thinkandtype posted:
    The timing is interesting--her big interview comes when serious holes start to be poked in the tidy Nifong scenario. She goes public, she claims, as some kind of preemptive strike, because she feels that she'll be named either way, hindering her ability to find gainful employment. I somehow doubt that, given that her current line of work was not noticeably damaged by her previous (more serious) run-ins with the law.
    Kim says she spoke out because the defense was using her to poke holes in the accuser's story. They were saying she will corroborate their time line. She disagreed. The defense team's behavior is what got her thinking maybe something bad did happen to the accuser that night. "If the truth is on their side, why are they supporting it with so many lies?" She knows they are lying about some things. The defense should be worried about Kim. thinkandtype posted:
    But Kim is cagey. On some level we don't know what her "story" is, because she's kept tangible facts out of the media. She hasn't changed her story, per se, but stories have been made out of her impressions. . .which I argue are quite changeable, based on how she feels like she can or cannot benefit from her role in this affair.
    Keeping tangible facts out of the media is cagey? What would you call the player in the shadows that only talked about what benefited the team and gave 26 "no comments" during the ABC interview or the players who talked to ESPN that "would not discuss many details about the case or answer more specific questions about exactly what happened?" Are they "cagey?" thinkandtype posted:
    And I wonder if she would have felt as comfortable making her faces/gestures in court today if she hadn't already had her bond fees reduced by Nifong.
    I think Kim would have felt comfortable flipping off anyone she thought was being an a**hole way before any of this happened. She's yelling at a bunch of drunk guys that night. Kim, like Nifong, is not one to back down. thinkandtype posted:
    I'm sure that has to give the ego a l'il boost--to feel that you have the DA over a barrel in a rapidly-sinking high-profile case with few other eyewitnesses who could prove as compelling.
    Compelling in that she was the only sober person in that house that night and in that she has far less to gain or lose from the outcome of a trial from than any of the other principals. I think Kim will make a good witness.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:35:41 AM EST
    Durga: you brought up my use of the AV's name, in a post long ago for which I have made as many, and more, apologies and explanations as I can.
    You suggested it was disrespectful of Kim to benefit from this at least twice to me now. Both times I responded it was more like she was benefiting from the little show being put on. It was a bit bemusing you try to call somebody else to task for something like that when you posted her name. Don't think you're the only one who has "buttons" that are pushed in all this. I understand that you said you were sorry and all before, but just as much did I explain more than once that in typical cases (so to speak) I would react that way.
    We don't know if the DNA that was semen was found on the towel or on the floor. I wonder if either sample belonged to David Evans?
    I thought I had heard it was found on a towel and the floor, but I think it came from the talking heads so I couldn't be sure. At the time it came out I wondered about it's significance, but the defense had emphasized how a swab of the woman's body turned up nothing, yet wanted to down-play the findings on the nail/otherwise due to how it is so easily transferable it totally is. It shows either way, I think, the DNA will just be spun.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#102)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:38:21 AM EST
    imho, Firstly, to avoid a long tit-for-tat post, I'm going to answer narratively, not necessarily point-by-point. If you think there's something I miss, let me know. The whole Kim scenario was, as I thought I made clear, conjecture. I tend to believe Mr. Williams' account of the interaction because he's got more to lose by behaving badly than Kim. Others might find her more believeable, and it's certainly their perogative to do so. If the defense was/is lying, it certainly gives her reasons for switching teams more weight. If they weren't lying, what's the incentive for the swap? I didn't think that the players' interiew wasn't cagey. They simply weren't part of my Kim post. To that end, this whole event has been a bit of a tapdance routine for many parties involved. Compelling testimony, maybe. Maybe in terms of establishing the elusive timeline, the most useful. Her impressions, less compelling, as I think they're more. . .flexible. . and while she doesn't have as much to lose as either the AV or the ARs, she, witnessed by her letter to the PR firm, seems to think there's something to be gained. So in total. Kim's smart, but playing this for her own benefit. The associates of the ARs were cagey in their media "appearance," but in a way that's not germaine to this topic. And Kim could be a beacon of truth, justice and the American way. I just don't think so.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#103)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:43:01 AM EST
    I would guess that IF Nifong wins his case against any of the three indicted, the others might get into some kind of trouble for aiding and abetting/covering up that could get them into trouble with the University's honor code.
    I thought the that was the unindicted players' excuse to not cooperate with the investigation - coming forward could expose them to charges of aiding and abetting, now "sticking together" could expose them to charges of aiding and abetting?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#104)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:49:23 AM EST
    I suppose it depends on how zealous you think Nifong will be. . .? And which action you find more likely to be an aiding-and-abetting scenario.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#105)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:00:23 AM EST
    There will be a couple of problems with Roberts' testimony as far as proving a gangrape occurred. First, she said "no way" initially, and did talk with defense attorneys and police early on. Whatever she said then would fix her testimony somewhat. Secondly, she's unreliable. She told a string of lies the night of the dancing, to police and other authorities. That goes to her honesty. Third, there's her embezzlement conviction. That also shows her dishonesty and ability to plot criminal behavior and then conceal that behavior with lies. That's up in the air for either side to use. Any migration of her testimony from early statements would be followed by a detailed defense explanation of the ham-fisted catch-and-release program being run by Nifong on potential witnesses. In short, while Roberts is an interesting character, and I'll agree with Durga that she shows the most guts of anyone (albeit the defendants can't show much of anything these days), she will be a relatively useless witness beyond what she's initially said, that she didn't think a rape occurred. Timeline help, perhaps.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#106)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:07:00 AM EST
    IMHO, Regarding which version rings true between defense attorney Butch Williams and Kim Roberts, I have always wondered that too. First off, from that passage we're not sure specifically what they're talking about, or what Williams wants as a statement. Roberts is saying the Williams is trying to blackmail her with photos. But from the position of the defense no actual sex occurred there and it's hard to imagine any exotic dancing photos to be all that embarrassing to Kim. I really don't know. Kim has shown an ability to lie at the drop of a hat, and attorney are paid to bend reality to comfortably fit their clients.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#107)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:35:07 AM EST
    thinkandtype posted:
    The whole Kim scenario was, as I thought I made clear, conjecture. I tend to believe Mr. Williams' account of the interaction because he's got more to lose by behaving badly than Kim. Others might find her more believeable, and it's certainly their perogative to do so.
    Yes, Williams has more reason to lie about his bad behavior. What reason does Kim have to tell the story other than to explain why they are trashing her? They courted her, she balked, they threatened, she walked, they trashed her. Sounds like Williams "screwed the pooch" on this negotiation. thinkandtype posted:
    If the defense was/is lying, it certainly gives her reasons for switching teams more weight. If they weren't lying, what's the incentive for the swap?
    You made up a motive for her swap - so she could be a hero. I posted what her stated reason was. Kim can testify that she never saw the accuser painting her nails and she never saw money being passed under the door. The painting nails was a defense theory, to account for the 30 minute gap in photos of the dancers, but the money under the door was a story the players must have told. If Kim missed that, then they must have been passing the money to accuser, which puts her in the bathroom without Kim. Big problem for the defense. thinkandtype posted:
    I didn't think that the players' interiew wasn't cagey. They simply weren't part of my Kim post. To that end, this whole event has been a bit of a tapdance routine for many parties involved.
    Aren't they all being prudent to not talk about the details to the press? Cagey obviously has negative conotations. thinkandtype posted:
    Compelling testimony, maybe. Maybe in terms of establishing the elusive timeline, the most useful. Her impressions, less compelling, as I think they're more. . .flexible. . and while she doesn't have as much to lose as either the AV or the ARs, she, witnessed by her letter to the PR firm, seems to think there's something to be gained.
    Do you think she is going to lie on the stand for a book deal? What impressions? I don't think anyone cares if she thinks a rape occured or not. She can establish that the opportunity existed. The defense has a tape recording of her conversations with Williams and the police have a statement. She is pretty much locked into what she has told both parties. If this goes to trial, Kim will be the defense's biggest problem. Without her they can tell this thing any way they choose. Kim's presence put retraints on them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#108)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:46:33 AM EST
    imho wrote:
    Compelling in that she was the only sober person in that house that night and in that she has far less to gain or lose from the outcome of a trial from than any of the other principals. I think Kim will make a good witness.
    What is your source for claiming that she was the only sober person in the house? Do you know for a fact that every player there was actually drunk? What about Matt Zash, for example, who was sitting in his room watching letterman? Plus, didn't the security guard at Kroger smell alcohol on Kim's breath? Anyway, it seems to me that Kim has been extremely interested in what she might potentially have to gain from "spinning" the situation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#109)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:57:06 AM EST
    What is your source for claiming that she was the only sober person in the house? Do you know for a fact that every player there was actually drunk? What about Matt Zash, for example, who was sitting in his room watching letterman? Plus, didn't the security guard at Kroger smell alcohol on Kim's breath? The guard did not say she smelled the alcohol on Kim's breath. My source for claiming she was the only sober person there is from a person that was there, Kim. What is your source for Matt Zash sitting in his room watching Letterman? (which, of course, does not precluded him drinking while doing so)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:06:54 AM EST
    Okay, so the security guard smelled alcohol "on" Kim (who already had lied about several things that evening, including about not knowing the AV). Still, where did she claim that she was the only sober person in the house? I honestly do not recall this statement from her. My source for Matt Zash sitting in his room watching letterman is a statement from his lawyer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:10:33 AM EST
    No, I don't think she'll go as far as lying on the stand. Throughout my Kim-posts, what I've (apparently unsucessfully) tried to allude to is that she's been careful not to tie herself too much and too tightly to facts--hence the "I'll sleep on it" before refusing to sign anything for Williams and her careful way to attribute the change in her stated impression of whether or not a rape occured to the defense tactics, not to anything that did or did not come to light about the events of the evening. As for Williams--you argue that he has more reason to lie about supposed bad behaviors. I argue that he has more reason not to behave badly in the first place. It is, I suppose, pure speculation on both of our parts to choose sides in the he-said-she-said of Roberts v. Williams. I don't think she's willing to perjure herself to do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kim sets herself up (with media help) as some kind of East Coast Amber Frey. That's my read on things as they stand now, I'm open to that view being changed should the events of the trial support it. Cagey--if I use the handy Shift F7 thesaurus feature of MS Word gives synonyms as: wary, guarded, cautious, careful, reticent, and evasive. Careless is given as an antonym. I pretty much think careless is the opposite of how Kim is telling her story, so cagey fits for me. I don't think it has obvious negative connotations, but if you do, who am I to start a semantics war over it? Please feel free to choose any acceptable synonym to replace cagey, if you feel that's appropriate.
    She can establish that the opportunity existed. The defense has a tape recording of her conversations with Williams and the police have a statement. She is pretty much locked into what she has told both parties. If this goes to trial, Kim will be the defense's biggest problem. Without her they can tell this thing any way they choose. Kim's presence put retraints on them.
    Unless, of course, those statements and tapes (if such tapes exist) don't support a timeline conducive to a rape having occurred. In which case she's not as much of a threat to the defense, but her impressions and delivery could have a great deal of weight with a jury less impartial and reasoned than you are :). And as for who cares about her impressions. Nancy Grace cares. She cares deeply (because she's the real hero.)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:23:02 AM EST
    imho said:
    My source for claiming she was the only sober person there is from a person that was there, Kim.
    This is my problem with the line of logic here. Your assumption is that Kim is telling the truth. I do not think her comments have been believable. In the beginning, as I have stated before, I thought the rape happened. I was furious as the team and at Duke. However, from the beginning, I wondered where the second stripper had gone. If she was there in the house, why wasn't there immediate confirmation of an eyewitness from the prosecution? She should have told the police that something happened - no reason at all for her to finesse this. Why didn't she scream? I sure would have. I've been in those houses - they're tiny and the bathroom is not way off in the distance, out of hearing. Any remodeling would not be structural - not cost-effective (having just gone through a year long one without moving walls or pipes), so I don't see any impact there. If she was in the house, I fail to see how she didn't see anything. But my opinion changed when I saw an interview with her and she said, in answer to whether the the players were slipping money under the bathroom door, said (forcefully and snorting in disgust), "didn't happen. Didn't happen." How did she know that, unless she was there in the house? I realized right then that she was working the system for all she was worth. So I think she is a terrible witness, for BOTH sides. But I sure would like to know where she really was that night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#113)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:25:32 AM EST
    noni mouse posted:
    Still, where did she claim that she was the only sober person in the house? I honestly do not recall this statement from her.
    "mind you, I believe I was the only sober person in the place" noni mouse posted:
    My source for Matt Zash sitting in his room watching letterman is a statement from his lawyer.
    Yes, I am well aware Kerry Sutton claims Matt Zash was in his room all night. In one interview she said he locked himself in his room. My point is Kerry Sutton was not there. If Matt was in his room all night, he won't make a very good witness to what occured in the rest of the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:44:54 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    My point is Kerry Sutton was not there.
    This is form over substance. She is Zash's attorney relaying his account of events. They speak as one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:58:14 AM EST
    As long as Kim doesn't say publicly what she saw and didn't see, hear and didn't hear and where she was, she can play this with a lot more freedom. Once she publicly commits herself, as I imagine she already has done with Butch Williams, and maybe with and Nifong, her 15 minutes is over, nothing to gain. She also has her own probation to worry about, and spilling her guts now will not be to her advantage with Nifong. As I've said before, defense sources privately say that she has something to hide, too, about what she was doing that night. When she was first interviewed, she was much more pissed off about photos having been taken of her without permission than about another woman's claim of rape. Either side can have a field day with her. But she's never seen probably how ugly that will look. She's no Amber Frey.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#116)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:05:28 AM EST
    Entry Word: cagey clever at attaining one's ends by indirect and often deceptive means

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:05:30 AM EST
    And I just reviewed the video of Kim mentioned above. She said she WAS in the house but didn't see anything "because she wasn't in the bathroom." OK, but she had to have seen and heard everything else. I ask again, why didn't she scream? I find that inexcusable, short of being held forcefully (which she would be mentioning and prosecuting if that happened). This also goes to my theory of her being a "bad samaritan," ignoring the AV's plight (whether injured or incapacitated) and trying to kick her out of her car - especially if she saw something happen earlier. Ugh. Look, I was attacked on Campus Drive and the guy (NOT a Dukie) got a broken nose for his efforts (don't mess with a jock), so I have an emotional tie to this. I am NOT unsympathetic to the accuser, although her story is well beyond the reasonable doubt line for me at this point. But I have nothing but disgust for Kim.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#118)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:10:20 AM EST
    imho posted:
    My point is Kerry Sutton was not there.
    Kali posted:
    This is form over substance. She is Zash's attorney relaying his account of events. They speak as one.
    To say Matt may have been sober is form over substance, since what Kerry Sutton is saying is that Matt locked himself in his room. I'm saying Kim is the better witness to how many sober people witnessed the events at the party.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#119)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:14:34 AM EST
    7duke4 posted:
    And I just reviewed the video of Kim mentioned above. She said she WAS in the house but didn't see anything "because she wasn't in the bathroom." OK, but she had to have seen and heard everything else. I ask again, why didn't she scream? I find that inexcusable, short of being held forcefully (which she would be mentioning and prosecuting if that happened).
    The defense has conceded that the accuser was in the house without Kim for about ten minutes. 7duke4 posted:
    This also goes to my theory of her being a "bad samaritan," ignoring the AV's plight (whether injured or incapacitated) and trying to kick her out of her car - especially if she saw something happen earlier. Ugh
    "ignoring the AV's plight"? Do you really want to go there?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#120)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:15:09 AM EST
    Re: Kim Speaking of the gutsy Kim Roberts (Pittman), this from the Herald-Sun
    According to court documents, she allegedly failed to pay financial restitution in the case, missed appointments with her probation officer and left North Carolina without permission to visit California.
    This is the woman who is out on no secured bond? Someone convince me that isn't the DA's office hoping to keep her in their camp. Compare this to the AV who performed all acts required of her to make good on her plea bargain on the taxi cab incident. And Kim is . . . how old? 30 or so? Still, to show her dislike or disdain for them, now, she sticks her tongue out at the media? While I am already cringing for the AV when she gets on the stand, because I will take absolutely no joy from what the defense attorneys will have to do to her, I am looking forward to seeing Kim's testimony and cross: not because I think it will be 100% favorable to the defense, but for the sheer entertainment value she will give. IF, of course, the judge lets the cameras in the courtroom. There's a topic for discussion while we wait for substantive developments in the case: I think the defense will want cameras to be allowed, and that Nifong would prefer them to be kept out. Any thoughts, fellow posters?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#121)
    by Lora on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:19:39 AM EST
    GSD, Thanks for the clarification of the search warrant vs. Bissey etc. I'll just compare the search warrant and Shelton's report: From the search warrant:
    As the two women got into a vehicle they were approached by one of the suspects. He appologized and requested they go back inside and continue to dance. Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated...
    From Shelton's write-up:
    She said that they left and got into "Nikki's" car. At that time, she said that someone from the party wanted them to come back into the house. She said that "Nikki" wanted to go back inside, but that she did not. She said that she and "Nikki" got into an arguement about going back inside. She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one forced her to have sex. She then mentioned that someone had taken her money.
    I guess I was leaning towards the possibility that the AV being pulled from the car and groped was a lead-up to the alleged rape/assaut. Now that I'm rereading both, they sound like two separate events. I still don't think the one precludes the other. If Kim was ready to return, thinking perhaps she could handle the crowd and perhaps get more tips, and the AV was reluctant, some of the partyers could have pulled the AV out of the car, not necessarily kicking and screaming. She was reluctant, but if Kim got out and went toward the house, she may have figured better to go where Kim goes rather than be left alone. Getting groped could have happened on the way to the house, as could the alleged robbery. If Kim is already at or in the house, what's she gonna do, try and go back to the car? She appears much less assertive than Kim and therefore would be much less likely to raise a fuss. If she was afraid, better to try to stick with Kim, who was not. As to the "quiet" rape, if Kim were dancing or otherwise entertaining somewhere in the house, the noise from that could cover noises from the bathroom. (In my house, depending where I am, I can just about scream bloody murder and no one in my house will hear me. Done that.) Also, if the AV had been choked, punched in the face, and afraid for her life, she may not have had much fight in her at that point and may have been too afraid to scream.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#122)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:26:25 AM EST
    7duke4 posted:
    But my opinion changed when I saw an interview with her and she said, in answer to whether the the players were slipping money under the bathroom door, said (forcefully and snorting in disgust), "didn't happen. Didn't happen." How did she know that, unless she was there in the house? I realized right then that she was working the system for all she was worth.
    The defense said they were slipping the bills into the bathroom when BOTH dancers were locked in there together. Kim is saying it did not happen. Big problem for thr defense. Same with the theory that the accuser was painting her nails while BOTH dancers were locked in the bathroom. Kim says she didn't see any nail painting. There goes that theory. Who was in the bathroom with the accuser when the money was being shoved under the door? If the players don't know that she is alone they also don't know who was with her if it wasn't Kim. 7duke4 posted:
    This is my problem with the line of logic here. Your assumption is that Kim is telling the truth. I do not think her comments have been believable
    I'm not assuming she is telling the truth and I'm not assuming she is lying. I know she lied about some things that night to avoid being indentified as being a stripper and Dan Flannery told some lies that night to avoid being identified as the person hiring strippers and perhaps to get strippers to the party without a bouncer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#123)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:29:21 AM EST
    The defense has conceded that the accuser was in the house without Kim for about ten minutes.
    Where did they say this? And, if so, where WAS she? What was she doing? Indifferent to what was going on, it appears to me, in any event.
    "ignoring the AV's plight"? Do you really want to go there?
    Love to! The AV was in a bad way, whether mental or physical, of whatever cause. You continue to assume that a crime occurred, in all of your postings, so you refuse to look at the situation any other way. And this brings me to my pet peeve - presumption of innocence. Not seeing it in these posts. And, as a passionate defender of the constitution (on the steps of the Supreme Court several times), I find this horrifying. The required proof is of whether the crime happened, not whether it didn't (oh, wait, our current government may beg to differ). Don't forget, a judge can end a case after the prosecution presents if he/she thinks they haven't made their case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:38:36 AM EST
    imho: it may be more "form over substance" but Kim denied there were $100 dollar bills being slipped under the door, but did not say that no bills of any denomination were passed under. Maybe nothing, but I see room for the defense story still to be true, in that respect.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#125)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:41:53 AM EST
    lora: you said
    (In my house, depending where I am, I can just about scream bloody murder and no one in my house will hear me. Done that.)
    I think in a 1470 sq. ft. house someone would hear, unless the music was cranked up. Did Bissey say anything about the noise level that night?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#126)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    thinkandtype posted:
    It is, I suppose, pure speculation on both of our parts to choose sides in the he-said-she-said of Roberts v. Williams.
    Her version rings true to me. Of course, Williams has to deny he threatened her with the photos. Maybe she recorded the call on her end as well? She's cagey...um... careful enough. thinkandtype posted:
    Unless, of course, those statements and tapes (if such tapes exist) don't support a timeline conducive to a rape having occurred. In which case she's not as much of a threat to the defense, but her impressions and delivery could have a great deal of weight with a jury less impartial and reasoned than you are :).
    The defense claims they have her on tape saying she didn't think a rape occured, which she admits she did say. The defense has all ready conceded that the accuser was in the house without Kim for ten minutes. That would be the ten minutes just before she was locked out, fell down the steps was photographed there for seven minutes and then was helped into Kim's car. Kim can testify to what the accuser's condition was after she had been in the house for ten minutes and on the porch for ten more. I think Kim is going to say she couldn't even get the accuser to talk to her. What was the accuser doing in the house for ten minutes? Why no photos?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#127)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:48:16 AM EST
    SharonInJaxposted:
    I think in a 1470 sq. ft. house someone would hear, unless the music was cranked up. Did Bissey say anything about the noise level that night?
    He told the officers that showed up in response to Kim's call that a rowdy party had just broken up. The bathroom in question is at the back of the house. I'm not sure how much you can scream with someone's hands/arm around your neck and/or someone's penis in your mouth. Anyone?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#128)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    ShronInJax posted:
    imho: it may be more "form over substance" but Kim denied there were $100 dollar bills being slipped under the door, but did not say that no bills of any denomination were passed under. Maybe nothing, but I see room for the defense story still to be true, in that respect.
    Come on now, Sharon.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#129)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:54:09 AM EST
    imho-
    I'm not assuming she is telling the truth and I'm not assuming she is lying. I know she lied about some things that night to avoid being indentified as being a stripper and Dan Flannery told some lies that night to avoid being identified as the person hiring strippers and perhaps to get strippers to the party without a bouncer.
    Thank you for pointing this out. Unless there will be more arm-chair psychology, this time of Kim, the lies need to be examined on their own terms. She admitted she initially thought there was no rape (and in so many words explained why she changed her opinion), she admitted she'd use this to financially benefit children. Certainly the conditions to lie then don't apply now. Doesn't mean she isn't lying (I can't say), but I can't use the situations before to cast doubt.
    And this brings me to my pet peeve - presumption of innocence. Not seeing it in these posts. And, as a passionate defender of the constitution (on the steps of the Supreme Court several times), I find this horrifying.
    I don't even know if a rape happened or if it did that any number/any one of these guy did it, but please. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the legal view. When did anybody get handed a gavel or put on this jury? I didn't see anybody sentence these men to jail. What's more is that inaccurately applying "innocent until proven guilty" has amounted to "alleged victim lying until proven to be telling the truth".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#130)
    by Lora on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:22:06 AM EST
    Sharon, Is it a one-story house? 35' X 40' = 1400 sq. ft. That's plenty of distance. Honestly, I've been in my living room and literally yelled at the top of my lungs to my husband sitting in his study at the end of a small hallway off the living room, with his TV on at normal volume, and he has not heard me. He has normal hearing I believe. I would have screamed, but I was afraid the neighbors would think I was being murdered, and I still don't think he would have heard me. There are plenty of reasons why the AV may not have screamed, or, if she did, why she may not have been heard. 7duke4, I really have not seen anybody on these threads come out and say the 3 indicted players are guilty. I haven't even see anybody here say that anyone at the party is guilty of rape and/or assault. The most I've seen is me saying that I believe the AV but there is plenty of room for doubt. On the contrary, there have been many posters here, including TL, who have flat out said that the AV is a liar and that the "boys" are innocent. So no need for you to be horrified at what you read on these threads. I, however, am dismayed by those who believe the defense line unquestioningly. I have found and pointed out several examples of where they have stated supposition as proof, and also where they were wrong. Their timeline and alibis have yet to be confirmed. I and others have found two errors reported in the (pro-defense) news article linked in TL's previous post. (I just emailed the reporter, and I will be interested to see if I hear back.) So let's have room for doubt for the defense.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#131)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    I don't even know if a rape happened or if it did that any number/any one of these guy did it, but please. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the legal view. When did anybody get handed a gavel or put on this jury? I didn't see anybody sentence these men to jail. What's more is that inaccurately applying "innocent until proven guilty" has amounted to "alleged victim lying until proven to be telling the truth".
    Did I miss something when I took civics? My understanding is that everyone is innocent, period, and the evidence has to be shown to prove their guilt. My opinion on this does not change inside or outside the courtroom. Your argument appears to be that this equates to assuming an accuser is lying. You are so wrong, and if it were any of us in this position, we would expect that people would judge by working from innocence to guilt, not the other way. If you are saying that this only applies inside the courtroom, again, you are so wrong. I point to our current government's direction, which is promoting the presumption of guilt - don't bother with those pesky courtrooms, judges, and lawyers. Every inch we give away of our rights is one inch we'll probably never get back. Sympathy for an accuser does not mean we give this right up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#132)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:41:13 AM EST
    Not sure where the defense has conceded that the AV was separated from Kim for 10 minutes, but as I see it, that timeframe must be between 12:18 and 12:30 - from the time they (or just the AV) reentered the house. Considering the AV went in clothed and is shown clothed on the back porch (photo), these 12 minutes are but a brief time to be assailed by three guys. And then come out of the house looking fairly intact.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#133)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    imho wrote:
    The defense has conceded that the accuser was in the house without Kim for about ten minutes.
    What is your source? I have not heard the defense concede anywhere that the accuser was alone in the house without Kim. My recollection is that the defense asserts after the women left the first time, the accuser came to the back door but was not admitted back in the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#134)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:48:37 AM EST
    Durga: What's more is that inaccurately applying "innocent until proven guilty" has amounted to "alleged victim lying until proven to be telling the truth". Problem I see with this is: there seems to be no real question about whether the accuser has told significantly inconsistent stories in this case----20 vs. 3, no rape, rape etc etc., rape while Kim's in the bathroom, etc. She hasn't been "proven" to be lying, but frankly, her own statements require that some of them be discounted as not true. How can 3 be 20? It is true apparently that Kim lied to protect herself and one of the players used false names when seeking out this "entertainment." These lies are not comparable, however, of making statements charging people with crimes that carry a life sentence in a statepenitentiary. I'm not even counting AV's not telling the truth to her folks about her real job, her probable lying to her boyfriend about how many people she slept with etc., her past history, etc. These convenient lies to protect family or dignity or legal status are simply not in the same league as what she says when she is using the very powerful arm of the criminal law. Much, much different. And so it bothers me to compare a 21 year old using a false name to hire apparently legal entertainment to not being "consistent" the commission of sodomy and rape. And so, maybe she has not been "proven" to lie, yet, but she has been proven, in a deadly serious context, to tell widely varying and inconsistent stories. There is no legal presumption protecting her for that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#135)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:01:09 AM EST
    Newsweek April 24, 2006 issue
    Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains. The women go out to the second stripper's car at about 12:20, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand. A photo at 12:30 shows the alleged victim standing outside the back door of the house looking down into two bags with what appears to be a smile.... ...Defense attorneys said last week that no DNA had been found on or inside the accuser. She was never alone in the house for more than about 10 minutes, according to their timeline.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#136)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    Durga wrote, regarding Kim Roberts' string of untruths: the lies need to be examined on their own terms. How about we just count them up?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#137)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    imho: I said it was thin, but such is the result of commenting while I'm in my office, thinking legal thoughts. Saying that no one passed $100 bills under the door is not a lie, if they were $20 bills. There is the "truth" and then there is the "whole truth" and then there is "nothing but the truth." Let's just say that I would have asked a follou-up question to clarify that point.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#138)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:07:15 AM EST
    It'd be interesting to know if anyone at Kroger, Durham Access, DUMC, or at anytime enroute to these destinations noticed the state of the AV's fingernails.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#139)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:07:31 AM EST
    IMHO, Then, if you're saying that the AV was alone in the house from 12:20 to 12:30, then Seligmann is home free.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#140)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:08:14 AM EST
    localone posted:
    20 vs. 3,
    What is your source? localone posted:
    her probable lying to her boyfriend about how many people she slept with etc., her past history, etc.
    What is your source for this? localone posted:
    These convenient lies to protect family or dignity or legal status are simply not in the same league as what she says when she is using the very powerful arm of the criminal law. Much, much different. And so it bothers me to compare a 21 year old using a false name to hire apparently legal entertainment to not being "consistent" the commission of sodomy and rape.
    If you are talking about my comment on this subject, I was comparing Flannery's lies with Kim's lies.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#141)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:11:57 AM EST
    Durga: even if we ignore the little lies that Kim told that night/morning, there is still the problem of the embezzlment conviction. Past crimes are generally not admissible to challenge credibility, unless it was a crime invovling dishonesty. The defense will make much of that, I would think, along with her failure to comply with the terms of her probation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#142)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:13:17 AM EST
    Then, if you're saying that the AV was alone in the house from 12:20 to 12:30, then Seligmann is home free.
    Kim and AV was separated when they entered the house (not when Kim left the house) according to AV's statement. The timeline for the allaged rape is not 12:20 - 12:30 but from sometime after their re-entered to the house to 12:30.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#143)
    by weezie on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:17:00 AM EST
    Lora, the house is pretty small. My daughter has been to several parties there and I've driven by it. Daughter says you couldn't miss a scream, if one was yelped. Maybe if the music was extremely loud, you might not be able to hear but surely Bissey would have had some complaint about the music? As to the example of your husband's hearing, don't we all know that our husbands suffer from occasional deafness by choice?!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#144)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    localone posted: These lies are not comparable, however, of making statements charging people with crimes that carry a life sentence in a state penitentiary. .... And so it bothers me to compare a 21 year old using a false name to hire apparently legal entertainment to not being "consistent" the commission of sodomy and rape.
    localone, I think it bothers a lot of people. One of the players used a false name to hire the strippers -- legally. So what? How many of the AV's other 5 escort clients that weekend do you think gave their real names for a one on one escort date with her? The players gave a real address, and a fake name. The address could be checked with a search warrant in case of any fowl play, and the residents contacted directly -- indeed that is exactly what happened. That is an absurd way to plan a rape, it is an absurd way to commit a rape spontaneously without an incomprehensible loss of judgment. One thing I am convinced of beyond any reasonable doubt -- the person who made that phone call to the escort service from his own house did not commit a rape in his own house that night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#145)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:21:19 AM EST
    Hicht: But the two timelines are pretty much one and the same. Bissey indicates they reentered the house at 12:18.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#146)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    imho I was responding to Durga not you. Durga was discussing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and complained about the presumption that "alleged victim [is]lying until proven to be telling the truth." My only point was that she may not have been "proved" to be lying but there is not question re inconsistencies. And that there is lying and there is lying that results in life in prison. All wrong, no doubt, but when the consequences are dire, as here,the accuser with widely varying stories gets no "truthful until proven otherwise" legal presumption. As it should be. Our local papers claim that she originally said 20 instead of 3. She also apparently denied rape and then alleged it. The differences between those inconsistencies are much greater in terms of consequence than lies to her parents, who HAVE said they didn't know she had gone back to stripping. On the boyfriend I was totally speculating that her boyfriend might not have known the full truth about how many men had to be tested for having sex with her, and the drop offs to hotels. That was just to make the point, not to assert it as fact.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#147)
    by JT on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:26:32 AM EST
    I've been checking out this spirited debate for a couple weeks ago, but haven't felt like I've had much to add. But I've found everyone here entertaining and insightful. What has compelled to post, is discussion of the house size and what people could and couldn't hear. I lived in a 1500 square foot house with a bunch guys after I graduated college. We did a lot of partying there, lot's of drinking lot's of people over (although no strippers) and I'd like to make two points. 1. You are always fairly aware of what is going on in the bathroom during a party because people are drinking and quite simply, drinking makes you pee. The attack was alleged to have taken place in the main (only?) bathroom. Which would have been the bathroom everyone at the party was using. 2. If this 1500 square foot house was anything like mine you could hear everything that goes on. Mine was a cheaply made (cheap) house which always rented to groups of post-college guys. The LAX house would basically be the same, only probably less insulated because it was further south. I was aware whenever my roommate were having "fun," even if I was in my room with my music on. There is no way there could have been any sexual contact in the bathroom between the strippers and any Lax players without the majority of the party knowing something was going on. That's why, once the lawyer's came out and denied any sexual contact I realized we were dealing with a rotten case. All it takes is one person at the party (and again, almost all of them would know if something went on) to say they did see the stripper in the bathroom with one of defendants and suddenly the whole dynamic of the case changes and 20 years becomes a possibility. Why risk that unless you know there is no chance of that happening? Especially when the case is so weak (legally) even if they left the possiblity of consensual sexual contact on the table. Some would believe this confidence comes from some kind upper-class, blue wall of silence the lawyers were (or weren't) privy too. But I don't buy that for a second, in fact as a "upper-class" kind of guy myself, who grow up in environment where many of my friend's parents were lawyers, I find the whole concept of blue wall of silence consisting of up to 40 people (with only three are now accused of a crime) completely improbable. Comically so.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#148)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:29:07 AM EST
    One thing I am convinced of beyond any reasonable doubt -- the person who made that phone call to the escort service from his own house did not commit a rape in his own house that night.
    And to follow up on my statement, that person is the only one involved who has taken -- and passed -- a lie detector test showing that he not only did not commit any rape, but also has no first hand knowledge of any rape being committed that night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#149)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:32:44 AM EST
    Bob In Pacifica posted:
    IMHO,
    Then, if you're saying that the AV was alone in the house from 12:20 to 12:30, then Seligmann is home free.
    I don't know if or when the attack took place. I'm saying according to the defense time line the accuser was in the house without Kim for about ten minutes. Commenters keeps asking why Kim didn't hear a struggle taking place in the back bathroom. She may have been sitting in her car waiting for the accuser to come out. She has said she could have left any time she wanted but she didn't want to leave her with them. We don't know how long the women were locked in the bathroom together. I don't think the "locked in the bathroom for 20 minutes" story is going to be corroborated by Kim. She doesn't seem the type to hide in the bathroom from college boys.There's a huge hole in their time stamped photos if the women are not locked in that bathroom together for 20 minutes. As far as Seligmann goes, if this goes to trial and I was his attorney, I would offer photos of Tony McDevitt into evidence. I think most people could understand the accuser mistaking one for the other.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#150)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    imho, What's your source for McDevitt being at the party again?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#151)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    imho: But don't you figure the women went into the bathroom together after the aborted dance? To get dressed? Then, in the AV's charge, they (or she) reentered the house? This timeline, to quote Kim, "seems so obvious to me."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#152)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    My understanding is that everyone is innocent, period, and the evidence has to be shown to prove their guilt.
    I understand that. I didn't state otherwise.
    My opinion on this does not change inside or outside the courtroom.
    The constitution's does. Citizens can say they think somebody is guilty, people here can conduct their questioning along the lines of, and construct a timeline based on their interpretation of the facts presented with, the idea a rape could have occurred (and really, that is all that has happened here).
    Your argument appears to be that this equates to assuming an accuser is lying.
    No, my argument is that I have seen the "innocent until proven guilty" applied with the accident fallacy and then amounting it to meaning to accuser has to prove she isn't lying instead of showing a coherent series of events that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these indicted men raped her.
    20 vs. 3, no rape, rape etc etc., rape while Kim's in the bathroom, etc. She hasn't been "proven" to be lying, but frankly, her own statements require that some of them be discounted as not true. How can 3 be 20?
    We still don't know the particulars of that. "At least two sources" ...yeah, which are who? A guy who heard another guy on a cell phone out of context and the guy he told? Somebody who tried to decipher a story from a woman who wasn't (understandably) speaking incoherently when she said there were "like 20" guys there? She actually said 20 because she wanted the sympathy factor to over-whelm whatever qualms about her profession? Women raped at parties have rubbed grass-stains on their pants to make it appear they got raped the Ann Coulter-approved way and weren't at a party drinking, being around men, and possibly being provocative, as well as lied and said they fought back because they feared they wouldn't be believed if they in fact were just too scared. She exaggerated/used hyperbole? The effects of an intoxicant she took or she was given? Or, she did simply lie but is telling the truth about being raped in that house. Or she is lying about the whole thing. It could be plenty. If you remember the ST. John lacrosse rape case of a black woman, there were issues with her telling of the time and whatnot but we know she still told the truth because they guy admitted it (they basically still got off, surprise-surprise). Note the details of the "grope" thing? Have been released. We know it came directly from the alleged victim and in fact we have a transcript. I'm wondering what is taking the information on the sources of the "20-15-3" so long...
    These lies are not comparable, however, of making statements charging people with crimes that carry a life sentence in a statepenitentiary.
    However, inconsistencies and false statements by a victim (in this case, alleged victim) does not amount to making false charges and that is my point. Too many times does legal mumbo-jumbo (both ways) unfortunately trump that actual human experience, and I think that is something that shouldn't be forgotten.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#153)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    fillintheblanks said:
    But the two timelines are pretty much one and the same. Bissey indicates they reentered the house at 12:18.
    I didn't see that he gave a specific time like 12:18. I remember he is saying around 12:15-12:30. His giving a 15 minutes time frame indicates that he is not perfectly sure about it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#154)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    Posted by JT posted: I lived in a 1500 square foot house with a bunch guys after I graduated college. We did a lot of partying there, lot's of drinking lot's of people over (although no strippers) and I'd like to make two points. Consensual 1. You are always fairly aware of what is going on in the bathroom during a party because people are drinking and quite simply, drinking makes you pee. The attack was alleged to have taken place in the main (only?) bathroom. [No, there was a second one, private and used only by the players who lived in the house.] Which would have been the bathroom everyone at the party was using.
    JT, thank you for joining us. Your point is a good one, Somebody is going to notice something, because everybody at a beer party has to use the bathroom. They are going to notice that it is occupied for 30 minutes or even 10 minutes, and wonder who is hogging it? When they figure it out they are going to want to know why Larry, Joe and Moe are in there together? They will quickly conclude that the three people in question are banging one of the strippers. Word will spread throughout the entire house within minutes and everyone will want to know the details. Meanwhile the backyard will be starting to saturate from some rather profuse "public urination." In fact that was my very first post on this blog several weeks ago. I thought it made a lot of sense, just like you do. But since you have also been checking out this spirited debate for a couple weeks now, you can probably guess which poster took the first shot at me for saying it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#155)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:59:10 AM EST
    localone posted:
    Our local papers claim that she originally said 20 instead of 3.
    This claim has not been verified. localone posted:
    She also apparently denied rape and then alleged it.
    It seems Sgt. Shelton didn't prove to be a sympathetic responder. "Hey you faking being drunk, pretending you can't walk or talk, pain in the ass, where you raped or not?" localone posted:
    The differences between those inconsistencies are much greater in terms of consequence than lies to her parents, who HAVE said they didn't know she had gone back to stripping. On the boyfriend I was totally speculating that her boyfriend might not have known the full truth about how many men had to be tested for having sex with her, and the drop offs to hotels. That was just to make the point, not to assert it as fact.
    Why bother to bring it up the parents/boyfriend lies then? The pile-on factor? How many of the players told their parents they were hiring strippers? How many did not tell their parents they ran like HEll when they heard the stripper was calling the police? Do you think David Evans told his parents he was giving a statement to the police and submitting to a supect rape kit? How many players did not tell their parents even after they had given court ordered DNA samples? Does that go to their credibility? I don't think it does. I wouldn't tell my parents either. Do you think jurors question the credibilty of witnesses because they have lied to their girlfriends/boyfriends about sex? I don't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#156)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:04:24 PM EST
    thinkandtype posted:
    imho,
    What's your source for McDevitt being at the party again?
    Mostafa the cab driver claims his records show he got a call at 12:29 from Tony McDevitt's phone requesting a cab at 610 N. Buchanan. Four "drunk" "boys" got into the cab when he finally got there about 20 minutes later. I don't know if Tony made the call or got in the cab.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#157)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:07:43 PM EST
    imho, Thanks!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#158)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:10:43 PM EST
    Hicht wrote:
    I didn't see that he gave a specific time like 12:18. I remember he is saying around 12:15-12:30. His giving a 15 minutes time frame indicates that he is not perfectly sure about it.
    Thus Seligman had, at most, 4 minutes to participate and arrive at a point 1.5 blocks away from the house before climbing into the taxi. Not to mention his call to the taxi dispatcher at 12:14. Sounds pretty much home free to me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#159)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    Some would believe this confidence comes from some kind upper-class, blue wall of silence the lawyers were (or weren't) privy too. But I don't buy that for a second, in fact as a "upper-class" kind of guy myself, who grow up in environment where many of my friend's parents were lawyers, I find the whole concept of blue wall of silence consisting of up to 40 people (with only three are now accused of a crime) completely improbable. Comically so.
    The lacrosse team is basically a fraternity. 1/3 of the students of Duke are in fraternities and sororities. I come from the same background and joined a fraternity. First rule of a fraternity, watch your brothers' backs at all costs. You never tell your parents, girlfriend, or anyone what goes on in the house. The response of the players in the initial letter from the Captains and Dave Evans' staged press conference with his 'brothers from other mothers' standing up for him show behavior consistent with a conspiracy to hide the truth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#160)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:18:18 PM EST
    The response of the players in the initial letter from the Captains and Dave Evans' staged press conference with his 'brothers from other mothers' standing up for him show behavior consistent with a conspiracy to hide the truth.
    Or they could be telling the truth. Why would their solidarity preclude that? Why would the fact that they play on the same sports team (and how is it basically a fraternity again? Besides being all-male and college-aged?) automatically mean that they were willing to commit to conspiracy in the face of a crime?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#161)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    fillintheblanks posted:
    But don't you figure the women went into the bathroom together after the aborted dance? To get dressed?
    Yes, I do think they did, but I don't think they were painting nails and I don't think money was being shoved under the door [an aside: the defense has both said the money was to persuade them to leave and that they were coaxed back inside once they left?]. I think these things were invented to stretch the time the women were locked in the bathroom together. That 30 minute photo gap is a problem. Who's not going to take photos of your teammates kneeling on the floor in front of the bathroom door shoving money to hookers? I would. That's more amusing than the guy that wet his pants.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#162)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:26:49 PM EST
    fillintheblanks wrote:
    Thus Seligman had, at most, 4 minutes to participate and arrive at a point 1.5 blocks away from the house before climbing into the taxi. Not to mention his call to the taxi dispatcher at 12:14. Sounds pretty much home free to me.
    He can be homefree. It is possible that AV confused him with Tony McDevitt as IMHO suggesting. But it is possible that he could have attended the beginning of the sexual assault but got scared or came to his senses when things started to get ugly and left the scene in hurry. It will be clear when we see the detailed description of assault from AV's statement.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#163)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    IMHO keeps bringing up Tony McDevitt. Yes, he looks like Reade Seligmann and he was at the party, but is there a shred of evidence that he assaulted anyone? The only evidence tying Seligmann and Finnerty is the flawed ID process (where presumably McDevitt's photo was shown), but there is zero evidence for McDevitt. Now, if the AV were to buy Seligmann's alibi, then reconsider and say, "Wait, I'm now 100% sure it's Tony," how credible would that be? And if it turned out that Tony actually was guilty even though the AV mistakenly identified Seligmann, do you really think that Seligmann, his lawyers, and his parents would be advising him to take the fall, keep his mouth shut, and cover for his rapist teammate?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#164)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:42:03 PM EST
    fillintheblanks wrote:
    Thus Seligman had, at most, 4 minutes to participate and arrive at a point 1.5 blocks away from the house before climbing into the taxi. Not to mention his call to the taxi dispatcher at 12:14. Sounds pretty much home free to me.
    Hicht wrote:
    He can be homefree. It is possible that AV confused him with Tony McDevitt as IMHO suggesting. But it is possible that he could have attended the beginning of the sexual assault but got scared or came to his senses when things started to get ugly and left the scene in hurry. It will be clear when we see the detailed description of assault from AV's statement
    . Mostafa says he picked them up 12:19 but the ATM at 9th and Main is less than 2 minutes away. The ATM swipe is supposedly 12:24. There's a couple more minutes there that Seligman could be at the party house. Mostafa's times are questionable, he has said he picked up the crew that used Tony McDevitt's phone at 1:07 and we know the cop had been there all ready and found "hey ho nobody's home."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#165)
    by JT on Wed May 31, 2006 at 12:45:24 PM EST
    The way I see it, either a crime did happen and we are dealing with a well orchestrated cover up of legendary proportions or nothing happened. I'm not going to say this cover up is impossible -- just highly, highly unlikely. On the other hand, it is impossible for this crime to have been committed without anyone noticing. Nfiong, or those who think there was a crime, should be focusing solely on flipping someone at the party or exposing this epic conspiracy. Facts, as they are, could never convince a jury (any jury) the players are guilty or the rational, informed public the players are less than innocent of the charges against them. That's why I found it strange Nfiong said he wouldn't be charging anyone else. It seems like he should be leaving that option open if believes in his case, and thus the conspiracy. He's just waiting for her to drop it, if you ask me. As for the rule of a fraternity... I was in one two and it is true to a point. But not this point. In fact, everybody told their girlfriends things. If you had a good one, she wouldn't tell anyone, but many did. That was also ten years ago. Now with the internet, texts etc, everybody is constant communication. Rumors spread like wild fire. From what I hear (I'm from the hometown as one of the accused, don't know him at all, older, but there has been a lot of buzz about this case.) there are no rumors on the Duke campus or in my community that something might have happened. IE, nobody who was at the party has had too much to drink and told their girlfriend, outside buddy, "well I don't think they raped her but I saw ..." Again, that's one h*ll of conspiracy. Even for a bunch jocks and frat guys. Azzballfan if you grow with the same background, then you must know driven parents are in places like Bethesda/Chevy Chase, North Jersy and Long Island where most of these kids are from. Nfiong could easily lean on the non-accused party attendees and threaten their future. Their parents would force them to roll. You can do that when you pay the bills. And Nfiong leaned on the poor cabby for g*d sake. Why isn't he playing hardball with the other players?. I'm not a lawyer but there must be charges you can bring against people who witnessed a rape and did nothing (Accused) And if there isn't a conspiracy, how is there a case?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#166)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    kellcat posted:
    IMHO keeps bringing up Tony McDevitt. Yes, he looks like Reade Seligmann and he was at the party, but is there a shred of evidence that he assaulted anyone?
    I don't even know if he was at the party, just that Mostafa says his phone was used to call for the cab and when the cab arrived four "drunk" "agitatied" "boys" got in saying "she's going to call the cops" "she's just a stripper"" kellcat posted:
    And if it turned out that Tony actually was guilty even though the AV mistakenly identified Seligmann, do you really think that Seligmann, his lawyers, and his parents would be advising him to take the fall, keep his mouth shut, and cover for his rapist teammate?
    Seligmann may not ever go to trial, if we've seen all that Nifong's got, I can't see Seligmann getting convicted. They are playing "all for one and one for all" "nobody talks - everybody walks" ...eventually. If I was Seligmann I'd sure be wishing I'd talked early and often. He may have avoided indictement. If he had shown his alibi evidence before the line up Nifong may not have even run his photo by the accuser. She might have picked out Tony instead. If Tony is guilty, Seligmann might not even know it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#167)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    thinkandtype, Most college sports teams act like fraternities. Especially team sports like soccer and lacrosse. (The big media sports teams less so - many football programs maintain rules about not having football players together at parties and the like just to avoid this type of publicity nightmare). I roomed with the soccer goalie on a national championship team. Those guys were more popular with the women and more feared by the guys than any fraternity on campus. And yes, they did stuff that they would never tell their girlfriends about, especially ones who didn't attend the same school. JT Sorry, but the parents of the lacrosse team players have as much invested in their kids' team as the players do. How many years did they take them to practice, buy them the equipment, help them follow the college teams. What parent would want their kid to be shamed by associating with rapists. Certainly the parents are closer to each other and care more about the fellow atheletes and students than the right for some Durham stripper to see justice. There is no way that a parent is going to pressure their kid to cooperate with the police.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#168)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    Weezie wrote:
    As to the example of your husband's hearing, don't we all know that our husbands suffer from occasional deafness by choice?!
    What? I once saw an elderly man sitting in his chair turn down his hearing aide while his wife was yelling for him to come to her, she finally came asked why he did't get up. He said," I couldn't hear you". She told him to get a new battery for the hearing aide.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#169)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:14:02 PM EST
    I'm on the road but I will put up a new thread for you tonight. Thanks for your continued discussion, I'll catch up soon.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:17:10 PM EST
    azbballfan posted: The lacrosse team is basically a fraternity. 1/3 of the students of Duke are in fraternities and sororities.
    Negative, and crying fowl. Fraternities choose whom they will and will not allow inside in terms of a brotherhood code. The members can veto anyone they don't want. Not so with athletic teams. The players have no such voice, and the basis for "joining" is "athletic skill" as determined by the coach. That can include any number of players who don't fit in altogether tight with "the brotherhood." And in this case it would only take one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#171)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    azbballfan: There is no way that a parent is going to pressure their kid to cooperate with the police.
    You know each of the parents this well personally?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#172)
    by JT on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:24:59 PM EST
    Well, Azbballfall, if that's the case the parents must all be the reckless gambling types. Granted it looks like the case is beyond done, but it wasn't always that way, and nobody spoke out from the beginning. Worse for your child team to be associated with rapists or to be for your child to be known as someone who conspired to cover up a brutal racial charged rape? I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to that question. Maybe, Nfiong was just too incompetent to expliot the other players as witnesses from the beginning but, as I mentioned, he was fairly zealous on that front.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#173)
    by JT on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    Although I do agree teams and frats are similar. Maybe not exactly the same, but darn close, having done both myself. But neither would cover this up. Just too much a stake, too many people and too many lines of communication for that to happen (I typed Azballfan name wrong in my last post, nothing was meant be it)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#174)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:32:36 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Negative, and crying fowl. Fraternities choose whom they will and will not allow inside in terms of a brotherhood code. The members can veto anyone they don't want. Not so with athletic teams. The players have no such voice, and the basis for "joining" is "athletic skill" as determined by the coach. That can include any number of players who don't fit in altogether tight with "the brotherhood." And in this case it would only take one.
    thinkandtype posted:
    Or they could be telling the truth. Why would their solidarity preclude that? Why would the fact that they play on the same sports team (and how is it basically a fraternity again? Besides being all-male and college-aged?) automatically mean that they were willing to commit to conspiracy in the face of a crime?
    REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE
    Duke Lacrosse has been described as having a "clannish" or "pack" culture that is distinct from other Duke athletic teams and organized groups on campus. Like other athletic teams, the strict discipline of training and play enforces community for a significant amount of time both in season and out of season. Lacrosse transfers this community to life off the sports field more fully and more visibly than other Duke teams for a variety of reasons. They are a small enough unit (in contrast to football) to have remarkable social coherence and they are a large enough unit (in contrast to golf) to be socially prominent as a group. The players' backgrounds contribute to that cohesiveness. The majority of the players come from middle-class, suburban families (there are a few players from both very wealthy and from working-class settings). Most members of the team are recruited from the northeast-New York, New Jersey and Maryland are the traditional centers of the sport; many of the players competed against one another in high school. Many of the athletes' families participate fully in their son's athletic events-lacrosse is distinctive for its parent-organized tailgates after lacrosse games, for example.
    JT posted:
    Well, Azbballfall, if that's the case the parents must all be the reckless gambling types. Granted it looks like the case is beyond done, but it wasn't always that way, and nobody spoke out from the beginning. Worse for your child team to be associated with rapists or to be for your child to be known as someone who conspired to cover up a brutal racial charged rape? I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to that question.
    From REPORT OF THE LACROSSE AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE:
    The lacrosse network may even extend, it seems, to post-graduation employment. Apparently more than other teams, many of the LAX players are second-generation players or have siblings who have played the sport at Duke. In other words, the cohesiveness of the Lacrosse team is an expression of a tightness of a broader order.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#175)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    imho Not piling on at all. I was responding to Durga. I'm bringing up the inconsistencies in the AV's stories because lives are at stake with her possible lies, as opposed to the lies of others. The reason I bring up the other less consequential lies is that some posters here put into the same category lying to your parents about your real job or the excort service about correct names or even Kim's lie to 911 with the serious inconsistencies in stories charging men of sodomy and rape. Sorry but they are not equal. People explain away why this witness or that doesn't tell the truth about small things. The number of inconsistencies in the AV's stories that we already know about make her either very inconsistent or very dangerously incredible. The jury will care a great deal about AV's credibility ABOUT THE CRIME because the consequences of her lying are so very great, as opposed to these other less consequential stories told to parents, escort services etc. I'm sure the jury will also take into account, given the consequences of her being untruthful, her previous inconsistencies or lies about other things, if they come into evidence. And although you may not want to hear this, the jury may think that her wanting to keep her job and "contacts" quiet from boyfriend, Daddy, or whomever, may be a motivation for some of these claims. It's certainly happened before, and juries are made up by people who watch TV and have real life experiences. Given the lack of physical evidence, her credibility about everything, including her exploits with men other than her boyfriend will be very important to the jury. So will the fact that 3 non Duke men had to be DNA tested (along with all the Duke players) to find the possible source of DNA, like it or not.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#176)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:37:46 PM EST
    Seligmann's alibi is very strong. The photo timeline matches his phone records quite well. Last picture before gap - 12:03 strippers heading outside. His phone then makes multiple calls to girlfriend and cab. Meets cab away from house - strippers still outside? 12:24 I believe - photo at bank. The rape would have been taking place when his phone was making the calls. Which is more believable - hey Joe make these calls, I'm going to rape the stripper or Seligmann actually using the phone himself!! Someone can correct me on this but I believe Nifong turned down attempts by Seligmann's attorney's to show him his alibi.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#177)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:40:38 PM EST
    SLOphoto, In team sports, such as lacrosse, Coaches of club and college teams understand that managing team chemistry is paramount to their success. The returning team players are asked to meet with prospects and usually take them out a couple of nights to see if they will get along. For teams on campus who aren't the media hogs like basketball and football or individual sports like swimming, tennis and golf, it's exactly like a fraternity. Look at the Nortwestern women's lacrosse team hazing incident. They hazed the first year players and involved the men's soccer team. JT I think you took my comments a bit far. I'm not implying they are the gambling types, absolutely not. The parents are concerned more about their kids' right to play and attend school more than any Durham stripper. If it comes out that a rape occurred, the future of the team and any scholarships are at risk. The Syracuse coach has already put up the "not welcome here" sign.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#178)
    by Lora on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    JT, weezie, I dunno. I've been to parties in cheap small college housing too. With enough going on, lots of people, music, distractions...? I think it's possible a rape could have happened without everybody (maybe not nobody) knowing. I'm not sure but I thought there were two bathrooms - one off the master bedroom, no? Weezie, can your daughter confirm/deny that? That would take the pressure off the "one bathroom" problem. A few gazillion posts ago, some commenters were saying that the presence of strippers woud rivet everyone's attention. Well if Kim willingly led the way back into the house, with the main purpose of entertaining (perhaps in the master bedroom even?), I would think that would draw attention big time. There could be music, yells, hollers, whistles, stamping, etc. Whatever was happening in the bathroom would be a lot less noticeable. Someone might think, where's the other stripper? And might think, still outside, or who cares, this one is right here. As for my husband's selective hearing, weezie, "that's my story and I'm sticking to it ;-)"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#179)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    markyb wrote:
    The rape would have been taking place when his phone was making the calls. Which is more believable - hey Joe make these calls, I'm going to rape the stripper or Seligmann actually using the phone himself!!
    He didn't make any cell calls between 12:14 when he called the cab till he leaves for the cab. That is the time frame we were speculating on.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#180)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    One thing I am convinced of beyond any reasonable doubt -- the person who made that phone call to the escort service from his own house did not commit a rape in his own house that night.
    And to follow up on my statement, that person is the only one involved who has taken -- and passed -- a lie detector test showing that he not only did not commit any rape, but also has no first hand knowledge of any rape being committed that night.
    Dan Flannery (AKA Adam) used the fake name to order the strippers. David Evans took the lie detector test. If a rape occured, I doubt that it was planned, but if they had planned on using a date rape drug on a couple of strippers, they may have thought they could have gotten away with it. Most perpetrators do. Source? common sense.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#181)
    by Lora on Wed May 31, 2006 at 01:56:05 PM EST
    I can think of a great reason for the team to all stick together and cover up for their teammates. They would if they all think they can get away with it. And...as imho and others pointed out ages ago, they have already proved they can cover up a significant amount of details of what went on. Example: We have the AV and Bissey both saying that at one point the dancers left the party and a player tried to convince them to return. Nowhere have I seen the defense even say that happened. Minor point compared to covering up a rape, but after the first statements, nothing has come out, right? No leaks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#182)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    Which is more believable - hey Joe make these calls, I'm going to rape the stripper or Seligmann actually using the phone himself!!
    Did any of the calls go through? Maybe the phone was open in his pocket and everytime he.....it hit redial. :O

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#183)
    by JT on Wed May 31, 2006 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    The strippers were the main attraction at the party. There were no other girls to talk to. Everyone was there to drink and look at strippers. If someone wasn't aware that a stripper was in the bathroom with one or more the the players, I'm sure one of the other people at the party would have pointed it out and they'd all have a good laugh about the skankiness of going into a bathroom with a stripper. I don't want to get too far into, but anyone who thinks fourty people are going to cover up such a heinous and well publicized crime is making a startling character indictment against (basically) a whole class of people. If that's how you feel, that's your prerogative, but I don't think it would happen that way. And I still keep on comming back to why Nfiong doesn't seem to be leaning on the other players at all. Why would you make a statement like "there will be no more charges."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#185)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    AZ wrote:
    I come from the same background and joined a fraternity. First rule of a fraternity, watch your brothers' backs at all costs.
    Having been in a fraternity and played lacrosse at Duke, I can tell you for certain that the loyalties do not run that deep. Maybe in a small click of friends, but not in either group's entirety. Moreover, no student at Duke is going to let someone's stupidity, let alone alleged criminal behavior, interfer with getting their Duke degree. The hint of suspension would cause a break in loyalty faster than greased lightning.
    You never tell your parents, girlfriend, or anyone what goes on in the house.
    That's the premise behind the national ad campaign for Las Vegas too...and Bill Clinton.
    The response of the players in the initial letter from the Captains and Dave Evans' staged press conference with his 'brothers from other mothers' standing up for him show behavior consistent with a conspiracy to hide the truth.
    Thinking there is a conspiracy is consitent with paranoia.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#186)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    I don't want to get too far into, but anyone who thinks fourty people are going to cover up such a heinous and well publicized crime is making a startling character indictment against (basically) a whole class of people. If that's how you feel, that's your prerogative, but I don't think it would happen that way.
    JT - you're taking it too far. It's not a character indictment against a whole class of people. Even if a player told their girlfriend, parent, whatever - who in their right mind would want to be the tattle tale? Seriously, who among you would want to be the person identified in the press as the person who leaked the real story? Any such student or parent would be committing career suicide. Seligmann's father is a high ranking wall street guy. Finnerty's too. And Evans' parents are 'close to the Bushes'. Yea, if any of you knew anything, you'd want to be the next Linda Tripp.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#187)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:11:59 PM EST
    JT posted:
    And I still keep on comming back to why Nfiong doesn't seem to be leaning on the other players at all. Why would you make a statement like "there will be no more charges."
    Nifong's statement:
    "At the outset of this investigation, I said it was just as important to remove the cloud of suspicion from the members of the Duke University lacrosse team who were not involved in this assault as it was to identify the actual perpetrators," Nifong said. "For that reason, I believe it is important to state publicly today that none of the evidence that we have developed implicated any member of that team other than those three against who indictments have been returned."
    He can still indict someone if he has evidence against them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#188)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:18:06 PM EST
    kali wrote:
    Moreover, no student at Duke is going to let someone's stupidity, let alone alleged criminal behavior, interfer with getting their Duke degree. The hint of suspension would cause a break in loyalty faster than greased lightning.
    1) Some players have sought transfers to other schools already. They are looking to complete their play and schooling elsewhere. 2) None of the players face suspension from failing to cooperate with the authorities. The Duke adminstration has said that they will wait until the case is over before looking into the incident for any misdeeds. If and when that time comes, any player not proven to be directly inolved would just say they weren't aware of anything that was going on. If they did come forward, then the administration would ask questions about how they let it happen. "So, thank you very much for making the school aware of this incident we wish never happened, you are now expelled."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#189)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:21:54 PM EST
    Hicht wrote:
    He didn't make any cell calls between 12:14 when he called the cab till he leaves for the cab. That is the time frame we were speculating on.
    Moez Mostafa said he picked them up at 12:19 a.m. 1½ blocks from the party. Even if he ran, it would take a minute. That leaves exactly four minutes to perpetrate the assault. I think Seligmann walks. Due to the 100% certainty with which the accuser identified him, I think she undercuts her credibility in identifying her attackers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#190)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    Second Duke Lacrosse Party Stripper Faces Charges in Separate Case Nothing new in this article, I just like the headline: Second Duke Lacrosse Party Stripper Faces Charges in Separate Case I guess the players didn't know not only were they hiring two strippers, they were gaining a mascot.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#191)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:46:39 PM EST
    Running debate here...
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 31, 2006 03:24 PM
    Posted by SLOphoto April 24, 2006 01:22 PM I mean REALLY ... Neither one of those two women just "disappeared" inside the bathroom with three guys for 30 minutes, and NOBODY else at the party noticed anything unusual.
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion April 24, 2006 01:44 PM The second stripper, Kim, may have been in her car when the alleged rape took place. Are you saying three guys must not have been in the bathroom with the accuser or someone would have come forward by now?
    Is this what you were talking about, SLO?
    Since you asked, that is exactly what I am talking about. You twisted my words, and in a very clever way too. I did not say "or someone would have come forward," I said, "and NOBODY else at the party noticed anything unusual." I still stand by that assertion. But I did learn a valuable lesson in the process. IMHO is not someone to be trifled with on these postings. She will pounce with all the predatory skill and ken of a saber tooth tiger if she catches the scent of a desirable prey. And I have watched a respectable number of would-be adversaries here on this site learn that lesson the hard way. You have yet to meet your match on this site, we both know it, and we both know why. You were not one of those people in Isla Vista who developed her intellect by humbly contemplating the jewel in the heart of the lotus flower. You lived on Del Playa.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#192)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 03:47:19 PM EST
    markyb posted:
    Someone can correct me on this but I believe Nifong turned down attempts by Seligmann's attorney's to show him his alibi.
    This was after Seligmann had been indicted. Advise your innocent client with an "airtight alibi" to not cooperate with the investigation, then once he is indicted for first-degree forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense and first-degree kidnapping, run to the DA's office with receipts in hand. Good plan Osborn. Nifong let Osborn "cool his heels" for about 20 minutes before sending a staff member out to tell him to scram.
    "I've known the guy for 25 years," Mr. Osborn said. "I went over and thought surely he'd listen to me on it. And he sent some messenger out and said: 'I saw you on the TV saying your client was absolutely innocent, so what do we have to talk about?' He wouldn't even see me himself."
    Too late, chump. See ya in court. The "Blue Wall of Silence" didn't work out for Reade. Membership has its privileges and its pitfalls.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#193)
    by wumhenry on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    What reason does Kim have to tell the story other than to explain why they are trashing her? They courted her, she balked, they threatened, she walked, they trashed her.
    How about: to avoid being stigmatized as a "house nigga"? Her initial comments, made before this thing became a *cause celebre*, clearly cut against the AV. When defense lawyers interviewed her later on, the AV had become a sort of Joan of Arc to a heckuva lot of black people in Durham and elsewhere. Kim would have been at high risk of being perceived as a traitor had she conspicuously cooperated with the defense lawyers at that point. Instead, she had a well-publicized spat with them, thereby extricating herself from the predicament.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#194)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:11:07 PM EST
    SLOphoto
    You lived on Del Playa.
    You're not that cute surfer that lived next door to me are you, the one that would pretend to be scoping the waves whenever I was tanning in the buff? SLOphoto posted:
    I mean REALLY ... Neither one of those two women just "disappeared" inside the bathroom with three guys for 30 minutes, and NOBODY else at the party noticed anything unusual.
    This is a question: imho asked:
    Are you saying three guys must not have been in the bathroom with the accuser or someone would have come forward by now?
    How do you know "NOBODY else at the party noticed anything unusual?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#195)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    I believe that it's 99.9% likely that no rape occurred. Rationale: 1. No DNA other than the victim's boyfriend's semen in and around the vagina. The condom theory is ridiculous -- can one honestly believe these players wore condoms to the party or that they managed to put on a condom, in a small bathroom with a fighting victim and two other attackers? 2. The only DNA link -- not even a verifiable match -- is from the suspect's bathroom garbage can near a disposed press-on nail. It's more likely that the DNA contact with the nail was incidental. The nails are another issue. How could the "Wall of Silence" be so scripted yet leave the victim's press-on nails in the bathroom? 3. SANE exam is consistent with intercourse, not with gang rape. Given the presence of another man's semen and the description of pre-lacrosse party activities, it is more than likely to be symptomatic of a prior encounter. 4. The house is small and someone would have heard noise of a struggle from the bathroom. Despite the lacrosse team's reknown for public urination, there were likely people who wanted to use that bathroom. Human behavior teaches us that no group of 40+ people can keep a secret if something happened. Even if you don't believe that any of them have a shred of human decency in them to have intervened, there's no way they could lie their way through such intense scrutiny. They're the lacrosse team for crying out loud, not some special forces-trained, disciplined group. If they're so good at keeping secrets why did the guy send that creepy email to everyone immediately afterwards? 5. The dancers have changed their stories with transparent motivation. The second dancer went from saying "no rape" to "I'll never know"...a good way to avoid perjury but to backtrack to position herself for commercial advantage and/or please the prosecutor. The victim is more difficult. There are elements in her background that cut to instability. I'm more inclined to believe that she embellished her story based on threats from the police and/or the prosecutor. Let's focus on the truth for a moment, not the constitutionality of the line-up and search, the strength of the individual alibis, and the political motivation and willful misconduct of the prosecutor. The lack of physical evidence combined with inconsistent qualitative accusations suggest that no rape occurred.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#196)
    by wumhenry on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    Advise your innocent client with an "airtight alibi" to not cooperate with the investigation, then once he is indicted for first-degree forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense and first-degree kidnapping, run to the DA's office with receipts in hand.
    Looks like stand-up behavior to me. Seligman, or anybody else on the team who could've proved that he was absent at the crucial time, might well have spared himself from being indicted had he disclosed the alibi evidence to Nifong early on -- but in doing so, he would have made things worse for those teammates who had no such out by making it easier for Nifong and the AV to pick a set of defendants who couldn't refute the accusation so readily.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#197)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    All we know is that NOBODY at the party is giving their version of what did happen. NOBODY at the party is cooperating with the authorities unless formal charges are being used to compel them to.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#198)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:27:22 PM EST
    atl52 wrote:
    Human behavior teaches us that no group of 40+ people can keep a secret if something happened. Even if you don't believe that any of them have a shred of human decency in them to have intervened, there's no way they could lie their way through such intense scrutiny. They're the lacrosse team for crying out loud, not some special forces-trained, disciplined group. If they're so good at keeping secrets why did the guy send that creepy email to everyone immediately afterwards?
    wumhenry seems to disagree:
    Looks like stand-up behavior to me. Seligman, or anybody else on the team who could've proved that he was absent at the crucial time, might well have spared himself from being indicted had he disclosed the alibi evidence to Nifong early on -- but in doing so, he would have made things worse for those teammates who had no such out by making it easier for Nifong and the AV to pick a set of defendants who couldn't refute the accusation so readily.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#199)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:30:35 PM EST
    The condom theory is ridiculous -- can one honestly believe these players wore condoms to the party or that they managed to put on a condom, in a small bathroom with a fighting victim and two other attackers?
    The condom theory may be ridiculous, but so are two of the three reason you gave. I doubt they wore condoms to the party, but the guy that wet his pants should have. The fighting victim could be a problem, but the two other attackers could probably handle her. How small is that bathroom? Many a condom has been put on in the backseat of a car.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#200)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    I don't know why people are still so upset about the lack of DNA evidence. So the players in question didn't 'finish', so what. Unlike other forms of rape, gang rape, especially in close knit groups, is more about the group reinforcing their self image of power and control in a ritual. It's a sick and twisted bonding ritual. Gang rapists are more into the ritualistic aspects of the act than the sexual pleasure.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#201)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:44:34 PM EST
    azbballfan, the point you're highlighting is simply that the lacrosse team is listening to their lawyers once they knew false claims would be filed. There is no secret to keep -- the guys are innocent but they correctly take actions to reserve the truth for court. Bad PR strategy but smart legal strategy. IMHO, the backseat of the car point is funny and accurate. I'm too far removed from that time of my life to remember. I still think the condom theory is ridiculous -- the likelihood of putting on the condom is too remote. Maybe Nifong will indict the guy who pissed himself for public urination...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#202)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:45:16 PM EST
    Mik, You wrote:
    Moez Mostafa said he picked them up at 12:19 a.m. 1½ blocks from the party. Even if he ran, it would take a minute. That leaves exactly four minutes to perpetrate the assault. I think Seligmann walks. Due to the 100% certainty with which the accuser identified him, I think she undercuts her credibility in identifying her attackers.
    While telephone records can be independently verified, the accuracy of the time stamp photos cannot. Bissey saw the dancers return to the house before twelve. Perhaps as early as 11:55 according to his own account. This challenges defense assertions that the dance ended at 12:04. It also challenges assertions that Seligman was not there at the time the rape occurred. Bissey is an independent witness with no motive to lie. 2. The accuser claimed that she was 100% certain that Seligman "looked like" the person who assaulted her. That's not a claim that will hurt her if it turns out somebody who looks like Seligman was the actual perpetrator. Finnerty, on the other hand, she pegged.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#203)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    alt52 posted:
    They're the lacrosse team for crying out loud, not some special forces-trained, disciplined group. If they're so good at keeping secrets why did the guy send that creepy email to everyone immediately afterwards?
    It's not like they've been subjected to the "naked light-bulb treatment." More like, "There, there, Honey. Mummy knows you didn't even look at those wicked women."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#204)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 04:55:00 PM EST
    atl52 wrote:
    4. The house is small and someone would have heard noise of a struggle from the bathroom. Despite the lacrosse team's reknown for public urination, there were likely people who wanted to use that bathroom. Human behavior teaches us that no group of 40+ people can keep a secret if something happened. Even if you don't believe that any of them have a shred of human decency in them to have intervened, there's no way they could lie their way through such intense scrutiny. They're the lacrosse team for crying out loud, not some special forces-trained, disciplined group. If they're so good at keeping secrets why did the guy send that creepy email to everyone immediately afterwards?
    Then a few minute later wrote:
    azbballfan, the point you're highlighting is simply that the lacrosse team is listening to their lawyers once they knew false claims would be filed. There is no secret to keep -- the guys are innocent but they correctly take actions to reserve the truth for court. Bad PR strategy but smart legal strategy.
    No, I was just pointing out the lameness of using the existence of the 'Wall of Silence' as evidence that nothing happened. Your second post agrees with me and presents and opinion that is incongruous with your earlier post. Where's Orinoco when you need 'em?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#205)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:18:35 PM EST
    Image 34: Victim: He was in the master bedroom. Sgt: What was he doing? Victim: Sitting on the couch watching television.
    Image 35: Victim: The guy before this one. He made the comment about the broomstick. Sgt: #34 was the gentleman who made the broomstick comment. Victim: Um hum. Sgt: What was the comment about? Victim: He said um he was going to stick broomsticks up your a**es.
    Image 40: (Collin Finnerty)
    (After the AV says he was the second guy who put his p*nis in her vag*na and a*us)
    Sgt: Is he the one who strangled you or not? Victim: No.
    Obviously, these are quotes from the third photo lineup. 1. #34 is the guy who made the broomstick comment, but her first recognition/description is not of him doing that. That would be the first thing I would remember about him. 2. She expressly said that Finnerty did not choke her. She said nothing about Evans (90% certainty ID) choking her. She said nothing about Seligman choking her. She said nothing about any of them choking, hitting, kicking, etc. Again, I would think she would have mentioned that if she had been brutalized in ways other than the rapes themselves. Where did that allegation come from, and where did it go? This clearly bothers me more than it does others, so I won't bring it up again, but it remains an issue to me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#206)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    Criticism of the competence of the SANE nurse works against the argument that that the lack of dna found on the accuser shows that the defendants must be innocent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#207)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    Hi Sharon, You wrote:
    Where did that allegation come from, and where did it go? This clearly bothers me more than it does others, so I won't bring it up again, but it remains an issue to me.
    The defense team, I would guess, knows where it came from. If they aren't telling, my suspicion would be that it doesn't benefit them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#208)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:24:44 PM EST
    It's not like they've been subjected to the "naked light-bulb treatment." More like, "There, there, Honey. Mummy knows you didn't even look at those wicked women."
    Not up to your usual standards, imho. Downright mean spirited, and you shouldn't underestimate the power of the LPGA. And PB: Being 100% certain that someone looks like the someone who raped you is a worthless id, then. Do you just keep charging and prosecuting until you find the right one?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#209)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:39:19 PM EST
    imho-
    It's not like they've been subjected to the "naked light-bulb treatment." More like, "There, there, Honey. Mummy knows you didn't even look at those wicked women."
    I hear that. PB-
    Criticism of the competence of the SANE nurse works against the argument that that the lack of dna found on the accuser shows that the defendants must be innocent.
    I've take similar issue with that the "chance" DNA from a man tied to this twice now got on her fingernail so innocently, yet that they found absolutely nothing on her body is significant.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#210)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    ATL52, You wrote:
    Human behavior teaches us that no group of 40+ people can keep a secret if something happened.
    One thing we have not yet heard from the defense attorneys is a statement to the effect that "None of the three defendants was ever in the bathroom alone with the accuser." It's an easy statement to make, and an important one, I would think. If Nifong can't put the accuser in the bathroom with the defendants, I can't see that he can win the case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#211)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:47:14 PM EST
    azbballfan says:
    Unlike other forms of rape, gang rape, especially in close knit groups, is more about the group reinforcing their self image of power and control in a ritual. It's a sick and twisted bonding ritual. Gang rapists are more into the ritualistic aspects of the act than the sexual pleasure.
    Hmmm, how do you know this? A source for this claim would be useful.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#212)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:51:12 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    While telephone records can be independently verified, the accuracy of the time stamp photos cannot.
    Ordinarily, I would agree. However, if the photos came from a camera phone, the timestamp CAN be proven to be accurate. The time may be set by your service provider as part of the signal. Certainly it is with the last four phones I have owned (three different service providers). I think (conjecture here) that it is likely the photos came from a camera phone. That is lame enough, but not as lame as thinking one of these lax players brought his camera to capture memories from the party.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#213)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 05:53:05 PM EST
    Sharon, you wrote:
    Being 100% certain that someone looks like the someone who raped you is a worthless id, then.
    "Worthless" is hardly the word for it. There are many situations where the suspect pool includes only people who do not "look" 100% like the perpetrator. In those cases, such an id would would be compelling, no? It is the rare case where a twin is somewhere in the vicinity of the crime scene. This is a simple concept that you perhaps could come up with yourself if you made the effort.
    Do you just keep charging and prosecuting until you find the right one?
    I would be surprised if the identification of the suspects in this case was built solely on the accuser's identification of them. But we'll see.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#214)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:05:26 PM EST
    Mik, You wrote:
    if the photos came from a camera phone, the timestamp CAN be proven to be accurate.
    From WRAL,
    For the first time Sunday, news reporters got a look at the photos, which were taken with a digital camera with an internal time stamp.
    Sources said the 19 photos, taken between 11:02 p.m. and 12:41 a.m. by a person they would not identify, matched watches in the photographs.
    Comment: I don't exactly trust this report (duh!). I seem to recall another report that claimed that the photos came from more than one camera/photographer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#215)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    Teresa, I love you. Come back!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#216)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:06:23 PM EST
    beenaround: Roy Hazelwood, famous FBI profiler describes gang rape: "..involves three or more offenders and you always have a leader and a reluctant participant. Those are extremely violent, and what you find is that they're playing for each other's approval." "Psychologist Chris O'Sullivan, Ph.D., of Buckness University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, studied 26 alleged gang rapes that were documented between 1980 and 1990, and found that fraternity groups committed the highest number, followed by athletic teams. In addition, she found that "the athletes who do this are usually on a star team, not just any old team. It was the football team at Oklahoma, the basketball team at Minnesota, the lacrosse team at St. John's. It seems to be our most privileged athletes - the ones, by the way, most sought after by women - who are often involved in gang rape." "Most psychologists believe that powerful male bonding is the essence of gang rape - that, in fact, the men are raping for one another. Peggy R. Sanday, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania anthropologist and author of Fraternity Gang Rape (NYU Press, 1990) explains: "They get a high off doing it with their 'brothers.'"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#217)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:14:17 PM EST
    imho:
    It's not like they've been subjected to the "naked light-bulb treatment." More like, "There, there, Honey. Mummy knows you didn't even look at those wicked women."
    As a satirical portrayal of the attitudes of the people who are biased against the defendants, this is dead on. Very funny!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#218)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    SharonInJax wrote:
    Image 34: Victim: He was in the master bedroom. Sgt: What was he doing? Victim: Sitting on the couch watching television.
    #34 is the guy who made the broomstick comment, but her first recognition/description is not of him doing that. That would be the first thing I would remember about him.
    Even though I am biased for the ARs, I am a reasonable person and it seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable that her recollection would be in order of occurance, to wit: The AV/FA walked in and he was on the couch watching TV, then during the dance he said the broomstick (lacrosse stick) comment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#219)
    by Jo on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:52:49 PM EST
    Two little nitpicks: 1. I would think a camera phone would qualify as "a digital camera with an internal time stamp". 2. "being 100% certain that someone looks like the someone who raped you" is not identical to "looking 100% like the perpetrator".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#220)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    Jo posted:
    1. I would think a camera phone would qualify as "a digital camera with an internal time stamp".
    I don't disagree with the intention of your post. However this intrigued me and I tested my cameraphone. Took a pic, sent it to my computer. The date and time stamp of the file was the date and time the file was taken from the camera - not the date and time of the photo.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#221)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:06:52 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    It's not like they've been subjected to the "naked light-bulb treatment." More like, "There, there, Honey. Mummy knows you didn't even look at those wicked women."
    Mybe if they were from Indiana. The thought that the chairman of the LPGA would have this view is a crack-up. The thought of a mother from Long Island or New Jersey speaking this way is even more outrageous. Very funny. Of course, the California "call me Krista, not mom" would say, "Oh sweetie, why didn't you just access my porn site for your party, then you wouldn't be in this mess would you? With the season canceled, I guess I'm not going to get to play with the team this year either. Its Ok, I'll be alright."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#222)
    by Jo on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:09:30 PM EST
    azbballfan
    The date and time stamp of the file was the date and time the file was taken from the camera - not the date and time of the photo.
    Please excuse me if this next question doesn't make any sense, I'm just guessing based on previous posts. Is there some date/time "metadata" encoded in the photo taken by your phone-camera?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#223)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:17:59 PM EST
    Jo wrote:
    Please excuse me if this next question doesn't make any sense, I'm just guessing based on previous posts. Is there some date/time "metadata" encoded in the photo taken by your phone-camera?
    Jo, I used Adobe Photoshop Homestarter edition 3.0 that came with my digital camera. Using this software to look at photos downloaded from my camera, the "date and time" of the files was the date and time they were downloaded, not taken. Interestingly enough, I then found a menu option which allowed me to change the date and time of the picture - yes, the metadata. This is all offered by software which comes with most printers and digital cameras. At first, I was suprised that it was so simple. Then I realized, the manufacturer of the camera and Adobe could care less about the 'integrity' of the metadata. They want customers to be able to manipulate the pictures any way they can. Now, cameras used for special purposes like security cameras are different. But we're talking about a kid's digital camera here - you could make the dates and times on those pictures to be anything you wanted.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#224)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:21:01 PM EST
    Hi Cymro and Kali, I feel like I'm hogging all the laughs. wumhenry's satirical portrayal of the attitudes of the people who are biased against the accuser and Kim are also dead on and very funny. I can't believe no one has praised wumhenry's efforts. Posted by wumhenry:
    How likely is it that a *prostitute* would be reduced to hysteria by shame and guilt because she was dicked without her consent?
    Posted by wumhenry:
    How about: to avoid being stigmatized as a "house nigga"


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#225)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:24:02 PM EST
    From Kali's post:
    Of course, the California "call me Krista, not mom" would say, "Oh sweetie, why didn't you just access my porn site for your party, then you wouldn't be in this mess would you? With the season canceled, I guess I'm not going to get to play with the team this year either. Its Ok, I'll be alright."
    link please?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#226)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:28:14 PM EST
    They go to all the trouble of doctoring the time stamps on the pictures, but they leave her fingernails in the trash, her purse and cell phone in their house, and $160 in cash? And what if the magnified look of the watches is within a minute or two?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#227)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:32:17 PM EST
    Abrams Report April 27, 2006: Former FBI digital photo expert said if the average person altered the time stamps or sequence of the photos on a copy or even the original chip or disk from the camera, experts could detect it, but if someone knew what they were doing, they could change the time stamps and/or sequence of the photos without experts being able to detect the alterations. Abrams did not appear to be very happy with his answer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#228)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:32:49 PM EST
    IMHO, I thought from the part of the SANE report released that the AV had claimed that her attackers did not use condoms. What's the discussion about? As far as DNA goes, clearly the three defendants did not ejaculate in or on her (which they wouldn't do if they didn't have sex with her). Having forced sex with a struggling woman would presumably leave some DNA trace from at least one of the men on or in her. No guarantee, though. I guess the experts will testify as to the odds.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#229)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:32:50 PM EST
    IMHO, I thought from the part of the SANE report released that the AV had claimed that her attackers did not use condoms. What's the discussion about? As far as DNA goes, clearly the three defendants did not ejaculate in or on her (which they wouldn't do if they didn't have sex with her). Having forced sex with a struggling woman would presumably leave some DNA trace from at least one of the men on or in her. No guarantee, though. I guess the experts will testify as to the odds.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#230)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:36:17 PM EST
    I knew someone would mention the book "Fraternity Gang Rape". It is important to note this book was based on an accusation that resulted in acquittal of the accused. No one denies that the accuser had been on several tabs of acid as well as alcohol and had sex with 4 members of a fraternity. However this was not uncommon behavior for her. Even her boyfriend admitted that she had seduced him under similar circumstances when they first met. She did not want to press charges afterwards but was influenced by an activist friend to do so.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#231)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:42:47 PM EST
    IMHO wrote, characterizing Nifong's refusal to look at Seligmann's alibi evidence: Too late, chump. See ya in court. Is there any attorney, prosecutor or other officer of the court who could explain to me why Nifong would not want to review what the defense had? If he were a seeker of facts in this case, what harm does it do to see this information? I may have missed this, but I haven't heard an explanation for how this serves the pursuit of justice, or even how it would weaken Nifong's case to see what the defense has. The only logical explanation I can guess is that somehow it allows Nifong to pretend he still has a case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#232)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:46:20 PM EST
    guyincognito posted:
    No one denies that the accuser had been on several tabs of acid as well as alcohol and had sex with 4 members of a fraternity.
    In North Carolina, if she is impaired, that's rape even if they are impaired as well.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#233)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:50:05 PM EST
    Is there any attorney, prosecutor or other officer of the court who could explain to me why Nifong would not want to review what the defense had? If he were a seeker of facts in this case, what harm does it do to see this information?
    All he has to do is tape Yale Galanter on the Abrams report every night. And oh, Megyn Kendall on Shamity and Colmes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#234)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:54:01 PM EST
    guyincognito wrote:
    I knew someone would mention the book "Fraternity Gang Rape". It is important to note this book was based on an accusation that resulted in acquittal of the accused. No one denies that the accuser had been on several tabs of acid as well as alcohol and had sex with 4 members of a fraternity. However this was not uncommon behavior for her. Even her boyfriend admitted that she had seduced him under similar circumstances when they first met. She did not want to press charges afterwards but was influenced by an activist friend to do so.
    Yes, that was the case. The case happened at the University of Penn. Dr. Sanday took this incident to evaluate the rape culture of college campuses. She used the strange construct of this case to explore other cases and the college fraternity and sorority culture about rape, sex, and being accepted. She interviewed other victims as well as many fraternity members to understand the 'group' mentality.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#235)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:57:38 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    I may have missed this, but I haven't heard an explanation for how this serves the pursuit of justice, or even how it would weaken Nifong's case to see what the defense has. The only logical explanation I can guess is that somehow it allows Nifong to pretend he still has a case.
    The Blue Wall tactic serves the pursuit of justice? Nifong doesn't have to pretend he still has a case. He's the man. It will take a judge to dimiss the case if Nifong wants to go forward with it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#236)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    As far as DNA goes, clearly the three defendants did not ejaculate in or on her (which they wouldn't do if they didn't have sex with her). Having forced sex with a struggling woman would presumably leave some DNA trace from at least one of the men on or in her. No guarantee, though. I guess the experts will testify as to the odds.
    PB made a good point about the S.A.N.E. trainee:
    Criticism of the competence of the SANE nurse works against the argument that that the lack of dna found on the accuser shows that the defendants must be innocent.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#237)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:23:39 PM EST
    Criticism of the competence of the SANE nurse works against the argument that that the lack of dna found on the accuser shows that the defendants must be innocent.
    I disagree. Her inexperience would cast a shadow on her interpretive statements (like signs, symptoms, injuries being consistent with rape) not because she was a bad nurse, but an inexperienced one. Her frame of reference is much smaller than someone who has been doing it for longer. In-training doesn't mean incapable of wielding a cotton swab. If there were absolutely no physical evidence recovered, I'd be more inclined to believe that the exam parts that were performed were done incorrectly. But that isn't the case; there was physical evidence collected, it just doesn't seem to tie back to any of the accused. So in the absence of physical evidence, the most compelling thing to come out of the SANE exam (even for many of the pro-AVs on this site) is the narrative interpretations. The accuracy of those interpretations is, to my mind, suspect. Not fatally flawed, but I'd sure be interested to know her level of experience/inexperience, and a better definition of in-training.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#238)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:25:27 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica Posted:
    I really don't know. Kim has shown an ability to lie at the drop of a hat, and attorney are paid to bend reality to comfortably fit their clients.
    Ask the attorneys here if other attorneys have ever FLAT OUT LIED to them, much less to a reporter.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#239)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:31:46 PM EST
    localone posted:
    And although you may not want to hear this, the jury may think that her wanting to keep her job and "contacts" quiet from boyfriend, Daddy, or whomever, may be a motivation for some of these claims. It's certainly happened before, and juries are made up by people who watch TV and have real life experiences.
    I like to hear everything. I don't understand what you are saying here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#240)
    by azbballfan on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:33:40 PM EST
    Bob wrote:
    Is there any attorney, prosecutor or other officer of the court who could explain to me why Nifong would not want to review what the defense had? If he were a seeker of facts in this case, what harm does it do to see this information?
    Tangentally, this would be a dirty trick, but if any of the defense lawyers even make a threat about bringing action against Nifong for prosecutorial misconduct or for personal liability due to talking to reporters, then Nifong would be unable to talk to the defense team lawyer(s) without his own attorney present or outside the confines of strict prosecutorial procedure through the courts.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#241)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:44:08 PM EST
    thinkandtype posted:
    In-training doesn't mean incapable of wielding a cotton swab.
    The S.A.N.E. protocol for the collection of physical forensic evidence is more involved than that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#242)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:50:02 PM EST
    12:15-12:20: So did Kim go back in the house with AV or not? After changing clothes and going back to the car, what would cause her to choose to return? In any case Kim is back in the car by 12:40. To dance again? Why? She's already got her $400. Change clothes again and subject herself (this time alone 'cause AV is wasted) to more broomstick taunts? No way she returns to dance again. Was she persuaded to reenter the house by the prospect of additional paid activities? As I recall, the house has two bathrooms. Each could have set up shop privately. Did she and AV agree to return together in order to retrieve AV's belongings? If so, they didn't succeed. This is dastardly, but could she have acted as AV's agent, unbeknownst to AV, and collected a fee for service? Perhaps they both walked around to the rear of the house, Kim saw the AV enter the bathroom to retrieve her make-up bag, saw the boys prevent AV's exit, looked the other way and quietly walked back to the car. What does she care? Or did she simply remain in the car for the entire 20-25 minutes until AV was poured back into the car at 12:40?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#243)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    The S.A.N.E. protocol for the collection of physical forensic evidence is more involved than that.
    I'm quite sure. But she DID find physical evidence. If absolutely nothing had been collected, I might have thought it more likely that the physical collection portions of the SANE had been goofed. But she did, apparently, manage to do some effective collection (swabbing, what have you), just not of fluid that matched the accused.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#244)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 08:58:23 PM EST
    RE: the camera and potential for modification of the time stamps This would be extremely difficult to do, even for a computer expert. You would need to be able to update the flash card, in reverse, from your computer. And you would need to be able to leave no trace or log of the change anywhere. This means that you would need to update in place, since updates to data are actually made at another location and pointers are changed to point to the updated data. Think about your PC and the cleanup programs you need to run to "defrag" your disk or your registry. These are needed because computer operating systems do not update in place, and eventually your disk is a mess of pointers and your system slows down. Sound familiar? I work on computer operating systems and, believe me, this is a top subject of discussion at my company right now. The consensus right now is that the time and expertise involved to change all of these time stamps in place, with no trace of the change, would be difficult and time consuming for us, and we understand how to do this. A utility program would be needed for the specific camera, and I doubt that this type of utility has been developed for every potential camera's format. Our security experts are also doubtful concerning the time and effort to do this. If there was more than one camera, the difficulty of this would multiply. Considering the carelessness with other potential evidence by the players, it really stretches the bounds of probability that they would "conspire" to fix this one thing but forget the rest.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#245)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:10:26 PM EST
    I'm quite sure. But she DID find physical evidence. If absolutely nothing had been collected, I might have thought it more likely that the physical collection portions of the SANE had been goofed. But she did, apparently, manage to do some effective collection (swabbing, what have you), just not of fluid that matched the accused.
    I think the argument could be made that an more experienced examiner has a better chance of finding more physical evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#246)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:12:22 PM EST
    Posted by 7duke4 RE: the camera and potential for modification of the time stamps This would be extremely difficult to do, even for a computer expert. ... [detailed explanation]
    Thank you, 7duke4. I was pretty sure of that, but I did not know enough of the technical details to articulate it. I appreciate your efforts.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#247)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:24:03 PM EST
    Posted by 7duke4 Considering the carelessness with other potential evidence by the players, it really stretches the bounds of probability that they would "conspire" to fix this one thing but forget the rest.
    Considering the amateurishness of the "snapshots" they took that night, it really stretches the bounds of probability too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#248)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    Also, to be clear, we're talking about the time stamps in the camera/card, not on the photos downloaded to a computer. Those are easily modified - I've done that myself.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#249)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:28:43 PM EST
    7duke4 posted:
    Considering the carelessness with other potential evidence by the players, it really stretches the bounds of probability that they would "conspire" to fix this one thing but forget the rest
    The players threw the fingernails in the trash, not their attorneys, otherwise Cheshire's DNA would have been found on the nail. ;) If any tampering of the time stamps was done or planned, the players wouldn't be doing it. What we are seeing on the photos are whatever the lawyers superimposed on the photos - they may or may not correspond to the camera's time stamps. We don't know. They could have superimposed GO DUKE on the photos. The FBI expert on Abrams said the time stamps and sequence of the photos can be altered without an expert being able to detect the alteration. The defense has effectively rendered the time stamps useless as evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#250)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:30:26 PM EST
    7duke4 posted:
    Also, to be clear, we're talking about the time stamps in the camera/card, not on the photos downloaded to a computer. Those are easily modified - I've done that myself.
    That's what the FBI expert was talking about as well.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#251)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:13:50 PM EST
    You are all dissecting every aspect of this case -- that's good. Time for a new thread, here it is. Comments here are closing.