home

Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, Not Rape

Unbelievable. According to an early police report describing an interview with the accuser in the duke lacrosse alleged rape case, the accuser said she was groped but not sexually assaulted.

It was not until the police decided to involuntarily commit her that she changed her account.

There also was an earlier lineup one week after the incident in which she failed to identify Dave Evans.

A handwritten narrative report by Sgt. J.C. Shelton that is attached to the motion says the accuser first reported being raped after officers had decided to involuntary commit her. She then reportedly told officers that she was groped by some of the men who pulled her from a car, but was not forced to have sex.

According to Shelton, the accuser then told a doctor examining her for evidence of rape that she had been raped.

On the lineups, there was one on March 16, one on March 21 and the last one on April 4. On March 16, right days after the incident, she failed to identify Evans. Even on April 4, as to Dave Evans, she still isn't sure:

"He looks like one of the guys who assaulted me, sort of."

It was after this last uncertain id that Nifong indicted Evans.

Dave Evans' discovery motion is here (pdf).

< Bush Confesses Error | Libby Judge Orders Time to Turn Over Matt Cooper Draft Articles >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A few things from the motion and the exhibits: Apparently, a lot of missing reports from various police officers, notably the other two officers who took the AV to the crisis center and then to Duke Medical, no report from the crisis center, no narrative report from the investigator who ran the different photo arrays (March 16(?), March 21, and April 4). Another note: "in-training" sexual assault nurse examiner. Wonder how close she is to being fully certified, wonder how many intake exams she's done. The motion states that the report has 17 sections, or "Steps," but only #1, 2, 10, 11 and 17 were provided. Four cell phones "retrieved" but only two were shown in search warrant inventory; tests done on three phones; spreadsheet data recovery for only two phones, neither of which were the ones listed on the warrant inventory; and no report from the police tech who worked with the phones. March 21: AV brought to the station by her "driver" asking about "getting her property back." (Their quotation marks, not mine.) Interesting.

    District Attorney Nifong not available for comment.

    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    Some people here claim that if you question the AV's mental health in the wake of her past and in the wake of the disconnectedness of her version of events from what seems to be known then you are casting aspersions against all women, or all African Americans or all rape victims.
    I've been reading this board pretty carefully and haven't noticed anybody saying that. I know you have a policy against looking through posts for source materials that might support your claims, so I won't ask you to interrupt your schedule to do that. I do think that this is not the first time that you have created a phantom enemy to slay out of whole cloth. It's not a style of argument worthy of respect. 7Duke4, On golf: The most resources for the least people at the greatest expense for the least exercise. What more needs to be said about golf.

    As far as the "missing" evidence goes, i'm a little confused. Was it evidence that was never gathered in the first place, was never turned over to Nifong for review, or was just not turned over as part of discovery? Were the various reports known to have been taken/given over to Nifong, or is it just conjecture that those reports should have been taken/made? Same for the SANE steps. Were they ever taken at all, or were they just not turned over to/by Nifong? I wonder of one of the sections should have been a tox screen.

    thinkandtalk: I've discussed this with imho before. Until a report is reduced to writing, and turned over to the DA, no technical discovery violation. Some prosecutors use this to keep things from the defense as long as they can. For example: if an investigator interviews a witness but doesn't take any notes, he can tell the DA what the witness said, but that information will not be turned over in discovery: the DA can know things the defense does not as a result. Prosecutorial sleight of hand, sometimes. Or, the police will have one cop write a narrative talking about what other cops did (as may be the case here with a 49 page report from one of the investigators), and not have the other cops write anything up until forced to memorialize what they did in writing. It is not unusual, not exactly unethical, but it does fly in the face of the intent and purpose of the discovery rules.

    Right right. . but could such gaps be legitimately attributed to procedural errors prior to the case dropping into Nifong's hands?

    As far as the SANE report: even if a step was not taken, there should still be written comments as to why it was not, at least a box checked, something like that, and supposedly the defense did have that section of the report: sample taken but no tests run. According to Fox, anyway.

    This is almost a carbon copy of the Kobe Bryant issue and he somewhat admitted something happened. The Most Glaring Simillarity is the DA's. At first DA for the Kobe Case DA Hurlbert was appointed DA and later elected knew when to hang them up. Lack of Clear Convincing Evidence. This happened 2 months prior to his winning the DA spot in Lakeview,CO.. However DA Nifong was elected to the DA seat and he too has no clear evidence. It's gotten to the point of a media wrestle with the victims rights group as a springboard for justice. It seems like everyday this drags on and on. I don't know whether to feel sorry or contempt for DA Nifong. My Glaring Opinion,The Case is turning really Stupid.

    A police "Event Report" provided in discovery reflects that nearly an hour passed while the complainant was in Ofcr. Barfield's custody between Kroger, Durham Access Center (site of initial accusation) and arrival at Duke ER.
    But no written report from him. To me, this is much more of a "blue wall of silence" than the Duke players' reluctance to talk to the cops.

    Northwestern too tough for Duke women
    Adopting the men's motto of "No Excuses, No Regrets" and writing on wristbands the numbers of three indicted classmates, the Blue Devils lost 11-10 to Northwestern in overtime in the national semifinal
    .

    One thing that I have not seen mentioned here before is that, despite all his years as a prosecutor and his experience with felony cases, Nifong for the past 6-7 years has been handling mostly administrative matters and traffic related crimes (DUI, etc.) A lot has changed in the trying of cases in that time, not the least of which is the emergence of 24 hour news, Court TV, and the like. He may be rusty, he may have underestimated the scrutiny he and his office would be under, he may think that he can still play by the old rules and get by.

    Took 2 overtimes, though, imho. Do you have any problem with them writing Seligman, Finnerty and Evans' jersey #s on their wristbands? I thought it a nice compromise.

    Perhaps so. If we're to re-assign the blue wall of silence, could we, to appease the other side, now refer to the defense attorneys as a pinstriped wall of chattiness?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#14)
    by spartan on Fri May 26, 2006 at 08:19:05 PM EST
    I hope these officers can remember what happened and what was told to them by the accuser so they can get it on paper for all the interested parties. Good Luck, I can't remember what I ate for dinner two days ago.

    SharonIn Jax posted:
    He may be rusty, he may have underestimated the scrutiny he and his office would be under, he may think that he can still play by the old rules and get by.
    mikenifong.com
    JUDGMENT Both personally and professionally, I have always been a person on whom the community could rely to make the right decisions for this office and for this community: decisions that further the cause of justice. That is why, for example, I voluntarily gave open-file discovery to defendants twenty years before the law required it: it was the right thing to do. Doing the right thing is not only the best practice in principle, but it is usually also the most economical process in the long run, and you can count on me to continue to do so.


    SharonInJax posted:
    Took 2 overtimes, though, imho. Do you have any problem with them writing Seligman, Finnerty and Evans' jersey #s on their wristbands? I thought it a nice compromise.
    Yes, the numbers are better than "Innocent," or the men's motto, which ironically, is "No Excuses, No Regrets."

    s a pinstriped wall of selective chattiness

    Well sure. I no more believe that the defense is being completely open than i believe that the team absolutely refused to say a single word.

    Forgive me, imho, but I would take ANY political candidate's comments with a few grains of salt, but heck, even Kerry Sutton supposedly went to the polls wearing a Nifong t-shirt.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#20)
    by TomStewart on Fri May 26, 2006 at 08:52:25 PM EST
    I still don't understand why this case is being pursued.

    If you re-read the motion you will see that Evan's counsel states that the failure to prepare the reports is a violation of NC law. In its request for relief, the motion requests the court to order the prepartion and production of such reports. As to the "3" lineup sessions, it is unclear to me whether there were 2 or 3 separate lineup seesions. The motion states that taking the first and second lineup sessions, together, it appears that the Durham PD conducted a lineup. Also, pure conjection at this point that she did not ID the other two. Finally, it appears to me based on this motion the prosecution is trying to hide the evidence. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules on these motions. Remember however that the defense will ask at trial how hte investigators can remember certain details. When they cannot refer to reasonably contemporaneous notes, their testimony may be discounted as a product of a faulty memory. [also a divergence from customary policy]/

    Sharon posted:
    Forgive me, imho, but I would take ANY political candidate's comments with a few grains of salt, but heck, even Kerry Sutton supposedly went to the polls wearing a Nifong t-shirt.
    Do you think he is going to lie about that when his opponent worked in the same office with him for 14 years?

    I suggested awhile back that the rape story may have appeared when the AV was going to be put in the drunk tank. Hmmm. "It was not until the police decided to involuntarily commit her that she changed her account." Now we have a motive for the AV to lie about the events. She didn't want to go to the drunk tank. PB, thanks for not asking to interrupt my schedule. I have no schedule here, though. Finally, anyone, who believes that the AV is telling the truth?

    I had the same confusion about the photo lineups,nyesq. I'm betting the judge will not be happy if he is convinced that reports are purposefully being kept in the investigators' heads and not written down as they should be in the normal course of an investigation. I find it especially curious that there is no report from the officer who transported her from the Kroger to the "access center" where the AV first made an accusation of rape. There seems to be some suggestion that the accusation followed her being advised that she was going in on a 24 hour hold.

    TomStewart wrote: I still don't understand why this case is being pursued. Because the election isn't until November.

    "It was not until the police decided to involuntarily commit her that she changed her account."
    Didn't they decide that in the Krogers parking lot?

    PB, thanks for not asking to interrupt my schedule. I have no schedule here, though.
    I think that was his point.

    A politician lying on his campaign website, imho? Shocking suggestion, I know. How about "not a lie but not exactly the whole truth, either," or "he really believes he is as fair to defendants as he says he is, and always has been"? Now all he needs to do to make me believe in his fairness is stop playing hide the evidence.

    imho: how about saying it this way then: it was not until she knew they were going to involuntarily commit her that she changed her story. Interesting comments, too, by the responding officer: that he put smelling salts under her nose and her reaction indicated to him that she was not really unconscious or out of it as she seemed.

    A politician lying on his campaign website, imho? Shocking suggestion, I know. How about "not a lie but not exactly the whole truth, either," or "he really believes he is as fair to defendants as he says he is, and always has been"? Now all he needs to do to make me believe in his fairness is stop playing hide the evidence.
    His opponent would have liked nothing better than to nail him lying.He fired her as soon as he was appointed DA. She worked with him for 14 years. She would know if it was a lie. Defense attorneys also said he gave them more the required discovery. I tried to find one bad thing anyone said about him before this. I could not - only that once he was set on a position it is hard to move him from it. He even said, "I don't have a reputation for backing down."That may be what we are seeing here.

    imho: how about saying it this way then: it was not until she knew they were going to involuntarily commit her that she changed her story.
    She changed her story? What was her story before then? I thought they committed her bcause she wasn't talking?

    Good night all. My boy graduates from HS in the morning. Then he'll magically change into a man and go off to play a "helmet sport" at a predominantly white, elite university. See why this case gets to me so strongly? It really has very little to do with my having attended Duke and having loved my time there (even when it was back when Bucky Waters was the coach and the basketball team was AWFUL.) It has everything to do with how I can look at Evans, Seligman, and Finnerty, and see my son. He, too, hangs out with some boys, some of whom are teammates, who can be rude, crude, boorish, insular, cocky, smug, and stupid. Make it Penn football instead of Duke lacrosse, and he'd have been at the party. Scary thought, if indeed the accused are as innocent, as not guilty as the evidence seems to show at this point. I could be seeing his picture and name plastered all over the media, could hear him called a rapist, have the NBPP know his name and where he lives. Wouldn't matter that I, or anyone who knows him well, believed him to be innocent, knew him to be incapable of such a heinous crime. It would be a costly, in every sense, nightmare, and all because he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, doing something stupid. High price to pay for bad judgment. On that happy note . . .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#33)
    by Lora on Fri May 26, 2006 at 09:38:38 PM EST
    Catching up - my how time flies when you're obsessed. noni and imho asked about my 90% DNA match comment vs 90% sure of the ID - I thought it was 90% for both - I will have to go back and try to find it (back to the statistics threads, groan). I have a comment on the first line-up (no ID in group F). The question asked the AV for each photo was: "Is this the person you saw sexually assaulted you?" ("Sexually assaulted" was a hand-written "fill-in-the-blank." on the report in the motion.) Now I thought Evans was the one she said was choking her. I hadn't heard that she accused him of sexually assaulting her. Now this is something I might do. I'd take the question literally and if he merely assaulted me and not sexually assaulted me, I'd say "no." I'd try to follow their protocol to the letter. I'm not saying she did that, but she could have. Comments on the police write-up from the appendix to the motion: First of all, according to the officer (Sgt Shelton I believe), the AV was conscious in Kim's car with her eyes closed. He noted that the way she reacted to the ammonia was consistent with a conscious person's reaction, NOT an unconscious one. So, she was not passed out drunk, according to the officer. This supports my theory that her behavior was the result of trauma, NOT from being impaired. She refused to speak at first, and as they didn't know where she lived or anything about her, they brought her to the psych unit first. I do not see that her statements about being raped necessarily indicate an inconsistency in her statements to the officer. To the officer, she described a few of the events of the evening, in order, apparently, saying that she was a stripper, and that she and "Nikki" had performed for the men at the party. She related them going out to the car, and having an argument with "Nikki" because "Nikki" wanted to go back in but she didn't. She said she was pulled out of the car and groped. At this point, the officer's narration states that she told him that no one forced her to have sex. It may be, that at that point in time (outside being groped) that no one did force her to have sex. She may simply not have finished her story. It isn't clear whether she just volunteered that comment, or if it was in response to a question. He states that he went outside to call in that she recanted, and then he was told that she said she had been raped. He then went back to her and asked, were you raped or weren't you? and she began to cry and said she didn't want to talk to him any more. This is what I think: she just didn't finish her story. When the SANE nurse got there, she straightened out the misunderstanding and when the officer returned and was quizzing her, she felt bullied and had had enough. So, Bob, to answer your question, does anyone still believe the AV? I answer yes, I think she could still be telling the truth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#34)
    by azbballfan on Fri May 26, 2006 at 10:06:02 PM EST
    Sharon wrote:
    Good night all. My boy graduates from HS in the morning. Then he'll magically change into a man and go off to play a "helmet sport" at a predominantly white, elite university.
    Wow
    He, too, hangs out with some boys, some of whom are teammates, who can be rude, crude, boorish, insular, cocky, smug, and stupid. Make it Penn football instead of Duke lacrosse, and he'd have been at the party.
    Congratulations on your son's accomplishments. Certainly you are a proud mother who raised her son in her image. Congratulations to Duke for passing along such a rich tradition. We hope he makes Ben Franklin proud.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jo on Fri May 26, 2006 at 10:13:22 PM EST
    who believes that the AV is telling the truth?
    I answer yes, I think she could still be telling the truth.
    ALthough it is possible that the AV may be telling the truth, does anyone believe the AV is telling the truth?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#36)
    by cpinva on Fri May 26, 2006 at 10:26:05 PM EST
    So, Bob, to answer your question, does anyone still believe the AV? I answer yes, I think she could still be telling the truth.
    lora, i want you on any jury i ever have to be a defendant in front of, i will not be convicted. she may well be telling the truth, as she perceives it. however, her perception and reality are not necessarily mutually inclusive. again, absolutely no, none, zip, nada, forensic evidence, released to this point, tying either the three indicted, or anyone attending that party, to the accuser, in any way. no witnesses, other than the accuser, who has a bad history in these matters, which will be targeted, since it goes to credibility. a DA with a primary to win, and a big mouth, making a lot of claims, with nothing of substance to support them, other than, apparently, wishful thnking. did a crime occur at that party? i have no clue. neither, it seems, does anyone else.

    Lora, It takes quite an imagination to invent supplementary details that recast a recantation of a rape as a mere communicational gaffe. As this controversy has brewed into the "perfect storm" of race, class and gender issues, our most unbiased impressions of what might of happened can only come from first-hand testimony of witnesses while the event was still fresh in their mind. It is clear from the written report that the officer felt he was being deceived and strung along the entire time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#38)
    by Lora on Fri May 26, 2006 at 11:09:26 PM EST
    max, The fact that someone from the hospital ran out to tell him she DID say she was raped while he was making the phone call strongly suggests a "communicational gaffe." It is reasonably clear to me that he was too hasty in his assumption and his phone call, and the AV went to considerable lengths to correct it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#39)
    by Lora on Fri May 26, 2006 at 11:14:14 PM EST
    Jo, As most posters here know, I tend to believe her. I haven't and would not state as a certainty that the AV is telling the truth. However, although many posters here see it as a certainty that the AV's story cannot be true, I have not found the evidence to be contradictory to the AV's story. noni and imho, I couldn't find anything about the fingernail DNA other than the tissue being "consistent with" and the DNA being a "less than 100%" match to one of the players [Evans] and not consistent with the other 45 players. I must have gotten the 90% ID mixed up with the DNA. Thanks for pointing that out. Sharon, I do appreciate that you care very much for your son and picture what would happen to him if he were wrongly accused of rape. I've no doubt that it would be a horrendous thing to go through and I fervently hope you and he never have to go through that experience. I will disclose that I am the mother of a young woman, and I also work with college students, male and female. I feel hit hard by some of the comments that tear down the AV, because I picture what would happen if she had been raped. I could go on about her virtues, but I'll just say I'm as proud of her as a mother can be. She is not perfect. She has been known to lie. She has had a minor brush with the law. Her lifestyle (no, she is neither a stripper nor a prostitute) at times has raised some eyebrows, including mine. There are many things about her that I don't know, including, I am sure, many experiences that she has had. There was a dark period in her life during which she easily could have been hospitalized for a week or possibly more. If she ever told me she'd been raped at a party and reported it, and her reputation and credibility were attacked as viciously as the AV's have been, it would absolutely break my heart. I would fear for her safety and her sanity. And I would believe her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#40)
    by cpinva on Sat May 27, 2006 at 12:03:38 AM EST
    lora, no one's "tearing down the AV", merely pointing out the complete lack of any material evidence to support her claim. pointing out her documented history of questionable accusations, for similar crimes. pointing out the fact that she's been less than forthcoming or consistant (or so it would appear) to the police investigators, and the local DA in both her version of events, and her ID's of the accused. if that constitutes "tearing down the AV", than i plead guilty, guilty, guilty, dammit! i tend to believe it's analysis of the "facts" as presented. you might reasonably ask, "why not the same approach with the accused?". a fair question. simply put, they needn't do anything, it's the state's job to put a compelling case together, not the defendant's. realistically, the defendant's side only comes into play if the state can show some evidence that both: a. a crime occured., and b. the defendants appear to have been involved. so far, again, based on what i've read, seen and heard, the state has failed to meet its minimum burden.

    Sharon and Lora, I appreciate your honesty and openess about what makes this case personal for you. If I may make a cliched and humble suggestion, talk to your kids about it. It sounds like you both have some legitimate concerns that should be discussed before your kids leave for college, or to live on their own.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#42)
    by Alan on Sat May 27, 2006 at 01:07:55 AM EST
    Lora posted:
    The fact that someone from the hospital ran out to tell him she DID say she was raped while he was making the phone call strongly suggests a "communicational gaffe."
    What is your evidence for 'The fact that someone from the hospital ran out'? Sgt Shelton's whole comment is:
    Within a few minutes, I was told that she told the SANE doctor that she had been raped.


    Posted by azbballfan May 26, 2006 11:06 PM Sharon wrote: Good night all. My boy graduates from HS in the morning. Then he'll magically change into a man and go off to play a "helmet sport" at a predominantly white, elite university. Wow He, too, hangs out with some boys, some of whom are teammates, who can be rude, crude, boorish, insular, cocky, smug, and stupid. Make it Penn football instead of Duke lacrosse, and he'd have been at the party. Congratulations on your son's accomplishments. Certainly you are a proud mother who raised her son in her image. Congratulations to Duke for passing along such a rich tradition. We hope he makes Ben Franklin proud.
    azbballfan, Congratulations on a disgusting insult to a fellow poster. That will definitely teach Sharon to be open with concerns about her son. Your vendetta against Duke just hit a new low.

    Hi Sharon wrote:
    It has everything to do with how I can look at Evans, Seligman, and Finnerty, and see my son.
    Lady Justice is often depicted as wearing a blindfold. Someday maybe she'll be depicted lifting the blindfold from one eye and giving a wink and a high-five to the people who resemble relatives of hers, but that won't be a day she'll brag about. She might be blind, but she's no fool. Personally I'd prefer Justice to have both eyes open all the way. I think it's possible to care about both parties in a dispute. In fact, I consider it a human obligation. Kalidoggie wrote:
    No one knows and no one has said who threw the first salvo of racist insults. Kim supposedly made derogatory comments about their white manhood...why is that not racist? Why is one insult OK and the other not?
    It's an interesting asymmetry. Do you imagine that Kim Roberts will have any difficulty owning up to whatever statements she made during her exchange with the players? I don't. And how about the person who shouted "B*tch, thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt." Think he'll have any trouble? I'm kind of thinking that he will. I'm hoping that the reason he might have trouble is because he's actually ashamed of what he said. I'm fearful, however, that that isn't actually the case, and that he is in fact just worried about being roughed up by some New Black Panther Party guy or other. I think its quite possible he's just hiding behind the wall because he's worried society will McFadyen him. And that shame has nothing to do with it.

    cpinva, You wrote:
    again, absolutely no, none, zip, nada, forensic evidence, released to this point, tying either the three indicted, or anyone attending that party, to the accuser, in any way.
    I don't think you are paying attention to the fingernail evidence, Cpinva. It is in fact forensic evidence that ties the accuser to Evans. The likelihood that dna found on (or is it under) that fingernail came from Evans is substantial, and is precisely what would be predicted by her story. The fact that an alternative (and far less likely) story has been proposed (not confirmed) by the defense does not reduce the significance of this utterly forensic evidence to "zero" or "nada."

    Also Friday, a lawyer who said he represents a lacrosse player not charged in the case said he wants the Durham Police Department to conduct an internal investigation into a poster and flyers that he says unfairly implied all 46 members of the lacrosse team were guilty of rape.
    After the high-wire act and the juggling, it's always refreshing when the clowns come in to provide a little relief from the tension.

    I appreciate the various comments regarding my post about my son. For those of you who missed it in some of my various posts, I am also the mother of a daughter. She's 24 now and that is one reason why I have, often, said that I don't want the AV to be lying. PB: if you wish, I will dredge up my posts where I say that I have both empathy and sympathy for the AV. I fail to see, PB, how my post had anything to do with how "Lady Justice" should view the case. I certainly did not suggest that She should judge my son, or the accused in this case, with a "wink and a high five" for any reason. I was merely pointing out, as others have, that concrete, corroborative evidence that (a) a rape actually occurred; and (b) that the AV correctly identified her attackers is lacking thus far.

    Hi Sharon, You wrote:
    PB: if you wish, I will dredge up my posts where I say that I have both empathy and sympathy for the AV.
    No, I remember them. For example, you wrote:
    ... I would like to think that I would [among other things] not allow myself blindly to believe my daughter in the face of all the information which has come to light to the contrary. I would like to think that I would be more concerned about how damaged my daughter must be, how much help she must need and how to get it for her if, and I stress IF, she had brought false charges for some reason.
    I also recall you bringing up the importance of personalizing the accuser, by publishing her name, (just her first name, how could just her first name hurt?), after which you directed posters to a thread where her full name was posted. Very maternal of you. It's obvious that you are only treating her as you would your own daughter. No respect.

    Sharon, You wrote:
    I fail to see, PB, how my post had anything to do with how "Lady Justice" should view the case.
    I think you've located the common ground here.

    7Duke4, You wrote:
    I fail to understand why people who say they are left and liberal ( and I have major creds there) can be so prejudiced.
    Hey, major creds, you know your stats. What odds would you give that the dna found on the broken fingernail didn't came from David Evans? 14 of 3561 profiles in the dna lab's database could not be excluded (don't know if Evans was one of the 14). Among the 46 players who gave dna from the team, only Evans could not be excluded.

    Sharon wrote: Interesting comments, too, by the responding officer: that he put smelling salts under her nose and her reaction indicated to him that she was not really unconscious or out of it as she seemed. So she was being dishonest about that too?

    Alan: The communications gaffe was between the AV's brain and her tongue.

    Sharon, congrats to you son and have a good day today.

    Somebody help me. What evidence, besides the AV's claim, do we have of a rape having occurred?

    I've been watching this thread(s) for over a month and while I've been tempted to post many times, I've refrained from doing so until now. Why now? Well, PB's comments regarding Sharon's son for one, and his suggestion that the defense's alternative story regarding the forensic evidence that links Dave Evan's to the AV is "less likely". Is it really? Even If we assume a rape actually did happen, and given what we've heard about the nature and usage of the word "on" as opposed to "under" I still think the DNA is more likely to have been picked up in a waste basket, where the nail sat for days, than in any encounter on the night of the alleged rape. And if we return to reality, where we cannot make the same assumption, and instead have to include all we can infer from what we've learned about the AV, recognizing that her credibility is at the very least suspect (I hope you would admit at least that), along with the fact that it was the nail was retrieved from Dave Evans's waste basket, coupled with an ID that both sides admit was less than 100%. It disturbs me to think that you really believe that it's less likely I guess I should state, I'm a white male, who received my BA from an "elite private university" in the south, and I'm currently enrolled in a graduate program at an "elite private university" in New England. Needless to say, while I hope I've remained as open minded as possible, I certainly identify more with the accused, than with the accuser. I could qualify this statement more but I'm sure those that want to will condemn me for these facts, whether I explain further or not so I won't waste the words.

    With regard to the multiple line-ups, one has to wonder, why? If Evans wasn't chosen during the first line-up, who was chosen? If a different set of players was chosen....so what...Why would a second (or third) line-up be necessary? One possible explanation is that the AV only identified one or two players the first time....though, it doesn't seem as though you effectively tell the AV to "look again" at the same set and until you choose the "right" number. A second, and more ominous explanation, may be that Nifong discovered that one or more of the originally identified players was not in town during the party (several were on job interviews). One piece of information that might support this hypothesis is the instruction given to the AV by the investigator at the beginning of the last line-up. Quoting from TL
    The second glaring error is that the officer says he only used photos of those believed to be at the party. He even told the accuser that the photos were of those of players whom police believed to be at the party. This may be the most egregious error, as I've written before. First, it tells her she's looking at a group which police believe include her attackers. Second, there are no foils.
    I don't know who was included in the first line-up, and whether anyone was excluded from the second line-up....but it would sure be interesting to know.

    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    Sharon wrote: Interesting comments, too, by the responding officer: that he put smelling salts under her nose and her reaction indicated to him that she was not really unconscious or out of it as she seemed.
    So she was being dishonest about that too?
    So the police officer was wrong when he determined she was "passed out drunk?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#58)
    by Alan on Sat May 27, 2006 at 08:20:17 AM EST
    imho posted: So the police officer was wrong when he determined she was "passed out drunk?"
    The police officer, Sgt Shelton, never uses those words. All he says in his report is:
    She was unconscious.
    Later he determines that she is not by her reaction to the ammonia capsule:
    When I used it, the female began mouth-breathing, which is a sign that she was not really unconscious.
    Perhaps you could show us where the words you post as a quotation appear?

    Hi Ricky, Glad to have you aboard, You wrote:
    I've been watching this thread(s) for over a month and while I've been tempted to post many times, I've refrained from doing so until now. Why now? Well, PB's comments regarding Sharon's son for one
    About her son? What did I say about her son? You added:
    and his suggestion that the defense's alternative story regarding the forensic evidence that links Dave Evan's to the AV is "less likely". Is it really?
    When I say that it is "less likely," I only mean to point out that if I were to recreate in a lab the two stories, one that has our accuser scratching at a person with an easy-to-break-off fingernail, and one that has the accuser leaving that nail on the bathroom floor or in the trashcan used by more than that one person, my expectation that the nail would wind up having that one person's dna on it would be greater in the first experiment than the second. I wasn't trying to make a statement about "reality." The accuser may well have picked Evans out of the lineup because she knew he would be the most likely person to fetch that nail from the trash for the police. And since she was never in the bathroom alone with Evans, that may well be a more likely scenario than the one she offers up. So I'm definitely not trying to rig the election here. I'm just pointing out that "nada" is the wrong word for describing the presence of Evans dna on her fingernail. The jury is not going to think its "nada", because it's simply not "nada." Rogan wrote:
    Possible DNA match of fingernail skin does not prove crime.
    I couldn't agree with you more... Well, except for your choice of the word possible... Probable would be more honest, no? The odds are somewhat against Evans if he takes the position that it isn't his dna. It's a moot point, since " certain DNA match of fingernail skin does not prove rape."

    Alan posted:
    The police officer, Sgt Shelton, never uses those words. All he says in his report is:
    She was unconscious.
    Later he determines that she is not by her reaction to the ammonia capsule:
    When I used it, the female began mouth-breathing, which is a sign that she was not really unconscious.
    Perhaps you could show us where the words you post as a quotation appear?
    Hi Alan, I heard it on the 911 tape. A quote from the transcript is included here: Cops: Duke Accuser 'Passed Out Drunk'
    The conversation between the officer and a police dispatcher took place about 1:30 a.m. March 14, about five minutes after a grocery store security guard called 911 to report a woman in the parking lot who would not get out of someone else's car.
    The officer gave the dispatcher the police code for an intoxicated person. When asked whether the woman needed medical help, the officer said: "She's breathing and appears to be fine. She's not in distress. She's just passed out drunk."


    TL wrote:
    First, it tells her she's looking at a group which police believe include her attackers.
    Well, the accuser may misinterpret it that way, but, correct me if I wrong here, the police, at least on tape, as I recall, did not tell her that the photos she was about to look at would be a complete set or that the group would include her attackers. Additionally they gave no indication of how many photos she would be shown. TL also wrote:
    He even told the accuser that the photos were of those of players whom police believed to be at the party.
    I may be wrong here as well, but I don't believe the police ever used the term "players." He used the word "people." So, if we are to believe the police, what they essentially were asking the accuser to do was not to identify the people who attacked her, but merely to describe the activities of people thought to be at the party.

    IMHO posted: So the police officer was wrong when he determined she was "passed out drunk?" It's interesting. She may have actually been passed out drunk, but it sounds like at some point she was faking it. Either she was faking it so as not to get out of the car and surrender herself into police custody or she was passed out. My guess is that she was passed out initially. She couldn't expect that Roberts was going to let her stay in the car all night if she pretended to be asleep. I am not surprised at how fast "AV version-clingers" averted their eyes from the "I was pulled out of the car and groped but I wasn't raped" story by the AV. Even they realize that that to accept the story means that she initially denied being raped, which would mean that the story was lie, further damaging her credibility; or, if it were true that she wasn't raped, then her later story would have been a lie. Of course, the other problem is that the first part of her assertion, that she was pulled out of a car and groped, is demonstrably untrue. The AV was seen being put into the car. Somebody may have copped a feel on her way into the car, although Roberts didn't notice, but no one pulled her out of the car. How many lies do people avoid before they face the big one?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#63)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 27, 2006 at 09:14:57 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion re: "passed out drunk?"
    I heard it on the 911 tape.
    The transcript does not identify the officer as Sgt Shelton. Does the tape identify the officer who is speaking as Sgt Shelton?

    Pat posted:
    Quoting from TL
    The second glaring error is that the officer says he only used photos of those believed to be at the party. He even told the accuser that the photos were of those of players whom police believed to be at the party. This may be the most egregious error, as I've written before. First, it tells her she's looking at a group which police believe include her attackers. Second, there are no foils.
    Talk Left is referring the April 4th videotaped line up. If this is what the officer told the accuser, and if she is lying, they made her job more difficult. They are leading her to believe she can not choose someone who was not at the party, but in fact, since they showed her 46 photos, according to the captains, 5 or 6 of the 46 were never at the party. Unless the captains are lying there were at least 5 foils and if anyone left before the accuser arrived, there would have been even more foils.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#65)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 27, 2006 at 09:31:15 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    Unless the captains are lying there were at least 5 foils and if anyone left before the accuser arrived, there would have been even more foils
    . If the AV selected any of the Lacrosse team "foils"; those "foils" that were id'd by the AV have to prove they were not there and/or left before the AV arrived; and with Nifong saying he may have a different timeline the "foils" who did leave before the AV arrived will have a hard job proving his innocence

    I haven' seen this posted here yet, so here it is: http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/443932.html The man who drove the AV to the party is talking. There is some interesting stuff here that could affect your timelines.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#67)
    by cpinva on Sat May 27, 2006 at 09:42:31 AM EST
    PB said:
    I don't think you are paying attention to the fingernail evidence, Cpinva. It is in fact forensic evidence that ties the accuser to Evans. The likelihood that dna found on (or is it under) that fingernail came from Evans is substantial, and is precisely what would be predicted by her story.
    B, i'm afraid it's you who aren't paying attention to the evidence. "consistent with" is not, by any stretch, the "same as". especially not with DNA. since the premise of DNA is that we all have a unique strand, "consistent with" means, well...................nothing. i reiterate, there is no hard forensic evidence to tie the three accused to the accuser. nothing, nada, zip, zero. given the circumstances finally described, there should have been a fair amount. without getting too graphic, let's take up the issue of condoms. condoms would only keep fluids from getting on the accuser, not genital hair, unless the accused were either: a. all shaved., or b. using special, "cover you to the navel" condoms. yet, no genital hair, other than the accuser's, seems to have been found on her. no fluids, no skin cells, no nothing, that can be positively identified as coming from any of the accused. no evidence of a struggle in the bathroom. though, with advance notice, it's certainly possible that could have been cleaned up. however, if that were the case, why didn't they empty the trash and vacuum? it doesn't appear that they made much effort to tidy up the "scene of the crime". for dukies, not very bright. again, did a crime occur at this party? beats the heck out of me. the facts, as we know them to this point, don't seem to indicate it. why would the accuser make a false accusation? i have no clue. that would requre mind reading, not one of my skills. clearly, this was a party where something went horribly awry. boys behaved badly, girls behaved badly. so what else is new? whether a crime happened is not at all clear to me at this point, i wish it were.

    ding7777 posted:
    The transcript does not identify the officer as Sgt Shelton. Does the tape identify the officer who is speaking as Sgt Shelton?
    I've read three officers responded to Krogers. Sgt Shelton wrote that he was the first responder, but I don't know who spoke with the dispatcher. I didn't specify which police officer determined she was ""passed out drunk." imho posted:
    So the police officer was wrong when he determined she was "passed out drunk?"
    What I find amusing about this is some posters had been crowing about the "passed out drunk" determination because, to them, it suggests she was too drunk to make an ID. It has been abandoned in favor of this new idea that the accuser was not "passed out drunk," but instead being deceptive, which is a more delicious alternative.

    Sorry. Here is the News Observer link.

    ding7777
    If the AV selected any of the Lacrosse team "foils"; those "foils" that were id'd by the AV have to prove they were not there and/or left before the AV arrived; and with Nifong saying he may have a different timeline the "foils" who did leave before the AV arrived will have a hard job proving his innocence.
    I have read that some players were out of town on job interviews, seems easy enough to prove, but, unfortunately, the three she did pick were not among them. None of the players, even those with less than "airtight alibis," have to prove their innocence.

    But he said that when she arrived about 9 p.m., he noticed nothing unusual about her demeanor.
    That from the N&O article today, reporting the driver's story. But
    After their arrival, he and his daughter took a short car ride about 10 p.m. to a neighborhood convenience store
    that from her father. Noname: not sure if that clarifies or muddies the time line, but it certainly makes the defense's interest in her cell phone more understandable: especially if hers was not one of the 2 cell phones, out of the 4 the police say they have, that the police actually ran "spreadsheet data exports" on.

    I have zero confidence in the driver's own story. He claims they left for the party at 10:45, yet why did the accuser receive two cell calls while they were on their way? " 'On our way there, she got two calls on her cell phone saying if you don't come soon, it's going to get canceled,' Taylor said." How many stops did they make on the way? BTW, the driver is a real gem to have as a friend. "He said he did not check on the accuser's children or tell her parents where she was. 'I told her I would, but I didn't,' he said. 'I don't know her that well.'"

    If she received two calls while she was in the car with the driver and made one to her father to get directions it should be pretty easy to find out what time those calls took place. Bissey didn't see this part of her arrival:
    Taylor and his passenger were flagged down by a man outside 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. awaiting their arrival.
    This is interesting:
    The man who drove the accuser in the Duke University lacrosse case to the team party said she did not seem intoxicated when he dropped her off that night.


    Cpvina, You wrote:
    B, i'm afraid it's you who aren't paying attention to the evidence.
    Could that be possible, Cpvina? You wrote:
    "consistent with" is not, by any stretch, the "same as". especially not with DNA.
    That must be why 14 other people in the lab's database also could not ruled out as the source of the dna in Evan's bathroom. I hope police have questioned those people. You never know, they might have been involved in some way. You wrote: since the premise of DNA is that we all have a unique strand, "consistent with" means, well...................nothing. I heard one defense where a fellow put his mother on the stand to testify that he had been adopted at birth and that she could not be sure whether he had a twin or not. Reasonable doubt means different things to different people. The fact that 45 of the people at the party were excluded as sources of the dna on the fingernail probably would have more significance to a numerate person like yourself than it would to a juror, who might not assign the number "zero" to such information.

    mik posted:
    I have zero confidence in the driver's own story. He claims they left for the party at 10:45, yet why did the accuser receive two cell calls while they were on their way?
    Sounds like they got lost. Her father said she called him for directions. From the article:
    He [the driver] said that all he could tell investigators was about their visit and the drive to the house, which he had difficulty finding.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#76)
    by spartan on Sat May 27, 2006 at 10:26:23 AM EST
    I thought the escort service received the calls for dancers at 8:30. The driver stated the accuser arrived at 9:00 but had called him several hours before to use his pad to change. Who calls someone out of the blue to use his place? What about the boyfriend? And what about the next morning at the hospital. Why do you call someone you barely know to check up on your kids? The cellphone records are very important. Again it looks like a poor investigative job by the DA and the Durham police. And I thought South Carolina was bad.

    I'm still trying to understand why Nifong needed multiple line-ups. Further, if he is "doing this by the book," why are these line-ups such a secret? If multiple line-ups are a proper procedure, why didn't the DA tell the public about this? All of the line-ups were done during his pre-election campaign. So, it couldn't be that he was in his current "not available for comment" mode.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#78)
    by spartan on Sat May 27, 2006 at 10:42:24 AM EST
    The more that comes out about the accuser from her family and friends/drivers, the more it looks like she may have serious judgement problems. I understand you can make decent money stripping ,but going to guys' homes to shower and change is weird to say the least. This is not somebody she knew well. According to the driver she spent one and a half hours at his place. I don't think a shower and change would take that long. I really don't think the accuser is planning on pursuing this and I suspect the DA is hoping the same.

    It's intersting that the driver got lost finding 610 N. Broad. Evidently, there isn't an easily visible number on the house and the street numbering "system" is odd within the block. This may explain why Seligmann directed the cab to meet him at the intersection, rather than at the house.

    Good point, spartan. The pre-party events, the timing of them, seem inconsistent among the AV, her father, and this "friend." Is he one of the non-Duke sample DNA donors? Maybe this guy is simply trying to distance himself from this mess, or to downplay his involvement with her, but it does seem strange that she would call and ask him to pick up her kids. Maybe she didn't want to face her parents, but then why did the father go to the hospital? Too confusing, espcially if I re-read the father's version of the events earlier in the evening.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#81)
    by spartan on Sat May 27, 2006 at 11:07:24 AM EST
    One other thing about this drivers statement. Who was taking care of the kids if they needed picking up? Were the kids alone?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: Accuser First Claimed Grope, No (none / 0) (#82)
    by spartan on Sat May 27, 2006 at 11:16:13 AM EST
    Sharon, Congrats on your son's graduation. My son also graduated and he left this morning for the beach with his friends to enjoy "first week" at Myrtle Beach. Needless to say, I had a long discussion with him regarding drinking, driving, and sex. I kept reminding him about the Duke fiasco and hopefully he got the message.

    IMHO wrote: What I find amusing about this is some posters had been crowing about the "passed out drunk" determination because, to them, it suggests she was too drunk to make an ID. It has been abandoned in favor of this new idea that the accuser was not "passed out drunk," but instead being deceptive, which is a more delicious alternative. The "new idea" was from Sgt. Shelton, and it's not necessarily in conflict. She was apparently passed out when Roberts and the security guard tried to get her out of the car. At some point before the cop used smelling salts she was aroused but continued to pretend to be asleep (by the way, what happened to the "grip of death on the steering wheel and/or hand brake" story?) As far as identifying the assailants, since she wasn't assailed and got three chances to form an opinion, how she came to choose the three defendants is interesting but not because she was too high to note who was raping her. She wasn't raped. It's a false charge.

    Maxwell_Smart Great username!! You can sign your posts "86" Are you married dto 99? Janet Jones married a 99. PB wrote:
    I think its quite possible he's just hiding behind the wall because he's worried society will McFadyen him. And that shame has nothing to do with it.
    I doubt anyone will own up to it because Bissey can testify as to what he heard, so no one will get "McFaydened". Regardless, I'm sure someone, whether related to the case or not, will get "Nifonged" by the Nifong in the future. Speaking of the McFayden email, what will be interesting if there is a trial will be if the McFayden email is admitted into evidence.... Does the defense file a motion in limine to exclude it or use it as direct or rebuttal evidence to support the contention that the party was a bust because the strippers didn't strip. McFayden would have to be on the stand to authenticate it and explain the context to a jury who may not have seen the movie "American Pyscho", which will then require a short clip of the movie. Given the history of the Nifong, it will not surprise me if there are other emails and responses to McFayden's email even quoting the movie that put McFayden's email in context..."My need to engage in homicidal behavior on a massive scale cannot be corrected, but, ah, I have no other way to fulfil my needs." or "I like to dissect women. Did you know I'm totally insane?" or Waiter: "Would you like to hear today's specials?" Patrick Bateman: "Not if you want to keep your spleen." The pro-AV/FA crowd will start screaming like kids chasing at a popsicle stand if this quote shows up..."That's a very expensive glass of Chardonnay you're NOT drinking there. It isn't poisoned." Bob in Pacifica wrote:
    It's interesting. She may have actually been passed out drunk, but it sounds like at some point she was faking it.
    The report also says they had to basically wrestle her grip loose from the emergency brake and that when they got her outside of the car she collapsed. "Passed out drunk" or faking it? Could this be what she thought was being "pulled out of the car and groped"? Also, going to the drunk tank and involuntary commitment are too very different things. The drunk tank is an overnight hold. Involuntary Commitment is a day or more.

    IMHO wrote and quoted: This is interesting: The man who drove the accuser in the Duke University lacrosse case to the team party said she did not seem intoxicated when he dropped her off that night. Even more interesting that Nifong apparently didn't run the toxicology test. If it was collected, what's the delay? The problem is, even absolute proof of a date rape drug doesn't prove a rape, doesn't prove who gave it to her or if she took it herself. My guess is that there is a reason that the tox testing wasn't done, and it was for the benefit of the defense.

    That is, it was not for the benefit of the defense.

    Now with the driver's statement, it is three different witnesses (Driver, Kim, neighbor) saying she was not intoxicated or impaired. Defense claimed that she was impaired upon arrival. I wonder why you need to use lies in your defense if you are innocent.

    PB wrote, about DNA evidence: That must be why 14 other people in the lab's database also could not ruled out as the source of the dna in Evan's bathroom. I hope police have questioned those people. You never know, they might have been involved in some way. Pass the pipe, PB. If you think a partial DNA match from something retrieved from a garbage can days after an alleged event has any probative value, I want some of what you're smoking.