No trial date has been set. I would guess Nifong is speaking from his experience with the delays that can befall less complicated trials.

All I can say is, God help me if I'm still refreshing this page every couple of hours a year from now.

Hicht's picture is relevant.

And the defense will probably try to move the case to another county anyway.

IMHO:

Please... I'd like to know.

Re: Posted by SLOphoto May 15, 2006 09:49 PM

There are a lot of so-called "Duke defenders" - so many, in fact, that they're bound to show up across the political spectrum.

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.

From my observations all the articles published by conservatives favor the Duke lacrosse team. Find me one political conservative who has favored the AV.

There are a lot of so-called "Duke defenders" - so many, in fact, that they're bound to show up across the political spectrum.

I have thought that the defense publicity leaks and statements were aimed at prejudicing the jury pool in Durham, in part to give them grounds for shifting the trial to a more favorable venue (fewer black folks?).

I imagine when the defense tries to move the venue, the DA will say that they can't take advantage of the fact that they used the media more and therefore infect the jury pool they are complaining about. They will say "you started it"

I haven't read the Durham Herald, but the News and Observer, the area's newspaper of record, has been very careful snd--to my mind-- balanced in its coverage.

Like his two co-defendants, he comes from a family of means. His home has a tax value of $818,883, according to the Anne Arundel County Web site.

I've already admitted these possibilities, Kali, why do you want me to keep revisiting them? He could also, in addition, have been informing the public and trying to get witnesses to come forward, so he could catch the perps. Why can't you see that as a possibility too?

Again I say, if you were a DA, and you believed a violent crime had occurred, the perps were at large, and witnesses were not coming forward, don't you have a responsibility to the public and the victim to say something?

7) in a criminal case, ......... (B) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

Who said Evans should go sit down with the New Black Panthers? Are you kidding?

It's relevant that there is a picture of Evans with something on his upper lip that appears to be facial hair, under circumstances in which many people have been insisting are not possible (no facial hair allowed for the Lacrosse team).

Any psychologists out there? It seems to me that with each disclosure, the AV supporter(s) must go further out in their belief that there "must be something we dont know". Or must invent a scenario that is almost cartoonish in its character ( the fake mustache would be exhibit one here ). Is this a known psychological phenomenon?

I've been pointing out that based on published articles politically conservative ideologues appear universally to support the Duke lacrosse team. Why? Because they favor the white male power structure over attacks from woman, blacks, Jesse Jackson etc? Or do they always favor the criminal defendant?

I cant find it right now, but I am pretty sure I read a story that said it was the coach's policy not to allow mustaches on the team.

It seems to me that with each disclosure, the AV supporter(s) must go further out in their belief that there "must be something we dont know".

I believe most politically conservative ideologues were on Kobe Bryant side, how does that fit in?

What does it prove? Hey, I'm still a white man so I still can't be trusted, because you know where all white men are coming from.

Does anyone here believe that the evidence available to the public thus far would be sufficient to indicate such probable cause? I don't.

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.

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.

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.

The only "leaks" I am aware fo are about the secodn DNA tests. Please name any other leaks, let alone a defense leak.

It's ludicrous that anyone would put any weight behind whether or not Evans had a mustache on the night of the alleged rape from a picture with his face obscured.

"Of course, the defense team also made an emphatic statement that Evans has never in his life had a moustache.

Apparently he did. (Bob, sorry, but if you click on the image to enlarge it, that shadow suddenly turns clearly into facial hair with texture)."

Three men -- none of them Duke lacrosse players and all of whose identities are known by ABC News -- were listed in the report as providing DNA swabs to be tested against the samples found on the alleged victim.

One of the three men has told ABC News that he spoke to the alleged victim the night of the March 13 party. Another man is the alleged victim's boyfriend, and defense attorneys identified him in a news conference as the "single source" of DNA found to date in vaginal swabs of the accuser.It is unclear why the three non-lacrosse players were included in the sampling.

But let me ask this then. Nifong knew how the case was going when he decided to push for an indictment of the third person Monday. Would he have done so if he thought the case was not winnable? Perhaps as an accomodation to the AV? In an effort to be even-handed with respect to the two prior indictees? His actions indicate a confidence in his case that goes beyond the facts on the table, don't they? Since there are a number of facts he has that we don't have, I'm suggesting that the possibility that there's something else there is significantly more likely than the possibility that Nifong is an evil man (as has been posted here) or that Nifong decided to indict three innocent men for political advantage. Obviously I could be wrong on this, too.

Orinoco, Actually, if you read the story, the second warrant the N&O sued to unseal was issued at the time the initial warrant was issued. I've never seen a second warrant that became unsealed that was issued on the same date as the first warrant have you? The defense team made public comments about the warrants which were served, indicating that they were the source of the warrants. In any jurisdiction, there is a waiting period between when a warrant is served and when it is made available to the public. Here it takes 7-10 business days. We've regularly had reports of the warrants the day following them being served. The reporters openly ask the defense team for the private reports before the DA makes them public. For example, yesterday Cheshire responded to such a request saying he'd consider giving redacted copies of the DNA tests to the reporters.

This case more than anything I have seen, cuts across political lines. I have had long discussions with conservatives who are sure that the AV is telling the truth.

But right now I could only convict these boys of being white in Durham County. I see no other evidence to support a rape that passes a beyond reasonable doubt test.

azbballfan, sorry, but Evans has a beard in the photo, not a mustache. You can see hair coming through the chin strap vents, and on his cheeks. Nice try, though.

Posted by chew2 Bob, What does it prove? Hey, I'm still a white man so I still can't be trusted, because you know where all white men are coming from. You are on your own unique planet. -)

Posted by Bob In Pacifica.

Not that unique. Beautiful planet. Come visit sometime.

My instinct is that the defense has sensed a great void in the case, after considering all the possibilities (like date rape drug, a very positive SANE test, a turned player etc).Either the defense is extremely crazy and risk-happy on what they don't know, or they have weighed all the options and are betting their cards on the void.

The supposed exculpatory evidence was leaked to the defense team.

I have no way to believe that they offered evidence or testimony to the DA in a way the DA could have accepted it.

A defense team trick is to offer evidence in such a way as to taint it or make it or other evidence inadmissable for the prosecution.

Then we have the same Cheshire making the claim that Evans has never had a mustache in his life. Well, if there is a picture of Evans with a mustache, then Cheshire's credibility is waning. Bob doesn't see a mustache. I do. Here's a link

Hey, Lying Clown,

I doubt the police interview used for identification would have been made public if the defense team didn't provide a redacted version to the press.

The transcript is in the 89 page motion filed on May 1st.

The clear breach of the rule on looking at exculpatory evidence, which is arguably more egregious will also be pursued.