home

Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Tue May 30, 2006 at 10:07:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ok, there's not much news in the Duke case but it's time for a new thread. Here's an article on how defense lawyers are presenting a unified defense. Dave Evans' lawyer Joe Cheshire says:

Unindicted players and their lawyers would not be sticking together unless "every single one of them knows that they're innocent."

< Supreme Court Limits Whistleblower Protection | Tuesday Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense | 249 comments (249 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lora on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    From the end of the previous thread: (posted by GSD fan from the search warrant)
    He apologized and requested that they go back inside and continue to dance.
    There is no inconsistency here. A couple of players still could have pulled the AV out of the car, EASILY groped her with no one else noticing (people, especially men who post here, please understand that women can be quickly and furtively groped with no one around them ever being the wiser!!), and then escorted (dragged) her back inside. Here's a speculation (reasonable I believe, and from the perspective that the rape could have happened): Kim, who wanted to go back inside, did in fact go in on her own, and attracted the majority of attention and interest. We still have no idea what she did during the time of the alleged rape. The AV may have stayed right in the car, until she was pulled out, groped, brought to the bathroom, and assaulted and raped. This way, few if any other players might have had any idea of what went on, as they would have been eagerly and busily (and noisily perhaps) watching Kim. I have another speculation as to the reports by the defense that the two women were in the bathroom together. They may have entered the bathroom together before they began to dance, to get ready. Kim had to change, remember. If I were waiting for my dance partner to change, I would not want to be alone with a roomful of rowdy young men. I'd go with her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#2)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:10:02 AM EST
    Jo posted:
    I find it funny (odd, coincidental) that these two (Nifong and AV) have "worked together" before. It would be silly to think Nifong had her "lying in wait", but it isn't hard to think that he remembers working with her, that perhaps in person she appears credible, impressive, charismatic, sincere, etc. Nifong may have felt this would be a dream prosocution to carry him through election day. If he "lightened her load" at their last encounter, he may feel she owes him. I also wouldn't be surprised to find that Nifong is now threatening the AV with jail-time and/or loss of custody of her children if she backs out of these charges.
    From the article Sharon linked:
    But District Attorney Mike Nifong, who is handling the rape case, and who was an assistant prosecutor in 2002, said Wednesday he had nothing to do with the plea deal four years ago. He said he didn't know which local prosecutor negotiated it.
    Jo, I'm not sure how this plan would have worked: The case is brought to Nifong's attention, presumably, because they need a rather unusual court order to force the lacrosse team to cooperate. The investigators tell him, "We don't know how credible she is." Nifong looks at her record, remembers her (even though he says he doesn't know who prosecuted her case) and thinks, "Hmmmm, I don't care if she was raped or not. She's the ticket to my election for DA. Six days for someone that was "willing to kill a cop?" she owes me Big-Time (he even though he says he doesn't know who prosecuted her case). I'll get her stick by this bogus story. I don't care if these Dukies have to postpone their lives for a while. I need to stir up something if I am going to beat Freda Black! btw: I followed Cymro's directions, it was easier. Thank you, Cym.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#3)
    by azbballfan on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    Lora wrote:
    If I were waiting for my dance partner to change, I would not want to be alone with a roomful of rowdy young men. I'd go with her.
    Who's your booking agent?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:24:06 AM EST
    Lora, I never thought that I was going to convince you. I think most other people who study the case find the "pulled her from the car, groped her but no forced sex" story is inconsistent. I imagine that Nifong abandoned that story completely, since none of the elements have appeared in any search warrants or indictments. My guess is that the AV is not trying to reconcile that early version of events, just ignoring it. We'll see. Most of us.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    Lora wrote:
    They may have entered the bathroom together before they began to dance, to get ready. Kim had to change, remember.
    She also went to the bathroom and changed her clothes after the broomstick remark. The 12:41 photo shows Kim in the driver's seat of the dark Honda while the accuser is getting in the car. I think she made up her mind the dance was over after the broomstick remark, changed her clothes and got in her car. I don't think she was persuaded otherwise by anyone. She has hinted she was in the bathroom after the show because she said that the lacrosse players were lying when they claimed to slip $100 bills under the door trying to persuade them to return. She doesn't deny being in the bathroom. She denies that the accuser painted her fingernails in the bathroom. If she wasn't there, she would theoretically say she wasn't there so she doesn't know. Nope, the accuser's story is full of holes because she has told too many different versions of what happened.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:30:54 AM EST
    Sorry, should be: Theoretically she would say she wasn't there so she doesn't know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    thinkandtype, Exactly. Roberts makes no mention of a group of men pulling the AV out of the car and groping her. This is, as I've said, the kind of behavior that crosses the line from verbal to physical. If Roberts were told that the AV had been raped, even if she hadn't thought it happened initially and then changed her mind, if such an event happened she would have mentioned it. The moving papers describe one man coming out of the house and talking to the women to return. Bissey doesn't see any men escorting the AV into the house. While the theory that maybe the AV was confusing being pulled out of a car with being helped up from the back porch, I'll have to defer. If she was that intoxicated then anything she says should not be believed, especially without any physical evidence to support her story. I offer her "pulled from car, etc." story, if the AV were coherent enough to know what was happening around her, as an example of the AV lying about events at the house. If AV believers, see no inconsistencies, that speaks to their powers of deduction.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#8)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    Assuming the defense supplied time stamp [12:41]on the defense supplied photo of the accuser being helped into the car is correct: Mostafa drops Seligmann and Wellington off about 12:46. As a crow flies, he's not the far from 610 N. Buchanan, but he has to drive around the "Duke wall." I think yahoo maps has the trip taking 5 or 6 minutes (I ran it awhile back). When Mostafa got there around 12:51, Kim was not in her car, though she had been when the accuser was poured into the car about ten minutes earlier. Was Kim coaxed back into the house again at 12:41? Was the accuser "pulled out of the car and groped" and pulled into the bathroom and attacked then? Bissey didn't see Kim's car drive off until a few minutes before the police arrived at 12:55. Kim's 911 call is made at 12:53, most likely right around the time she drove off. What happened from 12:41 to about 12:51 when Mostafa saw Kim arguing with a group of guys while walking toward her car? Why did she get out of her car AFTER the accuser had been helped into the car? Mostafa said when he arrived to pick up his second fare, a woman that probably is Kim was walking to her car "mad". He picked up four "boys."
    "When I look back, he look like he mad at the stripper. Or the stripper, she going to call the police and she just a stripper. ... It look to me like somebody get hurt. But what kind of harm, ... I have no idea.
    *****
    Four of the lacrosse players then got into the cab; Mostafa described them as agitated. He then heard one player say to another, "don't worry, she's just a stripper." He also said, "it look to me like somebody get hurt. But what kind of harm ... I have no idea."
    *****
    "One of the guys said, 'She's just a stripper, she's going to call police,' " Mostafa said Thursday. "I knew something was going on, so I told the customers to get in the car."
    Who are the four "boys" that got in that cab?
    While driving Seligmann home, Mostafa received a call at 12:29 a.m. from the cell phone of lacrosse player Tony McDevitt, requesting another ride from the party, the records show.
    Reade was gone , but what about Tony?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    While the theory that maybe the AV was confusing being pulled out of a car with being helped up from the back porch, I'll have to defer. If she was that intoxicated then anything she says should not be believed, especially without any physical evidence to support her story.
    Bob, I didn't suggest that she confused two incidents. What I suggested simply if she required help to go to the car when she left the house, it is very probable she required "help" to get out of the car 30 minutes before she fell down unconscious on the porch.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#10)
    by james on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:14:02 PM EST
    The problem in this case (for both AV apologists and those that subscribe to the 'false accuser' approach) is that real guilt or innocent, in the absolute sense, is meaningless (from a legal standpoint). The only point is whether there is 'reasonable doubt' that the 3 did nothing. I would say that there is 'substantial doubt' that the 3 did nothing or at least did not do what they are *charged* with doing. Nifong would have had an easier time charging them with groping the AV. The amusing things about some of the poster's 'bathroom speculations' etc is that they bring in substantial doubt. There are so many 'different' scenarios with multiple conflicting statements that there is, indeed, doubt. Doubt is what the defense is trying to instill - not some sort of absolute innocence standard. After all, the burden is on the prosecutor - not the defence - and the standard is 'reasonable doubt' for aquittal. As long as the jury composition is 'balanced' there will likely either be a hung jury or an aquittal. Nifong does not have a case he should bring to trial - he needs to meet an 'internalized' burden that is at least somewhat short of 'reasonable doubt' to proceed. He's way short here. The 'absolutists' fail to acknowledge that there are multiple conflicting accounts by the AV - all of which will instill reasonable doubt. The DNA is a joke, the lineups are a joke, etc. The problem, imho, is that NC does not guarantee the right to a speedy trial (which would probably sink Nifong earlier than he wishes - I'm sure they'd like to 'call his bluff') and that the pretrial hearings are setup to virtually guarantee that the proceedings lead to a jury trial. The judge will make a decision on the evidence/lack thereof but the prosecutions burden isn't that high. Incidentally, I feel Evans would be better off splitting with the other two. He'd have an 'easy' time getting an aquittal because of the lineup uncertainty.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#11)
    by james on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:23:17 PM EST
    Another minus for Nifong: Majority of the examination was done by an *in-training* SANE nurse, ie, not one with much experience. Her testimony will be relevant more on her emotional state than her physical one. The doctor's opinion will be more important but the SANE exams are structured to minimize contact with them (build a trust with the AV). This same SANE nurse failed to complete half of the required forms. That's negligent. She also failed to perform a toxicology test which is pretty standard when someone is visibly impaired. The defence should have been able to know if she was taking, say, Xanax which does not show up as real impairment until you mix liquor with it (I use Xanax to 'stretch' my liquor). They would also have been interested in any other sorts of drugs. I would imagine they are looking for a 'lost' or 'incomplete' form that specifies whether she refused a Tox screen.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#12)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    mik posted:
    She has hinted she was in the bathroom after the show because she said that the lacrosse players were lying when they claimed to slip $100 bills under the door trying to persuade them to return. She doesn't deny being in the bathroom. She denies that the accuser painted her fingernails in the bathroom. If she wasn't there, she would theoretically say she wasn't there so she doesn't know.
    Nope, the accuser's story is full of holes because she has told too many different versions of what happened.
    Sorry, should be:
    Theoretically she would say she wasn't there so she doesn't know.
    AP interview:
    ROBERTS: Then they say they slipped a $100 bill under the door. That's such a... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) ROBERTS: Under the bathroom door is what I heard. Lie, turkey (ph) lie, ain't going to go into it, turkey (ph) lie. They also said fingernails were painted while we were in the bathroom. I never--all I can say is I never saw any fingernails painted. Never saw it, that's all I can say. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you go into the bathroom at all? ROBERTS: (INAUDIBLE) I'm not going to talk about it.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#13)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    Hicht posted:
    I didn't suggest that she confused two incidents. What I suggested simply if she required help to go to the car when she left the house, it is very probable she required "help" to get out of the car 30 minutes before she fell down unconscious on the porch.
    Good point, Hicht. The defense says she was "substantially impaired" when she arrived at the party and she was too blotto to dance, so they asked her to leave. They say they have photos of her with her face in the carpet as soon as the dancing began.
    Attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V told the Raleigh News & Observer the dancer was "substantially impaired" when she arrived at the party.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#14)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    James posted:
    I would imagine they are looking for a 'lost' or 'incomplete' form that specifies whether she refused a Tox screen.
    If they still have a urine or blood sample, it is not too late to test it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    As I recall, the players never said they were slipping benjamins under the door, just paper money. It was the interviewer with Kim who used that denomination, which Kim denied. Looking for the link, which of course begs the question of whether or not I can post it here once I find it. It's when the defense attorneys gave a fairly detailed account of what the players said happened that night.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    which of course begs the question of whether or not I can post it here once I find it.
    Sharon, you funny! Anyway, here's my way to link, fwiw... To link, with apologies if it's too basic: -highlight the URL of the web-page that you want to link to. -copy the URL ("edit" then "copy"). -come back to TL and write something in the "Comments:" box. -highlight the word(s) in that comment that you want to be the link. -click the "URL" button above the "Comments:" box. -hold down the "Ctrl" button on your computer's keyboard and then type "v". -click "OK." -click the "Preview" button below the "Comments:" box. -if the preview looks good, click the "Post" button below the "Comments:" box.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    The way I used to do it was: Highlight the "Address" bar of the link I'm looking at, click "copy". Paste it with my comments in the comment box. Highlight it and click URL. In THAT box, I click ok, and it fills in the pasted info. I swear that's what I used to do, and it worked. Now, no such luck.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:16:35 PM EST
    It never ceases to amaze me, how these commenters continue to worry this case and every development in it like my dog does with an old bone. TL said it, and I agree, y'all have formed a small ecosystem and seem to be self-sustaining just on air and breaking down this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    Sharon, not sure about your old method, but just so there's no confusion, when I speak of the "URL of the web-page you want to link to" that's the same thing you call the '"Address" bar'...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    Here we go. Cross your fingers.
    Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains.
    Okay. That's a quote from the Newsweek article FINALLY! Can't help it: I'm hearing the Oratorio from Handel's Messiah in my head right now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    I think my old way was ending up with one too many "http"s in it, or something. NOW, the question is: will I remember how I did it the RIGHT way? "Thank you" to everyone who helped. I have often relied on the kindness of strangers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    James, You wrote:
    The only point is whether there is 'reasonable doubt' that the 3 did nothing. I would say that there is 'substantial doubt' that the 3 did nothing or at least did not do what they are *charged* with doing.
    I really don't understand why anyone imagines that the case Nifong is going to present is the case we at present have in our hands. Of course we have substantial doubt today. If Nifong can put those three boys alone in the bathroom with that woman, her testimony will matter more to the jury than any theory Bob in Pacifica might have about Officer Shelton and his sentence structure. And the whole nation will start to have a bad feeling about the defense team. If he can't get them near the bathroom, he'll become a world-famous fool. Don't know which it will be.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    imho: remarkable resemblance between Reade and Tony. Maybe Tony was the "4th man" from the photo id, the other one the AV said kinda/sorta looks like one of them. Wonder if Tony had a mustache that night?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#24)
    by wumhenry on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    from ABC News:
    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 involuntarily commit her.
    If anyone's been wondering what ulterior motive the AV could have had for *falsely* alleging she'd been raped, here you go.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    Posted by scribe May 30, 2006 02:16 PM It never ceases to amaze me, how these commenters continue to worry this case and every development in it like my dog does with an old bone.
    It is only happening "like [a] dog does with an old bone" because the commentators have no personal stake in it. Academic arguments are particularly contentious precisely because the results are of no consequence. Want to see your amazement cease immediately? Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    Jo:
    I didn't know you could highlight the link text first and the closing tag would be put in automatically (thanks Cymro)
    imho:
    btw: I followed Cymro's directions, it was easier. Thank you, Cym.
    My pleasure. If you think about it, the way it works is natural, because it follows the same data entry model as other buttons, all of which deal with methods of formatting the text of a post. In each case, first you select the relevant text, then you click the appropriate button to obtain the desired formatting. The only difference is that in the case of the URL button, you are asked to supply an additional piece of information (the url) to complete the operation. BTW, every visual text editor I have encountered works this way, because this approach is fairly standard for today's graphical interfaces (think of Microsoft Word, etc.). It's called the Target-Action paradigm, an interface style in which you first select a target (an object of interest), then specify the action to be performed on it. Before graphical interfaces, most programs worked the other way -- you would select the action to be performed, than select an object to perform the action against. Modern interfaces contain instances of both paradigms. (No doubt this is somewhat boring to non-specialists, but those of us in the computer business spend our lives worrying about this kind of stuff).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    scribe wrote:
    TL said it, and I agree, y'all have formed a small ecosystem and seem to be self-sustaining just on air and breaking down this case.
    A shrink would call it co-dependency and projection. SLO wrote: Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:13:57 PM EST
    scribe wrote:
    TL said it, and I agree, y'all have formed a small ecosystem and seem to be self-sustaining just on air and breaking down this case.
    A shrink would call it co-dependency and projection. SLO wrote:
    Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?
    I'll put up 1G for the lax players. Not because I think there was or was not a rape, but because I beleive that the existence of the BF's DNA creates an incredible reasonable doubt barrier to conviction. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a gambling website giving odds.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    Sure enough...Odds for Indicted Duke Lacrosse Players' Trial Outcome

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#30)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:31:52 PM EST
    Cymro posted:
    My pleasure. If you think about it, the way it works is natural, because it follows the same data entry model as other buttons, all of which deal with methods of formatting the text of a post.
    Cymro, I agree your method is simpler, I am glad you shared it. What I thought was funny about your post was that you found it necessary to opine that following my "confusing" directions was the cause of Sharon's troubles (I'd never shared with her how I linked articles before posted she had a problem) and your declaration that she wouldn't have trouble if she had done it "the right way." You could have just said, "Sharon, this is how I do it....." I wonder why you didn't?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    GSDFAN, You quoted from the search warrant:
    "The victim and her fellow dancer decided to leave because they were concerned for their safety. As the two women got into a vehicle, they were approached by one of the suspects. He apologized and requested that they go back inside and continue to dance. Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated."
    Now this from Bissey:
    "I noticed a car drive up and two young women get out, met with the gentleman and then walked back to the back of the house. Two young women, one of them dressed in a short skirt and high heels, and the other woman was dressed a little more conservatively spoke with the gentleman outside of this door here briefly, and then at this point, all of the young men were inside. They spoke amongst themselves for about five minutes or so and then entered the house"
    The women did not arrive together. And both were at the house by 11:30 according to the defense and the prosecution. What Bissey witnessed is most probably the women being induced into returning to the house after the dance.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:43:15 PM EST
    "I noticed a car drive up and two young women get out,
    PB, how does that jibe with this:?
    What Bissey witnessed is most probably the women being induced into returning to the house after the dance.
    iow, from what Bissey said, he saw a car "drive up" and then two woman got out, not two woman were inside a parked car and a guy talked to them and then they got out.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    And both were at the house by 11:30 according to the defense and the prosecution.
    According to WRAL's website, their timeline has the accuser arriving at 11:53 p.m. I don't know their source for the information, but I doubt the defense concedes the accuser arrived 30 minutes before they say the dancing begins at 12:00 a.m.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#34)
    by Nowonmai on Tue May 30, 2006 at 03:58:40 PM EST
    Unindicted players and their lawyers would not be sticking together unless "every single one of them knows that they're innocent."
    Really? I can name a few high profile murder or rape cases where family, friends, associates have stuck together and it probably had nothing to do with innocence. 'Skakel' mean anything, for just one example? As for the AV's story changing, that isn't uncommon with rape victims or other people who have gone through a traumatic event. Look it up. Time distorts, memories get re-arranged.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:10:31 PM EST
    SloPhoto, You wrote:
    Want to see your amazement cease immediately? Ask any one of the AV defenders if they would be willing to put one thousand dollars of their own money against a matching one thousand dollars into an escrow account. If the lax players are not convicted, then they forfeit their thousand dollars to the other party, and vice versa. Any takers?
    I'm not a betting person, even when the bet is a sure thing, but if I were I would put my $1000 on the lax players to walk. As I've said before, I don't think the players have ever been at risk, even if they did it. The reason I "support" the AV is because she may have actually been raped, and if she was that's not something I'm willing to be wrong about. I'm unwilling to participate in the second rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    SUO, You wrote:
    from what Bissey said, he saw a car "drive up" and then two woman got out, not two woman were inside a parked car and a guy talked to them and then they got out.
    That's my point. The two women never drove up together. So it's not what Bissey actually saw. He's interpolating. He saw them get out of the car, and he assumed it was when they were arriving. This is not the only example of Bissey interpolating.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:26:20 PM EST
    PB, fair enough.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    Unindicted players and their lawyers would not be sticking together unless "every single one of them knows that they're innocent."
    or, for the cynical among us (and i've raised it to the level of an art form), because they hope by doing so, that mr. nifong will somehow be swayed to end this, without trial. doesn't appear that's going to happen though, mr. nifong is simply too invested in it at this point, and he's using other people's money. be assured, were i the father of one of the unindicted players, and i learned that the 3 indicted ones had, in fact, committed the crime they've been accused of, i would drop my financial support in a heartbeat. no hesitation, no remorse. lora: i notice you speculate a lot. i don't, i deal strictly with the facts as presented. think of it, for me, as an occupational hazard. as far as i can ascertain, nowhere was it stated that the AV was left in the car by herself, after both ladies left the house the first time. ms. roberts has stated that the AV was not pulled from the car, by anyone, while it was parked in front of the party house. what she has said is that at least one partygoer came out and tried to coax them both back in. apparently, at some point, he was successful. while i'll agree that a woman can be furtively groped, with no one else seeing it, the key here is the AV being pulled (dragged) from the car first, with groping said to have occurred during said pulling. absent the pulling, and the groping goes out the window. did i miss the part where ms. roberts said she left the AV in the car alone, and went back into the house by herself? if i did, just delete all that! lol that aside, this case has more holes in it than the proverbial slice of swiss cheese. forget "reasonable doubt", this hasn't even achieved "semi-believable" status yet.
    The problem, imho, is that NC does not guarantee the right to a speedy trial............
    true, but i believe the u.s. constitution does. i'll put 5 grand on the lax players, should it go to trial. not, because i think they're choir boys, but because this case screams out "reasonable doubt", at least from what's been released so far. on the other hand, so did the scott peterson case, where the medical examiner wasn't even able to state the actual cause of mrs. peterson's death. pretty much complete lack of any forensic or eyewitness evidence, tying mr. peterson to his wife's disappearance and subsequent death, didn't stop a jury of his "peers" from convicting him. i believe that would be a case of "reverse nullification". it's always a risk one takes, as a defendant, should you choose to go to trial. actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#39)
    by Lora on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    It's a bit hard to follow what Bissey says. From Rita Cosby ,Bissey says (after he takes his shower):
    And when I came out, this entire alley was full of men kind of yelling, and I overheard a lot of talk about getting money back and the money they'd spent or whatever. And the young women were back in the car in front, and one of the young men was leaning into the driver's side door, speaking with her. But at that point, the situation seemed to calm down a little bit, and they were able, I guess, to convince one of the girls to go back inside.
    And that's at the point where I overheard her talking about going back and getting her shoe. So the young ladies went back into the house, and at that point, nobody was out in the alley. The situation seemed pretty calm.
    Which is it? One, or both? Or possibly, as I suggested before, first "one of the girls" (Kim), who, according to the AV, wanted to go back anyway, then the AV. When or where did all the men go? Some with Kim, and some with the AV? Maybe most went with Kim and a few pulled the AV out, and brought her back in, groping her along the way. Speculation, of course, but how is it inconsistent with Bissey's account, or any other account? slo, To take you up on your offer would mean that I believed that the evidence (of which there is plenty, Bob's protestations notwithstanding) constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that all parties will have a fair trial with an impartial jury. (Also, I'm not convinced of the truthfulness of her story, but I am not convinced of any of the challenges to it that I've yet heard.) So, sorry, no dice. azb, What's it to ya? ;-)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:51:55 PM EST
    PB posted: The reason I "support" the AV is because she may have actually been raped, and if she was that's not something I'm willing to be wrong about.
    Which, if you will notice, is the same reason I have never ceased to refer to the accuser as the "AV" instead of any of the other less flattering terms being used. It is something I don't want to be wrong about, either. And until I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not raped, I will continue to use it. But I am convinced that these three young men should not have been indicted on what little evidence we have seen so far, and even less should they be condemned on the basis of some of the flimsy conjecture being offered here to try to prop up that weak evidence. It was in that sense I offered up the wager -- if you really believe your own conjecture and are willing to attack other people's conjecture so vigorously -- then be willing to put your money where your mouth is.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:57:59 PM EST
    imho: Maybe more like this: 12:04 - Kim and AV retreat to the bathroom. Kim changes clothes. 12:15 - Kim and AV get into Kim's car. A partyer, talking to Kim (the sober one of the two) on the driver's side of the car, persuades them to go back in the house. I doubt Kim is willing to change her clothes again. 12:18 - AV reenters the house, if for no other reason than to get her shoe, etcetera. Kim and AV are separated. Kim may have reentered the house or maybe not. AV ends up in the bathroom without Kim. (Kim - "I was not in the bathroom at that particular time.") AV is in bathroom for 12 minutes at most. There she is raped, groped, or does her nails (pick 'em). 12:2x - Kim goes back to her car. Perhaps she never got out to go back in (as stated above). 12:30-12:40 - AV is negotiating the back steps (per the photos). 12:41 - AV is poured into Kim's car. 12:4x - Kim sees AV still minus one shoe. Kim gets out of the car to go get the shoe. 12:4x-12:50 - Partyers do not let her back in the house. Verbal altercation ensues. 12:50 - Moez Mostafa arrives. He sees and hears altercation; sees Kim get back in her car. 12:53 - Kim drives away and calls cops.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lora on Tue May 30, 2006 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    cpinva, Where does Kim Roberts state that the AV was not pulled from the car by anyone? I must have missed that. Although some here don't believe she is credible either, still, that would be important to me if she actually said that. But not saying it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sure, I speculate. I appreciate feedback. I try to make my speculations consistent with what we think we know. I don't mean them to be taken as what actually happened, but what could have happened given the likely facts of the case. If what could have happened still supports a rape allegation, then I would say that it is possible a rape occurred.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    SloPhoto, You wrote:
    But I am convinced that these three young men should not have been indicted on what little evidence we have seen so far,
    Are you convinced that what little evidence we have seen so far is what got these three young men indicted? I'm not. You wrote:
    and even less should they be condemned on the basis of some of the flimsy conjecture being offered here to try to prop up that weak evidence.
    Who has condemned them at this website? The ONLY person who has been condemned here has been the accuser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:38:45 PM EST
    evidence of today's slow news
    A second exotic dancer who performed at a March 13 Duke University lacrosse team party where a woman says she was raped and assaulted by three athletes made an obscene gesture at a television camera during court proceedings on Tuesday. When Kim Roberts noticed WRAL's camera in the courtroom, she made the gesture and then stuck out her tongue.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:45:54 PM EST
    fillintheblanks wrote:
    12:4x - Kim sees AV still minus one shoe. Kim gets out of the car to go get the shoe.
    or "Nikki" sees AV/FA's purse in front yard (brown spot from photo), goes and gets it for her. samething, basically but different motive to get out of car. I think I read that "nikki" thought she was being ripped at some point by the AV/FA. Making sure she was not ripped off would also motivate her to make sure the AV/FA did not lose her purse. (make-up bag was definitely left behind)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    It's hard to believe full payment was not made in advance. Not sure what's customary here. Maybe it's half now, half later.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#48)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    SLOphoto, did you suggest everyone put one thousand dollars of their own money in an escort account?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:08:12 PM EST
    Mik, You wrote:
    According to WRAL's website, their timeline has the accuser arriving at 11:53 p.m. I don't know their source for the information, but I doubt the defense concedes the accuser arrived 30 minutes before they say the dancing begins at 12:00 a.m.
    I haven't been able to locate it, but I do recall reading that one of the defense lawyers gave 11:30 as the time of the arrival... not that they aren't allowed to change their minds at any time... Theresa, little help! You once wrote:
    If Kim arrived at 11 and the accuser at 11:30 (this is per the player's attorney) then why were they walking to the back of the house together at 11:50.
    Can you recall where that one came from?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#50)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:18:49 PM EST
    I believe a search warrant said the AV arrived 11:30. Other sources say that Roberts arrived a half hour earlier at 11. The time on the search warrant would have probably come from the AV. She may have wanted to appear prompt. A Newsweek article linked in this thread said the AV arrived at 11:45. That was by one of the defense attorneys. If nothing else is settled about this case, I want to know the damned timeline.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#51)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:23:49 PM EST
    What time did the driver say the AV got there?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    [The AV's father] 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.
    That's two confirmations...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:32:55 PM EST
    Brian Taylor, the man who drove the AV to the party, doesn't say exactly when they arrived, but claims that they left for the party at about 10:45, and had difficulty finding the house.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    imho:
    What I thought was funny about your post was that you found it necessary to opine that following my "confusing" directions was the cause of Sharon's troubles (I'd never shared with her how I linked articles before posted she had a problem) and your declaration that she wouldn't have trouble if she had done it "the right way." You could have just said, "Sharon, this is how I do it....." I wonder why you didn't?
    Very simple, because I believe your instructions were confusing, and because, as a software designer, I believe there is a "right way" to use this interface -- namely to enter text, select a word or phrase, and attach a link to the selection. Maybe to you all methods are equivalent if they work, and as long as you can muddle through and get the job done, who cares which one you use. But I do not think about it like that, and I am fairly confident that my post described how the designer intended this interface to be used, for the reasons I explained in my last post. Furthermore, it was becoming apparent that instructions on how to use the interface were being posted by people who also did not understand how to use it properly, and you were a prime example. That's because I recalled having seen you posting similar instructions previously, and although they had struck me as obscure and overly complicated at the time, I had not bothered to post about it. But upon seeing your post yesterday, I recalled your previous post, in particular the suggestion that one needed to click the URL button twice, the second time to "close" the link. So in the interests of promoting better understanding, I posted what I hoped would suppress those confusing instructions, and document what I believed to be the intended (and easier) method. Although I obviously don't know exactly what Sharon was doing wrong, from the evidence it seemed likely that it had something to do with posting the link before the text, and that mistake was what I was trying to correct. I have previously posted instructions on linking in response to others who have asked about it, so I was not singling you out as the only person who was getting it wrong -- I know there are others. It was your proposed method that I was objecting to, and the easiest way to identify that in the context of yesterday's thread was to refer to it as "imho's" method. I hope you find this post as amusing as my previous ones. At least it will provide a temporary diversion from the events (or, more recently, non-events) in Duke :).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    Kim Robers filmed today shooting the bird and making faces at her probation violation hearing today. Link to WRAL clip: wral.com

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:39:01 PM EST
    Lora-
    Which is it? One, or both? Or possibly, as I suggested before, first "one of the girls" (Kim), who, according to the AV, wanted to go back anyway, then the AV. When or where did all the men go? Some with Kim, and some with the AV? Maybe most went with Kim and a few pulled the AV out, and brought her back in, groping her along the way. Speculation, of course, but how is it inconsistent with Bissey's account, or any other account?
    Good point. Plus, we're getting a free-flowing description here, being "pulled" from a car and "groped", so it could be plenty of things. At any rate, if somebody did grope the AV or do what she characterized as "pulling (her) out", Kim need not have seen it and it doesn't rule out the man also apologizing (the description given). SloPhoto-
    and even less should they be condemned on the basis of some of the flimsy conjecture being offered here to try to prop up that weak evidence.
    The only thing close to that I've seen here were people criticizing the behavior of the men, and even that was minimal and exclusive. The accuser, on the other hand, as PB points out has been condemned, based on not only interpretation of the evidence but her actions and demeanor.
    I feel like Kim was more careful than any of the other side players to be cagey in switching only her "interpretation" not the facts of her story (as much as I've been able to ascertain).
    That is another issue I addressed before I got tattled on. I keep wondering what people are talking about when they characterize Kim's actions as "changing her story". All she changed was her opinion. Speaking of whom-
    A second exotic dancer who performed at a March 13 Duke University lacrosse team party where a woman says she was raped and assaulted by three athletes made an obscene gesture at a television camera during court proceedings on Tuesday. When Kim Roberts noticed WRAL's camera in the courtroom, she made the gesture and then stuck out her tongue.
    Despite being a woman who is provocative and therefore responsible for the actions of the men around her, I'm really liking this woman. She's had more guts than about anybody in this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:48:18 PM EST
    PB:
    [The AV's father] 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.
    That's two confirmations...
    Your idea of a "confirmation" is different from mine then. All we know from this is that the father claims that the AV called him at 11:30pm. We don't know whether she actually did do that, as he claims, and we certainly do not know that she was at the house, all we know is what he claims she told him. And even if she did tell him that she had "reached her destination," and that conversation did happen at 11:30pm, this still does not confirm that she was in fact at the house when she made that statement. She could have been calling from somewhere else.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:49:06 PM EST
    kali: can't remember the details, but I did listen to an interview with a betting website where, yes, one could place a wager on this case. That was a fair while ago, I think pre-indictment. America, what a country.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:56:16 PM EST
    fillin: the AV herself said she was given $400 when she got there. That is tied to the "robbery that is not charged in the indictment" accusation she made.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    PB: NOTHING the AV's father says can be taken for confirmation of anything, unless one is willing to accept all of his statments, even the ones that contradict her story.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:03:00 PM EST
    Durga:
    Despite being a woman who is provocative and therefore responsible for the actions of the men around her, I'm really liking this woman. She's had more guts than about anybody in this.
    Takes a lot of "guts" to steal $25,000 from an employer who trusted you, doesn't it? Takes a lot of "guts" to try to profit from anothe woman's nightmare. This woman had a 4 year degree, from a great university, and she blew it and ended up dancing naked in front of drunk guys. That is not "guts." That is stupidity

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    Re: Kim - Correction My memory said she had graduated. No way to tell, but this was in the article: Her father, who was in the Air Force, is black. A 4.0 average got her into UNC-Chapel Hill, where she studied psychology. N&O See, Cymro? I can DO IT NOW.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:21:54 PM EST
    Takes a lot of "guts" to steal $25,000 from an employer who trusted you, doesn't it? Takes a lot of "guts" to try to profit from anothe woman's nightmare.
    Looks more like she is profiting from the dog and pony show to me. Didn't you post her first name?
    This woman had a 4 year degree, from a great university, and she blew it and ended up dancing naked in front of drunk guys.
    Which has everything to do with how straight forward and direct she has been... These guys made it onto a great team, in a reputable school, and have a promising future and blew that by hiring strippers, making demeaning overtones, using racial slurs, assisting in underage drinking, one getting into a (possibly hate-motivated) over the childish use of the word "gay", and continually disrespecting their neighbors...
    That is not "guts." That is stupidity
    But that's not their fault, in a world where women are provocative.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    Kim, I don't think is stupid. I don't think she's as smart as she thinks she is, but I think she has a certain sense of cunning about her that is (ultimately) doing more harm than good to the AV. I get the sense that when she was first saddled with the AV (as an incapacitated passenger in her car), she must have been, on some level, pissed. The evening had been a debacle, they may or may not have been paid. I doubt they made any extra 'tips' that evening, and then she's got a passed-out stranger riding shotgun. I doubt she was any too compassionate during the process of dumping the AV out at Kroger/turning her over to police. So, maybe when the s*** hits the fan with all of this, it looks (per Nifong's public statements) to be pretty cut and dried against the accused. So here's Kim's big chance to be the star witness, make a dramatic statement on the stand, rescue the privileged sons of deep-pocketed, grateful parents, and come out smelling like a rose. Incidentally, she gets back at the AV for the shambles of an evening, and those who made vulgar/disrespectful statements owe her. But then along comes Butch Williams, who indicates that yeah, they need her, but maybe not as much as she thinks. And maybe she won't be the start witness, but just an angry exotic dancer adding her part to a larger narrative. Less glory for Kim, so she shops her experience around to a different audience. An element of the public sentiment in Durham (the most visible, element, attracting the most media attention) is very pro-AV/anti-Duke. So if she throws her slant to that crowd, she can be a hero again. The timing is interesting--her big interview comes when serious holes start to be poked in the tidy Nifong scenario. She goes public, she claims, as some kind of preemptive strike, because she feels that she'll be named either way, hindering her ability to find gainful employment. I somehow doubt that, given that her current line of work was not noticeably damaged by her previous (more serious) run-ins with the law. But Kim is cagey. On some level we don't know what her "story" is, because she's kept tangible facts out of the media. She hasn't changed her story, per se, but stories have been made out of her impressions. . .which I argue are quite changeable, based on how she feels like she can or cannot benefit from her role in this affair. It's not complimentary to Kim, certainly, but it's neither pro/anti the AV or the ARs. More than anything, i feel sorry for anyone who doesn't look at her with a healthy dose of skepticism, since I think her #1 priority is how her (well-chosen) words represent not the truth, but Kim. And I wonder if she would have felt as comfortable making her faces/gestures in court today if she hadn't already had her bond fees reduced by Nifong. I'm sure that has to give the ego a l'il boost--to feel that you have the DA over a barrel in a rapidly-sinking high-profile case with few other eyewitnesses who could prove as compelling.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    Alan, You wrote
    the idea of a salaried public prosecutor long postdates the grand jury. At the time of the American Revolution, there were no salaried prosecutors and indictments were farmed out to private counsel after the grand jury had found an indictment. [...] Those who wrote the US constitution may shown a certain prescience, but I doubt they were prescient enough to create the grand jury to restrain prosecuting officials who did not then exist.
    Richard Bradley was the Attorney General of the Provence in 1735 when he prosecuted Peter Zenger in the famous libel case. When the grand jury refused to bring an indictment against Zenger, Bradley brought the case forward by information. I'm no expert. There is a strong argument that something like a grand jury was used before jury trials replaced trial by battle. But are you sure "prescience" was required by the founders? The Zenger case was a pretty big deal, and it was hardly ancient history at the time of the Revolution. The Attorney General who convened the Grand Jury in the case of Captain Preston and the other soldiers who were involved in the Boston Massacre was a salaried prosecutor, was he not? That's 1770, not too far from the time of the revolution.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:32:49 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    PB: NOTHING the AV's father says can be taken for confirmation of anything, unless one is willing to accept all of his statments, even the ones that contradict her story.
    What rule is that? Might as well make a rule that says we shouldn't believe the players when they say they're innocent because they used fake names.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:33:26 PM EST
    Didn't you post her first name?
    Thought we were talking about your admiration for Kim Roberts, were we not?
    Which has everything to do with how straight forward and direct she has been...
    "Straight forward and direct"? She lied on the 911 call, she lied to the Kroger security guard, she lied to the reporting police officers. No matter her reasons, did she not lie each of those occasions? My point was, at some point, Kim had her life going in a good direction. For an in-state female to be accepted at Chapel Hill is a major accomplishment. Unlike the AV, Kim seems to have a better start at life, and what is she doing now? I am not attacking her credibility because of how she has chosen to make a living. I am attacking it based upon a prior fraud conviction and a history, in this case, of lying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    PB: okay, let's take her father's statement that she called him at 11:30 to say she had arrived at her job, as "confirmation" that she had, in fact, arrived at 610 Buchanan. Do we also take as "confimation" his statement that the two of them went to the store at 10:00 that evening, or the driver's statement that she arrived at his house at 9:00? Do we take the father's statements that the AV told him she was sodomized with a broom, or no such charge in the indictment? Do we take the father's statements that he knew about the Creedmore incident and that "nothing happened, she wasn't raped by those boy,s" or her mother's insistence that she was? Do we take her father's statements that her face was bruised and swollen, or no simple assault charged in the indictments? He is not a credible witness, PB. That was my point. He seems like a dear, injured man, but he is not a source I would rely upon for confirmation of anything about this case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:42:49 PM EST
    "Straight forward and direct"? She lied on the 911 call, she lied to the Kroger security guard, she lied to the reporting police officers. No matter her reasons, did she not lie each of those occasions? My point was, at some point, Kim had her life going in a good direction.
    Whatever she told the cops on the phone is probably because of her legal issues and that is understandable like the men giving different names and lying about the occasion is said to be. I'm saying she was the only one of this whole thing who has been unapologetic about anything, and - at least I think - she deserves credit for it. She isn't being coy, she isn't getting sentimental ("the best bunch of guys I..." yeah, that's going to help ya). She flips the media who made this a circus the bird and, as far as I'm concerned, it's about da*n time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:48:30 PM EST
    Oops, cut off-
    Thought we were talking about your admiration for Kim Roberts, were we not?
    "We" weren't talking about it, I expressed something and you chipped away at it and brought up something that made me raise an eye-brow.
    [The AV's father] 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.
    Sounds like Jay Leno where I am. ;)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    Okay, but she might do well to remember that it is the media attention to this case that she, at least at one time, hoped to exploit. If she had gotten a positive response from the PR firm, think she would have behaved that way? And it is the same media attention that got her cash bond waived, the way I see it. It's all well and good to say f*ck you to the system, to the MAN. But the purity of her protest is lost in the smarminess of her attitude and her actions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:53:44 PM EST
    Durga: you brought up my use of the AV's name, in a post long ago for which I have made as many, and more, apologies and explanations as I can. What does my, one time use, of the AV's first name have to do with my comments about Kim?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:55:02 PM EST
    Hi Sharon: You wrote:
    PB: Do we also take as "confimation" his statement that the two of them went to the store at 10:00 that evening, or the driver's statement that she arrived at his house at 9:00?
    I don't know which is true. Haven't heard from the AV on that.
    Do we take the father's statements that the AV told him she was sodomized with a broom, or no such charge in the indictment?
    Haven't heard from her on that either. Don't know whether she said it, why she said it if she did, what might have made him think she said it.
    Do we take the father's statements that he knew about the Creedmore incident and that "nothing happened, she wasn't raped by those boy,s" or her mother's insistence that she was?
    He's speculating. That's no different than what you do here. It doesn't go to your credibility when you are not speculating.
    Do we take her father's statements that her face was bruised and swollen, or no simple assault charged in the indictments?
    Do you think her face wasn't bruised or swollen for some reason? You wrote:
    He is not a credible witness, PB. That was my point. He seems like a dear, injured man, but he is not a source I would rely upon for confirmation of anything about this case.
    I find him more credible than I find you. I don't mean that as any kind of insult. Maybe its just his delivery. He doesn't seem like he's trying desparately to prove something.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    But, whether or not one likes Kim Roberts, that action today hurts the AV, hurts Nifong if he wants to put her on the stand for anything.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    What does my, one time use, of the AV's first name have to do with my comments about Kim?
    Sharon, I'm over it, but you know for a fact you used it twice. The second time was for needle. No respect.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:06:31 PM EST
    PB: I've asked this before: if the AV had been beaten, kicked, etc. what reason could Nifong have for not charging that? That is one of my favorite mysteries about this case. Her father, her aunt, her cousin, all have said that the day after the alleged rape occurred, the AV showed obvious, clear injuries. Why was not the beating, choking, kicking charged? That was, to me, one of the strongest "stories" that made me think something horrible had happened that night. Where is the charge? In the photo lineup, the AV says that Finnerty was not the one who choked her. Seligman was in front of her, according to her. That leaves Evans. No charges on that against him. Your theory on that? You said:
    He doesn't seem like he's trying desparately to prove something.
    I think he is. He is desperately trying to prove she is what he thinks she is, as all fathers should think their daughters are, namely a "good" girl. He wants to help her. But neither he, nor I, is a credible witness in this case, about any fact in this case. No insult taken. But if you allow me my bias, you have to admit to his.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    Sharon:
    See, Cymro? I can DO IT NOW.
    I see! I'm proud of you :)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:15:58 PM EST
    PB: Another example of differing memories and meanings: there was one night when I used her first name. I don't remember being "needling" about it, but I will be the first to admit that this case pushes buttons for me. But that still doesn't explain why Durga brought that up in the context of a comment about Kim Roberts. I mean, what more can I say about using the AV's first name that one night? All of you who are so willing to accept, at face value, what the AV, or her family, or Kim, say about anything, will not take me at my word about my motivations that night. I guess I just need to accept that some never will, and move on. That is what I have tried to do, but Durga bringing it up, completely out of context, pushed one of those buttons. (Button still depressed) Re: the needling: if it was, and I will look it up, refresh my memory, ever think it was aimed, not so much at the AV, as at people on the board?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    PB:
    He doesn't seem like he's trying desparately to prove something.
    Well, even if we set aside the very valid point that Sharon just made about a father's natural bias, there is still the following to consider. He may be being completely honest in reporting exactly what he was told by his daughter, but logically you still cannot use any of his statements as evidence to confirm that she was being truthful, either in what she told him or in what she told the police. After all, if she didn't want him to know what she was doing that evening, she wouldn't tell him the truth, would she?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:26:38 PM EST
    Thanks Cym. Still not entirely sure how I'm doing it, a little of everyone's suggestions added together, and it works. Magic. But as I read a lot of the explanations, including yours, my eyes did glaze over in that Over 50, functionally computer illiterate way us old folks who are doing their best in the age of computers have. I hate feeling stupid, but I love being challenged, and I guess that's why I keep coming back here for the abuse: it reminds me of my older brothers, who would challenge what I said, how I said it, why I said it in every discussion my family had. As strongly as I want to be right about the accused in this case, I keep looking for what I have overlooked, keep looking for a way to be wrong about them and about what happened that night. I want to see what imho and PB have to say, because they make me THINK about by position, about my take on this case. There are others, who shall remain nameless. who make me think less and react more. Not a good thing to let one's emotions get in the way of a legal matter. I should know better.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#81)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:30:05 PM EST
    Sharon, why did Durga bring up that you mentioned the AV's name a couple of weeks ago? Because Durga drops by to score points. I would ignore him whenever he brings it up. Wait until he actually has something about the case to respond to his posts.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    I know, Bob, the high road and all that. But sometimes, sometimes it feels personal and I feel the need to react. I am reminded of what my mother used to tell me, when my older brothers were "picking on me." She told me, if you ignore them, they will stop. Yeah, right, easy for her to say, she wasn't the one hung by her heels over the laundry chute. But I will try not to let those who are vexatious to the spirit get to me. Back on point: I am still puzzled as to why Kim and the AV went back in, if what made them leave was that horrendous. The AV said she had already received her $400, so I doubt that the same was not true for Kim. What was the down side of simply driving away?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#83)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:48:10 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Thanks Cym. Still not entirely sure how I'm doing it, a little of everyone's suggestions added together, and it works. Magic.
    Sharon, I know you are trying to make peace [since you are the one who started all this trouble ;)], and I appreciate it, but Cymro is not going to to like that you even considered anyone's else's method. :(

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#84)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue May 30, 2006 at 08:50:16 PM EST
    SharonInJax:
    Yeah, right, easy for her to say, she wasn't the one hung by her heels over the laundry chute.
    hahahahaha

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: A Unified Defense (none / 0) (#85