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 >

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

  • Contribute 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?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#92)
    by chew2 on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    Alan,
    Why does the US retain the grand jury?
    Good question. Why does the US retain the electoral college, so that a candidate can receive the most votes, but still lose the election?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:08:06 PM EST
    SHOCKER!!!! The photo of David Evans with MUSTACHE. It is taken in 2005 in a game. I hope I didn't messed up linking URL. Click the zoom icon on the corner. Then click larger button. http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=25937&SPID=2027&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=208524

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:11:34 PM EST
    This case is far from over.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#95)
    by chew2 on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:16:53 PM EST
    hicht, How to post a url or link. 1. type some text identifying the link 2. copy the url 3. hit the url buttom in the comment box and insert the url address 4. hit preview to see whether the link worked. credit to SUO who told me how to do it. David Evans with a mustache or some black marker under his lip.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#96)
    by chew2 on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:18:17 PM EST
    Hicht, oops. 3. highlight the text then hit the url button

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:24:56 PM EST
    chew2, Thanks for information about the url. But you are making mistake to talk about black marker. You can see the difference clearly with the ones on his cheeks. Plus anyone who knows about sports know that you put marker under your eyes not on your lips.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#98)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    Hicht, he not only doesn't have a mustache in that picture, he doesn't have a face.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    rogan1313, What about the lie accused player just made. What about his friend has sworn wrongfully. After today's events I am more convinced there was a rape. I am sure if there is a party photo including him it will show him with mustache. If there is not any party photo but just witness I am sorry I dont buy it. I just saw people lying.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:36:14 PM EST
    Bob, Click "large" button.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#102)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:44:20 PM EST
    Kali, While I agree with much of what you post here, I would think of Richard Nixon going to Duke Law School is not a particularly positive point for the school. I think that the whole class argument against Duke generally and the members of the lacrosse team specifically made by AV defendants shows the shallowness of their arguments. I don't particularly care if Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans were homeless and the AV were a princess (although it's unlikely a princess would be stripping for homeless men). The question should be whether they did it.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#103)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:48:46 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica Wrote:
    although it's unlikely a princess would be stripping for homeless men
    I am sure in the mind of the homeless man any stripper is a princess.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#104)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:49:44 PM EST
    rogan1313, I just told you if there is one party photo showing him without mustache, I will be convinced he is innocent. Otherwise I dont buy his buddies being witness for him.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#105)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:55:57 PM EST
    Mr. Shearer: I had the same problem posting. Try decreasing the security settings in the browser you are using on that computer (enable cookies). You can just list talkleft.com as a trusted site, you don't have to enable cookies from everybody. Forgive me if you already know this :) & I agree about Nifong seeming slightly desperate. I think he really wants to believe her for reasons other than just the election. Also I think she must be remarkably persuasive and sympathy-engendering in person, e.g. getting the taxi incident reduced to a misdemeanor.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:57:39 PM EST
    Thanks, Kalidoggie, I was writing the same thing, but go knocked out of the system. I believe I now understand azbballfan's problem with Duke - didn't Duke beat your team for the 2001 NCAAs? So, enough already. Azballfan is simply proving my point that the Duke and LAX communities as a whole are also victims - victims of the stereotyping and animosity engengered by this case and by Nifong's actions in particular. And every time Duke is attacked, it feels like personal attacks to Dukies, just like it would to anyone and their school. Schadenfreude, again. So let's talk about the case and stop hating. Anyway, David Evans was impressive, I thought. And I disagree that he should have had this press conference earlier. Aren't we trying to keep this case from being tried in the media? When he was indicted, he had to respond.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#107)
    by Tom Maguire on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:00:46 PM EST
    One team member gave defense lawyers a sworn statement that lacrosse players were not allowed to have mustaches. Link.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#108)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:01:37 PM EST
    Please keep your comments on the topic of the Duke case and don't ramble on about Duke and athletics. It's not relevant to the posts and your comments are way too long on this topic.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:04:20 PM EST
    deleted

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#109)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:04:43 PM EST
    One team member gave defense lawyers a sworn statement that lacrosse players were not allowed to have mustaches.
    Here is the link showing him with a mustache. David Evans with mustache

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:09:49 PM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion 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.
    Remember Nifong just re-instate Evan's misdemeanor charge a few weeks ago? You think Nifong didn't try to force Evans for an account of the night again on that night? Who needs a statement of "I am innocent" unless one is indicted? Remember, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. If you don't believe what Evans say, you could call the Durham Police and ask them whether the three captains did go to the police office to give their statement on that night, and whether the three captains cooperate when the police sought their house. Whether these facts exist is not so hard to find out as whether a rape occurred.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:12:46 PM EST
    considering Evans organized the whole freaking party, there almost certainly will be a picture of him that night.
    I agree. I am willing to see that photo then I will be convinced about his innocence.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:18:39 PM EST
    orinoco, how it doesnt mesh?. My opinion there isn't a party photo like that. But if there is I will beleive his innocence.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#113)
    by Lora on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:20:00 PM EST
    Evans may be telling the truth. TL's statements are compelling, especially because she knows his lawyer. Nifong may be the ogre so many are making him out to be. If Evans is innocent, and is found so, I will be happy for him. If the accuser misidentified him, there may be a different perp. That doesn't necessarily mean she lied (though perhaps she did). Slo,
    Working just from memory, nobody possibly could with an absolute certainty.
    Not even the AV. We are hearing only one side: the defense. I have already shown how the defense has twisted facts around and lied, or at the very least, mislead. For those of you who are convinced, just by listening to him, that Evans is truthful because he appears to be so, let me remind you that Nifong was similarly convinced by the AV. It works both ways. I have had the experience of utterly believing someone who appeared truthful, who was not. If Evans really wanted Nifong to take his evidence seriously, why didn't he just give it to him in the first place? Photos can be altered. This case was supposed to have fizzled long ago, but it didn't. The opera ain't over.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:20:59 PM EST
    Rogan, You wrote:
    Evans might or might not have had a mustache on one day in 2005, but bluffing that he didn't have one at the party and hoping that none of the 40 lacrosse players rat him out about the mustache (and thus brand him as a liar on the date of the incident) would be a supremely stupid act on the part of someone with a good lawyer.
    Charging someone who doesn't have a mustache with rape on the basis of a 90% ID by a woman who claims her assailant did have a mustache would seem a supremely stupid act too, don't you think? Nifong had every opportunity to avoid stepping into this one, but chose not to. Well, at least we can all agree on one thing. Someone is being supremely stupid here.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:28:38 PM EST
    This mustache argument is important, but whether there is a photo of him or not at the party shouldn't matter. He was a student at Duke. Lots of people, including many non-lax players, will have seen him on an ongoing basis. You don't need Sherlock Homes to solve that question. Not to mention he fact that he went with the cops down to the station that night and gave a statement. I know - he could have shaved.......

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#116)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:29:35 PM EST
    Hicht, Please be serious. The guy is wearing a helmet. The mask covers his face. Anything below his nose is either in shadow or obscured. Large or small.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#117)
    by Lora on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:31:52 PM EST
    Ori, The lawyers only wanted him to look at the evidence. They weren't going to give it to him, if my memory serves me well. Memory can play tricks on people. A traumatic event that you remember generally very well, may leave some details in your memory that are false. Read a chapter on memory in any good psych 101 textbook. The point is, EVEN IF the AV was mistaken about the mustache (and we have seen no proof that she is), this does not automatically make her a liar!

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#118)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:35:16 PM EST
    Evans' lawyer at the press conference (Joe Cheshire) said that they pictures of him the day before the event sans mustache. That should convince everyone but Hicht.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#119)
    by Lora on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:38:20 PM EST
    Ori, We don't know what other evidence Nifong has. He has said and hinted that he has a lot more than anybody knows.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#120)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:41:57 PM EST
    Orinoco, There's nothing wrong with sounding like Bob.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#121)
    by chew2 on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:42:33 PM EST
    Hicht
    You can see the difference clearly with the ones on his cheeks. Plus anyone who knows about sports know that you put marker under your eyes not on your lips.
    I know zip about lacrosse. In football and baseball they sometimes put black marker under their eyes, supposedly to lessen glare from the sun. Perhaps its the same in lacrosse. But they could also put it on like warpaint to heighten their masculine aggression. In that case maybe some black marker on the lip. Time for some unbiased lax players to post. BTW thanks for some good sleuthing. If there was no mustache it cuts against the AV's. But I don't think it compeletely discredits her ID. Perhaps she didn't get that good a look at him since he was behind her or the lighting was bad or she saw a shadow. Plus she will have a chance to explain at trial when she sees him in the flesh. Let's wait for the trial.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:54:06 PM EST
    What I don't understand is that in spite of her family's wishes why the AV keeps refusing to get herself a legal representation. Several very capable lawyers have volunteered to help her free of charge.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#123)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:56:43 PM EST
    Bob,
    Evans' lawyer at the press conference (Joe Cheshire) said that they pictures of him the day before the event sans mustache. That should convince everyone but Hicht.
    I told you in advance they won't have any party pictures. I have such a friend who can grow a mustache in a day. Go to Cnn.com and Just look at his newly shaven picture in the press conference. Even there you can see traces of a mustache. Let him shave fully and see how he looks next day.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#124)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:00:05 PM EST
    Lora, We know Nifong has more evidence. We just don't know who it favors. We know it's not DNA evidence. The rape report is going to have to be a lot stronger than just "consistent with." In fact, depending on what she said during to the SANE nurse, there may be more exculpatory evidence if the evidence doesn't match the findings. If she has injuries that can be confirmed as having been on pictures at the time she first started dancing, we could not only have more exculpatory evidence, we could have evidence of intentional lying on the AV's part. Then we would have the spectacle of the witness on the stand explaining why she claimed a preexisting injury was part of the alleged rape. We still have the toxicology report, which should have been done, which will determine if there was a "date rape" drug in her system. That in itself doesn't prove that anyone at the party gave it to her, or that the three accused of rape slipped it to her. If she's got a high alcohol content, that can't all be laid to the drink and a half she downed at the Buchanan house. If there's an opiate in her system, then we have the question of whether or not she doped herself up before she went out to work.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#125)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:09:16 PM EST
    mmyy, Once she got legal counsel, she would have to be honest with him or her. My guess is that very soon after someone met with her he'd realize the problem.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#126)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:17:15 PM EST
    I am waiting for AV defenders to demand a witness as to whether Evans used a twin-blade or triple-blade the morning of the party.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#127)
    by weezie on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:19:44 PM EST
    Have I missed where the FA's military record was shown to have ended in a dishonorable discharge? The Durham abc11 board is discussing this and I have not seen it anywhere else. Anybody aware of this as fact?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#128)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:20:24 PM EST
    Schick Quattro....

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#129)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:21:38 PM EST
    It wasn't dishonorable IIRC, but "general." Not the same as honorable. There are various reasons for a general discharge, one being drug use.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#130)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    BIP, Thanks.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#131)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:28:57 PM EST
    weezie, I had heard she got a general discharge, and the reason floating in the ether was that she had gotten pregnant by a man other than her husband.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#132)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:32:00 PM EST
    Ex-Navy DH said that unless they were trumpeting it abroad that the baby wasn't her husband's, it would be unlikely she'd be discharged for that reason. That's just his uninformed opinion, but then a lot of this thread has consisted of such.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#133)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:37:44 PM EST
    Former Navy friend said, and the timing seemed to jibe in this case, a general discharge may be offered to a female sailor who finds herself in the family way. Her discharge was around the time when she and her husband broke up and another man fathered her first child. And I repeat: he wanted to grow a "moustache" for 2-3 days, so he shaved his other facial hair? No way, even if he hadn't shaved for a few days, he would have beard if he were as hirsute as hicht thinks he is. No way is that a moustache in that pic, either, hicht: he's got his moutpiece in, it is pushing his upper lip up, the way I see it. And was pointed out before, not really relevant to whether he had one that night.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#134)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:38:04 PM EST
    She may have wanted to get out of the navy. It's another way for an early out.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#135)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:41:43 PM EST
    Orinoco: Wow.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#136)
    by weezie on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:42:11 PM EST
    Thanks for the possible scenarios. I was under the impression that she was not yet assigned to a ship, but I don't mean to start another tangent.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#137)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    Is this the part where Nifong starts drinking heavily and wanders through his house at night, having conversations with the paintings on his walls?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#138)
    by weezie on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:45:44 PM EST
    Press release is too bizarre for words. But I'm guessing we'll see more than a few comments on this.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#139)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:49:09 PM EST
    So, according to Nifong, Mister 65% is clear.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#140)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    Can't decide if Nifong is more like Humphrey Bogart, as Captain Queeg, in the Caine Mutiny, or Orson Welles in Citizen Kane, whispering "rosebud," flash to the lacrosse stick he cherished as a child, the one he hoped would make the the other kids, the rich kids, play with him.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#141)
    by weezie on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:01:32 PM EST
    Thanks Orinoco. Good memory. It's a shame to have to expend so much energy on this foldarol.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#142)
    by wumhenry on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    let me remind you that Nifong was similarly convinced by the AV.
    Let me remind *you* that he had an obvious and compelling ulterior motive for saying that he believed her even if he didn't.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#143)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:40:58 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    I am sure in the mind of the homeless man any stripper is a princess
    And so they hardly ever holler "Hey b*tch, thank your grandfather for my nice cotton shirt."

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#144)
    by wumhenry on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:43:17 PM EST
    chew2 wrote:
    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.
    Correction: this is an attack by a poor black female part-time prostitute and an unscrupulous DA on the make who brings far more power and privilege to bear than all the defendants, their teammates, and their parents put together. You're rooting for the overdog.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#145)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:43:57 PM EST
    I have a question about the polygraph. I believe that Evans' attorney stated that he would consider releasing this to the public. Since it evidently is not allowable at trial, I suspect it will be available shortly. While I understand that polygraphs have not been demonstrated to be sufficiently reliable to be used in court (though witness ID, which is arguably less reliable, is allowed as evidence), they are used by various governmental agencies (e.g., CIA) for investigative purposes. Does anyone have any experience with or knowledge of research on polygraphs? I suspect a lot of the variability in its reliability is driven by the skill and techniques employed by the person administering the test. Finally, for what it's worth, I think the allegedly painted nails will be important pieces of evidence. In particular, it seems that that the AV lost too many nails - I seem to remember posts that indicated that there were 5 or 7 nails found in the trash. Even in a struggle, it would be hard to lose that many nails (especially 7). And, if she did lose all of these nails in a struggle, wouldn't there be something (skin, cloth fiber, blood) under more than one nail? When my wife occasionally puts some sort of polish on her nails to strengthen them (the smell of the remover drives me nuts) its seems to take more than a few minutes to do the job right (filing, applying remover, applying new stuff). I guess my point is that I'm trying to come up with a timeline. Since her make-up bag was out of her purse, along with her cell phone, I suspect she was fixing her nails. How long would this take? And if she did this before she was attacked, why is the DNA on the fake nails, and not under the real nails? And if she was attacked before she painted her nails, why would someone who was raped:(1) not use her cell phone to call for help, and yet, (2) take the time to paint her nails?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#146)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:49:37 PM EST
    IMHO posted:
    Evans should have held a press conference a long time ago.
    IMHO, you have made a strong stand that various people who are involved in this situation should have done certain things because "it is the right thing to do." In this case I think you are being too harsh on David Evans. You have said each of the players should come forward and tell what happened. David Evans did that, to the police, voluntarily, for 8 hours, without a lawyer, even though his own father is a lawyer. He did a Powerpoint view to try to provide a list of the lax players who were at the party that night. He voluntarily offered his own DNA sample, he turned over his own cell phone and AIM records, and he helped the police search his own house for an hour looking for evidence. And yet... He asked to be given a lie detector test and was refused. He has tried repeatedly through his lawyer to present Nifong with exculpatory evidence, and has been refused. He has tried to sit down and talk to Nifong face to face, and has been refused. He had minor charges against him reinstated by Nifong and he has pleaded to them and paid his $100 fine. He has apparently taken -- and passed -- a lie detector test given by a very prestigious former FBI agent with great experience at testing in this area. At this point I think Evans has done about everything he can do, unless you can think of something else for someone to do who is out on $400,000 bail facing a charge that could get him 15 years in a state penitentiary? In the name of common charity, IMHO, I am asking you what exactly is it that you are faulting David Evans for at this point? Because he did not also hold a press conference "earlier?"

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#147)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:53:04 PM EST
    Why are the young men, who are so clearly being falsely charged in this case, not going to the local United States Attorney to pursue a case against the false accuser? The evidence of her crime, as in any case, here may begin to fade over time, and will need to be preserved. She may have confided broad hints -- or the outright truth -- to friends or family (e.g., her father, based on comments he has made). He may have even been told by her that there is no basis to the accusation, and he would be key to getting her to turn and get out of this thing before it goes so far that she will dig herself into more serious trouble. Remember his comment about how she may not testify? If that didn't sound like him trying to give her an out, I don't know what else could.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#148)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon May 15, 2006 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    Look, the case is not this: 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. This is a case of a stripper who charged three men with rape. If they're guilty they should go to jail. If she lied, she should go to jail. I said very early in this case that it's dangerous for people who want to make these people icons. It's dangerous and stupid. These are people, not icons.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#149)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 09:30:55 PM EST
    Posted by SharonInJax
    No way is that a moustache in that pic, either, hicht: he's got his moutpiece in, it is pushing his upper lip up, the way I see it. And was pointed out before, not really relevant to whether he had one that night.
    Click "Larger" a couple of times and you will see he has a full beard. You can even see the hair coming through the vents in his chin strap. Obviously, this has nothing to do with how he looked the night in question, but give hicht some credit for finding a photo showing hair on Evan's lip (even if it is a beard, not a moustache).

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#150)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 10:51:13 PM EST
    I've been following this case and in particular this site for sometime now and while I've been tempted to comment before, for some reason today's post with its characterization of '[a]n absolutely compelling denial" finally tripped my switch. Frankly, while I am a lawyer (although not crim. def.) who leans strongy toward pro-crimina defendant bias and I think any lawyer is leery of media reports with their tendency toward sensationalistic myopia, the posts and comments I have seen here disturb me. Let me give the obligatory and necessary preface that this should be tried in court, not the press. I believe this strongly, while admitting to enjoying speculation etc. Nonetheless, I find the posts on other topics distinctly different than this case; e.g., Libby, Rove, Telcos. I have noticed that rather than objective updates, Talk Left tends towards comments regarding how much the author respects the various defense attorneys. I have yet to see, even though the information is readily available, any objective discussion from Talk Left about the ease of altering dates and times for digital images. Instead, the defense attorneys seem to toss out information about events and the validity of their proof, which this site increasingly simply swallows whole. There are definite contradictions in the defense positions, the DA has finally and appropriately stopped talking, yet this site demonstrably treats the DA's current silence as suspect and the defense claims as gospel. A number of the comments are frankly chilling in their sloppy People's Court/CSI (crappy, sophmoric, deceptive show by the way)based facile speculations, as well as the unexamined racism, classism, and misogyny that underlies so many. Perhaps Talk Left should report the news with something other than specious objectivity. Would it help you to think about whether your position would change if she were a defendant? These men (not boys by the way have extremely excelent counsel (you certainly keep telling us how much you think of them) and the funds to tear apart the prosecution's case that most criminal defendants don't have. By the way, I don't know what world you all live in, but let me assure you that others in these men's position have even been convicted of such crimes and still gone on into safe, lucrative berths in the business world. I don't think anyone should undergo trial by media (for example the AV), but I'm nauseated by the lynching analogies (I imagine that Leo Frank and countless black Americans are spinning in their graves)and the weeping for men who are much better equipped to weather this storm than the infinite number of criminal defendants in this country who don't get to whine and spin to the MSM. I've expected and usually found better from this site. All I can beseech is that you try for objectivity or better yet confine yourself to pleadings, instead of mewling about how "it might be true." It's one thing to provide a forum for armchair CSI fanatics, its another to weave the rope. At this point, given the bulk of coverage, the AV's the one surrounded by an uninformed and impatient mob. P.S. Some commentators should think about doing a little research on what lynching really is (hint, it doesn't happen to people who have lawyers with MSM on the speed dial).

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#151)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:11:06 PM EST
    Please forgive typos in previous post. Just read the update and feel it demonstrates absolute idiocy and naivete on the part of someone who should know better. It's been over a month since this broke; if you, think people don't lie convincingly as time progresses (lawyers recognize this phenomenon as witnesses/victims/defendants convincing themselves over time regardless of what happened), I don't have much faith in your experience or skills. This guy may very well be innocent, she may have made it up, could be the wrong person...but for you to act as if a press conference is an appropriate gauge of truth or sincerity is ridiculous. By the way, thanks for clearing up your Day 1 position. Stop pretending you do anything but present filtered evidence that meets your preconceptions. Your infatuation with the defense and absolute ostrich approach to basic info about those photographs (by the way, I didn't notice you saying they were impossible to alter, apparently you were enjoying your kool-aid and couldn't be bothered. You infuriate me with your psuedo-liberality in this case, but I guess it just goes to show where we still need work. Look forward to you giving Libby the same generous support you've given the Duke men. They're innocent until proven guilty; I think the jury's in on your hypocrisy.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#152)
    by cpinva on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:13:21 PM EST
    a comment regarding the "statistical" analysis in a prior thread, by someone who clearly hasn't a clue about statistics. she stated "if a one person, out of 46, is randomly selected, what are the odds that that same person would be selected, in another group of 46? the odds are 1/2116" not true by a long, long shot. simply put, if a person is selected in one group, and is then put in another group, with the same person doing the selecting, than the selection is no longer random. the selector already has that person in their mind's eye, they've seen them before, and the rules of random selection no longer apply. the odds are nearly 1/1 that person will be selected, out of the second group. this is such a basic rule of statistics, i'm surprised someone else didn't point this out. if someone else already pointed this out, my apologies for restating the obvious. imho, mr. nifong has backed himself into a corner, which he seems unable or unwilling to come out of. had he compelling forensic or eyewitness evidence, convince me he wouldn't have leapt at the chance to meet with the attorneys for all three accused, and convinced them resistance is futile. he would have blared it from the rooftops, much as bush would have blared the discovery of actual wmd's found in iraq. he hasn't, nor has bush. this pretty much says it all for me. nifong has two things going for him: 1. it isn't his money, it's the state's and accused. it's no scratch out of his pocket.it's always better to use other people's money, whether it's for investing, or prosecuting a case., and 2. it isn't his reputation, he already got re-elected, for all intents and purposes, so he doesn't care. further, the odds of being cited for abuse of prosecutorial power are slim to none, so he has nothing to lose, and everything to gain. i know, i know, this sounds completely cynical. it is. call it occupational hazard. call it being around the block one too many times. frankly, it is of complete, utter indifference to me what you call it.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#153)
    by january on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:45:31 PM EST
    Pat posted:
    In particular, it seems that that the AV lost too many nails - I seem to remember posts that indicated that there were 5 or 7 nails found in the trash. Even in a struggle, it would be hard to lose that many nails (especially 7). And, if she did lose all of these nails in a struggle, wouldn't there be something (skin, cloth fiber, blood) under more than one nail?
    Pat, It's my understanding these were fake, press-on nails, and that not all of them had been applied to her fingers. Even if they were on her hands, if they aren't applied properly, they can come off very easily and not bring much (fiber, tissue, etc.) with them. 7 isn't an outrageous number.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#154)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 01:42:00 AM EST
    idabw posted: I've been following this case and in particular this site for sometime now and while I've been tempted to comment before [... blah, blah, blah...] Frankly, while I am a lawyer [... more of the same...] ... [rambling on through various topics in vague generalities] ... the posts and comments I have seen here disturb me .... in their sloppy People's Court/CSI (crappy, sophmoric, deceptive show by the way)based facile speculations, as well as... [... still more of the same and so on and so on...] ... the update...[by TL]...demonstrates absolute idiocy and naivete on the part of someone who should know better. ... I'm nauseated ... You infuriate me... I think the jury's in on your hypocrisy.
    Anything else you would like to add to all that, counselor? Because if not, then 1) Since you have been following this case so well, then you know that there have been plenty of other lawyers on this site who don't see it your way at all. 2) You surely have also noticed we are enjoying what we do here. 3) As you have also seen that we here at TalkLeft like, admire and respect TL, and appreciate the opportunity to participate in her forum. 4) Since you are such a smart, smart, smart lawyer-person yourself, then you've probably already got a lawyer's intuitive suspicion that we are not about to change our approach to suit your insulting complaints you used to describe us in your rather dreary, rambling, vague, condescending and effete post -- sent at midnight no less. 5) But please do feel free to get back to us anytime if you ever do manage to come up with something that might actually have some genuine interest value to it.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#155)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 01:54:18 AM EST
    Sharon, you wrote a while back,
    I ask all of you: if it were YOUR son, would you want him sacrificed and scarred this way, if he is in fact innocent, before he has been found guilty of anything other than of being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
    I don't wish upon anyone freedom from being tried. It would be nice if prosecutors would only try guilty people, but in a world of uncertainty, its an unrealistic expectation. So I regard it as something of a duty of citizenship that innocent people may, on occasion, have to face trial, my hypothetical son included. It's a less onerous burden than the draft. I don't know all the facts, but if Evans were my son I wouldn't have recommended that he handle this case the way he has. He has over-assessed his risk. His odds of losing this case are so small as to be ignored. I'd suggest he start by going to the Black Panther's office, if he hasn't already, and lay out his case. If this is to be a political show trial, it would do him some good to win the militants over to his side first. A second thing he should do is go down to small claims court and bring suit against the accuser for $1.00. Present all your evidence, bring your friends to testify on your behalf, and see how it goes. It won't cost you much, and you can learn a lot about the law in the process. Small demonstrations of good faith such as these show far more courage and self-respect than the fee-based approaches universally recommended by the legal profession. And they build you a reputation of being something more important than a "team player." They build you a reputation as a "person." No small thing. If the accuser were my daughter, (a question also worth bringing up), I would ask that she tell the truth simply and directly, and not let the Or*n*c*s of the world discourage her. Telling the truth doesn't always lead to justice being done, but we don't at least aim for justice, what right have we to expect to receive it?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#156)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 04:53:17 AM EST
    Orinoco posted:
    there is only one action Evans can do that would satisfy some people. Namely, to confess to the crime, and confess it in a way that exactly conform to the accuser's story.
    There is one serious problem with this suggestion. Which of the accuser's stories would he confess to? The one where she was beaten, strangled, raped and sodomized for thirty minutes? The one that would conform to the neighbor's description where she was in the house for only a few minutes? The one she testified to in the photo line-up about being assaulted with players' body parts? The one put forward by her father involving a broomstick? The one where he had a moustache when he attacked her? The one where she left the house after dancing a few minutes and then returned to get her shoe? The one put forward by the DA where her attacker must have been wearing long sleeves? You see the difficulty. And since the police reports are not yet available Evans couldn't possibly know what other stories she may have told.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#157)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 16, 2006 at 05:52:47 AM EST
    alexva posted:
    The meeting was cancelled on March 22. As of that date, according to the Raleigh News and Observer, Nifong had given "frequent interviews in the local and national media".
    alexva, Have you found the Raleigh News and Observer article you are quoting? I'm still looking.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#158)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 06:15:19 AM EST
    Alexva, You wrote:
    Which of the accuser's stories would he confess to? The one where she was beaten, strangled, raped and sodomized for thirty minutes?
    Someone wrote that in the subpeona. I don't know if you've ever spoken to a reporter, but its often astonishing how different what finally gets reported is from what you actually said. Policemen, I've found, are less skilled than reporters at accurately paraphrasing things. You wrote:
    The one that would conform to the neighbor's description where she was in the house for only a few minutes?
    Bissey has here inside the house for 15-20 minutes the first entrance, and 20-30 the second. Is that what you mean by a "few minutes." Kind of proof of concept that reporting discrepancies are commonplace. You just made one. You wrote:
    The one she testified to in the photo line-up about being assaulted with players' body parts?
    How was that any different from the hearsay in the subpeona? You wrote:
    The one put forward by her father involving a broomstick?
    Is that a different story from the prior two stories? How is this hearsay in conflict with the subpeona? You wrote:
    The one where he had a moustache when he attacked her?
    Is there one where he didn't? You wrote:
    The one where she left the house after dancing a few minutes and then returned to get her shoe?
    Far be it from Evans to confess to that one!!! You wrote:
    The one put forward by the DA where her attacker must have been wearing long sleeves?
    Is that also a different story?
    You see the difficulty.
    Yes. And if Evans can't even come up with a confession that would convince a jury he is guilty you've got to wonder why anybody would be worried about his future. If he was black I could see there being a problem... The innocence project is full of black defendants railroaded into jail by bullish prosecutors. But those defendants didn't have Dan Abrams on their team. Perhaps they weren't part of his circle of commonality.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#159)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 06:26:46 AM EST
    SLOphoto, thank you. Regarding the possibility that some of the nails had not been attached to explain why there were so many nails laying around: Doesn't that go towards the story that the AV was in the bathroom "doing her nails"?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#160)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 06:37:17 AM EST
    PB, The problem with injecting class interests to attack the players and defend the AV is that is quite easily is flipped. No problem pointing out things, but some posters here seem to cling to the AV as an icon. Sorry, she's just a person. Someone mentioned that this is a show trial. I wrote an essay by that name on the Simpson trial because it was, in fact, a show trial. This too is becoming a show trial. Whose show? Qui bono, regarding the New Black Panthers? Those who want to fracture race relations. These guys are as phony as the Symbionese Liberation Army. When the talking heads are pushing buttons, of course it's a show trial. All the more reason to stick to the case and not get sucked in by false idols created for your consumption.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#161)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 16, 2006 at 06:40:00 AM EST
    Talk Left commented:
    The third problem is that she says one of the assaulters had a mustache. She says one of the photos looks like the guy except he doesn't have a mustache. This is another improper ID technique. Once they knew one of the guys she described as her assailants had a mustache, they should have shown her photos only of guys with mustaches, including of course, many who were not on the team.
    What? The police don't know if some of the players had mustaches that night or not. The photos in the line up were taken ten days after the party. What if she had said one of her assailants had long hair or bangs and all of the players got crew cuts before they were photographed? OOPS! Can't show her any of these guys' photos. Does that make sense? "Hey Mac, do any of the guys on the baseball team have long hair? Can you get photos of some of them, because it's pretty obvious none of these lacrosse guys could have had bangs ten days ago." I have one of those fake mustaches from a Halloween shop. Some have an adhesive backing, but the better ones come with spirit gum. It's hard to tell it's fake, even up close.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#162)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 06:49:53 AM EST
    A little more regarding the nails, if they were set out to be put on. From what little we know of the AV's narrative, when she returned to the house she was separated from Roberts and was pulled into the bathroom. It wasn't that she was in the bathroom and these guys came in. So if the nails are out, and she was doing her nails, she wasn't pulled into the bathroom. Another part of her story that doesn't seem to match the evidence. Also, it seems kind of unlikely that she would do her nails after a gangrape. I guess someone could try to fix the evidence to fit her story. She came back into the house, she went into the bathroom, she started doing her nails, someone knocked on the door, she opened the door, then the guys came in. Except that that doesn't match what she said. Or try to reconcile all of the above except that she left the bathroom and was pulled back into the bathroom after she left. Again, we are missing her going into the bathroom. Her absence of nails has been explained as coming off in a struggle. If some of the press-ons hadn't been on her own nails, that would suggest that she was in the process of putting them on. Once that's known then her narrative becomes much weaker.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#163)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:07:09 AM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion said
    What? The police don't know if some of the players had mustaches that night or not.
    In that case, the AV didn't give or the police forgot to ask the AV the description of her assaulters, so the lineup is not arranged according to her descriptions of the assaulters. Let's say, if the AV had told the police how her three assaulters look like, the Id should have been players and fillers of that description, not the whole lacrosse players. Those lacrosse players who did not fit the descriptions should not be in the lineup, right? I would be amazed if the description of her assaulters is not part of her statement to the police. Once I had a man knocking at my apartment door trying borrow some car tool. I didn't have it, told him so and closed the door, but the next second the man tried to force himself in. I called the police immediately and the man left. The first question the police asked is "Could you describe what the man looks like? What did he wear?" At that time I just arrived in the US and was not very fluent in English. Due to the shock, I almost forgot all my vocabulary to describe how the man looks like. I knew the image, but at that moment I didn't have the words for the fabric and the pattern of his clothing and his hairstyle. Neither was I used to judge people's height in feet and inches. So the policeman used himself as a reference and asked me, "Is he taller or shorter than I am?" Then he used many useful ways to help me come up with a profile for the man. Aren't the description of her assaulters very basic things to do in an investigation? One can argue that the AV was too shocked, but she was able to come up with a complete statement after 31 hours and the description of her assaulters should be included in that statement. If there were no specific description of her three assaulters, and the lineup for the Id is just lacrosse players only, no matter whom she fingers will fit, since there's no description of her assaulter as the frame of referennce at all. The only frame of reference in that id lineup is--they are all Duke lacrosse players.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#164)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:08:33 AM EST
    IMHO, I note that your tone has changed. Regarding photo IDs, yes, if she says it's a white man with a mustache (common acceptable spelling) then she should see pictures of white men who have mustaches who weren't at the party. Why? So it can be determined whether or not she could really make an ID. If she picks a guy who's in Seattle, it shows the police she can't make the photo IDs and to proceed with caution regarding her ability to identify her alleged attackers. You still don't understand that? The purpose of a photo ID is not to make sure you have a defendant, it's to make sure the accuser can identify a possible defendant.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#165)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:08:46 AM EST
    Or*n*c*, What's a Grouchoon? Sounds scary. I'm shaking.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#166)
    by Lora on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:12:08 AM EST
    Good Morning. 1. Nifong. In reading the critiques of his early press conferences (I have yet to see evidence of anywhere NEAR 70, by the way -- another spin by the defense, perhaps?) I found that he could make some of those statements PERHAPS (said to assure those of you who seem to think I don't entertain other viewpoints, that I in fact do. I've entertained (and been entertained by) the many many here that are contrary to my own). The reason he can is if there is a compelling police reason to do so. If you believe a violent crime was committed, the perps are at large, and witnesses are reluctant, or refuse, to come forward, that is compelling in my book. 2. Nifong. As I've said and shown, he publicly stated early on that the DNA might not turn up anything. This comment by Nifong has been buried and ignored. It took considerable searching to find it. 3. Mustache. OK, I caught a glimpse of Evans on TV. He had the beginnings of a 5 o'clock shadow. I think it likely to presume he shaved for his indictment speech. Hicht's picture shows something resembling a mustache. Could be a 5 o'clock shadow. This guy grows hair fast (warning - opinion). He could have had a 5 o'clock shadow at the party that could have been remembered OR described by the AV as a mustache. 3. Stat. cpinva, no. The chances are 1/2116 that a particular individual will be randomly selected 2 times in a row from the same pool of 46 individuals (if I said "another group," I apologize. I meant another selection.). This is true. Read the probability chapter of a Stat 101 textbook and get back to me. 4. Rogan, I don't know what evidence is required, but if I ever get raped, I'll make sure I didn't have sex for 2 weeks prior to the event, and that I have a photographic memory.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#167)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:27:05 AM EST
    Lora, No man on earth grows a mustache in a day. Give it up. The AV invented the mustache. It never existed. Schick Quattro, indeed.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#168)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:28:56 AM EST
    TL, can you make a separate thread for those here who want to speculate on the speed of the growth of human facial hair?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#169)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:35:55 AM EST
    Lora, The problem with the AV isn't just that she had sex before the alleged rape. The bigger problem will be if she didn't reveal that to the SANE nurse and the police. If she initially witheld that information, and the fact that the DA didn't initially get a DNA sample from her boyfriend suggests that, then the presence of his DNA and absence of any lacrosse player's DNA not only goes towards scientifically debunking her version of events, it goes to the lack of credibility of what she said.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:38:17 AM EST
    I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, I thought it was a interesting point of why the da may be stalling to go to trial until spring:
    If there is a smoking gun in the Duke University rape case, it is not about the stripper who made the charges or the lacrosse players who have been accused. The smoking gun is the decision of District Attorney Michael Nifong to postpone a trial until the spring of 2007. That makes no sense from either a legal or a social standpoint, whether the players are guilty or innocent. But it tells us something about District Attorney Nifong. (snipped) After a fraud has been perpetrated and it is only a matter of time before the victim finds out, it can still make a big difference whether the victim finds out suddenly or slowly over an extended period of time. This is called "cooling out the mark." If the mark (the victim) finds out suddenly and immediately, instant outrage may lead to a call to the police, who can then get hot on the trail of the con man. However, if the realization of having been taken begins to emerge at first as a sense of puzzlement, then as a sneaking suspicion, and ultimately -- after a passage of some time -- as a clear conclusion that a fraud has taken place, then the emotional impact is not nearly as strong. The victim of the fraud may even be reluctant to go to the police, having had time to think about what a fool he may look like and how little chance there is now to do anything about it. If the truth about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky had come out the very next day after he made that dramatic declaration -- "I did not have sex with that woman" -- it would have been far more of a shock than it was months later, after more and more bits and dabs of information came out, leading many to suspect the truth long before it all came out. One of Clinton's press secretaries called these delaying tactics "telling the truth slowly." (snipped)
    read the whole article here

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#171)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:44:25 AM EST
    news to me:
    Taxi driver Moez Mostafa, a strong potential witness for Duke University lacrosse player Reade Seligmann, has been arrested on a 2003 warrant. The charge stemmed form his having driven a shoplifter home after she stole 5 purses worth about $250 from a Durham, North Dakota department store. He denied any involvement at the time and in fact helped police find the woman (who subsequently pleaded guilty)
    here

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#172)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:48:00 AM EST
    From Mr. Sowell's column:
    We will all be tired of hearing about it [a year from now]. We are the marks who will be cooled out.
    All I can say is, God help me if I'm still refreshing this page every couple of hours a year from now.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#173)
    by Lora on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:55:09 AM EST
    Bob, The AV said "mustache" not "5 o'clock shadow" it's true. She could have remembered it wrong (see my posts on memory) or she could have just misspoken or spoken genereically. I'm just saying, seeing him on TV, combined with Hicht's picture, gives support to the idea that his upper lip may have been darkened by facial hair the night of the party. To what extent I don't know. I'm not saying he used miracle grow. It just gives more credibility to the possibly casual use of the word, or possibly slightly misremembered "mustache."

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#174)
    by Lora on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:03:29 AM EST
    Bob, I'll grant you that if the AV had deliberately withheld information about having sex, it does not help her credibility. I offer the possibility that IF she withheld the information, she may have done so out of fear that it would hurt her case. She may not have been a DNA expert, and she may not have fully understood what withholding the knowledge would do. I don't know why Nifong waited. I don't know why he would necessarily believe her denial of sex, if she made one (would you?).

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#175)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:13:00 AM EST
    On the mustache point, it seems to me that Nifong's ability to persuade a jury that Evans was somehow able to grow a mustache in one day is very, very remote. As we've seen in this thread, there might be one or two people willing to believe that, but it's unlikely 12 will. The more pertinent question is why we need to address this matter at all, since this could easily have been settled definitively by the parties involved. The defense attorneys claim to have photos of Evans showing that he had no mustache at the time of the incident. They say they were willing to show those to Nifong. Nifong refused to look, despite a state guideline that prosecutors must not "intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused." What possible rationale would Nifong have had to have refused to examine the photos?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#176)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:16:05 AM EST
    Bob said:
    TL, can you make a separate thread for those here who want to speculate on the speed of the growth of human facial hair
    Yes please, and one more for the time line that been beat to death.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#177)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:19:15 AM EST
    PB said:
    I'd suggest he start by going to the Black Panther's office, if he hasn't already, and lay out his case.
    Since when does the New Black Panther become a reliable source of neutrality, fair-mindedness and embodiment of justice? To respond to your former reply about what my definition of "liberals" is. I may not be able to come up with one on what a liberal is. However, I could explain what a "fundamentalist" is. If one insists on antagonizing a whole group of people based on their racial, social, economic, political or religious identities and there's no other possibility that this people could bein any way different, then one is taking a "fundamentalist" position. In the discussion of this case, fundamentalist positions and arguments could come from both sides. The best examples regardingthe discussion of this case on the media would be Rush Limbaugh and Nancy Grace. Also of note is the quote from the Newsweek about the NCCU student's comment that he'd like to see those Duke players down whether they are innocent or not for the sake of the past. I don't think all the commentators here are so narrow-minded. Nor are every residents of Durham. Many seem pretty willing to change their opinions if they are given more preferential evidences on a particular side.What about you, PB? Or, even after the trial, IF the players are acquitted, you'll still join the crowd to say that they are acquitted not because of they are not proven guilty but because their ability to acquire better legal representation? That would smell of being a fundamentalist in one's observation and analysis of the world. It is because we all believe that the innocent should not be jailed, whether they are white or black, poor or rich, that we would like to maintain the innocence of people until proven guilty. If the players are indeed proven guilty in the court by the unrefutable evidences the prosecution present, I would gladly change mycurrent opinions since what we are hearing now is mainly defense stories and be happy for the AV that she is a courageous woman worthy of immense respect.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#178)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:21:21 AM EST
    Lora, Most people have intervals of a couple of days or weeks without sex during the course of their lives. If the AV said she hadn't had sex for days or weeks prior to the alleged rape, it would not have been such a shock to the SANE nurse or the police. But it would be a lie. Your continued exercise about the mustache is to convince yourself.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#179)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    GUNSHY, not the timeline. I like the timeline discussions.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#180)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:24:35 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO,
    I note that your tone has changed.
    I've noticed your charred stumps are still enjoying the heat of the campfire. Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Regarding photo IDs, yes, if she says it's a white man with a mustache (common acceptable spelling) then she should see pictures of white men who have mustaches who weren't at the party. Why? So it can be determined whether or not she could really make an ID. If she picks a guy who's in Seattle, it shows the police she can't make the photo IDs and to proceed with caution regarding her ability to identify her alleged attackers.
    You still don't understand that?
    The purpose of a photo ID is not to make sure you have a defendant, it's to make sure the accuser can identify a possible defendant.
    Bob, The trick is to not make it impossible. Talk Left posted:
    Once they knew one of the guys she described as her assailants had a mustache, they should have shown her photos only of guys with mustaches, including of course, many who were not on the team.
    Assuming she had already (before the line up) told them the guy that strangled her had a mustache, they are not worried about that yet, they are showing her the photo array to find the guy that forced the oral copulation. If she was describing Seligmann, it has been noted by other commenters, here and elsewhere, that both Tony McDevitt and David Evans resemble Reade, so at some point Evan's photo should have been run by her with the appropriate fillers. In the course of that photo ID process she comes across the photo of David Evans and says, "That looks like the guy that strangled me, but without the mustache." What now? Make a new photo array for the purposes of indentifying the strangler and include "photos only of guys with mustaches?" Hmmmm? Do you see the problem there? Advice to potential rapists: Stay at home, don't let anyone see you. Hold off shaving for a few days, or however long it takes you to show some upper lip growth. Shave the rest of your face. Go out under cover of darkness and rape someone. Shine your flashlight on your upper lip during the attack. Go home and shave immediately. Even if you have been arrested for rape 100 times before, as long as your 100 mug shots show you as clean shaven, this rape victim can look at photo line ups for the rest of her life, but you will never show up in a photo line up shown to her that is sanctioned by Talk Left or, more importantly, Bob in Pacifica.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#181)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:42:02 AM EST
    IHMO, You're hurting now. I understand. I forgive you. Now back to the case: The AV said the guy had a mustache. You show her pictures of guys with mustaches. Pretty simple. If she says none of them look like the guy, then you go back to lacrosse players, with fillers. You know, the correct way to do photo arrays. Doesn't it say something to the AV if she says the guy had a mustache and you don't show her a picture of anyone with a mustache? Sure does. It says, you're wrong, pick again. The fish in this barrel, please. The problem is not that she should be shown pictures of men with mustaches. She SAID the guy had a mustache. If she had then been shown a stack of pictures of guys with a mustache and said, you know, I still think it was this guy, then she would have made a reasoned ID. Could she have wrongly identified someone who wasn't there? Yes. And that would have meant to the cops that you couldn't rely on her ID, as opposed to the process used by the Durham cops in this case, which ensured that she'd make an ID of a lacrosse player. Even Monty Hall didn't tell the contestant not to choose Door Number Three. You still don't seem to get it. I understand your bitterness. Your dream of a successful prosecution is slipping away. Advice to potential alleged rape victims: If you're going to accuse somebody and describe them as having a mustache, you had better have seen a mustache.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#182)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:46:57 AM EST
    From the article GUNSHY posted:
    The smoking gun is the decision of District Attorney Michael Nifong to postpone a trial until the spring of 2007.
    That makes no sense from either a legal or a social standpoint, whether the players are guilty or innocent. But it tells us something about District Attorney Nifong.
    Did he say he was postponing the trial until then or did he say he expected it would not go to trial until then? Is he in total control of when this case goes to trial or is he anticipating motions by the defense team that could contribute to the delay?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#183)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:50:32 AM EST
    IMHO, Do you see a problem with saying that the assailant had a mustache when he didn't? Do you see a problem with saying the man in front of you which you identified with 100% certainty had an alibi and wasn't there? The evidence is not conforming to the AV's narrative. If you believe the AV stands for some greater truth than whatever happened that night, then that's your problem.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#185)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 08:58:10 AM EST
    IMHO I honestly don't know who sets trial dates, I assume that because the DA made the announcement that he is the one that decided. Can any lawyers tell me if it unusual to postpone this type of trial so long.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#186)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:06:26 AM EST
    GUNSHY posted:
    I honestly don't know who sets trial dates, I assume that because the DA made the announcement that he is the one that decided. Can any lawyers tell me if it unusual to postpone this type of trial so long.
    No trial date has been set. I would guess Nifong is speaking from his experience with the delays that can befall less complicated trials. None of the attorney talking heads, I saw on TV thought his estimate was unreasonable or a sign that the DA's office was planning to delay the trial. They all agreed he was anticipating numerous motions to be filed.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#187)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:09:04 AM EST
    Oh Hi chew2, I didn't see your post before posting to GUNSHY, or I wouldn't have bothered. You had it covered.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#188)
    by january on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:12:41 AM EST
    SLO posted:
    4) Since you are such a smart, smart, smart lawyer-person yourself, then you've probably already got a lawyer's intuitive suspicion that we are not about to change our approach to suit your insulting complaints you used to describe us in your rather dreary, rambling, vague, condescending and effete post
    Amen. Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Regarding the possibility that some of the nails had not been attached to explain why there were so many nails laying around: Doesn't that go towards the story that the AV was in the bathroom "doing her nails"?
    Sure. Doesn't entirely rule out that they scattered in a struggle tho.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#189)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:19:01 AM EST
    deleted --please read the commenting rules. This commenter is warned. Name calling and personal attacks are not allowed here.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#190)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:19:27 AM EST
    IMHO: Please... I'd like to know.
    Re: Posted by SLOphoto May 15, 2006 09:49 PM
    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#191)
    by Lora on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:20:27 AM EST
    Bob, He WAS there. And we have yet to see proof on the mustache. We don't know if the AV denied she had sex or not. I went along with your supposition that she denied it and gave a potential reason for telling a lie about it. I went along with you there, which is more than most posters have been doing for anything I've proposed. Yes, Bob, I know it would be a lie if she did that. I already admitted that it would hurt her credibility. But it isn't a lie about the assault. Now, maybe she DIDN'T lie about the sex, OK?
    Advice to potential alleged rape victims: If you're going to accuse somebody and describe them as having a mustache, you had better have seen a mustache.
    Bob, whatever. She wasn't making an accusation, she was looking at pictures trying to remember if any of them looked like her attackers. As far as we know, she didn't say, "The guy who strangled me had a mustache. I'm sure of it!" Hicht's picture is relevant. My 5 o'clock shadow theory is just that. A theory. You think it's silly, fine. As far as Nifong not looking at evidence, if I were him, I'd say, anytime you want to drop off evidence, be my guest. The door is open. Oh, you just want me to LOOK at it? You won't give it to me? Let me examine and verify it? Get out of my office.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#184)
    by chew2 on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:20:29 AM EST
    GUNSHY, Why is it that every article posted here defending the Duke lacrosse team is by a raging ideological conservative like THOMAS SOWELL. [name calling insult deleted, commenter warned.] Sowell is still whining over the Monica Lewinski investigation. He blames Clinton for the delays, not Ken Star the meglomaniac prosecutor who stretched out his investigation for years. In the Duke case he gets his facts wrong as expectected from an ideologue.
    The smoking gun is the decision of District Attorney Michael Nifong to postpone a trial until the spring of 2007.
    Nifong hasn't "decided" to postpone the trial. He's estimated that DEFENSE PRETRIAL MOTIONS will delay the start of the trial.
    The Constitution of the United States includes a right to a speedy trial, to keep people from being jerked around by unscrupulous or vindictive prosecutors who cannot prove that they have committed any crime. Prosecutors have to put up or shut up. This is not a federal case, however, and the laws of North Carolina do not require a speedy trial.
    What an idiot. The 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial applies in North Carolina as it does in all states. It's a constitutional right. State v. Webster. Apparently NC has abolished statutory time limits for a speedy trial. But the constitutional right still applies. State v. Doisey.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#193)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:24:55 AM EST
    deleted --please read the commenting rules. This commenter is warned. Name calling and personal attacks are not allowed here.
    Pay attention! It was chew2 who called Michelle Malkin a: pukey little racist! As a side note, my spousal unit, who is Chinese, was accused by a black/hispanic student in her math class of being racist toward him. My spousal unit's response was that she couldn't be racist because she wasn't white. The boy almost died of apoplexy because he did not know where to take the argument next :-) Needless to say, his problem was he could not take responsibility for not observing my spousal unit's rules in the class.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#194)
    by chew2 on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:37:06 AM EST
    TL, Re: Michelle Malkin as a "racist". You know that Michelle Malkin, a rabid conservative, has made nativist/racist appeals against Mexican immigrants: Has made nativist appeals against singing the National Anthem in Spanish. Commenters have referred to the New Black Panther party as a "racist" hate group. If "pukey" was too strong a comment for this blog, then I appologize and stand corrected. And perhaps I should have elaborated on the evidence for her appeals to anti-Mexican "racism". But why is it so many of the Duke defenders are politically so unsavory?

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#195)
    by chew2 on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    GUNSHY, No trial date has been set yet by the DA. It's way too early. The indictments have just been handed down. I'm not a criminal lawyer, nor do I know what is customary practice is in the NC or Durham courts. So I don't know how long it will take. Clearly, it depends on the complexity of the case, how crowded the trial calender is, and what motions the defense will file. I did find this NC manual discussing speedy trial issues:
    Setting of Trial Dates. The calendaring statute requires that an administrative setting be held for each felony case within sixty days of indictment. One of the purposes of the administrative setting is to set a trial date. Unless the state and defendant agree, the trial date may not be sooner than 30 days after the final administrative setting. See G.S. 7A-49.4(b). The statute also gives a defendant whose case has not been scheduled for trial within 120 days of indictment the right to ask the senior resident superior court judge, or that judge's designee, to set a trial date. See G.S. 7A-49.4(c). Thus defendants whose cases are delayed should not only demand a speedy trial, but should also seek the additional statutory remedy of asking a judge to set a trial date.
    NC Defenders Manual So it seems defendants have the right to demand the judge set a a trial date if one hasn't been set within 120 days of indictment.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#192)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:57:22 AM EST
    what the????? I didn't call anyone a name or make a personal attack, [Yes you did, to Michelle Malkin. I don't agree with her views but I don't allow libelous name-calling statements about her either. ]

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#196)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:58:12 AM EST
    Re Trial Date In Durham County, the trial court administrator, along with the Chief Resident Superior Court Judge usually sets trial calendars. This prediction by Nifong is not unusual, especially with a multi-defendant case. There will be many many motions, including almost certainly one by the defense to remove the venue to a different county.

    Re: Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case (none / 0) (#197)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    This thread is full, here's a new one for all things related to the Duke case. Comments attacking Michelle Malkin have been deleted. While I may not agree with her views, there is no need for libelous name-calling.

    Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case | 197 comments (197 topical)