home

Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:27:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The dukesters need a new thread. What's in the news? The Washington Post explores how the players' families are coping.

Feeling abandoned, angry and distraught over their sons' futures, the parents bonded most through the shared conviction that everyone on the team is innocent....Over the months, tensions erupted over legal strategies and fears of which son might be handcuffed next. The less-affluent parents have worried about how to pay legal bills. The wealthy ones swore they would spend every last penny clearing the names of the indicted.

There are also interviews with parents of four of the uncharged players. The article is detailed and I'm so glad to see their side of the story told for once instead of all the attention being focused on the accuser, the inconsistent versions of Dancer #2 and the partying.

< Yearly Kos Takes Vegas By Storm | Server Problems, We're Back - Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread | 187 comments (187 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    Some of Nifong's early statements: March 28th "There won't be any arrests before next week. I have decided not to make arrests until DNA evidence is back," he said. March 29th: "The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done," Nifong said. March 28th: "I needed to have the information about who will be charged," said District Attorney Mike Nifong said. "I feel pretty confident that a rape occurred." March 30th: Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong said Wednesday that even if DNA results, which are expected as early as next week, do not match team members, no one is necessarily exonerated. The attackers could have used condoms or might not have been team members, Nifong said. "How does DNA exonerate you? It's either a match or there's not a match," Nifong said. " ... If the only thing that we ever have in this case is DNA, then we wouldn't have a case." April 3, 2006 Associated Press "The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done," Durham district attorney Mike Nifong said. "It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so." April 10th: Nifong expressed confidence that the DNA would be important to filing charges. "By next week, we'll know precisely who was involved," he said shortly after the samples were taken. April 13th: "My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke hospital," Nifong countered Wednesday. April 16th: Defense attorneys said they had offered to show the pictures to District Attorney Mike Nifong, but he declined to see them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    noname: that was something of my point. Somewhat joking, but not completely, as it is (to me) a believable alternative scenario.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Does that mean you think the AV was lying when she told the N&O reporter that the Duke party was her first outcall as a "dancer"? Or when she said her escort duties were "one on one dates"?
    N & O Mar 25, 2006:
    This was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group, she said.
    Her driver called one of these "one on one dates" with the older gentleman, a performance. The accuser's description of one of theses dates was that it was a performance for a couple that did not involve having sex with anyone. My point is that just because she is dropped off at a hotel for a planned appointment doesn't mean she had sex with anyone. What do the attorneys mean by "involved in some sexual manner with men"? Do they mean getting buck-naked and performing sex on another woman, as Dan Abrams described the photos taken at the Duke lacrosse party? The attorneys are trying to explain the vaginal swelling by citing her multple appointments that weekend. Do they know if she had vaginal sex with anyone that weekend? All I've heard about is the "small [redacted] (sex toy)." SharonInJax posted:
    As to Nifong's involvement in the investigation: I clearly said it was "my take" on the flow of what happened. As to the exact timing of his involvement, I of course do not know. I do know that Nifong was making his public comments about the case by March 23, before an initial investigation had been completed, before DNA results came in. I do know that Nifong directed that the photo lineup be done the way it was. I do know that Nifong was making comments about this being a racially motivated case before he had any proof of that.
    I wasn't asking for an exact date. I was just wondering what you considered too soon. Did Nifong make a public statement on March 23rd? By March 22 Kim had already signed a police statement wherein she said the players called them n*ggers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    ok, imho: what about the AV's description of her work as "one on one" dates? She never said she had "danced" for individuals, she said she was on "dates." And even if someone at the party used a racial epithet, does and did Nifong know it was one of the rapists? Not that I've seen. According to the AV's driver, she had sex with him that weekend. There's one. According to the DNA, she had sex recently with her boyfriend. There's two. Say she only "performed" with no penetration on two of the dates. That still makes three and four. And did the report say "small" in describing the vibrator? No.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    And, imho: what's this all about?
    Does Mrs. Evans have two children? I've heard those LPGA ladies can be brutal to each other, but I'm sure, if David stops hiring strippers, that reportedly, performed sex acts on each other while buck-naked, the hardworking Rae will regain the respect of the LPGA ladies' someday.
    Intentionally misreading beenaround's post? beenaround said nothing about any of the accuseds' mothers, why did you twist it that way? Personal animus toward women golfers in general, or just the ones who have sons who are accused of rape? Sometimes your cheap shots toward the players and their families confound me.
    Oh, beenaround's personal animus was directed at that mother of two, not the mother who's son hired the stripper, but the mother who is a stripper. Let me scroll back and see if beenaround was duly chastised for that snarky comment.........still scrolling back.......still scrolling back.......Why am I not confounded that cheap shots at the accuser and her family don't seem to confound you?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    given what appears to be the weakest of cases, and the apparent refusal of DA nifong to review potentially exculpatory evidence presented by attys for the accused, i have a question.: should this case not be dismissed (as i think it should be, for lack of evidence.), and the families have to spend even more money than they already have, and a "not guilty" verdict is rendered, do the families have any recourse at all against the DA? remember, mr. nifong is using other people's money to press this case, the families are paying with their own. he has little incentive to drop it at this point, absent the AV coming out in public and saying she lied about the whole thing. were i one of the parents, i would be livid at this point, given the almost complete lack of any evidence of an untoward event occuring that nite. i would definitely believe that mr. nifong is not operating with a good faith belief that an actual crime happened, and i would want my pound of flesh. recognizing that revenge is a dish best served cold, what recourse do i have?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    Nifong's early involvement (less than 10 days after the incident) was one of the odder aspects of this case. Normally, police conduct an investigation, and then turn over the material to the DA if they believe a crime was committed. Here, Nifong was involved well before the investigation was completed (indeed, if we're to believe the latest subpeona for the keycard records of all 47 players, the investigation still isn't completed), and proclaiming that a crime had in fact occurred. The excuse for this is that the chief of police's mother was ill. But if the chief of police is incapacitated, doesn't the deputy, not the DA, normally assume command of the department? If we've learned nothing else from this case, it's that justice is different in Durham--where prosecutors apparently don't have to follow state ethics guidelines, where the law enforcement can demand DNA samples based on group identities and then ignore the results, where accusers can be given multiple photo IDs of the same people before settling on their choice. Makes me glad I don't live there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:18:41 AM EST
    What? Defendents have families?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:22:14 AM EST
    imho: what involvement has Dave Evans' mother had in this case, other than standing silently behind her son? What statements to the press? What interviews? She is not an issue in this case, nor has she made herself one, except apparently to you. First the "there, there, mummy will . . ." comment of yours earlier, now this nasty address to Rae Evans. Neither she nor her occupation has anything to do with this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    I'd swear under oath that the Florida DA, Pam Bondi, said something to the effect of the Nifong probably wanting to keep to second dancer from testifying, but that line is not in the June 9 "Abrams Report" video. Could it have been cut at her request?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:37:52 AM EST
    No, the Abrams Report would not cut a line at her request for that reason. Maybe she said it on Hannity? Just because she is a current prosecutor does not mean she has more information or more accurate information than any other pundit. She may get some talking points and the DA's designated media person could be feeding her some information but it is unlikely to be inside, previously unknown information.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    Adding my "take" on a chronolgy that focuses on just how scary Nifong is: 1. Conflicting statements up the ying yang from the AV: rape no rape, a beating/sexual assault that conflicts with the vaunted SANE report, no condoms, Kim took my money and assisted with the rape, clear evidence of intoxication. 2. Nifong sees internal and unpublished investigative information that casts huge doubts about the story. 3. Cooperative statements/DNA profile from 3 players denying it. 4. Nifong knows of Kim's "crock" statement and "we were only apart for less than 5 minutes" story. 5. Nifong puts his finger to the wind and senses an opportunity to gain political points, doesn't bother to think about the consequences to others. He goes on a magical mystery tour for 70 interviews (plus free repeats on every cable show and news reprint), with appropriate pandering stops along the way. (Duke voters - any outrage left in you (or common sense) to see that you were shamelessly used?) 6. Nifong feels safe because no one else knows the evidence, he does not have to show it to anyone for at least several months, and he believes his spin on this is enough for an indictment with any grand jury. 7. Nifong gets a warrant for 46 players and intentionally does not tell the judge of any of the stinky parts investigators found that may prevent the warrant. Big mistake. 8. He does not want to know any more details that might hurt a serendipitously timed indictment, refuses to see attorneys, consider photos and alibis. Media starts off the first investigations/911 tapes etc., and the public gets the first whiff of the stench to follow. 9. Defense reacts to Nifong, and their statements add to the public doubts. The public does not know that Nifong not only does not have "something," he's got good news for the defense. The media darling senses trouble and goes righteous by ceasing interviews. 10. Reelection. Besides the several other ethics violations already quoted, the damage to people and institutions, I find the manipulation of the electorate to be really reprehensible. Comments? This was a calculated move for his selfish gain. My hope is that every one of the "privileged elitist" b*stards who can afford a $0.4 million bond with attorney fees in that neighborhood, decide to separately sue this SOB, tie him up in an equally costly personal court battle for the next 5 years, and do a Nifong grin as he has to stop spending other people's money. If I was a duped voter, I'd be cheering them on. That ham sandwich Mikey's eating is starting to taste like crow.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    SharonInJax quoted:
    April 3, 2006 Associated Press "The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done," Durham district attorney Mike Nifong said. "It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so."
    IF it is demonstrated that the accuser fabricated her story, does this go in the opposite direction?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:56:47 AM EST
    Prozac: I heard that too. Bondi was making the point that Nifong might not want to call Kim, but he wouldn't leave it to the defense to call her. Nifong would, in her opinion, have to call Kim, and then have the unfortunate task of impeaching his own witness.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:57:42 AM EST
    Think and Type, You wrote:
    Clarity is everything, especially when making poorly supported generalities. You didn't say "Just because some women at Duke don't consider themselves feminists," you used the term "THE woman (sic)," which is patently ridiculous.
    Well, to my credit, I didn't write "Just because all women at Duke don't consider themselves feminists," I used the term "THE woman (sic}." You wrote:
    But perhaps you really only did mean "some women," in which case, I rather wish you'd said so to begin with, as it would have made your argument much stronger.
    I prefer the word "most" to the word "some", because it captures the results of the small sample upon which I based my callously irresponsible use of the term "the."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    Bondi said something like, "Nifong must be asking, 'how can I present my case without putting Kim Pittman/Roberts on the stand?'" It comes right after Abrams' presentation of the latest info in the motion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    Thanks, Sharon. It was one of those "Did I really hear that?" things. I found it shocking that the prosecution would try to get around an exculpatory witness, and a vital one at that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    Immie, my comment to multiple comments from you and the media about the criminal act of hiring strippers
    Oh, beenaround's personal animus was directed at that mother of two, not the mother who's son hired the stripper This would make mysogenists of a huge population of college students out there. There are countless rush parties (fraternity and sorority recruiting drives) attended by perhaps tens of thousands of students every year. Free beer and strippers! The only people who should criticize this are the ones who in the 60's and 70's never smoked pot once, never played their vinyl Dead music too loudly, never peed outside, never went to bachelor party with strippers. No equation for what the AV has done. Hope this never makes it to trial, but if it does I hope CourtTV airs every bit of it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    BTW, guilty on all counts in my previous post, and I would like to add my liberal creds as so many have done before me. My first ever vote was cast for Richard Nixon, still have my never-burned draft card, Reagan was a great man, and I am an avowed capitalist.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    ok, imho: what about the AV's description of her work as "one on one" dates? She never said she had "danced" for individuals, she said she was on "dates."
    Yes, and the only one that has been described by her was her performance for the couple that did not involve having sex with either of them. I am asking what do the attorneys mean by Jarriel Johnson's statement shows she was "involved in some sexual manner" with four different men? Jarriel Johnson say he was in the car. SharonInJax posted:
    And even if someone at the party used a racial epithet, does and did Nifong know it was one of the rapists? Not that I've seen.
    In a Rita Cosby interview, the accuser's father said his daughter told him they were calling her racial slurs while they were assaulting her, which is interesting because when he was trying to keep the NBPP away he said he did not think the crime was racially motivated. SharonInJax posted:
    According to the AV's driver, she had sex with him that weekend. There's one. According to the DNA, she had sex recently with her boyfriend. There's two. Say she only "performed" with no penetration on two of the dates. That still makes three and four.
    Jariell Johnson says he had sex with her over a week before the Duke lacrosee party. The boyfriend's DNA is not proof he had sex with her that weekend - 4 minus 2 leaves 2 left. For the last two, we don't know what she did on those dates. That's minus 2 more. That makes ZERO. SharonInJax posted:
    And did the report say "small" in describing the vibrator? No. Did the report say small? Yes. Did the defense motion say small? No. Thanks for pointing that out, Sharon.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:42:24 PM EST
    I'm inclined to wish that someone had taken these parents aside and told them:
    Welcome to the world of the criminal defendant. Every time you or your friends talk about being tough on crime, or nod your heads approvingly at the police busting up this criminality or that, and every time you figure - "well, if they were arrested, they must have done something" - you're now on the other side of that. That your sons appear to have come from stable home lives and some prosperity, if not affluence, only entitles them to have a more comfortable environment within which to retreat, until they have to go back to this case. And, further, think of the poor schlubs who don't have all the resources you and your sons do, especially when they say they were innocent but pleaded guilty because they couldn't afford a defense, or because no one would stand up for them.
    I recently read an editorial in a legal newspaper which began something like this: "A cynical old professor of criminal law we knew stated regularly that the best way to ensure the core principles of the Fourth Amendment were preserved and respected would be for the police, once a year or so, to go to the house of some middle-class white family iun town about 3:00 in the morning, crash in the front door with (or without) a no-knock warrant, spend the next five or six hours rummaging through everything in the house, take nothing and leave. You'd see how quickly they'd be reined in." Until you've seen a warrant executed, and watched the client's life violated, you don't know. Oh, and I note these parents' fear their emails would be intercepted. I wonder how they felt about the NSA program before this case started. Someone should have asked.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    imho: which report are you referencing as to the size of the vibrator? And on the potential number of partners: do you have an explanation as to why the DA got exemplars from 3 non-lacrosse players to exclude them if DNA was found? And those were NOT any of her "dates."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 12:58:30 PM EST
    Noname posted, in response to my post of the previous thread on Kim's written statement which was attached to the defense motion)
    How did the defense spin Kim's statement? Did they forge it? What is your theory here?
    Actually, after rereading the motion, I realize the defense didn't just spin, they flat-out lied, as they have frequently done all during this case. That is why I take absolutely nothing they say for granted, without seeing all of the original documents they refer to, including all medical and police reports/interviews. Defense motion:
    Investigator Himan interviewed Ms. Pittman and obtained a written statement from her. Investigator Himan omitted from his probably cause affidavit that in this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that ________ never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once _______ got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;...
    From Kim's written statement, which the defense included in its motion:
    - forgot to mention that the first time Precious came to the car, she left because she felt there was more money to be made.
    Not only did Kim say in her written statement that the AV left her car the first time, Kim never said in this statement that the AV never went back in the house. Never wrote it. Defense lied. In the written statement, Kim never said that the AV stayed in the car once she got there. Never wrote it. Defense lied again - or - (even though it was in the same paragraph about Kim's written statement, technically maybe they could be referring to another statement Kim had made at another time) or defense spins again.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    imho: what involvement has Dave Evans' mother had in this case, other than standing silently behind her son? What statements to the press? What interviews? She is not an issue in this case, nor has she made herself one, except apparently to you. First the "there, there, mummy will . . ." comment of yours earlier, now this nasty address to Rae Evans. Neither she nor her occupation has anything to do with this case.
    As I have posted before, the satirical comment, "there, there, Honey. Mummy knows you wouldn't even look at those wicked women," was not directed at any of the indicted players. It was a response to someone posting that if there was an assault one of the 40+ players would have "cracked" by now. The indicted players have been put under pressure. If you thought it was about Rae Evans, you might want to ask yourself why you singled her out from 40+ mothers, because I didn't, the point of my post excluded her. I'd have more respect for Rae Evans if she did speak out like the accuser's father has. He has said that he did not approve of her working for an escort service, but he loves her and believes her. Surely Rae is disappointed in the lack of leadership her son displayed by hosting this party. Rae Evans has chosen to show her support of her son by hiring a lawyer to speak for him. It takes courage to risk appearing undignified.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:40:27 PM EST
    Every day I ask here what evidence there is of a gang rape having occurred. No one answers. So is there anyone who even believes a gang rape occurred?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:43:05 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    imho: which report are you referencing as to the size of the vibrator?
    Page 16 3/21/06/1810HRS She stated she had a function at hotel room with a couple male and female. She stated she danced for them and used a small [redacted] (sex toy). SharonInJax posted:
    And on the potential number of partners: do you have an explanation as to why the DA got exemplars from 3 non-lacrosse players to exclude them if DNA was found? And those were NOT any of her "dates."
    Because he is aware sperm can show up in a S.A.N.E. exam even if sexual intercouse had not taken place for well over a week?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    lightenup posted:
    This would make mysogenists of a huge population of college students out there. There are countless rush parties (fraternity and sorority recruiting drives) attended by perhaps tens of thousands of students every year. Free beer and strippers! The only people who should criticize this are the ones who in the 60's and 70's never smoked pot once, never played their vinyl Dead music too loudly, never peed outside, never went to bachelor party with strippers. No equation for what the AV has done.
    lightenup, beenaround seemed to be implying the accuser was not to be respected as a hardworking mother because she worked for an escort service. I was wondering if beenaround thought hiring strippers is any more respectable, but if a "huge population of college students out there" are doing it, hey bring it on. I do recall one Duke lacrosse mother, Tkac's mom, opining that hiring a stripper is just as inappropriate as being a stripper, but you're probably right, Mrs. Tkac may be one of those rare Duke grads that "never peed outside."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:36:45 PM EST
    Bob, no rape occurred. The only crime committed was by the FA. Nifong must have "something" is a big nothing. Finding it still tedious to see discussions of who lied about the extent of scrapes on the FA, etc. I would rather discuss with realistic people the implications for Nifong, the various cast, the future, etc. Be right back after I pee outside.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:38:34 PM EST
    In Chevy Chase, Sally Fogarty and her husband, parents of Gibbs Fogarty, hunkered down, avoiding social settings where the Duke case was the topic of discussion. "I could not risk hearing my friends express doubt over my son, because I was afraid the friendships would be ruined," Fogarty said.
    Uh, Sally, this is not a time to put your hands over your ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA LA," this is one of life's rare opportunities when your true friends are revealed to you. Maybe Sally's afraid of what she might discover?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    IMHO posted on June 9, 2006 11:30 PM
    thinkandtype posted: Maybe he just really likes crossword puzzles? The only time I've ever had the patience to finish one has been on long car trips.
    DOWN 1. from sitting in a car nearby, can determine another person in a hotel room is "involved in some sexual manner" with a man.
    Well, technically no, IMHO, the driver sitting in the car cannot actually "determine" that. But it's kind of like saying that the piano player doesn't know what's goin' on upstairs.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 02:56:09 PM EST
    Sharon, maybe the accuser's idea of a small sex toy is different from those not in the "business. " hehehe.. On another note, last night most of the hard core talking heads that have been in the AV's corner seemed shell shocked with the new evidence. (with the exception of Nancy Grace but who takes her seriously anyway)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    Lora:
    Defense lied.
    When? You are using two different statements here. The first (not necessarily chronologically) is Kim's interview with Himan. The second is her written statement. Kim simply failed to mention this additional trip to the house during the interview, just as she almost did in her written statement. Please do not accuse the defense of lying just because the witness' story is inconsistent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    Thanks for the reference imho. Nice to hear you weren't focusing solely on Rae Evans: you have moved on to Sally Fogarty.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    I give up for awhile.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:15:34 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Well, technically no, IMHO, the driver sitting in the car cannot actually "determine" that
    I agree, so it probably wasn't very good supporting evidence that the accuser was "involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006." From the defense motion:
    Had investigator Hinman bothered to interview Jarriel Johnson at the time ( a task the Durham Police Department did not accomplish until April 6, 2006), he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.
    Mr. Johnson dosn't know that, so how could the investigators have known that from interviewing him?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Nice to hear you weren't focusing solely on Rae Evans: you have moved on to Sally Fogarty.
    Fifty-something Sally Fogarty could learn something from 25 year old Kevin Cassese:
    "It's an experience that's brought us a lot closer together," Cassese said. "You find out who your friends are."
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:21:02 PM EST
    Lora claims that the defense lied because they latched on to one version of various Roberts' accounts. But that's precisely what the DA did with the many different versions of reality spewed forth by the AV. How much beer did the AV drink? 24 ounces or 44 ounces? How many flexerils? How much liquor? Nothing? All of it? You can't even get a straight answer out of her on how intoxicated she was before she got to the party. Forget the whole date rape drug hogwash. I find it telling that no one here is willing to say that they think a rape happened. Even the supporters of the AV's various versions of reality are playing in the margins. She's not an icon for the battered, abused minority woman that some have imagined. She's just a very screwed up mentally ill woman who can't tell the truth from lies and who's been working in a field reserved for women who've lived abused lives.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jo on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    IMHO says:
    Maybe Sally (Fogarty)'s afraid of what she might discover?
    What is to discover? A highly-regarded DA has expressed that he believes a crime was committed, and has charged her son with the crime. Is anyone surprised that some members of Sally's community might have reason to doubt her son's innocense? Sally did not say that she did not want to learn that some people may doubt her son, she said she does not want to hear it. I do not blame her for that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    BIP, Do you think the Rev Jackson will pay for her legal bills if civil/criminal suits are brought against her. I did remember him saying that even if she was not telling the truth he would pay for her education. I guess it will really be the Rainbow coalition paying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    Jo posted:
    What is to discover? A highly-regarded DA has expressed that he believes a crime was committed, and has charged her son with the crime. Is anyone surprised that some members of Sally's community might have reason to doubt her son's innocense?
    Sally did not say that she did not want to learn that some people may doubt her son, she said she does not want to hear it. I do not blame her for that.
    She's not talking about "some members of her community." She is talking about her friends. She doesn't want to hear it because the "friendships would be ruined." What a way to live your life. That is pathetic. From the Washington Post article:
    In Chevy Chase, Sally Fogarty and her husband, parents of Gibbs Fogarty, hunkered down, avoiding social settings where the Duke case was the topic of discussion. "I could not risk hearing my friends express doubt over my son, because I was afraid the friendships would be ruined," Fogarty said.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:47:52 PM EST
    PS, Sally Fogarty was on my freshman hall. She was a really nice girl. She also does not deserve your venom.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    Jo posted:
    A highly-regarded DA has expressed that he believes a crime was committed, and has charged her son with the crime.
    Sally Fogarty's son is Gibbs Fogerty. He has not been charged in this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:09:41 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica:
    I find it telling that no one here is willing to say that they think a rape happened. Even the supporters of the AV's various versions of reality are playing in the margins.
    It is telling. Hard to imagine that there are still people willing to suspend judgement until the evidence is actually presented for the first time. Ah well. I guess it beats the alternative.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by weezie on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 05:54:26 PM EST
    Ooof, feeling a little queasy with all the scooping and semen talk. Is the boyfriend now saying he was not one of the three beaus that FA had sex with before the party? He's now claiming it was a week earlier, but she said he was in the corral, right? One other point keeps rattling around; in the early days of this bedtime story a reporter from the NCCU paper was quoted in the Wash Post saying that she had interviewed family members of the FA who were disapproving of the FA's behaviour at a family cookout. Sounded like she was a little off the hook last summer. The reporter chose not to publish the story as she did not want to make the FA look bad. Did anyone else catch this? It disappeared in a hurry. And 7Duke4, please don't be upset, lots of time what is typed reads differently from what is meant. All the Dukies I talk to are taking this affair very personally and it hurts, so I understand your reaction. Just focus on Josh McRoberts staying another year and taking an alley oop pass from Gerald Henderson for a thunder dunk. Hey AZBBall, you ready for another shot at Duke? :-)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:02:41 PM EST
    Kalidoggie, What do you think of this?
    Clute said his son told him that he had not witnessed anything at the party, and was so concerned about the allegations that he had gone to the captains to ask whether anything had happened. "The captain looked him the eye and said nothing happened," said Clute, a government contractor.
    We have the players parents, former headmasters, coaches and priests saying they know these boys couldn't have done what was alleged, but here is a teammate that was at the party who had to ASK his captains if anything happened.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by weezie on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    PB! You are making me laugh. I wouldn't describe the FA as "less-heeled" but rather round-heeled.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:18:03 PM EST
    deleted, keep it clean please. There's censor software at work.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:19:37 PM EST
    deleted, please keep it clean and lose the graphic details.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    I have to go talk to my teenager now (is that bragging?), [insult deleted]

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#52)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:22:49 PM EST
    Attorneys: At Least Six Photo Lineups Done In Duke Lacrosse Investigation

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:25:43 PM EST
    deleted -- lose the graphic details, please.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by weezie on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:40:55 PM EST
    ding- can we get some opinions on those six line-ups? Did they keep shuffling the same lax team member cards till she felt there was no way out of the room except to nail someone, anyone?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 06:47:34 PM EST
    I haven't contributed as much as the main players here, so you all certainly don't need to take my advice. I am going to give some anyway. When the latest motion came out, PB and the gang all but disappeared until some noted absence and gloated about it. Since they have come back they have done nothing but snipe at other posters and, unbelievably, the players' families. Why do you think this is? Would they be doing this if they had any evidence based argument indicating that these men raped the AV? Of course not. So here is my unsolicited advice: unless they post an argument based on evidence in this case, ignore them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:06:07 PM EST
    noname, 7duke4 didn't come here to argue the evidence of the case. She came here to dispell the stereotype that Dukies are "racist, spoiled, rich, rude, etc. etc."
    Posted by 7duke4 May 13, 2006 07:46 PM
    I have only recently started viewing this site, so I am new to posting here. Just so you understand my bias, I am a Duke grad, worked for UNC, am a mother of a daughter in college who was an All Star LAX player, and have dear friends from my days at Duke who were on the mens' LAX team.
    My daughter is right now sporting a Duke LAX tshirt for the women's team, who are entering tournament season ranked #1 in the country and whose accomplishments are being sadly neglected. My husband is the webmaster of US Lacrosse. Go on any Duke or lacrosse boards and you will see the anger and hurt - this is causing great, and unjustified, humiliation and damage to a large community.
    This is my school and my sport, and we are being depicted as racist, spoiled, rich, rude, etc, etc. I am having great difficulty with the accuser and have come to believe that Nifong is a buffoon, and is perpetuating these stereotypes. This will take a long time to heal, no matter what happens.
    I never thought any of those things about Dukies until she posted here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:13:37 PM EST
    weezie: That's one of the problems described in the motion: there were no reports about the earlier, unsuccessul photo arrays included in the discovery that was turned over to the defense. That's the point of this latest motion: the defense needs to know the details of how those lineups were performed, what the AV said, what photos were used, who if anyone was identified by the AV, etc. There was nothing like the detailed report that documented the April lineup, and the AV's identification of Finnerty, Seligman and Evans (sort of). The earlier photo arrays seem to have taken place before the players were photographed bare chested, though. They could have used the lacrosse team page photos, and likely did (since I do not know how else they could come up with photos of all of the players). Were there "fillers" in those lineups? Unlikely, since it would be hard to get pictures of non-lacrosse players wearing Duke men's lacrosse jerseys. The id process, all of it or them, will be a key point, and one that I am looking forward to hearing Nifong address once he decides to file a responsive pleading.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:15:42 PM EST
    Hi noname, You wrote:
    When the latest motion came out, PB and the gang all but disappeared until some noted absence and gloated about it.
    It's a mistake to think there is a cause and effect the this ordering of events. I still haven't been able to make time time to read the new defense motion with any care. You've got to remember we're outnumbered 47 to 1 here,and we aren't even, to be technical about it "Pro-AV," much as everyone would like to imagine to be that. You also wrote:
    Since they have come back they have done nothing but snipe at other posters and, unbelievably, the players' families.
    Imho has posted a great deal of research information since then with an eye toward distinguishing fact from fantasy. Probably more than most posters, and certainly more than you. Am I wrong about that? A certain amount of testiness is to be expected with a hot button case such as this. I agree that we should all make an effort to focus on substance, and avoid the barco-lounger foodfights when possible.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:21:57 PM EST
    Photo lineup made public in Duke lacrosse case
    For the March 21 lineup, Durham police used official photos of the lacrosse players, identical to those posted on GoDuke.com, the official Web site of Duke athletics. The police arranged the photos in groups labeled A through F.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    Hey, everyone, this thread has deteriorated to the point of being meaningless. Please, please (1) don't snipe at each other and insult each other. Attack their arguments, but not theem personally. Please don't post graphic anatomical and s*xual details here. Law firms use censoring software and those words will get the site banned and having had it happen once, it was a nightmare to straighten out. Please try to just discuss the case. This is a law blog. Feminism, socioeconomic and sports issues are out of place. I appreciate that so many of you come here just for the Duke threads, and aren't that familiar with TalkLeft otherwise. I really do consider it like my living room, and if you wouldn't say it as a guest in my house, you probably shouldn't say it here. I really enjoy both providing this forum on the Duke case and reading your views. Let's keep it high-end and try to avoid the catfights, ok?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:24:39 PM EST
    deleted.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:28:01 PM EST
    IMHO, I know you keep bringing up Clute. Maybe Clute was the guy passed out in the photos. He may not have known if anything happened. Or, he may have just asked ..Did I miss something?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:29:49 PM EST
    Kali, right on
    The discussion among all here should focus on what the hell Nifong was thinking. In line with my post at 12:41 pm
    Adding my "take" on a chronolgy that focuses on just how scary Nifong is: Referencing PB, imho, et al, noname nailed it with
    So here is my unsolicited advice: unless they post an argument based on evidence in this case, ignore them. I stopped reading about 90% of their posts several days ago. People trying to outfeminize each other, or other off topic attacks.... At least Ori was funny. I'd rather hear a comment re weezie's post, or new ideas from Bob, Sharon, or better yet, an attorney reading this on the sidlines to weigh in on Nifong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:32:49 PM EST
    I now gratefully see TL's post. I was typing off line in a Word document and posted before I saw that. Thanks TL.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:34:58 PM EST
    Does anyone know why the accuser made another trip to the hospital, on I believe the 14th? I thought I read she went to the UNC hospital.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:39:52 PM EST
    Sorry that was the next day the 15th. Why would she have to make another trip to the hospital?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#65)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:42:09 PM EST
    TL, I think you scared everyone off. I feel like I'm talking to myself at this point.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:44:49 PM EST
    For the lawyers, if charges are eventually brought against Nifong won't the city pay for his defense?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:46:11 PM EST
    goodnight Spartan.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    Does anyone know why the accuser made another trip to the hospital, on I believe the 14th? I thought I read she went to the UNC hospital.
    Maybe for a follow-up visit? It's conjecture, but if her primary care physician was through the UNC hospital system (which might be a public hospital) rather than the private Duke University Hospital system, it might have been recommended that she go there. I don't think that someone claiming a traumatic experience would just be released with no kind of continuing care plan, but I could be wrong. Also, given that she was on a prescription medicine (flexeril), she might have had an earlier standing appointment.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:51:42 PM EST
    I would like to apologize to anyone I may have offended with my last post. I am still fed up with all the sniping going on here, but that is no excuse for me to join in.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#70)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:53:29 PM EST
    spartan posted:
    I know you keep bringing up Clute
    I brought him up twice. No one wanted to discuss him the first time. I thought about Clute maybe being the passed-out guy. His father did say his son told him that he had not witnessed anything at the party. Do you think the parents are aware of which guy was photographed passed out? If it was Clute wouldn't it be a bit disingenuous of Clute's father to not mention why his son may not have witnessed anything at the party? What if he wasn't the passed out guy and was at the party the whole time the dancers were there? What about him having to ask the captains about the allegations? Wouldn't he have known it couldn't have happened without him seeing or hearing something? Other poster have said if strippers were in the house all attention would be on the strippers. If guys were in the bathroom with the strippers everyone would know it. Why did Clute have to ask if anything happened?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jo on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:57:10 PM EST
    I said: A highly-regarded DA ... charged her son with the crime. IMHO said:
    Sally Fogarty's son is Gibbs Fogerty. He has not been charged in this case.
    Well, you are correct. My bad. Mental disconnect. Fingers in third gear while my brain was in nuetral. I've never been on an organized sports team, but I also find it a little odd that not one single person has come forward to say the AV was in the bathroom with some players (unless of course, it didn't happen). I don't think it's odd that a player would ask the captains if anything happened. If you were there and didn't see anything like this happen but heard all about it, wouldn't you ask the others if they saw anything?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:57:38 PM EST
    I hope they sue the city, nifong and the AV. Hopefully the AV can emerge from her richly deserved years in prison a bankrupt.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:58:07 PM EST
    Immie, I did not read that so literally. I read it like: Hey captain, I know for sure I saw nothing. You confirm nothing happened, right?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:00:00 PM EST
    Re: Clute, He could have been too drunk to remember. I imagine that for any witnesses in this trial, alcohol consumption will be a big factor in determining veracity of memory.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:04:28 PM EST
    I believe I have read that a rape conviction in NC is a minimum 16 year sentence. What is the penalty for a false rape charge? Do they actually prosecute these cases, or are they usually dropped? If prosecuted, how much, if any, jail time is actually served? Come on NC attorneys, I know you are out there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#76)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    lightenup posted:
    Immie, I did not read that so literally. I read it like: Hey captain, I know for sure I saw nothing. You confirm nothing happened, right?
    lightenie uppity, Re-read it. From the Washington Post article:
    Clute said his son told him that he had not witnessed anything at the party, and was so concerned about the allegations that he had gone to the captains to ask whether anything had happened. "The captain looked him the eye and said nothing happened," said Clute, a government contractor.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:07:04 PM EST
    imho wrote:
    If it was Clute wouldn't it be a bit disingenuous of Clute's father to not mention why his son may not have witnessed anything at the party? What if he wasn't the passed out guy and was at the party the whole time the dancers were there? What about him having to ask the captains about the allegations?
    To begin with, we know that not all the players were at the party for its entire duration--Seligmann, for instance, wasn't even there during almost all the time the rape allegedly occurred, and neither was Robert Wellington, the player who accompanied him in the taxicab. But even if Clute were there until the end of the party, presumably he wasn't watching everyone else. The DA was publicly claiming rape--why wouldn't he ask other people at the party if they had seen anything? This doesn't strike me as mysterious, or in any way surprising. It also seems wholly irrelevant to the issue of why so much of what Nifong promised has turned out to be false, why Nifong seems to think he doesn't need to follow normal procedures, or how Nifong is going to prove a rape occurred when there's basically no evidence apart from one of the accuser's many versions of events to support the claim.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#78)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    thinkandtype posted:
    Re: Clute,
    He could have been too drunk to remember.
    I imagine that for any witnesses in this trial, alcohol consumption will be a big factor in determining veracity of memory
    Yeah, I've been thinking that may be a problem for all those witnesses Cheshire says can account for David Evan's movements the whole evening.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:14:49 PM EST
    I rather think it's going to be an issue for everyone involved in this whole mess. Except, possibly, the cab driver.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:19:17 PM EST
    Clute said his son told him that he had not witnessed anything at the party, and was so concerned about the allegations that he had gone to the captains to ask whether anything had happened. "The captain looked him the eye and said nothing happened," said Clute, a government contractor. I have a very different interpretation of the above than what have been implied by some. Clute says he saw nothing. He was there. So he's pretty sure nothing happened. He's also a college kid and no doubt this whole mess is far bigger than anything he's been involved with in his life. Of course he's concerned, if not scared. So he goes to his captain and asks him if anything happened -- just to make sure. He's probably smart enough to realize that it was possible that something may have happened that he didn't know about - it was a house and there were multiple rooms. I see it as nothing more than that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:22:18 PM EST
    I wonder if this is more defense lawyer "spin" or actual confirmation that what Duke security overheard was NOT a rumor:
    They said the importance of such records was underscored by an initial report, in the exotic dancer's own words, that she had been "raped by approximately twenty white males." She later amended her story to say there were three assailants.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:25:51 PM EST
    IMHO, "1. from sitting in a car nearby, can determine another person in a hotel room is "involved in some sexual manner" with a man." Maybe not. But when I drop a friend of at Starbucks, come back 10 minutes later, and he tells me he had a cup of coffee, I believe it. Of course, I don't "know" it. Jarriel Johnson seems to know the AV pretty well, he sleeps with her, and he drives her to her "dates". I doubt he thinks she is giving piano lessons in there. I'd also guess he's driven her before and is well aware of what is going on. I'd also bet she just tells him.. She is who she is, does what she does, and he seems aware of that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#83)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:28:17 PM EST
    khartoum, This is from the other time I posted about Clute:
    I posted that there may be players participating in the Blue Wall of Silence that were at the party and don't know, but don't think, anything happened in the bathroom. Others here replied that in a house that size everyone would know if an attack took place. Here's one party-goer that had to ask his captains if anything happened.
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    Clute says he saw nothing. He was there. So he's pretty sure nothing happened.
    Whether Clute was there all night or not, he is one of the 40+ players that are saying, through their attorneys, that nothing happened. He doesn't know that. He proved it by having to ask his captains whether anything happened. No way around it. He does not know "nothing happened." I suspect he is not the only player there that has to rely on others' versions of what did of didn't happen that night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:31:38 PM EST
    I had forgotten that the judge (Stephens) who will be ruling on the motions is the same judge who signed the order compelling the DNA swabs from the team. I mention this because if Stephens agrees with the defense, i.e. that he was not given all the information he should have been given in order to make his decision on that issue, then he is not going to be happy with the police and/or prosecutor. Judges, by and large, hate it when they think an attorney has "tried to pull a fast one" on them, or has withheld something from them, deliberately misstated or omitted a key fact. I'm not saying this will color Stephens' rulings, but it isn't a good dynamic when the judge is p*ssed off at you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    I found one article on the penalty for a false rape allegation in Oregon. "So, basically, a woman falsely accused three men of felonies for which conviction would have ruined their lives. She gets convicted of a class C misdemeanor for which she faces a maximum sentence that amounts to a slap on the wrist [maximum 30 days]. And people think she's the victim?" It says the cases are rarely even prosecuted. What do you think about that? NC attorneys, is the legal downfall for a false rape charge basically nothing?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:38:00 PM EST
    mik: I missed that link, thanks. "in her own words"? I wonder if that is from someone quoting what she said, or from a statement like Kim provided. If she actually did say that, and wasn't misunderstood, if she did say at first, at the Access Center, that she was raped by 20 men . . . Anyone with an explanation for that, and does that count as an inconsitency?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:41:07 PM EST
    IMHO Wrote
    Whether Clute was there all night or not, he is one of the 40+ players that are saying, through their attorneys, that nothing happened. He doesn't know that. He proved it by having to ask his captains whether anything happened. No way around it. He does not know "nothing happened." I suspect he is not the only player there that has to rely on others' versions of what did of didn't happen that night.
    I agree with that 100%. Just like when I have the family over for Christmas Dinner, there's no way I "know" everything that happens -- I have some pretty develish nephews and sometimes things "happen" :) I doubt any one person knows everything that happened in that house that night. I doubt there has ever been a party in history anywhere where any one person knows everything that happened. So what's the point? I see no way a gang rape could have happened without many of the partygoers being aware of it. One could argue whether or not many would stand by while it occurred and cover it up later (I strongly think no to both), but I think it is difficult to imagine a scenario where many of the partygoers would not have been aware of a gang rape going on in the bathroom. if there was one......

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    imho: I think reasonable minds can interpret Clute's questioning of Evans differently.
    He proved it by having to ask his captains whether anything happened.
    It could be that, or it could be more like Chunky does:
    So he goes to his captain and asks him if anything happened -- just to make sure.
    Matter for the jury to decide.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#89)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:44:50 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    IMHO, "1. from sitting in a car nearby, can determine another person in a hotel room is "involved in some sexual manner" with a man."
    Maybe not. But when I drop a friend of at Starbucks, come back 10 minutes later, and he tells me he had a cup of coffee, I believe it. Of course, I don't "know" it.
    No, you don't know it, but at least you were led to believe it. We don't know what the accuser told Jarriel when she got back to the car. If she told him she had v*ginal sex with anyone that weekend, he didn't include that in his statement.
    Jarriel Johnson seems to know the AV pretty well, he sleeps with her, and he drives her to her "dates". I doubt he thinks she is giving piano lessons in there. I'd also guess he's driven her before and is well aware of what is going on. I'd also bet she just tells him.. She is who she is, does what she does, and he seems aware of that.
    I haven't heard anyone claim they know of the accuser having sex with a man for money, do you? From the defense motion:
    Had investigator Hinman bothered to interview Jarriel Johnson at the time ( a task the Durham Police Department did not accomplish until April 6, 2006), he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.
    If Mr. Johnson knows that, he did not include it in his statement to the police, so how could the investigators have known that from interviewing him? The defense is fast and loose with the facts in that motion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#90)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:48:46 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Matter for the jury to decide.
    I doubt any jury will be hearing from Clute. If you have to ask someone whether anything happened, you don't know that it didn't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:51:16 PM EST
    I haven't heard anyone claim they know of the accuser having sex with a man for money, do you?
    She works for an escort service. She goes on one-on-one dates. That's what they do.....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#92)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 08:55:40 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    I doubt any one person knows everything that happened in that house that night. I doubt there has ever been a party in history anywhere where any one person knows everything that happened.
    So what's the point?
    I see no way a gang rape could have happened without many of the partygoers being aware of it. One could argue whether or not many would stand by while it occurred and cover it up later (I strongly think no to both), but I think it is difficult to imagine a scenario where many of the partygoers would not have been aware of a gang rape going on in the bathroom. if there was one.
    I agree with you. It could have happened with out everyone knowing it. Now we are just haggling over how many is "many." What is the point? All 40+ guys don't have to be covering up a gang rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:01:04 PM EST
    Meant that metaphorically, imho. Not The Jury in this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#94)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:02:58 PM EST
    mik, The "3 or 20 rapists" story possibly could be defense lawyer spin or defense lawyer lie (or maybe the AV was unable to express herself clearly, or maybe she was misunderstood.) Defense lawyers lied in a legal motion about statements that are there for the eye to behold: Defense motion:
    Investigator Himan omitted from his probably cause affidavit that in this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that ________ never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once _______ got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;...
    In this written statement Kim wrote:
    - forgot to mention that the first time Precious came to the car, she left...
    Kim never wrote anywhere in this written statement that the AV never went back in the house. Bob and noname, what part of "lie" don't you understand? Sharon posted:
    Judges, by and large, hate it when they think an attorney has "tried to pull a fast one" on them, or has withheld something from them, deliberately misstated or omitted a key fact.
    I hope so.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#95)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:04:38 PM EST
    SharonInJac posted:
    Meant that metaphorically, imho. Not The Jury in this case.
    Oh. Same answer applies: If you have to ask someone whether anything happened, you don't know that it didn't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#96)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:08:01 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    She works for an escort service. She goes on one-on-one dates. That's what they do.....
    All dates don't always include v*ginal sex. That's all I'm saying and for the purposes of the the defense trying to explain the v*ginal swelling , that is what they are going to try to prove. Maybe they will, but they haven't yet.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#97)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:11:02 PM EST
    Judges, by and large, hate it when they think an attorney has "tried to pull a fast one" on them, or has withheld something from them, deliberately misstated or omitted a key fact.
    They did the same thing by mischaracterizing the information in Jarriel Johnson's statement.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#98)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:12:18 PM EST
    I'm new to this board so I don't know yet how to copy and paste-but someone commented on one of the players named Clute as not being aware of any criminal event happening during the evening in question. I have a hunch that after the girls stopped dancing the younger players (freshman and sophmores) were told to leave and so they were not around to see whatever occurred later on.This would have included Seligman and maybe Finnerty if he was ever there at all. If this was the case, Nifong would have been aware of it from the DPD interviews with the captains which lasted for three to five hours each. Personally, I find Kim's statement to the police to be plausible. I think she and the boys just wanted the evening to be over. Too bad, that Kim wound up having to call the police.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#99)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:18:40 PM EST
    lightenup posted;
    Imho, I an running off, but to sleep, and I trust you do not care, but I will no longer reply to you. In my humble opinion, you dominate this board, and add nothing in the process. Several interesting questions are raised on this site, yet everyone feels the need to respond to your voluminous posts, and discussions that interest me fall by the wayside.
    It's a shame that you feel the commenters here are more interested in responding to me than to you. That is something you should take up with them. I can't control what they post.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:31:23 PM EST
    Lora, Sorry for the confusion. I misread the motion. I thought it was referring to his written statement detailing the interview, not Kim's. My bad. Thanks for pointing it out. This does not prove a lie, however. If you look at the thread here when this motion was first presented, many of us made the same mistake. Could this be a lie, absolutely, but given the out of sequence statement by Kim, it also could have been a careless mistake. Either way, good catch, Lora.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    Lora, The second paragraoh of my last post should read: This does not prove a lie, however. If you look at the thread here when this motion was first presented, many of us missed Kim's amendment to her story (and even debated its meaning after finding it). Could this be a lie by the defense, absolutely, but given the out of sequence statement by Kim, it also could have been a careless mistake. Either way, good catch, Lora.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#102)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    thanks noname, Defense could have misread Kim's statement I suppose, though it's too bad they didn't catch their error before they put it in a motion. I have to say though, I'm not inclined to trust them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#103)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 09:57:23 PM EST
    Given what they are probably being paid, one would hope a mistake like this (if it was one) would never be made, but they are only human. If they are lying, on the other hand, it is a stupid one. How does this return trip help the prosecution's case? The only thing it does is break the time window in which she could have been raped into two even smaller windows. Am I missing something?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#104)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:28:45 PM EST
    noname, I still see basically one window, I think. Kim's written statement seems to confirm that: The women danced. The women went to the car. The AV (at least) left the car. (This seems to be the window of opportunity for the rape to have occurred, if it did.) The AV was helped back to the car. Kim went back inside briefly, then returned to the car. They left. I do question how well any of the witnesses could estimate the passage of time during the "window of opportunity." Kim at one time, I believe, said the AV was alone in the house for only 5 minutes. I still think it fairly likely that Kim also returned to the house when the AV did (she never said she didn't, I don't think, and Bissey said they both went back in) and could have performed or otherwise entertained separately. Then technically the AV wouldn't have been alone in the house, though Kim might not have been with her. Bissey apparently was hanging out and checking his email during the window of opportunity. I don't recall him saying how much time passed. The AV apparently reported an approximately 30-minute assault. I believe most here would agree that she could have overestimated the time by a fair amount. So, it still seems to boil down to what did happen when the AV left Kim's car? Kim just doesn't say. Bissey says that all was quieted down outside and the two women were back inside at the start of that window. We don't have anyone else's description of that time except the AV's.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#105)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:41:40 PM EST
    Lora -
    The women danced. The women went to the car. The AV (at least) left the car. (This seems to be the window of opportunity for the rape to have occurred, if it did.) The AV was helped back to the car. Kim went back inside briefly, then returned to the car. They left.
    Are you sure they left together? Kim's statement seems to indicate she left alone (she says "I", not "we"). That is where I am getting my two window theory.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    IMHO said: All dates don't always include v*ginal sex. That's all I'm saying and for the purposes of the the defense trying to explain the v*ginal swelling , that is what they are going to try to prove. Maybe they will, but they haven't yet. Why would they try to prove that? Their clients say no sex occurred, vaginal or otherwise.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#107)
    by blcc on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:46:08 PM EST
    lightenup, I think you're misinterpreting why posters are responding to IMHO instead of your questions. My guess is twofold. 1) First of all, they don't have the answers to what you're asking. 2) To most people who are weighing the two sides on their merits, the AV now has all the credibility of Tawana Brawley. They don't believe her or take her seriously, and they can't believe anyone else with a ration of sense would either. IMHO is a vocal hold out, and so far is still managing to put up a front that she believes the AV to be something other than a mentally unstable, substance-addicted, truth-challenged prostitute who casually wrecks other peoples' lives, is a menace to her children, and a known public health hazard. I suspect they just can't resist the challenge.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#108)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 10:46:19 PM EST
    This, then, is my alternate sequence: The women danced. The women went to the bathroom. Kim went to the car (Window 1) The AV went to the car The AV left the car. (Window 2) The AV was helped back to the car. Kim went back inside the house. Kim went to the car. They left.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#109)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:34:46 PM EST
    noname, Interesting. I am rereading Kim's statement (again!) and I'm thinking this is where she's omitting something (possibly whatever got those alleged pictures taken of her that Butch Williams allegedly could bury her with). From Kim's written statement: I finally decided to leave the house. I left the bathroom, grabbed bag and exited the house w/ my dancing gear on. * I went to my car, wanting to leave, but not wanting to leave the girl in the house alone. * I changed my clothes in the car where some of the boys were coming to my window asking me to talk to them. I was told by one of the guys that Precious was passed out in the back...within minutes she was being helped out of the back yard and into my car. Then, from the end of her written statement: -forgot to mention that the first time Precious came to the car she left because she felt there was more money to be made. It was after then, that the boys helped her to the car. So my take of it is that in the first quote, Kim is mushing two scenarios into one. It's not clear whether Kim was waiting in the car the whole time, thus providing the two windows that you described. She could have been waiting in the car, except that Bissey says that they both went back inside. Kim doesn't state whether the AV came with her or came later when she went to her car the 1st time. Nor does Kim say what she did when the AV left. She just kind of stuck it in at the end, letting us know there was a 1st time before the final time when she was helped/carried to her car. * = possible insertion points for the AV coming to the car the 1st time, and possibly other things happening that Kim may have left out.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#110)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 11:36:47 PM EST
    eh, sorry, forgot to block the two transcriptions taken from Kim's statement. Way too late here...g'night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#111)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 03:25:50 AM EST
    Gottahunch posted:
    IMHO said:
    All dates don't always include v*ginal sex. That's all I'm saying and for the purposes of the the defense trying to explain the v*ginal swelling , that is what they are going to try to prove. Maybe they will, but they haven't yet.
    Why would they try to prove that? Their clients say no sex occurred, vaginal or otherwise
    The defense needs to explain the v*ginal swelling noted in the S.A.N.E. report.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#112)
    by spartan on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:17:44 AM EST
    IMHO, Do we know how many rape exams the SANE nurse in training performed prior to this alleged rape? Do we know if there was a second nurse supervising her? Do we know if an MD actually examined the accuser? Experience is extremely important in evaluating physical findings. To a novice some findings may actually be normal variants.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#113)
    by spartan on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:23:06 AM EST
    As we have all said before, we don't have all the facts. We only have snippets released by the defense and the DA. I personally would like to see at least the complete SANE report released as well as the AV's actual statement. The captains' statements would also help fill in the blanks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:59:15 AM EST
    Lora:
    The women danced. The women went to the car. The AV (at least) left the car. (This seems to be the window of opportunity for the rape to have occurred, if it did.) The AV was helped back to the car. Kim went back inside briefly, then returned to the car. They left.
    If this is your only window where Precious was separated from Kim, that is documented by the photos of Precious on the back porch. She was helped to the car by the young men after she fell on the stairs. It is possible that she went inside for a few minutes before the pictures show her on the back porch at 12:30. However, Seligmann was long gone at that point. If that is your only window, he wasn't even present at the scene of the crime when it occured. She misidentified at least one of her attackers. As for the resurrection of the 20 vs. 3 statement, I find it interesting that it has appeared again after it had been seemingly dismissed as overheard gossip. I don't know if the defense motion is based on a quote from a report they possess or mere spin on their part, but I look forward to the motion being released in the coming days to see how it is referenced.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:29:02 AM EST
    Hi Blcc, Thanks. I feel the news of the last several days should have erased any doubt for virtually everyone that this is a false accusation. Bob can correct me, but I sensed he was trying to move the discussion along when he twice asked - does anyone still believe that a gang rape occurred? As my doubts in the beginning stages of this case began to grow, I understood the important role of the prosecutor to advocate for the little guy, and suspended final judgment. Now I am outraged that Nifong knew in the earliest weeks virtually all of what we know now. I am interested in talking about what this says about our justice system, that the unchecked power of a prosecutor can screw the lives of so many people. That grand juries are allowed to indict without a scintilla of opposing evidence. That a DA can breach a slew ethics. That a DA can present one-sided information to a judge for warrants for 46 players. That astonishingly it appears that there is virtually no downside for the DA or FA. This case may even benefit Nifong long term by guaranteeing votes from a large segment of the electorate in every future election. Yet much of this discussion here is on looking for a gotcha in defense statements, or did anyone really see into the motel room to prove the FA actually engaged in sex. For me and many others the ship finally sailed in the last 48 hours. My interests are different, so I will bow out until my next trip is concluded.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#116)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:53:29 AM EST
    spartan posted:
    IMHO,
    Do we know how many rape exams the SANE nurse in training performed prior to this alleged rape? Do we know if there was a second nurse supervising her? Do we know if an MD actually examined the accuser? Experience is extremely important in evaluating physical findings. To a novice some findings may actually be normal variants.
    In some of the documents there is a doctor mentioned, but we don't know what role the doctor played. The examiner's inexperience can work both ways, she may have missed indications of sexual assault. We know there are injuries described in the defense photos that she did not document. I wonder if any photos were taken as part of the sane exam? A more experienced S.A.N.E. examiner may be able to interpret the photos.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#117)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:06:13 AM EST
    Lora posted:
    Interesting. I am rereading Kim's statement (again!) and I'm thinking this is where she's omitting something (possibly whatever got those alleged pictures taken of her that Butch Williams allegedly could bury her with).
    How about this photo? From the Abrams Report June 6, 2006:
    ABRAMS: All right. My subjective opinion of looking at these pictures is they are two-buck naked women performing sexual acts on one another in front of a lot of different people. Now again..
    Kim's five minutes is obviously not right. The defense time line had the accuser in the house alone for ten minutes, then on the porch from 12:30 until she is helped to Kim's car at 12:41. According to the defense, that's 21 minutes Kim was not with the accuser. Kim has estimated this was 5 minutes. Do we even know if the accuser exited the bathroom with Kim? Kim's narrative does allow for the accuser to have been left behind and come back to the car the first time by herself.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#118)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:19:57 AM EST
    A question for Lora and IMHO: If the allegations are false should the AV go to jail?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#119)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:34:04 AM EST
    banco55 asked:
    A question for Lora and IMHO: If the allegations are false should the AV go to jail?
    A trial would be nice. ;)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#120)
    by weezie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:42:25 AM EST
    imho, if the FA goes on trial we will all have to move to the same retirement community as this whole case will outlive the entire population of this thread!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#121)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 08:33:53 AM EST
    weezie posted:
    imho, if the FA goes on trial we will all have to move to the same retirement community as this whole case will outlive the entire population of this thread!
    I was thinking her attorney would stall the trial until Bob in Pacifica attained his medical degree. The accuser will need Dr. Bob to testify to her numerous mental illnesses. ;)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:06:28 AM EST
    Lora - I think I understand where you are coming from with your sequence. I see how you are trying to make sense of Kim's statement by filling in the blanks with what would seem reasonable / most likely. This is probably why your sequence sounds more reasonable / likely than mine. I was trying to do the same thing, but in a different way. I was hoping to inject myself into her account as little as possible and rely only (as much as is possible) on her written word. Through both accounts of their comings and goings from the car, Kim never says "we". It is always "she left / came to the care" and "I left / came to the car". That is why my sequence differs from yours, I think. Two different methodologies for clearing up Kim's statement, two different results. Interesting. I just wish Kim had written the story sequentially.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#123)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:22:32 AM EST
    mik posted:
    It is possible that she went inside for a few minutes before the pictures show her on the back porch at 12:30.
    The defense timeline estimated she was alone in the house for 10 minutes. mik posted:
    However, Seligmann was long gone at that point. If that is your only window, he wasn't even present at the scene of the crime when it occured. She misidentified at least one of her attackers.
    That's where the 12:29 call to the cab driver from Tony's cell phone comes in. Mostafa picked up four "agitated" young men at around 12:50. The accuser said she was %100 certain that Seligmann "looks like one of the guys that assaulted" her. If you read the blogs/boards where the above link has been posted the commenters on those boards have come to the same conclusion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:36:50 AM EST
    In today's New York Times, liberal op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof compares the case to the Scottsboro Boys trial of the 1930s. The column is behind a firewall; here's a sample:
    As I see it, he may be the real culprit here. For starters, his many public statements seem to violate the North Carolina rules of professional conduct; Section 3.8f bars prosecutors from "making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused."
    Mr. Nifong may have had a motive for prosecuting a case that wouldn't otherwise merit it: using it as a campaign tool. Heavily outspent in a tough three-way election race, he was the lone white man on the ballot, and he needed both media attention and black votes to win. In the end, he got twice as many black votes as his closest opponent, and that put him over the top.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#125)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:55:44 AM EST
    The SANE nurse's report contains no opinion or conclusion that (the AV) had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted va*inally and a*ally
    So it was Dr. Nifong who said (loudly and often) that the AV's injuries were "consistent with a sexual assault" (as the AV described it happened), not a nurse or doctor? What, Nifong's not a doctor but he plays one on TV? Are these not "inconsistencies"? 1. At Kroger: AV was saying nothing about anything. 2. Durham Access Center: AV said she was raped. 3. Duke Medical Center (DMC): AV was now "cooperative" and told Shelton she had not been raped. 4. DMC: AV tells SANE doctor she had been raped. 5. DMC: AV tells 2 doctors she was raped, but only va*inally, and that she was not "hit." 6. DMC: AV tells nurse she was not choked, condoms were not used, objects were not used. 7. AV tells one doctor: no alcohol consumed; AV tells nurse one drink plus Flexeril; AV tells UNC doctor she "was drunk and had a lot to drink;" AV tells Himan she had 24 oz of beer, then says she had 2 22oz of beer. It is at the same time that Kim was in her car changing and talking with some of the guys that someone comes out and says the AV is passed out on the back porch. If a rape were occuring during this time, which would have been shortly after Kim left the bathroom (wonder if the AV locked the door after Kim exited the bathroom - maybe she was the one getting the money passed under th door) and the house, would they put an end to it by communicating with the AV?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#126)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:06:11 AM EST
    A trial would be nice. ;)
    This case has about as much chance of coming to trial as there been an arrest in the Tawana brawley case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#127)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    Lora:
    In this written statement Kim wrote: - forgot to mention that the first time Precious came to the car, she left...
    She may have left the car, but nothing contained in Kim's statement says the AV made it back into the house. Kim's use of the word "first" is inconsistent with the rest of her statement. But a possible interpretation could be as follows: Kim is in her car after leaving the bathroom and house; AV comes out to the car and wants to go back in "to make more money"; AV leaves the car; AV tries to get back into the house but the players won't let her in (they'd had a hard enough time getting her to leave in the first place); the AV slips and falls on the back porch; the AV is either passed out or faking it (see Shelton's Kroger report); the AV is assisted to Kim's car. Kim may have forgotten and then recalled that the AV briefly returned to the car before she was helped there and they left. This does not make the defense affidavit in support of the motion a "lie." Just as we do not have everything that Nifong has, we do not have all that the defense has, either. And the difference between this motion and the affidavit to secure the non-testimonial order for DNA and pictures is that the prosecution will have ample opportunity to refute what is stated in their motion. The judge will get to hear both sides before making his ruling. For the non-testimonial order, ONLY the police/prosecution was represented. The judge had to take them at their word, which he will not have to do when deciding how to rule on any of the motions. He will not have exposed himself to reversal on appeal because he relied on the sworn testimony coming from one side only.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#128)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:14:46 AM EST
    Lora:
    . . . I'm thinking this is where she's omitting something (possibly whatever got those alleged pictures taken of her that Butch Williams allegedly could bury her with).
    I have a different (what a surprise, right?) take on Williams and the pictures. It is not that there are pics that Williams threatened her with: Kim was simple p-o'ed that there are pictures of the dancing at all. And I don't blame her: I can see her being mad as hell that pictures of her naked, doing the things that have been described by those who have seen them, could be all over the internet. I don't think she realized that there were any pictures. If Williams "threatened" in any way, to make the pics public, that is reprehensible. But I do not think there are any pictures other than the ones of Kim and the AV "performing" with one another.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#129)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:18:01 AM EST
    imho:
    The defense timeline estimated she was alone in the house for 10 minutes.
    Could this not be the time period when Kim was in her car, before the AV left the bathroom and "first" went to the car?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#130)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    khartoum: Bob in Pacifica has mentioned that case before, as have I. There are more than a few similarities between that case and this one. I hope the outcome is not the same.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#131)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    So it was Dr. Nifong who said (loudly and often) that the AV's injuries were "consistent with a sexual assault" (as the AV described it happened), not a nurse or doctor? What, Nifong's not a doctor but he plays one on TV?
    Do we know if Nifong consulted with a qualified doctor or nurse? Might a statement from an expert be included in the discovery?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#132)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:31:44 AM EST
    could be, imho, but April 13, 2006 FoxNews "My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke hospital," Nifong countered Wednesday. Source

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#133)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:38:07 AM EST
    "My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke hospital," Nifong countered Wednesday.
    Yes, and if he consulted with a qualified doctor or nurse their conclusions would be based on the examination done at Duke hospital and his conviction could be based on their conclusions. We don't know that he read that report and made the conclusion on his own. We are only hearing what the defense wants us to hear.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#134)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    Agree to disagree, imho: best evidence (legal term) would be the doctors and nurses who actually examined the AV, though.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#135)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    Agree to disagree, imho: best evidence (legal term) would be the doctors and nurses who actually examined the AV, though.
    I'm not disagreeing with that statement. This is the statement I was refuting: SharonInJax posted:
    So it was Dr. Nifong who said (loudly and often) that the AV's injuries were "consistent with a sexual assault" (as the AV described it happened), not a nurse or doctor? What, Nifong's not a doctor but he plays one on TV?
    We don't know that Nifong relied on his own medical expertise or on the expertise of consultants.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#136)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 11:17:44 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Could this not be the time period when Kim was in her car, before the AV left the bathroom and "first" went to the car?
    Yes, and that could give time for Seligmann to be involved in an assault.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#137)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 11:21:59 AM EST
    IMHO:
    Yes, and that could give time for Seligmann to be involved in an assault.
    Correct. But don't forget that would mean the AV was raped, went back to the car, and then returned to the house again.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#138)
    by Alan on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    April 13, 2006 FoxNews "My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke hospital," Nifong countered Wednesday.
    Duke thread at Talkleft 12 June: "My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on [my consultations with a previously unmentioned qualified doctor or nurse who based their conclusions on] the examination that was done at Duke hospital," imho suggested Nifong could have meant to say instead of what he actually did say.
    Why would Nifong consult only one previously unmentioned qualified doctor or nurse? Why not insert several more into the chain?
    Duke thread at Talkleft 12 June: "My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on [my consultations with yet another previously unmentioned qualified doctor or nurse who based their conclusions on the conclusions of the first previously unmentioned qualified doctor or nurse about] the examination that was done at Duke hospital," imho could have suggested Nifong could have meant to say instead of what he actually did say.
    At some stage either Ocham's razor needs to come into play or Nifong needs to employ imho as a consultant on transparency.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#139)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    noname, I too wish Kim had written the story sequentially. Did she just forget and had to add that detail, that the AV came to the car more than once? Or did she deliberately omit something that might make her look bad? I don't know. Sharon, In your points 1-4, the only inconsistency in the AV's story that we can verify would seem to be Shelton's report that she told him no one forced her to have sex, right? Her being unresponsive at Kroger's is not in my mind an inconsistency. I still say that there is a strong possibility that he misunderstood her, especially as he didn't quote her or even write "she said" or "she stated" at that point. He'd often done that in his write-up. Her alleged recantation being such an important point, I'd have thought he'd quote her directly if he was sure that's what she said. I'd like to defer judging the AV's story on points 5-7 because we haven't seen the write-up, and because the defense, if they haven't lied (although I truly think they have), have at least misstated from the written reports. Defense did say that Kim had written in her statement that the AV never made it back in the house. I read Kim's statement over a number of times, and she never wrote that. That is either a lie or a misstatement on the part of the defense. I can't make it come out any other way. They said she wrote something she didn't write. They also said Kim said the AV stayed in Kim's car. Kim wrote in the statement that the AV left. Maybe they just didn't read carefully, but I doubt it. Some of us have found other misstatements on the part of the defense. That's why unless we see the actual documents, I don't trust what they say. There is no evidence that Kim remained in her car the entire time. Kim doesn't say she did, does she? Bissey has both women returning to the house. There is the famous 27-minute gap. Somewhere in that time, it seems that both women were in the bathroom, then in the car, then (at least one) back in the house. There is the window, if you believe the times in the photos. Possibly enough. Thanks for the clarification on the judge and whose evidence he considers at certain times.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#140)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    Lora, I see the same discrepancy in the report you do (finally, after you pointed it out twice). My question remains, what did the defense have to gain by lying about this? I can't answer this question (unless you count "nothing" as an answer), and that is why I think it was a careless mistake, not a lie.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#141)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    noname:
    But don't forget that would mean the AV was raped, went back to the car, and then returned to the house again.
    And, might I add, ". . . the AV was raped, went back to the car, thought she could make more money, and then returned to the house again."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#142)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    Lora:
    Bissey has both women returning to the house.
    11:50 p.m.: Bissey, on his porch, notices two women walk to the back of the house, where a man greets them. Midnight: Bissey sees the two women go into the house. 12:20 TO 12:30 a.m One of the women he saw earlier gets out of the car and says she needs to get her shoe. My point is, was the 11:50 sighting a return or the first arrival? It's difficult for me to reconcile his account with Kim's. If the AV arrived around 11:30: give a few/couple minutes for her to get her share of the money; give some time for both the AV and Kim to go to the bathroom for Kim to change, have some sips of their drinks, work out a plan for the show; give some time performing before the show stopped: how, then, can he have seen them "returning" at 11:50? But then again, could it have taken 20 minutes for the AV to get her money inside and come back out to be seen with Kim before going back in to get ready? I can't get it all to match, not suprisingly.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#143)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    Lora, noname, et al, Wasn't it a key point of the initial explanation of events by the prosecution something to the effect of "the women were coaxed back into the house, at which time the AV became separated from Kim, pulled into the bathroom, etc. . ." But nothing in Kim's statement supports that. There's a good chance the AV went back into the house on her own one, maybe two times, but not that they went back together, and were separated inside the house. It's nitpicky, but I wonder where that construct came from. . .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#144)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:04:17 PM EST
    thinkandtype, I think that the two of them being "separated" came from language in a search warrant.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#145)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:48:12 PM EST
    Alan posted:
    At some stage either Ocham's razor needs to come into play or Nifong needs to employ imho as a consultant on transparency.
    Alan, Here is Sharon's post:
    So it was Dr. Nifong who said (loudly and often) that the AV's injuries were "consistent with a sexual assault" (as the AV described it happened), not a nurse or doctor? What, Nifong's not a doctor but he plays one on TV?
    She seems to be suggesting Nifong used his own medical expertise to determine "the AV's injuries were 'consistent with a sexual assault.'" Here is my reply:
    Do we know if Nifong consulted with a qualified doctor or nurse? Might a statement from an expert be included in the discovery?
    Sharon added:
    "My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke hospital," Nifong countered Wednesday.
    Which does not preclude what I had previously posted:
    Do we know if Nifong consulted with a qualified doctor or nurse?
    The defense attorneys are only putting out the information they want us to hear. It is yet to be seen if Nifong's conclusion there was a sexual assault is based solely on the S.A.N.E. nurse's finding of redness and swelling in the accuser's v*gina.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#146)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 04:59:09 PM EST
    Here's a bit if defense attorney B.S:
    "Officers responded to the call at 610 N. Buchanan within a minute of the dispatch. The complainant was not on the scene and no one seemed to be at the house, according to the officers, so they cleared the scene after checking the area for several minutes," said police spokeswoman Kammie Michael.
    The dispatch records show officers were on the scene for more than 11 minutes.
    "Where are all these white guys raising hell?" asked an incredulous James D. "Butch" Williams, who represents a lacrosse captain who lived at the house and voluntarily submitted to a DNA test shortly after one of two exotic dancers hired to entertain at the party said she was raped, sodomized and beaten by three white men there. "When the people start digging the least little bit, they're gong to find out things don't make sense."
    But thanks to Mostafa we know Butch is "full of it":
    After dropping off Seligmann, [Moez] Mostafa said, he returned to the house to pick up four more passengers. When he arrived, it looked like a party was breaking up, with people crowded on both sides of the street.
    While waiting for the men whom he would later drive to a nearby gas station, the Sudan-born driver saw a woman walking through a crowd of men toward a car, and heard someone say, "She just a stripper. She's going to call the police."
    Mostafa said the woman, wearing jeans and a sweater, appeared to exchange words with some people in the crowd before getting into the driver's side of a car.
    "She looked, like, mad," he said. "In her face, the way she walked, the way she talked, she looked like mad."
    When asked by a reporter with CBS News if he had a feeling that something had gone wrong or someone had been hurt at the party that night, Mostafa said, "Yeah, I got the feeling something had gone wrong."
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#147)
    by spartan on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    Just a little info regarding SC's SANE exam. I have a copy in my hands and it makes it very clear that the determination of rape should NOT be made by the examiner. The nurse's responsibility is to obtain the history, collect the evidence and perform the exam. The determination of rape is to by the made by SLED, etc. I suspect Nifong evaluated the collected SANE history and evidence and made the determination that a rape might have occurred. I am sure, though, like most lawyers he probably asked some healthcare professionals whether the findings would be consistent with rape. And most would say yes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#148)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 05:29:20 PM EST
    Defense Works to Shred Duke Rape Charges
    An attack on that exam and other possible prosecution evidence is a common defense tactic, Early said.
    "The defense attorneys are there to muddy the waters," Early said. "You can't expect anything they say to be said without viewing it through their own prism. They're there to obfuscate the facts. They're not there to educate the public."
    It's like throwing popcorn to pigeons.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#149)
    by spartan on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 05:38:29 PM EST
    Just so I don't get attacked by everyone. If Nifong had phrased the question and asked if the findings would be consistent with consensual sex, the answer would be the same. V*ginal mucosal swelling is really a very non-specific finding.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#150)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 05:49:59 PM EST
    Thanks spartan.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#151)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 05:53:22 PM EST
    NEWSWEEK's Susannah Meadows joined us for a Live Talk on the Duke rape case and why it has created such a national frenzy on Wednesday, April 26.
    Pittsburgh, PA: How do we know that the DNA tests were inconclusive? All the of the media reports suggest that the DNA tests all came back negative.
    Susannah Meadows: The only information reporters have about DNA tests is what defense attorneys, who've looked at the results, have shared with us. (The prosecution has not spoken publicly about them.) When the attorneys spoke publicly about them they said there was no DNA found on the woman that matched any of the players' DNA. This was true. But that did not mean that no DNA was found on her. In fact, one of the attorneys told me on the record that DNA was found underneath her fingernails, but tests were unable to show whose it was. Finding a DNA match is a tricky science and often requires further testing, which is what is happening now.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#152)
    by weezie on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:17:01 PM EST
    Hey spartan, don't be so scared, no one is going to attack you! We're all pals here. Time for "Deadwood."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#153)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:17:11 PM EST
    IMHO - I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Butch Williams quote. He asks where all the white guys were. Mostafa says, later I might add, that he saw the party breaking up. Where were they? The party broke up. How is that "defense attorney B.S."? Here is Williams' other quote you cited: "When the people start digging the least little bit, they're going to find out things don't make sense." I think he was right on the money.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#154)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:20:07 PM EST
    IMHO - I also don't understand the purpose of your Newsweek quote. Is it to show that the media sometimes reports irresponsibly?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#155)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:40:53 PM EST
    Posted by lightenup June 10, 2006 03:36 PM "Bob, no rape occurred." Nothing can be deduced so soon. One can't call out...,"Colonel Mustard, with the broomstick, in the lavatory," just yet. Of course gang rape can't be ruled out, or a trial, or even a conviction. Nifong has the AV's testimony. She may be a truth impaired, drug abusing, prostitute but truth impaired, drug abusing prostitutes get raped too. It is just that no one believes them. For some reason people have listened to her, and this might be the one thing that Nifong has that we have not seen. The picture emerging of the dysfunctional stripper/hooker who juices herself up before engagements is just pitiful especially when contrasted with Kim's spunky opportunism and the LAX team's TGIF exuberance. Maybe the AV is a convincing witness. Sometimes there is strength in weakness, and attempts to discredit her might make her more pathetic and therefore more compelling.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#156)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    Well said, InnocentBystander.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#157)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:35:01 PM EST
    IMHO posted:
    The defense timeline estimated she was alone in the house for 10 minutes.
    Source?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#158)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:40:00 PM EST
    fillintheblanks, NEWSWEEK April 24, 2006
    She was never alone in the house for more than about 10 minutes, according to their timeline.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#159)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 07:50:17 PM EST
    To Lora I don't think the Defense lied in the Motion. The Defense is basing its Motion on the difference between what Himan says in the probable cause affidavit and Himan's typewritten summary of Kim's statement. Notice that Himan's typewritten summary of what Kim's statement does not have Kim's "I fogot to mention" statement". Maybe Kim wrote the "I forgot to mention" after Himan typed up his summary. Maybe Himan wasn't even aware that Kim made an "I forgot to mention" addendum. Who knows? But the Defense Motion is saying that Himan knew what he said in the affidavit was not supported by his typewritten summary of Kim's staement and interview.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#160)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:05:32 PM EST
    ding7777 posted:
    I don't think the Defense lied in the Motion.
    The Defense is basing its Motion on the difference between what Himan says in the probable cause affidavit and Himan's typewritten summary of Kim's statement.
    Notice that Himan's typewritten summary of what Kim's statement does not have Kim's "I fogot to mention" statement".
    Maybe Kim wrote the "I forgot to mention" after Himan typed up his summary. Maybe Himan wasn't even aware that Kim made an "I forgot to mention" addendum. Who knows?
    But the Defense Motion is saying that Himan knew what he said in the affidavit was not supported by his typewritten summary of Kim's staement and interview.
    ding7777, The defense motion is not referring to Hinman's summary of Ms. Pittman's statement, they are referring to her written statement: From the motion:
    But the day before Investigator Hinman signed his affidavit, March 22, 2006 between 12:40 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., Investigator Hinman interviewed Ms. Pittman and obtained a written statement from her. Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that ________ never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once _______ got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;...
    Ms. Pittman's written statement asserts the accuser did not stay in the car and she did go back in the house.
    -forgot to mention that the first time Precious came to the car she left because she felt there was more money to be made. It was after then, that the boys helped her to the car.
    Though out of sequence, this sentence is not an addendum. It is signed and dated the same as the preceeding six pages of her handwritten statement: 3/22/06/2:15 p.m. The following paragraph concerning the route Kim took to search for the accuser's belongings is an addendum in that it is signed and dated: 3/22/06/2:15 p.m. Lora is right. The defense lied in the motion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#161)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:12:16 PM EST
    In Kim's handwritten statement the last paragraph's date and time should read 4:00 p.m.
    The following paragraph concerning the route Kim took to search for the accuser's belongings is an addendum in that it is signed and dated: 3/22/06/4:00 p.m.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#162)
    by spartan on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:47:57 PM EST
    It is late and I am tired but back and back in might be two different scenarios. Somebody might go back to the house but never get back in. Does that make any sense. Oh well goodnight everyone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#163)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 10:29:14 PM EST
    Sharon, I'm not sure where the Bissey timeline comes from. My info comes from Rita Cosby's interview, Mar. 31, and he does not mention any times there. (First entrance - I think they must be going in to perform here. His version of both women getting out of the same car doesn't match up however)
    I noticed a car drive up and two young women get out...They spoke amongst themselves for about five minutes or so and then entered the house.
    Then he takes a shower. 2nd entrance - this is where he has them both going back inside - I think this must be after the broomstick comment:
    And at that point, I went inside to take a shower...And the young women were back in the car in front..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.
    Then things calm down and he hangs out and checks his email until they come out to leave. Could his times be a little off?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#164)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:26:03 AM EST
    Prosecutor's Silence on Duke Rape Case Leaves Public With Plenty of Questions
    Mr. Nifong's silence makes it impossible to evaluate the case as a whole. Certainly some evidence has not been revealed -- the next hearing is set for June 22 -- and the defense has released evidence selectively, presumably showing only those parts that strengthen its public position....
    ...."Out of those 1,300 pages, I'd be surprised if 200 of them relate to this case at all," Mr. Cheshire said. "The discovery is actually very minuscule, and there's absolutely nothing in it that impacts negatively on the defendants in any way, shape or form."
    At the same time, the defense lawyers have declined requests to release the district attorney's investigative file, which they are free to do.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#165)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:18:23 AM EST
    To inmyhumbleopinion
    Ms. Pittman's written statement asserts the accuser did not stay in the car
    And Hineman's typewritten summary does not include this info.
    [Ms. Pittman's written statement asserts the accuser] did go back in the house.
    Kim says that Precious left the car. Kim doesn't say where Precious goes after leaving the car.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#166)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:50:09 AM EST
    Kim says that Precious left the car. Kim doesn't say where Precious goes after leaving the car.
    You are right, Kim says the accuser left the car because she felt there was more money to be made. It is the defense attorneys' time line that asserts she went back inside. Newsweek April 24, 2006
    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.
    From the defense motion:
    Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that ________ never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once _______ got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;...
    The defense is using Hinman's knowledge of Ms. Pittman's handwritten statement to charge that he did not include exculpatory information. Kim's handwritten statement does not inform "the investigators that the accuser never went back in the house" nor does it say "once [the accuser] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there." It says she did not stay in the car. Lora is right. The defense lied in the motion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#167)
    by Alan on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:07:46 AM EST
    Prosecutor's Silence on Duke Rape Case Leaves Public With Plenty of Questions
    Some critics of the case wonder why Mr. Nifong has taken it so far. Some think it was political: Mr. Nifong, a 27-year prosecutor who was appointed district attorney last year, was running in his first election campaign when the case surfaced. He narrowly won election to a new four-year term in May. Mr. Osborn and Mr. Conner accused him of "zeal to make national headlines and win a hotly contested primary." Several lawyers who know Mr. Nifong say he is no showboat and is a highly ethical prosecutor. But other lawyers said he was too rigid, too inflexible. Julian Mack, a lawyer in Durham who represented a member of the lacrosse team who was not charged, said: "He jumps to conclusions, makes up his mind, and that's it. His personality is that he's very stubborn." Mr. Vann said Mr. Nifong could drop the case, but the political price would be high. "He'd have hell to pay from the African-American community," he said. "They'd say, 'Give her her day in court. What do you have to lose? If you lose, at least the jury made the decision.' So he's kind of stuck."
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#168)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:56:23 AM EST
    I guess this is why Nifong is continuing with the case: Nifong may yet face challenger

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#169)
    by weezie on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:28:27 AM EST
    According to my daughter, Weezie Jr, there is a large group of Duke students ready to register as voters in NC whe school resumes. I wonder if Nifong would agree to coming over to the Gothic Wonderland for a debate with Mr. Cheek? Y'know, like his stellar appearance at NCCU back in the spring?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#170)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:19:15 AM EST
    OOPS! Looks like Mr. Cheek might be a fibber:
    Cheek would not identify who is recruiting him to run, but said it is not people connected to Duke or the lacrosse team.
    "This is from people who live in Durham, and have been in Durham a long time, and are concerned about Durham," Cheek said. "They are not obsessed with the Duke case and they are not from the outside."
    One of those involved is Dan Hill, a former City Council member and current chairman of Durham's Cardinal State Bank.
    Hill, who owns an insurance business in Durham, is a Duke University graduate and prominent Duke supporter.
    Nifong gave frequent interviews then and "had people believing without any question that a rape had occurred," Hill said.
    "Now, as the story has unfolded, there are a great deal of us who are not sure of that," he said. "I don't believe it's the role of the D.A. to be out there first like that. ... We can't afford to have a D.A. who makes these kinds of mistakes, if they turn out to be mistakes."
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#171)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:28:26 AM EST
    The Cheek quote is: "This is from people who live in Durham, and have been in Durham a long time, and are concerned about Durham. They are not obsessed with the Duke case and they are not from the outside." Hill is described as a Duke graduate and supporter, and "a former City Council member and current chairman of Durham's Cardinal State Bank." It's hard to see how that description of someone urging Cheek to run makes Cheek, based on his own words, a "fibber." Indeed, it seems as if Cheek's words are almost precisely describing Hill.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#172)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:30:03 AM EST
    If the black community votes for Nifong after all this they are going to look like total idiots.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#173)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:37:02 AM EST
    IMHO Come on. 'Not connected with Duke' can reasonably be interpreted to mean not employed by or otherwise dependent on Duke. It is far too early to by crying "fibber." Duke is a huge employer in Durham, and most City Council members know that. Lewis Cheek has his detractors, but he is not in Duke's pocket. He's a good trial lawyer, has tried mostly civil cases all over the board, and if memory serves is a Wake Forest grad. He has been perennially successful candidate in Durham, and I imagine lots of the folks in the middle would like to see Nifong gone, and the DA's office restored to some semblance of responsible conduct. Regardless of their feelings about Duke. Please don't start down the "lying" road with this small quote.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#174)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:39:24 AM EST
    Lora: I was going by this article on Bissey's times.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#175)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:51:02 AM EST
    IMHO:
    Lora is right. The defense lied in the motion.
    Lora is right, there is a discrepancy. It could be a lie, and it could be a careless error (one that a lot of us made here, as well). If it turns out the AV was mistaken in her IDs, are we going to say she lied too? IMHO - If you are going to jump to the conclusion that the defense lied, could you please tell us why? What did they have to gain? I would at least like a plausible motive for why they would do this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#176)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:14:30 AM EST
    IMHO - Are those of us who made the same mistake (until Lora rightly pointed it out) liars as well? I have always considered myself to be a fairly honest guy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#177)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:03:09 AM EST
    from report in today's NYTimes, quoted at greater length by Alan:
    Mr. Vann said Mr. Nifong could drop the case, but the political price would be high. "He'd have hell to pay from the African-American community," he said. "They'd say, 'Give her her day in court. What do you have to lose? If you lose, at least the jury made the decision.' So he's kind of stuck."
    Exactly. The same thing that drove him to bring charges in the first place based on a half-assed investigation prevents him from dropping it now. That's why I predicted that he'll take it to trial unless the AV recants. BTW, Vann is a Durham lawyer who has represented the AV and members of her family in previous matters.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#178)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:10:09 AM EST
    In my opinion, despite the damage that Pittman's statement appears to do to Nifong's chances, if this case ever goes to trial, I don't think the defense will dare to put Pittman on the stand. That is because Pittman spends so much time demonstrating how concerned she is about the AV's money, it is clear she appropriated it. Once Nifong starts cross-examining Pittman on that subject the jury will discount all of Pittman's testemony. However, given that Nifong's timeline is really November, I expect that this case will not go to trial. It will limp along until sometime after November and then quietly disappear.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#179)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:12:43 AM EST
    Lora is right, there is a discrepancy.
    Actually, there isn't. The point made in the defense motion was simply that the affidavit that the prosecutor used to get a subpoena failed to mention that the attached police records show that Kim Pittman said certain things that are inconsistent with the account in the affidavit. The records indicate that she did, in fact, say those things.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#180)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:25:19 AM EST
    khartoum
    It's hard to see how that description of someone urging Cheek to run makes Cheek, based on his own words, a "fibber." Indeed, it seems as if Cheek's words are almost precisely describing Hill.
    The reports claims Cheek said the people recruiting him are not connected to Duke. Hill is connected to Duke. Cheek might be a fibber. localone:
    Come on. 'Not connected with Duke' can reasonably be interpreted to mean not employed by or otherwise dependent on Duke.
    Try to tell a "Duke University graduate and prominent Duke supporter" they're not connected to Duke. Is Dan Hill's father the Blue Devil All-American football star that used to recruit for Dukes football team? That Dan Hill was co-captain of Duke's most famous football team ever. Their only loss was to USC in the 1939 Rose Bowl game.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#181)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:30:43 AM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    BTW, Vann is a Durham lawyer who has represented the AV and members of her family in previous matters.
    from the same article:
    "I have no doubt that Mike believes her," said H. Wood Vann, a lawyer in Durham who once represented the woman in a joy-riding case and has also done general legal work for her parents. Mr. Vann said that he wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt but that few other people in town do, and he added that many wonder why Mr. Nifong persists.
    Woody Vann has known Nifong for 25 years.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#182)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:31:03 AM EST
    Wumhenry And the other thing the motion points up is equally significant---which is that the story told by the only eyewitness other than the players----refutes the AV's testimony on many subjects 1)that a rape occurred (Kim:"a crock.") 2) that Kim was involved in the rape 3) that the AV was alone with the players long enough for anything to occur 4) which of the dancers wanted to either stay or go back in for more money. 5) whether Kim took AV's money 6) and depending on which AV version you believe, her state of intoxication. Those discrepancies alone make Kim an incredibly dangerous witness for the DA, without even considering the bond reduction etc. Kim's story also paints AV as hysterical and out of control before anything even could have occurred. So the motion makes its point: the investigator pointed out NONE of these inconsistencies to Judge Stephens. Judge Stephens, who was a former DA, will not be amused I don't think, if in fact he hears this motion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#183)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:42:27 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    "I have no doubt that Mike Nifong believes her," said H. Wood Vann. Woody Vann has known Nifong for 25 years.
    Is there any self-interested reason why a Durham defense lawyer would want to refrain from gratuitously pissing off the new DA by publicly questioning his sincerity in prosecuting a case that the lawyer has no professional stake in? Yes, there is. ("Woody"?! Where did that come from?)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#184)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:02:46 AM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    Is there any self-interested reason why a Durham defense lawyer would want to refrain from gratuitously pissing off the new DA by publicly questioning his sincerity in prosecuting a case that the lawyer has no professional stake in? Yes, there is.
    Woody might be a fibber or he might be relying on what he has learned about Mike Nifong over the past 25 years. wumhenry posted:
    ("Woody"?! Where did that come from?)
    It's what he calls himself. Duke lacrosse case puts D.A. race in spotlight
    Woody Vann, a Durham attorney who has know Nifong for 25 years, said he never expressed any interest in the job before he was elevated to last year to fill the term of Jim Hardin, who was appointed to a Superior Court judgeship.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#185)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:36:58 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    Lora is right. The defense lied in the motion
    . Do you also believe that Hinman lied in his type written summary when he neglected to include Kim's "- forgot to mention..." statement?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#186)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:39:59 AM EST
    Following IMHO's logic, if Cheek is a fibber, Nifong is a LIAR. I guess Al Gore is a "fibber" too (the whole invention-of-the-internet thing) where as W is a LIAR for the WMD argument. To win IMHO's vote, Cheek would have to argue that he will vehemently enforce public urination laws.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#187)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    This thread has fallen off the front page. Time for a new one on Nifong's potential challenger and the NY Times article and whatever else develops. Comments are closing here.

    Duke Lacrosse: Weekend Open Thread | 187 comments (187 topical)