home

Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape Allegation

There's follow-up news on the Duke Lacrosse player accuser's filing of a report in 1996 claiming three men raped her in 1993, when she was 14. Her ex-husband now says he encouraged her to file the report. The accuser's father, meanwhile, said the earlier rape didn't happen -- or at least he never heard about it.

Kenneth McNeil, a Durham man who was married to the woman for 17 months, said in an interview Friday that three years after the incident, he urged her to make the report to Creedmoor police to help her overcome the trauma. "I wanted them to pay for what they did," said McNeil, who was then engaged to the woman.

He has no first hand-knowledge of the incident, which occurred when the accuser was in high school. Here's what he says she told him during their engagement:

McNeil said that before he married the accuser in 1997, the woman told him about rape and torture at the hands of a previous boyfriend, a man who was at least seven years older than she. The accuser was in high school when she met the man, McNeil said. He was controlling, jealous and abusive, McNeil said. He would beat her, and she would hide the bruises from her parents.

On a day in June 1993, the man offered up his young girlfriend's body to his friends, McNeil said she told him. "He let his boys take turns," McNeil said.

The accuser provided first and last names of the men to the police. The police report is available (page 1 page 2) and the unredacted version will be turned over to the defense as discovery. The defense investigators will interview the men and get their sides.

Meanwhile, the D.A. says the prior report might not be admitted at trial because of the rape-shield statute. The point is, the report very well might be admitted. The rape shield statute has an exception for the prior inadmissibility of past sexual matters if the accuser has a history of false reporting. (His written statement is here.)

Should the men she named in the police report be credible in their denials of the 1993 rape, her reporting of the incident most likely would come into evidence - particularly due to the fact that both the past allegation and the current Duke allegations involve a gang rape.

In other Duke news, the New Black Panther Party is planning a rally on the Duke campus on Monday.

< Karl Rove, Andy Card and the Newly Discovered E-Mails | Hayat Juror Recounts Pressure During Deliberations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Continued from the previous thread, which closed while I was writing this ... imho:
    What they "see happening afterwards" is a result of not sharing with the investigators what they know happened at the party.
    ...
    By not coming forward, the blameless players let the other players off the hook
    ...
    in the process the blameless players threw their own hopes and dreams for their lacrosse season down the toilet.
    Because you are so convinced that a crime occurred, your arguments beg the question. You make three assumptions that in effect amount to the same thing that you are arguing, namely the case for there having been a rape at the party. The first is that something (criminal) happened worth reporting. What if they have nothing to report? The second is that there is someone to be "let off the hook." What if there is only a climate of false accusations of criminal behavior by the DA to be dealt with? The third is that the loss of the remainder of a lacrosse season would be more important to these players than defending themselves against false accusations by a DA, who (as was demonstrated by the photo identification procedure he used) has already decided that someone on the team is guilty of a crime. If you started with the assumption that they are innocent, and are also convinced that no crime was committed, yet see the DA openly showing his bias in his actions and public statements, they are hardly going to picture the DA as anything other than an adversary to be avoided at all costs. On top of that, given that the DA and defense attorneys are talking to the media, anyone who speaks is likely to become a focus of media attention. In that situation, you should not consider their caution to be unreasonable (as mmyy also explained).

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#2)
    by james on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 04:28:43 PM EST
    The New Black Panthers protest march goes quite a bit further than the actual march. Duke has stated that they are allowing the protest (on private property, they don't have to let them protest) as long as the don't have gun because of their respect for 'free speech'. This is an outright lie. Duke has a hate speech policy that prohibits such a march by students as they have to sign the honor code to enroll. Duke has never allowed the KKK to protest on their campus. By their new reasoning they must as the Panthers are classified as a hate group by the SPLC. Duke is changing the 'rules' to appease their community. Other aspects of appeasement consist of two reports coming out monday by Duke that are likely to make the defendants and the sport teams in general guilty of egregious conduct. The faculty are also being quite P.C. in their remarks. One woman who is on the faculty committee writing one of the reports has been adamant that the woman was raped. Her position is that the men must prove otherwise. Eh, fun times in the Raleigh area for me.

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#3)
    by james on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    The ex-husband was sleeping with her when she was a high school student and he just happened to be 12 years older than her. Yes, she was old enough to consent at the time by 2 years but the guy is a 'piece of work'. By his own account in a prior N&O article his primary reason for marrying her was because he could follow her around the world when she was in the Navy (and not have to work). She may have told him that was the case, but it is possible it was to mask something else - like general issues she had. There's something really weird about her profession in my mind. It's been reported that her children's father (who is not the ex-husband - she had the first with the guy while still married to the ex) has to pay 400/month in child support. She also would qualify for Medicaid for her kids plus food debit cards, section 8 housing, and she would have to pay zero for school. Why is it that she had to strip and go on one on ones, as has been reported, to pay for school? That's something that's beyond me.

    Cymro posted:
    Because you are so convinced that a crime occurred, your arguments beg the question.
    No. You are wrong. I am not convinced a crime more serious than under-aged drinking occurred at that house on that night. Cymro posted:
    The first is that something (criminal) happened worth reporting. What if they have nothing to report?
    Nothing criminal need happen for witnesses' accounts to be worth reporting. They could be used to prosecute a false accuser. Cymro posted:
    The second is that there is someone to be "let off the hook." What if there is only a climate of false accusations of criminal behavior by the DA to be dealt with?
    READ MY POST. I described the behavior I was talking about. I was coming from the point of view that ... GASP! LET ME STEADY MYSELF, I CAN BARELY CONVEY THIS THOUGHT ... no sexual assault occurred. I was talking about the actions no one is denying: imho posted:
    By not coming forward, the blameless players let the other players off the hook- the players that decided to have this party and behave in the boorish manner their attorneys have described - and in the process the blameless players threw their own hopes and dreams for their lacrosse season down the toilet.
    Cymro posted:
    The third is that the loss of the remainder of a lacrosse season would be more important to these players than defending themselves against false accusations by a DA, who (as was demonstrated by the photo identification procedure he used) has already decided that someone on the team is guilty of a crime.
    If I knew nothing happened I would have been more concerned with the season being cancelled than anyone being convicted of rape. They had no idea at that point they were dealing with maniacal DA. The "Blue Wall" was not a reaction to Nifong's public statements. Nifong made no public comment until he had to get a court order to gather DNA evidence. That was AFTER the team cancelled the scheduled interviews their coach helped arrange. The DA is investigating a claim by the accuser that she was attacked by three men at that party that night. According to the second search warrant, the three captains told the police "that their fellow Duke Lacrosse Team Members were the ones who attended this party. They knew everyone there, and stated there were no strangers who showed up at the event." If the DA is investigating a rape at that house on that night, according to the team captains, he is investigating the only pool of suspects who could have attacked her. Cymro posted:
    On top of that, given that the DA and defense attorneys are talking to the media, anyone who speaks is likely to become a focus of media attention. In that situation, you should not consider their caution to be unreasonable (as mmyy also explained).
    The focus of media attention? Oh no! Not that! Who would want the media reporting "'Blue Wall' of silence ends. Players cooperate with investigators." Fortunately, the accuser has avoided any unpleasantness in that regard.

    Hi CYMRO, You wrote:
    that the loss of the remainder of a lacrosse season would be more important to these players than defending themselves against false accusations by a DA, who (as was demonstrated by the photo identification procedure he used) has already decided that someone on the team is guilty of a crime.
    The identification procedure used may be many things, but one thing it is not is a demonstration that Nifong had made any decision whatsoever as to whether someone on the team was guilty of a crime. For that to have been the case he would have had to mandate that the accuser choose three from the many shown, which he obviously didn't do.

    One interesting item from the WRAL coverage of Nifong's announcement yesterday relayed the fact that Nifong called the Creedmoor chief of police Friday morning to get information about what the Creedmoor people had on the earlier rape report. That he would make such a call suggests that he might not have known about the accuser's earlier allegation of a 3-man gang rape until the AP reported it. I suppose we'll find out for certain in coming days. But if so, we'd have a DA having brought charges without checking fully into the accuser's past and without even bothering to ascertain whether at least one of the accused (Seligmann) had a verifiable alibi. That strikes me as highly unusual investigative procedure. It's almost as if the goal were to get an indictment rather than to bring a case to trial that could be won.

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lora on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 08:29:59 PM EST
    If the AV's story isn't true, I keep coming back to how you explain those injuries. Maybe she wasn't really hurt that badly. Maybe her injuries were minor and could be explained by a previous sexual encounter and a fall or two. It's painful to think that someone could be hurt as badly as we've heard that she was. I know we can't assume the cause of her injuries was rape and assault, and that we really don't know how bad her injuries were. Nifong has said or implied that she was badly hurt, and the snippets of reports I've read indicate the same thing, so I'm not sure why we should think that maybe she wasn't. This is why I feel so strongly about the case. Unless someone can give me a really good reason why other apparently credible people's assessments of the severity of her injuries might have been somehow exaggerated or mistaken, and given her behavior and the sequence of events, I really can't explain the harm done to this woman in any other logical manner than an attack at the party. A past gang rape is certainly a possibility for her. One doesn't preclude the other. And if she was lying about the first one, it doesn't automatically mean she was lying this time.

    James posted:
    By his own account in a prior N&O article his primary reason for marrying her was because he could follow her around the world when she was in the Navy (and not have to work).
    Here's what I read about his job:
    That fall, the couple got married in Virginia Beach. The union would allow the woman's husband to travel wherever the woman was stationed, he said.
    I took that to mean he could tranfer to a union job in whatever the city the Navy moved his wife to. If he didn't want to work, why would he care what the union would allow him to do? I thought this was sweet:
    The former husband said he was illiterate when he married the then-19-year-old woman. She taught him to read, he said, and was kind and patient during the process. After months of tutoring and many evenings spent paging through beginning-level books, he said, he was finally able to fill out his own job applications.
    "She never downed me for that," he said. "She loved me for who I was." He said he saw her after the accusations of rape were reported and she appeared distressed.
    I'm surprised James didn't think is was worthy of comment. Though there is the fact that it's kind of hard to twist into a portrayal of either one of them as lying, predatory scum.

    khartoum :
    That he would make such a call suggests that he might not have known about the accuser's earlier allegation of a 3-man gang rape until the AP reported it.
    Do you think he should have asked her if she had ever been raped before?

    I'm no lawyer, this is just from what I've read in the past hour or so and does not necessarily apply to North Carolina: The foundational requirements for introduction of evidence of prior false allegations of rape by the victim: (1) the victim has admitted that she made a prior false accusation of sexual misconduct; or (2) her prior accusation is demonstrably false. [overly long text deleted. please use a link in html format]

    PB:
    The identification procedure used may be many things, but one thing it is not is a demonstration that Nifong had made any decision whatsoever as to whether someone on the team was guilty of a crime.
    Well, I guess you must have a different interpretation of TL's previous response to you about the photo lineup, namely
    PB--you are incorrect in your descriptions of a lineup. This was a photo lineup. The problem with it is that it did not follow nationally accepted procedures or procedures adopted by the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission.
    In my view, by using a photo lineup consisting solely of Duke lacrosse players the DA demonstrated that he already believed the accusations. If he had wanted to test the strength of the accuser's claims, he would surely have included known innocent fillers in the lineup he presented to her, as recommended by the procedures TL references. imho:
    If I knew nothing happened I would have been more concerned with the season being cancelled than anyone being convicted of rape. They had no idea at that point they were dealing with maniacal DA.
    So maybe the difference of opinion between us comes down to the fact that your natural inclination is to trust the DA and police to be pursuing truth and justice, and mine is more jaundiced. But, with the benefit of hindsight in this case, whose assumptions are more realistic -- mine or yours? I think most people would agree that events have shown that the players are dealing with a maniacal DA, or at very least a DA who does not follow the Patrick Fitzgerald model (i.e. remain silent until you are sure of the facts). So how can you criticize their actions, when they made the right call under the circumstances? My inclination is to believe that they acted the way they did because they know more that you and I do about the truth of the situation. I don't understand how you justify your interpretations, without assuming that every member of the team is motivated solely by an amoral commitment to cover up for one another. Personally I find that hard to believe -- where is the evidence of that motivation?

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 09:45:37 PM EST
    Hey folks. I've had a bad headache today but had to check in with my fellow sleuths. imho - about the marriage and the husband's work. I took that sentence to mean the marriage "union" would allow him to travel with her. Though I don't know what his job at the time was. About the white car and the cabbie's testimony...I think he is mistaken about the car being white unless that was someone who arrived to pick up the accuser. Who was supposed to come and get her anyway? If there is no white car then I would question whether his memory is accurate enough to remember so many details about Reade S. but not remember that the second call was at 12:29 and not 1:01 as he told Rita Cosby three times on TV. He now says the 1:01 call was an unknown number and that he didn't arrive at the house at 1:06 but rather before everyone left. I guess we could decide that his memory isn't good enough to recall who exactly used Reade S.'s dorm card (I don't really believe that but had to throw it out there again.) Regarding the pictures, though both the defense and prosecution agree that the accuser arrived in a dark car, when Abrams showed the whole picture, she has no shoe on her right foot, so I tend to think that was the accuser gettin IN the car. Whether or not the time stamps are accurate is another question. I will say though that the driver in that picture looks heavier set than Kim when you see the picture up close the way they showed it yesterday. Interesting that the Black Panther lawyer on Fox tonight said he does have inside info and she was brutally raped. I'm not sure how much to believe him but I am like Lora; I can't get past those injuries. How consistent with rape are they? I will add that I know for a fact that multiple rapes/sexual abuse incidents can happen to the same person. Especially one who puts herself in the situations that she has. To sum up, I feel no more or less certain about whether or not there was a rape than I did before the latest questions about the cab driver and the earlier rape. I do feel more certain than ever that the family of the accuser needs a spokesperson. I would hate for my father/mother/cousin/friend to be speaking for me about events that they weren't there to witness. I think a reporter could convince the father to admit to anything.

    IMHO, what is the policy with sex crimes as far as a DA's right to ask about past incidents? It would seem to me that it shouldn't be illegal for a DA to ask if she'd ever filed similar charges. Who knows? He may have. If the AV had told the DA, he could have investigated it prior to going public with the case. Right now she's left Nifong looking a little foolish if he was totally unaware of it, especially if the charges weren't considered reliable in the past case. +++ Lora, you keep saying how badly she was injured. Could you produce the report if you've seen it, because as far as I can tell, right now you're going on unsubstantiated second-hand information. If you believe the DA, why have a trial? +++ Perhaps Gloria Allred can have a joint press conference with the New Black Panthers. During the OJ trial I remember she had a joint press conference with that reactionary McMillan woman who thinks it's great to shoot abortion doctors. Cui bono? +++ Has anyone else thought of what a bad career choice stripping must be for a woman who had been gangraped?

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#14)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    Cymro - I agree with you about the entire team covering up a crime. If a crime happened I think only a few would be aware of it. If the whole team (those in attendance) could account for the accuser the entire time, why can't Kim? Or can she and she later decided to lie?

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 09:54:58 PM EST
    Has anyone else thought of what a bad career choice stripping must be for a woman who had been gangraped?
    Now Bob, do some research. It isn't uncommon at all for strippers, prostitutes and porn stars to have a past history of sexual abuse.

    Teresa posted:
    imho - about the marriage and the husband's work. I took that sentence to mean the marriage "union" would allow him to travel with her. Though I don't know what his job at the time was.
    Hmmm. I hadn't thought of it that way, but that does make sense. Thanks.

    I'm no lawyer, this is just from what I've read in the past hour or so and does not necessarily apply to North Carolina: The foundational requirements for introduction of evidence of prior false allegations of rape by the victim: (1) the victim has admitted that she made a prior false accusation of sexual misconduct; or (2) her prior accusation is demonstrably false. hosting my own post to save Talk Left's bandwidth: Demonstrably false is a more stringent standard than a mere credibility determination.

    Lora:
    I really can't explain the harm done to this woman in any other logical manner than an attack at the party.
    What about this report, from Durham's ABC-TV station?
    Eyewitness News Looks at Party Photos

    (04/18/06 -- DURHAM) - Eyewitness News and the ABC News law-and-justice unit are getting a chance to examine time-stamped photos taken inside the home on the night of the controversial Duke lacrosse party.

    12 a.m.: This is the first picture of the strippers. Students are watching the show, but not grabbing or attempting to touch the women. Bruises are clearly visible on the legs and thighs of the alleged victim.

    12:00:40 a.m.: Another picture taken 40 seconds later shows bruises on the accuser's knees. Her right knee appears to have an open cut.
    (my emphasis in the last two paragraphs) If the bruises are clearly visible in these first pictures, why do you state that the only logical conclusion is that her injuries were "the result of an attack at the party"? To me, that is most certainly not a logical conclusion. From this evidence alone, and without any other concrete information (do you have any?), I would have to conclude that it is more likely that the injuries were not the result of an attack at the party, but were probably incurred before she arrived. Please explain your reasoning and justification.

    Teresa posted:
    If the whole team (those in attendance) could account for the accuser the entire time, why can't Kim? Or can she and she later decided to lie?
    I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you help me out?

    inmyhumbleopinion said:
    Do you think he should have asked her if she had ever been raped before?
    There would have been no reason to ask. I would assume that police would look into the background of anyone who filed a claim of any serious crime--whether it's something like rape or something like corporate fraud. In a computerized environment, such an effort would take little time. It also seems to be standard practice to explore whether someone has a demonstrable alibi before, rather than after, securing an indictment. But I'm not from North Carolina: obviously matters are handled differently in Durham. And, indeed, if the DA's principal goal was securing an indictment, regardless of the chances of a conviction down the line, the approach that he's followed would make sense.

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:02:20 PM EST
    I don't understand how you justify your interpretations, without assuming that every member of the team is motivated solely by an amoral commitment to cover up for one another. Personally I find that hard to believe -- where is the evidence of that motivation?
    imho, I believe that is the quote I was referring to. I think Cymro was saying it is difficult to believe that every member of the team would have a reason to cover up a crime.(Cymro??). I also find it hard to believe and I think that if a crime occurred, many of the players had left or were involved in something else (a dance or ? with Kim?) and truly would not know what went on in the bathroom. Kim stated in her interview that she didn't see the accused for a considerable time so I assume many of the players didn't either if they were with Kim.

    There would have been no reason to ask. I would assume that police would look into the background of anyone who filed a claim of any serious crime--whether it's something like rape or something like corporate fraud. In a computerized environment, such an effort would take little time.
    Are you saying you assume the Durham police usually do run a background check on women that report rape, but for some unknown reason did not in this case?

    So we agree there may be players in attendance that may not be in a position to know whether or not a rape took place?

    Teresa:
    Cymro was saying it is difficult to believe that every member of the team would have a reason to cover up a crime.(Cymro??)
    Correct. To assume such a degree of amoral collusion seems to be a stretch and not justified, unless supported by other evidence. Occam's Razor suggests adopting simpler assumptions as more likely explanations for their behavior -- in this case the assumption that nothing criminal took place.

    Cymro posted:
    From this evidence alone, and without any other concrete information (do you have any?), I would have to conclude that it is more likely that the injuries were not the result of an attack at the party, but were probably incurred before she arrived.
    What is your definiton of "concrete information?" A reporter's interpretation of a photo? I heard one reporter say the woman looked like she had a demure smile, a defense attorney called the same expression in the same photo "a big time grin" and another reporter described the same same woman in the same photo as having her mouth opened and her teeth showing but she couldn't tell if she was smiling or not. What do you mean by "the injuries?" The injuries in the photos or the injuries described in the search warrants, the injuries described by her father, the injuries described by the ESPN hospital spy? The injuries Kim Roberts' attorney alluded were in the police report?

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#26)
    by Lora on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:35:38 PM EST
    Bob and Cymro, I'll try and go back and find the ref's. My memory is that Nifong said she was brutally attacked. I don't know if that was his exact word, but I'm sure he implied it. I believe he mentioned vaginal and anal bruising. From some legal document (one of the search warrants?) there was mention of vaginal injuries, and a snippet from the rape exam, again from the warrant, perhaps? said something like injuries (with some descriptor) consistent with rape, and injuries consistent with assault, and behavior consistent with having been traumatized. Somewhere there was a description of serious vaginal trauma. And one source (ESPN's maybe?) stated bruises of the head, neck and shoulders. That's why the leg injuries didn't seem relevant. OK, tomorrow I will try to get the ref's and links and such. I think they are all here somewhere.

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#27)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:37:11 PM EST
    So we agree there may be players in attendance that may not be in a position to know whether or not a rape took place?
    yes

    inmyhumbleopinion
    Are you saying you assume the Durham police usually do run a background check on women that report rape, but for some unknown reason did not in this case?
    The WRAL (Raleigh) coverage of this on Friday reported that the Durham DA had called the Creedmoor police Friday a.m. (the day after the AP broke the story) to ask for details. I have no idea whether the Durham police normally run rudimentary checks on people who allege serious crimes, just as I don't know whether they normally inquire as to whether suspects have verifiable alibis before arresting them. Both would seem to be common-sense policies. It strikes me as an odd way to prosecute a case: I would think most prosecutors would want all available evidence before moving forward, so they're not blindsided by reports that the accuser made a similar allegation a decade before or one of the accused has multiple sources of exculpatory alibi evidence. We obviously have no way of knowing at this stage whether a crime was committed, but I can't understand the rationale for a DA moving forward without even attempting to obtain what would have been (in both of these instances) easily obtainable information.

    Occam's Razor suggests adopting simpler assumptions as more likely explanations for their behavior -- in this case the assumption that nothing criminal took place.
    Some people might think that is not the simplest explanation for the players not talking to police. That requires them adopt your jaundiced view of the DA and the police - before he ever made any public statement.

    This AV is delusional, and probably has been this way since she was a child. It is not unknown for many people to make up things to happen in their lives and they themselves believe it to be true. It seems to me that she likes attention, and sh has been using rape to bring that attention to her. I think it will be found that she was not raped at 14, or even at this party. But I do think she wants to be raped, so that she can gain some sympathy. Right now I am just looking on the writing on the wall and reading it. I see too many poeple on this site who have taken this thing way too deep, for their own bias reasons. For me this case was over, when I could not fit a realistic rape based on what she said had been done to her, in the timeline. And the it broke the straw for me, when I heard she had accused 3 men of rape some 10 yrs ago. This to me is a woman starving for attention and love. Something her mother and father have not given her when she was a child. She is making this stuff up as she goes, and none of it is true. The more this goes on, the more I feel sorry for her, and not want her to be be prosecuted for this false rpae allegation, but to get her some serious help. The DA should not be elected, but he will. But I hope that they go to the bar on this guy for how he is conducting this case. I will assure you, that these families will look to draw blood from somebody when they get their sons cleared... Lastly, where is this 3rd suspect? Also do Colin and Reade and this 3rd suspect have a close friendly relationship? If it can be proven that these guys are intertwined somehow by a strong bond to each other, then that would may help me buy a little into this womans story. But a good strong friend tie, would not leave parties separate. Just being on the same team does not mean that all of these menwere close... Show me evidence that Colin, Reade, and 3rd suspect all have a stronger tie than just teammates, and I may take a 2nd look. Other than that, look for the DA to take his exit soon after April 15 on this case.

    Talk Left posted:
    Meanwhile, the D.A. says the prior report might not be admitted at trial because of the rape-shield statute. The point is, the report very well might be admitted. The rape shield statute has an exception for the prior inadmissibility of past sexual matters if the accuser has a history of false reporting. (His written statement is here.)
    Should the men she named in the police report be credible in their denials of the 1993 rape, her reporting of the incident most likely would come into evidence - particularly due to the fact that both the past allegation and the current Duke allegations involve a gang rape.
    I don't know how much rape-sheild laws differ from state to state, but in the few case I came across, the standard is much higher than that the accused men in the prior reported rape "be credible in their denials." In the cases I read, in order to introduce evidence of prior false allegations of rape by the victim, unless the victim has admitted that she made a prior false accusation of sexual misconduct, it must be established that her prior accusation is demonstrably false. Demonstrably false is a more stringent standard than a mere credibility determination. One case was a fairly close match to the prior reported rape of the accuser in the Duke lacrosse team rape case, though it was not a gang rape. In the prior reported rape, a thirteen year old was raped while on a date and while intoxicated. She reported the rape, but charges were not filed - the Town Marshall told her she brought upon herself by being intoxicated. The trial court (in the on-going rape trial) heard the vicitm's testimony regarding the prior alleged rape and excluded the testimony as irrelevant. The vicitm at no time admitted that her prior accusation of rape was false and after hearing testimony from the Town Marshall who took her prior rape report, the trial court ruled the defense attorney in the on-going rape case failed to establish that the vicitm's prior rape allegation was demonstrably false. A few other cases use even stronger language:
    In Perry, the trial court's exclusion of a police report was upheld because the proponent of the document presented no evidence that the victim had admitted that her accusations were false, or that the alleged assailant had been tried and acquitted.
    Kelley upheld the exclusion of an allegedly prior false accusation of sexual misconduct where the proponent of the evidence failed to show that there had been a trial and the person charged had been found not guilty.


    khartoum:
    And, indeed, if the DA's principal goal was securing an indictment, regardless of the chances of a conviction down the line, the approach that he's followed would make sense.
    Given the well-known critcism that "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich," I have to assume that your comment about the DA's goal of "securing a conviction" is intended to be sarcastic. If so, I agree with you. If not, you have some explaining to do.

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#33)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 12:58:42 AM EST
    Supa, do you really think he will win the election? I don't but I base that on an unscientific poll I saw. I don't live in N.C. so I don't really know but I think this case hurts him rather than helps him.
    I see too many poeple on this site who have taken this thing way too deep, for their own bias reasons
    I don't have any bias in this case from a female point of view. I side with the defense in many cases (my brother was a public defender) and normally consider myself a defense lawyer's dream juror. Based on what I have seen so far I would vote not guilty easily. There's just a part of me that thinks this DA can't be that crazy without something more that we don't know. If not, I agree he is deserving of all the criticism he is receiving.

    imho:
    What do you mean by "the injuries?"

    The injuries in the photos or the injuries described in the search warrants, the injuries described by her father, the injuries described by the ESPN hospital spy? The injuries Kim Roberts' attorney alluded were in the police report?
    Unless you have basis for an argument that all your references do not refer to the same set of injuries, my answer is "yes, those injuries -- the very ones that were visible in the photographs when she arrived at the party". Can you show me where anyone has claimed that more injuries were incurred later. If not, why would you assume that the injuries in the photographs are not the same ones that everyone else is talking about?

    imho:
    What is your definiton of "concrete information?" A reporter's interpretation of a photo? I heard one reporter say the woman looked like she had a demure smile, a defense attorney called the same expression in the same photo "a big time grin" and another reporter described the same same woman in the same photo as having her mouth opened and her teeth showing but she couldn't tell if she was smiling or not.
    I quoted the description of the accuser's injuries in the photos provided by the Durham TV station. As far as I know, that is an unbiased description by an independent third party. My opinion is not based on any of the other things you mention, so your references to those is irrelevant to my argument. So, do you actually have any reason to question either the eyesight or the independence of the Durham ABC-TV reporter? Or is your response just an attempt to avoid addressing their conclusion that that the accuser was already injured when she arrived at the party? So far you have not addressed that to my satisfaction, and arm-waving about "interpretation" is not going to do it.

    Hi Cymro, You wrote:
    Well, I guess you must have a different interpretation of TL's previous response to you about the photo lineup, namely PB--you are incorrect in your descriptions of a lineup.
    Well, first of all, I asked TL what exactly she was claiming I was incorrect about in my description of the lineup and got no response. So I don't even have an interpretation of her response to me, much less a way of knowing whether my interpretation is different from yours. But assume that what TL is saying is that Nifong had pegged Seligman and Finnerty and some third person as the assailants before he created the powerpoint show for the accuser. How would this demonstrate that Nifong was hell-bent on convicting someone from the team other than Seligman and Finnerty? If the lineup was an effort to confirm Seligman et al. as suspects, and the accuser had chosen somebody else, that result would have been a vindication of Seligman et al. and no more, correct? And of course, nothing at all precluded the accuser from saying "I don't think it was any of the people you just showed me." You wrote:
    In my view, by using a photo lineup consisting solely of Duke lacrosse players the DA demonstrated that he already believed the accusations. If he had wanted to test the strength of the accuser's claims, he would surely have included known innocent fillers in the lineup he presented to her, as recommended by the procedures TL references.
    Lineups can have many purposes, only one of which is evaluating the strength of a witnesses claims. The question of whether this particular lineup is a very good test of the strength of this particular accuser's claims is a discussion worth having. The question of whether this particular lineup is a good demonstration of the DAs bias against the team is actually not such a good discussion, because the answer is a pretty clear no. It simply does not reveal that particular bias. Lynnda O'Hara, Nick's mom, thinks the accused used the "eenie meenie miny moe" method of fingering her assailants. If so, and if TL is correct that the DA already had Seligman and Finnerty in mind before creating the lineup, the accuser certainly did get lucky. I think it's more likely that TL is wrong, and that the purpose of the lineup was to come up with ANY suspects given the resistance of the players to help out. The defense attorneys notion that the DA would prefer to go to trial with this case is really the only idea driving this case toward an eventual trial. This should not surprise anyone, since trials are where the big money is for attorneys. If might wind up being an expensive affair, but in the end the lacrosse players will probably learn more from the process than they ever would have at Duke. So I suppose the glass is not entirely empty.

    I wrote: The defense attorneys notion that the DA would prefer to go to trial with this case is really the only idea driving this case toward an eventual trial. I should append that with the phrase "assuming they're innocent". Which of course, I don't.

    The intersection of the timing of the election with the timing of this case is what, to my way of thinking, makes this story unsettling. Should the case be settled by jurors or should we just vote on whether this case goes to trial? In the media war, where elections are won and lost, it's patently obvious that the Duke students have about the same advantage that they would have had if this had simply been solved by fistfight at the party. About a twenty to one advantage, I'd say, less perhaps if you take into account that Kim Roberts could take down ten lacrosse players by herself, and SupaMike thrown in if need be. That twenty to one or so media advantage could well lose Nifong his job, which could certainly influence, on purely political grounds, whether this case ever makes it to trial. If that's the meaning of "leftwing" in today's culture, it is no wonder the country buys rightwing in such unhealthy dollops. If social justice isn't at the heart of what it means to be leftwing, you can keep the term. The court doesn't provide a level playing field for disputants, but its closer to level that what goes on here. That's why I keep advertising for it as the appropriate place to resolve this dispute.

    Can you show me where anyone has claimed that more injuries were incurred later. If not, why would you assume that the injuries in the photographs are not the same ones that everyone else is talking about.
    Because they are not photos of her anus or vagina.

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#40)
    by ltgesq on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 07:27:42 AM EST
    Does anyone know what percentage of rapes are committed by two or more people at the same time? My personal experiance is that they are quite rare. The odds that this girl was raped twice in her life by two groups of three men is absolutely off the charts. Most rapes are committed by a sole rapist, in private with no witnesses. In the few gang rapes i have seen, the rapists were juveniles, members of street gangs and the rape was a sort of "bonding" episode to make them each dependant on the other. This case sounds more like the T'wana Brawley case every day. I do think the defense lawyers should stay out of the press, as a tactical issue at least.

    Ltgesq,
    My personal experiance is that [rapes by three men] are quite rare. The odds that this girl was raped twice in her life by two groups of three men is absolutely off the charts.
    Applied probability questions can be tricky, particularly when rare events are involved. If the incidence of women being raped by three men can be said to be rare, the incidence of women falsely claiming to be raped by three men might also be said to be rare. Now which should we claim to be the rarer of the two? And how shall we quantize our results in such a way as to make them significant to the parties in this dispute? Please let me know how you resolve this one, because I know a statistics journal where your results can get published.

    Cymro
    I quoted the description of the accuser's injuries in the photos provided by the Durham TV station. As far as I know, that is an unbiased description by an independent third party. My opinion is not based on any of the other things you mention, so your references to those is irrelevant to my argument.
    So, do you actually have any reason to question either the eyesight or the independence of the Durham ABC-TV reporter?
    In the world of unbiased descriptions" by "independent third parties" What THEY see is what you get: From the Abrams report:
    ABRAMS: But that picture you're seeing there, 12:30:47, you know, look, we disguised her face there, but I can tell you there is a--she is distinctly smiling. I would describe it as a demure smile...
    From the WRAL article decribing the same photo:
    Another photo does show the accuser about 10 minutes before she left on the stairwell with her mouth open and teeth showing. Defense attorneys say she is smiling, but she's not posing and it is difficult to determine whether she is actually smiling.
    Cymro posted:
    Or is your response just an attempt to avoid addressing their conclusion that that the accuser was already injured when she arrived at the party?
    About the injuries in the photos you are talking about - assuming the decriptions are accurate they seem to be confined to her legs - her knees an thighs. They are not taken before she arrives at the party, but if bruising is present I would think the injury that caused the bruising occurred before the party. I don't know if the leg injuries are what led the SANE nurse to conclude she had injuries consistent with rape or led others reading the hospital report to conclude her injuries were consistent with her description of the attack. Other injuries have been reported in the media, though no photographic proof, if it does exist, has been leaked by the prosecution or defense. Photographing injuries is part of the SANE exam protocol, so I would guess there are photos included in that report. For what they are worth - here are some reports of her injuries:
    "I knew somebody had beat her because you could look at her face and tell that her face was swollen," the alleged victim's father told The Herald-Sun newspaper. "It was all around her eyes and her jaw was swollen. She tried to get out of the car, but she couldn't walk. Her leg still hurts."
    The police report also included the accuser's account of being hit, kicked, and strangled. A nurse's report based on an examination of the alleged victim on the night of the party reportedly found signs of trauma on her body. She claims to have had bruises on her neck and shoulders.
    It wasn't until, after being driven to a Kroger Supermarket at 1:22 a.m., the alleged victim was taken to a psychiatric unit by Durham police, and then to Duke Medical Center after bruises to her neck, arms and body caused alarm, did what officers first thought was a case of drunkenness, immediately become reclassified as sexual assault.
    ESPN reported that the source said the accuser walked into the hospital under her own power but did have bruises on her face, neck and arms as well as injuries to her pelvic area.
    From the search warrant:
    Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience.
    It's good that there are party photos of the accuser's face, neck, shoulders and arms. If there are photos that were taken at the hospital, they can be used for comparison. If the comparison shows injuries not in the party photos, the defense will then try to show they could have happened before the party, but swelling and bruising was delayed, or they occurred when she fell at the party, or the injuries were sustained while she was with Kim or in police custody. Maybe Freda Black will win the election and try this case herself. Then we can be treated to a redux of my favorite line of hers in the documentary, The Staircase: "Who's going to believe that?"

    Lora and Teresa, I'll save you some time. The rape examination hasn't been released. Any photos taken at the hospital have not been released. Not even to the New Black Panthers. I haven't even heard more than speculation that blood and urine tests were taken. I assume there were photos, a urine test and a blood test. But since the results haven't been released, presuming that the tests absolutely prove a rape occurred is a little premature. That's all. I guess you can presume all you want, but if others think you're presuming what we don't know, they're right. +++ Teresa, I know that women who go into the sex trade often have histories of sexual abuse. This woman is actually claiming a history of sexual abuse. Which goes to her state of mind on a night when she was extremely intoxicated and apparently was blacked out during parts of it. The woman also has a history of acting bizarrely when she is intoxicated. Despite chew2's explanation, most people don't steal cars and drive off away from where they live when they just want to go home. So her stripping is a poor career choice: "I have been gangraped as a teenager. I have been attracted to much older men who have failed me. I have been in the military and I got pregnant from another man while I was married. I was arrested for being drunk and stealing a taxicab when I went to an audition to be a stripper. Last year I was hospitalized for a psychiatric problem. I have a 3.0 average in college. I have two children. I get support from the father and from the state. And so I choose as a career... stripping." If you accept that her consideration for a career of stripping/escort services is based on some mental pathology due to past sexual abuse, and you admit that she has a history of acting criminally when intoxicated, and if the past rape accusation ever comes into court, you have a witness that will carry a whole lot of baggage to the witness stand. That doesn't mean that she wasn't raped. It means that you better have something more substantial than her word against someone who has a solid alibi. If you are rooting for the alleged victim now isn't the time to presume. It's time to hope.

    I don't have any bias in this case from a female point of view. I side with the defense in many cases (my brother was a public defender) and normally consider myself a defense lawyer's dream juror. Based on what I have seen so far I would vote not guilty easily. There's just a part of me that thinks this DA can't be that crazy without something more that we don't know. If not, I agree he is deserving of all the criticism he is receiving.
    Well I am not talking about you at all, I am talking about others who seem to have their own bias to this case based on reasons of race,gender, and even simple things like always siding with the prosecutions side. We will never know the truth of this case. Rape Shield Laws make it so that the only way to get to the truth of whether a complainaint is lying or not, is if th complainant themsleves comes out and says they are lying. This AV can go to her grave with these lies about rape, and is now working on destroying the reputations of some 6 men now. That to me tells me that she can get away with this. Fact is this case is likely to be dropped, and there will be no repurcussions for her actions. And the people who think that she was raped will still believe she was raped. We all say to ourselves that we will sit back and wait for the facts to come out, well we are likely to know most of the facts now, and this accuser will not come forward and people will use this case to point out things like racism, sexism, etc. I think that something has to be done, at the least there should be a combination of prosecution, as well as getting this woman some help. Her father seems to know she is lying, and he is saying it. Meanwhile these boys will have to go around with people thinking that they are rapists. I think the media is fair to go after the accusers in these cases. I also dont think all people here want to get to the truth. I think people want to make a rape to have happen, so they can further exploit this case for other reasons. But they know that losing this case, they have to deal with a real issue of false rape allegations, which directly deals with these unconstitutional Rape Shield laws.

    At first I believed a rape happened also because of the trauma on her body. Then, I was convinced that since the rape kit can't determine the time the trauma incurred, plus the fact that the woman was 30 minutes late to the party, and also many people said that her agency seems to provide service more than exotic dancing, so in spite the fact that a woman's damaged body is a hard evidence, I just feel that there could be other reasons to explain her injuries. I don't believe that the Black Panther has insider's information. The woman's family declined to their offer of help. Also, according to Duke president's message, the New Black Panther demonstration will be on a city property close to Duke, but not on Duke campus at all. Duke already contacted the New Black Panther to make sure that (1) the demonstration will not be on Duke's private property and (2) there will not be firearm involved. So I don't think there's any double standards. Now I just can't wait for the DA election to be over. I think what may likely to happen is that after the election, the case will soon be dropped, probably at the time when the second DNA result is made public. The woman could not identify the 3rd suspect with 100% certainty, according to what I've read, is over a mustach issue. She said that the player she intended to identify looks like her 3rd assailant without the mustach. And it seems that Nifong could not charge the 3rd person because this time Nifong did make some investigation previous to the indictment that the 3rd player the woman identified did not have a mustach on the night of the party. So, who is this 3rd assailant with a mustach, according to this woman's memory of the image of her assailant?

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    It means that you better have something more substantial than her word against someone who has a solid alibi.
    Bob, I don't disagree with your post at all. You are very likely to be correct in your assumptions. I hope the DA has more evidence than this or he is fighting a losing cause but I do want to see that evidence (if any) before they drop this case. I agree she is most likely mentally ill but I still don't know for sure that she wasn't raped. The circumstances of that night just don't ring true to me from either side. When the DA was approached by some defense lawyers just before the indictments he sent word that "I know more about this case than you will ever know". I want to know what he thinks he knows. Maybe he has pictures from the cameras taken on March 16. Kim said in her interview that she was angry when she found out they took pictures and "maybe even video" of the strippers. How can we be sure what the DA has? Does anyone know if this case is dropped if we will ever know what evidence the DA really has?

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#47)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    (2) there will not be firearm involved.
    When asked about firearms last night on Fox he said something like "we'll see". He didn't commit to it and that scares me.
    So, who is this 3rd assailant with a mustach, according to this woman's memory of the image of her assailant?
    Maybe one of the 3 to 5 non-players there? I don't understand why they told their attorneys and Tucker Carlson this but not the DA.

    mmyy posted:
    Now I just can't wait for the DA election to be over. I think what may likely to happen is that after the election, the case will soon be dropped, probably at the time when the second DNA result is made public.
    Duke Lacrosse Case Highlights D.A. Primary
    If no candidate wins at least 40 percent of the vote, the top two will advance to a May 30 runoff.
    With three candidates running 40 percent may be tough to get.

    Teresa posted.
    I don't understand why they told their attorneys and Tucker Carlson this but not the DA.
    Ask Cymro. One news report stated the captains told police two fraternity guys came to the party with a lacrosse player, but the search warrant states otherwise.

    PB wrote:
    Applied probability questions can be tricky, particularly when rare events are involved. If the incidence of women being raped by three men can be said to be rare, the incidence of women falsely claiming to be raped by three men might also be said to be rare. Now which should we claim to be the rarer of the two? And how shall we quantize our results in such a way as to make them significant to the parties in this dispute? Please let me know how you resolve this one, because I know a statistics journal where your results can get published.
    There are "lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

    The rape shield statute, codified in Rule 412 of our Rules of Evidence, is only concerned with the sexual activity of the complainant. State v. Guthrie, 110 N.C. App. 91, 93, 428 S.E.2d 853, 854 (1993). Accordingly, the rule only excludes evidence of the actual sexual history of the complainant; it does not apply to false accusations.
    State v. Thompson, 139 N.C. App. 299, 309 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000) Also:
    In other words, where the probative value of the proffered evidence in challenging the witness' credibility is high, and the degree of prejudice present by virtue of reference to previous sexual activity is low, the proffered evidence is relevant and therefore defendant has a right to use the evidence for at least impeachment purposes. Younger, 306 N.C. at 697-99, 295 S.E.2d at 456-58.
    State v. Bass, 121 N.C. App. 306, 310 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996)

    I think what Nifong said that he knows so much more than the defense attorney will ever know, is mere gesture. All he wants to do is to let this case put him under spotlight until the election date. It does not seem to me that both the DA or the police are very enthusiastic about investigating this case in action at all. Perhaps they themselves all know that this is just a performance, and everything will soon be dropped after May 2. By the way, according to the N&O article below, it took the accuser 31 hours to complete her statement. The police did not interview the neighbor, until he told many media what he saw and then gave the police a call. It does not look like the police proactively interviewed anyone at all beside the 3 captains volunteered to give statement without the presence of their attorney when the case first broke out. http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/434410.html

    Another question that I have is why the dance stopped after 4 minutes of performance. The accuser and Kim Roberts said that it's because the men got overexcited and there was the talk about the broom. The players said that it was because the accuser could not perform and keep falling. I tend to believe the accuser and Kim on this part, but I wonder why would they not leave the house right at this moment, but both of them delayed to leave, if they already deemed that the situation is dangerous?

    Talk Left posted:
    Should the men she named in the police report be credible in their denials of the 1993 rape, her reporting of the incident most likely would come into evidence -
    What is the threshold for the prior police report to be deemed a false report? Would the prior allegation have to be shown to be a false allegation before it's probative value could be evaluated? I would think you'd need more than the accused's credible denials to declare there was a false allegation of rape. It's not like they are going to admit it, they can still be prosecuted. The named men may have their own credibility problems, according the standard some people have used to trash the accuser's credibility: Jury may never hear about '96 accusation
    In the 1996 case, the alleged Duke lacrosse victim told Creedmoor police that three years earlier, when she was 14, she had been raped and beaten by three men "for a continual time" at an unspecified location in the city. She named the three men and provided addresses for two of them, but authorities in Creedmoor, in Granville County, never brought criminal charges against any of them. Court records confirm that two of the men she named lived at the address she provided and have extensive criminal records.


    Interesting article, we haven't heard much about the 47th team member, Devon Sherwood.

    Sheerwood's father is actually the first parent that came out to express his support for the players' innocence. I remember seeing his TV interviews the day before the DNA result was announced.

    He is the first parent I've heard that even mentions the possibility that the players could be lying.
    "This has upset a lot of people's lives, and it will continue to do so," said Chuck Sherwood, father of freshman goalie Devon Sherwood, the only member of the squad not under suspicion. "This is a bad thing, one way or another, whether the players are telling a lie or the accuser is telling a lie. This has turned everything upside down."


    IMHO, considering that the alleged victim reported the rape three years after the fact, she had damned little evidence to prove a rape occurred. Imagine how hard to prove, another ten years on, that a rape DIDN't occur. In other words, depending on the standard the court demands, this may very well not show up in court. But expect any more information to show up in the news. But could this scenario show up? If the DA claims that the prior rape accusation should be excluded, could the defense ask for the DA to prove that it happened in order for it to be excluded? I mean, if a rape didn't happen, it's not a part of her sexual history, just her imagined sexual history. Just a thought that came to me. I'm still working on my first cup of coffee, so feel free to correct any obvious flaws. Whether the 1993 rape did or didn't occur it may still weaken the AV's credibility either way. If it was a false accusation, that makes her a perjurer. If it did happen, I can imagine the defense attorneys saying that she wanted to get back at men, or she was high and had a flashback or any number of things to further weaken her testimony. In short, the existence of a prior rape claim is not good for the prosecution. Speaking of the accused men's (from the 1993 rape charge) criminal records, Roberts has a criminal record and is getting help from the court for her apparent cooperation with the DA. The AV has a criminal record tangential to her career in the sex industry. Finnerty has charges against him for assault and a number of the attendees at the party at least have been charged with watering lawns without garden hoses. There will be an extensive vetting process at the Pearly Gates when this group arrives.

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#59)
    by chew2 on Mon May 01, 2006 at 11:18:03 AM EST
    Re: The prior rape allegation. Under the NC Rape Shield law (Ev.Code Sec. 412) and Ev. Code 608, the prior rape allegation by the AV can not be used to attempt to prove that the AV's current rape allegation is false. There's a possibility that it can be asked about on cross examination under Ev.Code 609 as a way to impeach her truthfulness when she testifies. TL quotes language from two NC cases, State v. Thompson and State v. Bass, for the proposition that prior false allegations may be admissible to impeach on cross. What she left out was that in both those cases the Court found that the defendant failed to make a sufficient showing that the prior allegation was false (or that the prior allegations were sufficiently relevant). State v Bass
    Here, the proffered evidence fails this balancing test. Defendant here introduced no evidence that the victim's prior accusations were false. Defendant alleges no prior inconsistent statements.
    State v Thompson
    No evidence at trial was introduced to suggest that N had ever made any false accusations, and defendant's proffer of evidence here made no such showing either. Essentially, defendant was on a fishing expedition. Absent some definitive evidence that N had previously made false accusations, we cannot say the trial court committed prejudicial error by preventing this line of questioning.
    Defendants clearly have the burden to show the prior rape allegation is false, (as well as relevant, and not outweighed by it's prejudicial effect). How strong a burden is unclear. The Thompson case speaks of "definitive evidence". Some Courts from other states have spoken of "demonstrably false", or proof of falsity by a "preponderance of evidence". However, something more than just the word of those named in the prior rape allegation would seem to be needed to make a sufficient showing of falsity. In Indiana v. Walton the Court found that he said she said type conflicting testimony wasn't enough to show that the prior claim of rape was "demonstrably false".

    Though none in North Carolina, in the cases I read of prior false allegations being excluded/admitted, if the woman did not admit the prior allegations were false and a trial had not already proven them false, the burden was on the defense attorney trying the current rape case to prove the prior allegations were demonstrably false. From what we know about that incident, I think that would be difficult. They are going to need a lot more than the unsurprising denials of the accused. I realize applying logic when trying to understand laws doesn't always work out, but here I go anyway: In this case, I would think if the defense hasn't shown the accuser's prior rape accusation was false, wouldn't they be asking to the court to evaluate the probative value of the proffered evidence [proffered evidence being: we think she may have made a false allegation ten years ago]? Bob In Pacifica posted:
    Whether the 1993 rape did or didn't occur it may still weaken the AV's credibility either way. If it was a false accusation, that makes her a perjurer. If it did happen, I can imagine the defense attorneys saying that she wanted to get back at men, or she was high and had a flashback or any number of things to further weaken her testimony. In short, the existence of a prior rape claim is not good for the prosecution.
    and
    I'm still working on my first cup of coffee, so feel free to correct any obvious flaws.
    Bob, try a double cappuccino ;) if the rape did occur, under the rape shield law, it would not be admissible. I only brought up the accused men's "extensive criminal records" because TalkLeft stated should they be "credible in their denials of the 1993 rape, her reporting of the incident most likely would come into evidence." Others here have used the accuser's criminal record to attack her credibility.

    Nice post, chew2. I wish I'd read it before posting mine.

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#62)
    by Lora on Mon May 01, 2006 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    mmyy, at least one defense attorney stated early on that the dance was halted due to "offensive remarks." The AV in her reporting of the crime stated that the two women were scared and left the house right away, but were then coaxed back inside. (Still working on links and ref's for the descriptions of the dancer's injuries - time issues and dial-up frustrations. I still need to find Nifong's early remarks about her injuries and a ref for the "severe vaginal trauma" observation.)

    The motion of Seligmann's defense attorney is now available. I'd be curious to see TL's position on it--but these assertions go well beyond defense "leaks" and don't suggest a very well run investigation.

    Thanks khartoum, that's a good read. Here's Nifongs reaction:
    "They don't want to go up against me," Nifong said when asked outside court Monday about the defense request for his removal. He has denied any political motivation behind his aggressive investigation.
    ...
    "Their way of trying a case in the media is not to call press conferences, but to simply file motions and court papers that contain outrageous or false statements and assume that people will report them as if they were facts," Nifong said.


    A SurveyUSA poll has Nifong and Freda Black "neck and neck" in tomorrow's election.
    Former prosecutor Freda Black got 39 percent support in the poll. Current District Attorney Mike Nifong had support from 38 percent of respondents. Durham attorney Keith Bishop trailed with 11 percent.
    Twelve percent of those polled are undecided, making it likely that one of the candidates will win at least 40 percent of the vote and avoid a runoff.


    Dad: Broomstick used on dancer
    The father said he learned about the broom from others, "and then she told me afterwards because she didn't want me to know that part," he said.
    Durham civil rights activist Victoria Peterson told the Observer on Wednesday that an investigator in the case told her the woman had been sodomized "with an object."
    "He did not say a broom, just an object," said Peterson, who has become a friend and adviser to the woman's family since the party. "He told me she wasn't just raped, she was terribly sodomized."


    PLAY BALL! (next year) Duke LAX back in '07 President Richard H. Brodhead Statement on Committee Reports

    Lora, You wrote:
    The AV in her reporting of the crime stated that the two women were scared and left the house right away, but were then coaxed back inside.
    Not to quibble, but I see nothing in the two search warrants about the two women leaving the house "right away." I view the search warrant as compatible with a story that has the women retreat to the bathroom for a time before exiting the house. The search warrant is a summary, not a detailed account, and presumably excludes many irrelevant details.

    Re: Duke LaCrosse DA and Accuser's Prior Gang Rape (none / 0) (#69)
    by Teresa on Mon May 01, 2006 at 06:26:20 PM EST
    Durham civil rights activist Victoria Peterson told the Observer on Wednesday that an investigator in the case told her the woman had been sodomized "with an object."
    From imho's link. Wonder who that lady is and how reliable she is? That's the first info I've read supposedly from an investigator. IF that is true it makes me doubt that those injuries happened before the party. Legal question for anybody. If this case is still active on May 15, does the DA have to turn over ALL evidence? I saw the pictures of Reade S. at the ATM on Abrams and cnn.com. I really think they got the wrong guy if anything did happen.

    From the Motion For Recusal Of District Attorney
    On March 16, 2006, several of the residents of 610 N. Buchanan and party attendees voluntarily went to the Durham Police Department and fully cooperated. They provided their DNA and hair samples. In addition, they also gave written and oral statements to the police at this time. They even agreed to be polygraphed, but interviewing officers persuaded them not to because analysis of their DNA samples would yield conclusive results as to their guilt or innocence.
    Well, come on down, fellas! I'm sure they'll oblige you. several of the residents of 610 N. Buchanan? Three people reside there, three people came to the police station to be interviewed, why not just write, "the three residents of 610 N. Buchanan ...?"

    Victoria Peterson, a local community activist, said she spoke last week with the accuser. Peterson said she has identified her attackers.
    On April 12th:
    Some people also went head-to-head with Nifong, who has come under fire for his seemingly slow response to the allegations.
    "This young lady has identified the three men who have raped her," said one woman, Victoria Peterson.
    "I will tell you, right now, that your information is incorrect," Nifong fired back. "And I will also tell you that your comments in this case are exactly what this case does not need right now."
    Victoria Peterson, a local activist, asked why the alleged victim had been taken to Duke University's medical center for examination.
    "Are you suggesting that someone tampered with the evidence?" Nifong asked.
    Some in the audience shouted, "Yes."


    Thanks to all of you commenters for keeping up on today's case news. Comments here are closing, but you can continue at the new thread here where I discuss the defense motion filed today.