home

Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman

Accused Duke Lacrosse player Reade Seligman has a hearing at 2:30 ET this afteroon. So do 9 other defendants. Seligman's lawyers want to raise some discovery issues, and it's not clear whether there will be enough time to battle over what they are entitled to.

In other case news, lawyer Mark Simeon, who reprsesents Dancer #2, Kim Roberts and may come to represent the accuser, is asking that the accuser's family lay off their media appearances so they don't hurt her case.

< The Differing Styles of Gore and Hillary | Senate Votes for Border Fences and Path to Citizenship for Many of the Undocumented >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#1)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:45:52 AM EST
    One wonders why Simeon would advise the family to stop making public statements.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#2)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:00:54 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    One wonders why Simeon would advise the family to stop making public statements.
    Are you serious, Bob? You've had a heyday with the father's comments to the media. It may have preventing all the time wasted on you posting "That is, the AV's father said that his daughter filed a false rape charge back then."
    "It's created problems," Simeon said. "They have been inadvertently hurting their daughter.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#3)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:06:25 AM EST
    IMHO, Do you think you have a exclusive right to snark and irony?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#4)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:11:44 AM EST
    IMHO,
    Do you think you have a exclusive right to snark and irony?
    Oh. Sorry. I did ask, "Are you serious, Bob?" I guess I should have waited for your answer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#5)
    by lewke on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:38:38 AM EST
    What, you mean the family of the accuser is now going to enact their own "Blue Wall of Silence™"? Why would they do that if they have nothing to hide? They have to be hiding something or else there would be no reason for them to remain silent. /sarcasm

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:02:14 AM EST
    What's the deal with "inmyhumbleopinion" always mentioning this other poster "orinoco" by spelling the name with asterisks in place of all but the first vowel in the name? Should I address this question to inm*h*mbl**p*n**n?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#7)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:20:00 AM EST
    wonderbread posted:
    Should I address this question to inm*h*mbl**p*n**n?
    It has to do with censorship software libraries use - it blocks the board if we post profanity, it might be more prudent to address me as "*nm*h*mbl**p*n**n."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#8)
    by Lora on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:26:28 AM EST
    Speaking of the Blue Wall of Silence, Nifong has stated that he doesn't expect any more indictments in the case. Now, tell me, unless one of the other players has something to hide, what on earth would now prevent each and every other party member from coming forward and telling their individual stories of what happened at the party? This could help provide that "exculpatory evidence" that the defense wants Nifong to attend to, couldn't it? Why wait any longer? And, snarking aside, Bob, on the subject of Creedmore-- If you believe the father when he said nobody did anything to his daughter, then do you also believe him when he said they held her against her will? Either he is selectively lying, or you have to believe that the AV, then a 14-year-old girl, was taken and held against her will by three men. I don't know what they did do to her there, but rape is certainty a reasonable possibility. Fathers HATE to think that their daughters could be hurt in that way. They would prefer to believe anything else, if given the chance to do so.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:54:22 AM EST
    Speaking of the Blue Wall of Silence, Nifong has stated that he doesn't expect any more indictments in the case. Now, tell me, unless one of the other players has something to hide, what on earth would now prevent each and every other party member from coming forward and telling their individual stories of what happened at the party? This could help provide that "exculpatory evidence" that the defense wants Nifong to attend to, couldn't it? Why wait any longer?
    If nothing happened, why would the other players give the prosecution additional ammunition to convict three innocent people? The prosecution wouldn't be interviewing these players to gather exculpatory evidence. They'd be panning for whatever nuggets of information might aid in securing a conviction. And just because the prosecutor doesn't believe there will be any more indictments, that doesn't mean the player are out of the woods. What if you were the player who fixed the AV's drink? If the prosecution is going to advance the theory that she was drugged, maybe you still have something to worry about. Or what if a picture eventually comes up of one of the guys at the party sporting a mustache. Do you think he's home free because Nifong doesn't expect any more indictments?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#10)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:59:43 AM EST
    This is again mostly old news. Mark Simeon's comments about wanting to represent the AV were in the April Newseek story. This article makes it clear that Fox News and Wendy McElroy were full of sh*t when they claimed that civil rights attorney Willie Gary was a "family advisor".
    Last month, Gary traveled to the Triangle and spoke with the accuser's mother, but he has had no further contact with the family since then, said Kori Love, director of public relations for Gary's Stuart, Fla., firm.
    Even TL will concede that the AV and her family should have the benefit of good professional and legal advice. Unfortunately it seems that they're stuck with Mark Simeon issuing self serving comments and advice from afar.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#11)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:59:46 AM EST
    Lora, I really don't know. I'm beginning to agree with Cheshire and IMHO that the father's been a "tool" or "victim" of the daughter's yarn-spinning. Do I think that there was a rape in 1993? No idea. There could have been a rape, she may have participated in consenual group sex and had misgivings later, or no sex may have happened at all. The AV was fourteen and had a boyfriend who was described as being much older than her, which suggests that she may have been sexually active by then. That would further suggest any of the above possible. Could the AV and mother have lied to the father about what happened in 1993? Sure. They could have lied about consensual group sex too. She could have been telling the truth that nothing happened and then lied three years later about the rape charges she filed and then did not pursue. None of these options reflect well on the AV. I am sure that you can understand that someone who claims to have been gangraped but then lied to conceal the gangrape might have a credibility problem the second time she claims a gangrape. Lying to her father about the first rape then puts all of her communications with her father (and her veracity in general) into question. If she lied to conceal the initial gangrape how do we take the story about her being sodomized by a broom in the current rape story? It seems clear from the search warrants that the police from the beginning were not looking for a broom. The father related that his daughter told him about being sodomized by a broom after the first round of DNA results turned up nothing. Did the father make it up? Did the daughter make it up? Probably the latter. It would be consistent with her lying to her father about the 1993 gangrape, lying about this gangrape. In the absence of DNA evidence connecting the attendees at the party, and the presence of a boyfriend's sperm in her, the AV's credibility becomes essential for the prosecution. Throw into this mix the AV's hospitalization for mental illness last year and you've got problems if you're Nifong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:07:33 AM EST
    I'm just wondering whether, now that the son of prominent Repubs has joined Finnerty and Seligman on the indicted list, we're going to see any sort of empathy develop. What Evans said at his press conference the other day reflects what goes on every day, in every county - people get charged with crimes that either never happened, or that they had nothing to do with. Evans, Finnerty and Seligman have the benefit of well-off families and good lawyers, unlike a lot of the regular folks befallen with false or over-charges. I think back to the Judge Sol Wachtler case. He was the highest ranking judge in all New York State, was convicted of stalking a former paramour, and spent time in prison. Before, he regularly came down on the lock-em-up side. After, he understood how wrong he often had been. He speaks publicly about it, but no one seems to listen. Wonder whether that will happen here, too?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lora on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    hues, Yeah, I guess. Fixing the AV's drink would be having something to hide. Sporting a mustache if the defense says no one was wearing a mustache is something to hide. They could have been doing lots of things they want to hide if their story is any different from the official "nothing happened." ---MADE UP SCENARIO--- How about saying you were at the party, watched the strippers, yelled a few sex-related comments, nothing too out of line, got mad when the dancing stopped and a yelled a few things designed to make them continue dancing, watched as they left, watched one stumble around without her shoe as they came back in and headed for the bathroom, stood around outside the bathroom door yelling a few choice comments, then begging them to come out and then you stuffed a $20 under the door. Then finally the door opened and one insulted the entire group and headed for the car while the other was so out of it she could barely stand up straight. Then you laughed because you thought it was funny. Then she staggered outside and you went and locked the door, sighing with relief that the whole mess was over. What would be so bad about saying that, if that's how it happened? Maybe you'd have to admit to chugging a few beers, and not being quite a charming choir boy, but how could that seriously hurt either you or those indicted?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#14)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:20:23 AM EST
    In looking into Simeon's background I found he was attorney for a defendant in a case that suggests the alleged problems with the AV's identification may not prevent a conviction at trial. In that case, the trial judge made some disparaging remarks about Simeon's competence, and this was in part the basis for reversing the conviction and for a later order of censure of that judge. In that case State v. Brinkley, a witness named Jackson, one of two who ID'd the shooter, claimed the shooter had dreadlocks.
    Suddenly, a man with long dreadlocks holding a rifle appeared from the side of the apartment. Jackson watched as Nesmith was shot in the back as he tried to run away. Following the shooting, Jackson was unable to identify Nesmith's assailant in a photo line-up, but did identify defendant as the shooter at trial. LaToya Ray ("Toya"), another person in Margo's home that evening, also identified defendant as the man who shot Nesmith. Finally, Investigator W. C. Pitt ("Investigator Pitt"), of the Durham Police Department, testified that Toya had identified defendant as one of the men at her home on 6 July 1999. Investigator Pitt further testified that he had never seen defendant with dreadlocks.
    Q. Were you standing guard or on watch on his Cadillac in connection with the business you just referred to? A. The business we was doing, we was smoking a blunt. That's what we was doing. That was the business that we was doing. I thought that it would incriminate me. That's the reason why I didn't answer my business yesterday. That's the business that we was doing.
    The jury convicted the defendant despite Jackson's problematic identification. Jackson was high on weed and didn't recognize the defendant at the lineup. Defendant might not have had dreadlocks. Granted there was another witness ID in that case, but it's unclear how reliable it was. So maybe Nifong has a triable case despite the problems with the AV's identification and all the talk of mustaches etc. Or maybe it just means it doesn't take much to convict if the defendant is poor and black. (I'm not commenting on the Alibi and timeline defense.)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:38:25 AM EST
    What would be so bad about saying that, if that's how it happened? Maybe you'd have to admit to chugging a few beers, and not being quite a charming choir boy, but how could that seriously hurt either you or those indicted?
    Assuming for the sake of argument that nothing happened, I think that sort of testimony could hurt the defense a lot on the timeline. 23 players might remember the AV leaving the house at 12:25, while 7 might remember her leaving at 12:30. 5 might say that they don't remember seeing Seligman in the living room between 12:00 and 12:30. They could all be telling the truth to the best of their knowledge. And even if absolutely nothing happened, those facts would help the prosecution considerably in establishing their timeline and punching holes in the alibi's of the various defendants.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#16)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    I'm beginning to agree with Cheshire and IMHO that the father's been a "tool" or "victim" of the daughter's yarn-spinning.
    I've never said I thought the accuser lied to her father. I have no way of knowing that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lora on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:48:43 AM EST
    hues, All right, point taken. I just can't help thinking there'd be enough to corroborate the story that has been given, if it is true. Bob, Couple corrections: My understanding is the DNA found on the vaginal swab was from epithelial cells with the boyfriend's DNA. That's skin cells. Also, having a mental illness does not mean you tell lies. Honestly, I don't know how other people feel, but a girl lying to her father, saying she wasn't involved in any sexual act, consenting or non-consenting, doesn't really damage her credibility in my book. How many girls or women do you know who are generally honest people and would be honest about reporting a crime, would tell their father if they had sex? There are probably some little girls' daddies out there who somehow think that their grandchildren arrived by stork! I think it was imho (you'll always be just "imho" to me, heh) who came up with the dramatic example of a woman who was raped who would not tell her father. Too few facts available about Creedmore, I think. She could have been raped. She might not have. I don't think Dad's take on it is relevant here. I don't know what to think about the broom. I don't know why it wasn't mentioned on the search warrant. Otoh, you have the head nurse mentioning "blunt force trauma" (which could occur without a broom) and you have the apparent broom comment (Sure would be nice to know who said that, eh?). And I think you have the factor of deep shame and embarrassment and reluctance about even reporting such an event. Even with an empathetic SANE nurse, something like that might not come out right away. That wouldn't cause me to call her a liar. Maybe Nifong didn't believe that one and didn't search for it, or the information came out too late, and he wasn't going to write a new search warrant for just a broom. I'm not convinced either way.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#18)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:50:03 AM EST
    Lying to her father about the first rape then puts all of her communications with her father (and her veracity in general) into question.
    The only problem here is you haven't proven she lied to her father about anything. Are talking about "Kali-lying" - not offering information you think might hurt someone or get someone hurt is lying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#19)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:59:01 AM EST
    Lora posted:
    Honestly, I don't know how other people feel, but a girl lying to her father, saying she wasn't involved in any sexual act, consenting or non-consenting, doesn't really damage her credibility in my book. How many girls or women do you know who are generally honest people and would be honest about reporting a crime, would tell their father if they had sex? There are probably some little girls' daddies out there who somehow think that their grandchildren arrived by stork!
    Lora, Don't fall for it. Bob has no proof the accuser lied to her father about the 1993 rape, about the 1996 report about the 2006 broom.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#20)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    Lora posted:
    My understanding is the DNA found on the vaginal swab was from epithelial cells with the boyfriend's DNA. That's skin cells.
    I posted that as a possible reason that the attorneys had previously reported that "no semen was found." I don't know if it is true. Have you read that elsewhere?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#21)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    chew2 posted:
    In looking into Simeon's background I found he was attorney for a defendant in a case that suggests the alleged problems with the AV's identification may not prevent a conviction at trial.
    Interesting case. Why isn't the defense releasing the "no mustache" photos like they did with the photo of Seligmann with his hand cropped off?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:11:06 AM EST
    A repeat: Rove and Libby were suspects and went in front of a grand jury. Couldn't Nifong have put all 46 Duke boys in front of the Grand Jury one by one, given limited immunity for any past crime except for rape/sodomy/kidnapping, and gotten testimony? That seems like the best way to get around the "blue wall", unless I don't know some legal rules.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#23)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:17:24 AM EST
    From the last thread.
    Loflin called the larceny charge "entirely frivolous." He said it was "striking and surprising" that two principal investigators in the lacrosse case served the warrant instead of the usual lone uniformed officer.
    They obviously wanted to talk to him about the Duke Lacrosse case. Should they have brought along a third officer to arrest him on the warrant? Now we need to know if what Latemodel posted is correct: They questioned him for five hours after arresting him. Latemodel posted:
    He was held for five hours for questioning -- reportedly not about shoplifting, but about the Duke rape charges.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:29:01 AM EST
    Thanks to all. I love to lurk. This is my daily addiction. It is my pleasure to read your posts. IMHO -- you are the greatest! all others: you are good too! thanks again. loving it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#25)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:44:22 AM EST
    SLOphoto & Latemodel You're crying about the cab driver being arrested on an outstanding warrant. Did you know Kim was arrested also?
    Because there was a warrant for her arrest, Roberts told police she picked up the woman on the road, in a crowd of men yelling racial slurs. Police did not ask her name, and Roberts went home. A week later, Roberts' escort agency told her police wanted to talk to her about a possible rape. After she gave a statement, police arrested her for the probation violation.
    Once it comes to their attention, I think they have to arrest or be accused of favoritism.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:21:53 AM EST
    Chew2 wrote:
    Once it comes to their attention, I think they have to arrest or be accused of favoritism.
    You mean like reducing the bond interest on a ripe, legitimate felony warrant for Kim, who appears to be cooperative and supporting of the DA's case, and saving her $1700 as opposed to enforcing a 2 1/2 year old warrant in a matter to which the culprit already pled guilty?? They could have easily requested the taxi driver's warrant to be withdrawn and dismissed the same day they picked him up. Since the Taxi driver was not cooperative and supportive to the DA's case, they are still pursuing it and unnecessarily costing him legal fees and time away from work. I guess the DA would have been accussed of favortism towards the players if the DA had not tried to revoke the plea agreements for the noise violations? Hmmm....I think this guise of avoiding favortism has a fake moustache too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#27)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:25:21 AM EST
    Hmmm....I think this guise of avoiding favortism has a fake moustache too.
    Kali, In the future would your mind referring to it as a FM = false mustache?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    In the future would your mind referring to it as a FM = false mustache?
    IMHO....OK....FM

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    To all: I happened upon another blog which has a wealth of data about the case. It might be worthwhile to read some of the articles - for example, they complain that the media has done a poor job of covering the story - (e.g., not producing a floorplan of the house). You should be warned, however, that the site provides the name of the accuser. http://johnsville.blogspot.com/

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#30)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    Kali, Curious are you claiming to be a criminal attorney or have legal training? I'm not familiar with arrest and bonding procedures. Are you, and if so how? Regarding the fake mustache. It seems fake dreadlocks didn't prevent a conviction in State v. Brinkley. In that case the defendant was convicted even though a key prosectution witness was 1) high on weed at the time, 2) couldn't ID him at a photo lineup, and 3) claimed the defendant had dreadlocks when there was police testimony that he never had dreads.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lora on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    imho, Indeed we have no proof. Not to worry, the "a girl lying to her father" comment was generic. Sorry, I don't know about the type of cells the DNA was analyzed from. I probably just remembered your comment. But the defense stated quite strongly that no semen of any kind was recovered from the AV. They made that lovely comment about swabbing her every place she could possibly be swabbed (even though the first tests came back inconclusive). They used that to state that the AV hadn't had sex at all recently. Maybe they were....WRONG?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#32)
    by weezie on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    False moustache, FM, let's give it it's own thread. Still laughing out loud whenever I see that on here. Again, though, are the pictures on www.dilby.com fakes? The tatoo looks the same...

    Pat's link above says the DNA is seminal. It also says the AV's a 3.0GPA sophomore in some law enforcement-related field, and a registered Dem. All fwiw.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    ABC News' Law & Justice Unit was given exclusive details about the latest DNA report in the Duke lacrosse rape investigation and was shown and reviewed parts of the 10-page document.
    According to the DNA report, tests specifically designed to look for semen found none on swabs of the alleged victim's mouth or genital areas
    This is the only article I have seen where a portion of the report was actually reviewed. I don't think it was semen but some other "male material". dailynews.att.net

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#35)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:13:16 PM EST
    Seligmann's hearing is on TV live. Osborn just said the complainant's phone and purse were found outside the house and brought inside. Osborn wants access to the phone. Judge told them to work out access to the phone. (Sounds like Osborn's expert will be able to observe the prosecution's expert retrieve the information). There may be some third party privacy issues - it may be a borrowed phone. Request for bond reduction hearing Judge said $400,000.00 is with the limits. Judge will not hear it today since he is out on bond. Request that officers maintain and reserve their notes. Judge agreed. Osborn: This is a serious case Judge: I deal with serious cases every day. ..... Osborn: We want a trial as fast as we can. This young man wants to go to the school in the fall. Judge:I can't assure you of that. (basically said, "Stand in line.") ......... Nifong: We may try these case together. Next court date June 19th Discovery turned over so far: (today?) 1278 pages of discovery Two VHS tapes One CD ROM of photos

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:18:26 PM EST
    She black ANd a Democrat? Shocking news!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    Chew2: Instead of deflecting the essential point of my post: that common sense clearly indicates that Nifong actions with regard to warrants, etc. suggest favoritism not the opposite; why don't you address it instead of focusing on me. I've noticed this is a common tactic of yours. It is transparent and lame. As for your professed dreadlock precendent.....gee whiz, I'm impressed with your legal research!! I'm not sure, but I think just about every paralegal with access to Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis could find at least 1000 cases where disguises used in a crime resulted in a conviction....nice work though, you're a superstar. FYI - it is a FM now....LMFAO

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    Anybody heard exactly what was turned over in discovery? I am sure we will hear soon enough if the tox reports are there. No gag order issued in the trial so I assume that Defense will respond to the DA initial comments on the case with leaks of stuff that Nodong kept hidden until now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#39)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    Kali, So are you saying you know nothing about arrest and bonding procedures? I was just trying to get at the basis of your claims of favoritism in the bonding procedure with Kim. So far you haven't provided much. Like I said, I don't know much about bonding but I'm guessing that a judge granted the request for bond reduction. Are you claiming the judge was in Kim's camp also? I'll take it that you're not a lawyer and not that familiar with criminal procedure then. Maybe you watch CSI and can answer whether they really can test for latex condoms? I've asked that question repeatedly and never gotten an answer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:12:57 PM EST
    Kali I would recommend a wall of silence with this guy. He does not want to have a dialogue and exchange of ideas. He does not really want answer to his questions either. He does want to call names and generally act like a jerk. Let him. If there are no responses eventually he will go away.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#41)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:16:19 PM EST
    Kali,
    As for your professed dreadlock precendent.....cases where disguises used in a crime resulted in a conviction.
    The case I cited involved a witness ID where he thought he saw dreadlocks, just like the AV here may have thought she saw a mustache. The jury convicted even though there was testimony the defendant never wore dreadlocks. And the witness was high and failed to ID in the lineup to boot. Very much like the current case. There did not appear to be any claim in that case that the defendant wore a disguise that night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    On the face of it, the bonding procedure for Kim looks like favoritism (her bond/bail was changed, as per numerous posts, after meeting with Nifong). It is thus up to those who call this normal procedure to explain why this is so. Nifong didn't request to lower Seligman's bond/bail, after all. If people normally get their bail lowered after cooperating with the DA, then this is normally called favoritism. If people don't usually get Kim's break even when they talk to the DA then what is it?

    According to the DNA report, tests specifically designed to look for semen found none on swabs of the alleged victim's mouth or genital areas
    Thanks Teresa.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    Addendum: Judges usually are guided by the DA in lowering bail, so blaming it on a judge is a little disingenous.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:29:29 PM EST
    Chew2 wrote:
    I was just trying to get at the basis of your claims of favoritism in the bonding procedure with Kim. So far you haven't provided much. Like I said, I don't know much about bonding but I'm guessing that a judge granted the request for bond reduction.
    Do you even realize how inane your argument is? The Nifong recomended the bond reduction to the judge, who would oppose it then? Her attorney? It doesn't take a law degree to figure that one out....and if you have a law degree (like you intimate), I hope you have plenty of malpractice insurance. You're a superstar, Chew2!!! And, yes, forensic testing can reveal traces of latex, lubricant and spermicide....if it is there in sufficient quantities. I don't even watch CSI, but you should, it might help. Here endth you're lesson!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#46)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:34:31 PM EST
    rogan, Did a judge grant the bond reduction or Nifong? I believe Kim's attorney made a request for the bond reduction, Nifong did not oppose it, and a judge granted it. I could be wrong. Do you have some different account and if so what's your source? Remember, Kim gave her statement to the police BEFORE she was arrested and before the bond was reduced. Her testimony was already fixed. As to the cab driver, I haven't kept up with that. I'll bet that Nifong agrees to dimiss any charges after the police complete their investigation. Attorney's make motions all the time. Sometimes the DA opposes them and sometimes he doesn't. The judge rules on them. Just this afternoon, the defense made some discovery motions and I believe Nifong didn't oppose some of them and the judge ruled on them. Was he showing favoritism to the defense just because he didn't oppose them?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:35:21 PM EST
    "Here endth your lesson!" Sorry, I type too fast and don't preview.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#48)
    by lewke on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:36:51 PM EST
    Kali wrote:
    The Nifong
    LMAO

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#49)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:37:42 PM EST
    Kali,
    And, yes, forensic testing can reveal traces of latex, lubricant and spermicide....if it is there in sufficient quantities. I don't even watch CSI, but you should, it might help.
    What's your source for that?
    The Nifong recomended the bond reduction to the judge, who would oppose it then? Her attorney?
    My understanding is that Kim's attorney requested the bond reduction. I could be wrong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#51)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    Outside the Courthouse people shouting: "Justice will be served, rapist*." Inside the courtroom: A man sitting right behind Seligmann: "You're a dead man walking (swear word). I can't sit behind this (swear word)." *Perhaps Seligmann can thank Cheshire for referring to the accuser as the "false accuser" several times during Dan Evan's press conference. I don't think that was a wise move. People that believe in the lacrosse players already think she is a false accuser, people that believe in the accuser are going only going to be incited and to people on the fence, I think it just makes Cheshire look like an ass.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#52)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    4. Is it possible for a condom to be used, without physical evidence of condom use (traces of latex, etc) being left behind? A few experts I contacted didn't feel they knew enough to answer this question. Of the experts who answered this question, however, all agreed that condoms could be used and not necessarily detected. Elizabeth Johnson wrote, "Testing for these substances is not typically done, despite what you see on CSI. There has been some research done re spermicides on condoms, but none of this is done as part of a typical test and validated methods for casework aren't there yet." William Shields wrote "This question is better asked of a forensic chemist but I do know that such traces are often but not always left behind." And William Thompson flatly answered "yes."
    Kali, the experts questioned by this lady seemed unsure about any condom evidence in the DNA tests. DNA from condoms

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    chew 2 Did Nifong oppose or otherwise delay the bond reduction for Seligman? As people have said, defense attorneys make these motions all the time, and district attorneys by not objecting give "tacit apporval", thus giving valuable information to the judge. Can a lawyer please tell me if Nifong could have brought the 46 Duke boys in front of the grand jury, given limited immunity from rape/kidnapping/sodomy, and basically forced testimony? If not, then why did Libby appear in front of a grand jury?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    IMHO, there's somebody making obscenely worded, audible threats to the defendant in the courtroom, and you feel his defense attorney is to blame? Would that be legal malpractice? He should have known better than to get "those people" all riled up?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#55)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    Congrats, you just ensured the case won't be tried in Durham.
    Perhaps that was Cheshire's motive.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#56)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    IMHO,
    Perhaps Seligmann can thank Cheshire for referring to the accuser as the "false accuser" several times during Dan Evan's press conference. I don't think that was a wise move. People that believe in the lacrosse players already think she is a false accuser, people that believe in the accuser are going only going to be incited and to people on the fence, I think it just makes Cheshire look like an ass.
    It could be a two edged sword. If he inflames passions enough he may get a change of venue. But if he doesn't get the venue changed, then he has an inflamed jury pool. I don't think it's primarily his fault though. There's just seems to be a racial divide. I can see the black community resenting the attacks on the AV as one of their own. No doubt some blacks are fanning the flames. And those comments will be played up in the (white) press to further divide the public to heighten racial fear and anger. I think it will be very important for the black and white community leaders to speak out against those sorts of threats etc.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    It sells lots of papers, I guess.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#58)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    Del posted:
    IMHO, there's somebody making obscenely worded, audible threats to the defendant in the courtroom, and you feel his defense attorney is to blame? Would that be legal malpractice? He should have known better than to get "those people" all riled up?
    "False accuser" was said for effect. I'm not sure he's going to get his desired effect, whatever that might have been. Cheshire seems to enjoy the limelight. In the DNA press conference Wade Smith had to "take the hook to him" to get him to shut up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#59)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:14:51 PM EST
    Qui bono? The New Black Panthers Party member making death threats. Hmmm? Qui bono? The Symbionese Liberation Army? Read a little history, folks. There was a rich kid involved in that show, too. chew2 can see the consequences of the New Black Panthers' threats. So who benefits? People who benefit from racism. That's what the NBPP is all about. That is their role, that is their function. Their function isn't to protect anyone. It's to divide. Think hard, everyone. Who benefits?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    I used alleged victim as a neutral term. False accuser stakes out a position, but I don't think a defense attorney can be very far from that position. As far as Cheshire using the term "false accuser" having any responsibility on a New Black Panther making obscene threats (I've just seen comments here, haven't seen a news story or any video), that's absolutely ludicrous. What's the Newbleep gonna do when attorneys prove she's been lying? Shoot the defendants? Was the person removed from the court? Arrested? Acknowledged?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#61)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    Rogan, Re: the grand jury I've asked that question before since I'm not sure myself 1. If they grant you immunity in the GJ then depending on the type of immunity they can't use your testimony against you. I know Rove appeared voluntarily w/o a grant of immunity, and I believe Libby did to, but I could be wrong. 2. It appears that the NC state GJ has the power to subpoena witnesses. My guess is this is almost never done because it is too expensive and time consuming. The GJ only has limited time, and Nifong has a limited staff. Questioning all 46 team members would have been too expensive given the potential benefits, since the attys might have fought it tooth and nail. Plus he didn't need to do it to get indictments. I thought he should have considered it though.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#62)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    If I recall, in a previous hearing Seligmann's attorney asked for the AV's mental health history, including any hospitalizations, her criminal history, her educational history. While she's supposedly pulling a 3.0 for the semester, I imagine they want to see any diagnoses that school counselors and health professionals may have made along the way. Do we know if any of this was provided at the hearing? If it was, would the defense be allowed to release it to the public? I get the feeling that other than a newbleep shouting an obscenity there won't be much news in the case for awhile.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:39:17 PM EST
    Teresa wrote:
    Kali, the experts questioned by this lady seemed unsure about any condom evidence in the DNA tests.
    Your post is consistent with what I wrote and what has been relayed to me by those in the know (persons with contacts at forensic labs)... you can test for it, if there are sufficient trace elements. Spermicides and lubricants are easily detected if present. Latex is more difficult and more complicated to test.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#64)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:42:01 PM EST
    Bob in Pacicica posted:
    I used alleged victim as a neutral term. False accuser stakes out a position, but I don't think a defense attorney can be very far from that position.
    Cheshire is saying she is guilty of a crime for which she has not even been charged, much less convicted. She could sue him. His client is an indicted rapist. Bob in Pacicica posted:
    As far as Cheshire using the term "false accuser" having any responsibility on a New Black Panther making obscene threats (I've just seen comments here, haven't seen a news story or any video), that's absolutely ludicrous.
    I'm not talking about the obscene threats. I'm talking about Seligmann being referred to as "rapist." A reporter on Court TV says she witnesses a man shouting, "Justice will be served, rapist." It is also now in articles on the internet. Bob in Pacicica posted:
    Was the person removed from the court? Arrested? Acknowledged
    He was taken aside, told to calm down and was allowed to attend the hearing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#65)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:52:01 PM EST
    Kali, should we assume then that they didn't test for condoms? Would that have been in the report that the defense received on Friday? If it wasn't part of the test and if this case makes it far enough, don't you think the defense would have the samples tested for evidence of condoms?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#66)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    IMHO, Yes, the AV could sue Cheshire for calling her a false accuser. And he would love it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#67)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    IMHO, an indicted rapist? A rapist who is indicted? Or indicted for rape? You may think he's an indicted rapist. Officially, he's been indicted for rape. Sounds like you're making the same leap to judgment. It will be interesting to see who's doing this. I am reminded of the woman who identified herself as a community leader who kept interrupting Cheshire earlier this week. This kind of stuff doesn't help social justice, it doesn't resolve the issues of the trial. It just gets people pissed off. It divides communities.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#68)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    Bob, the NBC reporter who was on Abrams said that the guy was sitting alone behind where Seligmann would be sitting. He moved to where the NBP's were sitting before the hearing started and they calmed him down. I'm not sure whether he was a member or just a local angry guy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    Orinoco: You wrote:
    Black Panther threatened Seliegeman in courtroom.Hey, have you seen PB lately?
    What did he threaten him with? Justice? As far as calling him "Dead Man Walking" that's not a threat, it's a characterization. Bob in P. wrote:
    Yes, the AV could sue Cheshire for calling her a false accuser. And he would love it.
    It is Nifong who has accused Cheshire's client, not the AV. Had Cheshire claimed that the persecutrix had falsely accused Evans, he'd be in a pretty weak position to defend against a lawsuit. Calling someone a false accuser in this context would be considered per se defammation, I would think, and would require Cheshire to prove the truth of his claim. Yet the only thing we are aware of today that the prosecutrix has actually said is that Evans looks like the man who raped her but for his lack of a mustache. Because Cheshire didn't specify what exactly was false about the accusation, the point is pretty moot. There'll be no lawsuit on this one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#70)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    Teresa,
    I'm not sure whether he was a member or just a local angry guy.
    Or a defendant waiting for his case to be called. Seligmann's was just one of many. BTW I posted the original linked to that latex condom spermicide testing discussion that you quoted. As you say, it's not clear what you can detect and under what conditions. I recall watching on TV one of those talking head legal experts claiming you could test for it, but an actual retired crime lab head said he wasn't sure. There are a lot of idiots blabbing on this, and I haven't been able to get a clear answer. The second issue, is whether the State tested for it or was/is capable of testing for it. We don't know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:36:45 PM EST
    Grand Jurys have almost unlimited subpoena power.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#72)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:38:19 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO, an indicted rapist? A rapist who is indicted?
    OOPS! did I say that with my out loud voice? I, of course, meant accused rapist who has now been indicted for rape - among other nasty things. Bob in Pacifica posted:
    I am reminded of the woman who identified herself as a community leader who kept interrupting Cheshire earlier this week.
    Are you talking about Victoria Peterson?
    Victoria Peterson, a community activist, asked Joseph B. Cheshire V about racial slurs that lacrosse players reportedly hurled toward the accuser and another woman hired to dance at the party on March 13.
    "If you put 46 African-American guys together in a volatile situation one of them may say a racial statement," Cheshire said without addressing her specific question. "If you put 46 Asians, one of them may say a racial statement. If you put 46 women, one of them may say something ugly about a man. That's just the way it is. This case is not about race.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    Bob in P. You wrote:
    chew2 can see the consequences of the New Black Panthers' threats. So who benefits? People who benefit from racism. That's what the NBPP is all about. That is their role, that is their function. Their function isn't to protect anyone. It's to divide. Think hard, everyone. Who benefits?
    When you recklessly speculate on the the variety of mental diseases the accuser may have suffered from in the past, do you do that in an effort to find common ground between the diputants in this case? I don't frankly see some great difference between the people who play the race card and those who play the mental illness card. They're all techniques of a kind.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:46:56 PM EST
    Teresa wrote:
    Kali, should we assume then that they didn't test for condoms? Would that have been in the report that the defense received on Friday? If it wasn't part of the test and if this case makes it far enough, don't you think the defense would have the samples tested for evidence of condoms?
    Bear in mind that The Nifong ordered the DNA tests, not the defense. So, until we know the test protocol and the targeted information, we don't know about the condoms. I would hope that The Nifong would have enough sense to request such tests, I know I would. The more accurate the picture of the events in question, the better you can make your case. In litigation, "the devil is in the details". Of late it seems "the Blue Devil is in the details" for The Nifong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#75)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    Dan Abrams:
    "Twenty year old Reade Seligmann in court today with his lawyer Kirk Osborn watched as the DA laughed at what Osborn claim's is Seligmann's air tight alibi."
    Nifong looked pretty relaxed today. He was shown on camera shaking his head and chuckling as Osborn described Reade's "air tight alibi." He's either got something, is an incurable optimist, or has gone stark raving mad. He turned over his entire case file today, so if there is something in there the defense has it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#76)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    The second issue, is whether the State tested for it or was/is capable of testing for it. We don't know.
    Chew, I would think if they did test for it and no evidence was found that we would have heard.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#77)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    Bear in mind that The Nifong ordered the DNA tests, not the defense.
    Kali, the defense can ask for the test if they think they need to can't they?
    He's either got something, is an incurable optimist, or has gone stark raving mad.
    I think so too imho. He looked as confident as ever, so if he has nothing else, he must be stark raving mad.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#78)
    by weezie on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:00:45 PM EST
    How "professional" was it of Nifong to laugh and smirk while the defense was stating it's request? Is Nifong just a wormy little s*** or is he all excited about doing something other than fixing traffic tickets. Couldn't the judge lay into him for that?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:05:26 PM EST
    The strangest aspect of today's hearing was Nifong's answers regarding the accuser's cellphone. How--eight weeks after the incident--could the police not have attempted to determine whether the accuser made any calls, or text messages, at the time she allegedly was being raped? I would think that would be among the first things the police would have checked. If the defense hadn't brought up this issue today, I wonder if Nifong ever would have looked into this issue.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#80)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    khartoum, I can't imagine that the police haven't done so. There may be nothing there since Nifong asked what is it that the defense thinks may be on the phone that may be helpful to them (or however he phrased it). If the police have already told Nifong that no calls had been made, would his answer make sense then? If he has no plans to use the phone as evidence would he have to turn it over as part of discovery? If they had been charged with stealing the phone it would be different. Am I totally off base?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#81)
    by blcc on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:14:45 PM EST
    Localone, If you saw the following item, your informed opinion vis-a-vis a petition to change venue would be welcome:
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion May 18, 2006 02:45 PM Outside the Courthouse people shouting: "Justice will be served, rapist*." Inside the courtroom: A man sitting right behind Seligmann: "You're a dead man walking (swear word). I can't sit behind this (swear word)." *Perhaps Seligmann can thank Cheshire for referring to the accuser as the "false accuser" several times during Dan Evan's press conference. I don't think that was a wise move. People that believe in the lacrosse players already think she is a false accuser, people that believe in the accuser are going only going to be incited and to people on the fence, I think it just makes Cheshire look like an ass.
    IMHO, you are dependable for a laugh. Often that's "in a good way" but this is not one of those times. Your use of the word "incite," especially in your context applying it to the defense attorney is misleading. Either A) you are unaware of the legal threshold which must be met in order for this to be true of Cheshire (in which case you are ignorant) or B) you are deliberately attempting to deflect culpability from the individual who made a direct, violent threat onto an individual who did not (in which case you are disingenuous and deceptive). I'd suggest this an example of "IMHO-lying" but perhaps that should be Kali's call?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:14:57 PM EST
    He turned over his entire case file today, so if there is something in there the defense has it.
    So Nifong has handed over everything? Medical exam results? Toxicology report? Initial testimony of the captains? Testimony of any cooperating witness? Is that what that means? What now for case followers? I imagine that the defense will leak out anything exculpatory and sit on anything incriminating. But now that he's provided a case file, will Nifong be more likely to leak his case or should we expect more (relative) quiet from the prosecution? Will someone with a better idea of how things work from here let the rest of us know?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#83)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:23:25 PM EST
    Teresa,
    Chew, I would think if they did test for it and no evidence was found that we would have heard.
    Very true. So I would guess that no such test was requested, and maybe also that the labs used don't have the capability to perform such tests. We may never know, if neither side requests additional tests, and it may be too risky for either of them to do so. But I'd still like to know whether such tests are even possible.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#84)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    PB, the woman was hospitalized for mental illness last year. What's the speculation? As far as race hatred, I'm sure you're clever enough to figure out who gets it in the neck whenever racial hatred is stirred up. What you don't seem to get is that the NBPP is doing the work of the race haters. This is propaganda, and you're a fool if you think this kind of propaganda is going to help African Americans.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#85)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    People that believe in the lacrosse players already think she is a false accuser, people that believe in the accuser are going only going to be incited * and to people on the fence, I think it just makes Cheshire look like an ass.
    *incite: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on Cheshire's repeated use of the term "false accuser" could certainly do all of the above. I think it just made Cheshire look like an ass.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    PB, if the AV files a civil suit against Cheshire, he has all sorts of openings into discovery about her life, the two criminal charges she has made and then failed to follow through on, her history of mental illness, her criminal history, and anything else that goes to character. He would have plenty more opened to him than in a criminal trial with rape shield laws in place. I don't think that Cheshire is losing any sleep over this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:36:40 PM EST
    Blcc, You wrote:
    you are deliberately attempting to deflect culpability from the individual who made a direct, violent threat onto an individual
    Calling someone "Dead Man Walking" is akin to saying, "You are so screwed." It's not a threat. As for "Justice will be served," that's something I think we all wish for.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#88)
    by weezie on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:40:28 PM EST
    I thought the mouthy NBP jerk then said he was going to "kill" the "m**********r," wasn't that described on Abrams?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#89)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    PB, "dead man walking" a "characterization"? A characterization of someone about to die. Please. You embarrass yourself.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#90)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    But I'd still like to know whether such tests are even possible.
    That seems to be the question from all the reading I've done. Some do say the tests can be done but aren't normally and then at only a few testing sites.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#91)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    IMHO, re: Cheshire & Williams: I agree that Cheshire handled Victoria Williams' interruptions well. Go back and watch the whole video to hear her repeated interruptions. His statement is right, though. I worked in probably the most integrated workplace in America. I've heard members of every group make racist, bigoted, homophobic and sexist remarks. It happens. Humans are very imperfect creatures. All humans.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:06:22 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    PB, the woman was hospitalized for mental illness last year. What's the speculation?
    I'll do a longer review when I get more time, but off the top of my head I recall the words "bipolar" and "schizophrenia" bandied about by you and only you. It's the tip of the iceberg of my complaint... I promise I will get back to you on it. In order to claim that mental illness played a relevant role in this case you have had to do a somewhat tortured interpretative dance. It's a dance common to every rape trial. "She's crazy!" In order to claim that race didn't play a relevant role in this case, you have to do a different tortured interpretive dance... One that poopoos not only the racial dynamics of a pair of black strippers nearly naked in front of forty drunk white athletes, but ignores the spectacular racial epithet that single-handedly has shamed a whole college. Except it hasn't. Nobody seems to feel ashamed about that grandfather statement. I am. I'm ashamed on behalf of my whole race that the person who said that statement has not apologized to the world-wide community for it. He's hiding behind his mother's skirt while she says "oh, boys will be boys." I guess he's worried about his reputation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#93)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    Hi Orinoco. I haven't been away, I just quit posting after last week when Cymro accused me of adding to the confusion and noise on this site. I'm not very thick-skinned and he upset me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#94)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:21:42 PM EST
    Adding to the confusion? Teresa, of all people?
    Glad you're back.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#95)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:26:04 PM EST
    Thanks guys. I almost bit my fingernails off in the urge to post but then I remembered the DNA and all the crud that gets under them. :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#96)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    Oh lord Bean.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:32:08 PM EST
    Why is it that interracial crimes with white victims and black perps get relatively sparse coverage compared to the copious coverage when the victim is black?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#98)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:33:47 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    His statement is right, though. I worked in probably the most integrated workplace in America. I've heard members of every group make racist, bigoted, homophobic and sexist remarks. It happens. Humans are very imperfect creatures. All humans.
    Ah, I had you figured for "A Man of Letters."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    Is this America? How did this happen in our country.
    I'm a little speachless.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#101)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:46:07 PM EST
    So are you saying some of the NBP's might be plants? Whenever they show up in this case it increases the support for the players and anger toward the accuser as far as I can see. Why would that be their point? Thanks for the history. I can remember a little of Patti Hearst and the kidnapping but I can't remember the original Black Panthers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#102)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    So Nifong has handed over everything? Medical exam results? Toxicology report? Initial testimony of the captains? Testimony of any cooperating witness? Is that what that means? What now for case followers? I imagine that the defense will leak out anything exculpatory and sit on anything incriminating. But now that he's provided a case file, will Nifong be more likely to leak his case or should we expect more (relative) quiet from the prosecution?
    This post was from DO above. Does anyone know the answer to his questions?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#103)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    Rogan,
    I bet the reason to not call the boys was that then the grand jury would have heard their side and might not have indicted. Poor excuse.
    Don't let your sympathy for the boys affect your logic. Remember it was the boys who refused to talk to the police in the first place. If they were all innocent and had cooperated with the police, even with their lawyers present, there almost certainl;y wouldn't have been any indictments. But their lawyers didn't want them to cooperate, and certainly would have fought any grand jury subpoena.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#104)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:57:35 PM EST
    ORINOCO ! If TALK LEFT sees this, you'll be banned. TL already warned you about name calling, did you think that was an idle threat? Are you calling her bluff? I think you are making a big mistake by dismissing her warning. I'm sure she meant it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#105)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:58:49 PM EST
    Well Bean, I'm sure glad those boys are beautiful otherwise they might have done something wrong. These are the NEW Black Panthers. (The accusers family asked them to stay away.) Are you saying that only liberals support the accuser? TalkLeft is a liberal site by the way.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#106)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:01:20 PM EST
    PB, Yes, you speculate about Evans having a mustache, I speculate on the kind of mental illness that the woman had (has?) that would require her to be hospitalized for a week. Could be bi-polar. As one of the posters here said (and the person has bi-polar disorder), alcohol can radically affect people with that disease. We have the woman drinking and then stealing a taxicab. That is very bizarre behavior. That's why I would not doubt that she has an underlying mental disorder. Schizophrenia. I don't know, but she certainly has displayed lack of impulse control, and she was hospitalized for a week last year. There, you don't have to look it up. I just said it. Having said it, I'll also clarify my position on race in this case. Race plays a part in everything in America. There is no doubt that race and class plays a part in this case. The accused are rich and white, the accuser is black and presumably down at my end of wealth scale. If a rape occurred, I doubt that it happened because the woman was specifically African American. The problem is that there are dividing lines being formed by sex, by race, by politics on this case. The question should be whether or not the crime was committed. I saw similar divisions being formed over the OJ case. The bottom line is the evidence, which at the end of that case no one seemed interested in. I think that, from what we've heard and seen, I don't think a gangrape happened. I don't know what other evidence Nifong may have that would sway a jury to convict. I could change my mind on the case tomorrow. Up until the last DNA results I presumed that there was a rape. This country has a history of racism. The world has a history of sexism. These are things that all good people should fight to correct. But making the AV an icon of feminism or racial pride is foolish until we know all the facts, and I think a lot of people here are doing just that. If you make her an icon and she turns out to have lied about the gangrape, then you have hurt what you wanted to promote. This is a trial. A trial about four people. All of them flawed human beings. Let's wait until people are dead before we make statues of them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:02:10 PM EST
    From Myrtle Beach Online (link ).
    An expected discussion about discovery was made moot before the hearing when Nifong provided the defense with a copy of his entire case file. Nifong said the file included 1,278 pages of evidence, two VHS tapes and a compact disc containing photos.
    "The state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the defendant," Nifong wrote in a court filing.
    Does this mean that the defense now has access to everything the DA has or only those things the DA determines may be exculpatory? Also, do we know whether this will include: the medical exam (including pictures), the toxicology report (if any was performed), a transcript from the initial captains's interview, and any name and testimony of any cooperating witnesses? Thanks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#107)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:02:21 PM EST
    Are you saying that only liberals support the accuser? TalkLeft is a liberal site by the way.
    I should have said all liberals. Dang Orinoco. I missed that. I'd ask you to repeat it but I don't guess you should. Stay calm. You're the one who told me not to let other posters get to me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#108)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:03:03 PM EST
    Orinoco, I feel I should send you some campaign literature.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#109)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:06:06 PM EST
    Orinco, yes I believe Chew2's statement to be untrue. But you can't call him a liar and personally attack him. You can point out that his information is wrong and explain it. I try to keep the discourse on this site at a certain level. Disagreement is fine, but name-calling and personal attacks are not. Thanks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#99)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    Teresa, I grew up in the sixties. I hope people here have heard about COINTELPRO, which was an operation run by the FBI which spied on anti-war, black power and other such groups. They regularly infiltrated groups. Infiltrators not only reported back to their handlers but would regularly try to push the groups to do illegal things which would bring disfavor on the groups. Believe me, I was in the Vietnam anti-war movement (and actually marched with the Black Panthers in a joint 1968 election day anti-war demonstration in Newark, NJ). [remainder deleted, please stay on the Duke case.]

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#111)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    Hey, Bean, Seligmann and Evans don't have to be my sons for me to think they are beautiful. They are very handsome. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though. Orinoco, I think when people talk about the players not talking, they are not referring to the three captains. They did cooperate. It's the rest of the team that didn't even though that is their right to not talk.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:08:57 PM EST
    Teresa:
    So are you saying some of the NBP's might be plants? Whenever they show up in this case it increases the support for the players and anger toward the accuser as far as I can see. Why would that be their point?
    Well, if we're talking the COINTELPRO angle, that's exactly the intention: to make the players look good and the AV, and black folks in general, look bad. Since I'm a raving liberal nutjob, I feel sure the Bush administration is behind this. Count me as another who's glad you're back, Teresa :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    deleted [Off topic This is not a thread about race. Stay on the Duke case please.]

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#113)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    The canary in the mine is still breathing. How many warnings do we get?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:16:52 PM EST
    Well, Mister Liberal, how do you explain Bob Bennett's hand in this?
    Just to cloud the issue, of course! He has no idea he's a cat's paw. They're so devious! Bwah ha ha hahaha! headed off now to increase meds---

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#115)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:16:55 PM EST
    Thanks Del. I'd much rather blame Bush too. :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#116)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    Teresa, I have no doubt that any organization perceived as "anti" the powers that be has been infiltrated. It's a strategy as old as history. Sometimes there are so many infiltrators the whole organization is just a hoax. The NBPP seems like that to me. The phony groups tend to get too much attention for the size of their membership and their position in the community. For example, I'm sure that there are plenty of African American groups in the Durham area. I'm sure most of them are willing to let justice take its course but may have something to add to our knowledge about the local politics, the community, the town-gown divide. But why is it that the New Black Panthers get the television time? Not because they add anything probative about the case. Not much about the social dynamics of the community. The only thing that they add is hate and tension.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:25:42 PM EST
    Well Bob, I wasn't kidding about it selling papers. "Local Groups Certain Justice Will Prevail, Willing to Wait Patiently." Geez. They're having enough trouble selling ads as it is. Some guy foaming at the mouth and giving the fellow in charge of the bleep button RMD, sure the camera will turn on him. I just want to know where all these infiltrators are recruited, trained and paid. Do they come from the sub-basement of the FBI building, or what? Are they full-time, or are they part-timers with day jobs?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#118)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    There was a book out in the 90s called The Science of Coercion, specifically about the U.S. government's propaganda programs from WWII on for about twenty years. Not all propaganda is aimed at all people, and it's not all delivered in the same way. The problem with talking about covert propaganda, government intelligence programs directed at its own citizens, etc., is that you get labeled a paranoid (which is ripe, considering what we keep learning about the NSA each week). Every government that's had the power to do it will propagandize to its citizens by whatever means it has at its disposal. Does anyone think that the town crier went around badmouthing the king? In 1939 in Berlin the news was that Poland invaded Germany. If you're too young to remember the 60s, you should google some of this stuff.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#119)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:46:46 PM EST
    By the way, A couple of months ago a story came out that the FBI was monitoring some vegan group in Florida because they thought that they may have been subversive. And they were spying on a group of Quakers too. Use your common sense. If the government's got lots of money, and lots of people in its employ, and it's wasting time and money watching vegans and Quakers, what about black power groups? In the sixties and seventies there were so many FBI agents in the KKK that it was hard to draw a line where one group stopped and another started. There was an infamous shooting of a demonstration of socialists or Communists, I think, in Greensboro NC, where the KKK ringleader turned out to be a Feeb infiltrator. Why wouldn't they still be doing it?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#120)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    You've convince me Bob. Not that I really believe for one minute that our current government would spy on us... ;) Seriously, the NBP's got so much press before their march that I thought half of Durham would be there. It seemed that reporters outnumbered the members. Has anyone heard anything from the defense since they got their discovery? Abrams said there isn't a player listed on the witness list. Just the SANE nurse, DNA experts and law enforcement. Would that list be complete so early in the process? I don't think he has a player but where are Kim and Mr. Bissey among others?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#121)
    by weezie on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:04:36 PM EST
    Didn't Abrams report that the list was of EXPERT witnesses? No actual witnesses to the evening's events yet. He only has to release exculpatory evidence/witnesses and all medical scientific, toxicology reports, right JDs?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:06:26 PM EST
    Bob, I didn't mean to sound quite so flip. I'm the original conspiracy nut gal, as AZ would say. But I admit the scope and mechanics of the idea stagger me a little.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#123)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:13:59 PM EST
    Didn't Abrams report that the list was of EXPERT witnesses?
    That's what I thought Weezie but didn't he or one of the guests seem to imply that meant no player was talking since the list was only experts?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:15:48 PM EST
    omg, this is spreading - Catholic University GIRLS LAX team just had a party with male strippers & alcohol. My kids just send me texts. Statement from their AD on their site. Great timing. BTW, liberal; supporting the indicted Duke players. On travel.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#125)
    by weezie on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:22:02 PM EST
    Teresa, I think they were indicating that Nifong has not finished discovery and would only release what he had as of this afternoon. Wouldn't he have put Bissey on the list if he was ready to give up his prosecution witnesses?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#126)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:23:39 PM EST
    In several posts people are referring to a website and saying it is run by Duke students. This is terribly wrong! That website is run by some morons who are pretending to be Duke students. I have been following this board religiously for the past few days. I am now beginning to think that perhaps, I am wasting my time. How in the world could anyone in their right minds think that that awful website is run by real Duke students? One needs to be real stupid or desperately biased against Duke to not see the sarcasm going on there. If you want to see a website run by real Duke students (one of many) go to: Friends of Duke Lacrosse Do not expect to see 4 letter words there beginning with "f" in every other sentence; not in these sites. Instead of spending your lives hating Duke, perhaps you should get a life. I am sure most Duke students are spending their lives more productively than writing filthy and desperate messages in some make-belief website.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#127)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:25:54 PM EST
    Seems that way to me Weezie. We need one of our attorneys to weigh in. A local attorney just said on Greta (Fox) that he would have given all statements today even if it was a player. It sounded like as of this point in time, he had to hand over everything.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#128)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:31:58 PM EST
    Didn't Abrams report that the list was of EXPERT witnesses? No actual witnesses to the evening's events yet. He only has to release exculpatory evidence/witnesses and all medical scientific, toxicology reports, right JDs?
    I think he has to turn over everything that has been recorded (e.g. put to paper, tape, CD, etc.) that he has received. If there is anything worth leaking that favors the prosecution, I don't expect we'll be hearing it from "the Cheshire cat."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#129)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:33:04 PM EST
    On the subject of Nifong.... Nifong is having his every move dissected by every newspaper, talk show, blogger in the country. Imagine if your every single decision / judgment call you made on your job was the subject of such incredible scrutiny? And much of that is coming from experts in his field with a wealth more experience than he has in little Durham. Right before the election he likely spent more time in front of cameras than behind his desk. He was sure a crime occurred and these hooligans wouldn't need attorneys if they were innocent. All those prejudicial statements have been met with universal scorn as being unethical by virtually every DA and former DA I have seen or read about. His ham fisted reenactment on national TV of how the AV was strangled was a joke. This may have been his last success story, as it certainly got him elected. To the people of Durham: I hope you see how he shamelessly used you to get into office. In the beginning the defense was quiet, and the Blue Wall was silent (remember that criticism?). Nifong is solely responsible for this becoming a polarizing national issue. If he made one simple statement to the press that he is investigating a charge of rape, you can bet the defense attorneys would have been happy to stay quiet and keep their clients names and pictures off the front pages of every single newspaper in this country. Oh, but I keep hearing "he must have something," in tones that now sound imploring. By chance, Nifong stumbled into this case at a politically opportune time, and he has bungled it at every turn. The deck-stacking photo ID process was just another example of gross ineptitude or willfulness. He was clueless, and with an election deadline looming, he rushed to indict, based on the AV's 100% ID on a guy who has a solid alibi. (I think this is the "moon landing was a fake Hollywood set" crowd out there who believes in before-the-fact date altered meta data cameras, ATM conspiracies, moustaches that can grow at will, etc., etc.) While Nifong may have cut down his camera time recently, he has not stopped the game of selective leaks. It is shocking that there is not universal outrage at Nifong's arrest of the Sudanese cab driver. Where are my progressive friends when I need them? Oh, I see, this unfortunate soul had the temerity to do something that benefits the group backed by the evil conservatives. Righteousness be damned in that case, but not in regard to the AV. P.S. Ori, please don't get b anned.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#130)
    by weezie on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:33:25 PM EST
    I'm sure Nifong has his fingers in his ears and is yammering, "Can't hear you!!!" every time Kim opens her mouth. BTW, was he in the courtroom when the NBP vermin was shouting? Could he have arranged for the seating to be set up that way in order to try and shake Seligman? After all, if Nifong met before with the NBP Party boys, is it so far fetched?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#131)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, there are threads galore on TalkLeft about political topics such as the ones you are raising here. I'd really like to keep the Duke threads related to Duke. Does anyone think it's time for a new Duke thread yet?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#132)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:34:01 PM EST
    TL and Orinoco TL stated:
    Orinco, yes I believe Chew2's statement to be untrue
    I stated:
    Remember it was the boys who refused to talk to the police in the first place. If they were all innocent and had cooperated with the police, even with their lawyers present, there almost certainl;y wouldn't have been any indictments.
    So how is this untrue? Rogan was not speaking of the 3 team captains who initially responded, but the other 42 who refused to cooperate. So was I. Those other 42 refused to speak to the police, even with their lawyers present. If I'm wrong give me the evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#133)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    imho, I thought for sure we would have heard about the SANE report by now. It's been over 7 hours. Orinoco, how does Bissey hurt the DA's case? If you start a timeline theory, Bob and I are ready for you. We've thought of every possible one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#134)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:38:41 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    PB, Yes, you speculate about Evans having a mustache, I speculate on the kind of mental illness that the woman had (has?) that would require her to be hospitalized for a week.
    Hi Bob, I agree with you 100%... Oh, except about the part where you say that I speculated about Evans having a mustache... Can you tell me when I did that? No need to apologize. We all say dumb things sometimes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#135)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:48:40 PM EST
    Sorry, TalkLeft. I was questioning Bob about the Black Panters of old and these new ones.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#136)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:54:38 PM EST
    bkabka posted:
    In several posts people are referring to a website and saying it is run by Duke students. This is terribly wrong! That website is run by some morons who are pretending to be Duke students. I have been following this board religiously for the past few days. I am now beginning to think that perhaps, I am wasting my time. How in the world could anyone in their right minds think that that awful website is run by real Duke students? One needs to be real stupid or desperately biased against Duke to not see the sarcasm going on there.
    A writer for the Duke Chronicle seems to think it is run by a Duke student. www.dukechronicle.com Here's a new Comment: COMMENT BY JOSEPH 2006-05-17 17:27:38
    I arrived here originally from talk left as, to your embarrassment and the embarrassment of your school, they have a link to here in their latest comments.
    I was looking for something to redeem Duke, to prove to me the Lacrosse players were maybe decent human beings. I now have to believe the opinons of such as this girl a nyu student I think. I felt her many posts on Duke harsh but it looks likes this site proves me wrong. If you are what is available at Duke then it only goes to follow the Lacrosse team is as represented. Racist, misogynistic and pathetic as described.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#138)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:59:23 PM EST
    PB, it was a general "you." Not you you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#139)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:59:25 PM EST
    Whoa, need to go back and read. Self-imposed absence from the board. Let's see what y'all have been talking about.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#140)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:59:34 PM EST
    Chew2 wrote:
    Those other 42 refused to speak to the police, even with their lawyers present. If I'm wrong give me the evidence.
    Like you know what you are talking about!!! Why don't you prove that they did not call The Nifong and ask for a sit down with their attorneys. DE did it through Cheshire well before he was indicted. Kerry Sutton (I forget who she represents) has said that she tried to contact The Nifong and he refused. The defense attorneys, who speak for the players (if you didn't realize this), have claimed that The Nifong has refused all their attempts to meet with him. Albeit, this could mean attempts as a group or attempts collectively. Eitherway, you don't know. So, why don't you provide some evidence in support of your bald assertion before you ask someone to disprove you with rebutal evidence? Yet another transparent and lame tactic of yours. You're a superstar!!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#141)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:06:05 PM EST
    IMHO: So now we know your first name is Joseph. Hmmm...funny how the internet hides how old friends used to call you Jo Jo when you were watch older women in the shower!! Just kidding. I crack myself up!!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#142)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:08:03 PM EST
    Regarding walls of silence, Right about now no one's talking but the lawyers. For me, I'd love some kind of forum where everyone, the defendants, the AV, Nifong, the defense attorneys, are all FORCED to talk. Otherwise, this well is going to dry up. Which it probably will. My guess is that every player who was at that party has his statement down pat by now, so Nifong isn't going to find out much new. I also imagine the AV and the three defendants are all pretty much locked into their version of events now. My guess is that Nifong and the lawyers are all pretty sure how this is going to end. There won't be many surprises for them. We may want everybody to talk, but what we want and what we get are two different things.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#143)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:11:55 PM EST
    Where to begin? He's not in my jurisdiction, I'll start with the judge: granted, the death threat came out of the judge' hearing. And I did not see/hear: was that individual escorted from the courtroom after that outburst? Barn door closed, Your Honor, warning about future punishment. The bailiffs should have taken him out at that point. Does anyone know if they did?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#137)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:14:36 PM EST
    off topic, deleted. Please keep this thread to duke lacrosse case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#144)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:17:22 PM EST
    They talked to him and made him shut up Sharon. He moved from the seat near Seligmann (before Seligmann was in the room) and sat with the NBP's who calmed him down per the reporters. He didn't say anything once the judge and attorneys arrived. Some of the NBP's were very vocal outside when Seligmann arrived but not inside the courtroom.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#145)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:19:08 PM EST
    Sharon, the news reports said the heckler moved from behind the defense table and sat with the NBP, who were reported to have "calmed him down." (!) The judge warned the entire court about contempt of court.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#146)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:20:35 PM EST
    Orinoco wrote:
    Don't forget, The Nifong is a Superstar!
    Are you a hockey fan? Do you get it?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#147)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    7Duke4 wrote:
    omg, this is spreading - Catholic University GIRLS LAX team just had a party with male strippers & alcohol. My kids just send me texts. Statement from their AD on their site. Great timing.
    spreading to other sports....Northwestern women's soccer team admonished for hazing freshmen with alcohol and unsavory unclothed behavior.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#148)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:29:53 PM EST
    Well... for those who asked for it, I hope you read it before it was censored. I'll be back when there's something new.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#149)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:34:01 PM EST
    One of the interesting dynamics of this board, for me, has been that it is a "Talk Left" forum. And yet, I hear over and over again the implication that because the players didn't voluntarily give statements and DNA samples, that somehow imputes guilt to them. Isn't that the whole point of the Fifth Amendment? Someone, please, give me an example of the ACLU, or any other guardian of our civil liberties, advocating even a potential suspect in a criminal case abandoning his constitutional rights? Since when did the exercise of any one of those rights become suspicious, criminal behavior? Ask yourselves then: if you were a sitting juror in a criminal case, and the defendant did not take the stand. When you retired to make your deliberations, would you be thinking about it? No matter what the judge says, wouldn't you be wondering why the defendant, if he were innocent, didn't take the stand? Of course you would, that is human nature, and if you were simply a juror, that is not a problem: your fellow jurors should talk you out of it, explain, and chances are you would get past it. My problem with Nifong has been about that from the beginning: as a private citizen, he is as free as any of us are to express his opinion. But as the District Attorney of Durham County, North Carolina, for him to imply, suggest, wink-wink, that "if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear with coming forward" is an abominable distortion of the function of a prosecutor. His role was to let the police do their job, gather the evidence, explore the possibilities, present with him with their findings. But Nifong decided, much too early on, whom he believed and whom he doubted. That is NOT his job. Not before a pre-indictment or arrest investigation had been completed. I have no problem with his believing the AV, (won't use her first name again, not worth the ridiculous outrage) no problem with him telling the cops to pursue the case holding nothing back. But then Nifong should have let the investigators, the police, do their jobs. He rushed this case, for whatever reason. Reminder: he was NOT re-elected. Long time prosecutor, newbie politico. One more factor creating the perfect storm.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#150)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:35:42 PM EST
    I'll be back when there's something new.
    Hopefully tomorrow Bob. I'm sorry my questions got TL mad at us. It was really educational to me, but I'll stay on topic too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#151)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:48:50 PM EST
    Del was asking some questions too. If you want to ask something, feel free to contact me through my blue blog button. I just hate having spent twenty minutes writing something to have it disappear.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#152)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:50:25 PM EST
    As an intellectual exercise: hypothetical house, 1470 sq ft. Two bedrooms, two baths. 40 or so party attendees. In that space, and none of them hear the life and death struggle/rape in one of the bathrooms? Taking place . . . how many feet away? Anyone know what the bathroom in question looked like, how it was configured? An old post of mine, a continuing question? Those three plus her would have a difficult time arranging themselves, even consentually. Did I miss it on the board, discussion about the not Duke cheek swabs? The boyfriend, okay. Another guy, according to ABC News, who "spoke with the accuser that night." And some other guy. You don't ask for a DNA swab for talking. But one might get one if there was a chance the swabee had contact with the victim in a rape case. Why else would you? And how did they know whom to swab? This has to be about the third time I've said this: I don't want her to be making this up. But someone, PLEASE give me a reason why they would have done exclusionary swabs on two men who were not her boyfriend? And if the defense can prove she went out on a "date" that night, three young men and their families have been put through hell, have suffered emotionally and financially in ways none of us can imagine.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#153)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:51:28 PM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion said
    Outside the Courthouse people shouting: "Justice will be served, rapist*."
    I don't understand why you deliberately said "people" in your quote. All the news venue said it is the New Black Panther. Please don't "generalize" the New Black Panther in uniforms into "people."
    *Perhaps Seligmann can thank Cheshire for referring to the accuser as the "false accuser" several times during Dan Evan's press conference.
    Oh, you think people's anger was only aroused yesterday in response to Cheshire's wording? Did the people start to march right after Nifong's 50ish media interviews?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#154)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    Someone, please, give me an example of the ACLU, or any other guardian of our civil liberties, advocating even a potential suspect in a criminal case abandoning his constitutional rights? Since when did the exercise of any one of those rights become suspicious, criminal behavior?
    I regard taking the fifth as a completely neutral act. It contributes nothing to our determination of a supects guilt or innocence. For a good book on the fifth, by the way, read Erwin Griswold's classic from the 50s, when many people were treated as pariahs for taking the fifth. The down side of taking the fifth is that it makes it all the more difficult for society to determine the truth, for obvious reasons. People have every bit as much right to exercise their first amndment rights as their fifth amendment rights. And society has every right to prefer that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#155)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:56:37 PM EST
    PB said:
    What did he threaten him with? Justice? As far as calling him "Dead Man Walking" that's not a threat, it's a characterization.
    PB, but you'll be fumed if someone called the AV "Dead Woman walking." Would you also agree that it's just a "characterization"?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#156)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:57:43 PM EST
    Your call, Bob. I am a card carrying democrat. Raised more thinking liberal than most can imagine. But I never did, and will not, march in lock step. I think it helps, when on one topic or another, debate happens. Isn't that the whole f***ing point And, yes, that means letting the New Black Panther Party have their say. It means letting the accuser in this case have her say, but also to have other have their say about her. Democracy is not for wimps.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#157)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:00:05 PM EST
    PB: Exactly. So I would think that you would be very unhappy with a district attorney suggesting than an individual's choice to take advantage of his fifth amendment rights would be out of bounds?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#158)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:02:17 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    Hmmm...funny how the internet hides how old friends used to call you Jo Jo when you were watch older women in the shower!!
    Kali, I never watched your GF/FA in the shower.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#159)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:05:04 PM EST
    Orinoco,
    Bob, Don't leave for long. Your liberal but moderate and decent voice is very much valued here.
    Do you have to be cynical every post, Orinoco? Bob may not be completely harmless, but there's no cause for disrespect. He's on your side, don't you doubt it. Leave him alone. Save your catty comments for me. I actually enjoy them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#160)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:07:56 PM EST
    Anyone here who is of has a son, brother, father, uncle: how would you feel if he had been named, in this case, the way this case looks? Seriously, I am wondering. As I've said before: I am the mother of a white, privileged in a lot of ways, athlete who will be attending an elitist university, playing a team sport. So I identify with the accused. I also identify with every male that I have loved. If it were your brother, your father, your son, would what we know now about it be enough for you to keep believing her?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#161)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:09:59 PM EST
    SharonInJax, What are you talking about? I didn't say you can't let the NBPP have their say. Just recognize who's speaking and for what purpose. They're either ignorant racists or they're plants to stir up things. I suspect the latter because of the obviousness of their tactics and because of historical parallels which will be censored if I post them here. If David Duke shows up, he gets his say too. I would advise the same caution when weighing what he says.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#162)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:15:07 PM EST
    Sharon, this probably isn't the case but remember when the players/attorneys said two non-players were at the party. Could it have been those two plus the boyfriend giving samples? I've heard nothing about those two since mid-April. If it wasn't them, they should have been tested also once Nifong found out about them. It was probably her two most recent clients though. Bacause the DNA matched (or almost matched) wasn't semen, I think the previous sex was not recent enough to cause any significant injuries. Any injuries would need to be severe in my mind for this case to continue. If she has swelling only, this case needs to be dropped if the defense can show that she had sex within a few days of the party. As far as my feelings about the players not talking. I have no problem with anyone exercising their right not to incriminate themselves. When this case first became public, the evidence sounded like a slam dunk rape to many. If that had been true, there would have been over 30 players who would have been possible witnesses. I think that's what bothers people. Not that the alleged rapists didn't speak up but that the others didn't. Those were my feelings at the time when the incident first became known. Others that I know felt the same way then. Not necessarily now though.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#163)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:15:37 PM EST
    SharonInJax: From Wikipedia: "But critics of the NBPP claim that this self-proclaimed descendent group represents a dangerous departure from the original; specifically, that it is loudly anti-white, and also anti-Semitic. The NBPP is considered by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a "black racist" hate group, and even many of the mildest critics of the organization seem to believe that, at the very least, the NBPP's provocative brand of black nationalism undermines other civil rights efforts." The mildest critics think they are screw-ups, I think that they're purpose-driven.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#164)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:16:24 PM EST
    Now I'm really leaving.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#165)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:18:14 PM EST
    Bob? You there?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#166)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:18:18 PM EST
    Sharon, one more thing on the two "unknowns". If they were clients and the boyfriend, I find it hard to believe that that information wouldn't have been leaked by now because it makes the defense's case stronger. If however, they were friends of the players, I can see the attorneys not mentioning this in their press conference. I hadn't heard about it all until the article from the ABC news legal unit came out a day or two later.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#167)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:18:44 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Kali, I never watched your GF/FA in the shower.
    I know....I was there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#168)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:23:10 PM EST
    rogan: I have run the gamut of thoughts and emotions about this case. And where I am now if wondering about Nifong, and what in the world does he think he is doing. He could have done that, just as you suggested, and is there anyone who thinks that's what should have been done? So why didn't Nifong do that? Well, the Durham Grand Jury meets every two weeks, on a Monday. I am not yet, not yet, so far gone that I am going to my calendar. Urge to do so, but fighting it. If Nifong had issued grand jury subpoenas to the entire Duke lacrosse team, could he have completed the process before election day? (Remember, he was looking to be elected, not re-elected: he is not politically savvy, one of his few redeeming qualities for me.) He's already said he doesn't expect any more indictments: nothing that I know of to stop Nifong from calling every one there, everyone who knew someone who was there, before a grand jury: he's got the main perpetrators, get some of the others to flip. He scares me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#169)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:24:56 PM EST
    imho/kali, you entertain me so. :) Sharon, if one of these guys was my little brother I would be mad as hell. If the accuser was my daughter or sister, I would make myself believe her at this point. Even Scott Peterson's parents still believe in him and I'm sure I would be the same.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:25:08 PM EST
    I e-mailed most of Bob's comments back to him so they wouldn't be lost.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#171)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:26:05 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    Kerry Sutton (I forget who she represents) has said that she tried to contact The Nifong and he refused.
    New York Times April 19, 2006
    Ms. Sutton said Mr. Nifong, in meetings with lawyers, had cleared her client, Matt Zash, and the team captains Dan Flannery and Bret Thompson, and a few others.
    www.latimes.com
    Kerry Sutton, one of several lawyers representing the players, said she met with Nifong on Tuesday morning but declined to comment further.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#172)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:33:37 PM EST
    Mark Simeon is at this moment is Nifong's pet. According to Newsweek article, Simeon campaigned for Nifong in this race for DA, and is the main force to help Nifong garner black votes.
    Simeon has a relationship with prosecutor Nifong that may shed light on the D.A.'s handling of the case. Nifong was the protégé of Simeon's rival in the 2002 race for D.A. Simeon and Nifong did not get along, according to Simeon. But last year, Nifong's boss, Jim Hardin, was appointed to a judgeship, and Nifong was appointed to fill his place. Nifong's term is almost up, and in Durham, district attorney is an elected post. The voters go to the polls in one week, on May 2. One of Nifong's opponents is a lawyer named Freda Black, who was passed over for the D.A. job. Black is--or was, until the Duke case--better known around town than Nifong, largely because she won a conviction in a celebrated murder case. Nifong's other opponent is a lawyer with no prosecutorial experience named Keith Bishop. Nifong and Black are white; Bishop is African-American. Durham voters are about 40 percent black, so Nifong almost surely needs to win black votes to keep his job. Shortly after Nifong decided to run, he began reaching out to Simeon. He went to an NAACP banquet and crossed the room to extend his hand in peace to Simeon. On March 28--the day after Nifong first spoke out in the Duke case, publicly chastising the players for not coming forward to volunteer information about the alleged rape--Simeon told Nifong he would support him. He invited Nifong to speak at his church, Ebenezer Missionary Baptist, and introduced him to the African-American congregation as a man who had always been a "good prosecutor," but who, Simeon said he had recently learned, was also a "good man." That was on April 9. A week later Simeon asked Nifong to go to court to relieve Kim of the obligation of paying the bail-bond fees, arguing that she was no longer a "flight risk." Nifong agreed, as did the judge. Simeon told NEWSWEEK he went before the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, a very influential group, and urged them to vote for Nifong. Simeon says he has also been giving Nifong fashion advice, telling him to lose the plaid shirts and to start wearing black suits, light shirts and power ties. Women like power, Simeon says he told Nifong.
    N&O article said the same thing, too--
    Nifong was routinely on front pages and television newscasts in the weeks before the election, memorably appearing at NCCU. He also had some help reaching out to blacks. Mark Simeon, a local black lawyer who ran for district attorney in 2002, introduced Nifong at his church and other events.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#173)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:38:30 PM EST
    mmyy posted:
    I don't understand why you deliberately said "people" in your quote. All the news venue said it is the New Black Panther. Please don't "generalize" the New Black Panther in uniforms into "people."
    The reporter I saw called them "people." I think it was Beth Karas from Court TV. She also made this quote: "You're a dead man walking (swear word). I can't sit behind this (swear word)." She called the person that said that a "man." People? Man? We should take a stand against this biased reporting!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#174)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:40:12 PM EST
    Bob: Not up to retracing my steps, but I certainly did not mean to disagree with what you said about this. The AV (I reiterate my objection to not being allowed to use her first name, but if y'all want to dehumanize her, fine) has, to her credit, apparently denied the NBPP, has not to date met with a civil litigator. But her father can't get enough of Rita Cosby, and her mother is courting black plaintiff's attorneys. This case crystallizes issues that every town, city, have. Why will I cling to my belief in the Duke players innocence? Why will there be people who believe her? This case was going to be ugly, this case IS ugly. But Nifong fanned the flames. And as someone who knows how it used to be, in Durham, I am afraid he used us.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#175)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:40:18 PM EST
    Just read this from WRAL's website. Found something really curious.
    In court Thursday, Osborn asked the judge if a defense expert can examine evidence from a cell phone that the alleged victim had the night of the incident. Osborn said the phone was found outside of the home used by some members of the lacrosse team and brought inside. Police later took the phone and it is currently in police custody. Nifong said prosecutors are not interested in the contents of the phone, such as the last 10 numbers called, but Osborn said that's information the defense should be allowed to see.
    Could anybody enlighten me why the last 10 phone numbers the AV called is not important? Supposedly one of the pictures showed her talking on her cellphone. Why would Nifong say such things? How could the last 10 phone numbers not important if Nifong wants a different timeline?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#176)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:48:17 PM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion said:
    People? Man? We should take a stand against this biased reporting!
    If the reporter could not identify the man and call the man "a man," I'm okay with that. Yet the Black Panther could be identified by their uniforms, and the reporter should identify her source as much as she could.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#177)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:50:25 PM EST
    Posted by SharonInJax May 18, 2006 09:34 PM
    But as the District Attorney of Durham County, North Carolina, for him to imply, suggest, wink-wink, that "if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear with coming forward" is an abominable distortion of the function of a prosecutor.
    It is abominable.
    But Nifong decided, much too early on, whom he believed and whom he doubted. That is NOT his job. Not before a pre-indictment or arrest investigation had been completed.
    It is not his job.
    But then Nifong should have let the investigators, the police, do their jobs. He rushed this case, for whatever reason. Reminder: he was NOT re-elected. Long time prosecutor, newbie politico. One more factor creating the perfect storm.
    It has already become the perfect storm. And as I said last night, I am convinced now that the outcome will be along the lines of the following: The students, parents, and citizens of the Durham area deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#178)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:50:39 PM EST
    Teresa: Still indulging myself in reading, but a couple things, with cautions: I am not a criminal defense attorney, I don't know a lot about criminal procedure, but: I think Seligman's attorney really believed that he could get Nifong to back down, if they showed, in public, what they had to show the limitations on when Seligman could have been involved. As a lawyer, take that as you will, I can tell you, there is not an attorney, criminal or civil, that would not salivate about getting some info from the other side, "for free." Of all the things about this case, that bothers me the most. I cannot think of a single good reasn for Nifong to blow off the defendants and their attorneys, unless he is afraid of what they would tell him.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#179)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    Hey Or*n*c*, Now we know your name is either Larry or Carl
    The sign said: "JAIL THE DURHAM WH*RE. DUKE LACROSSE POWER."


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#180)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:52:29 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    So I would think that you would be very unhappy with a district attorney suggesting than an individual's choice to take advantage of his fifth amendment rights would be out of bounds?
    I don't think Nifong has said anything about the fifth implying guilt. If he had I would be unhappy with him. Of course, the players' attorneys have disputed the idea that their clients are taking the fifth. They claim that Nifong just won't listen to them. Rogan, You wrote:
    No one on this site has said that Nifong couldn't have subpoened all of the Duke 46 or any one of them he wanted in front of the grand jury, given limited immunity and forced them to speak without the fifth amendment. NIFONG chose not to. Blame HIM for the trouble society has in "determining the truth."
    I've been advocating the first, not "get out jail free" cards being exchanged for forced testimony. From Nifong's perspective, he doesn't need more information. If he's got all he needs, there's no point giving anyone immunity. Such decisions are his to make. We'll see how it goes. He could fall flat on his face. The first amendment taken early on by the boys would have put Nifong in a much worse situation than he is now in. It's a choice not to take it, even a bit of a crap-shoot. Only the boys are to blame for the choice not taken.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#181)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:00:11 PM EST
    SharonInJax
    I think Seligman's attorney really believed that he could get Nifong to back down, if they showed, in public, what they had to show the limitations on when Seligman could have been involved.
    I heard Osborn waited outside Nifong's office. When Nifong declined to meet with him did Osborn leave the evidence for Nifong?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#182)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:01:03 PM EST
    I cannot think of a single good reasn for Nifong to blow off the defendants and their attorneys, unless he is afraid of what they would tell him.
    I agree Sharon that Seligmann's attorneys thought the evidence would get Nifong to drop charges against him. But to your point above, what could he be afraid of that could be worse than what may be happening now? Wouldn't he have been better off letting Seligmann off then rather than later? At least at that point, he could have said that the players wouldn't talk to him earlier but now that they have he believes that Seligmann was not responsible for the alleged rape. Now he'll look like a total idiot. While deep in my gut I think the guys are innocent, I can't imagine a DA setting himself up for this giant of a fall. He can't be that evil based on his past reputation so he must have lost his mind. I'll let you get back to reading the posts..

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#183)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:05:20 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Ms. Sutton said Mr. Nifong, in meetings with lawyers, had cleared her client, Matt Zash, and the team captains Dan Flannery and Bret Thompson, and a few others
    . Looks like I was wrong about Kerry Sutton. I knew that one of the captains was in NYC for an interview, so maybe I'm mixing KS with another defense attorney. Interesting that in pointing out my even, you have proven what I intended to prove. That is the falsity of Chew 2's bald assertion:
    Those other 42 refused to speak to the police, even with their lawyers present.
    So while I am wrong about Kerry Sutton, I am ultimately right!! Thanks old friend. Sorry Chew2, even in my error, you are still wrong......touch day on the blog for you, Superstar.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#184)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:07:15 PM EST
    imho, when I read the NY Times article you linked above, it reminded me that the Seligmann indictment was a huge surprise to the defense. He wasn't even in their radar. Had they known then that he was going to be indicted, I would bet they would have made sure Nifong saw the evidence then rather than the next day on Abrams show. I think at that point, Nifong was probably outraged and since that point he's closed himself off from their evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#185)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:08:28 PM EST
    mmyy posted:
    Yet the Black Panther could be identified by their uniforms, and the reporter should identify her source as much as she could.
    She may not have had the vantage point of the other reporters. I think she was already inside the courthouse when Seligmann arrived. I don't know why you assumed I was deliberately distorting the facts. I've never done that here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#186)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:10:12 PM EST
    Sorry I am a horrible typist on this keyboard... Even = Error; Touch = Tough.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#187)
    by cpinva on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:16:59 PM EST
    He's either got something, is an incurable optimist, or has gone stark raving mad.
    he's got.............nothing. mr. nifong has, indeed, entered a parallel universe, where kafka rules. what he handed over had better well have been everything, lest he find his prosecutorial butt in a sling. had he a "smoking condom", the accused, and we, would have long since heard about it. i've concluded he's banking on a "scott peterson" jury, assuming there's no change of venue. with any luck, after being barraged by a string of meaningless "facts", the jury will find them guilty, just because. think of it as reverse "nullification".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#188)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:22:43 PM EST
    Sorry I am a horrible typist on this keyboard... Even = Error; Touch = Tough.
    Don't you wish we had an edit button?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#189)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:38:36 PM EST
    cpinva posted: mr. nifong has, indeed, entered a parallel universe, where kafka rules.
    Aaaaaaah. Yes. I've been waiting for that name to appear for weeks now, and as far as I know you are the first to use it. -- Kafka -- Yes, I too believe that Mr. Nifong has, indeed, entered a parallel universe, where Kafka rules.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#190)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:38:40 PM EST
    Kali, You purposely can't read. IMHO was speaking about the player's attorneys seeking to meet with Nifong, not the players themselves. And all the "evidence" you've mentioned so far are offers by the attorneys to meet with Nifong. My claim to Rogan was that the other 42 players refused to speak with the police, not their attorneys. As for what you claimed.
    DE did it through Cheshire well before he was indicted. Kerry Sutton (I forget who she represents) has said that she tried to contact Nifong and he refused. The defense attorneys, who speak for the players (if you didn't realize this), have claimed that The Nifong has refused all their attempts to meet with him.
    The attorney's you claimed wanted to meet with Nifong all represented the 3 captains, David Evans and Matt Zash. We're talking about the other 42. You still haven't shown that any of those 42 other players offered to meet with Nifong when he was first investigating this case or thereafter.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#191)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:40:44 PM EST
    Let us hope that the judge has not also entered the world of Kafka, too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#192)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:50:21 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    Interesting that in pointing out my error, you have proven what I intended to prove. That is the falsity of Chew 2's bald assertion:
    Those other 42 refused to speak to the police, even with their lawyers present.
    So while I am wrong about Kerry Sutton, I am ultimately right!! Thanks old friend.
    Did you take the below quote to mean the players were present at these meetings?
    Ms. Sutton said Mr. Nifong, in meetings with lawyers, had cleared her client, Matt Zash, and the team captains Dan Flannery and Bret Thompson, and a few others.
    I saw video of Sutton [Zash], Butch Williams [Flannery] and Bill Thomas [Thompson]leaving the meeting with Nifong where he told them their clients were not going to be indicted. Their clients were not with them. There may have been other meetings, but if the players met with Nifong I would think we would have heard about it. Don't you think their lawyers would let us know? chew2's assertion is yet to be proven wrong. I know Osborn waited in Nifong's office, but Seligmann was not with him. Kalidoggie posted:
    Looks like I was wrong about Kerry Sutton. I knew that one of the captains was in NYC for an interview, so maybe I'm mixing KS with another defense attorney.
    Watch out! When azbbf made that mistake O*r*n*c* caled him a liar! That reminds me, O*r*n*c*, where did you read that David Evans was semi-Jewish? I haven't read that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#193)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:52:41 PM EST
    semi-Jewish? Did you mean half-Jewish, that one parent is Jewish -- or that he is a semi-believer in Judiasm?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#194)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:55:21 PM EST
    Unfortunately it started off in a Kafkaesque way today with the judge announcing that he was going to treat this case just like any other case. It isn't, and it is naive of him to think that he alone is going to keep the lid on this pressure cooker while the entire nation starts turning up the heat for a speedy trial. Too many people want to see their version of "justice" done sooner than later. That won't sit on the judge's little small-town back burner indefinitely without blowing out the release value and scalding everyone in the kitchen.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#195)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:56:00 PM EST
    Talk Left posted:
    semi-Jewish? Did you mean half-Jewish, that one parent is Jewish -- or that he is a semi-believer in Judiasm?
    Ask O*r*n*c*, it's his terminology, not mine.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#196)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:57:44 PM EST
    Teresea, By doing 70 interviews, Nifong fired the first salvo. Now he cries foul when the defense goes on the attack in the media? How and why should that impact his fairness and objectivity? Oh, that's right he had an election to win as he sacrifices these young men. Two of the men have pretty convincing exculpatory evidence. The fact that Nifong wouldn't even consider it before indicting is outragious. The defense has timestamped ATM pics, the mustache issue, the party pics of the stripper smiling, coupled with the fact that the boyfriend's DNA was found on her vaginal swab, and none of the Lacrosse players, is extremely damning for the stripper. At this point, even if Nifong found GBH in her blood, this whole thing smells of a setup. It's not like she hasn't claimed that 3 other men have raped her in the past. In all likelyhood, the boyfriend and stripper had rough sex hours before she arrived at the house. The strippers got po'd about the broome and they stopped dancing, but they didn't want to give any money back. Players got po'd cause they were being taken and one of the players probably grabbed the money outa her hand breaking off the fingernails. Now she's really po'd. She has to pay the escort company 30-50% and she doesn't have the money. That could easily be her motive to file false charges.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#197)
    by chew2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:58:51 PM EST
    Sharoninjax,
    The AV ... has, to her credit, apparently denied the NBPP, has not to date met with a civil litigator. But her father can't get enough of Rita Cosby, and her mother is courting black plaintiff's attorneys.
    First, the mother met with civil rights attorney Willie Gary once only, and has not met with him since. That Fox news article hyped that to inflame resentment and fear. Second and most important, the AV and her family deserve good professional and legal advice since they are under such attack. TL has admitted as much. Did you read the Essence article about why they wanted an attorney? In part death threats and hounding by the press. Even you have to admit the family, especially the father, have blabbed to the press too much. An attorney would tell them to shut up. All of the players, including those not charged, seem to be represented by quality lawyers, why should we resent the AV and her family getting one. The unfortunate fact is they still don't have one. If the boys are convicted then its a good possibility they'll be subject to a civil suit. I don't think that's unfair. How is it any different from sueing a drunk driver? But as some have pointed out its very unlikely their parents wealth can be touched.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#198)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:06:28 PM EST
    Spyderman, it's late so I may not remember exactly what post of mine you're referring to. If it's where I was guessing that Nifong was very angry that he wasn't shown Seligmann's alibi information until after the indictment (it was on Abrams first), I wasn't meaning to imply that I agreed with his decision. It probably wasn't smart for him to ignore it but we were trying to figure out Nifong's motive for refusing to look at it after the fact. That was just my guess.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#199)
    by blcc on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:27:54 PM EST
    chew2 said:
    If the boys are convicted then its a good possibility they'll be subject to a civil suit. I don't think that's unfair. How is it any different from sueing a drunk driver? But as some have pointed out its very unlikely their parents wealth can be touched.
    (emphasis above, mine) Why should their parents' wealth be available in any way for her "touching"?! Not only are the parents not on trial, but they're no doubting already spending a small fortune on attorney's fees and court costs. By what logic would the AV have a claim on the parents' assets? And, if you really believe that she does, would the situation work in reverse? Let us suppose the lacrosse players are found "not guilty", and they file a civil suit against the AV for making false accusations, and they won a judgement. If she couldn't pay, would you believe they had a claim on her family's assets in return?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#200)
    by blcc on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:30:53 PM EST
    but they're no doubting already spending a small fortune on attorney's fees and court costs.
    That should have read "but they're no doubt already spending a small fortune..." etc.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#201)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:35:23 PM EST
    PB: That is exactly what Nifong implied. Way too soon. That was when this case got my serious attention: Nifong's imprecations, the Duke community begging the guys to come forward and tell the truth. And Nifong lied, come on, admit that. Or, okay, he did not tell the whole truth. Duke players DID come forward, gave Nifong statements, offered to take polygraphs, listed who they thought were there that night. Statements from the captains, the tenants of the house, before Nifong characterized the team response as non responsive. I have no clue about the accuser, but I have a whole hell of a lot problem with Nifong. There was, contrary to Mr. Nifong's characterization of what was going on, an incredible amount of cooperation. The tenants, if the reports are accurate, all three of them, voluntariy went down to the Durham PD, gave statements. This does not, to me, sound like a lack of cooperation. These are children of lawyers, the poor dears. Might they think they are some how entitled to preferential treatment? Because of who there parents are? Yes, but don't ask more of them. All of us, consider: 1470 sq ft house. How many of you can visualize a house that size, and as you must, a bathroom of a matching size?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#202)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:43:36 PM EST
    so the status of the accused's family is now fair game? If your family can afford a $400,000 bond, even when there is no showing of risk of flight? And a judge who didn't seem to know that that motion was already in the record? Nifong worries me, big time. You who still believe in him, tell me why.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#203)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:52:19 PM EST
    I agree, $400k bond in this case is outrageous. It's like the court said because his parents can afford it, we'll take it. Who gets the interest on the money? Some courts will entertain a motion for it to be placed in an interest bearing account with the interest going to to the bond-poster at the end of the case. For the Durham courts to keep the interest on $400k for a trial that now seems like it won't occur until next year seems like stealing to me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#204)
    by Teresa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:55:54 PM EST
    Nifong worries me, big time. You who still believe in him, tell me why.
    I don't think I believe in the accuser Sharon but I think that Nifong does. I have to believe that because the alternative scares me. I have posted before about a very small town DA using his position in an unethical way but Durham isn't that small and the nation's eyes are on him. Please tell me that one DA can't possibly be either that stupid or that evil. I think he believes he has a case. That's what gives me my little bit of doubt on this case. I think there may be enough leaks in the next few days to push me over the edge and then I'll have to decide what I think of Mr. Nifong's motives. Mostly, I believe that the few of us here that haven't totally jumped off the fence are arguing that it could have happened not that it did. If we were really on a jury, I don't know anyone here that would truly convict these guys at this point. It's a lot easier to come up with scenarios than it is to actually put someone in prison for many years.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#205)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:33:42 AM EST
    TL: deleted [Off topic This is not a thread about race. Stay on the Duke case please.] I think that says it all. Oh, Orinoco, go ahead and skip, I know you believe anyone who isn't into semantics, false mustaches or microparsing of unsubstantiated statements by people (Defense attorneys doing the job they shoulddo) should go find another site. Well, I'll read and post as I wish. I think TL's position on race in this case is typical of some "liberals" and demonstrates how far we need to go. Highly recommend the link at Kos to Tim Wise on the so-called "Race Card." Apparently, no one is interested in Darryl Littlejohn and the similarities to this case. Fair enough. Forgive me, however, if I question TL's indignation on the Duke men's part and silence on the Littlejohn case. Of course, it's not about race or class. I don't plan on succumbing to bullying ("why babble about social issues when you can focus solely on speculating into the vacuum"[fun, but limited]) and giving up reading this site or commenting, but I'll look to other sites for anything more sophisticated on the social/racial intersection with the law (fair enough, different strokes and that's the beauty of the Internet). Chew2 & IMHO amongst others-not to taint you with my own concerns, but keep up the good work. That includes anyone pro-defense, neutral, or pro-victim (until AV becomes part of the murder/mugger etc lexicon, I'm going to stop conceding) who keeps a relatively open mind, asks questions and shares information. PS Another late night post. Not grumpy and overworked this time; still feel the same.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#206)
    by azbballfan on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:01:16 AM EST
    Sharon in Jax wrote:
    These are children of lawyers, the poor dears.
    My information tells me they are the children of wall street bankers, not lawyers. At this point I'm reserving opinion on either side. Evans showed some guts by placing a face to the accusations and with his statement. I'll admit that he listened to the public outcry for the wall of shame. That said, I don't necessarily believe him. History has shown that the best actors come from the best atheletes. Those who don't let anyone get inside their head and emphatically deny clear wrongdoings. (the poor dear, who just cross checked a scrimmage teammate into the emergency room to ensure they knew 'who's your daddy')

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#207)
    by azbballfan on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:34:19 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    I heard Osborn waited outside Nifong's office. When Nifong declined to meet with him did Osborn leave the evidence for Nifong?
    Much has been made of Nifong's refusal of evidence. I'm sorry, but I've been involved in enough civil and criminal cases to know that if you want to present evidence to opposing counsel, the simplist way is to just mail it via registered mail. That way you have a record that they received it and if they didn't consider it or ask questions about it, then present the correspondence in court and the judge quickly wonders what is afoot. Yet another reaon I take the defense team's stance as disingenuine.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#208)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:16:15 AM EST
    mmyy, You wrote:
    PB, but you'll be fumed if someone called the AV "Dead Woman walking." Would you also agree that it's just a "characterization"?
    Man, you kill me, mmyy. You take everything so literally! Truth is, sometimes I think she is "Dead Woman Walking". It doesn't make me "fumed." It makes me feel bad for her. If she actually did make this up out of whole cloth, she's just dead. Not in the sense that she'll be lying on the ground with a knife in her back. There might be some people who would like to skin her and kill her, to be sure, but Ryan McFadyen probably isn't among them. No, I mean that she will be figuratively dead... "screwed", as I say, but without the joyous orgasm. Who would look forward to a future as the woman who lied about something this serious?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#209)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 02:30:34 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    PB, it was a general "you." Not you you.
    Oh, that's comforting. I thought you were addressing the ideas in my post. Re-reading it, I see you were just using my post as a springboard to repeat your speculations. My bad! TL, You wrote: deleted [Off topic This is not a thread about race. Stay on the Duke case please.] You don't happen to have the ability to e-mail me my post, do you? I forget what I wrote.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#210)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:38:21 AM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    I reiterate my objection to not being allowed to use her first name, but if y'all want to dehumanize her, fine
    I didn't realize you weren't allowed to use her first name. TL runs a pretty strict site. I'm personally against rape shield laws to the extent that they muzzle the free press. The problem with muzzling bad ideas is that they don't get exposed to better ones. You wrote:
    This case crystallizes issues that every town, city, have.
    I wouldn't say it crystalizes the issues, (mostly on grammatical ground). But I do think Durham, more than many towns, and Duke, more than many schools, and Duke lacrosse, more than many teams,are representative of what happens to cultures in which circles of commonality have been drawn too narrowly. Sharon wrote:
    As I've said before: I am the mother of a white, privileged in a lot of ways, athlete who will be attending an elitist university, playing a team sport. So I identify with the accused.
    Circles of commonality are one way people make decisions about who to love and who not to. Some people draw their circles bigger than others. Some people surround themselves with people who are "like" them, others reach out to people who are not. Racial clustering, sex clustering, class clustering, and even "idea" clustering are natural phenomena: The Duke case showcases the downside of all four of these forms. Racism, at its bottom, is after all the special glint in the eye a mother has for her child that she doesn't have for her neighbors. Sexism is the special glint in a mother's eye she has for her son that she doesn't have for her daughter. And classicism is that special glint in a mother's eye she has for the zoning laws and other practices that help keep poor people and out of rich neighborhoods. "Idea" clustering is what people spend a lot of time doing here. Finding comfort among like-thinking people under a "leftist" umbrella. It's no more respectable a clustering than any of the other clusterings.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#211)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:56:38 AM EST
    newsobserver.com
    On March 24, in her only interview with a reporter, the accuser said she was notified about 8:30 p.m. the night of the party that she was supposed to appear at the Buchanan Boulevard house about 11 p.m.
    In an interview earlier this week, her father said he saw his daughter a few times March 13. That afternoon, he said, she picked up her two children from elementary school. About 9:30 p.m., he said, she brought the children to their grandparents' house for the evening.
    "She was fine," he said.
    After their arrival, he and his daughter took a short car ride about 10 p.m. to a neighborhood convenience store at Cornwallis Road and South Roxboro Street. He bought a pack of cigarettes but said he did not recall what his daughter purchased.
    When the two returned to his house, the woman said she had to go out and wouldn't return until 1:30 a.m. He said he does not know whether she left in her own car or someone picked her up. He said she did call him to say she safely reached her destination -- about 11:30 p.m., about the start of a late-night talk show he was watching.
    If they were supposed to dance at 11:00 and she was 20-30 minutes late, this scenario works.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#212)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:24:37 AM EST
    bean posted:
    Mark my words. Those poor beautiful boys, sacrificed for a prostitute pig.
    Maybe you should make a lapel pin bearing that slogan and send it to Mrs. Evans. I'm sure she would be proud to list you among her son's supporters. You are doing great work here, bean. I'm sure the commenters making reasoned arguments in defense of the indicted players are equally proud to have you representing their cause.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#213)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 06:30:34 AM EST
    SharoninJax posted:
    As I've said before: I am the mother of a white, privileged in a lot of ways, athlete who will be attending an elitist university, playing a team sport. So I identify with the accused.
    Why do you keep dehumanizing him? You're allowed to call him by his name.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#214)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:00:47 AM EST
    PB, at a certain point I don't have the inclination to find out what you posted yesterday or last week about mustaches. You deny that you commented about mustaches, I'll take your word on it. I'd say good morning to you, but you'd take offense. If you want to beat a dead horse, go ahead.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#215)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:02:45 AM EST
    Just so it's on your notice.
    I'm not too worried, Or*n*c*, the fact that you are still around after ignoring the warnings Talk Left specifically directed at you, tells us all something about TL's enforcement of her rules. I've kept a list of your warnings and infractions. I've never been warned, so I'd have to make many missteps before TL could justify banning me, if only to herself. I'm not on double secret probation, you are.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#216)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:08:37 AM EST
    Del asked off-site if I thought it was possible that Roberts stole the AV's share of the fee. Others have asked if the lack of money may have been the reason for her filing false rape charges. As to Roberts' stealing the AV's money. Sure, it's possible. Roberts didn't know her, most observers put the AV as extremely intoxicated by the time the two left, at times to the point of unconsciousness. Roberts is a convicted thief. Did she? Don't know. I have no idea if the AV would file false rape charges in order to get back at Buchanan attendees to get back her money. You could, from past incidents in their lives, create a scenario that would match those two things. Proves nothing, though.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#217)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:18:00 AM EST
    The sportin' life.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#218)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:25:16 AM EST
    You are so funny O*r*n*c*, I just looked up the posts you were tattling about:
    Hey Or*n*c*, Now we know your name is either Larry or Carl The sign said: "JAIL THE DURHAM WH*RE. DUKE LACROSSE POWER."
    It was in response to this post of yours, that I thought was funny. You were endorsing Kalidoggie posting to me:
    So now we know your first name is Joseph.
    Which I also thought was funny. And this was my second offending post?
    Watch out! When azbbf made that mistake O*r*n*c* called him a liar!
    Not only is it true, it points out you are the one name calling, not me. I was trying to keep Kalidoggie from provoking you into calling him a liar!, like you did azbballfan (twice). It was out of my concern for you, or do you think TL is just going to keep warning you? You keep your list of infractions and I'll keep mine. We'll see who gets banned first.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#219)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:40:56 AM EST
    Bob, an important part of my Kim-as-thief scenario is that, according to what I have read, the two gals were sent from different agencies, Kim from "Allure" and AV from the unfortunately-named "Bunny Hole Entertainment." So Kim shows up ready to act professionally but AV is late, inappropriately dressed, sucks down a cocktail (did the boys offer drinks, or did AV maybe ask for a drink?) stumbles around and eventually passes out in Kim's car. Not hard to imagine that Kim might even have felt entitled to help herself to some or all of that bundle of twenties in the AV's tiny purse. Or maybe the purse opened and the cash fell out? Found money has no owner, as my mama used to say. As long as we're speculating.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#220)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:46:37 AM EST
    I noticed during David Evans' press conference he choked up when he mentioned the honor of being voted a team captain. Too bad the Duke Lacrosse captains didn't take this honor and responsibilty more seriously. timesdispatch.com
    The culture started to change in U.Va.'s program in the fall of 1998, when Starsia concluded that excessive alcohol use was hurting his team. He met with team leaders, including Radebaugh, then a senior, and they agreed on a policy.
    Players would limit their drinking to one night a week during the regular season. They wouldn't drink at all during the NCAA tournament.
    "People didn't think Virginia lacrosse was willing to make that commitment," Starsia recalled. "They thought that nothing was more important than partying at Virginia."
    Not coincidentally, perhaps, U.Va. won the NCAA title in 1999 - Gill's freshman season - and added another championship in 2003.
    "Looking back in retrospect, what we gave up wasn't a huge sacrifice," Gill said. "And the product of that - the championship - that lasts a lot longer than any party you would have missed."
    Starsia said his players determine among themselves each year what their policy on alcohol consumption will be during the season. The captains inform him, he said, when they want to discipline a team member for violating that policy.
    "You've got no chance on a college campus with students of enforcing the policy from outside," Starsia said.
    I think this is the best post in all of the Duke Lacrosse threads. It would have taken so little for all of this to never have happened: Posted by Lax_Alum April 23, 2006 10:13 AM

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#221)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:50:26 AM EST
    O, I didn't see a date on that article, but I thought that that was the finding, that it was the boyfriend's sperm, when the news first came out. Don't know why Nifong hadn't gotten a sample from the boyfriend from the start, unless the AV was witholding that information from him. +++ Interesting timeline from the AV's dad. He doesn't remember who picked her up or if she was picked up, and doesn't say the time she left, which would have been good information and could have told us if she was partying or romancing from the time she left her folks' house until she got to Buchanan. Again, the father offers another clue as to that lack of father-daughter communication. She was working for an escort service for months and he didn't know it. Unless he is saying that he didn't know she was working for an escort service that night. +++ Getting back to the story about the phone calls made on the AV's cell phone, if the AV called her father at 11:30 to let him know she arrived safely (although the father apparently didn't know or wasn't curious enough to ask where she arrived safely) knowing if she made any phone calls after that would certainly help to not only establish a timeline but all that goes with it. As an example, suppose there is evidence that the AV made an eight-minute phone call around 12:15 to chat with her boyfriend? That would sort of blow the case out of the water. The defense could find out who she called, bring evidence of the phone call to that person and ask what they were talking about. On the other hand, if during that time there were calls that seem to have been made by attendees at the party, that would suggest her cell phone had been taken from her or she had at least lost it, no? In either case, if Nifong has no interest in what phone calls were made on that phone during that evening between 11:30 and 12:40, he would be nuts. My guess is that the defense has tried to get those records in discovery, or has already gone on-line to buy the information. They wouldn't be able to buy any picture images if it were a picture phone, but they could get the call information. Asking Nifong for it must be to make it official for use in trial. Like I say, any activity on that phone could really impact this case. I think that if Nifong is not interested in that information, he really is one bad actor and deserves what comes to him.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#222)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 07:59:51 AM EST
    Del, My guess is that Kim did not feel a whole lot of solidarity with the AV when the cop was peeling her out of her car at Kroger's. The AV had shown up late, was certainly out of it at some point in the proceedings. My guess is that the attendees felt ripped off by the AV's performance, and some of the hostility was felt by Roberts. So even with all of the other bad behavior going on around her, Roberts had to figure that the evening would have gone better if she hadn't been carrying around the AV's dead weight. +++ Bunny Hole Entertainment?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#223)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:06:26 AM EST
    By the way, Del, That's why I stopped going on exotic dancing jobs with your mama. ;)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#224)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:13:34 AM EST
    Too bad the Duke Lacrosse captains didn't take this honor and responsibilty more seriously.
    I just can't agree with that. Before the age of 30, I think it's downright abnormal if you're not partying at least 2 nights a week. Obviously it wasn't hurting their lacrosse game that much - they were serious contenders for the national championship. Most college students party just as much and never accomplish a tenth of what these kids had accomplished. Holding a stripper party might not have been the smartest thing, but it's no different from countless bachelor parties that happen every year. If they are innocents, I don't think throwing the party shows reprehensible judgement. It's just 18 to 21 year old kids being stupid and having fun. Sure it went horribly wrong, but I don't think their past behavior made that inevitable or even likely.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#225)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:14:10 AM EST
    blcc,
    Why should their parents' wealth be available in any way for her "touching"?!
    I agree with you. I don't believe the parents are legally liable for any alleged wrongs committed by their children. But I gathered some here, possibly Sharoninjax, were fearful that a "gold digging" woman was after the money of the "wealthy" parents. I just wanted to point out that this was unlikely.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#226)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:19:46 AM EST
    bean, I think you're confusing politeness with political correctness. There's a difference between being courteous and holding orthodox dogma. For example, "What a phony bunch of garbage" is not polite, but it is in fact politically correct to say such things in certain segments of our society.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#227)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:24:51 AM EST
    Re: Family fortunes. They're all over 18, I don't think that any civil liabilities could be put on the parents. Maybe a lawsuit against future earnings? Someone with a better understanding of tort law would have to step in here. Someone pointed out that Duke owns the property. Perhaps they could be sued. Personally, I don't think that there'll be a civil suit.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#228)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:28:35 AM EST
    Hues,
    It's just 18 to 21 year old kids being stupid and having fun.
    True. But these were team captains who were supposed to provide leadership. The coach and team had been warned previously about too much underaged drinking and partying. I think the coach had tried to get the team to cut down on the public drinking and carousing. He had specifically had the team and captains leave the big tailgate parties early because of all the drinking.
    Before the age of 30, I think it's downright abnormal if you're not partying at least 2 nights a week.
    Ture for some. Not true for a lot of others including myself. -)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#229)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:40:41 AM EST
    Bob In Pacifica Their parents have no liability risk here. It's possible that some of the kids have significant assets, but if they do, the assets are likely held in a spendthrift trust. It would be pretty hard for the AV to get to those assets, though not impossible. Attaching future earnings might happen, but it strikes me as unlikely. I don't think a lot of states permit wage garnishment for non-support judgements. I could be totally wrong though.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#230)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:44:06 AM EST
    LOL Bob, Mama says she misses watching you do your turn with the trained parrot and the big fans. I agree, Kim didn't demonstrate much sisterly solidarity with the AV at all, IMO not until she figured out it would serve her own interests better to do so (and I'm not just talkin bout the bond amount being lowered). Kim is in it for Kim. And her hungry daughter of course. H of B, I've been out of college for a good while now--I remember the partying quite well, but I think hiring strippers is a new twist? Maybe the sports groupies aren't lining up for the team the way they did back at my alma mater. Anyway when I first heard about this case, I thought "how reprehensible, why aren't the whole bunch of them being expelled?" but I gather they'd have to expel half the campus if they got rid of everybody who watched a stripper last semester. Autre temps, etc.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#231)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:44:53 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    "You've got no chance on a college campus with students of enforcing the policy from outside," Starsia said.
    Exactly. Bear in mind, however, that what is agreed between the coach & captains is not always reality. I know several players from UVA during this time period....when the opportunity arose, they partied hard. And just because they were not drinking hard in season as often does not mean they weren't getting high all the time (like many other college kids). The image of the Duke Lacrosse team (and lacrosse players for that matter) is primarily from partying in the off-season, along with and like the rest of the student body.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#232)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:46:46 AM EST
    IMHO Teresa, How credible a witness do you think the father would make? I only saw him once on TV and he sounded vague and like he could be easily led and confused. I didn't think he would need to testify, but now it appears from the newsobserver article that you posted that he may be attempting to account for the AV's sobriety and whereabouts before the party. This is why I've said he shouldn't have been speaking to the press so much. He can be impeached by any of his inconsistent prior statements (the broomstick?), although the whole broohaha about the prior 1996 false rape claim won't be one of them since it will be barred. It doesn't look like he has taken Simeon's advice to stop talking to the press. More reason that the family needs an attorney. One thing strikes me as a little odd. He said the AV called him when she arrived at the party. This could imply that she didn't call in to the escort agency which is highly unusual and unprofessional if true. The behavior of the AV and her agency have sounded unusually amateurish. No bouncer. She drives up scantily clad with no clear way of getting home. It's also odd that the team called two separate agencies.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#233)
    by Lora on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:55:20 AM EST
    Maybe the dad believe it's best to tell the truth to the best of your ability, and there is no reason to hide it. Whether or not he has been aware of everything his daughter has or hasn't done, and whether or not he interpreted correctly everything he has heard, he comes across as sincere in the comments and quotes by him that I've read. Again, what he actually saw and can relate accurately will be the most relevant, followed by what he heard. His opinions will not necessarily have much to do with anything.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#234)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:58:22 AM EST
    chew2
    I think the coach had tried to get the team to cut down on the public drinking and carousing.
    Throwing a private party at their house that was 95% LAX players was probably their way of cutting back on the public drinking. It's the same way universities generally try and keep the partying on campus. I may have been exagerating a little with that "downright abnormal" comment. But even when I was in grad school, 75%+ of the people I knew would go out two or more times a week. It probably wasn't healthy, but no one ever got into any real trouble. To see these players dragged over the coals for drinking a lot at the age of 20 just strikes me as a little ridiculous. I just know too many doctors, lawyers, and MBAs who still party hard. Getting drunk as a 20 year old doesn't make someone a rapist anymore than being a stripper makes someone a liar. There may be a loose correlation between the two, but not so much that it should take a center stage role as highly probabtive evidence these defendants are guilty.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#235)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:58:49 AM EST
    Lora, More importantly, what about the AV's cell phone as evidence? Wouldn't any phones on it from 11:30 to 12:40 help to establish a timeline?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#236)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    That should be phone calls...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#237)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    Bean wrote:
    The civil suit will be brought by the boys and Duke Univ. Good luck for Nodong and FA.
    Lawsuit by the indicted players, but not Duke. Broadhead is a former Yale wuss! He dropped the ball early and presumed guilt before innocence... that is, after they realized the charges were serious. No lawsuit from Duke, just a BS speech from Broadhead about how society caused the AV/FA's ultimate pain and he doesn't want to beat her down any more. Besides, Duke will be paying for her education indirectly through the extortion payment to the Rainbow Coalition. Anyone else notice that Rev JJ isn't around or commenting these days!! It will be interesting if they actually fund her education as promised, rape or no rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#238)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:17:42 AM EST
    This is what no one seems interested in, as posted by mmyy upstream on this thread and which I keep on asking: From WRAL: Nifong said prosecutors are not interested in the contents of the phone, such as the last 10 numbers called, but Osborn said that's information the defense should be allowed to see. This is what mmyy commented: Could anybody enlighten me why the last 10 phone numbers the AV called is not important? Supposedly one of the pictures showed her talking on her cellphone. Why would Nifong say such things? How could the last 10 phone numbers not important if Nifong wants a different timeline? If, for example, the AV made one phone call and there was a time-stamped picture of her making that phone call, comparing the date stamp with the time of the call in the phone records could confirm the accuracy of the time stamp. This could be incredibly important information. How could Nifong not be interested? Only if he were intent on continuing the farce. Can anyone explain when Nifong would not want to know who the AV called (or if anyone used the phone) during the time when the rape allegedly occurre? Please, anyone who has faith in Nifong's case or the AV's version of events even possibly being true, please answer why "the prosecutors are not interested in the contents of the [AV's] phone"?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#239)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:19:22 AM EST
    The calls on her phone seem hugely important to me. Can't believe they haven't been mentioned before this. Chew, agreed, BH Entertainment seems like a strictly amateur outfit. More grist for Kim's mill. Why would they call 2 places? That is weird. Maybe some posters who know more about stripper-hiring will enlighten us. H of B, when I was at college the drinking age was still 18. I agree that it's silly to hound 20-year-olds for "underage drinking" and I guess a lot of universities feel the same way.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#240)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    This is what mmyy commented: Could anybody enlighten me why the last 10 phone numbers the AV called is not important? Supposedly one of the pictures showed her talking on her cellphone. Why would Nifong say such things? How could the last 10 phone numbers not important if Nifong wants a different timeline?
    It's just weird that the prosecutor is dismissing this evidence as unimportant. Wouldn't the people on the other end of those calls be pretty important witnesses? I've tried to give the prosecutor the benfit of the doubt on most things, but this one leaves me a little baffled.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#241)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:39:32 AM EST
    Del wrote:
    H of B, I've been out of college for a good while now--I remember the partying quite well, but I think hiring strippers is a new twist? Maybe the sports groupies aren't lining up for the team the way they did back at my alma mater.
    Howard Stern, among others, has glorified strippers and porn stars to some extent. Interestingly, one of the first questions he asks every stripper/pron star that comes on his show (which is almost every show) whether they were abused or raped when they were younger (i.e., top porn star Jenna Jameson's story).
    Anyway when I first heard about this case, I thought "how reprehensible, why aren't the whole bunch of them being expelled?" but I gather they'd have to expel half the campus if they got rid of everybody who watched a stripper last semester.
    Strip shows are definitely much more accepted these days and part of the youth culture. Women these days think nothing of going to a strip club or being at a party with strippers performing. I have been to some wild parties at multi-million dollar beach house where strippers wereperforming in the window alcoves, while guest milled about drinking cocktails and champagne. Nothing new here...sex sells and has for thousands fo years.
    Autre temps, etc.
    This reminds me....at Duke in the "CI" eating hall, there are plaques on the walls at the end of each table with latin phrases (no french). They were overlooked by many, but I took latin in high school and realized they were very funny. My favorite: "ubi sub ubi" Techincally: where under where ..kind of ironic with today's stripper mentality. IHMO .... I'll beat you to your pithy comment.... obviously the lacorsse players don't know latin. or do they....in vino veritas.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#242)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:44:13 AM EST
    DEl wrote:
    Why would they call 2 places? That is weird.
    Not weird, limited supply. This was Durham, NC, not Atlanta or NYC.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#243)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    Hues,
    Getting drunk as a 20 year old doesn't make someone a rapist anymore than being a stripper makes someone a liar. There may be a loose correlation between the two, but not so much that it should take a center stage role as highly probabtive evidence these defendants are guilty.
    Couldn't agree more. Although to be fair to IMHO I don't think he was trying to make that link, just criticizing the behavior of the captains. 75% went out partying twice a week? Obviously we've had different life experiences. LOL. But since I seem to recall you said you attended Wake Forest(?) recently, yours are much more likely to be relevant to the current college scene (especially Duke) than mine.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#244)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    Strip shows are definitely much more accepted these days and part of the youth culture. Women these days think nothing of going to a strip club or being at a party with strippers performing. I have been to some wild parties at multi-million dollar beach house where strippers wereperforming in the window alcoves, while guest milled about drinking cocktails and champagne. Nothing new here...sex sells and has for thousands fo years
    It's almost the current fad. I can remember an especially elaborate party on the upper east side where the female host hired male and female strippers to dance as decoration. I also had a girlfriend who really wanted to go to a strip club one night just to see what it was all about. A couple of her friends and their boyfriends came and we made it a night. It was a little weird, but nothing terribly unusual. Another friend of mine plays in a band that's had a few gigs at a NYC bar that has a stripping stage downstairs and a music stage upstairs. They draw the same coed crowd there that they do at any other venue. When I heard about the Duke party it just didn't strike me as anything shocking. The allegations of what happened . . . that's a different matter completely.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#245)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    A couple of issues that seem important: First, with regard to partying at universities - as a college professor of 25 years, I have intentionally never attended any parties that students have asked me to attend - aside from the awkwardness of it, the potential liability or, at least, appearance of impropriety, was more than I cared to assume (e.g., possible drug use, underage drinking, etc.) I think this policy is pretty common for all university faculty and administrators, which makes it difficult to control drug use, etc. Put simply, to be honest, we don't want to know about it. Along these lines, the NYTimes, WashingtonPost, etc. ran stories yesterday about the www.badjocks.com website, which posts pictures (from facebook and other sources) that allegedly show hazing parties from many universities - both men and women. While the site concentrates on athletic teams, I think it's safe to infer that this occurs at other fraternities and sororities as well. You can scroll down the page to find pictures from the "dirty dozen" Universities. What this means in terms of the Duke case is that, evidently, calling for exotic dancers is not unusual. I suspect the defense will try to make this point - since the early press coverage seemed to portray the party as something that was very unusual. It's not clear to me, however, that the jury will be impressed with this information. I think the racial aspect of the dancers vis-a-vis the team is one of the big issues and will probably have a major bearing on any verdict. http://www.badjocks.com/

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#246)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    One piece of information that I didn't know about is that the DNA on the fingernail was apparently found on the top of the nail. Whether this is true, of course, is something that will come out later. My source for this is a pro-defense article below: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060519_spilbor.html

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#247)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:14:58 AM EST
    75% went out partying twice a week? Obviously we've had different life experiences. LOL. But since I seem to recall you said you attended Wake Forest(?) recently, yours are much more likely to be relevant to the current college scene (especially Duke) than mine.
    Recently is relative. I'm about 5 years out of Wake. But I just finished grad school last year, so I don't feel that removed from campus culture. Most college students go out on Friday and Saturday night. And at bars around the country, Thursday is "college night." The libraries are packed on Sundays and during the school week, but a work hard party hard attitude is more the norm than the exception.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#248)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:30:01 AM EST
    Didn't it say that the boys used her phone? The calls may be their calls.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#249)
    by Lora on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    Bob, Let's get all relevant information about what Nifong actually said first. He has often been badly misrepresented. I don't have a lot of time but I did a little hunting right now on the cell phone issue, and I found another Nifong misrepresentation, in some news report as having said he felt spring would be a good time for a trial, without any other explanation. We who have been reading these threads know that he said he felt it would be spring due to all the defense motions that would delay the trial. Sorry I haven't carefully checked out this source (I really don't watch much TV, and I'm not really "in the know" about whose blogs are great and whose are crap); I don't have a lot of time to hunt right now, but this is re the cell phone, from lashawnbarber.com - the blogger was apparently watching TV at the time:
    Nifong says evidence isn't processed and the phone may belong to a third party, who has privacy expectations. Judge orders that the phone be examined in confidence to find out what's on it.
    This doesn't sound at all like Nifong's not interested.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#250)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    If they were supposed to dance at 11:00 and she was 20-30 minutes late, this scenario works.
    The lawyers have said Kim arrived on time and the accuser was 30 minutes late. Now I'm back to wondering what went on until 12:00 when the dance started. Maybe the dance lasted longer than 3 minutes afterall. I hope the defense will leak Nifong's timeline so Bob and I can put this to rest.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#251)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:49:08 AM EST
    Pat,
    While the site concentrates on athletic teams, I think it's safe to infer that this occurs at other fraternities and sororities as well. You can scroll down the page to find pictures from the "dirty dozen" Universities.
    The "dirty dozen" seemed completely tame and completely typical of any college party as well as for any post-grad bachelotte party....drinking and laughter at stupid sexual humor. AZ...UCSB was No. 3...don't worry it was pretty tame. UCSB is a damn fun school with an absolutely beautiful campus on the beach...how anyone graduates from that school is amazing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#252)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:50:59 AM EST
    Nifong says evidence isn't processed and the phone may belong to a third party, who has privacy expectations. Judge orders that the phone be examined in confidence to find out what's on it. This doesn't sound at all like Nifong's not interested.
    But this assault happened in March. If they haven't even processed the cell phone by now, disinterest has to rank pretty high as a potential explanation. Nifong doesn't even know who the phone belongs to. I'm no detective, but that doesn't strike me as a mystery it should take two months to solve.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#253)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    Orinoco, thanks for the link. The article I had linked was from the ABC legal unit who had veiwed the report. Wonder why they say it wasn't sperm but the lab person said it was? Either way, she had some kind of sexual activity with her boyfriend. Now if we just knew when.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#254)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    Didn't it say that the boys used her phone? The calls may be their calls.
    Either way, looking at the cell phone record would be helpful. If they called a number in the phone to try and return it, it supports the players' account. If they called their friend studying abroad in France, it looks a little more malicious.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#255)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    Del,
    Chew, agreed, BH Entertainment seems like a strictly amateur outfit. More grist for Kim's mill.
    Kim and her agency don't look a whole lot more professional. Kim didn't come with a bouncer either, although she did come with a change of clothes. One explanation is that the team members lied about the number of guys atending, allegedly only five. But even with five, I think a bouncer/driver is usually provided. I recall Kim saying that she had been working as an escort/stripper for about 10 months, so she was more experienced than the AV who reportedly had only been working for 2 months. ----------------- As to Kim stealing the AV's money in the car because she blamed the AV. It's certainly a possibility, although speculative. There's one reported comment that doesn't make sense. Kim says in the Newsweek article that she initially suspected the AV of holding out money from her. How could this occur? They would each have been paid $400 separately up front. Kim was not entitled to any of the AV's fee or any tips she might have earned. Plus why would Kim blame the AV for ruining the date. It was allegedly Kim who got angry at the team's boorish/racist behavior and said let's split. And I have this question. How likely is it that a bunch of drunk athletes who felt they were being cheated would just let the dancers walk away without attempting to get their money back? Seems a little naive and wussy on their part.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#256)
    by Lora on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:00:21 AM EST
    hues, There could be many explanations. It's still different from Nifong saying he's just not interested, which is how it was presented.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#257)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:18:04 AM EST
    Hues & Lora,
    It's just weird that the prosecutor is dismissing this evidence as unimportant. Wouldn't the people on the other end of those calls be pretty important witnesses? I've tried to give the prosecutor the benfit of the doubt on most things, but this one leaves me a little baffled.
    You can view the hearing on the WRAL site. Nifong (feigning ignorance?) asked Osborne what evidence he thought would be on the phone. Osborne responded with the last 10 phone numbers. Nifnong said nothing in response. It was the judge who said he had "heard" that the phone might belong to a third party and thus that he had privacy concerns. Nifong stated to the Judge he didn't know whether the policeman responsible for the electronic evidence in the case had inspected the phone yet (presumably for phone numbers or other information). I agree with Huesblues. Seems the police and Nifong should have looked at this early on at least to fix the time of arrival. But maybe the police had already called the agency (and now her father) to fix the time. Nevertheless why wouldn't they verify it by looking at the phone numbers in the phone. (Can't you get the numbers called from the phone provider in any case?)

    Howard Stern, among others, has glorified strippers and porn stars to some extent. Interestingly, one of the first questions he asks every stripper/pron star that comes on his show (which is almost every show) whether they were abused or raped when they were younger (i.e., top porn star Jenna Jameson's story).
    Actually, what he usually says, when he interviews a new stripper/porn girl, is "How old were you when you were abused?" In, literally, every instance that I was listening, they responded with some variation of "Wow. How did you know?"
    [regarding no bouncer/driver] recall Kim saying that she had been working as an escort/stripper for about 10 months, so she was more experienced than the AV who reportedly had only been working for 2 months.
    According to the AV, her experience at stripping was nil - she said this was her first time...although, on second thought, she may have been saying that it was her first time via Bunny Hole who she'd only been with for a couple months. Another thing occurred to me, the boys may not have called two escort agencies. Maybe they called just one, and that agency didn't have two girls, so that agency called the second agency and the second agency sent out their girl. Funny using the word "agency" as it brings up a mental image of employment agency or something when it's more likely just some guy's (or girl's) cell phone and some girl's names and phone numbers written down in a notebook. (That said, I'm sure chew2 will soon point out, again, how little I know about the stripping/hooking industry...)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#259)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    Lora, I'm not ruling out the possibility of other explanations. Nifong has a lot invested in this case. Obviously he's going to be "interested" in any material evidence. But that's why it seems so strange that this particular stone has sat unturned for two months. I can't figure it out.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#260)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    CHew2 wrote:
    (Can't you get the numbers called from the phone provider in any case?)
    Given Osborne's intimation that The Nifong isn't playing by the rules with evidence, I would assume the defense will compare what shows up on the phone as the last 10 calls (is it 10 sent, 10 received or combined?) with the phone provider's records.....or they can just go to the NSA.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#261)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:34:09 AM EST
    sarcastic wrote:
    (That said, I'm sure chew2 will soon point out, again, how little I know about the stripping/hooking industry...)
    Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#262)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:44:12 AM EST
    I also find the phone situation strange. Chew, I thought the judge was the first one who mentioned the third party info too and I wondered how he knew that. In a normal case, would the phone records, if provided to the defense, be enough? That's the only thing I can think of: the defense was given records from the phone in discovery but the prosecution didn't see a need to give the defense access to the phone itself. I don't blame the defense for wanting to check out the phone with their own expert but I would have assumed that the police had already checked the phone for timeline purposes and that would have been given in discovery. Wonder if it's the boyfriend's phone? How did the judge know it wasn't hers?

    Kali, probably leaning toward a "good" thing for me. Re: UCSB. My wife and I took a run along whatever street that is that parallels the beach and has all the UCSB frats/student rental houses one Sunday AM a few years back. I've been in houses that had that intensity of stale beer smell (like my own frat house, back in the day) but I've never smelled anything like it, in the outdoors. Although, actually, Bourbon St. during Mardi Gras might be close...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#264)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    UCSB is a damn fun school with an absolutely beautiful campus on the beach...how anyone graduates from that school is amazing.
    I know, I lived on Del Playa. I'm from "Kali"fornia.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#265)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    Another thing occurred to me, the boys may not have called two escort agencies. Maybe they called just one, and that agency didn't have two girls, so that agency called the second agency and the second agency sent out their girl.
    suo, that is true from what I've read several times. I don't remember which articles stated that though.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#266)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:06:32 PM EST
    painstakingly transcribed from video tape by imho: (Judge asked if the phone was in police custody) NIFONG: Your honor, I understand it was seized. I assume it is still in the custody of the police department The lead investigator in the department is not available today. I haven't been able to speak to him, but I am assuming it is. (Judge asked if the phone was going to be evidence during the course of the trial) NIFONG: Yes, Sir, it would be evidence not with respect to anything contained therein, but obviously it confirms some of the testimony received about what items were left behind and the circumstances (Judge asked if the data has been retrieved) NIFONG: I don't believe that it has, but I would wonder what, what evidence he thinks he's entitled to that would be on that telephone? (Judge - "if you have your folks do that" - retrieve the data and turn it over to the judge) he can determine what Osborn is entitled to, if anything NIFONG: Mr. Osborn seemed to think we could not do this in such a way that it would protect the integrity of the telephone's contents. That seems to be why he filed this motion. OSBORN: Why wouldn't we be entitled, your honor, to find out if she were calling people from the house? Why wouldn't we be entitled to that? Why wouldn't we be able to know the last ten calls that she made ... JUDGE: He's got it. It is part of his evidence. NIFONG: We have our own, dare I use the term "expert," (smirking) at the police department who is reviewing the cell phones that were seized and computer disks, and things of that nature and has not processed this yet to my knowledge. (Judge - once it is retrieved, the court wants to review information in chambers to protect the privacy issue of others.)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#267)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    Lora, The information about Nifong not being interested is from one of the defense attorneys as reported by WRAL. We can presume the defense's position. I'm not sure from your post who the source is who is voicing Nifong's 3rd-party concerns. +++ However: If someone had left a video camera at the house, and Evans had taped the rape, you can bet that Nifong would want to enter that into evidence; and I doubt that any privacy concerns would be entertained by any reasonable judge for very long. Early on the tape might be the videocam owner's kid sister's birthday party, but common sense says that that information would not be made public. The same with any phone calls that occurred prior to 11:30 or at least before the AV first received the phone from any third party. If the AV had possession of a phone when she entered the Buchanan house it doesn't matter past a point who owns the phone. That person presumably wasn't there to make phone calls, and if he or she was, then he or she would be a potential witness. If attendees used her phone, those calls would be proof as to when she did not have her phone. If it happened during the period she had claimed to have been raped, it goes towards her version of events. If she made phone calls during the period she claims she was being raped, the case is over. The quote from the defense attorney said that Nifong was disinterested in the phone calls on that cell phone. If he is, can you defend him? As I recall, there were cell phones of the players that were on the search warrant, so Nifong had no such concerns of people who were potential third-parties. Each phone is a potential clock for events at that house. A call's time is recorded. The phone possessed by the AV is another potential clock. Any attempt by Nifong to block evidence of that phone's calls should be viewed as suspicious, unreasonable and an attempt by his office to block a search for the truth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#268)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    IMHO, Thanks for the work. Here's a Nifong quote after the judge asks if data had been retrieved: NIFONG: I don't believe that it has, but I would wonder what, what evidence he thinks he's entitled to that would be on that telephone? A little later the defense attorney says: OSBORN: Why wouldn't we be entitled, your honor, to find out if she were calling people from the house? Why wouldn't we be entitled to that? Why wouldn't we be able to know the last ten calls that she made ... It appears from your citation that the judge will allow it. You have any reason why Nifong would be incurious about the phone calls? It's pretty obvious how important that evidence could be to reasonable people here. Anyone figure out why Nifong is dragging his feet on the phone information? +++ Also, there is the question about data "on the phone" or "in the phone" or phone company records. I would imagine any pictures from a picture phone would have been reviewed the day the phone was in police possession.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#269)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    Pat, During his Q & A session this week Cheshire responded about DNA under the fingernail by saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, who told you it was under the fingernail? I never said that. No one said that. That would leave open where the DNA was found. Of course, the DNA wasn't a perfect match and it wasn't from blood, which should have been there if it was scratched from an assailant. But I think that where on the nail the DNA was is still not clear.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#270)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    You have any reason why Nifong would be incurious about the phone calls? It's pretty obvious how important that evidence could be to reasonable people here. Anyone figure out why Nifong is dragging his feet on the phone information?
    Three explanations come to mind: a) he's waiting on the police lab to turn over this information and the lab is dragging its feet; b) the evidence on the phone is probably more likely to hurt his case than help it (absense of calls during the alleged attack doesn't prove anything, but a single call can throw off his whole case.); or c) he simply hadn't given the phone much thought (until this hearing, no one here had speculated much on her phone records in the 1000+ posts on this case). Who knows which, if any, are correct?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#271)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    sarcastic, I have repeatedly heard this. As a friend of mine said, Why would you do that? The women she'd known who were "in the game" had "something wrong" and it was usually some sexual abuse in their past.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#272)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:38:11 PM EST
    Teresa wrote:
    I also find the phone situation strange. Chew, I thought the judge was the first one who mentioned the third party info too and I wondered how he knew that.
    The Judge has "heard" that there may be "some privacy issue" with regard to the phone. I think by definition any number on an escort's phone is a "privacy issue." It is not the owner of the phone's privacy the judge is concerned about, it is the privacy of the person on the other end of the calls made/received witht he phone. Durham is a small town. It is entirely possible and likely that there are some "known" Durham residents on the phone. I would not be surprised if a few showed up in city hall or the court system or the police department. Osborne had a point in wondering how someone who tried to run down a cop, caused damage to the police cruiser (hit back panel) and had a BAC of over .2 walked away with no fine and probation and either no jail time or minor (maybe 2 weekends in jail, I forget). Sounds like reasonable circumstance to infer that good ole "John" may have pulled a few strings/made some recommendations for her during sentencing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#273)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    This screenplay practically writes itself.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#274)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:43:16 PM EST
    sarcastic, Stale beer along the beach in Santa Barbara... My daughter is going to school in the area. That's Goleta, I think, where all those frats are located. Supposedly the most party-intensive square mile in America.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#275)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    I think that's entirely possible Kali. By the way, how small is Durham? I grew up in a really small town and where I live now (about 200,000 city, 400,000 county) seems big to me. Abrams comes on soon and I'll be surprised if he doesn't have any good leaks for us. He should at least know what the SANE exam says. I'm also interested in whether phone records were in discovery or if it literally hasn't been checked at all. That would be amazing to me.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#276)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    Stale beer along the beach in Santa Barbara...
    My daughter is going to school in the area. That's Goleta, I think, where all those frats are located. Supposedly the most party-intensive square mile in America
    The beachfront road SUO was jogging on is Del Playa it is in Isla Vista, the town adjacent to campus.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#277)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    Kali, I can certainly understand why some locals wouldn't know if the AV was making arrangements with them. But the times those calls were made could bust this case wide open. It's not so much who she made any calls to but when she made them. If no one made calls, no one made calls. The report of someone having a picture of her making a phone call from her cell is intriguing. Was that at a time during which she claimed to have been raped? If she actually had locked herself in the bathroom and had made a phone call or two, and Nifong suspects this or worse, knows this, any delay in producing this evidence would be, well, criminal.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#278)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:57:07 PM EST
    From: WRAL.com Attorney Requests Info From Cell Phone That Was Used Night Of Alleged Incident
    Nifong said prosecutors are not interested in the contents of the phone, such as the last 10 numbers called,
    "The state is not aware of any additional material or information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the defendant," Nifong wrote in a court filing.
    In that case, the reason that "prosecutors are not interested in the contents of the phone" is that it might turn out to be "exculpatory in nature" and that could throw off his whole case. An effective -- if ruthless -- move on his part. But certainly not part of an ethical search for the truth of what happened that night. I now await the Kafka responses to tell me why I've got this all backwards.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#279)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    SUO, (That said, I'm sure chew2 will soon point out, again, how little I know about the stripping/hooking industry...) Smile. You know, the AV is much more than just a "stripper/escort". She's an apparently diligent student and mother too, and has only been working as an escort for a couple of months, so all this talk about the details of the escort industry may be really irrelevant to this case. But its sexy and sells. If you want to learn more there are many messageboards and reviewboards devoted to the sex industry. I just found 2 stripper sites today: stripperweb.com for the dancers pov tuscl.com for the customers pov And if you're interested in the escort industry, you can read bigdoggie.net and theeroticreview.com although they are both from the customer pov. I couldn't find any site for the local Raleigh/Durham area. But you can check out craigslist.com for what's being offered in the way erotic services in Raleigh/Durham.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#280)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    Bob wrote:
    It's not so much who she made any calls to but when she made them.
    I agree with you. I merely provided a possible explanation as to why the judge responded the way he did.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#281)
    by Teresa on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Chew, I hope no one but you checks your computer history.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#282)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    IMHO, Isla Vista is the name for the neighborhood where all the student housing is located. The town is Goleta. The Santa Barbara mail center is located there, in the neighborhood of Isla Vista in the town of Goleta. I know. I send a check there every month. Smarty Pants. In fact, a former postal worker went postal there and killed four or five people, in the town of Goleta in the neighborhood known as Isla Vista, a few months ago.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#283)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:05:27 PM EST
    Kali
    It is entirely possible and likely that there are some "known" Durham residents on the phone.
    Good point
    Sounds like reasonable circumstance to infer that good ole "John" may have pulled a few strings/made some recommendations for her during sentencing.
    Maybe. But it seems irrelevant to this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#284)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    Comments here are closing. Here's a weekend Duke open thread, you can start now. Thanks to all of you for choosing TalkLeft to continue the discussion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#285)
    by Lora on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    Bob, Looks like court games to me. My guess is Nifong thinks the defense will find something that will be injurious to the AV and run with it. Not necessarily anything that will seriously hurt his case, just injurious, like all the other excrutiatingly personal details they've managed to dig up and publicize. "Incurious" doesn't apply. My thanks as well, imho, for all your painstaking efforts.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Hearing Today for Seligman (none / 0) (#286)
    by chew2 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    Teresa, LOL!! I only look at pictures of pretty girls on the web.