home

Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:43:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The defense lawyers wouldn't say it, but ABC News has no such reservation: The DNA found on the vaginal swab of the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case belongs to her boyfriend.

I've been told (and this may be common knowledge, I have no idea) that the boyfriend drove her to the party and went to see her in the hospital the next day. What wasn't known when I got the information was whether the boyfriend went back to pick her up that night and whether he saw anything at the house.

So....score another point for the defense. Nonetheless, DA Nifong is expected to indict a third player Monday.

< Breaking Report: Karl Rove Indicted | My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend | 219 comments (219 topical)
    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:58:35 PM EST
    IMHO: Where to begin? 1. She was on the back porch, and the only neighbor who seemed to have the angle, or to be paying attention (Lord love his nosy little self) is one of the best witnesses the defense has. 2. True. But I think that one complaint and then nothing because she did not follow through is more prejudicial than probative. Add another one, another accusation of physical intimidation, restraint, injury, and if I were a betting woman I would say the judge lets it in, with limits. Still, it will get to the jury in some fashion, I think. 3. "Forthright young men"? Love it when you wax poetic, IMHO. Okay, yes, just as pi**ing in the bushes is against the law, so is selling meal books. Call the NCAA, the FBI, hell, call Jack Bauer and have him remove them. Would you admit we are not talking major, recidivist perp here? 4. "Let he who is amongst you without sin cast the first stone" about the sins you hate, and the sinners you love, at Duke, IMHO. You never did any of the things these guys are charged with? Not all of them, certainly not suggesting that. But some of them? I sure as hell did, but have remarkably become a reasonably productive member of my comunity, despite my criminal but uncharged past.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:59:59 PM EST
    To Sharon and 7Duke4: Good job, I am enjoying reading your posts. To PB: Your feelings about Duke are quite obvious. I would suggest that you close that subject all together and not get back to it. That would be the most advantages thing to do. At least, both Sharon and 7Duke4 made their biases known when they started to post here. I wish you had done the same thing? What is it in your past (what is buried within you) that makes you feel this way about Duke? I know a lot of people with those same feelings, and it is not very comfortable. I have a theory about it, but I will not expand on it. The topic here is this case, not our deeply rooted likes and dislikes. I look forward to reading more from Sharon, 7Duke4, and PB. Good night.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#3)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:00:34 PM EST
    Cymro, Ah, but should we consider your posts, posts of someone who clearly has questionable integrity? Your insistence upon relying on shifting interpretation of semantics is a boor. Have you provided any real evidence of Nifong's questionable integrity? Ig we've learned from your directions, then we'll ask YOU to please cite specific examples. To regurgitate generalizations made by bloggers is unproductive.
    After all, he is the DA and his public statements are supposed to be truthful, are they not? Having unstated political motives calls those statements into question.
    Oh yea, that's your argument. Alas, Nifong did state his political motives back in February when he registered as a candidate for the election. Do you imply that there is a universal taint on all actions all elected officials? Of all those who make themselves candidates?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#4)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    I understand, even though I have not been involved in the criminal defense world in a loooong time, that DA's will "play" with defense attorneys, delaying discovery for no good reason, delaying the disclosure for as long as they can, all if it part of the "game."
    Discovery is due Monday. Nifong does not have a record of sandbagging defense attorneys. Duke Student's Lawyers Want D.A. off Case
    Over the years, Nifong earned a reputation among many Durham criminal attorneys as a tough prosecutor, but also a fair one: Aus said Nifong often gave the defense access to files beyond those he was required to turn over under North Carolina discovery laws.
    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:05:16 PM EST
    Alan, thanks for posting that link (in the previous thread). I like the commission's conclusions, including:
    ... at the very least, ... retention (of the sub judice rule) is justified to keep alleged confessions, prior convictions and photographs of the accused from jurors and witnesses. Awareness of the first two of these is difficult to put out of mind, in spite of judicial instructions and warnings, and (is) seriously prejudicial.
    ... For a number of reasons, retention of the sub judice rule is compatible with the public interests in freedom of discussion and open justice. First, restrictions on publicity are for a limited time only, that is, the time during which proceedings are current or pending.
    For others here, it's too bad that this comes from New South Wales, Australia.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#6)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:23:57 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    1. She was on the back porch, and the only neighbor who seemed to have the angle, or to be paying attention (Lord love his nosy little self) is one of the best witnesses the defense has.
    If the police didn't notice her when they walked into the backyard and looked in the windows she may have still been there the next morning. Were they going to throw her over the back fence? Do you think the players wanted her traipsing down their driveway in one high heel wearing her unmentionables - in broad daylight? The cover of darkness is much better suited for stripper disposal. I love Jason for calling the police and telling them what he knew. There is a neighbor lady that talked to the accuser's father: 'Rita Cosby Live & Direct' for April 3
    She said she heard screaming, heard somebody crying in the house. And she heard a lot of noise, like something was breaking or somebody was falling over. And I asked her if she talked to anybody, and she said no.She said she didn't want to get involved in it, said she didn't want to go to court, she didn't want to be on TV or nothing (INAUDIBLE) She said she didn't want to have anything to do with it. And I asked her, I said, What if it had been your daughter? And she turned and walked off.


    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#7)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:25:39 PM EST
    Sharon and 7duke4, Thank you for your posts and moveover thank you for sharing your background. My experience has been that doing so helps everyone garner a better understanding. I've shared too much of my background in the past, but to summarize: Basketball fan, lives in AZ, went to a UC school, thinks highly of Duke bball players, not necessarily the coach, likes Jay Bilas. I do think that Duke is getting more hateful energy sent it's way than it would under different circumstances. The problem is, we live in a world today when the average amercian family is dealing with a lot of turmoil and pain. Despite the official 'economic indicators', the job market has hit it's Darwinian peak of violence to employees in the struggle for corporations to survive. We struggle with this, as well as the incredible debt and personal burden brought about by a war of choice. We all remember the leaked video from Bush's fundraiser when he said: "You're my base" while champagne was poured down a chandalier of glasses. We also remember how he is a legacy Yale student who was a member of an elite fraternity. We are also facing an adminstration which is hiding behing their own "wall of silence". We know very well how you can paint yourself in a corner by refusing to question those who we are told to believe are good and have good intentions. And now, the case of the Duke lacrosse team getting caught having a party and whooping it up with the result being a traumatized woman left in the hospital who has lost her ability to be coherent because of something that was done to her. I'm not saying that I assume that the players raped her. I do assume that they did something wrong. The assumption comes from their wall of silence. Somewhere within the circle of the team, there is a "Decider". Don't blame those who question and lament in the lack of answers. Blame the "Decider".

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:27:06 PM EST
    Hello everyone. I am one of probably thousands who are reading this site religiously and devouring all the news available on this case. I encourage those who have been on the sidelines like me to at least make one post, offer a different perspective, etc. Case in point: No offense to frequent posters Bob, PBA, IMHO, et.al., but Sharon, and other new posters are a great addition to this site. Opinions (and I have one) which are different from mine, keep this site from being boring. Awesome job, TL. My sons grew up on Long Island where kids get their first sticks while in diapers. I coached youth lacrosse, and started a high school program when we moved to the South several years ago. So I am in the good company of the millions of other volunteers who make sacrifices for the benefit of all the children who are involved in lacrosse, choir, boy scouts, soccer, etc. So my "different perspective" post is slightly off the very legitimate discussion of the evidence. That the lacrosse players are somehow more capable of a despicable crime because they are white, male, privileged, elitist, entitled, etc., is a bunch of crap. By NCAA rules, lacrosse is allotted a maximum of 12 scholarships across the entire 46+ roster, and no one makes a living playing pro lacrosse. I believe over 95% of the PUBLIC schools on Long Island have varsity lacrosse. You don't have to be over 6' 6", or bench press 300 pounds to be successful. And I am sure our youth program in the South is reflective of the majority - we ACTIVELY recruit in low income areas and provide for free the approximately $200 worth of equipment where there is need. Sons of millionaires, privileged prep school kids, also play baseball, football, and basketball. The people who post here are well informed, regardless of their position. But most people get their information from media sound bites. The result of my anecdotal conversations - these kids playing a rich white sport are guilty. Hollywood loves sequels, and nothing sells papers better than a run on shark attacks. Let's see if the media can find any other scandals out there with collegiate fencing, crew, skiing.... If they are guilty there should be universal acceptance of long prison terms. If this is bogus, then don't hold your breath for a months-long-media-hype-mea culpa for the players, Duke, and the sport of lacrosse.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:28:42 PM EST
    azballfan:
    Have you provided any real evidence of Nifong's questionable integrity?
    I do not need to do that, because the statement I was disputing was that "no one has ever accused him of a lack of integrity". My position all along has been that this statement is not accurate, because in fact he has been so accused. By many people. If you want proof, just read these threads and you will find plenty of instances of people questioning Nifong's integrity, and suggesting that maybe his real motivation for publicizing this case had more to do with getting himself re-elected than seeing justice done. If you have not already read posts claiming this, where have you been? And if you still can't find them, then all I can say is this: There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#10)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    Cymro writes,
    For others here, it's too bad that this comes from New South Wales, Australia.
    Are we to believe a post written by someone with questionable integrity?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#11)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:34:59 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    2. True. But I think that one complaint and then nothing because she did not follow through is more prejudicial than probative. Add another one, another accusation of physical intimidation, restraint, injury, and if I were a betting woman I would say the judge lets it in, with limits. Still, it will get to the jury in some fashion, I think.
    There you go again.... Your logic is the reported rape is not a false accusation but they could bundle it with this other accusation .... I think they best prove the first one FALSE before they start bundling. I think Abbott listing it incorrectly as a false accusation was "more prejudicial than probative." And she claims to be a lawyer, you'd think she'd know better..oh..yeah... SharonInJax posted:
    Still, it will get to the jury in some fashion, I think.
    Uh, I'd guess it already has.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:44:28 PM EST
    Abbott wrote:
    Much applause should go to the President of NC Central who has remained concerned, vigilent and dignified throughout all of this.
    Agreed. I have major problems with Broadhead's performance. Unfortunately, a realistic, common-sense approach to the case is not possible for many because they have an unrelated agenda to pursue at the expense of justice. Welcome. I look forward to your future posts. SharonInJax: CF's attorney did not receive all the discovery from the DA office yet, so he requested the continuence. This another weasel tactic by Nifong to try and prevent timely coordination between the defense teams. Litigation (criminal and civil) is full of crap like this. I have been dealing with these juvenile games for years, it accomplishes nothing other than disrupting my life, not the clients. It shows a complete lack of courtesy, is unnecessary and absolutely unprofessional. I checked my email this morning to find that I received several briefs at 11:50pm on Friday via electronic filing (in some courts it is no longer close of business but the end of the day that controls deadlines), needless to say my weekend was ruined. 7Duke4: Welcome as well. It is great to hear another voice from the Duke lacrosse community. I have had contact with several Duke players from the '90s and '80s as well as a couple recent graduates that are on my former club team, all find it fantastical and ludicrous that people think 43 players (age 18-22) would exercise somekind of vow of silent to cover up a rape as well as keep it from their parents and friends. It honestly goes beyond all levels of common sense. Great post by all three of you...please stay for the long run. IMHO wrote:
    Nifong does not have a record of sandbagging defense attorneys.
    No, he has a record of sand-bagging directly or indirectly anyone related to the Duke case that helps the defense attorneys...the taxi drive (who by the way lost 7 hours of work time), Kim (though she got a reprive with the reduction in bond costs)hen she cooperated) and even the player who already performed his community service and paid his initial fine. I will thank you for some humorous comments today....the mother using her fingers as quotes was a really good chuckle.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:50:20 PM EST
    azballfan:
    Are we to believe a post written by someone with questionable integrity?
    Hey, suit yourself. Don't take my word for it, just follow the link that Alan posted. Or go there and check for yourself -- a vacation might be good for you. (Couldn't hurt, might help reduce the tension a bit ;-)

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#14)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:53:06 PM EST
    Cymro,
    I do not need to do that, because the statement I was disputing was that "no one has ever accused him of a lack of integrity".
    I'm sorry, but again, clearly there have been many posts which point to Nifong's integrity. Those can be found here In addition, by your own logic how can anyone take your statements seriously as people have questioned your authority. Post of this can be found here Again, please stop regurgitating unfounded opinion as fact. They do they do not add value to a blog. If you are going to add value, please provide specific citations which you can quote from. Otherwise, please stop wasting our time.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:56:11 PM EST
    statistics101, you wrote.
    Significant yes, but not necessarily meaningful to prove either side. As I mentioned earlier, she could have scratched more than 1 person, and had a much higher odds in being lucky.
    It would surprise all of us, I would hope, were we to hear from the defense at this juncture an admission that the accuser scratched anybody. They are busily explaining the dna on the fingernail, you will recall, as a consequence of cleaning the bathroom etc. 7Duke wrote:
    Finally, if you want a comment on statistics, here's mine for the time being: there is not a valid sample or premise on which to base a statistical analysis.
    If it is true that 45 of 46 Duke students have been excluded as sources for one of the partial dna samples found on the fingernail, is it not also true that statistical statements of consequence can be made from that information alone without us even needing to count the number of markers used in the sample? Sharon:
    And, believe me, NOBODY can hold a candle to the smugness of an Ivy. Sorry, but come on: you love the Ivy League, you can't imagine one of your guys doing something like this.
    I don't think you've got me pegged yet. I don't have any guys, and don't have a special fondness for the Ivy League as a class of schools. Generally speaking I understand that there are people who do, but I actually feel uncomfortable in the presence of such people. It's pretty much happenstance that I've lived in Ivy League towns most of my life. bkabka,
    To PB: Your feelings about Duke are quite obvious.
    Your comment made me laugh a-loud, bkabka. If you knew me at all you would realize that I don't know close to enough about Duke to have formed even the rudiments of an anti-Duke sentiment. Before this case I didn't really know anything about Duke at all, except that they have a good basketball team. Since then I've learned that they rank highly in academics as well. I know nothing about the campus and nothing about the people who work or study there. Now I can certainly see how you could misinterpret my post to 7Duke, but I assure you that it had as little to do with Duke as it had to do with strippers. As to what it was really about, I'm not at liberty to say.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#16)
    by azbballfan on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:04:16 PM EST
    kalidoggie said:
    Litigation (criminal and civil) is full of crap like this. I have been dealing with these juvenile games for years, it accomplishes nothing other than disrupting my life, not the clients.
    Being someone who has professionally dealt with the legal profession on a daily basis for over fifteen years, I can attest to this 100%. (I'd say 1000%, but those legal semantic hogs would berate me). Expect nothing less than the most excruiciating mind numbing experience when dealing with lawyers who in one instant will claim to be the world's expert then conviently become the dumbest person in the world for not taking action on a clear instruction. No offense to lawyers, I am good friends with enough of you to knwo that's the way the system of checks and balances is built. At least Nifong is taking some effort not to appear to be obnoxious. The 'leak' of DNA evidence came late Wed/ early Thurs and he was convienently 'out of the office' Thursday so the first time he could send the evidence to the defense was Friday. I know many, yes many lawyers who would gleefully rub the noses in their opponents by being in the office Thursday and vocally accuse the defense team of grandstanding.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#17)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:15:35 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Okay, yes, just as pi**ing in the bushes is against the law, so is selling meal books. Call the NCAA, the FBI, hell, call Jack Bauer and have him remove them. Would you admit we are not talking major, recidivist perp here?
    Would you admit you are comparing stealing to peeing, thus minimizing theft? SharonInJax posted:
    You never did any of the things these guys are charged with?
    Those are not the sins to which I am referring. They haven't been charged with the things I'm talking about. Though PB has suggested the proclamation, "Hey b*tch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt," may have been an attempt at reparations, I'm still not convinced. Frightening two women, by offering to shove a broomstick "up their asses" is just wrong, even if they are "just strippers." And of course there is the Blue Wall of silence. You being a lawyer, I don't expect you to see anything wrong with the "guys" not cooperating with the police. In fact, you may even think, like Abbott does, that this show of solidarity proves "nothing happened." You wrote this in an earlier post - SharonInJax posted:
    Maybe that idiot who sent that sick e-mail, and was rightly, and promptly, sent home..
    I think McFadyen got a bum rap. He was sent packing because his email embarrassed the university. I think the players' silence is much more of an embarrassment and most of them got to finish off the semester.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#18)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:24:32 PM EST
    SharonInJax:
    IMHO. You never did any of the things these guys are charged with? Not all of them, certainly not suggesting that. But some of them? I sure as hell did, but have remarkably become a reasonably productive member of my comunity, despite my criminal but uncharged past
    Ah, but the sins of the Mother shall be visited upon... Your daughter is working at a strip club and your son's future appears to be equally grim - off to the Ivy League wearing a helmet and cleats. :)

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:37:26 PM EST
    IMHO: Then why the need to delay? Are you telling me you think that Nifong's fax, after 5 pm on a Friday, was . . . what? just one of those things? "A neighbor lady, who talked to, who told A, who talked to B, who went on Rita's show . . . how many degrees of hearsay are allowed before one wonders what was initially said? The law may be an ass, but at times it is not all that stupid, either. Make a witness come forward, put his or her hand on the Good Book (waiting for the challenge to that part of our jurisprudence), and be examined before judge, jury, accused, and the public. Mostly, though, I am realizing that I cannot, at this time of night, give this forum, this board, the attention it deserves. Be that as it may, let me at least say this before I make myself go to bed: I had never had any connection to this site, to this blog (yes, I did have to ask my daughter what a "blog" was. More Mother's Day joy: seeing that look on your baby's face, all parents have seen it, that "are you stupid or just ignorant" look. So, while this is the first time I have visited this site, I do not think it will be my last. The "Duke Lacrosse _________ (choose your word: scandal, disgrace, lesson, debacle, miasma, or write your own choice in) is certainly not the first, and most assuredly will not be the last, legal or judicial or social issue we as a county will have to wrestle with. Forums like this (never took Latin, public school educated person that I am, should that be some other form of plural?) are the modern day equivalent, in some ways, of what the founding fathers (still think we might be better off, as a whole, if some of those founding mothers had a say) intended. Freedom for all of us to speak our minds. And just think of it: not a one of us is being prosecuted or persecuted for what we have to say. Freedom. What a concept.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:45:43 PM EST
    PB: "Not at liberty to say." It was your post, directed at Duke, but we are supposed to let that pass? It was ugly PB, and how else was someone supposed to take it, other than in the spirit it carried with it?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 12:00:17 AM EST
    Then why the need to delay? Are you telling me you think that Nifong's fax, after 5 pm on a Friday, was . . . what? just one of those things?
    5:00 on a Friday is the best time to release bad news. In Washington it's a tried and true technique. I wonder if that's what he was doing?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 12:00:21 AM EST
    IMHO: Thanks for the concern. THANK GOD neither one ended up at Duke, that unusually depraved den of iniquity (why else would they call themselves "devils"?) Lord knows it something like this could not occur at Columbia or Penn. Maybe Wharton can straighten his misguided a** out. Because we all know what animals white, prep school athletes are. Intelligence be damned, they are all rapists waiting to happen, all these young men. Of course, one-on-one, take the word of an alleged victim, forgive her past but blame them for not having one? Understand, and I will say it again: I have a daughter and a son. (and yes, my son could be raped, but come on: what's more likely, that my 6'2" 250 lb son is assaulted, or my 5'6" 120 lb daughter? That in response to one of the earlier posts.) I could be the mother of a victim of rape, or the mother of someone accused of rape. I can imagine both. Can all of you? If it were your daughter cast in the role of the raped, if it were your son cast in the role of the rapist, either way, would you not want a better job done by the authorities? Wouldn't you want some sort of justice? Wouldn't you simply want to know what happened?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 12:25:18 AM EST
    Sorry, but law school 101 teaches to delay disclosure to the other side as much as possible.
    I must have been absent that day. There's definitely strategy involved in discovery, but being difficult for no reason isn't always the smartest strategy. It just makes opposing counsel start being difficult back. It doesn't change the other side's case at all, it just makes the process more unpleasant.
    remember it was the defense who leaked the information. Unlike other civilized countries, we don't have a code of ethics for defense attorneys.
    You might want to double check that one.
    Setting those aside, it still is a private institution which attempts to claim it provides an education equal to those which are publicly funded. (and subject to the added scrutiny of publicly funded institutions)
    If you can get into Duke, they'll give you the financial aid to go. For some reason, I feel like people don't know about that - they just hear $40k a year and freak out. But if your parents only make 40k a year, that's not what it costs to go to Duke or any other elite private.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#25)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 14, 2006 at 12:40:45 AM EST
    PB, Please forgive my inference, but some commenters are getting needlessly bent out of shape. I doubt you care what they think of you, I know I don't, but I do think they are entitled to a fuller understanding of the discourse that spawned their disgust. A little context for the commenters that are "all twisted" about PB's post to 7duke4: 7duke4 posted:
    This is my school and my sport, and we are being depicted as racist, spoiled, rich, rude, etc, etc. I am having great difficulty with the accuser and have come to believe that Nifong is a buffoon, and is perpetuating these stereotypes. This will take a long time to heal, no matter what happens.
    ~snip~
    BTW, I make a living with statistics and, no offense, I'm not going to comment on previous posts attempting to use statistics.
    PB's reply:
    Why not? Obviously we're struggling with it. If you know something about it, why not contribute?
    If you're just here to stick your nose in the air, hey, go back to the racist, spoiled, rich, rude college from which you came. I'll stay here with the strippers.
    I noticed 7duke4 didn't get all lathered up at his comment. She recognized it, because she wrote it.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 12:48:33 AM EST
    SorrAZBallFan: You wrote, in part: "Sorry, but law school 101 teaches to delay disclosure to the other side as much as possible. "Considering the considerable withholding of testiomony of the attendees of the party, I find the DA's delay to release information to the defense not only to be defensible, but downright required. I will admit, it has been awhile since I was in law school, and I never took a course described as "law school 101." (You want to argue law, and law school with me AZ? Fine, just don't condescend when you have no idea.) But I thought I made it clear, at least I meant to do so. Nifong has no obligation to show his hand now, but he appears to want to take the moral high ground here, and take advantage of the privileges his office affords him. Talk to the media when he wants, take the high ground and be quiet when the sands are sinking underneath him. My point was meant to be that he is playing games. Defense attorneys are not only expected to do that, to work the system to give their clients the best representation possible: they are expected to do so, they MUST do so. The duties and obligations of a prosecutor are far, far different from that. Nifong has a duty not just to the accuser, but to the accused. Mr. Nifong has an abiding duty to the truth. Before an arrest or an indictment, a prosecutor is NOT supposed to be an advocate of anything but the truth. Please, any or all of you who are defending his tactics in prosecuting this case, show me ONE SINGLE TIME when he indicated that he kept an open mind about the FACTS. His first words, all 40 hours worth of his words, presupposed guilt on the part of some illusory Duke lacrosse players. One does not need to be an attorney, does not need to be trained and schooled in the law to understand this simple concept: He has as much of an obligation to the innocent as he does to the guilty. And yet, before he had any idea of WHO was guilty, or who was innocent, Nifong abandoned his obligation to the truth. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Nifong believed his victim was raped, and there was not the slightest hint of political purproses. Then, who did it Mike? Which ones of those Duke boys did the crime? Which ones are you sure are guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt? And what made you decide so quickly? No prosecutor should ever, he or she should never, become involved the way Nifong did, unless and until the police brought him someone to indict, someone the police have convinced him, by all of the evidence, is guilty. Haven't seen anything like that yet. Sorry y'all, for all day: for the length, the verbosity. I have been struggling and agonizing about this case for more than a month now. I want the Duke guys to be exonerated, but I don't want the AV vilified. I look at her life history, and I cannot help feeling for her. But I can feel for the boys too. Happy Mother's Day.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#27)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 14, 2006 at 01:20:32 AM EST
    SharonInJax:
    Then why the need to delay? Are you telling me you think that Nifong's fax, after 5 pm on a Friday, was . . . what? just one of those things?
    When I say Nifong doesn't have a record of sandbagging or unethical behavior I am talking about BEFORE this case. He is clearly treating the defense attorneys in this case differently than what we've heard from all of the attorneys in the papers and on TV. These guys got him mad and that is not good. SharonInJax:
    "A neighbor lady, who talked to, who told A, who talked to B, who went on Rita's show . . . how many degrees of hearsay are allowed before one wonders what was initially said?
    The accuser's father spoke directly to the neighbor lady. Most of the player's statements that "nothing happened" are coming through other people, do I hear anyone saying "how many degrees of hearsay are allowed before one wonders what was initially said?" Nope. SharonInJax:
    The law may be an ass, but at times it is not all that stupid, either. Make a witness come forward, put his or her hand on the Good Book (waiting for the challenge to that part of our jurisprudence), and be examined before judge, jury, accused, and the public.
    How about we start with baby steps - 40+ witnesses come forward - no swearin' on Bibles necessary, no judge, no jury, no accused - just come forward and tell what happened that night.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 01:38:08 AM EST
    azballfann:
    Have you provided any real evidence of Nifong's questionable integrity?
    cymro:
    I do not need to do that, because the statement I was disputing was that "no one has ever accused him of a lack of integrity".
    azballfan:
    I'm sorry, but again, clearly there have been many posts which point to Nifong's integrity. Those can be found here
    az, I don't doubt it, but you need to brush up on logic. You can produce a million character witnesses for Nifong, but that will still not make the slightest dent in my argument. As long as the count of those who have questioned his integrity is greater than "no one," then the statement I am disputing is false, and I am right. So unless you can prove to me that the entire world is singing Nifong's praises, and no one disagrees, all your character witnesses are completely irrelevant. They do nothing to disprove my point.
    In addition, by your own logic how can anyone take your statements seriously ...
    Coming from someone whose grasp of logic is questionable, this is ironic.
    please stop regurgitating unfounded opinion as fact.
    This entire discussion has been about people's opinions of Nifong, so what's your problem? Once again, it appears that you are not following the logic of the discussion. I am not stating that the opinions I am pointing to are proven facts. I am simply saying that some people have expressed opinions of Nifong that question his integrity. That they have done so is the only fact at issue here. And I know they have, because I have been reading them since the beginning of this affair. And if you care to read through the threads here, you will find plenty of them yourself. Alternatively, see Did Justice or Politics Drive Arrests in Duke Lacrosse Case? or Nifong Wins. Will Justice Win, Too? which includes this:
    After thoroughly reviewing the case in his column on Monday, esteemed legal analyst Stuart Taylor, Jr. concluded that "accumulating evidence strongly suggests that the charge may well be a lie." He also put Nifong among a group of people - including Duke's professors and administrators - who should be "ashamed of themselves" for the way the case has been handled. Last night in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Nifong tried to portray the primary vote as a referendum on his integrity. Hardly. His behavior in this case has been truly disturbing.
    Is that enough evidence to prove that some people have questioned his integrity??

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#29)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 14, 2006 at 02:14:12 AM EST
    Nifong could seek third indictment
    Attorneys declined to name the man who apparently had sex with the woman or to release the full DNA report.
    Meanwhile, several defense lawyers had a telephone conference Saturday to further discuss the new DNA results.
    Afterward, attorney Bill Thomas of Durham -- who represents an un-indicted lacrosse player -- said semen found in the dancer's body was "of recent origin" and had been deposited there "immediately prior to her being examined" in connection with the alleged rape.
    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:00:10 AM EST
    I am a new poster although I have been reading the comments for a week or so because of my interest in the Duke lacrosse case. I would like to respond to the repeated references to the "blue code of silence", the alleged failure of Duke players to speak to the police. I think this is very unfair. The day after the allegations were made, the police asked the three captains, residents of the house on Buchanan, to come be interviewed. They all went, no lawyers or parents, and were each interviewed for about 8 hours. They then voluntarily went to Duke Hospital for a rape suspect exam. All three asked to take lie detector tests but the police refused. (This was all reported in Newsweek.) Then Nifong began his 70-plus interviews in which he called the team members a bunch of hooligans and said he believed a rape took place. Assuming the captains all said that no rape occurred, and assuming they were telling the truth (I realize some on this site will not be able to make this assumption) why would any other team members come forward? If all they can say is that it didn't happen, the DA is clearly not interested. Even the most ardent supporters of the alleged accuser must admit that the actions of the three captains in appearing voluntarily and asking to take a lie detector test are not consistent with guilt. One question with regard to the alleged neighbor who heard screaming--if she heard screaming why didn't Kim Roberts, the second stripper, hear it?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:25:30 AM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    "Not at liberty to say." It was your post, directed at Duke, but we are supposed to let that pass? It was ugly PB, and how else was someone supposed to take it, other than in the spirit it carried with it?
    We post here at the pleasure of our gracious hostess, who has put me on notice that I am at risk. So, in the spirit of those brave Duke lacrosse players, Tommy Skakel, The Juice, and other innocent but accused ghosts of Christmas past, I am taking the fifth. Please don't regard this as a request for a free pass. I seek no special protection from the jeering masses. If I am to be made the Earl Butts of Talkleft, so be it. But don't throw me in the briar patch. Don't try and make an honest man of me. You wrote:
    No prosecutor should ever, he or she should never, become involved the way Nifong did, unless and until the police brought him someone to indict, someone the police have convinced him, by all of the evidence, is guilty. Haven't seen anything like that yet.
    Most of what we know comes from the Wall of Shill. A thousand tiny Ron Zieglers yearning to break free. We don't know what all the forensic reports and medical assessments actually say. We don't know what the three captains actually said. We don't know what the accuser has actually said. That's a lot not to know. The defense would have us believe that the presence of lacrosse player dna under a broken off fingernail is a ridiculously unimportant fact in this case. To some, that represents the end of a discussion. Case closed. Get the dancer into therapy, poor dear, she's imagining things. Call me a dummy, but I like to be sure I understand what people are talking about. Having been dragged to the mental ward in my life by jackbooted thugs, I can tell you with 100& certainty that when people wrong you, they will hide it. They will hide it in huge teams, and they will hide it behind lawyers and judges. And they will pay enormous amounts of money to hide it. The strategies they will use to hide it are many. They'll ignore you. They will tell you, you are crazy. They will even forge documents and lie under oath. People look so nice, but beneath that soft cortex they all have lizard brains. Knowing that from direct experience changes a person. Perhaps its why I am supportive of Nifong's quest to bring this case to trial. I have no idea whether Nifong has the cajones or skills to evince the actual truth AT trial, but I stand with the many people who regard him as an honest man taking on a difficult project. And I stand in opposition to the wall of angry mothers asking deriding him at every turn. David Souter, when he was an attorney general, used to instruct the attorneys working under him "We don't win cases. We don't lose cases. We try cases." I respect the fact that Nifong is trying this case. If the truth emerges from the trial (which is the idea of trials) I'll regard that as a great thing, whether Nifong wins or loses. If it doesn't, well, that sometimes happens to. Some people know how to take advantage of the system.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:40:35 AM EST
    Hi Alexva, Youn wrote:
    I would like to respond to the repeated references to the "blue code of silence", the alleged failure of Duke players to speak to the police. I think this is very unfair.
    I have complained about this too. It really should be called a Blue Wall of Shill. The players are saying all kinds of things through the filter of their attorneys. You wrote:
    If all they can say is that it didn't happen, the DA is clearly not interested.
    Has the DA told you that, or are you just wiff-reading it. My wiff-read is the police would find helpful any witness testimony whatsoever. Opinion testimony I would think they would find less interesting, as it can't be used at trial. But it certainly is the case that the police would benefit from all witnesses coming forward and presenting their memories of the evening events. This is true even of those witnesses who weren't at the party! For instance, it would help police if Finnerty were to relate such seemingly inconsequential details as which waitress served him his burritos, and who he was sitting with at the Cantina. This type of information can help assure that the police target the right suspect. Seligman, had he come forward, wouldn't have been indicted at all, do you think? Now they all have to show their innocence the hard way. It's not too late. All of them are still free to take the first.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:33:30 AM EST
    Imho:
    ...attorney Bill Thomas of Durham -- who represents an un-indicted lacrosse player -- said semen found in the dancer's body was "of recent origin" and had been deposited there "immediately prior to her being examined"...
    Then wouldn't the state lab have been able to easily test it? Has Nifong known it was there all along? Have the defense attorneys? "Recent" is a pretty subjective term, but "immediately" is a bit more clear. Is that what she was doing before her "outcall"? Or Bill Thomas could be lying.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:46:27 AM EST
    Del, You wrote: Or Bill Thomas could be lying. I'd have to actually see his lips move before I'd believe that.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#35)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:10:14 AM EST
    alexva posted:
    One question with regard to the alleged neighbor who heard screaming--if she heard screaming why didn't Kim Roberts, the second stripper, hear it?
    We don't know why and if the "alleged neighbor" hasn't changed her mind about coming forward neither do the police. The bathroom where the rape is alleged to have taken place is at the back of the house and it possibly occurred while Kim was in the front yard or in her car. Though Kim may have been yelling, Bob in Pacifica will assure you no one saw her crying.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#36)
    by january on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:21:13 AM EST
    Cymro, I think you're missing the point about the comments on Nifong's integrity or lack thereof. IMHO and possibly others have said in many previous threads that his integrity hasn't been questioned.....until now. The emphasis is mine and the phrase was implied rather than stated, but most of us who've been reading these posts for awhile understood that. I don't think anybody's really happy with how this case has been handled -- by anybody.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#37)
    by Lora on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:21:24 AM EST
    Sharon, My "baby" has already made her decision: I am entirely and unforgivably stupid. Happy Mother's Day :-) On the subject of the AV's injuries, I made a post a few threads back that included quotes from sources who either saw the AV or were experts familiar with the case, including Nifong, that led me to believe that her injuries were serious enough to have been caused by force, far more than consensual sex is likely to have supplied. That is an opinion based on rather scanty evidence, true, but after reading all that I could find, that's what I think. If you want any links, let me know. As far as the math and stat go, I do firmly believe that math is critical to our full understanding of the world, and I am sure it will play a part in this case. My statistics posts were not meant to make any case, I was just clarifying how you would use the laws of probability to figure the odds of selection by chance alone. Unless you run some sophisticated statistical tests, (and even then perhaps) there are far too many variables to make any serious statements about the likelihood of the photo ID or the DNA tests fingering the right perps, if there even are any. All I can say from my little probability figuring (without quoting numbers) is that it is quite unlikely that the AV and the DNA test would have fingered the same person BY CHANCE, and it is extremely unlikely that the AV and the DNA test would have fingered the actual perp, if there is one, BY CHANCE. That is, if the AV went eenie meenie miney moe, and if the DNA testers said, I can't make head or tail of these results; let's just pick somebody. That's all I meant, and I promise, no more, unless it's brought up again. As a mother of a little angel, I know that brushes with the law can result in charges that are far less serious than the actual acts committed, heh. So, frankly, looking at all those public urination charges, I can't help thinking that that's the LEAST of what they were doing when caught. And, again, as a mother of a little angel, I'm not suggesting that they were raping, pillaging, burning, etc, but I think that there is a high probability (dang, that word again) that they were doing other things which could have resulted in charges with graver legal consequences. So much to say, so little time! That's all for now.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#38)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:26:52 AM EST
    alexva posted:
    I would like to respond to the repeated references to the "blue code of silence", the alleged failure of Duke players to speak to the police.
    I think this is very unfair. The day after the allegations were made, the police asked the three captains, residents of the house on Buchanan, to come be interviewed. They all went, no lawyers or parents, and were each interviewed for about 8 hours. They then voluntarily went to Duke Hospital for a rape suspect exam. All three asked to take lie detector tests but the police refused. (This was all reported in Newsweek.) Then Nifong began his 70-plus interviews in which he called the team members a bunch of hooligans and said he believed a rape took place.
    Assuming the captains all said that no rape occurred, and assuming they were telling the truth (I realize some on this site will not be able to make this assumption) why would any other team members come forward? If all they can say is that it didn't happen, the DA is clearly not interested.
    alexva, The problem with your comment is the order in which you think the events took place. Putting Nifong's first public comments in their proper place in the sequence of events totally blows your argument.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#39)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:33:08 AM EST
    january posted:
    Cymro, I think you're missing the point about the comments on Nifong's integrity or lack thereof.
    Yes, I also think Cymro is missing the point. Thank you january.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#40)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:43:34 AM EST
    I think we may have to put the listening neighbor who heard the scream over in the dubious column for awhile. The first thing is that it was reported by the AV's father on Rita Cosby on April 3. The father also attributed his daughter telling him she was sodomized with a broomstick. The broomstick was never in any of the search warrants, no one ever seized or looked for a broomstick. That means that Nifong either wasn't told by the AV about the broomstick or was told and didn't look for the most important piece of evidence he could find at the Buchanan house. If you want to believe the father about the unidentified witness next to the Buchanan house, you have to explain why he apparently misreported (or invented, or lied about) the broomstick. And if you believe that, then you have to weigh the father's comments about the 1993 (1994?) rape, about which he said something to the effect that "those boys didn't do nothin' to her." That is, the AV's father said that his daughter filed a false rape charge back then. The father has demonstrated that he is an unreliable source of information. One could infer that his dishonesty may in fact have been handed down to his daughter as a means of reinterpreting unpleasant or otherwise inexplicable reality. That is, the AV grew up watching her father lie and adopted the behavior. Not good when the case depends so much on the AV being an honest broker of information. The existence of a witness who overheard screaming is also questionable because a month after the father mentioned this, she has not appeared or been identified. One could explain why the DA may want to hold back this knowledge, but considering the media coverage, there would only be a limited number of houses in the neighborhood where someone would have heard what happened. It's hard to believe that at some point early on someone in the press didn't knock on doors to find out who heard what, even to asking Bissey if he knew other neighbors who complained about noise from the house. Finally, there's the limited value of a neighbor hearing a scream. Roberts said that she heard or saw nothing that night that indicated to her that a rape had occurred. If the neighbor heard a blood-curdling cry or pleas to stop from a distance, you would have to explain why Roberts couldn't hear it. Even if you can do that, what is the probative value of someone at a distance hearing a scream? What time? If it was at a time when the two were together that means it wasn't about a rape? Maybe the AV or Roberts herself screamed at something that one of the attendees did, either rude or threatening or just stupid and silly. So: 1.) The story of the screaming heard by a neighbor was reported by an unreliable source of information who has a prejudice towards wanting such a witness to exist; 2.) A month after the claim of this witness was made, no one has been able to confirm any such witness; 3.) Even if such a witness exists, what the person may have heard is of very limited value as to whether a rape had been committed. Maybe the mystery witness will appear tomorrow. I wouldn't bet on it.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#41)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:01:25 AM EST
    When the team had photos taken of their faces they also had pictures taken of their torsos and presumably their arms were not blacked out either. This was done a few days after the rape allegedly occurred. That would suggest that if the AV scratched a person, that person would have scratches on him. If the AV identified someone who was scratched, whose wounds were consistent with what she was describing as to the fight she was in, and if his DNA were found under a fingernail, you have evidence consistent with her story. If the man wasn't scratched, her version of events is diminished. But her identification could have been influenced by knowing who lived there, information that was readily available. Her identification of anyone at the party is based on her being sober enough to be conscious of what was happening to her and knowing who was doing what. In order for someone to believe her one has to believe that she was aware of what what happening. If she were not telling the truth one would only have to believe the same thing, that she identified someone who was there and who may have had some harmless physical contact with her like being inadvertantly scratched helping her to stand up after she fell when one shoe broke, or if she scratched someone as she fell from her shoe breaking. Or the DNA evidence was transferred when the nail was thrown in the garbage can, or when the nail was in contact with other stuff in the garbage can. Or, since the DNA is not a match, that it was someone else's DNA entirely and got there at some point earlier. I don't send someone to prison on that.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#42)
    by azbballfan on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:02:36 AM EST
    IMHO
    Yes, I also think Cymro is missing the point. Thank you january.
    In addition, Cymro has proven to have questionable integrity with unstated political motives.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#43)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:08:06 AM EST
    IMHO, prove that the AV and Roberts were crying. Give me any witness to the AV and Roberts crying at the house aside from the magic witness revealed to us by the AV's father, and the AV's own statement. Put down the pompoms and the snark and give us some information.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:49:30 AM EST
    AZ wrote:
    Sorry, but law school 101 teaches to delay disclosure to the other side as much as possible.
    Law schools do no such thing. Law schools teach respect for the Court and your opposition, as all attorney are officers of the Court. What has happened is that law schools teach attorneys to zealously represent their clients within the bounds of the law. It is the disrespectful pr*ck attorneys who have interpreted this to mean they should try to f**k the other side any chance they get, including playing the Friday delay game. Judges hate this stuff, and when it is brought to their attention it it not only makes them feel like they are parenting, it taints the offending attorney's credibility. Most top attorneys are very civil with each other because they realize the fight is between the clients not the representing attorneys. In my legal career, I have found that the attorneys who play the Friday/deadline delay game, whether it is 11:50pm or 5pm (by the way my guess is it would have been later but for the gov't staff leaving the office at 5pm), tend to be the ones who are the most ethically challenged.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#45)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica:
    IMHO, prove that the AV and Roberts were crying. Give me any witness to the AV and Roberts crying at the house aside from the magic witness revealed to us by the AV's father, and the AV's own statement.
    Ah, nice trick. You brought up the subject of the women crying as an example of the accuser making a false allegation. I said we don't know if they cried or not. You are the one that said they were NOT crying. I don't have to prove anything, you do. Bob in Pacifica:
    Put down the pompoms and the snark and give us some information.
    I've contributed plenty of information here as have you, but mine does not require constant correction.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    This post from another blog sounds like it is right on point or at least a pretty reasonable scenario:
    The defense reported on Saturday that the DNA reports indicate recent sex (maybe motile sperm noted on exam) ruling out sex on another day. Since DAs/PD don't do prelim investigation weeks _after_ you indict (like swabbing a known sex contact), the May 3rd DNA sampling of the "boyfriend" essentially explains one part of the story. Looks like Nifong was boxed in. The Likely Scenario: 1. The rape exam at Duke found semen so Nifong was 100% sure that a sex act had occured. 2. The AV claimed no recent consensual sex so Nifong "knew" it had to be LAX DNA, 3. The DNA came back entirely negative (1st round) and Nifong was stunned since he knew that the serology and exam showed sex. 4. The Black community demanded a prosecution (the cheering NCCU gymnasium crowd) and Nifong promised to do it, publicly (on election eve). 5. Nifong indicted on Photo ID alone. 6. Nifong made the huge mistake (from his POV, not justice) of sending the material to a 2nd lab. 7. The 2nd DNA results came back around May 3rd showing a "mystery man" had had sex with her. 8. Nifong freaked, reinterviewed the AV with the new evidence in hand. She said "Oh, yeah, there was this guy...." 9. Nifong claimed to the media that the DNA "wasn't back yet" and LabCorp did a rush analysis matching one person to one sample (always the easiest).
    The leak (re: finger nails) and Friday disclosure are just lame efforts at damage control.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:57:31 AM EST
    Quote mistake....the whole post was from the other blog not just the 1st paragraph.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:00:50 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    PB's reply: Why not? Obviously we're struggling with it. If you know something about it, why not contribute? If you're just here to stick your nose in the air, hey, go back to the racist, spoiled, rich, rude college from which you came. I'll stay here with the strippers. I noticed 7duke4 didn't get all lathered up at his comment. She recognized it, because she wrote it.
    Wow, interesting conclusion. I actually was furious, but others replied quite well, and I was brought up as a southern lady. And a later non-apology and comment by PB is still attacking lacrosse. Nice. None of this is productive. If you don't think the kids playing this sport are being victimized by this case, you should have been at the league game I was at yesterday. #1 topic of conversation among the 12 year olds? One guess, and the focus was on "what does it mean for me." And Syracuse banning the transfer of ALL Duke players, even the ones who were out of town that day? Count the number of times you've seen crawls and headlines with the words DUKE, LACROSSE, and RAPE in the same sentence and you know what I mean. BTW, I recommend you watch the NCAA lacrosse tournament today (men and women). Also BTW, Duke has been ranked in the top 5-6 universities in this country for some time now (with Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton). And Duke graduates are a much higher percentage of top executives than 1%. Sheesh. I am done with this discussion. I am also going to address the statistics issue one last time. DNA is a hard science, but with results expressed as a population percentage. Statistics use a defined sample, with results expressed with confidence levels and standard deviations. The examples given, using the population of the team as the sample, are invalid - some team members were not there (see above) and you really don't know who was there. The AV's choices out of a flawed, limited lineup (with the pressure of picking someone, not noone) likewise cannot be used as assumptions. As I said, wait until the actual data is known.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    Kalidoggie, You wrote:
    In my legal career, I have found that the attorneys who play the Friday/deadline delay game,... tend to be the ones who are the most ethically challenged.
    I enjoy that Nifong doesn't pander to the defense attorneys' efforts to control him. I particularly enjoyed it when they made their great effort to show him the select evidence that would vindicate their clients days before the grand jury met. People have cited this as another example of his ethical violations, but to me it was a demonstration of his integrity. The defendant/suspects had been given plenty of time to come forward and had chosen not to. The place to settle disagreements about guilt and innocence is in court, not in the backroom of the DA's office. What was Nifong's deadline for faxing the defense attorneys the latest dna results. Did he meet it? That's really all he needs to worry about. He doesn't need to worry about whether the defense attorneys get it in time for the some particular news cycle, and he doesn't need to worry about whether the defense attorneys have to work weekends. Those aren't his problems.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#50)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    Actually, IMHO, way back I said that the AV's comment that both she and Roberts were frightened and crying, from her interview, sounded to me like an "add-on." That is, it sounded like an embellishment in order to make her story more believable. Roberts nevers says that the AV was crying, or that she herself was crying. That is, if there was crying by either of them, in Roberts' version it was insignificant. We do not have Bissey crying. Someone, maybe you, suggested that Roberts was "crying" when she phoned in her 911 call, but crying while trading insults with the players outside in the yard. Crying can mean a lot of things. People's tears can be caused by smoke irritation. People can "cry for joy" or "cry out in anger." There was no reports of crying consistent with the AV's version, which in any case doesn't dovetail with the magical missing neighbor hearing the screams of a woman being raped, as reported to us by the man who claims his daughter told him she was sodomized by a broomstick and who told us his daughter filed a false rape charge in the past. It's not such a clever ruse, IMHO. What evidence that the AV and Roberts, as reported by the AV were driven to tears of fear? You have nothing. What evidence do you have that the AV was screaming in the bathroom? You have the word of the father. Accept his version of events and you have an AV who filed a false rape claim in the past and invented a story about being sodomized by a broomstick this time around. +++ Regarding your "constant correction" snipe, we are dealing with very little information and quite a bit of speculation here. I've changed my mind on a number of things in this case, in large part because of new information coming forward. I would hope that an open mind would measure new information as to its value and weigh it against what we've already heard. To do any less would be intellectual dishonesty. If you haven't changed your mind, or presented conflicting versions of events and considered them, or even asked for explanations about apparent contradictions in what little we know, it suggests to me that you aren't doing any exploration, just sitting back and knowing. So tell us what happened or stop pretending your omniscience. There are many here who think what you're filled with is not knowledge.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#51)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica:
    I think we may have to put the listening neighbor who heard the scream over in the dubious column for awhile.
    It's kinda full right now - with your morning's postings ;)
    If you want to believe the father about the unidentified witness next to the Buchanan house, you have to explain why he apparently misreported (or invented, or lied about) the broomstick.
    He said someone told him it was in the police report and then his daughter told him. We have nothing to show he is lying about that.
    And if you believe that, then you have to weigh the father's comments about the 1993 (1994?) rape, about which he said something to the effect that "those boys didn't do nothin' to her." That is, the AV's father said that his daughter filed a false rape charge back then.
    Bob, this is my problem with you. You know the mother has explained why they kept the 1993 rape from the father. How many times have I typed out "a reporter described him as 'all of 120 lbs soaking wet?'" Where is the intellectually dishonesty police when we need him?
    The father has demonstrated that he is an unreliable source of information.
    Has he lied or has he been given inaccurate information?
    One could infer that his dishonesty may in fact have been handed down to his daughter as a means of reinterpreting unpleasant or otherwise inexplicable reality. That is, the AV grew up watching her father lie and adopted the behavior. Not good when the case depends so much on the AV being an honest broker of information.
    If you want to go there you have to show the father to be a liar first. You haven't done that.
    The existence of a witness who overheard screaming is also questionable because a month after the father mentioned this, she has not appeared or been identified. One could explain why the DA may want to hold back this knowledge, but considering the media coverage, there would only be a limited number of houses in the neighborhood where someone would have heard what happened. It's hard to believe that at some point early on someone in the press didn't knock on doors to find out who heard what, even to asking Bissey if he knew other neighbors who complained about noise from the house.
    The problem with that argument is that all of that could have happened. We haven't seen the police reports. Nor have the reporters told us whose doors they knocked on and who didn't answer.
    Finally, there's the limited value of a neighbor hearing a scream. Roberts said that she heard or saw nothing that night that indicated to her that a rape had occurred. If the neighbor heard a blood-curdling cry or pleas to stop from a distance, you would have to explain why Roberts couldn't hear it.
    The father did not say the neighbor told him she heard "blood-curdling cry or pleas to stop," but you knew that. The bathroom is at the back of the house, perhaps this neighbor was closer to the bathroom than was Kim. Kim may have been in the front yard or in her car when the alleged rape took place, but you knew that, too.
    Even if you can do that, what is the probative value of someone at a distance hearing a scream? What time? If it was at a time when the two were together that means it wasn't about a rape? Maybe the AV or Roberts herself screamed at something that one of the attendees did, either rude or threatening or just stupid and silly.
    Bob, the CRYING, you left out the CRYING. Hmmmm? I wonder why?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    PB, your previous comment about Duke and the implication of those who attend Duke or side with the players really opened my eyes. No wonder conservatism has a lot of room to grow, since sometimes self-appointed liberals could sound no different from fundamnetalist as well.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    'Rita Cosby Live & Direct' for April 3 She said she heard screaming, heard somebody crying in the house. And she heard a lot of noise, like something was breaking or somebody was falling over. And I asked her if she talked to anybody, and she said no.She said she didn't want to get involved in it, said she didn't want to go to court, she didn't want to be on TV or nothing (INAUDIBLE) She said she didn't want to have anything to do with it. And I asked her, I said, What if it had been your daughter? And she turned and walked off.
    In other words, This neighboring woman does not want to take responsibility for the veracity of her words. Or, perhaps, she is not so sure?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#54)
    by Lora on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:42:30 AM EST
    7duke4,
    The examples given, using the population of the team as the sample, are invalid...
    Are you referring to my little probability exercise? imho, I went nuts a while ago trying to find Nifong's early comments from any news report dated then (not referred to later) and I was unable to locate them. I am specifically looking for his "hooligan" speech, and I am also specifically looking for any early speeches in which he mentions DNA. I think folks are taking his DNA comments out of context. If you (or anybody) have a link to those EARLY news reports which quote him at the time, I would very much appreciate it. For all the press conferences he is supposed to have given, I'm having a hard time finding them. Kali, Here's MY "likely" scenario: 1. The rape exam found semen. As the AV is not a virgin and has a boyfriend and Nifong knew it, there were no surprises there. 2. The first DNA tests came back "inconclusive." Another test was needed to identify who it belonged to. Nifong was disappointed but not stunned. He has maintained all along that 1) the tests might not show anything conclusive, and 2) you need a lot more than just DNA evidence to prosecute. 3. Nifong, after reviewing all the evidence at his disposal, believed a crime had been committed. 4. Nifong indicted on the basis of a lot of evidence, not simply the photo ID. 5. The 2nd DNA test from the first "inconclusive" test revealed the boyfriend, which Nifong suspected would happen. Knowing that it would not help his case (somehow, the public wants to believe that all rape victims are virgins), he pulled a late Friday fax, hoping to stave off negative publicity. (In this situation, I doubt that he is no more evil than most of us would be in his shoes.) hooligan: from dictionary.com: 1st) a tough and aggressive or violent youth. 2nd) a cruel or brutal fellow. 1st definition doesn't sound so out of line to me.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:43:51 AM EST
    I think we should judge Nifong's performance in this case based on the facts how he handled of this case alone, instead of saying that judging from "precedence" he is not so-and-so kind of character. In that logic, how are we going to account for all the first-time offender? If one wants to judge people based on "precedence," then apply them to everyone, Nifong, the accuser and the accused, and not using double standard to emphasize one and understating the other. I leave judgement of Nifong's faireness in handling this case to everyone's own common sense. No precedence does not guarantee that things will never happen. PB said:
    The place to settle disagreements about guilt and innocence is in court, not in the backroom of the DA's office.
    I'll believe this if there's no such thing as plea bargain in the world.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lora on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:48:00 AM EST
    I think Nifong is really in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with this case. I have a question for those of you who think he is either incompetent or out for merely political gain with this case: What exactly should he have done, do you think, and why?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#57)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    The father said that someone said it was in the police report and then his daughter (the AV) told him about the broomstick. Great. So in order to believe that statement by the father , that the broomstick was described as a sodomizing agent in the police report and was known to the AV you have to believe that Nifong overlooked a piece of physical evidence at the house that would connect players to a sexual assault. So which is it? Is Nifong utterly retarded so as not to be able to read a police report and understand the importance of the AV's description of events, is the father a liar, or is the daughter a liar, or a combination of the three? Regarding the previous rape allegation, the father said that those boys did nothing to her. The story being told is that at the time the father wasn't told about the rape because they were afraid he would get hurt. However, to presume your position is to presume that the father never got any information about the rape for thirteen years and formed an opinion that it didn't happen. That is, he is saying that a rape didn't happen because he doesn't know a rape happened. Presuming that a rape happened and at the time the father wasn't told, you have to also presume that over the next decade he either never knew about the previous rape allegation, or did come to find out about it and formed an opinion as to his daughter's veracity. That he didn't know about the rape immediately after it happened doesn't explain away his ability to form an opinion about whether or not it occurred. You could say the same about people's opinions here. None of us were at the Buchanan house on March 13, we all found out about the charges days or weeks after the events. We formed opinions. Your suggestion that the father had to have come to the wrong conclusion because he didn't know about the rape is stupid. I hope that that leap of illogic fools you because it doesn't fool most others here. And, again, regarding the neighbor who heard maybe a cry, maybe a scream, maybe something breaking, maybe anything that might somehow fit into the AV's story: What proof do you have that the neighbor exists? We can weigh the probative value of the "crying," or the "screaming," whatever that might be. But first you need a witness. You don't even have a reliable witness to the existence of a witness.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    I don't think that Nifong is incompetent at all. And while I think that he may have pumped up this case for political gain, I think the reason why he pursued the case was that initially the AV's story was credible enought to pursue.

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:11:06 AM EST
    january: First, if as you say I was missing the point about Nifong because ...
    IMHO and possibly others have said in many previous threads that his integrity hasn't been questioned.....until now. The emphasis is mine and the phrase was implied rather than stated ...
    ... and if ...
    most of us who've been reading these posts for awhile understood that
    ... then that misunderstanding could have been cleared up in the first response to my first post, saving everyone some time. So why do you think azballfan didn't use that argument once when responding to my posts? If I missed that nuance, then azballfan did too, because my later posts were simply responding to the illogical arguments being advanced (not to mention the unfounded criticisms of my own integrity, which I ignored). It seems that azballfan is not one of those who understood, and that's who I was responding to. Second, what is the context in which the observation that Nifong's integrity had not previously been questioned is actually relevant to the discussion of this case? Surely his actions in the course of this case are what matters, and everyone can see how he has acted and judge him accordingly. Are we supposed to cut him some slack because he's a first time offender!?

    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#60)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:13:27 AM EST
    Here's one Lora. I must go out, but will be back to find more.
    In interviews March 27 and 28, Nifong made several statements that helped transform the case into a national story.
    Elaborating on the accuser's description of the attack, he compared the incident to the quadruple homicide in an Alpine Road townhouse and multiple cross burnings that outraged the city last year.
    Nifong said all three cases were serious enough that he would prosecute them personally.
    He implied that members of the lacrosse team were engaging in a conspiracy of silence.
    "I would like to think that somebody [not involved in the attack] has the human decency to call up and say, 'What am I doing covering up for a bunch of hooligans?' " he said.
    Nifong expressed confidence that the DNA would be important to filing charges. "By next week, we'll know precisely who was involved," he said shortly after the samples were taken.
    Re: Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:16:13 AM EST
    Lora said:
    1. The rape exam found semen. As the AV is not a virgin and has a boyfriend and Nifong knew it, there were no surprises there.
    Then, what should the DA at this point do after the rape exam found semen? Should he ask the AV how recent she had consensual sex, and determine how much that consensual sex would interfere with his case or investigation. According to this article in the Herald Sun, Bill Thomas said the semen found was of "recent origin" There are three scenarios here-- 1. Nifong didn't ask the AV the question, so he learns about the boyfriend's semen like everyone else until the second DNA result. 2. Nifong asked the AV the question. The AV told the truth that she just recently have sex. Nifong should find many other solid ways in addition to the accuser's statement (which did not complete after 31 hours later) to base his "belief" that a rape occurred other than the SANE exam and the DNA result.--> Nifong should have some reasonable doubts at this point. 3. Nifong asked, and the AV didn't tell him the truth. --> AV lied to Nifong. I'll wait to see what Nifong's "a lot of" other evidences that he believes do not support an alternative explanation are tomorrow's official time for discovery. Up to now he is not even willing to share the AV's statement to the defense.

    Re: Du