If [the Defense] thought they had enough [flaws?], they would move for dismissal

I do find it amusing how people are so quick to exonorate these young men despite only hearing the defense story for months.

I don't recall the defence demonstrating a choke-hold at a public meeting.

So that's why IMHO keeps bringing up the bad names and the broom sticks? She's a feminist? Boy, I never would have guessed that.

I do find it amusing how people are so quick to exonorate these young men despite only hearing the defense story for months.

The defense attorneys have been spoon-feeding him [Dan Abrams] the inside scoop for months. He's going to bite the hand that feeds?

For something really newsworthy, yes. It isn't there.

By now - unless he wants to get himself in even more hot water in the future- he's released everything substantial he has.

14. Nifong has - to the defense. Why didn't Abrams answer any of the questions in the above link? Some of them were discussed on his show before he saw the discovery. Now he can discuss them with authority, instead of conceding, "we don't know." We still don't know. He knows, why isn't he reporting it?

I saw Nifong do that in an interview with Abrams, did he also do it at a public meeting?

PB: You're taking it out of context, that's all. You have to remember the detail that ALL the other suspects have been excluded.

Madison: My emphasis. That is simply untrue. All of the other white lacrosse players tested have been excluded as a possible source for part of the DNA in the mixture. Oh, and the fingernails have a history.

imho concocted:

I saw Nifong do that in an interview with Abrams, did he also do it at a public meeting?

My recall, which may be wrong, is that he also demonstrated the choke-hold at a rally at NCCU. Either way, we do have more to rely on than just the defence account. the problem with the Nifong account, for all is graphics, is that it does not accord with the reported medical results.

BTW, I'm sill looking for your authority for he proposition that Nifong is prohibited from comment once [three players, but not two,] are indicted.

Posted by ding7777 June 27, 2006 04:27 PM to Madison What's the difference between what PB wrote (ALL the other suspects have been excluded) and what you wrote (All of the other white lacrosse players tested have been excluded)?

PB: You're taking it out of context, that's all.

I'd be willing to bet that until the defense gets a statment of particulars from Nifart, they don't want Dan Abrams discussing any of that. Why tip your defense to the prosecutor? Oh, and IMHO you might take note that I'm claiming the defense might "have something" more that they don't want to tip to NiFart.

One could also take the rather silly position that there is evidence in that pile of dung that NoDong calls his "investigation" that isn't good for the defense, but I doubt Dan Abrams would stake his credibility on covering up for the defense.

There is no scientific basis on which to heighten suspicion of Mr. Evans as a "scratchee" just because he lived in the house or attended the party. His "non-excludability" (that might be a word) is no weaker than anyone else's from the population of non-excludeds.

But the primary question on the board now is - Why isn't more info from the pages being reported?

Thoughts:

1. Hmmm. Releasing discovery as has been done is a singular occurrence AFAIK. Perhaps MSNBC has no clue how to deal with it.

2. Cynicism. For MSNBC to report the entire contents of the pages may be biting the hand that feeds them. That is, after having all the available info, why would viewers continue to tune in?

3. No gun. The defense shared the pages with Abrams only so as to debunk the notion that there is a "smoking gun" and stipulated that Abrams not report details.

4. Further crimes. Perhaps the pages contain details of some of the players and/or women committing additional crimes. These details would have come from the early testimony of Evans et al. The defense will use this info only if the case goes to trial. They asked Abrams not to publicize it.

5. Damaging details. Perhaps the pages contain details such as the identities of the broomstick commenter and slurring players. Again, they asked Abrams not to publicize it.

6. Promotion. Abrams' tone has changed since his promotion, which occurred right around the time he read the discovery pages. In his new role, he and MSNBC may not want him to get "into the weeds" so much.

...he will "remain NBC News Chief Legal Correspondent, providing legal analysis and commentary for 'Today' and other NBC News and MSNBC programs."

IMHO, you do have the most annoying tendancy to practice law without a license of anyone I have ever seen.

I don't believe Abrams was allowed to make copies of any of the documents, only take notes. While they may be accurate, there is the possibility of some inaccuracies in his notes. Without physical evidence in his possession to fact check what they are airing, the legal department may be discouraging the airing of direct quotes of the discovery via Abrams' notes.

With the July book opening tomorrow, it may well be their plan to dole out bits and pieces of the discovery throughout the month. We all know there are important court dates on July 3rd and 20th, which will likely again spike viewership.

Shoddy reporting WILL come to light at the time the evidence is introduced at trial and will result in heads rolling. MSNBC does not want to position itself as the National Inquirer of cable news channels.

Why is it that some continue to hold out hope for a smoking gun, or think that there is something bad in the discovery file when Nifong, who has shown he will leak if he thinks he has something, has made no leaks.

do you think the answers to any of these questions are "really newsworthy?"

No heads will roll.

Haven't you heard of Dan Rather? How about Mary Mapes? Jayson Blair? Gerald Boyd? Howell Raines? Heads have rolled in the past. MSNBC took a risk promoting Abrams to GM, even though he's never been to J school or been a news director. If they suspect wrongdoing on his part, they have due cause to fire him.

If Evans semen was found on the bathroom floor or on the towel found just outside the bathroom door I think that is a potential smoking gun.

What violations did he commit against the accused between the first two indictments and the third indictment?

Dan Abrams is a reporter, he is not a member of the defense team. ..... Abrams claims he knows as much about this case as anyone but Nifong. Why isn't he reporting it?

do you think the answers to any of these questions are "really newsworthy?"

Partial Profiles Use of "partial profiles" is a newly emerging and fairly disturbing trend. A partial profile is one in which not all of the loci targeted show up in the sample. For example, if 13 loci were targeted, and only 9 could be reported, that would be termed, a partial profile. Failure of all targeted loci to show up demonstrates a serious deficiency in the sample. Normally, all human cells (except red blood cells and cells called "platelets") have all 13 loci. Therefore, a partial profile represents the equivalent of less than a single human cell. This presents some important problems:

1. A partial profile essentially proves that one is operating outside of well-characterized and recommended limits.
2. Contaminating DNA usually presents as a partial profile, although not always. For this reason, the risk that the result is a contaminant is greater than for samples that present as full profiles.
3. A partial profile is at risk of being incomplete and misleading. The partial nature of it proves that DNA molecules have been missed. There is no way of firmly determining what the complete profile would have been, except by seeking other samples that may present a full profile.

Most forensic laboratories will try to obtain full profiles. Unfortunately, in an important case, it may be tempting to use a partial profile, especially if that is all that one has. However, such profiles should be viewed skeptically. Over-interpretation of partial profiles can probably lead to serious mistakes. Such mistakes could include false inclusions and false exclusions, alike. It could be said that, compared to the first PCR-based tests introduced into the courts, use of partial profiles represents a decline in standards. This is because those earlier tests, while less discriminating, had controls (known as "control dots") that helped prevent the use of partial profiles. The earlier tests will be discussed below, primarily for historic reasons, but also because they do still appear on occasion.

Dan Abrams is a reporter

Analyzing the tissue, scientists concluded it came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of 46 lacrosse players who gave DNA samples for testing, the sources said.

At the same time, scientists ruled out a possible match with any of the other 45 students, according to the sources

Has DNA analysis excluded all the clients for those one-on-ones that the AV performed in the weeks prior to March 13? How about all her friends and acquaintances, or friends of her children?

And this is before dealing with the fact that the nail was found in a garbage can days after the event. In no version of the AV's story did the fingernails crawl across the floor and leap untouched into the garbage can. That means someone cleaning up picked them up and threw them into the garbage can, which itself contained plenty of sources of all kinds of DNA from the residents and visitors to the house.

The fact that the DNA doesn't match Evans in the face of all of the above shows how thin the gruel is that sustains those who want some evidence of a rape.

Yes, I agree a gang rape could occur without injury, just as you said. I don't know how often it happens that way, but I expect it would be way harder to prove

I asked about Nifong's claim that these rules prohibit him from comment once indictments issue. Your claim is that the rule applies only from identification or possibly from indictment. Where does the rule say that?

except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

A written accusation charging that an individual named therein has committed an act or omitted to do something that is punishable by law.

The purpose of an indictment is to inform an accused individual of the charge against him or her so that the person will be able to prepare a defense.

You evade that question, and instead raise a further question about the timing of Nifong's violations. Finnerty and Seligmann were identified on 4 April and indicted on 18 April. I do not have an exhaustive and sourced list of the Nifong violations. I'll do some research.

BTW, I'm sill looking for your authority for the proposition that Nifong is prohibited from comment once [three players, but not two,] are indicted.

Defense attorneys expressed outrage at the indictments.

"We are shocked, absolutely shocked," attorney Bill Thomas said. "We always thought she would pick out somebody who at least had a conversation with her or paid her. This is outrageous."

the problem with the capitulate theory is that violence is an inherent part of gang rape. I don't think you can separate them. although this case could be the exception.........it's amazing how abnormal behavior can trend.

If 13 markers were looked at, we don't know if 12 were found or 3. That information should be released, don't you think?

That is not true. Gang rape can be committed on an unconscious victim. Even a conscious, able-bodied victim can be controlled without the use of violence.

But would such a scenario satisfy the NC 1st degree rape statute that Localone posted above?

Here is the definition of first degree rape in NC---"forcible" rape doesn't really mean anything. Is there rape of any other kind? The theory here is that the defendants did either or both b or c, either of which would suffice for a charge of first degree rape. A person is guilty of rape in the first degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse:

With a victim who is a child under the age of 13 years and the defendant is at least 12 years old and is at least four years older than the victim; or With another person by force and against the will of the other person, and: a. Employs or displays a dangerous or deadly weapon ... ; or b. Inflicts serious ... injury ...; or c. The person commits the offense aided or abetted by one or more other persons. Classification: Class B1 Felony (40 years and/or fine)

If 13 markers were looked at, we don't know if 12 were found or 3. That information should be released, don't you think?

Dan? Is it "really newsworthy" enough?

imho: i love the way you write so emphatically that is not true.

perhaps you like to back this up other than your very broad statement. I went into my reasoning, lets hear yours or are you one of those people that just assume that any man can be a rapist.

the problem with the capitulate theory is that violence is an inherent part of gang rape. I don't think you can separate them. although this case could be the exception.........it's amazing how abnormal behavior can trend.

PB, IMHO honestly your science sucks. Perhaps you can define to me what a partial DNA match is? Because either you match enough or you don't. I have this weird vision that you think that DNA is matched by strand. It's done by patterns, my point wasn't that Dave Evans is consistent he might very well be but that others will most likely be consistent as well. (and I'm not talking about the team) As a species as a group we are more similar than dissimilar and others will have that pattern(s) as well. I admit I'm not a geneticist I have experience with parentage testing but does anyone get what I'm trying to say it's not enough that he's "consistent". I know I shouldn't bother because I won't even go into the contamination of the initial collection but it's frustrating as hell for you guys to throw that around "partial" what bull sh*t. oh before I get the we don't know how much he matched it is my opinion that if he was a strong match it would have been leaked.

kitkat: I agree with you. "partial match" is something of an oxymoron, isn't it, or like being "a little bit pregnant."

Can either of you explain why that is at all newsworthy? It has reported that all the found was a partial sample and it excluded all the lax players but Evans.

Is the fact that there might be 2 , 6, 10 or 12 markers scientifically relevant, and if so how?

LARRY KOBILINSKY, DNA EXPERT: Well, the word consistent is always an ambiguous word and it could have significance and it may not, but the point is, is they probably do not have the full CODIS loci, the 13...

ABRAMS: Right.

KOBILINSKY: ... possessions.

ABRAMS: But let's assume they don't have that, all right.

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: I mean...

KOBILINSKY: That's right...

ABRAMS: ... what does that mean? I mean how certain then--let's--

I don't know. Let's say they've got nine or eight. I don't--you tell me. You talk DNA to me and tell me what this means.

(CROSSTALK)

KOBILINSKY: A partial profile could be very significant. It could in fact result in statistics in one in millions or even one in billions. On the other hand, having less than six loci usually raises some questions. But I must say here that it's quite possible they are doing a different kind of DNA testing.

And what I'm talking is the Y chromosome testing, which is quite often used in allegations of rape where there are multiple offenders. That is another possibility. It's not as specific in terms of the statistics as the other nuclear type of DNA testing, but this is quite a possibility here, that that's what they have done.

ABRAMS: All right. Moses Schanfield, what do you make of this?

MOSES SCHANFIELD, FORENSIC SCIENCE PROFESSOR: Well, I agree with Larry. What is consistent is a term--it simply means the person wasn't excluded. How powerful the test is, is going to depend on how many loci were there. So again, if it's more than six and less than 13, you could still have a highly individualizing profile.

Clearly, the profile was good enough that it eliminated the 45 other or the 25 or however many students there were that--except for this one individual. So we're somewhere between the trillions that exist in a full CODIS profile and some lesser number depending on how many loci are present.

imho: i love the way you write so emphatically that is not true. perhaps you like to back this up other than your very broad statement. I went into my reasoning, lets hear yours or are you one of those people that just assume that any man can be a rapist.

You asked the wrong question, kitkat. The question shouldn't have been whether a gangrape can occur without violence (admittedly such rapes almost always occasion violence, indeed the false accuser in this case claims there was violence) but whether a gangrape involving multiple penetrations without any kind of "artificial penis" could occur without DNA. Ask IMHO this and see if you get an answer.

the problem with the capitulate theory is that violence is an inherent part of gang rape. I don't think you can separate them.

KOBILINSKY: A partial profile could be very significant. It could in fact result in statistics in one in millions or even one in billions. On the other hand, having less than six loci usually raises some questions. But I must say here that it's quite possible they are doing a different kind of DNA testing.

However, the lab could not rule out a DNA match with 14 other men in its database.

According to the report, the DNA found under the false fingernail was a mixture, containing more than one person's genetic material

Am I missing something? What is all this talk about Dave Evans' semen on towels or the floor? The only semen I have heard about was found IN the accuser's body and belonged to her "boyfriend."

mental shrug.........it's a rumor I don't think it's been said that it's defintly semen. if i'm wrong cough up the source.

Hi fahrenam

Nah, you didn't miss something. IMHO, one of more active board participants, loves to pose speculative questions, often with no basis in facts and see if others will bite.

Usually they are based upon such solid observations such as "We don't know" or "It might be possible."

The stuff about Evan's semen is speculative.

IMHO does that all the time.

I recall that the database was quite small - only a few thousand people at best. Can't find a link right now - the one I had is gone.

PB, IMHO honestly your science sucks. Perhaps you can define to me what a partial DNA match is? Because either you match enough or you don't.

kitkat: I agree with you. "partial match" is something of an oxymoron, isn't it, or like being "a little bit pregnant."

If the DNA evidence on Evans is a partial match, "there are good partials and bad partials," Kobilinsky said. "You can get the whole gamut of possibilities. It could be a very poor partial or an extremely powerful partial."

It is a fact that a "partial match" can yield better statistics than a full CODIS 13 loci match.

I still maintain that a gang rape is more likely to be have more violence precluding such variables such as being conscious which would change the entire incident.

the problem with the capitulate theory is that violence is an inherent part of gang rape. I don't think you can separate them.

Let's get back to this case your not proposing that this girl was unconscious are you?

We don't know which one, but Dan Abrams must know.

That is his opinion. If David Evans' semen does turn out to be on the bathroom floor, Abrams can say, "So what? It's his bathroom." Or "the DNA could have been deposited underneath the fingernail in the trash can as easliy as it could have been deposited on top the nail. That information is not incriminating to the defense."

Why is he the one who should decide what is exculpatory and what is not?

I'm asking him to answer important questions that don't involve any other crimes

Your opinion matters to us. Join our new News VIPs forum and express your opinions on the news. You could win $1,000.

Has anyone given thought as to how Nifong is going to proceed with respect to Seligmann?

4) where the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance

I gave you two examples of how a gang rape could be committed in the absence of violence.

I wonder if the defense would counter by bringing Seligmann as a witness and basically putting on his case in front of the jury.

Seems like something you might mention if two people had been poking around back there.

Anyway, there are pretrial motions but the most important are right before the actual trial and are generally not acted on. Our judges are pretty politicized and prefer to have trials or 'defer judgement'. Anyway, the rights of defendants in NC are MINIMAL.

Bob (in his humorous way) is right about DE's semen in his own bathroom that hadn't been cleaned in an eternity.

Again, is CF's lawyer Thomas?

Can someone please explain how if you capituate that automatically means there not going to hurt you? note to self if puting forth anything you should be prepared for every possible exception because in imhos world it is the exception not the rule. whatever

Imagine if his alibi has him knocking back margaritas underage at the Cosmic Cantina all night, or bringing beer by early and leaving pre-strip show.

imho: i know this is a real reach, and highly unlikely, and forgive me if i've downed a few too many kool-aids tonight, but couldn't the AV have put the toilet seat down and sat on it while doing her nails?

Maybe they were just tidier than we give them credit for.

Kim is going to have to admit she didn't see CF at the party. "A skinny little one" is not someone who is 6' 3" You really are a piece of work imho. Too bad you don't have something better to do like run a bake sale for the greater Berkeley man hating club.

IMHO, you're not paying attention to what Kimmie was saying. The guys were all peepeeing off of the porch.

Just missed a spot on the floor.

There is no scientific basis on which to heighten suspicion of Mr. Evans as a "scratchee" just because he lived in the house or attended the party. His "non-excludability" (that might be a word) is no weaker than anyone else's from the population of non-excludeds.

I think that Nifong is well aware of his problems and that is why he had the cops lean on the cab driver. Of course at the time he didn't know about the ATM photo and the call to the cab co on Seligmann's phone.

This is a good point, I think. We need to know the history of the nail to assign any probabilities that the dna sample could have come from someone other than Evans. I think it's just transfer and meaningless.

Th ATM and phone call to the cab were in the paper on April 19. Mostafa was arrested three weeks later

"It would be a real story if there was no DNA that could show some genetic strain of some of the Duke lacrosse players who used that bathroom," Cheshire said. "What a stunner that would be."

BTW do you know if the outside photos showed her with the same nail configuration as the dancing ones?

Also, what's your best guess as to when the rape occured?

I'm holding off on that guess until Osborn serves me with a Bill of Particulars.

Sundance: Thanks for the rehab.

Awhile back on this post it was stated something to the effect that "if a woman is under the influence of alcohol, then it is rape." In other words (as I understood it) any woman could have a few drinks with a man, agree to sex and then later could legally claim rape -- completely at her own discretion -- simply by she saying that she had been under the influence of alcohol, and that legally that would in fact be rape. That seemed a pretty widely inclusive definition to me, but I thought others must know better.

This clause seems to indicate that it is only rape if she has ingested alcohol without her knowledge. Men do not become rapists by definition simply by having sex with a woman who has also consented to consuming alcohol.

Could you or someone else please clarify this for me?

3) who is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware that intercourse is occurring 4) where the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance