home

Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:13:27 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Duke Lacrosse team co-captain Dave Evans was indicted today for forcible rape, sexual assault and kidnapping by the Durham grand jury in the Duke alleged rape case.

Evans is represented by Joe Cheshire. I know Joe, and he is a great attorney.

Press Conference: An absolutely compelling denial. [Update: Video here.]

Live blogging:

Dave is here to surrender, he will bond out today.

David wants to make a statement. He won't take questions. Joe will then make a statement and take questions. All seniors on Duke lacrosse team are present. They are there to support the three charged players as they know no crime was committed on the evening in question at that house. They won't answer questions either. Evans' parents are there. Evans has been wrongly accused.

Statement by Dave Evans: Captain of team.

He is absolutely innocent. Reade and Colin are innocent. The allegations are fabricated lies.

Two months ago, when police first came to the house, he fully cooperated. He and his roomates helped them find evidence for over an hour. He gave an uncounseled statement that night because he knew had done nothing wrong.

He voluntarily gave his DNA, access to his email and AIM account. No crime happened that night. After that he asked police to take a polygraph, which offer was refused.

All attempts at contacting the DA through his attorney have been denied. He has refused to consider his exculpatory evidence.

He took a polygraph by a former FBI agent with 28 years experience which was set up by his attorneys. He passed it absolutely. He will be acquitted. He repeats that he, Reade and Colin are absolutely innocent as are all the Duke team players of these "fantastic lies."

Joe Cheshire:

Asked the DA to speak to David Evans and consider exculpatory evidence and he has refused.

The identification procedure was suggestive, unconstitutional and fatally flawed.

The ID procedure says she selected him out with 90% certainty. She said that If he had the mustache he was wearing night of the attack, she could have been more certain. David Evans has never had a mustache.

They have evidence where David Evans was each and every minute of that evening. This rape did not happen and could not have happened. They have presented the info to the DA's office and they have refused to listen.

The fingernail DNA is bogus. Not just because it isn't conclusive but because of transference from other items in the trash can that contained Evan's DNA.

The accuser's story is a bunch of lies. The only DNA on her came from someone not a Duke player.

Update: This was the most compelling and believable public statement of denial I have ever heard. Dave Evans' parents should be so proud of him.

If this accuser is lying, she must be held criminally liable for ruining these young mens' reputation. This has seemed to me to be a bogus case from day 1. If she lied, what a travesty for all of the team members and for true rape victims everywhere.

< Karl Rove Gives Lecture Today, Won't Answer Questions About PlameGate | Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl Rove Indictment >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case | 197 comments (197 topical)
    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#1)
    by Punchy on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    I'm just baffled beyond words. They indict one guy who has reciepts galore, a taxi driver, and other witnesses who say he was elsewhere. Find out that the DNA from the swabs matches this stripper's boyfriend. Kids are passed polygraphs left and right. Yet MORE are being indicted?? It seems as though the evidence is against them, yet they're not just pressing ahead, they're widening the number of accused? This is like the twilight zone. Everything is backwards, opposite, different than it appears....

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    Is there ANY evidence the D.A. could be legally witholding that could make this the slam-dunk the D.A. is acting like it is?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:57:52 AM EST
    The most amazing part of it all is Nifong's refusal to meet with Evans, and his refusal even to look at evidence that, reportedly, all three defendants' attorneys wanted to show him. And NO MUSTACHE!?!?!?! Pictures from all around the time in question, and NO MUSTACHE? What in the world can Nifong be thinking. That was a powerful, powerful presentation. I thought Evans was just going to read a prepared statement, make sure he didn't say anything he shouldn't, but what he di was much more impressive. Of course, if I have learned one thing on this board in recent days, it is that others might see it differently. Does this make any of you who seem to think the players are guilty think maybe they are the credible ones and Nifong and the AV are the less than honest ones?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:59:21 AM EST
    I wrote the following and tried to post it on the last thread. It's probably not of much interest, considering the third indictment, but what the heck, it took me a lot of time to write it, I'm going to post it anyway... A couple comments from personal experience, fwiw. 1) The accuracy of a neighbor's comments who, allegedly heard "screams" etc. My friends got two strippers for my bachelor party at a (rented) private home of one of the party attenders. After the girls left the party Boston's finest showed up. The cops said a neighbor called them because "she heard a lot of noise, came into the house, and saw a bald guy beating on a girl." An utterly ludicrous assertion. Not just because I and the other 15 or so guys said it didn't happen, but also because the girls had brought a 250lb+, very serious-looking, male "friend" who ran the "show." He enforced the bounds of activities, and "beating" on either of his girls would have been far, far, beyond those bounds. Physical interaction (of a non-violent) nature between the girls and the guys, yes. Beating, no. Just to show how accurate "eye" witnesses can be, never mind "ear" witnesses. 2) The AV's bruises. There has been some discussion of how long it takes for bruises to appear. As it happens, I had a ~100lb piece of equipment fall on my right forearm last Tuesday afternoon, which I kept an eye on w/regard to this case. The immediate visible injuries were broken skin, redness and slight swelling. I didn't notice any bruising until Saturday afternoon, as I was looking in the mirror combing my hair. The bruise was on the outside of my forearm and pretty dark and ugly, by today it's much lighter and less noticeable. So it took about 96 hours for a bruise to be noticeable. Oh yeah, I'm a white guy - freckles, red hair, blue eyes, etc. - bruises are really noticeable on me. Granted, the term "bruises" used in relation to the AV could well have been used loosely, it could well have really meant abrasions, swelling, redness, etc., and my injury was obviously definitely not in the same area(s) as hers. However, if you confine the definition of "bruises" to it's actual definition, it seems unlikely that a person would show bruises in only 2-3 hours.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    Beenaround (&IMHO):
    IMHO wrote: I know Kali hates to hear this, but the hook of this story is "The Blue Wall of Silence."
    Well, I disagree. I think it has much more to do with standard human psychology.
    Agreed. It is the "Man Bites Dog" psychology of this case.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    I keep asking myself that, too, Dadler. A lot people, myself included again, keep saying, "he has to have something convincing, something to support the AV's story, something to make him sure that a rape occurred and that these three guys did it. He has to have SOMETHING. But what could it be? The only possibility that I have been able to think of is testimony from an eyewitness, someone who was there at the party, who saw those guys go into the bathroom with the AV, or saw her come out in distress, hysterical, etc. But if the Seligman alibi holds, then what then? What does anyone else think could be the "something" more that Nifong has?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#7)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    Dadler posted:
    Is there ANY evidence the D.A. could be legally witholding that could make this the slam-dunk the D.A. is acting like it is?
    From the press conference: Cheshire (paraphrased): He is within his rights to not give us the discovery until it is statutorily due.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:05:33 PM EST
    And what about no blood under or on the fingenail? Was Cheshire saying that at least some of the DNA did not come from under the nail, i.e., that the genetic material was maybe on it? This case is such a mystery.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lora on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    Well, so both the AV and Evans are believable to those who listen to them. Indeed the statement is convincing. Evidence is what we need. re: the previous thread gmax and Kali, Yes, I know. Gmax, if you want to give me a link, that would be fine. I hunted around the smoking gun and couldn't find it. But I do remember reading it and I remember it was worded "unequivocally" as you said. I addressed that possibility in a previous post. I don't know what is common in wording of subpoenas. I do know when applying for certain things (like grant money for example) you use unequivocal wording. You and the people who read your application understand it means that's what you hope to achieve. Again, I say, the judge is not stupid (I hope). In public, early on, Nifong said there was a chance that the DNA would not match. The defense has consistently ignored that fact. Kali, if you read my earlier posts, several times I stated that Nifong may have (and probably did) make mistakes. I addressed the issue of his taking the case and "exposing" it early on. You have already, several times, laid out the critical explanations of this behavior. I won't repeat them. They could be true. However, I have offered an alternative: that he believed the AV, and that by going public, he hoped to get more witnesses to come forward. There may have been political motivation as well (how could there not be, with an election looming?). Would any reasonable person in his position, with an election looming, who believed a serious crime occurred and is being covered up, have behaved differently? That's what I'm not convinced of. As for the defense, they've twisted the facts constantly. They've taken Nifong's statements out of context. They've said their pictures prove things that they don't prove. They gave a roster that was missing one of the indicted players, who WAS THERE. They've said, "Nothing happened." What a crock. Let's see you admit that.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#10)
    by chew2 on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    Sharoninjax
    Of course, if I have learned one thing on this board in recent days, it is that others might see it differently. Does this make any of you who seem to think the players are guilty think maybe they are the credible ones and Nifong and the AV are the less than honest ones?
    I'm tired of this case being tried in the press. I really think this case should go to trial. It's going to be hard on all the parties, especially the AV who will be trashed, but I think justice will be served one way or the other. It's time for all those team members who have been hiding behind the wall of silence to come forward and testify, and maybe they now will.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    I don't think it serves a good purpose to have the media (including bloggers)acting as judge and jury when someone is charged with a crime. Let the courts decide.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#12)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:17:04 PM EST
    Chew. Would you be satisfied if the team came forward and testified that nothing happened? Especially if the evidence shows that nothing untoward, or at least criminal, happened? Or are they supposed to lie and, if nothing happened, falsely confess?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#13)
    by james on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    The evidence Evans wished to present, according to the N&O newsroom, were pictures of Evans at the PARTY without a mustache. That sinks her credibility and it is appalling that Nifong refused to look at it. I believe the AV has changed stories often enough, Kim has said that there's nothing wrong with selling her story to feed her kid (her words, while saying that there was no reason for her stealing the 25k which is odd), etc. TL, Nifong has said he was playing acting police chief while the real, professional one was attending to his mother. Is that a conflict in and of itself? I would assume he could change internal policy, no (like the identification procedures...) and claim they stand. He claimed this in an N&O report btw. I'd imagine Nifong is upset about the lawyers' saying that he had leaked the DNA results early (falsely too). Nifong chose a lab in NC (private) that has capabilities that exceed that of the SBI (which is scary if you are poor and say black and have your DNA tested by the SBI...). Why not choose the FBI's lab? At least they won't leak info...

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lora on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    They are supposed to tell what happened, to the best of their knowledge, in sequence, without leaving anything out.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    No question Chew2 and Deevy, and if Nifong had not taken it public in the first place, had not expressed his belief in the guilt of three players barely two weeks into the investigation, perhaps it would not have turned into the media circus that it is now. I know that it is the defense that is using the media more now, as opposed to Nifong earlier. But I don't think we should expect them to stay silent and let all the spin turn in one direction. Evidently, there's a good chance that there will not be a trial until a year from now. That is a long time for the accused, if they are innocent in fact as well as in presumption, to have their names, faces, family information, etc. plastered over every broadcast without fighting back against what they perceive as a horrible miscarriage of justice.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#16)
    by azbballfan on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    james:
    I'd imagine Nifong is upset about the lawyers' saying that he had leaked the DNA results early (falsely too).
    In Friday's interview, the lead defense attorney admitted it wasn't Nifong who leaked the DNA story, and said he knew who it was. He didn't indicate whether or not it came from the DA's office.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#17)
    by james on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    I'm tired of this case being tried in the press. I really think this case should go to trial. It's going to be hard on all the parties, especially the AV who will be trashed, but I think justice will be served one way or the other. It's time for all those team members who have been hiding behind the wall of silence to come forward and testify, and maybe they now will.
    A trial is a long way away. Nifong started a witch hunt and has to live with it. If he continues to leak information you can expect a return. Tried in the press? I think what this episode will show is that rape claims should be treated as just that - claims/allegations. That is, I would hope that by enlarging the 'jury pool' to the community I live in and to a lesser extent the nation that people take a hard look at rape cases. The people are, after all, those who serve on juries... The idea that a jury serves 'justice' is also not a universal truth. Juries have convicted many innocent people, which is not a 'justice' I acknowledge. Perhaps those people would have not been convicted if juries required a bit more to convict. (called the CSI effect by annoyed prosecutors). Trash the AV? Hardly. Because of the rape shield law in NC, it is very very difficult to show who the AV *is*. Instead the jury is asked to simply look at her claim. The bar to bring in past behavior is high - you need to show that she lied to admit past behaviors. That's hard. Rape is horrible but so are juries that require little substantive evidence beyond their own prejudices to convict. In Durham, btw, it will be very difficult to find a suitable jury pool. The black community is overwhelmingly supportive and the white community is split between a minority that is polarized against her, a majority that would be very sceptical, and a minority that is indifferent.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    IMHO: From the press conference: Cheshire (paraphrased): He [Nifong] is within his rights to not give us the discovery until it is statutorily due.
    Yes, Nifong is legally within his rights to continue to remain silent (so far). But is it really the "the right thing to do" at this point?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#19)
    by chew2 on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:38:11 PM EST
    Sharoninjax,
    No question Chew2 and Deevy, and if Nifong had not taken it public in the first place, had not expressed his belief in the guilt of three players barely two weeks into the investigation, perhaps it would not have turned into the media circus that it is now
    My reading is that Nifong went public after the wall of silence to put pressure on someone on the team to come forward. Maybe he shouldn't have done so. Since then it's been pretty much all defense all the time that has kept their names in front of the press. If the defense shuts up, I think this case will disappear from the press until the trial. Of course I could be wrong. Look at that whole Aruba thing. Anyway, No more defense or prosecution spin. It's time for both sides to go to trial and prove it.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:41:40 PM EST
    Cheshire (paraphrased): He [Nifong] is within his rights to not give us the discovery until it is statutorily due.
    Nifong's "Wall of Silence" = OK. LAX tam's "Wall of Silence" = bad.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#21)
    by chew2 on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:45:27 PM EST
    SUO,, Nifong's "Wall of Silence" = OK. LAX tam's "Wall of Silence" = bad.
    Damn right!

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    Lora wrote:
    As for the defense, they've twisted the facts constantly. They've taken Nifong's statements out of context. They've said their pictures prove things that they don't prove. They gave a roster that was missing one of the indicted players, who WAS THERE. They've said, "Nothing happened." What a crock. Let's see you admit that.
    You need to be specific and give at least one example before I will admit anything to your generalization. and I am perfectly capable and willing to admit something of merit. So, give me one example for each of where the defense twisted "facts" and Nifong's statements out of context. And where they claimed the the photos proved something that it could not prove. As for the list of party attendees, you have to be kidding? It HAD to be purposeful, especially given his alibi. Why was CF on there? I hope the DA hangs the case on this fact. The difference between you and me is that I can admit that it is possible that something happened, but you can not honestly admit that nothing happened, otherwise you would be more careful than claiming everything was "a crock".

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#23)
    by january on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    Lora posted:
    They are supposed to tell what happened, to the best of their knowledge, in sequence, without leaving anything out.
    With or without benefit of counsel? And if their counsel says "don't do it" why should they be expected to? Those players are involved in something bigger than they've ever had to deal with before, and I think it's completely unreasonable to expect them to ignore advice from those more experienced. Take issue with the attorneys--both sides--for making this a media circus. The players will tell their stories at the trial, if there ever is one.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#24)
    by azbballfan on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one:
    Nifong's "Wall of Silence" = OK. LAX tam's "Wall of Silence" = bad.
    Unlike a civil case, Nifong does not represent the AV. He represents the people and the public's right to justice if a crime has occured. At this point in the discovery, he shares some of his evidence. Then a little later, the defense team shares some of their exculpatory evidence which has been withheld. Then the DA shares a little more evidence. Like it or not, this is the process. If the DA shared all his evidence up front, it would be very easy for the defense to produce selective exclupatory evidence. This way, he gives them a chance to tie their own noose. The players have their right to protect themselves to the fullest extent of the law. The public has the right to hold their opinion. OJ was guilty.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    azbb, exactly. The parties are acting w/in their rights, like it or not.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#26)
    by Punchy on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Why is everyone blasting the DA? Didn't a grand jury do the indicting? Doesn't that say that, yes, this guy must have something evidence-wise that points to a crime? Or is a grand jury indictment more-or-less a rubber stamp?? I'm wholly unfamiliar with the process, being that I did not go to Duke and/or play LAX

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    chew2 said:
    It's time for all those team members who have been hiding behind the wall of silence to come forward and testify, and maybe they now will.
    It seems that now it is a good time since all three are indicted. However, on second thought, remember there's still the 4th one? All the team members who would like to come out and talk would still be pretty much under the shadow of being the 4th one. With David Evans's indictment, I really don't see whether it makes a difference or not to cooperate with the investigation. One remains cautious and silent like Seligmann, and one gets charged. Evans did his best to cooperate with Nifong, and he still gets charged. Nor did Nifong want to meet and talk to all three before the indictment.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    Hmmmm. 1. I'd like to point out that Nifong conducted at least 70 interviews with reporters where this case was discussed. And all of this prior to the primary election. This is not a wall of silence. 2. Anyone who thinks cooperating with Nifong will result in anything other than their own indictment is a complete fool. Case in point is the taxicab driver defense witness who was picked up on a 2.5 year old misdemeanor warrant. The fact is that when you talk to prosecutors you must be aware that they are neither your friend nor are they necessarily looking for the truth. They are looking for a solution to a crime, and that solution may be you. There are plenty of examples of people speaking to prosecutors in the belief that they would be safe because they were, in their minds, not guilty of anything. Then they ended up being indicted and having to bankrupt themselves trying to defend themselves. I have friends who work in the local county prosecutors office. I wouldn't trust a single prosecutor in any jurisdiction under any circumstance whatsoever. And if you ever do, then remember this: you're a fool.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    Posted by Kalidoggie:
    Lora posted: They [the defense] gave a roster that was missing one of the indicted players, who WAS THERE.
    As for the list of party attendees, you have to be kidding?
    No, everyone. That is not what happened. If any of you saw Dave Evans speak today he made it clear that he was shown a Powerpoint presentation at the police station and was asked to pick out the members of the lax team that he remembered being at the party. That is what he did, to the best of his memory. Nobody "gave" anybody a formal roster of who was or was not there. Working just from memory, nobody possibly could with an absolute certainty.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#30)
    by Lora on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:26:12 PM EST
    January, With benefit of counsel. It's too bad it ever had to get this far. If I hired an attorney who told me, keep your mouth shut, I'd be an idiot not to follow his/her advice. I do take issue with the attorneys. See my post to Kali. Bean, I have two words for you. Kitty Genovese. Kali, I hate to repeat myself, but, the defense twisted the DNA evidence and completely ignored the evidence of the rape exam that was on the search warrant. They said the AV had not had any sex recently. They took Nifong's words out of context by ignoring and covering up that he said the DNA evidence might not turn up any matches. They said the pictures prove that the AV was impaired at the party, and that's why the dance was stopped, making a complete turnaround from their initial stance that the dance was halted due to offensive remarks. I've gone into this at great length. It is irresponsible to state an opinion as a fact, which is exactly what they did. The photo cannot show impairment, only what the person in the photo was doing at the time the picture was taken. For starters. I have always maintained that it is possible no assault occurred. I have always stated that although I believe the AV's story, I could be wrong. I maintain that the investigators have a right to know exactly what DID happen at the party, which was not NOTHING. That's what I meant. "What a crock" was meant to cover all these tactics by the defense.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:27:07 PM EST
    Punchy: Or is a grand jury indictment more-or-less a rubber stamp??
    Yes, it is more or less a rubber stamp. A police officer goes in and presents secret evidence of a possible crime. No defense is allowed to see it or rebut any of it. The grand jury is then given a recommendation to indict, and 99% of the time they do. And whatever they were told is kept secret.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    Followup: 1. If Evans didn't have a mustache, this case is over. 2. Cheshire said there was no blood DNA under the mail and experts say if her version of the encounter were true, there should have been. 3. Cheshire said last week it was the players who threw the nails in the bathroom trash. It was Dave Evans' bathroom. There was toilet paper, used tissues from blown noses, used qtips in that can. It's more than possible that DNA from the other items in the can comingled with the plastic fingernail and resulted in the DNA being transferred to the nail. The only DNA evidence of sexual activity comes from the DNA inside her v*g*ina which belonged to someone she knew, not any of the players. A smoking gun? I don't see it. It would have to be something like wood slivers found in her a*us. But, according to the search warrant return, they didn't take the broom handle during the search to match it. Even then, it wouldn't prove such slivers got there during the encounter at the house.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#33)
    by Lora on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    slo, thanks, I stand corrected as to the roster.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:29:34 PM EST
    For the statisticians and probability theorists, now you need to figure into the fact that Evans lives in the house and the likelihood that his DNA may turn out is not random at all. If my memory does not fail me, the newsweek article did mention that Bill Thomas said the first DNA result did turn up with inconclusive matches of the two players' living in the house sharing the bathroom. In many ways, the result of the second DNA test is not very different from the first test result of DNA except that the boyfriend's DNA is known this time.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    A smoking gun? I don't see it.
    Then, TL, what the heck is Nifong up to? There have been a bunch of theories posited here, do you have one?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    azbballfan, The Browns told Coroner's investigator Ratcliffe the next day, about the time that the bodies were being removed from Bundy, that they had last talked with their daughter Nicole after they got home, at 11 p.m. That is, there initial story, about twelve hours after they'd last seen her, gave Simpson an alibi. After a couple of weeks they changed their story to fit in with the prosecutor's timeline. Go read Ratcliffe's report. The prosecution suppressed the report in the criminal trial.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    Those who want these players to be guilty, cringe at seeing them and their attorneys come out and show their innocence. At one point they want them to stop playing their cards in the media, but when they dont say anything, they claim it is a wall of silence. I will be honest, if my picture was on the news 100 times a day as being indicted for rape, and i was innocent, I would be out there in the media claiming my innocence. If these boys were quiet and not doing what they do, they would be killed in the press. I think they are doing the right thing coming out and showing to the world they are innocent. I dont understand people, first they want them to stop speaking out to the media, then they claim their is a wall of silence? And a DA who wont listen. I would be giving press conference everyday!

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#38)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:37:53 PM EST
    Punchy asked: "Or is a grand jury indictment more-or-less a rubber stamp??" Yes.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    The photo cannot show impairment, only what the person in the photo was doing at the time the picture was taken.
    Right. But the players used also used a video camera, now in the hands of the police. We just have not seen that tape yet. Video tape could very well show impairment.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#40)
    by weezie on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:43:52 PM EST
    Abrams saying "tissue" found on nail, not under nail. Totally different meaning, according to DNA expert. Casual contact much more believable, much less likely that struggle occured. Also, why didn't FA testify at grand jury as Nifong had stated she would?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#41)
    by azbballfan on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    Bob, I personally met Orenthal a few times. Three times as a kid and another time as a young adult. All before this case He's very creepy and very capable of the crime. He was a ladies man who went so far as to make jealous threatening statements about the husbands of women he was hitting on. Again, the public have the ability to hold their own opinion. After what I saw of his personal behavior, he is absolutely positively guilty.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#42)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    Can anyone explain why Nifong refuses to look at exculpatory evidence offered by the defense attorneys? I've asked this before and haven't heard an answer, and Cheshire mentioned it today. If this is a search for truth, or if Nifong can get an edge by knowing what the defense will claim, what not accept evidence?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#43)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    az, I'm certainly ready to put aside all evidence now that you say OJ seemed "creepy" to you. How come there was no aspiration or blood in the mouth or sinuses for Nicole and almost no blood in Goldman's pleural cavity? How's a creep to do that? Nice to know when it comes down to the bottom line it's not evidence with you, it's personality.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:52:22 PM EST
    Orinoco says:
    Can anyone explain why Nifong refuses to look at exculpatory evidence offered by the defense attorneys? I've asked this before and haven't heard an answer, and Cheshire mentioned it today. If this is a search for truth, or if Nifong can get an edge by knowing what the defense will claim, what not accept evidence?
    a. He's evil. b. He's incompetent. c. combination of a. and b.
    It is possible that he is a clever person who has seen a way to ensure the long-term support of the very large black community in Durham. With the amount of press coverage this case has seen it is possible that the jury pool has been so tainted that this case could never be tried anywhere in the US. Good result for the DA, it seems to me. I would avoid using terms like evil or incompenent. They are not productive.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    Posted by TalkLeft May 15, 2006 02:27 PM A smoking gun? I don't see it. It would have to be something like wood slivers found in her a*us. But, according to the search warrant return, they didn't take the broom handle during the search to match it. Even then, it wouldn't prove such slivers got there during the encounter at the house.
    I believe the reason they did not take the broom handle during the search was that it may never have even existed in the first place. Supposedly the players held up something in the middle of a conversation about sex toys. It is alleged to have gone something like this, "Did you bring any [sex] toys with you? No? Well try this." They then held up an object which was characterized by someone (I believe it was the AV's father?) as a broom handle. For all anyone knows it was actually a lacrosse stick. Even expecting to find wood splinters under those circumstances would be stretching it (as it were) quite a bit.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:13:52 PM EST
    What SLOphoto just said. Also, I think LAX sticks are probably some type of plastic these days...

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:16:24 PM EST
    um stike that, it appears that most LAX stick shafts are made of metal these days...

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:17:06 PM EST
    strike that...

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#49)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    This was posted by Kalidoggie April 21, 2006 04:33 PM
    IMHO wrote:
    I think what grabbed the media attention was the "Blue Wall" angle.
    Kalidoggie posted:
    I sort of agree with you, but think the "blue wall" is a secondary issue to the media's interest. The main interest was twofold: the novelty of a whole team being DNA tested and a monster black-eye for Duke. Duke has been the pride of college athletics for years (until Elton Brand, they were the only successful basketball program that had a 100% graduation rate). Historically they have been held out as the model of the successful mix of academics and athletics (some would say this is why their football team sucks). The goody goody of the college athletics. No scandles, no nothing. They have been untarnished forever. At some point, our society loves to see someone who has been extremely successful fail, all the while relishing in the failure. Along comes a Duke falling. Not only a fall from grace, but a socially charged one at that (white v. black).
    The blue wall was Nifong created and the media was an accomplice. The media thinks they are entitled to all information so anyone refusing to speak is a natural enemy of the media. Ironically, silence often perpetuates the news cycle.
    Excerpt from Kali's above post:
    I sort of agree with you, but think the "blue wall" is a secondary issue to the media's interest. The main interest was twofold: the novelty of a whole team being DNA tested and a monster black-eye for Duke.
    Kali, I see the whole team being DNA tested as a part of the "Blue Wall of Silence" and the "Blue Wall of Silence" being the reason for the Duke's black-eye. Excerpt from Kali's above post:
    Duke has been the pride of college athletics for years .... Historically they have been held out as the model of the successful mix of academics and athletics ... The goody goody of the college athletics. No scandles, no nothing. They have been untarnished forever.
    Duke's reputation as the pride of college athletics is what made 40+ people "refusing to cooperate" with a reported violent rape newsworthy. If a gang of street thugs wearing their "NO SNITCHES" t-shirts, or members or an organized crime family refused to talk it would not have been worthy of 50-70 media interviews. Excerpt from Kali's above post:
    They have been untarnished forever. At some point, our society loves to see someone who has been extremely successful fail, all the while relishing in the failure.
    Well yes, of course, there is that, but in the eyes of the players' critics, what part did "The Blue Wall of Silence" play in that failure

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#50)
    by weezie on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:18:08 PM EST
    Lax sticks are metal, sort of octagonal ribbing with a small rubber cap at the base end. Nobody used anything on her. She's lying, team is innocent.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    weezie wrote:
    Also, why didn't FA testify at grand jury as Nifong had stated she would?
    My guess is that he is afraid of having a discoverable transcript of her statements that could be used for impeachment purposes. The grand jury could ask her questions and she would have to answer (to get an indictment). The Q&A could be things Nifong would never ask her on the stand. This is the first smart thing Nifong has done. It is almost unheard of to have an AV testify before a grand jury.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:19:09 PM EST
    Ladies and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury: If the case is black and white, then you must indict! [The only thing that will save me now is if she recants.]

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:27:25 PM EST
    Here is a link to the analysis offered by some legal professionals on the issue of how DA Nifong is handling this case. The question was posed on the "Duke Basketball Report" forums: DBR Legal Opinions on DA Nifong I hope you find some of these analysis useful.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#54)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    If the AV appeared in front of the grand jury and perjured herself, there could be jail time. Did anyone catch watch Cheshire said about her father? That he's another victim in all this?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:31:52 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but this case is unraveling at every turn. I don't know how Nifong can continue to recklessly destroy the lives of these young men without proper investigation? 1. Evans never had a mustache. 2. The stripper's boyfriend's DNA was found on the vaginal swab, not ANY DNA form the Duke Lacrosse players.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica:
    Nice to know when it comes down to the bottom line it's not evidence with you, it's personality.
    How true that is. Whenever I discuss the OJ trial with anyone, I find that the people who thought (and still think) OJ was guilty and who were shocked and outraged at the verdict when it was announced (a) had already concluded that he was "obviously guilty" before the trial even began, and (b) didn't actually watch or follow the trial in any detail. On the other hand, those who kept an open mind and actually followed the trial closely were left with so many reasonable doubts that a 'not guilty' verdict was the only one imaginable, and not in the least surprising when it was announced. What was surprising was the amount of surprise it engendered among people who had not been paying attention!

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    If the AV appeared in front of the grand jury and perjured herself, there could be jail time.
    That's unlikely given the present state of mind of the accuser. There is no way of disproving the state of mind and the trauma or perhaps mental illness if that where the case.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    Sorry, here we go again: Here is a link to the analysis offered by some legal professionals on the issue of how DA Nifong is handling this case. The question was posed on the "Duke Basketball Report" forums: DBR Legal Opinions on DA Nifong In case it still does not work: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/main/index.cgi?7580

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:58:47 PM EST
    I am wondering if the prospect of Freda Black winning the election (after Keith Bishop threw his hat in the ring, expecting to siphon off the black vote) drove Nifong to uncharacteristic behavior.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    Somehow I doubt that Evan's Boy Could Grow a Mustache. At least a real one. That Evan's Boy ain't old enough yet. He might be able to grow a premature one. Still look kind of out of place and all that why bother. Perhaps Duke Lacross has a dress code that hasn't been addressed yet. No Facial Hair.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:04:46 PM EST
    very interesting, I have been looking to this photo for half an hour, I have found on internet belongs to this guy during a game either 2005 or 2006 and it looks like he has mustache.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#62)
    by wumhenry on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    If the DA shared all his evidence up front, it would be very easy for the defense to produce selective exclupatory evidence.
    Not sure I see your point. If you mean that they might selectively reveal evidence to rebut the DA's evidence, why would that be a problem? YOu could have made a more cogent point by looking from the opposite perspective. Disclosure of exculpatory evidence before the AV has given a complete account on the record makes it easy for her to adjust her story to fit proveable facts. For instance, if she hasn't yet said on the record whether any of the alleged perps ejaculated or used condoms, the public disclosure of the absence of semen from any of the lacrosse players obviously clues her in on how she needs to answer those questions to preserve her credibility.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:10:01 PM EST
    This guy is someone can grow a mustache in one day, I can tell ity just looking at his shaved face in the press conference.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#64)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:10:44 PM EST
    Cymro, if you hit my name it will take you to my blog. If you got to my archive for April 22, 2005, there's an interesting couple pieces of evidence regarding the Simpson trial. Furillo, are you kidding? There's a no facial hair dress code for the lacrosse team? bkabka, looks like Nifong's 50-70 interviews may have been a little prejudicial and in violation of guidelines, eh? Orinoco, I missed the expletive tirade. Please do tell.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    What is Nifong thinking? How can I keep this case going until after the elections in November?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#66)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:16:06 PM EST
    TL or any other legal minds here, How can a defendant go before a judge and demand a dismissal of charges? Can it be done prior to trial?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    Orinoco posted:
    a. He's evil.
    b. He's incompetent.
    c. combination of a. and b.
    I'd be curious to hear from TL on this point as well--i.e., what could Nifong think he's doing? The person he reminds me most of is Ken Starr--someone who was so convinced that his target was guilty, and that his target was just morally bad, that he became out of control. I can never remember a big case where the defense has so consistently offered to provide evidence and the DA has refused even to look at it.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, There is no April archive for any year listed on your blog. A url would be nice.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#69)
    by wumhenry on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:22:44 PM EST
    Duke's reputation as the pride of college athletics is what made 40+ people "refusing to cooperate" with a reported violent rape newsworthy.
    The team captains' voluntarily (and foolishly, IMO) answering 8 hours of police questioning without attorneys, voluntarily turning over physical evidence without legal compulsion, and volunteering to submit to lie-detector tests by the police is refusing to cooperate?? The "wall of silence" mantra is BS.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    IMHO, Exercising your constitutional right to legal counsel should never be deemed "refusing to cooperate". Nifong was hoping to take advantage of a group of uncounseled people. It strikes me odd that once they had counsel Nifong refused to meet with the attorneys, who are the voices of the players. Nifong created the Blue Wall because he was politically motivated, instigating and quite frankly lazy. That being said, I think you have too much time on your hands to pull up a post of mine from 3 weeks ago, but you are thorough and that is appreciated... at least by me. (Though I know you did it to irk me at some level). As for your post, I stand by my past comments. For the most part I see my last statement:
    The blue wall was Nifong created and the media was an accomplice. The media thinks they are entitled to all information so anyone refusing to speak is a natural enemy of the media. Ironically, silence often perpetuates the news cycle.
    as being consistent with your points, except in one regard, to wit: You equate the Blue Wall of Silence with DNA testing and Nifong's characterization of the players seeking legal counsel as "refusing to cooperate" and that is what gave Duke the black-eye, whereas I maintain that after the gang rape allegations it didn't matter what happened as the media and anti-Duke crowd saw an opportunity to give Duke a black-eye, so they found a reason and threw a left hook. The national exposure of this case would have occured at very few schools. In fact, I can't really think of one where it would have received so much attention. Same scenario at an Ivy League school(with an Ivy covered wall of silence)....not a big national story because the Ivies are not known nationally except for being smart and unto themselves, so the masses do not cares (no one cheers for an Ivy). Same scenario at an SEC, Big Ten, PAC or another ACC school...not a national story because many of those schools have already had their share of scandles in the past and people have a quasi-expectation that it happened once so it will happen again. Duke on the otherhand has a true national national reputation for top brains and top athletics (due maintly to M & W basketball success) Duke has never had a scandle, while many of their competitors have. On top of this, add that Duke gets about 19000 applications a year and less than 2000 are accepted...that is alot of rejection letters every year. This is the perfect storm for people wanting to see Duke fall. The whirlwind is accelerated by race, gender and class issues. With or without your beloved Blue Wall of Silence this was going to have the same national coverage.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#71)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    Orinoco, It appears that "it" is not the only thing he's going to lose. For most of the time I have slightly leaned in favor of a rape having occurred because I presumed that Nifong had to have something: DNA, a witness, some physical evidence proving a rape. In short, I didn't believe that a DA would so grossly corrupt his office in order to gain election. All during that time I have been pretty upfront that I didn't think that the AV was a credible witness. I seem to have been right about the AV and wrong about Nifong. Mea culpa.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#72)
    by wumhenry on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:26:25 PM EST
    The person he reminds me most of is Ken Starr--someone who was so convinced that his target was guilty, and that his target was just morally bad, that he became out of control.
    The comparison is too kind to Nifong because it assumes that his ostensible belief in the accusation is genuine, even though there was a very obvious self-serving motive for him to feign it.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:29:37 PM EST
    I just finished reading the five opinions presented by legal professionals on this case on the Duke Basketball report forum. I found the opinions quite interesting and useful. I would ignore the fourth comment which did not include anything of substance; did not identify himself; and for no justifiable reason decided to take the accuser's side. I suspect this opinion was written by someone who is not a legal professional. He must be an imposter! Anyway, ignoring that 4th opinion, the rest are not very flattering to Nifong. I hope these people will provide the basis for some kind of legal action to be taken against this crazy DA. In my opinion, he has gone way too far in destroying innocent lives. He needs someone to give him some of his own medicine.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#74)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:31:01 PM EST
    M. Simon, I don't want to risk trying a link, I'm pretty flawed with the rules of linking here, but copy and paste this: http://southofheaven.typepad.com/south_of_heaven/2005/04/22/index.html Or, on the site below the little calendar is the word "Archive." You hit on it and then scroll through the dates to April 22, 2005.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:32:50 PM EST
    Posted by Hicht:
    very interesting, I have been looking to this photo for half an hour, I have found on internet belongs to this guy during a game either 2005 or 2006 and it looks like he has mustache.
    Do you have a link to this photo? Posted by Hicht:
    This guy is someone can grow a mustache in one day, I can tell ity just looking at his shaved face in the press conference.
    You can tell this based on the fact that he shaves?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    Hicht wrote:
    This guy is someone can grow a mustache in one day, I can tell ity just looking at his shaved face in the press conference.
    If this guy can grow a mustache in one day, then there would certainly be pubic hair all over her because it would be growing down to his knees! Of course, the next arguement from the "I'll support the AV no matter what" crowd will be: Evans put a fake mustache on before he gang raped her to hide his identity. That is why she said mustache.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:36:42 PM EST
    It hurt the students that they cooperated as they voluntered the list of people who at the party; the DA then excluded those people from the line-up making any random selection by the accuser a valid selection.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#78)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    It's irrelevant whether or not he ever had a mustache. Cheshire promised photos of him from the day before and the day after without a mustache. And the day of, I think. Probative that he didn't have a mustache.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#79)
    by JK on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:39:52 PM EST
    Re: the Blue Wall For all of you who argue that the players have created an improper Blue Wall of Silence, I must ask are any of you attorneys? If so, can you honestly tell me you would advise your clients differently in similar circumstances? TL - hypothetically, if you represented any of the lacrosse players during the early stages of this scandal, what would have been your advice with respect to talking to the DA?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:50:26 PM EST
    I can't find the link (will keep looking) but I am sure that I did hear that the Duke lacrosse team rules included a Yankees sort of "no facial hair" component. They had a game a couple of days before and a game 2-3 days after. Hicht: If, for the sake of argument, Evans could grow a mustache in a day, are you suggesting that he had a mustache and not a beard, that he went to the trouble of shaving the rest of his face, just not his upper lip, knowing he would have to shave the whole thing in a couple days? Bit of a stretch, won't you admit?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#81)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    Lora, I bet you're glad that Evans cooperated with Nifong, eh?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:00:02 PM EST
    "One team member gave defense lawyers a sworn statement that lacrosse players were not allowed to have mustaches. Raleigh News & Observer, May 2, 2006

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#83)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    Kali, We were not talking about the reality of the situation. We were talking about the "hook" - the angle that grabbed the media's attention. Do you see how some people might see it the way I laid it out in my post? These excerpts are from just ONE article: Rape Allegations Cloud Duke Lacrosse
    Angry over the team members' silence and the university's handling of the case, Durham residents have demonstrated on and off campus in the past few days. They rallied outside the house where the alleged attack occurred, and gathered outside of Duke Provost Peter Lange's home, where they banged on pots and pans until he emerged to answer questions.
    Lange said Monday that he believes "the students would be well-advised to come forward. They have chosen not to."
    Durham police echoed his sentiments. "We do know that some of the players inside the house on that evening knew what transpired, and we need them to come forward," David Addison, with the Durham Police Department, said.
    The quote you just posted detailing Evan's cooperation - why did he wait until he was indicted to make that statement? Evans was very impressive. Nifong won't see him? Well, f*uck Nifong, Evans should have held a press conference a long time ago. Want to guess why he didn't? Good job, Cheshire. Kalidoggie posted:
    That being said, I think you have too much time on your hands *to pull up a post of mine from 3 weeks ago, but you are thorough and that is appreciated... at least by me. (Though I know you did it to irk me at some level).
    *[OK, so I have no friends - go figure?] I did not pull up that old post to irk you. It was not meant to be *in your face* at all. I thought it was a good post. I thought you did a great job of explaining why some people are loving hating Duke right now. We just have a difference of opinion on what got them there.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#84)
    by azbballfan on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    abc7news.com
    "The indictment came following a hallway confrontation today at the Durham County courthouse, in which District Attorney Mike Nifong laced into defense lawyer Kerry Sutton in an expletive-laden tirade where he complained angrily about last Friday's defense team news conference."
    Nifong's reaction is understandable for anyone who watched the defense team news conference. Cheshire is doing a good job of coming across being strong willed but fair. Kerry Sutton just came across as arrogant and mean spirited. He had some choice personal attacks at the DA. Finnerty should get another attorney to be his lead. Assuming Sutton is good at what he does, he should stay in second chair. You never want to be represented by someone who easily offends people.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#85)
    by Alan on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:40:11 PM EST
    Posted by azbballfan:
    Again, the public have the ability to hold their own opinion. After what I saw of his personal behavior, he is absolutely positively guilty.
    That's fairly much the case advanced by the party of guilt on this thread. It's also a non sequitur. Simpson was on trial for a specific crime, not for his personal behaviour, and you cannot infer specific conduct from general behaviour, any more than you can infer specific conduct from age, race, class or athletic participation. In this thread, the argument seems as often to be about who the defendants are and therefore how they must be guilty, rather than about evidence of the specific offence for which they are charged. NB This does not mean I think either Simpson or the Duke players are guilty or innocent, although what I've read here probably makes me more inclined to accept the players' account than the complaining witness's account. On an entirely separate issue, in most of the common law world the grand jury was abolished in the last century and replaced with the committal procedure where the prosecution's claims are tested before a judge or magistrate. The prosecution (with very rare exceptions) must complete discovery at committal. The committal is open, not secret. Commital witnesses can be cross-examined. Why does the US retain the grand jury?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:44:20 PM EST
    I'll have to go back and look at the Friday news conference. Nifong seems to have earned whatever he has reaped. If your attorney makes the DA look like a fool, so it goes.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:45:38 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    why did he wait until he was indicted to make that statement?
    Irrespective of the three captains uncounseled cooperation with Durham PD, they, including Mr. Evans, did make a statement to the press saying that no rape occured and that there were alcohol violations and that was it.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:47:45 PM EST
    Kalidoggie:
    Of course, the next argument from the "I'll support the AV no matter what" crowd will be: Evans put a fake mustache on before he gang raped her to hide his identity.
    It was one of those Groucho ones, with glasses and a big pink nose.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#89)
    by azbballfan on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:48:11 PM EST
    Or as USC likes to call itself: "The Duke of the West." Ah ha ha ha ha

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#90)
    by chew2 on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:01:24 PM EST
    IMHO & Kali
    I thought it was a good post. I thought you did a great job of explaining why some people are loving hating Duke right now.
    I think Kali is being a little paranoid about the "Duke hate" out there, since he (and seemingly many others who are posting) is a Duke lax alum. Sure there are a relatively few bball fans out there who are envious of the Duke success, but most people are not rabid bball fans, and hardly anybody knew about lacrosse before this. I think the wall of silence was a big factor in the local coverage and the initial reaction on the Duke campus against the team. But I don't think it's been that big a deal nationally. And most of the national coverage has been skeptical of the AV and her allegations. As I've said before, race, gender and class/privilege play a bigger role. This is an attack by a poor black female "stripper" against privileged white male athletes who come from the "best" homes and middle class backgrounds. There are a very few out there, like myself, who reflexively take the side of the black victim. But really most of the strongly voiced interest is from those who identify with the white male lacrosse athletes and resent the attack on them as an attack on their own gender, race, class, values and identity. Let's be real. Poor black females don't command much media identification. It's the fact that she has attacked respectable young male athletes that the majority of the media and their viewers identify with that has generated all the attention. Plus, sex and strippers sells.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    My take on Nifong is, for whatever reason, he desperately wants to believe the AV. People who desperately want to believe something often have difficulty accepting contrary evidence. Consider Dan Rather and the forged documents. On another topic, I am unable to sign in to typekey (in order to comment) on one particular computer. After I enter my name and password I am sent back to the page that says I have to sign in. Additional attempts just send me back to the page that says I have to sign in (without an additional opportunity to enter my name and password). I can comment normally from other machines. Anybody have any ideas what is wrong?