home

Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions

By TChris, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Wed May 31, 2006 at 07:23:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

John McCann concluded a confusing opinion piece in the Durham Herald Sun with this:

The lacrosse boys brought it on themselves, though -- even if the accuser's lying.

Talk about blaming the victim. Maybe you can figure out how "the lacrosse boys" brought on a false accusation. McCann is incoherent on the subject.

Here's a rebuttal to McCann.

< NYC Grants Cut By Homeland Security | Death and the Fifth Circuit >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions | 243 comments (243 topical)
    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#1)
    by chew2 on Wed May 31, 2006 at 09:02:47 PM EST
    TL, I took a week off. But still the only commentaries you can find to link to on the Duke lacrosse case are from right wingers like Tom Bevan over at Real Clear Politics. Right winger Bevan trashed your boy Al Gore as the folks over at Daily Kos note. Gore's Jeddah Speech: A challenge to Tom Bevan of RCP
    Michelle Malkin hammered out a quick post entitled "Al Gore Slanders America" in which she linked to a bunch of other right-wing bloggers who said pretty much the same thing. Scott of Powerline accused Gore of "defame[ing] his country before a foreign audience for fun and profit." Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters asked : "We held mass roundups of Arabs? When? Where?" And my personal favorite was a post at RealClearPolitics [Tom Bevan] which framed the issue this way: "Now ask yourself: between the asinine comments of Gore and Coulter, who's done more harm to the cause of the United States?" RCP's answer: clearly Al Gore (For those of you who've been under a rock for the last week, Ann Coulter--while speaking at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)--commented "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences'").
    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:08:49 PM EST
    rogan:
    Non right-wing commentators are oh-so-politically-correct and aren't too eager to go on the record and risk getting slammed. That's why they don't write too much, thus they can't be cited. Hard to believe that many left wing commentators would privately agree with McCann--or would they???
    Is there an argument in here? If so, please rewrite to reveal what it is.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 10:45:07 PM EST
    Re: Altering date/time stamps in the photos w/o a trace. Let's not play legerdemain with the cameras, the flashcards and the photos -- and the computers. The ones that count are the ones that were taken into police custody 2 days after the party. Any manipulation -- that counts -- would have to have been done to the flashcards and the time settings on the cameras before that time. To suggest that the defense has manipulated that evidence -- without a trace -- is a virtual impossibility. (See details on previous thread: Post by 7duke4 May 31, 2006 09:58 PM) Anyone with a knowledge of Photoshop -- and some fairly good talent -- could alter the time/date stamp on the photos, but not necessarily without a trace. And definitely not without leaving massive traces -- including multiple whole, intact images -- of those alterations on the computer that modified the photos. Hard drives can be written over 35 times or more and the original image can still be retrieved. Some technology involving the use of an electron microscope has retrieved virtual hard drives from original ones burned in the world trade center fires. So actually the computers would have to have their whole hard drives replaced -- which also leaves traces. "No trace" is a pretty high standard for changing data undetected.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:02:32 PM EST
    McCann says:
    "that's what can happen when you don't keep your nose clean."
    Hmmm, does that apply to the AV as well? Inquiring minds want to know. Can we all go home now and forget about it all?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 31, 2006 at 11:35:23 PM EST
    From the article-
    Setting aside the fact that three young men stand accused of a crime that could cost them the better part of their lives behind bars,
    Supposing they'd get a conviction under any circumstances, "the better part of their lives" would be highly unlikely, buddy. I wonder if this guy actually read what he typed before he banged his head against the wall and sent it out. This seriously reminds me of when Chesycho did the "Nobody Can Play the Race-Card But Me" response article-
    As a result, this case is upsetting a whole host of traditional liberal stereotypes and tactics, not the least of which is a seemingly innate liberal reflex to attack white males as symbols of privilege and racial oppression whenever possible.
     Heh, I always find conservative preference-victimization hilarious: "this isn't about race, except how it's about race". Because its only important when its white men, otherwise it is political correctness.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#6)
    by azbballfan on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:39:45 AM EST
    7duke4 wrote:
    I work on computer operating systems and, believe me, this is a top subject of discussion at my company right now. The consensus right now is that the time and expertise involved to change all of these time stamps in place, with no trace of the change, would be difficult and time consuming for us, and we understand how to do this. A utility program would be needed for the specific camera, and I doubt that this type of utility has been developed for every potential camera's format. Our security experts are also doubtful concerning the time and effort to do this. If there was more than one camera, the difficulty of this would multiply.
    Try Adobe Photoshop Home Edition 3.0. Works great for changing timestamps. Again - those who think that camera makers and software makers are considering their photos being used as evidence when considering how easy they should make it to alter timestamps has been watching way too much CSI. What, do you think if Cannon doesn't protect the validity of it's cameras' timestamps using satellite technology that it will suddenly find itself liable in this case? Give me a break!

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#7)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:57:09 AM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    To suggest that the defense has manipulated that evidence -- without a trace -- is a virtual impossibility. (See details on previous thread: Post by 7duke4 May 31, 2006 09:58 PM)
    The photos I was talking about are not from the cameras seized during the search of 610 Buchanan. I was talking about the photos that are in the possession of the defense. SLOphoto posted:
    "No trace" is a pretty high standard for changing data undetected.
    Former FBI digital photo expert said if the average person altered the time stamps or sequence of the photos on a copy or even the original chip or disk from the camera, experts could detect it, but if someone knew what they were doing, they could change the time stamps and/or sequence of the photos without experts being able to detect the alterations.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 01:47:35 AM EST
    SloPhoto, You wrote:
    To suggest that the defense has manipulated that evidence -- without a trace -- is a virtual impossibility.
    It's a simple matter to make the original timestamp data unrecoverable. You just press erase and then fill the memory with other data. This may well have happened already to the best of the photos. Would it be easy to determine whether photos had been erased? Perhaps, if given the opportunity. But there's no reason to believe that that opportunity will be coming anytime soon. Under happier circumstances, the camera contents would have been saved, and the camera would have been turned over to the police for proper tagging and disposition, whether the victim was a poor black women or three middle and or upper class white students. Now the best we can say about the photographic evidence is that the information released about it is being strictly controlled by an adversarial party. We don't even know whether the time stamps being presented are a match for the timestamps found in the camera, or whether they have been interpolated in some direction or other for the purpose of making them more (or less) accurate. We can be sure that if an interpretation has been made, however, it has not been made in the direction that would prejudice this case against the defendants. Such manipulations do not require any tampering whatsoever. They only require favoritism on the attorneys representing the accused. It is the job of defense attorneys to exhibit such favoritism. The rest of us don't have that excuse.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 02:19:00 AM EST
    Posted by azbballfan May 31, 2006 01:11 PM
    The lacrosse team is basically a fraternity. 1/3 of the students of Duke are in fraternities and sororities. I come from the same background and joined a fraternity. First rule of a fraternity, watch your brothers' backs at all costs. You never tell your parents, girlfriend, or anyone what goes on in the house. The response of the players in the initial letter from the Captains and Dave Evans' staged press conference with his 'brothers from other mothers' standing up for him show behavior consistent with a conspiracy to hide the truth.
    azbballfan, You state the rule of fraternities is to never tell anyone what happens at the House and imply (in this and other posts) a massive conspiracy to hide the truth. You're also a Frat boy from a wealthy family and say that the "Lacrosse team is basically a fraternity". So, we can all can infer from your reasoning, that if a brutal gang rape occured at your frat house while you were there, you would have lied about it to the Police, family, freinds, etc... Nothing would have compelled you to do the right thing.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 02:57:32 AM EST
    Posted by Lora May 31, 2006 10:19 AM GSD, Thanks for the clarification of the search warrant vs. Bissey etc. I'll just compare the search warrant and Shelton's report: From the search warrant: As the two women got into a vehicle they were approached by one of the suspects. He appologized and requested they go back inside and continue to dance. Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated... From Shelton's write-up: She said that they left and got into "Nikki's" car. At that time, she said that someone from the party wanted them to come back into the house. She said that "Nikki" wanted to go back inside, but that she did not. She said that she and "Nikki" got into an arguement about going back inside. She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one forced her to have sex. She then mentioned that someone had taken her money. I guess I was leaning towards the possibility that the AV being pulled from the car and groped was a lead-up to the alleged rape/assaut. Now that I'm rereading both, they sound like two separate events. I still don't think the one precludes the other. If Kim was ready to return, thinking perhaps she could handle the crowd and perhaps get more tips, and the AV was reluctant, some of the partyers could have pulled the AV out of the car, not necessarily kicking and screaming. She was reluctant, but if Kim got out and went toward the house, she may have figured better to go where Kim goes rather than be left alone. Getting groped could have happened on the way to the house, as could the alleged robbery. If Kim is already at or in the house, what's she gonna do, try and go back to the car? She appears much less assertive than Kim and therefore would be much less likely to raise a fuss. If she was afraid, better to try to stick with Kim, who was not.
    Lora, My point about the original Search Warrant and Shelton's write up was that they were both based almost exclusively on the AV's statements. For Officer Himan, she went into detail about being pulled into the bathroom and raped in the house, but, only a request from one player and zero groping/dragging outside. For Sgt. Shelton, she told him she was pulled from the car by some guys and groped but no one forced her to have sex. Unless someone is lying, one does preclude the other, or both statements. Either the AV lied to Officer Himan or Sgt. Shelton, or both of them. Or, Officer Himan or Sgt. Shelton is lying, or both of them are. Take your pick. You also mentioned something about a "silent rape" scenario in your post. Just to be clear, I never made any suggestions about this, maybe you were responding to another poster?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 03:48:57 AM EST
    GSDFan, People talk about the unlikelihood of a coverup involving 40 people. They say such things as "what are the odds of 40 people keeping a secret?" Not a little secret, like the secret of who made the racist comment, or the secret of who was the guy with the wet spot. Those types of secrets are easily kept. I'm talking about a big secret, like a sexual assault. Could you actually find 40 people evil enough to coverup such a thing gathered in one place? At Duke, nonetheless? Only four people are alleged to have been in the bathroom together during the assault. So 37 people aren't actually even alleged to know what happened. They are keeping silent as a matter of policy. That's not a rare event, rape or no. Such policies are in place in hospitals around the country. Allegations regarding malpractice are common occurrences. Medical staff talking out of turn are not. That's true regardless of whether there was in fact malpractice. It's the reverse of the old poem about the Trade Unionists. ("When they came for the Trade Unionists, I didn't speak up. I was not a trade Unionists.") The new poem goes: When they came for the lacrosse players, I didn't speak up. I was a lacrosse player. When they came for the doctor I didn't speak up. I was a doctor. When they came for the politicians, I didn't speak up. I was a politician. And when they came for me, all my friends kept their mouths shut. Has anybody publicly claimed that the three defendants were not in the bathroom with the accused that evening? They should, if they want to appear credible. People might just start getting that sinking feeling if Nifong can show the defendants were in the bathroom with the accuser, no? rogan: In your treatise on "pseudo-science" you wrote: PB talks about believing the AV just in case it's true to prevent a "second rape". You must have missed 7Duke4's strident defense of the presumption of innocence. What does the presumption of innocence require? It doesn't require "believing" that a person is innocent. It simply requires "presuming" that they are innocent. It's an intellectual inquiry, not a faith-based one. I think you'll find, if you look back at my posts, that I spend most of my time "presuming" that the accuser is innocent, as opposed to "believing" that she is innocent. But correct me if I'm wrong. Real science is about falsification, after all. Nothing moves science forward quite so well as demonstrations that something is wrong.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:17:56 AM EST
    Has anybody publicly claimed that the three defendants were not in the bathroom with the accused that evening?
    PB, you have it backwards, the accused need prove nothing, it is the burden of the state to prove the substance of any allegations. you seem to do that a lot.
    Former FBI digital photo expert said if the average person altered the time stamps or sequence of the photos on a copy or even the original chip or disk from the camera, experts could detect it, but if someone knew what they were doing, they could change the time stamps and/or sequence of the photos without experts being able to detect the alterations.
    INHO, this could well explain why he's a former FBI photo expert, he's not able to tell the difference. true, you could use an application, such as adobe photo shop, to change the date/time stamp originally overlayed by the camera, and it would be nearly instantly detectable, to the naked eye of even a non-photo expert, much less a self-proclaimed former FBI photo expert. the reason is simple: all those apps leave a trail, and regardless of how good you are, the make-over is never going to be 100% compatible with the original. all you need do is compare a date/time stamped photo, known to have been taken by that camera, and compare the two. the difference will become strikingly obvious. i would assume the authorities ordered this comparitive anaylysis performed, but that's speculation on my part. as to the actual point of this thread, i was disappointed in both the editorial and the "rebuttal", both were poorly thought out and written. why am i reminded of the NCC student who's quoted as saying something along the lines of "they should be convicted, even if they did nothing"? the rebuttal wasn't much better, primarily consisting of the "woe is me, i am a wealthy white male, and i'm being put upon for no good reason" school of thought (and i use the term in its loosest sense). yeah, i'm impressed. unfortunately, this seems to be the true level that discourse on this subject has sunk to, they're just a common example. there is yet a year to go, before this is scheduled for trial. i bet one of two events occurs in the interim: 1. new evidence comes to light, causing a plea bargain by the accused., or 2. nifong quietly convinces the AV to drop the charges, and the whole thing disappears from the national radar. if #2, want to bet it happens during the mid-term elections, so as to keep it out of the limelight?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 06:45:57 AM EST
    Re: Wall of Silence, Cover-up, etc. If, in fact, there has been a cover-up by the lax players, wouldn't it seem likely that now is the time for it to break down? I don't know how many, if any, of the players are attending a summer session at Duke. But consider all of the guys who are now back home, in a totally different setting, with old friends, teammates, and family, away from their Duke "brothers." Is it likely that not a one of them will talk, will say that they saw something damning that night but won't or haven't told the authorities? Think, especially, about the ones who were freshman (or, one of my favorite "this is crazy" memories of Duke, when The Chronicle referred to us newly arrived students as "freshpersons") last year. Only one year removed from friends they had likely known for years, HS teammates whom they would likely feel closer to than they would to their new Duke teammates that they have only known for six months or so, and they won't have a moment of weakness, won't feel the stress of maintaining silence or lies, and say to someone from home "you can't tell anyone, but . . . "? The idea that none of the other 44 players has a conscience, a moral center, a sense of right and wrong, seems statistically and anecdotally improbable to me.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:08:07 AM EST
    I suppose it's in Kim's best interest to keep quiet for now, considering her probation violation hearings. But timing is everything and the timing of the publication of 2nd Dancer: The Only Sober in the Place is no exception. Will she write it herself or hire a ghost writer?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:08:50 AM EST
    Sober Person

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#16)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:13:09 AM EST
    cpinva posted:
    INHO, this could well explain why he's a former FBI photo expert, he's not able to tell the difference. true, you could use an application, such as adobe photo shop, to change the date/time stamp originally overlayed by the camera, and it would be nearly instantly detectable, to the naked eye of even a non-photo expert, much less a self-proclaimed former FBI photo expert.
    Jerry Richards is a retired chief of the FBI's special photographic unit. During his 20 year career with the FBI he specialized in document and photographic examination. He has worked or testified in cases involving John Walker, Jerry Whitworth, Jonathan Pollard, Ronald Pelton, and Rick Ames, as well as the O.J. Simpson civil case, and the John F. Kennedy/Marilyn Monroe forgery case. Richards owns Richards' Forensic Services in Laurel, Md., which examines questioned documents and photographs. He is available for consultation and expert witness testimony.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:28:44 AM EST
    McCann's column is both incoherent and despicable. We will see this over and over again as this case slowly disintegrates. This is exactly why I warned people on the Left not to conflate this case to anything more than what it is. You can believe in the inequality between rich white boys and poor black women, you can believe that men rape women, but if you make this case the symbol of your beliefs you're gonna take a big fall.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#18)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:32:41 AM EST
    rogan1313, As someone very much on the Left of things, I don't see this specific case is inherently Left or Right. That's all commentary after the fact. The case is about a gangrape accusation, and whether or not that accusation is true.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:42:50 AM EST
    Regarding the defense team intentionally changing times on photos and thus risking going to jail for falsifying evidence, To what end would they manipulate the timeline? Since Nifong has not announced his timeline, would the defense team juggle the pictures in order to show pictures no more than four or five minutes apart? If the defense attorneys have already said that the dancers were in the bathroom for a period of time, that time period would not have photos of the women. Nifong has access to those photos whenever he wants them. So why worry about the lawyers risking jail time to fake photo times?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#20)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:45:10 AM EST
    fillintheblanks, What would be the title of the AV's book? The Only Soper In The Place

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 07:46:25 AM EST
    Are there any photos between 12:03 & 12:30? If they were altering timestamps, why leave a 27 minute gap?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#22)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:05:04 AM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    If, in fact, there has been a cover-up by the lax players, wouldn't it seem likely that now is the time for it to break down?
    There has been a cover-up. Cheshire calls it "sticking together." Are they only covering up underage drinking, the indentities of the hurlers of racial slurs, and the gentleman who made the broomstick "joke?" [that'll be a "laugher" saved for his future wedding toast] Are they covering up a robbery, an attempted strangulation, or sexual assaults? SharonInJax posted:
    The idea that none of the other 44 players has a conscience, a moral center, a sense of right and wrong, seems statistically and anecdotally improbable to me.
    Not everyone at the party need know what everyone else did or did not do. If three were locked in the bathroom with her, they are the only ones that need know what did or did not happen in there. These three may not even be the three indicted players. Everyone else could believe they are remaining silent to prevent the "DA gone mad" from wrongly convicting their teammates and doing so is right and the moral thing to do.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:12:48 AM EST
    The ones screaming the most about morality are the ones you should protect your kids from. After all isn't it biblical that one should not remove the splinter from anothers eye until they remove the forest from theirs?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#24)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:18:50 AM EST
    markyb posted:
    Are there any photos between 12:03 & 12:30? If they were altering timestamps, why leave a 27 minute gap?
    There is a photo labeled 12:10 that shows a sleeping/passed out player. If they were altering the time stamps, what are their options? They can't make the dancing last 27 minutes, Kim knows that didn't happen.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#25)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:25:09 AM EST
    How about someone who is worrying about alteration of the timestamps propose a theory as to how manipulating the time would help the defense.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#26)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:32:38 AM EST
    Soper is old slang for soperific drugs. That is, "A medicine, drug, plant, or other agent that has the quality of inducing sleep; a narcotic." So when fillintheblanks suggested the title of Roberts' book as "The Only Sober [Person] In The Place," I thought the AV's book title could be "The Only Soper In The Place." I know it's criminal to explain your puns. I'll go back into my cell and remain quiet for awhile.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#27)
    by azbballfan on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:33:34 AM EST
    GSDfan wrote to me:
    You're also a Frat boy from a wealthy family and say that the "Lacrosse team is basically a fraternity". So, we can all can infer from your reasoning, that if a brutal gang rape occured at your frat house while you were there, you would have lied about it to the Police, family, freinds, etc... Nothing would have compelled you to do the right thing.
    I said I joined a fraternity once. I didn't stay. They recruited me to be on thier basketball team and promised I would be excluded from the hazing and other boorish behavior. They couldn't shield me or my real friends from the boorish behavior so I hastily quit. That being said, I am good friends with the members of my basketball team. If I were aware of any crime they committed, I wouldn't say a thing. If anyone invited me to a party with 14 other guys and two strippers, I'd politely decline because I know what goes on at those parties and wouldn't want to be a part of it.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:33:45 AM EST
    Bob, pretty simple actually. Smears the prosecution case in the court of public opinion and creates reasonable doubt for people to speculate. Of course if they are doctored and can be proven, defense gets killed on cross.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#29)
    by azbballfan on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:39:37 AM EST
    Sharon wrote:
    The idea that none of the other 44 players has a conscience, a moral center, a sense of right and wrong, seems statistically and anecdotally improbable to me.
    The players had their season cut short and continue to be railed in the press. Certainly it is a natural reaction to huddle together with others you identify with - other Duke lacrosse players. It is a real big stretch to think that a parent or girlfriend is going to break the trust of a player who does confide in them in order to get some attention from the press. Unless you're Linda Tripp.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:51:40 AM EST
    Druga wrote:
    Supposing they'd get a conviction under any circumstances, "the better part of their lives" would be highly unlikely, buddy.
    You ar right if he is referring to the length of the sentence, which I think it is 15 years sentence (may be longer in NC). Taking it to another level, perhaps the subconcious meaning is that the author views "the better part" of his life having been from 23 to 38. Durge Wrote:
    Heh, I always find conservative preference-victimization hilarious: "this isn't about race, except how it's about race". Because its only important when its white men, otherwise it is political correctness.
    Racism is a vicious circle. Any response to a claim of racism in and of itself is going to be viewed as a reverse racism. Here's a simplification of the circle of arguments.... A: It is racist. B: No it is not, you are a racist for claiming it. A: No. You are a racist for denying it. B: No. You are a racist for claiming I am in denial. A: No. You are a racist for claiming I'm a racist. B: You are a racist. A: You are a racist. Obviously, at one point in history, racism in the US was predominantly whites (gender neutral), those generations are dying off. The younger generations actually see a color neutral world because they are trying to stop this vicious cirle, but it continues regardless when they are accused of being racist or read comments like "they asked for it". They feel it is a historically based false accusation against them. So it goes on and on and on and on. We know where the starting point of racism is in the US. Where is the ending point? How do we stop it as a society? Or do we just keep complaining about it and say things like, "they got what they asked for....even if she is lying". This comment is not racial progress, but digression. No one who truly wants racial progress should stand behind this comment. I view this comment as derogatory to the black community, as in: if you sleep with a dog, you'll get fleas type attitude. If we, as a society want progress, all sides need to condemn wrongful statements and acts, and stop being self serving and selective with criticism at a political and racial levels. In sum: Our society has lost the concept of working for "the greater good". In all sincerity, I'm not picking a fight with you Durga, I actually want to understand your perspective in order to find the progressive solution beneficial to all. fyi - I am a democrat.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:53:10 AM EST
    az, shame on you. I've gone years without thinking of Linda Tripp.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 08:58:07 AM EST
    Soper is old slang for soperific drugs.
    Thanks, Bob in P, for explaining this. I was scratching my head.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#33)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    fillintheblanks, I refer you to the punk band, The Angry Samoans, and their song, "Gimme Soper."

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    [that'll be a "laugher" saved for his future wedding toast]
    You have no clue what you are talking about and are so off-base with stereotypes and assumptions like this. I have not read one comment on this blog that stereotypes the AV/FA's family or community. Only yours about the ARs'. Why do you feel the need to do so?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#35)
    by JK on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:09:01 AM EST
    Az said:
    If I were aware of any crime they committed, I wouldn't say a thing.
    Including rape?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:13:24 AM EST
    Lots of people seem willing to talk about modifying timestamps on photos on devices without knowing much about the devices in question. This seems rash, if the devices in question are camera phones, which, to the best of my knowledge use non-removable flash memory for recording pictures etc. Also, to the best of my knowledge, these phones use wear leveling techniques to increase the lifetimes of the flash memory chips, because there are limits to the number of erase cycles that blocks on any flash memory chip can undergo. Something like 250,000 to 1M are typical, I believe. The result of all this is that these devices leave the old blocks behind when files or metadata (ie, timestamps, names of files, etc) are modified. They are typically not erased until you have cycled through all the memory. This old data can be recovered and the sequence of operations can be reconstructed. It all depends on when you get your hands on the phone and the level of sophistication of the person making the modifications. Of course, the picture is different for real cameras with removable flash devices, because they tend to use the good old DOS FAT file system. In any event, I would think that lawyers would be very wary of corrupting evidence. Better to use a different line of defence than to risk the possibility of being disbarred for tampering with evidence.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#37)
    by azbballfan on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    jk
    Az said: "If I were aware of any crime they committed, I wouldn't say a thing." Including rape? You took this sentence out of context. I said that I wouldn't put myself in the position to be aware of a gang rape at a stripper party. I can't imagine any of my friends being accused of rape - some acquaintences maybe, but that's why they're just acquaintences, I don't want to know more about them than I have to. This is much more reasonable than wanting to find out if they did something so I could tattle on them. Why? Bob: Share your feelings with us, how does thinking about Linda Tripp make you feel? beenaround: I've posted twice before exactly how easy it is to change the metadata tags on pictures from digital cameras or camera phones using software that comes with every color printer sold. There's no reason why manufacturers care how easy it is to change this data. And who says the lawyers would know anything about manipulating the timestamps?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#38)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:35:35 AM EST
    The idea that none of the other 44 players has a conscience, a moral center, a sense of right and wrong, seems statistically and anecdotally improbable to me.
    Not to mention fear of being prosecuted for aiding and abetting. I, for one, find it easiest to believe that they're not coming forward with incriminating evidence simply because they're not aware of any. To me, it's not plausible that three men beat, strangled, and raped the AV in the bathroom of that house and yet that the 40-some others who were present were unaware that a struggle was going on. Nor is it plausible that members of the Duke lacrosse team with incriminating knowledge would all choose to withhold it at the risk of being tarred with collective guilt and prosecuted as accessories after the fact.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    abnnallfan says:
    beenaround: I've posted twice before exactly how easy it is to change the metadata tags on pictures from digital cameras or camera phones using software that comes with every color printer sold. There's no reason why manufacturers care how easy it is to change this data.
    And I am pointing out that such manipulation has a high likelyhood of being detectable in the case of camera phones. Sure, the phones present a USB Mass Storage interface that Windows understands and the utilities provided can manipulate, but they do not get to manipulate the actual blocks on the flash device. Forensic experts will know how to get the actual data stored on the flash chips and can see the deleted blocks.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:40:03 AM EST
    Kind of off-topic here, but I'm wondering what the statistics are for verdicts in cases where the defendent(s) doesn't take the stand. Anyone have a legal link?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    Excellent discussion about wear-leveling by beenaround. He is correct, that even if you do modify the timestamps with a typical user application - such as discussed earlier - the timestamps may appear to be changed. However, the real data is still visible on the flash if you know how to look. The issue is when you read a block, modify it and write it back, it doesn't go back in the same location, but is moved (in a very reproducible fashion) to a different block to prevent wearing out a block that may be modified more than others. I do disagree with one comment made, though:
    Of course, the picture is different for real cameras with removable flash devices, because they tend to use the good old DOS FAT file system.
    While you are correct that the DOS FAT filesystem does not do wear leveling, the writes to a 'physical block' are actually remapped by the removable flash device itself, to perform it's own wear leveling. That is why you shouldn't use a wear-leveling file structure on a removable flash device. So unless you are very good and can directly access the device (not very easy to do), there will be evidence of tampering.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#42)
    by JK on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 09:48:11 AM EST
    AZ: Thank you for your candid self-examination in response to my hypothetical question. I did not mean to suggest that any of your friends or teammates is the type of person who would commit rape. But imagine . . . You are at a party with your teammates. No strippers, but it is loud and there are lots of people. Three of your teammates walk out of the bathroom followed by a drunken, disheveled female student, who later claims she was raped. Do you speak up? If you would, why would you assume that the Duke LAX players would not? Now assume a different scenario. Assume you did not witness your teammates coming out the bathroom with the girl. She later claims rape, but you doubt her story and have no reason to believe it. During the party, you did hear one of the players (not the same as the accused) makes a drunk, racist joke. The accuser, as part of her narrative, mentions the joke to describe the atmosphere of the party. Do you volunteer the identity of the joke teller to the public or authorities? If you don't, is that a "cover up"?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    Re: "No trace" is a pretty high standard for changing data undetected.
    Former FBI digital photo expert ("Jerry Richards is a retired chief of the FBI's special photographic unit.") said if the average person altered the time stamps or sequence of the photos on a copy or even the original chip or disk from the camera, experts could detect it, but if someone knew what they were doing, they could change the time stamps and/or sequence of the photos without experts being able to detect the alteration.
    IMHO: We already went over this. Theoretically, "if" someone really knew what they were doing well enough to fool an electron microscope analysis, then yes, this is probably an accurate statement.
    It's a simple matter to make the original timestamp data unrecoverable. You just press erase and then fill the memory with other data.
    PB: In a word, "no." Please reread the Post by 7duke4 May 31, 2006 09:58 PM. :::sigh::: As was carefully explained, that is not a "simple matter." Briefly as was explained and only in part by 7duke4:
    A utility program would be needed for the specific camera, and I doubt that this type of utility has been developed for every potential camera's format.
    It appears that some posters here do not have a very good grasp on how electronic data is "stored" in "memory," let alone how that data is "written" or "erased." It is not as simple as saying "this is box 4B, is there a "1" or a "0" in it?" as 7duke4 patiently explained last night, and as I carefully explained -- in part -- early this morning.
    Try Adobe Photoshop Home Edition 3.0. Works great for changing timestamps.
    azbballfan: With no trace of the change? That was the original question. In a word the answer is "No."
    the reason is simple: all those apps leave a trail, and regardless of how good you are, the make-over is never going to be 100% compatible with the original. all you need do is compare a date/time stamped photo, known to have been taken by that camera, and compare the two. the difference will become strikingly obvious.
    cpinva: Thank you for adding this point. All applications do leave a trail. Assuming the images were auto-saved as JPEG files and not TIFFs then they were "compressed" using a mathematical averaging formula. Each time that JPEG is saved again, the formula is recomputed, and each of those "saves" leaves a trail.
    Posted by Bob In Pacifica: Regarding the defense team intentionally changing times on photos and thus risking going to jail for falsifying evidence...
    Yes, regardless of that obvious consideration, let me restate the original point -- again. "No trace" is a pretty high standard for changing data undetected.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:13:42 AM EST
    The result of all this is that these devices leave the old blocks behind when files or metadata (ie, timestamps, names of files, etc) are modified. They are typically not erased until you have cycled through all the memory. This old data can be recovered and the sequence of operations can be reconstructed. It all depends on when you get your hands on the phone and the level of sophistication of the person making the modifications.
    And thank you beenaround for adding that part of the explanation, too.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:16:52 AM EST
    While you are correct that the DOS FAT filesystem does not do wear leveling, the writes to a 'physical block' are actually remapped by the removable flash device itself, to perform it's own wear leveling.
    And thank you statistics101 for adding that further part of the clarificatrion, too.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#46)
    by JT on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:19:02 AM EST
    Or what about this scenerio. An investigation into an incident at you a party you attended has become a national story, that is clearly not going to go away. The DA askes you, not if you think a rape occured, or if there were any racial comments, or any of that stuff. He simply asks you if stripper entered a bathroom with any of the other party goers, at any point during the party. Do you stonewall? Maybe. Do you lie under oath? Maybe there are a few people that would, but most wouldn't. To find a couple dozen people that would be willing to do this is beyond probablity. I've been on teams and in a fraternity, but the only people I'd even think about lying under oath for is a blood relative -- and if it was to cover a brutal rape I'd feel pretty darn bad about it for the rest fo my life. This could be Nifong's ace in the hole -- he knows, under oath, he will be able to get some of the other party goers place LAX players in the bathroom with the stripper. But that is highly unlikely, considering the high priced defense's denial there's was any contact at all between the stripper and the three accused.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#47)
    by azbballfan on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    Slophoto and beenaround - sorry but your assertions about being able to analyze the integrity of the timestamps is wrong: 1) You presume that the defense allows the DA to analyze any electronic storage devices. The results of the search warrant searches clearly indicate that the players have removed all computers and electronic storage devices (save an iPod). 2) It is very easy to change timestamp data on pictures taken by cameraphones and cameras. Adobe Photoshop Home Edition 3.0 - it's a simple menu item. In fact, it allows you to adjust the time by a factor of minutes or hours. Until the original media devices can be analyzed by a crime lab, the timestamps are meaningless. Doesn't matter, because a standard USB cable allows someone to modify the original media. Besides, is anyone willing to bet whether or not the defense ever allows this? jk - Sorry, but I just can't put myself in the situation you ask me to. As I mentioned before, I quit a fraternity after they couldn't shield me from this type of boorish behavior. So trying to compare what I would do with those who attended the party doesn't make sense. Please note that it seems at least half the team decided not to stay around for the strippers.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    It appears that some posters here do not have a very good grasp on how electronic data is "stored" in "memory," let alone how that data is "written" or "erased." It is not as simple as saying "this is box 4B, is there a "1" or a "0" in it?" as 7duke4 patiently explained last night, and as I carefully explained -- in part -- early this morning.
    SLO, people believe what they want to believe. I think those that cling to the belief that the data could be (was, perhaps?) changed w/o detection - and thereby that the defense attorneys drastically tampered with what could be some of the most important evidence of all - are similar to the OJ juror who, when interviewed after the trial, said something along the lines of "DNA evidence? That's just stuff they said to try to confuse us. I don't believe in that stuff." So, no matter how many experts testify as to how you can't tamper with the data w/o detection, there will be just as many who say you can, and it'll be up to the jury to decide who to believe. My guess is, once a jury is subjected to hours of stuff like "wear" and "data blocks" and "leveling," etc., there eyes will glaze over and they'll revert to whatever believe they had when they arrived that day. I guess that goes for the jury at the defense attorney's trial as well - you know, the one where they're accused of tampering with evidence.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    azbball: It is a real big stretch to think that a parent or girlfriend is going to break the trust of a player who does confide in them in order to get some attention from the press. It is an even bigger, dare I say ENORMOUS stretch to think that a parent of an "innocent" player would not have him on the first plane to RDU. I hope that I have raised my children well enough that neither of them would even THINK about not coming forward if they knew something about a brutal rape. The moral turpitude such an attitude would represent would be shocking, not to mention stupid beyond belief. As if I, or any other parent of an innocent player would allow him to protect the kind of monster who could do what the AV says was done. Not a chance in hell. BTW, Bob: I believe it is "soporofic," from Latin having to do with sleep. imho: Are they only covering up underage drinking, the indentities of the hurlers of racial slurs, and the gentleman who made the broomstick "joke?" The "gentleman" who made the broomstick reference was identified by the AV, and as far as I know, there are no possible criminal charges for making such a comment, so even if the other players have not publicly named him, his identity has absolutely NOTHING to do with the charges against the Duke Three.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:38:06 AM EST
    I don't understand this Linda Tripp stuff. She was not vilified because she ratted out a sexual perpetrator. She was vilified because she ratted out a DEMOCRATIC president. If Linda Tripp ratted out George W. Bush she would be the hero of the media classes today. Likewise, someone who rats out the Duke lacrosse men will be a hero or heroine--maybe not in conservative Texas but certainly in liberal lands and grad schools like Wisconsin, Berkeley, etc. Strange how some of the same enlightened people who vilify the wall of silence had so little good to say about the Linda Tripps of the world.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:43:21 AM EST
    Re: the photos and the timing thereof (sorry: in lawyer land right now) It will be interesting to see if any of the other devices seized by the police have photos on them and, if so, if there are any similarities in the time stamps and the material in the pics. And there is still the captures of the times shown on the wristwatch(es) in the photos we've already seen.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#52)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:45:15 AM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    IMHO: We already went over this. Theoretically, "if" someone really knew what they were doing well enough to fool an electron microscope analysis, then yes, this is probably an accurate statement.
    The bottom line is an expert with better creditials than anyone that has posted here, so far, says it can be done without being detected. I think the defense has compromised the validity of their "photographic evidence" by not handing it over to the investigators.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:53:43 AM EST
    ...although it does not make sense that if the AR's planned in advance to hire and rape some dancers/hookers and escape prosecution for their actions (ie., use fake names and mustache) that they would also take pics of the event. Unless, of course, they were machiavellian enough to know in advance that their prospective defense attorneys would be able to tamper undetectably with the time stamps...

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    The bottom line is an expert with better creditials than anyone that has posted here, so far, says it can be done without being detected.
    Definitely it can be done, but a qualified expert. But the question is whether anyone on the lacross team (or their legal staff) is an expert in bit-banging the underyling data structures of a flash memory device. And each device is different, so to believe the theory that it has been done, you have to believe that the person was an expert across multiple memory types. This is like asking can we put a man on the moon. Yes, it can be done. Can I do it, can you do it, or can someone on the lacross team do it? Nah.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:03:46 AM EST
    imho:
    The bottom line is an expert with better creditials than anyone that has posted here, so far, says it can be done without being detected. I think the defense has compromised the validity of their "photographic evidence" by not handing it over to the investigators.
    1. Perhaps it can be done, but did not the expert say it would take another expert to do so? If the times were fiddled with, who did it? The players? A photo/computer/digital camera expert hired by one or more of the players? Someone hired by a defense attorney or attorneys? 2. Didn't the defense offer to show Nifong the pictures? Could he not have, as soon as he learned there were pictures, have subpoenaed the owner of the device to show up and bring the device? Or maybe it's like the AV's cell phone. (And those other phones, the exact number of which seems to fluctuate depending upon which discovery document is examined.)

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#56)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    IMHO wrote: [that'll be a "laugher" saved for his future wedding toast]
    Kalidoggie posted:
    You have no clue what you are talking about and are so off-base with stereotypes and assumptions like this.
    I have not read one comment on this blog that stereotypes the AV/FA's family or community. Only yours about the ARs'. Why do you feel the need to do so?
    Just more satire, Kali. You enjoyed the last one so much. Why doesn't the gentleman that made that remark come forward and apologize so every member of the team need not be under suspicion of saying such a vile remark? Why don't his teammates encourage him and the gentleman that made the base comment about his "cotton shirt" to apologize? Membership has its privileges and its pitfalls.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    gmta, statistics 101

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#58)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:09:46 AM EST
    SharonInJax and statistics101, I never said I thought they have done it or that they are planning on doing it. This is what I did say: imho posted:
    The bottom line is an expert with better creditials than anyone that has posted here, so far, says it can be done without being detected. I think the defense has compromised the validity of their "photographic evidence" by not handing it over to the investigators.
    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    I could be mistaken on this, but here it goes... If the defense wants to introduce the photographs as evidence (sans time stamps), they only need to produce the photographer who testifies that he did, in fact, take the pictures in question at the party in question. If, however, they wish to introduce the timestamps as accurate and critical, then I believe the phone itself (still assuming it was a camera phone) has to be introduced as evidence. The prosecutor is allowed to have experts examine the evidence (camera phone). Then he can assert that the timestamps are worthless. However, I imagine the defense has a chain of custody on the phone and its contents. Remember, it was mid-April (the 18th?) before the photos were released to the press. Their existance was widely reported for a couple of weeks before. I think the defense attorneys already had the camera (phone) examined by their own experts long before they released its contents.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#60)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    mik posted:
    However, I imagine the defense has a chain of custody on the phone and its contents. Remember, it was mid-April (the 18th?) before the photos were released to the press. Their existance was widely reported for a couple of weeks before. I think the defense attorneys already had the camera (phone) examined by their own experts long before they released its contents.
    REPEAT: I DO NOT THINK THEY DID THIS: They could have had an expert alter the data, THEN have another expert (oblivious to the first expert's tampering) verify the validity of the time stamps and sequence of the photos.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    Yup, they could, but the prosecutor gets to refute the evidence as worthless. Each side gets to present its opinion of the validity of the timestamps.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:37:56 AM EST
    imho posted:
    They could have had an expert alter the data, THEN have another expert (oblivious to the first expert's tampering) verify the validity of the time stamps and sequence of the photos.
    So, essentially, for Nifong's case to hold up, we have to assume in part that a host of the most prominent members of North Carolina bar "could have" chosen not simply to defend their clients--after all, they get paid whether they win or not--but to risk disbarment or worse. Moreover, we're to assume that they "could have" altered these time stamps knowing full well that Nifong possessed some photos of his own, seized from the house, that could easily expose any alteration of the timestamps. So, not only are they unethical and possibly criminal, but they're incredibly stupid. This scenario seems about as likely as the grand conspiracy between the cellphone company, the cabdriver, and Wachovia Bank to manufacture evidence that would provide Seliggman with an alibi.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Just more satire, Kali. You enjoyed the last one so much.
    1. Significant Distinction: I made fun at a hypothetical, non-existent player's California mom to illustrate the absurdity of your stereotypes. You made fun (and continue to make fun) at the ARs's actual mother and family. 2. Stay on point. The issue was about stereotyping the ARs family, not the comments by players (your tactic of deflection). So, I ask again, given that no one else on this blog stereotypes or satires the AV/FA's family (and if they did I'm sure you or others would be apoplectic), why do you feel it is justified to do so to the ARs family? Not fighting, just curious why. 3. I enjoyed your request for the website link. That was funny. FYI- www.IMHO.net and www.inmyhumbleopinion.com are available should you decide to go the "California mom" route. I do think some of your comments are very funny, but I wonder if the more poignant ones are indicative of your true perspective.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:43:38 AM EST
    Yup, they could, but the prosecutor gets to refute the evidence as worthless. Each side gets to present its opinion of the validity of the timestamps
    Photos or time stamps don't conflict with her story. I don't think the photos were altered even though defense had enough time and resources to find an expert if theoretically it can be done. I believe they reviewed the photos and got rid of the ones that would hurt their defense which explains why there is not any photo of dancers between 12:03-12:30. That is one of the many oddities of the night that makes the AV's story more believable.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    imho says:
    The bottom line is an expert with better creditials than anyone that has posted here, so far, says it can be done without being detected. I think the defense has compromised the validity of their "photographic evidence" by not handing it over to the investigators.
    Hmmm, who was this expert, and why do you think that those of us who work on code in devices that do this sort of thing (writing to flash and so forth) are less expert at this than some guy who worked in the FBI or wherever and has most likely never worked on a product and so knows nothing about how they actually work at a deep level and how they can be compromised?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    Hicht wrote:
    I believe they reviewed the photos and got rid of the ones that would hurt their defense which explains why there is not any photo of dancers between 12:03-12:30.
    If they introduce the camera (phone) itself, they cannot disregard pictures that help the prosecution. He will have access to the phone and can use any evidence he finds on it.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    Hicht writes:
    Yup, they could, but the prosecutor gets to refute the evidence as worthless. Each side gets to present its opinion of the validity of the timestamps
    Photos or time stamps don't conflict with her story. I don't think the photos were altered even though defense had enough time and resources to find an expert if theoretically it can be done. I believe they reviewed the photos and got rid of the ones that would hurt their defense which explains why there is not any photo of dancers between 12:03-12:30. That is one of the many oddities of the night that makes the AV's story more believable.
    Getting rid of photos involves erasing them. There will be evidence of tampering in your scenario. Moreover, to tamper with the evidence without leaving traces on the flash devices will involve, IMO, opening the back up and doing things that will leave other traces ... like reboot/reset time stamps in the internal logs of the phone.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    If they introduce the camera (phone) itself, they cannot disregard pictures that help the prosecution. He will have access to the phone and can use any evidence he finds on it
    They can delete the unwanted photos before giving the camera or phone.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    There are experts here with better technical knowledge than I have. When you "erase" a file, you do not delete ALL of the information. You only modify the beginning of the file so that the device doesn't recognize it as a file. The majority of the information is still there. In old DOS, there was an UNDELETE command. It would troll for such files and you could select which one you wanted to restore. It would rewrite the beginning of the file so the device could "find" it again. Flash memory is much more sophisticated, but the procedure is similar. Just "erasing" doesn't really "erase."

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#70)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    beenaround posted:
    Hmmm, who was this expert, and why do you think that those of us who work on code in devices that do this sort of thing (writing to flash and so forth) are less expert at this than some guy who worked in the FBI or wherever and has most likely never worked on a product and so knows nothing about how they actually work at a deep level and how they can be compromised?
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 1, 2006 08:13 AM Jerry Richards is a retired chief of the FBI's special photographic unit. During his 20 year career with the FBI he specialized in document and photographic examination. He has worked or testified in cases involving John Walker, Jerry Whitworth, Jonathan Pollard, Ronald Pelton, and Rick Ames, as well as the O.J. Simpson civil case, and the John F. Kennedy/Marilyn Monroe forgery case. Richards owns Richards' Forensic Services in Laurel, Md., which examines questioned documents and photographs. He is available for consultation and expert witness testimony

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:00:17 PM EST
    IMHO posted: The bottom line is an expert with better creditials than anyone that has posted here, so far, says it can be done without being detected.
    Yes, and he said that as a popular answer on a popular show for a popular audience. And in that sense his answer is true. As in, "Say Jerry, is the world flat or is it round." "Well, the experts agree that it is round." Actually, technically it's an oblate spheroid -- slightly egg shaped -- but "Jerry" isn't going to say that on a popular TV show. What was asked -- and what he answered -- was essentially, "Could a fairly talented crook fool an average "expert" working in a pretty good lab doing a standard set of tests on some typical pieces of evidence? And the popular answer to that popular question is "yes." It is not legitimate to read anything more sophisticated into his answer than that -- as several of the posters here with no small amount of expertise among themselves -- have explained in much more detailed specifics than Jerry Richards went into in his few minutes on as popular, prime-time TV show. And that is the bottom line. SUO: You are right, and I've decided simply not to reply to those posters who are in a technical discussion that is just way over their heads. statistics101: Exactly., thank you especially for the comment "you have to believe that the person was an expert across multiple memory types." And also for the example about the man on the moon. .... Nah. SharonInJax: Yes, #1, good questions. khartoum: Yes. That is a lot of assumptions.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:01:48 PM EST
    There are experts here with better technical knowledge than I have. When you "erase" a file, you do not delete ALL of the information. You only modify the beginning of the file so that the device doesn't recognize it as a file. The majority of the information is still there. In old DOS, there was an UNDELETE command. It would troll for such files and you could select which one you wanted to restore. It would rewrite the beginning of the file so the device could "find" it again. Flash memory is much more sophisticated, but the procedure is similar. Just "erasing" doesn't really "erase."
    So you are suggesting they are restorable. My cam doesn't have a undelete command neither cell phone. Is anyone knows any photos deleted from a cam or cell can be restored? and how?

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    And if they deleted any pictures, they don't need to worry about being traced that they have deleted some pictures. They can easily claim they deleted pictures of for example a player peeing outside. And you would buy that explaination easily.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:15:27 PM EST
    Yes, they are restorable. It is information that has been stored digiatally. Just because you don't have a restore command or button doesn't mean it can't be done. An expert can look at the code and, in many cases, restore it. The FBI has become adept at restoring deleted computer files. Cameras, phones, etc. don't necessarily run on software compatable with PCs. Each manufacturer or vendor probably uses proprietary software. Someone who is experienced with the particular make and model (like the people who wrote the code or software that controls the device), however, can look at the data and can see things that could have been changed or deleted.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    And yes, they might even be able to see what the deleted picture contained (whether it was public urination or a rape). Picture files are HUGE. The entire file is not "gone." In fact, most of it is still "there." The device can no longer find it because part of the code has changed (usually the name).

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:21:36 PM EST
    An expert can look at the code and, in many cases, restore it.
    What about the other cases? You did't seem very confident in your statement. Because you are not expert of that specific tool that photo was taken. Me neither.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#77)
    by january on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:24:46 PM EST
    For all you lovers of conspiracies out there....does anyone know of a case as high-profile as this one in which there was a conspiracy of 40+ people which remained consistent through the duration? I'm with Sharon on this one.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    You're right, I'm no expert. I also don't know the specific history of the device in question. However, I think it foolhardy to assert that defense attorneys can manipulate the evidence and not risk disbarment.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    However, I think it foolhardy to assert that defense attorneys can manipulate the evidence and not risk disbarment.
    Maybe one of the player deleted the photos even before the defense attorneys see it, or maybe the defense attorney with limited electronic knowledge deleted it without knowing the risk he is taking.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#80)
    by JK on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:32:44 PM EST
    To the criminal lawyers out there, if Nifong wanted to, could he not have already subpoenaed the phones or any other devices used to take pictures that evening? If he genuinely believed there was tampering with the evidence, wouldn't he want to do a forensic analysis as soon as possible? After all, if he could adduce evidence of tampering with the data, that would go a long way towards showing that a crime was being covered up. I think the reason he hasn't seized these devices yet is because he doesn't believe there has been any tampering and he would rather try to vaguely discredit the time stamps with an "anything is possible" kind of expert analysis rather than actually try to see if any real tampering occurred. Just my opinion.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 12:39:29 PM EST
    jk posted:
    I think the reason he hasn't seized these devices yet is because he doesn't believe there has been any tampering and he would rather try to vaguely discredit the time stamps with an "anything is possible" kind of expert analysis rather than actually try to see if any real tampering occurred.
    I don't think he needs to discredit the existing photos. I still question the non-existance of photos of dancers between 12:03-12:30. That is weird.

    Re: Today's Duke Lacrosse Opinions (none / 0) (#82)