home

Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:34:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Durham County DA Mike Nifong won the Democratic Primary but a write-in candidate has emerged.

A Durham lawyer and county commissioner is considering a write-in election campaign to try and unseat District Attorney Mike Nifong, the prosecutor overseeing the investigation of a rape accusation involving three members of the Duke University lacrosse team.....Commissioner Lewis Cheek said he has been recruited to challenge Nifong.

Also, the New York Times has a detailed article on the Duke case and Nifong today.

< Report: Pentagon Blocking Guantanamo Legal Mail | Supreme Court Expands Right to Challenge Lethal Injection Procedure >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger | 127 comments (127 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#1)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:55:10 AM EST
    In the closed-out thread, IMHO wrote:
    Woody might be a fibber or he might be relying on what he has learned about Mike Nifong over the past 25 years.
    When someone who clearly has a fairly-compelling self-interest in staying on the good side of a certain person in a position of authority says, in the context of statements to a press reporter made with permission to quote them and name the source, that he doesn't doubt the authority figure's sincerity, you can either 1) take it with a grain of salt or 2) swallow it hook, line, and sinker. YMMD, but I prefer 1).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#2)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    Actually, there isn't. The point made in the defense motion was simply that the affidavit that the prosecutor used to get a subpoena failed to mention that the attached police records show that Kim Pittman said certain things that are inconsistent with the account in the affidavit. The records indicate that she did, in fact, say those things.
    The defense attorneys have a lot more to lose or gain by what they say in their defense motion than Woody Vann does by staying on Nifongs good side. I see you went the "swallow it hook, line, and sinker" route with the defense motion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    From the N&O article on Lewis Cheek:
    Cheek would not identify who is recruiting him to run, but said it is not people connected to Duke or the lacrosse team.
    And
    "This is from people who live in Durham, and have been in Durham a long time, and are concerned about Durham," Cheek said. "They are not obsessed with the Duke case and they are not from the outside."
    I don't think Cheek lied, per se. It was probably the reporter that construed "not obsessed with the Duke case" into "not connected with Duke." One is a quote from Cheek and one is not.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#4)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:48:31 AM EST
    mik posted:
    I don't think Cheek lied, per se.
    I didn't say he did. I said Cheek might be a fibber.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#5)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:01:44 AM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    quoting noname:
    Lora is right, there is a discrepancy.
    Actually, there isn't. The point made in the defense motion was simply that the affidavit that the prosecutor used to get a subpoena failed to mention that the attached police records show that Kim Pittman said certain things that are inconsistent with the account in the affidavit. The records indicate that she did, in fact, say those things
    No, wumhenry. They clearly state exactly what Hinman omitted, but should have known from Ms. Pittman's handwritten statement and what they claim her written statement asserts. From the defense motion:
    Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that ________ never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once _______ got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;...
    The defense is using Hinman's knowledge of Ms. Pittman's handwritten statement to charge that he did not include exculpatory information, but they lie about what is in her statement. Kim's handwritten statement does not inform "the investigators that the accuser never went back in the house" nor does it say "once [the accuser] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there." Ms. Pittman's handwritten statement says she did not stay in the car. Lora is right. The defense lied in the motion. noname posted:
    IMHO - Are those of us who made the same mistake (until Lora rightly pointed it out) liars as well? I have always considered myself to be a fairly honest guy.
    noname posted:
    Lora is right, there is a discrepancy. It could be a lie, and it could be a careless error (one that a lot of us made here, as well). If it turns out the AV was mistaken in her IDs, are we going to say she lied too?
    I agree you are an honest guy. Many of us here have misread or misinterpreted something we have read about this case. When attorneys are writing motions they are held to a higher standard than commenters on blogs. These guys are not hacks. They are experienced lawyers that are being paid to be persuasive and to make sure the motion says what they want it to say. I think they did. They also misrepresented the content of Jarriel Johnson's statement. It is a lie that: From the defense motion:
    Had investigator Hinman bothered to interview Jarriel Johnson at the time ( a task the Durham Police Department did not accomplish until April 6, 2006), he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.
    Mr. Johnson's statement does not claim that, so how could the investigators have known that from interviewing him? This is a lie. noname posted:
    IMHO - If you are going to jump to the conclusion that the defense lied, could you please tell us why? What did they have to gain? I would at least like a plausible motive for why they would do this.
    The defense is asking the court to suppress and exclude all evidence obtained through the state's use of the Non-Testimonial Identification Order by claiming revelant impeaching information was omitted from the Application for the Non-Testimonial Identification Order. They have a huge motive to lie in this motion. ding7777 posted:
    Do you also believe that Hinman lied in his type written summary when he neglected to include Kim's "- forgot to mention..." statement?
    Hinman's omission did not benefit the prosecution's case, his neglecting to include Kim's "- forgot to mention..." statement hindered it. The defense lied about what that information stated. Hinman had no motive to omit a part of Kim's statement that is useful to the prosecution's case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:08:52 AM EST
    gee, i could be wrong here, but i suspect lying in a motion before the court, especially regarding information easily obtained and rebutted by the DA, would be grounds for an ethical violation, would it not? as well, it would be just plain stupid. of course, i'm an accountant, i just take the facts as they are, not try to fit them into what i want them to say. as to the question of why DA nifong continues to pursue a case which appears, on the surface, to be all but falling apart at the seams? simple, he's using other people's money. either that, or he has some bombshell he's successfully avoided having to turn over to the defense on discovery. anyone want to bet on #2?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#7)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:12:11 AM EST
    Speaking of lies and fibs, IMHO, if and when we learn for sure that the SANE examiner merely reported diffuse swelling of the vagina, will you admit that Nifong's line that she found "injuries consistent with rape" was highly misleading?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#8)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:21:15 AM EST
    cpinva wrote:
    as to the question of why DA nifong continues to pursue a case which appears, on the surface, to be all but falling apart at the seams? simple, he's using other people's money. either that, or he has some bombshell he's successfully avoided having to turn over to the defense on discovery. anyone want to bet on #2?
    Nifong's 25-year pal "Woody" Vann has a more plausible explanation in today's NYTimes article.
    lying in a motion before the court, especially regarding information easily obtained and rebutted by the DA, would be grounds for an ethical violation, would it not? as well, it would be just plain stupid.
    Right. Especially when the "lie" in question purports to paraphrase a written statement that is reproduced in full in an attachment to the motion!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#9)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:00:06 PM EST
    Right. Especially when the "lie" in question purports to paraphrase a written statement that is reproduced in full in an attachment to the motion!
    I agree, but there the lies are and there are the written statements that they claim contain the information. Read it and tell me they are not lying about what Kim's statement says and about what Jarriels's statement says. The statements do not state what the defense claims they do.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    IMHO:
    The defense is asking the court to suppress and exclude all evidence obtained through the state's use of the Non-Testimonial Identification Order by claiming relevant impeaching information was omitted from the Application for the Non-Testimonial Identification Order. They have a huge motive to lie in this motion.
    You are right. I had lost site of the declared purpose of the motion. I was only thinking of the written statement in terms of how it helped or hurt the prosecution's ability to prove the case. If the defense thinks this motion has a chance of being upheld (and is not just an excuse to leak information to the public), or even just thinks it is worthwhile to make Nifong look bad, than I can definitely see your point. Having been given a plausible motive, then, I have to consider the idea that the defense lied (although this doesn't mean it wasn't all a mistake). One problem I still have with the idea. Why would the defense tell a lie so easy to catch (it was caught on this blog after a brief time)? Thanks again for the clarification. Interesting to say the least.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:19:40 PM EST
    imho writes:
    there the lies are and there are the written statements that they claim contain the information.
    Here's the website for the ethics commission of the North Carolina State Bar. Given your conviction that the defense attorneys have violated a fundamental canon of legal ethics--can't get much more serious than "lying" in a court motion--I'd urge you to file an ethics complaint. Of course, specious ethics complaints can be subject to sanctions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#12)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    noname, I appreciate you can see what Lora and I are saying is true. Claims made in the defense motion are not supported by the very documents the defense is referencing as proof of their claims. It will be interesting to see anyone else can bring themselves to either admit it or refute it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#13)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    khartoum posted:
    Given your conviction that the defense attorneys have violated a fundamental canon of legal ethics--can't get much more serious than "lying" in a court motion--I'd urge you to file an ethics complaint.
    Can refute what I am saying?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:28:23 PM EST
    I haven't read the motions, but what you have to remember is that this case is as much about public percpetion as it is a stratight legal case. The defense not only wants to win on the merits, but they would also like to make perfectly clear to the public at large that their clients are innocent and the accuser and Nifong are liars. So in that context the motions make sense. Whatever is in the particular piece of paper that they cited, we know that Kim did tell the police that the accuser's rape story was a crock and that she was with her all but 5 minutes. And whatever happens to be in the particular piece of paper attached to the Jarriel motion, we know that Jarriel has gone on record saying that she prostitued herself to at least three men and had sex with him as well in the week prior to her claims of "rape". So these motions might just be cues for the media to get this information out there (and in that respect it seems to have worked).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    Can refute what I am saying?
    The defense made a mistake. Can you refute what I am saying?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#16)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:47:45 PM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one
    The defense made a mistake. Can you refute what I am saying?
    I count two in this motion, so far. Maybe someone should e-mail them so they can make corrections before the judge gets wind of their "errors." These aren't mere details. These "errors" are germain to their argument.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    IMHO - Just to clarify, I never said I agreed what you are saying is true (that the defense lied). It is certainly possible, however (and significantly more likely to me now that I understand their possible motive) . It is also possible, however, that the whole thing was a mistake. At this point I find myself trying to figure out which stupidity is more likely: 1. The defense made a stupid, obvious mistake in an important motion. 2. The defense told a stupid, obvious lie in an important motion. They should be embarrassed either way, but I still can't say for sure if they lied at this point.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#18)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    bogan444 posted:
    I haven't read the motions, but what you have to remember is that this case is as much about public percpetion as it is a stratight legal case. The defense not only wants to win on the merits, but they would also like to make perfectly clear to the public at large that their clients are innocent and the accuser and Nifong are liars. So in that context the motions make sense.
    You think it makes sense for the defense to lie in a motion in order to prove Nifong is a liar? I guess that works if you are good enough to get away with it, but something tells me Nifongs is going to be all over their lies and will take great pleasure in sticking it to Osborn. bogan444 posted:
    Whatever is in the particular piece of paper that they cited, we know that Kim did tell the police that the accuser's rape story was a crock and that she was with her all but 5 minutes.
    Those two statements are not what Lora and I cited as lies. bogan444 posted:
    And whatever happens to be in the particular piece of paper attached to the Jarriel motion, we know that Jarriel has gone on record saying that she prostitued herself to at least three men and had sex with him as well in the week prior to her claims of "rape".
    No. That is not what Mr. Johnson says in his statement, nonetheless the motion concerns the accuser's sexual activities from March 10 through March 12, 2006. Mr. Johnson does not claim she had sex with anyone, including himself, in the time period. bogan444 posted:
    So these motions might just be cues for the media to get this information out there (and in that respect it seems to have worked).
    Ah, yes, it worked - the pigeons are gobbling up the popcorn, but this is not a press conference - this a motion filed in Superior Court. Let's see if they get away with it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    imho said:
    Can refute what I am saying?
    You seem to have a remarkably flexible definition of what constitutes having "lied," a standard by which virtually everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of "lying." As I said, since you're so certain of this very serious claim--and it's an issue that gets to the heart of our legal system--I'd strongly urge you to file a complaint with the NC Bar. One need not be a resident of North Carolina or a member of the bar to do so, and if you believe you've established that defense attorneys have out-and-out "lied"--to a judge, no less!--it seems to me you'd have a civic obligation to file a complaint. Of course, if you're simply making rhetorical points, perhaps it would be better, as I interpret your previous email, to do nothing other than make accusations upon which you're not going to act.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#20)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:12:47 PM EST
    noname posted:
    IMHO -
    Just to clarify, I never said I agreed what you are saying is true (that the defense lied). It is certainly possible, however (and significantly more likely to me now that I understand their possible motive) . It is also possible, however, that the whole thing was a mistake. At this point I find myself trying to figure out which stupidity is more likely:
    1. The defense made a stupid, obvious mistake in an important motion.
    I count two obvious mistakes. So obvious they should be corrected by now, no?
    2. The defense told a stupid, obvious lie in an important motion.
    They should be embarrassed either way, but I still can't say for sure if they lied at this point.
    Let's see if they correct the obvious "discrepancies" before Nifong does it for them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#21)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    khartoum posted:
    imho said:
    Can refute what I am saying?
    You seem to have a remarkably flexible definition of what constitutes having "lied," a standard by which virtually everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of "lying." As I said, since you're so certain of this very serious claim--and it's an issue that gets to the heart of our legal system--I'd strongly urge you to file a complaint with the NC Bar. One need not be a resident of North Carolina or a member of the bar to do so, and if you believe you've established that defense attorneys have out-and-out "lied"--to a judge, no less!--it seems to me you'd have a civic obligation to file a complaint.
    Of course, if you're simply making rhetorical points, perhaps it would be better, as I interpret your previous email, to do nothing other than make accusations upon which you're not going to act.
    I'll take that as a "No."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#22)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:19:56 PM EST
    One problem I still have with the idea. Why would the defense tell a lie so easy to catch (it was caught on this blog after a brief time)?
    Why, indeed. More precisely, how likely is it that they would deliberately mispresent something that a witness said in a written statement that they provided a complete copy of in the same filing? Not very.
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion
    Especially when the "lie" in question purports to paraphrase a written statement that is reproduced in full in an attachment to the motion!
    I agree, but there the lies are and there are the written statements that they claim contain the information. Read it and tell me they are not lying about what Kim's statement says and about what Jarriels's statement says.
    I read it, and, for the obvious reason stated above, I don't think they were lying. As for the supposed mystery of how an experienced lawyer could make such mistakes, bear in mind that the motion points out *many* discrepancies between the police reports, medical reports, and witness statements and the factual assertions in the prosecution's affidavit, and the points where the motion gets it wrong are relatively small potatoes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#23)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    Let's see if they correct the obvious "discrepancies" before Nifong does it for them.
    The worst discrepancies that have come to light are the discrepancies between the affidavit that Nifong used to get a subpoena and the records on which they were allegedly based (which Nifong did not *not* file along with the affidavit). Evidently, IMHO prefers not to talk about those.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:36:48 PM EST
    IMHO:
    Let's see if they correct the obvious "discrepancies" before Nifong does it for them.
    That will be interesting. If it is a mistake, it is almost impossible for me to believe they have not caught it by now. If they were to try to correct it, what would be the procedure? Would they have to publicly file a correction, or would they just have to notify the judge (I have no idea how these sorts of procedures work)?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#25)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:42:17 PM EST
    If it was me, I'd file a supplemental statement acknowledging the error(s), to deprive Nifong of the opportunity to distract attention from his own, more egregious misstatements.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:45:14 PM EST
    Thanks, wumhenry. So it would have to be a public process?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#27)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:56:04 PM EST
    I assume that ex parte rules would preclude them from making a correction in private without letting Nifong in on it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:56:35 PM EST
    Lora is right. The defense lied in the motion.
    I'm having a hard time figuring out how to explain the legal requirements and practices regarding motions before the court. If you read the prefatory language, paragraph 2, of the Affidavit of Counsel portion of the motion, you will find this: "The following facts are stated on information and belief obtained from supporting affidavits to previously filed motions, investigation and other documentary evidence obtained in this matter, including the 1278 pages of discovery provided to the Defendant by the State on May 18, 2006." (Emphasis supplied.) A motion is not a recitation of facts that are uncontrovertible: it is not an unbiased presentation of facts. It is a partisan statement by the defense attorney of what he believes the facts to be, what he believes the evidence will show. It is, to use the word everyone loves to use and hates to see, "spin" by its very nature. Put another way, it is the interpretation of facts by an advocate. It is a statment of what the advocate believes the evidence, (all of the evidence the defense has at this timeand not just the discovery documents and not even just the attached documents) will show. It is NOT, in and of itself, evidence of ANYTHING. Now it is up to the advocate for the opposing side, the prosecutor, to show the judge why the defense interpretation of the evidence is wrong, how the points raised in the motion misstate or misinterpret the evidence, how it is an unfair reading of the evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#29)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:00:07 PM EST
    BTW, I don't agree with IMHO that they misrepresented the gist of the driver's testimony.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#30)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:03:46 PM EST
    Sharon, I think your point is right on with respect to the motion's interpretation of the driver's statement, but IMO they slipped into outright error, on a couple of points, when summarizing Kim's statement. (Though I didn't catch that at first even when Lora pointed it out.)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    I count two in this motion, so far. Maybe someone should e-mail them so they can make corrections before the judge gets wind of their "errors." These aren't mere details. These "errors" are germain to their argument.
    I'll take that as a "No."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#32)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    Sharon, Thank you for providing your source for the timeline including Bissey's observations in the previous thread. It is unclear to me who created it and it is not attributed per se to Bissey as far as I can see. I'd say there is some leeway there, without more details. I apologize for not including my link for Bissey's interview (I was timed out and forgot to put it in again): here is is now. re: the veracity of the motion: If the motion does not have to be an incontrovertible statement of fact, it seems to me that this answers noname's question about why they would put false statements into their motion (and they did; there are false statements contained within that imho and I discovered). The answer is: because they can! It's allowed. Clearly they aren't going to put anything too egregious in there because folks would be all over them. They had to be more subtle to get away with it as long as possible. There are still some folks here who don't believe that they misrepresented any facts, so they have been quite successful. That would mean there are no ethics violations, because if they state that it was their belief, as Sharon pointed out, technically nobody can accuse them of lying. They get to misstate, spin, lie all they want and it is perfectly legal. They didn't fool me and imho. They really did lie, or at the very least, they attributed things to written documents that were not contained within them. They've done this all along, in motions and most everywhere else, as far as I recall.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#33)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:29:55 PM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    Sharon, I think your point is right on with respect to the motion's interpretation of the driver's statement, but IMO they slipped into outright error, on a couple of points, when summarizing Kim's statement. (Though I didn't catch that at first even when Lora pointed it out.)
    I agree their outright errors concerning what they said Ms. Pittman's statement asserts are more obvious than what they say Mr. Johnson's statement asserts, but they are also outright wrong about what Mr.Johnson says in his statement. from the motion:
    he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.
    Mr. Johnson does not say that in his statement. He does not state she was sexually involved with any men that weekend. wunhenry posted:
    BTW, I don't agree with IMHO that they misrepresented the gist of the driver's testimony.
    The gist of his statement does not have her "involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:32:01 PM EST
    I love it. Certain incredibly gifted posters on this blog have found tremendous, "LIES," not mere inaccuracies, transcription errors, on the part of those two defense attorneys representing the horrible Duke students who raped that fine, upstanding memeber of the community and dedicated mother of two. All the more fantastic is that these "LIES" would be published in a sworn affidavit with supporting documents that reveal the very LIES. It will be most revealing then, for these gifted posters, to study the typed notes of officer Himan that are attached to the very same motion/affidavit in support of motion to suppress. In that Himan summary of Kim Robert's testimony, officer Himan also "LIES" insofar as he neglects to mention any Robert's testimony that Precious went back in the house after coming to Robert's car. I guess he just missed the "add-on" Robert's statement at the end of her handwritten statement. Or, perhaps, he was summarizing a different interview he had with Robert's before she committed to writing her story. Anyway, it doesn't matter because those rotten defense attorneys cite BOTH the handwritten statement of Robert's AND the typewritten summary of Himan in their sworn affidavit. As to the second sordid "LIE" about defense attorneys misquoting Mr. Johnson, because he never observed what was going on in the hotel rooms, now that has got to be the best one I have ever heard. It takes a real creative thinker to find a LIE there. I suppose that if the following facts were known: 1. a woman works for a cleaning agency; 2. her "driver" drives her to a dirty house to clean and watches her go in with cleaning supplies and a mop; 3. the driver waits in the car for her to return; 4. the driver observes the cleaning woman coming out of the house some time later; THAT it would be a LIE to state that the woman cleaned the house. BTW, why do people in postings feel compelled always state that "in my opinion," "this is just my opinion," etc., don't ya think everyone knows that? I mean who else's opinion could it be that you are writing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    I don't know that the defense is wrong in maintaining that AV never re-entered the house: Here's one interpretation -- AV came out, then tried to return to the house, but the boys didn't let her in. True, the defense motion is still wrong in saying the AV stayed in the car once she got there. But that's a minor point considering the issue is whether there was another opportunity for a rape to occur, and nobody's saying it occurred on the porch steps.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#36)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one posted:
    The defense made a mistake. Can you refute what I am saying?
    Three mistakes? If these are unintentional errors, they are a sorry *ss couple of defense attorneys. Can I prove they are not liars, just merely very shoddy practioners of law? You are right, I'd have to say, "No."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#37)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:41:04 PM EST
    michiganmom posted:
    I don't know that the defense is wrong in maintaining that AV never re-entered the house: Here's one interpretation -- AV came out, then tried to return to the house, but the boys didn't let her in.
    Here is what they state in the motion:
    Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that ________ never went back in the house.
    Ms. Pittman does not say that in the statement they are using to support that claim. michiganmom posted:
    True, the defense motion is still wrong in saying the AV stayed in the car once she got there. But that's a minor point considering the issue is whether there was another opportunity for a rape to occur, and nobody's saying it occurred on the porch steps.
    Huh? If she did stay in the car she would have to have been raped in the car as opposed to in the house or on the porch steps.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    IMHO, my point is that if AV tried to get into the house and failed, there wasn't an opportunity for a rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:49:08 PM EST
    Re: The driver's statement: I think that "involved in a sexual manner" is a broad enough statement that it could cover any number of possibilities, up to and including intercourse. If, for example, she performed a "show" using a "device" in a sexual manner for at least two observers, then I would argue that she was involved, in a sexual manner, with both of them. She might not have slept with them, but I don't think it makes the characterization a lie. Same goes for her other dates, even if they were strip shows or sex toy shows--it's involvement in a sexual manner, which means it opens up the window for people other than those at the LAX party to have had contact with her that could have caused her injuries.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#40)
    by weezie on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    Newport, I like the way you think!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#41)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:58:11 PM EST
    1. a woman works for a cleaning agency; 2. her "driver" drives her to a dirty house to clean and watches her go in with cleaning supplies and a mop; 3. the driver waits in the car for her to return; 4. the driver observes the cleaning woman coming out of the house some time later; THAT it would be a LIE to state that the woman cleaned the house.
    If this was Jarriel Johnson's statement and the defense attorneys said had Investigator Hinman interviewed Mr. Johnson he would have discovered sooner that [the cleaning woman] was involved in some sexual manner while she was in that house, yes that would be a lie [btw, yes, it would also be a lie if they said Hinman would have discovered she cleaned the house, heck Johnson wouldn't even know if the house was dirty when she got there.] It's not about what Jarriel knows or doesn't know happened in that dirty house, it's about what Investigator Hinman would have discovered had he read Jarriel's statement. The defense motion lies about what is in that statement.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:58:52 PM EST
    I really don't get the questions regarding what Precious does for a living and I think that calling Johnson her "driver" is really amazing. Why is everyone afraid to state the obvious: Precious is a prositute that trolls strip clubs for clients and Johnson is her pimp. Why can't we say that? Not PC enough, so he becomes the "driver." Why wasn't he hauled in and arrested when the Durham PD had him and his statement. Surely, they could have squeezed a little payment information out of him if they tried. Is pimping allowed in Durham? Precious admitted that she did one on one dates in her very first and only interview in the News and Observer. The Johnson statement details a couple days in the life of a hooker and pimp. Do you think Johnson is just a friend that likes to sit around in his car all day waiting for Precious to come in from her appointments. Don't you think that he's got to be getting paid? How does Precious find time to attend to her studies with her busy schedule?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    Please disregard Newport's suggestion you stop using "in my opinion" in your comments. This makes it clear you are stating your interpretation of the facts. The jury, should the case get that far, will decide the facts.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#44)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:05:03 PM EST
    BTW, speaking of emailing people errors for correction, anyone care to hazard a guess as to why I never heard back from abc11 after emailing them twice (once to the author of the story, and once to the news team) reporting two errors of fact in the story about the AV's changed story, featured on TL's thread of May 28. The story referenced Joe Cheshire's motion, interestingly enough. The errors were reporting that the AV told Shelton she was dragged into the bedroom (he wrote bathroom), and reporting that neither woman told him that Kim had danced that night (he wrote that the AV had told him that both of them performed). More disinformation? Did they not bother to answer me or correct their story because they didn't want to make Cheshire out to be a, um, mis-stater? Do they just not care if their story contains inaccuracies? Or do they want to preserve the illusion that the AV appears to have been more inconsistent than she actually was?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#45)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:06:35 PM EST
    michiganmom posted:
    IMHO, my point is that if AV tried to get into the house and failed, there wasn't an opportunity for a rape.
    The defense motion states:
    Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that ________ never went back in the house.
    Ms. Pittman does not say that in the statement they are using to support that claim. That's what I'm taliking about here, but I'll go where you're going. If Kim never went back in she doesn't know if the accuser got back in or not. It is the defense that claimed the accuser went back in: Newsweek April 24, 2006
    The women go out to the second stripper's car at about 12:20, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    OK IMHO, you win re Johnson's statement. It was a big fat LIE to state the obvious implication of Johnson's statement in a pleading. I guess we will never be able to prove to your satisfaction that Precious had sex with her clients in those hotel rooms. Why don't you report that big LIE to the state bar and see what they say?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    TL, is the jury posting on here?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:26:34 PM EST
    Indeed, imho consistently claims to have uncovered multiple "lies"--yet has given no indication of a willingness to report these lies to the state bar. How curious. As to whether anyone could "refute" imho's claim of defense "lies," I would submit, as I said above, that it would be impossible, since on this issue the definition of "lie" seems to be disagreeing with imho. As Sharon pointed out in her post, the defense motion is based on "The following facts are stated on information and belief obtained from supporting affidavits to previously filed motions, investigation and other documentary evidence obtained in this matter, including the 1278 pages of discovery provided to the Defendant by the State on May 18, 2006." If the defense says that's it's offering its belief of events, it certainly isn't "lying." If imho is unwilling to report these stunning violations--"lies" by defense attorneys to the judge!--to the state bar, it makes it hard to believe that even imho really believes the defense "lied." But it certainly makes for a nice rhetorical flourish, instead of stating, "I disagree with the defense motion, and believe that Nifong's in the right on this question."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    I must respectfully disagree with Sharon who states that the defense is stating their belief of the events in that paragraph in question. All they are doing is pointing out that the search warrant affiant didn't include the full story. They complain that the affiant can not pick and choose which parts of an inconsistent story to present to a neutral magistrate to obtain a warrant. Selective inclusion is what they are challenging and they make a compelling case by pointing out that Himan's notes on Robert's testimony do not include anything about Precious going back in the house. They are not stating their belief there at all, they are stating what the very documents show.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#50)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:43:36 PM EST
    The assertion that according to Kim's written statement the AV never went back into the house is a natural inference from her statement that it was she, Kim, not the AV, who went back in the house to look for the AV's bag, her statement that she locked the AV in the car while going on that errand, and her following statements that relate details of conversation she had with the AV in the car after returning from the search mission and then mentions driving away with the AV to the grocery store. Only in a corrective note thrown in as an afterthought a couple of pages later -- which, BTW, Himan apparently overlooked, too; it's not mentioned in his summary -- does Kim say that the AV did go back in after coming out to the car. Nothing in Kim Pittman's written statement contradicts her reported statement to Himan that she was not separated from the AV for more than 5 minutes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:48:26 PM EST
    Kartoum, The facts are that in this motion the defense said that the written statements of Kim and Johnson contained certain items that were not there. They lied about it. Or, to be generous, they misstated what Kim and Johnson actually wrote. At least three times. It's important because this sort of thing has been done all along in this case. It serves to paint the AV in a highly negative manner, by making up "facts," as in: didn't leave the car, didn't return to the house, engaged in a sexual manner, etc. Not only did they make up these "facts," they attributed them to being in statements made by people who never wrote those things!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#52)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:51:04 PM EST
    Medical records don't lie!
    -"Lisa Pinto, former prosecutor," quoted in transcript of 3/31 Rita Cosby show Yeah, but it seems that a prosecutor can lie about their content.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:59:35 PM EST
    Newport, et al:
    I guess we will never be able to prove to your satisfaction that Precious had sex with her clients in those hotel rooms.
    The motion the defense filed does not say that ___ had sex with men. It states that she "was involved in some sexual manner" with her clients. Removing one's clothing in a sexually provocative manner is "some sexual manner." Only ___ and her "clients" or "dates" will know what occurred behind closed doors.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    wumhenry says:
    does Kim say that the AV did go back in after coming out to the car
    Actually, I think you are going beyond Pittman's statement here. She says/implies that the AV went back to the house, but says nothing about the AV going back in[to] the house. Pittman's written statements about this are on the pages with handwritten numbers 10 and 11 (PDF pages 20 and 21).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:05:03 PM EST
    I sure hope those boys don't get IMHO and Laura on their jury or they're toast for all the lying their attorneys are doing. Just goes to show you the absolute need for a fair and impartial DA to weed out the wheat from the chaff. If you let a case, no matter how much it stinks, and this one has a really strong stench, go to a jury, you never know what will happen. This is especially true in a case where alleged victim and alleged accuser are of different races. The best those boys can hope for if this mess goes to trial is a hung jury and that is the reason that Nifong is so genuinely evil. That he would ruin three boys lives and tar and feather a great university for his own pathetic need to get reelected is beyond reprehensible. He is the real villan in his case and because he is pandering to a community that likely will never believe that the boy's are innocent no matter what the evidence, he will come out of this just fine. He's very courageouse and their hero. And he's not going to back down because of his stupidity, stubbornness, and oversized ego. I hope IMHO and Laura are never falsely accused.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:11:40 PM EST
    Thanks, Milk, you are correct. I was being less charitable than the defense. I was just stating MY OPINION that a prostitute going to a hotel room with her pimp waiting outside for a "date" was going to have sex. Since I have never been in such a situation myself, and since I have not been around such people as would be involved in said situation, maybe I am just being naive. Heck, maybe she did just dance for the older gentleman. NOT!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:29:42 PM EST
    Why doesn't someone talk about how Nifong LIED! How Nifong said she was choked and beaten and demonstrated the choking on national TV. There is no evidence of choking and the FA said she wasn't choked. How about the anal rape? Guess what, no evidence of that in the medical report and FA said only vaginal rape. Or how about the biggest lie of Nifong of all, the part about FA suffered injuries consistent with rape according to the SANE nurse. Neither the SANE nurse nor the doctors said any such thing. And that is in the documents, no lawyer is making that up. So let's talk about how NIFONG LIED and how the FA LIED, not some specious, other worldly, argument that defense attorneys lied.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#58)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:47:22 PM EST
    mik posted:
    The motion the defense filed does not say that ___ had sex with men. It states that she "was involved in some sexual manner" with her clients. Removing one's clothing in a sexually provocative manner is "some sexual manner." Only ___ and her "clients" or "dates" will know what occurred behind closed doors.
    Actually it says:
    Had investigator Hinman bothered to interview Jarriel Johnson at the time ( a task the Durham Police Department did not accomplish until April 6, 2006), he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.
    Jarriel's statement mentions one man. The "older gentleman" the accuser said "wants to see her perform." Investigator Hinman could not possibly discover the accuser did anything with "at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006" from Jarriel's statement. The defense lied about the content of Jarriel's statement.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    No, she was just there for help with her studies.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#60)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Why doesn't someone talk about how Nifong LIED! How Nifong said she was choked and beaten and demonstrated the choking on national TV. There is no evidence of choking and the FA said she wasn't choked.
    How about the anal rape? Guess what, no evidence of that in the medical report and FA said only vaginal rape.
    Or how about the biggest lie of Nifong of all, the part about FA suffered injuries consistent with rape according to the SANE nurse. Neither the SANE nurse nor the doctors said any such thing. And that is in the documents, no lawyer is making that up.
    So let's talk about how NIFONG LIED and how the FA LIED, not some specious, other worldly, argument that defense attorneys lied.
    If the defense would release the documents, I would be happy to talk about any lies the prosecution has told. I think it has been clearly demonstrated that we can't rely on the defense ...[what word did Sharon use? Spin?] We obviously can't rely on the information provided by the defense in their motions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:01:26 PM EST
    Sharon is wrong. Defense attorneys do not spin in sworn affidavits or they risk losing their license, and no client no matter how innocent is worth that. Defense attorneys state facts, backed up by citations of record in sworn affidavits. Attorneys may make arguments based on cited facts in sworn affidavits (technically not the way to go) but the arguments are always easily distinguishable from the facts which have citations of record.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:07:56 PM EST
    IMHO, so I guess you are just waiting for the medical report to be released to the public to pronounce the case a "crock" and demand justice for those Duke boys. Heads must roll. How convenient. Somehow, I doubt that even if the Holy Father came down from heaven and appeared before you and said, "you know what IMHO, a rape never occurred and those boys have been terribly put upon by a corrupt DA and complicit police department and you must strike out for justice in this case," that you would parse this statement and find that somebody committed an abhorent LIE. And then you would tell Laura about it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#63)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    No, she was just there for help with her studies.
    Newport, It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, or even knows the accuser was doing in the hotel rooms. The defense claims Himan would discover that the accuser "was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006," by reading Jarriel's statement. It's not there. What's even odder is Jarriel's statement was taken AFTER Hinman's probable cause affidavit. What the defense is arguing is if Hinman had interviewed Jarriel sooner, he would have discovered something that is not even contained in the statement Jarriel did make later. hahahaha

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#64)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    Sharon is wrong. Defense attorneys do not spin in sworn affidavits or they risk losing their license, and no client no matter how innocent is worth that. Defense attorneys state facts, backed up by citations of record in sworn affidavits. Attorneys may make arguments based on cited facts in sworn affidavits (technically not the way to go) but the arguments are always easily distinguishable from the facts which have citations of record.
    That's not what happened here. Read the motion. Read what the defense is claiming. Read the statements they cite as supporting their claims. They don't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#65)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    if the Holy Father came down from heaven and appeared before you and said, "you know what IMHO, a rape never occurred and those boys have been terribly put upon by a corrupt DA and complicit police department and you must strike out for justice in this case,"
    If the Holy Father testified, do you think he'd have to swear on the Bible?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#66)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Heck, maybe she did just dance for the older gentleman. NOT!
    The defense is probably looking for this old guy. He'll be a "big" hero when he testifies his manhood is the cause of her v*ginal swelling.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#67)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    Medical records don't lie!
    -"Lisa Pinto, former prosecutor," quoted in transcript of 3/31 Rita Cosby show
    Yeah, but it seems that a prosecutor can lie about their content.
    wumhenry, To your credit, you agreed the defense attorneys have made statements in their motion that are not true. And this is what they are telling us. Do you think there might be some evidence they are not telling us? Some medical evidence that is not favorable to their case? You seem willing to believe the prosecution has lied about the content of the medical records, yet all the proof we have they told lies is coming from the defense, who has been shown to be less than accurate in their court filed motions. How much looser with the truth might they be with the media?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:34:02 PM EST
    The model defense attorneys are trying to sell here is that Nifong invented this rape as an election ploy, garnishing it up with racial stuff, anal stuff, and choking for effect, and is playing carrot and stick games with Kim Roberts to get her to change her earlier testimony so that it will better support his fantasy. The alternative model has it that it took a while for people to recognize that the accuser had actually been raped... but once she had a chance to tell her story in the right venue, it fit not only with the story Kim told... it held together better than the story the players told. It will be interesting to discover what the doctors, nurses, police, Kim Roberts, and other disinterested people who have had direct contact with the accused currently believe in the face of all the defense shenanigans. Most of the people busily demonizing her here haven't had the pleasure of meeting her. They prefer spitting at her from the safety of the rooftops. Newport, glad to have you on board. You're a suitable replacement for Orinoco, who unfortunately got himself banned for misbehavior. Since then we've been missing a strong voice in defense of the players.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    PB says:
    The model defense attorneys are trying to sell here is that Nifong invented this rape as an election ploy, garnishing it up with racial stuff, anal stuff, and choking for effect, and is playing carrot and stick games with Kim Roberts to get her to change her earlier testimony so that it will better support his fantasy.
    Oh please do pay attention PB. No one, to my knowledge claims Nifong invented it. The claim is that the AV invented it. Nifong only sacrificed the Lacrosse players at the alter of his vaulting ambition.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:45:34 PM EST
    Lies, lies, lies! Did anybody read Kim Robert's Vanity Fair article? It would seem that Ms. Roberts is, yet again, telling some (dare I say) lies. (Sorry IMHO, maybe you can help us interpret Ms. Robert's various versions of the same story.) It seems that Kim and "Precious" have more than "dancing" in common. Lies, lies, lies! Hey Newport, where have you been?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#71)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:46:13 PM EST
    Haven't followed this all too closely the last couple of days. There seems to be some kind of outrage by the supporters of the AV's myriad versions of events that the defense said that the AV was never alone in the house without Roberts. Do we actually know if she was ever actually alone in the house without Roberts. It seems that at one time she fell on the back steps and didn't quite make it into the house. So do we know how many times did she actually go into the house by herself, does anyone have a time for when she actually reentered and then left the house, and does anyone actually believe a gang rape took place then?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:49:21 PM EST
    That's not what happened here. Read the motion. Read what the defense is claiming. Read the statements they cite as supporting their claims. They don't.
    You WIN! I don't know what to say to that other than this: Sir Winston Churchill once said, "there is nothing so exhillerating as to have been shot at and missed." Now I know what he must have felt. How anyone could be more wrong than you in your assessment of this situation I just don't know. You seem to have quite a talent for prosecution of innocents. I'll bet Mike Nifong would welcome you aboard. He could use some help beating back these malicious dishonest attorneys as he can't seem to bring himself to file a single piece of paper in defense of these motions. I guess he'll let all 30 or so motions just go unopposed and then hope the judge grants him oral argument. He can then so everyone that he is such a great orator that he does not even need to file oppositions to such motions. He can just shoot them down like a bird from the sky in open court. Funny how that system works down in Durham.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:00:29 PM EST
    A few of our fellow board members have a great ability to pick apart inconsistencies, falsehoods and errors in the various news reports, motions and other items in the news. If the standard of proof is you have to have a sworn eyewitnesses statement for every point you want to make or you'll get attacked, we quickly descend into every sentence being torn apart for any small inconsistency. ("The AV walked to the car..." How do you know she walked? Maybe she hopped? Could she have flown? Maybe she ran? etc...) Reasonable people make inferences from known facts. This is a blog - if I want to say the AV is prostitute I don't have to "prove" it. The fact that she works for an escort service and does "one-on-one" dates is enough for me. Maybe I'd have to prove it in court. This isn't court. If the case hinged on any one of these points, I could see the reason to do this. Taken one at a time, these are valid points. But they aren't one at a time. There's a great deal of information (and yes, "spin") out there about this case. At some point, common sense should kick in. Let's step back and look at the big picture again. In my opinion, the "public "facts" about the case clearly show their is no case unless you want to rest everything on the AV's word. She's not one I'd trust. The AV is a loser. If that's blunt, so be it. She a prostitute and has a history of false accusations, or at least accusations which she did not follow up on. She was stoned, drunk, or otherwise incapacitated on the night in question. There is no evidence that her condition was anything other than self-induced. She behaved oddly all night, to say the least. Her story changed multiple times. She has a history of outrageous illegal behavior - let's not forget the taxi incident. Not to mention that her chosen profession is itself illegal. None of the above means she couldn't be raped. If she was, that would be a horrible crime. But, given the circumstances, I need something else to strongly collaborate her story. There is a reason why so many people are becoming outraged about this case -- there is no collaborating public evidence for the AV's story. There are no other witnesses and no physical evidence. The person in the best position to "know" what happened who isn't a Dukie is Kim. Her initial statements said she thought the whole thing was a "crock." The physical evidence of "swelling" would probably be expected given her line of work and what we know about her activities over the last few days. There was semen from another man found. There is no DNA match ("consistent with on a fingernail in one's own trashcan" is not a match). On the other side, there are many many others who say nothing happened. The "lack" of physical evidence (no real injuries and no DNA in a violent 30 minute gang rape is hard to rationalize). The fact that the captains went down to the police, gave statements, samples and offered to take a polygraph doesn't show a guilty mindset. The AV had lots of motive. Suddenly she's involved with the cops - not her dream situation. How does she get out of it? Personally, I find the argument to "let her have her day in court" absurd. I don't think anybody would want a system where any wacko could make a false accusation and have the full power of the judicial system brought to bear against a falsely accused person. There are enormous costs both to society and especially to the falsely accused when that happens. Our system is supposed to weed out the ridiculous cases before they get too far past the accusation stage. if Nifong knows he has no case but is proceeding simply because of personal political reasons which he can do because of the political climate in Durham, then he is an evil man. He should not be in a prosecutor position. Nor should he be in such a position if he's just stubborn or close-minded. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation why he wouldn't meet with the defense lawyers when they wanted to show him what they had. The prosecutor's office has too much power for someone who behaves that way. The only way I can imagine a case against the 3 accused players if there is some bombshell evidence that Nifong has up his sleeve which is not yet in the public domain. Maybe there is - not all the discovery has been released. If not, what is he doing? Does anybody on this board really believe there was a rape? Not "it's possible there was a rape" but "there was a rape." "It's possible" is not the standard we use to convict people in this country. If so, could you explain why? The defense doesn't have to disprove the AV's story. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a "reasonable doubt", that a rape occurred. I find it hard to fathom how one cannot have doubts. Can anyone lay out a believable argument from everything we "know today" that meets that standard? Or, are we still in the "it's possible stage" and 'waiting" for more information?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:09:02 PM EST
    Mike Nifong has been described, in a recent NY Times article, as rigid, stubborn, set in his ways etc. I have heard similar comments before. I suggest that these are not good qualities to have in a person that must be open minded to ensure that he can fulfill his mandate of "doing justice." People seem to forget that the ethical obligation of a district attorney is to do justice, not to convict. DA's are not advocates for the accuser, they are advocates for justice for the people and sworn to protect innocence as well as to prosecute the guilty. Nifong has never opened his mind to the question of innocence and a rape hoax in this case and he should be severly chastised for this failing. I will suggest one other attribute of Nifong's personality that MY OPINION tells me is in play and that is LAZINESS. He files no paper to support his flailing case, and it appears to me that he did almost no background investigation into the facts of the case before he made up his mind that a rape occured and then went public with it. I don't believe that he even read the medical report before he went public with the rape charge. BTW, that is the most charitable possibility. So... this is what we have: the FA supporters cite three things that a case can be made here: 1. the false accuser's statement; 2. the medical report; 3. and the DA's good name. The FA's statement is full of recantations, inconsistencies and lies. Her credibility is zero. She was impaired. End of this point. The medical report shows nothing more than swelling of vaginal walls. Is this consistent with a violent 30 minute rape, anal and vaginal? Or is it consistent with a prositute? NiFong's good name. Don't need to say anything about that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:20:23 PM EST
    Tell it, SomewhatChunky! As each motion or story gets filed and various posters delightedly seize on so called "lies" or "fibs", it's increasingly clear the few remaining folks who believe there is a real case get more and more myopic. Regardless of their allegations of lies in the defense motions, they can't explain Nifong's incredibly inflated claims (most would say lies by your standards Lora and IMHO)and yet those came from someone with ethical obligations not just to advocate for their clients or to win cases for their clien or elections but to 'seek justice.' They can't or won't discuss the incredible internal inconsistencies (lies) of the AV or Kim, or the contradictions between the two. They refuse to accept that a woman who visits hotel rooms of various strange men and who works for an excort service is a prostitute. After awhile, the frantic search for specks in the eyes of the defense attorneys or potential candidates for DA while they ignore the logs in Nifong's and his witnesses' eyes becomes tiresome and so totally beside the point. Can you look at the big picture, guys?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:22:46 PM EST
    Hey Newport, where have you been?
    Hey Quinnie, I've just been hanging down in Newport Beach, one of the last remaining bastions of conservatism in California, reading all this outrageous stuff about a rape hoax and a dangerous DA and how innocent lives can be ruined when the two mix. The only thing those boys are guilty of is stupidity and if we are going to prosecute people for that there won't be any innocent people left.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:25:45 PM EST
    Amen, SomewhatChunky!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:57:23 PM EST
    I agree that the important thing is to focus on the big picture. It seems like the more info that comes out, the more it backs the boys' version of events. Is it really credible that this horrific beating/rape occurred in the midst of 40-some lacrosse members, another exotic dancer and a nosy neighbor and nobody can colloborate the attack and there's no physical evidence? C'mon. Two months ago, my inclination was to write the Duke boys as pigs. What this case has taught me is the danger of first impressions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#79)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:58:20 PM EST
    mik wrote:
    wumhenry, you agreed the defense attorneys have made statements in their motion that are not true. Do you think there might be some [medical] evidence they are not telling us [about]? Some medical evidence that is not favorable to their case? You seem willing to believe the prosecution has lied about the content of the medical records, yet all the proof we have they told lies is coming from the defense, who has been shown to be less than accurate in their court filed motions.
    A fair point, which I why I hedged slightly by saying that "it seems that a prosecutor can lie" about the content of medical records. I acknowledge the possibility that the defense motion wasn't telling the truth in saying that, according to the medical records: 1)the SANE nurse examined the AV's vulva, vagina, cervix, fundus, and rectal areas and found no injury aside from diffuse vaginal swelling; 2)the SANE nurse did not say in her report that there were "injuries consistent with rape"; 3)the AV told the SANE nurse she was not choked; 4)the only evidence of physical trauma the SANE nurse found was a scratch on the AV's knee and a laceration on her heel; 5)the SANE nurse specifically noted that the AV's neck and throat were "normal"; 6)the two examining physicians reported that the AV complained of a "vaginal assault," but they said nothing about any other kind of alleged assault; 7)one of the doctors noted that she denied that anyone had hit her or that she there was any soreness in her neck, back, chest, or abdomen; 8)the AV told the SANE nurse that she had had one alcoholic drink and was taking Flexeril and told a doctor the next day that she had had a lot of alcohol and was drunk on the night in question yet told another doctor that she used no drugs or alcohol; 9)the AV told the SANE nurse that Kim Pitman helped the culprits commit the alleged sexual assault; and 10)the AV also told the SANE nurse that Kim Pitman had stolen her money. However, I'd be willing to bet you $50 that at least nine of those ten statements will be borne out when the medical records are released.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#80)
    by weezie on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:05:58 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky, you rock! I think you should consider taking over for Dan Abrahms now that he is being kicked upstairs.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#81)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:15:47 PM EST
    Newport wrote:
    I will suggest one other attribute of Nifong's personality that MY OPINION tells me is in play and that is LAZINESS. He files no paper to support his flailing case, and it appears to me that he did almost no background investigation into the facts of the case before he made up his mind that a rape occured and then went public with it.
    I wouldn't infer from anything we know that he's lazy. My guess is that he knows he's got a lousy case but is determined to go through the motions because he wants to avoid the political onus of pulling the plug on the Durham black community's No.1 poster child.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#82)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:29:37 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica wrote:
    There seems to be some kind of outrage by the supporters of the AV's myriad versions of events that the defense said that the AV was never alone in the house without Roberts.
    They didn't say that in so many words, but they called attention to Kim Pitman's reported statement to the police investigator that she wasn't separated from the AV for more than five minutes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:31:59 PM EST
    quinnie posted:
    Did anybody read Kim Robert's Vanity Fair article?
    Quinnie, have you read the entire article? Has anyone? Do tell.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#84)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:52:58 PM EST
    Quinnie, have you read the entire article? Has anyone? Do tell
    I just finished reading it. Very little information that hasn't been posted here. Kim saw the players urinating off the front porch (I had assumed it was the back porch) Kim said, "They just hollered it out, 'N*gger, N*gger, N*gger.'" A lot of case background and the history of Duke. The only new info is from Kim and almost all of what Kim says is included in the Vanity Fair teaser available on the web. Disappointing. I have to go out. If I find any other new info I'll post it late tonight.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:58:05 PM EST
    Thanks, IMHO.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:58:36 PM EST
    If anyone knows NC criminal procedure I would love to know the process by which motions are decided. Why does Nifong not have to file oppositions to these motions? If he doesn't have to file anything how are they decided? Is it all done through oral argument so that the court's time can be wasted? Why doesn't Nifong have to file an opposition by a date certain, say 30 days, or else it is considered unopposed and granted? When are these motions supposed to be decided and by whom? Is it just when some judge gets around to it? It seems to me the reason the Durham court is so backed up and these boys have to wait a year to go to trial is that the NC system is woefully inefficient. Having to wait a year with false charges hanging over your head should be unconstitutional under the 6th, and 14th amendments. This case will bankrupt their parents by the time all is said and done.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#87)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    Investigator Hinman could not possibly discover the accuser did anything with "at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006" from Jarriel's statement.
    Where to start? The AV has admitted being employed by an "escort service," and so did Jarriel, his job being to drive her to her appointments. (Can we stipulate that "escort service", in current common parlance, is a euphemism for outcall prostitution, or do we have to debate matters of common knowledge?) Jarriel said he dropped the AV off for an appointment in the Holiday Inn Express at 2:20PM on March 10 and picked her up at 2:50PM. What sort of appointment do you suppose it was that occupied her there for those 30 minutes? Jarriel said he took her to a "job" at the Millenium Hotel at 5:15AM the next morning and that she came back to the car an hour later. What sort of job do you suppose she had in that hotel from 5:15 to 6:15AM on March 11? Jarriel says that on the night of March 11 he and the AV had sexual intercourse in another hotel. He reports that he left the hotel at midnight but the AV remained there and that when he returned for her the next day she was with "an older gentleman" who wanted to "see her perform." That most certainly indicates that the AV "did something" with at least four different men, although perhaps one of them only watched.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#88)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:15:35 PM EST
    It's interesting that when a careful examination of facts calls into question the defense attempts to discredit the AV, some posters strongly repeat the defense arguments, attack those who find the errors, and ignore the facts that have come to light. The idea that the AV's story is fraught with inconsistencies is constantly promoted by the defense, yet when you look at it, you really only have Shelton's paraphrase of her recantation, not even her own words or the context in which they were given. Some reports contain items that don't appear in other reports, but they are not inherently contradictory. The rest is just the defense's word for it, and we're finding out their word is fraught with inaccuracies. I have said that there is no real evidence that says a rape couldn't have occurred. That means I believe a rape could have occurred. I know that isn't enough to prove guilt in a trial. I wouldn't want it to be. But it's enough for me to keep finding the errors and inconsistencies among those who insist a rape never occurred.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#89)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:20:29 PM EST
    I wonder if Jarriel was the escort service, which I understand is called "Bunny Hole Entertainment." If he is not, then she is probably a freelancer a good portion of the time as shown by the troll through the strip club until 4:30 a.m. in the morning and then onto the hotel at 5:30 am or so to meet with the client she met at the strip club. I wonder if this client had not seen enough stripping by 5:30 am and perhaps wanted a little more. She might pick up some clients through the escort service and then freelance with Jariel as her pimp. If I was a citizen of Durham, I would want to know why Jariel wasn't picked up and charged with pimping.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#90)
    by weezie on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:24:35 PM EST
    Please bear with me here; in addition to wumhenry's analysis, is it safe to assume that the defense has hired the best private eyes in the mid-atlantic to find out each and every little detail about the FA and her whereabouts for the past, what, 20 years? So they already know what she was up to(and with whom)that weekend previous to the lax party. So is the defense saying that they have that info and Hinman would have had it, too, if he had further questioned the driver/beau/pimp? I'm dizzy from the back and forth in this thread and hope you lawyers will forgive me. Also, can I get any takers on the FA going to UNC the next day to get her Flexiril scrip rewritten since it was probably lost in the missing purse? She might have had a history at Duke Hospital and they might have refused to give her any controlled meds.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:31:33 PM EST
    Lora, Can you tell me one piece of EVIDENCE that supports finding that these players commited a rape? Just one piece other than the good word of Precious. Lora also posted,
    The idea that the AV's story is fraught with inconsistencies is constantly promoted by the defense, yet when you look at it, you really only have Shelton's paraphrase of her recantation, not even her own words or the context in which they were given. Some reports contain items that don't appear in other reports, but they are not inherently contradictory. The rest is just the defense's word for it, and we're finding out their word is fraught with inaccuracies.
    Maybe you and IMHO are finding inconsistencies but I doubt anyone else is. I think you could find inconsistency if someone told you, "my, isn't the sky blue today." Why don't you just admit to your biases. You want the story to be true. You want to believe the FA, she is a poor working mother after all, and a student and Navy veteran to boot. Never mind that she leaves he children with her parents while she stays out all night stripping and prostituting herself. She probably has a bad drug habit too. Flexeril is probably short hand for I smoked a few Philly Blunts. Oh, and the Navy, well she got herself kicked out of there too for cavorting with another sailor who was not her husband. There are a lot of liberal causes out there that you can apply your feminism to that are much more worthy than this one. Maybe go after the Marines in Haditha. They are supposed to be bad men too. Hell, why not just go after an white man you can find. They raped the Indians after all!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:36:25 PM EST
    Lora claims there's no real evidence that a rape couldn't have occured. Well that's true and false. See, a rape isn't what is alleged. A gangrape by 3 players in a small bathroom involving anal and vaginal sex is what is alleged. And the evidence that didn't happen is that they didn't find any DNA at all short of a very small amount under or on a plastic nail that had been thrown in the trash, and might not match any of the alleged rapists anyway. I will state that it is impossible for there to have been a gangrape by 3 people in a small enclosed space with a struggle by the AV and there be no DNA of any of the alleged in her or on her person. Impossible. Not extremely unlikely, impossible. Hence, no gangrape occured in the house that night. Now whether there might have been a single rape or it was all in the deluded mind of a very drugged up AV are the possibilities we have to deal with.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:42:51 PM EST
    In the one publicly available "line-up" transcript, AV stated that RS forced her to perform or@l sex, and or@l sex only. So why is he charged with rape, which, by NC statutes, is defined as v@ginal penetration?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:43:37 PM EST
    Weezie, Good questions. If you haven't already you should read Johnson's witness statement otherwise known as "A detail of a prostitute and her pimp's weekend in Durham, NC". In that statement Johnson describes in some detail what he and Precious did, the places they went, and the people they met, in the three days prior to the LAX party. The defense is really just throwing Johnson's statement into the mix, saying, look at what you could have discovered about the accuser's character if you had interviewed Johnson when they first had him in the station. I maintain they should have arrested him at that time as well. It shows sloppy police work that they did not get the statement before they went after the identification order. It doesn't show that the officer failed to include something in the application for a warrant because he didn't have it then. On your second question, I don't think anyone knows why she went to UNC. The best guess is probably that Duke medical personnel told her that she should follow-up with her OBGYN and maybe this doctor was at UNC?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#95)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:53:20 PM EST
    Good question fillintheblanks. I do not believe that it is even possible for an oral rape to have been committed under these circumstances. I can not believe that Reade Selligman, or any other sane individual for the matter, would stick his member in the mouth of a woman who was fighting off three men. It would just be insanity to do something like this. The only possible oral rape that I could possibly conceive of would have to involve some form of weapon, i.e., knife to throat, gun to head etc. I knew that the case was BS when I heard of oral and anal rape. To believe that, you would have to believe these boys are absolute animals. Let me just add that there is no way that such a rape could have gone unnoticed in a small bathroom of such a small house. I refuse to believe if a rape was occuring that not one of the 40 boys would immediately stop the rape, let alone fail to report it later.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#96)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:10:12 PM EST
    Newport: I used "spin" just that way, in quotations, as a shorthand way of saying they are presenting their version, not impartial facts. Also, re Nifong's "fibs" as imho likes to say: how about explaining that finding no DNA from the Duke players inside the AV could have been because they used condoms. He KNEW at that point that the AV said no condoms were used. Well said, Chunky.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:18:41 PM EST
    Newport: I'm not a NC attorney, but my bet is that they will set a date to hear the motions at the next court date. I tried to work my way through the NC criminal procedure website with little success. My understanding, something I heard not read, was that Stephens, the judge who is ruling on the early motions won't be the trial judge. Anyone else remember anything about that? I agree NC's concept of a "speedy trial" is woefully inadequate. FL says the State must be ready to proceed within 175 days for a felony, unless the defense waives, of course, or unless the State has a compelling reason for delay.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#98)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:19:34 PM EST
    I think they are presenting their paraphrasing (I guess you could call it interpretation but certainly not spin) of the evidence in some cases and using outright quotation of the statements in other instances. The important thing is that they must cite to the record to support their statements. The record contains facts and it is there for all to see so I don't think mischaracterizing the record is going to get them very far. But, like I said before, they didn't do that. Himan's notes don't make any mention of Precious going into the house. If there is an error in the affidavit it is that they should have said they were referring to Himans synopsis. I also think that the affidavit is evidence even if it is from the attorneys'.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:26:01 PM EST
    They probably would not be able to succeed on a constitutional challenge to the proceedings based on the constitutional right to a speedy trial because they are out on bond. Hard to show prejudice when out on bond. However, the loss of reputation, and jobs in the case of Evans, and in the case of the 19 year olds, the loss of the ability to continue at Duke are palpable prejudice. I would think about filing such a motion and I would certainly file a motion requesting a speedy trial. Sharon, I still do not understand how the judge is going to consider the motions, and some of them are indeed dispositive, if the DA does not file anything. It seems unreasonable to expect dispositive motions to be left with no written record.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:31:35 PM EST
    imho:
    Mr. Johnson does not claim she had sex with anyone, including himself, in the time period.
    from J.J's statement:
    After eating we get into bed and watch TV. While watching TV we engage in sexual intercourse.
    [page 28/31 in the motion]

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:36:53 PM EST
    Here's Newsweek latest article.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#102)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:39:38 PM EST
    Newport, Most people on this blog (past and present) agree with your assessment of this case. Not sure how long you've been reading without posting, or how much of the archives you've read, but several posters here have given up after losing patience trying to persuade others. My advice to you: to remain here, you have to pace yourself. It's a maddeningly bizarre case, but a case just the same.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#103)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:40:36 PM EST
    Do we have an original document to examine that shows where the AV said no condoms were used? I don't know for sure, but I'm betting that only sperm DNA was tested for from the SANE exam swabs. A rape could have happened if: Condoms were used and either the AV was mistaken, or the report doesn't quite say what the defense says. OR, Condoms weren't used and the attackers withdrew before leaving evidence behind. Now, Nifong has suggested that condoms may have been used. Either he is lying/spinning about what he knows is in the report, or the defense is lying/spinning it. Or the report is more ambiguous than we are being led to believe. If the young men had hoped for sexual contact with the strippers it isn't unlikely that they would have had condoms available. It isn't that unlikely to think that they may have hoped to have sex. Perhaps they are good boy scouts and follow the motto, "be prepared." Point being, it's not a closed issue. We still need the medical report to be able to tell what's actually on there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#104)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    Maxwell, Johnson later amended that after he checked his date book, so keep reading. He changed the sex to a week before to be consistent with Precious claim to the police that she had no sex the week before the false rape. I guess Johnson records his sexual exploits in his date book. Little did Precious know that semem from her boyfriend would be in her at the time of her exam so she had to go back and tell police to check three other men for DNA after this foreign, i.e., not the players' DNA, showed up in the DNA report. THe bottom line on this is that she had sex with at least 5 men and probably 7 men in the 3 days leading up to the LAX party. They were 3 appointments in hotels, her pimp Johnson, her boyfriend (must have squeezed him in somewhere there), probably the other driver/pimp during the fashion show, and maybe even the couple with the vibrator. She was a very busy girl and must have made a lot of money. Oh, Johnson says he was having sex while eating Chinese food in the hotel but remembered later that it was really the week before. Guess he was eating Chinese food then too. Yeah, right!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#105)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:43:49 PM EST
    Sharon posted:
    My understanding, something I heard not read, was that Stephens, the judge who is ruling on the early motions won't be the trial judge. Anyone else remember anything about that?
    Judge Stephens, at the last hearing, stated that he may, or may not be, the trial judge.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:45:39 PM EST
    fillintheblanks, does that mean I will be banned or that I will just give up because I will get tired of beating my head against the wall?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#107)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:47:04 PM EST
    Newport: I would think that the judge might require Nifong to have a written response filed within a certain period of time before the motions are heard. He (Nifong) would be a fool to counter a written motion with oral argument alone, especially the ones challenging the admissibility and sufficiency of the lineup. And along that same line of thought, i.e., Nifong: don't forget that it's been 8-9 years since Nifong tried anything more serious than traffic-related offenses. His skill level may not be too sharp at this point in his career.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#108)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:48:04 PM EST
    max, you posted
    Mr. Johnson does not claim she had sex with anyone, including himself, in the time period.
    from J.J's statement:
    After eating we get into bed and watch TV. While watching TV we engage in sexual intercourse.
    [page 28/31 in the motion]
    From Johnson's last page:
    Looking at my datebook on my cell phone I realized that the dates that I engaged in sexual intercourse with [ ] was off by a week. Our last encounter together was the Sunday prior.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#109)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:48:08 PM EST
    maxwell_smart posted:
    from J.J's statement:
    After eating we get into bed and watch TV. While watching TV we engage in sexual intercourse.
    [page 28/31 in the motion]
    On the last page of Jarriel's statement:
    looking at my datebook on my cell phone I realized that the dates that I engaged in sexual intercourse with [redacted] was off by a week. Our last encounter together was the Sunday prior.
    That would have been 8 days before the Duke lacrosse team party.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#110)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:49:16 PM EST
    Hey Lora, Jinx! 10:48

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:52:54 PM EST
    Newport, you'll be banned if your posts are personal attacks against other posters or refer to the personalities in the case as farm animals. TalkLeft will issue a warning.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:54:56 PM EST
    I
    don't know for sure, but I'm betting that only sperm DNA was tested for from the SANE exam swabs. A rape could have happened if:
    Is that really the standard here? Is that what you require these boys to prove, a negative that a rape couldn't have happened. How could anyone except the Almighty himself (or herself if it pleases you) prove what you seek. What is amazing is that these boys have come darn close to proving that a rape couldn't have occurred here. They are incredibly lucky that they had cameras and took pictures and that the FA is so messed up. A little more crafty FA could have really made this case stick and that should give us all pause about asking them to prove that a rape could not have occurred. So no Lora, they haven't proved that a rape could not have happened and neither have they proved that aliens didn't land in Nevada at Area 51.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#113)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:56:57 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    My understanding, something I heard not read, was that Stephens, the judge who is ruling on the early motions won't be the trial judge. Anyone else remember anything about that?
    Yes, I also heard that. During Seligmann's hearing a local Durham attorney said Judge Stephens would be rotating out of Durham before this case would go to trial.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#114)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:07:21 PM EST
    Newport, you posted,
    Maybe you and IMHO are finding inconsistencies but I doubt anyone else is. I think you could find inconsistency if someone told you, "my, isn't the sky blue today."
    Why don't you just admit to your biases. You want the story to be true.
    Imho and I are finding errors. If you don't see the errors, you are not reading carefully. I admit they are not obvious. They are especially easy to miss if your viewpoint is that the defense is truthful. We all have biases. I would prefer that the AV made it all up rather than that she was really raped and assaulted as she has stated. I think that in the long run, much less harm will have been done if that is the case. Painful and damaging as a false allegation of rape is, actual rape is far more painful and damaging. Sexual assault and rape happen. Only 16% of perpetrators ever get convicted, and the average time served is less than a year (Sorry, I don't have a source to link to tonight but this is from my class notes - my professor works in the field.) In any case, I don't want to see the AV and her story discredited with erroneous facts and misstatements. That's my bias.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:14:30 PM EST
    Thanks fillin

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#116)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:17:41 PM EST
    Newport,
    Is that what you require these boys to prove, a negative that a rape couldn't have happened.
    I believe you misunderstand me. This isn't a trial. I'm not pretending it is. I'm attempting to refute those who insist that a rape couldn't have happened. I do it by looking at the facts, finding discrepancies and trying to understand them, and speculating.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:22:15 PM EST
    Lora, You have found no errors that are anything more than typographical. I read very carefully. What's the title of your class? Can you tell us any more about your studies, maybe it would help understand you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#119)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:26:10 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Himan's notes don't make any mention of Precious going into the house. If there is an error in the affidavit it is that they should have said they were referring to Himans synopsis.
    They have the source of Hinman's synopsis in front of them, they can't stick their fingers in their ears and go, "LA LA LA LA LA."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#120)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:31:16 PM EST
    They have the source of Hinman's synopsis in front of them, they can't stick their fingers in their ears and go, "LA LA LA LA LA."
    They absolutely can, and that is what they did. Which story is accurate the Robert's written story or Himan's synopsis? Do you know? Do you know whether Himan was memorializing an interview he had with Roberts or merely summarizing a written witness statement that was sitting before him. If he was just summarizing then why didn't he include the addendum that Robert's added at the end. Was he just sloppy or was he memoralizing an interview she gave earlier before he sit her in a room with a pen to write down her statement.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#118)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:31:30 PM EST
    One of the commenters on this thread e-mailed me and asked me to weigh in on the defense motion. I have no problem with the defense motion. It's a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the court's order directing the 46 players to come in for photographs and DNA testing (non-testimonial evidence). The order was issued on the motion of the prosecutor supported by an affidavit of the police officer. It was the prosecutors job, through the affidavit, to establish probable cause that a rape had been committed. Only upon a showing of probable cause would the court order the players to come in for testing and photographs. The defense alleges that the officer who wrote the affidavit (the Affiant) failed to apprise the court of information which might have defeated the probable cause showing. They argue that had the judge been aware of the "material omissions" he might not have found probable cause a rape occurred and thus not issued the order. Had the order not been issued, there would have been no photographs of them to show to the accuser during a lineup. And no identification from the photographs. They are asking that everything obtained directly or indirectly from the order be ruled inadmissible and be destroyed. In a sentence, their argument is: if one considers the allegations in the cop's affidavit together with information he was aware of but failed to tell the court about (contained in the exhibits), there is no probable cause showing. Among the omissions were the officer's failure to tell the Judge that days after the party Kim told the officer the rape allegations were a crock; that the accuser first alleged, then denied, then re-alleged she was raped; even when she alleged she was raped she denied the use of foreign objects, and a*nal rape and condoms; that the rape examination did not find evidence of a sexual assault, only of v*ginal edema (swelling) and she had engaged in intercourse with at least one other man that weekend, in mas*t*bation with a sex toy while dancing for a couple, and had two other escort appointments with men that weekend, one of which took place in a hotel room. Any of those could have accounted for the swelling; that the rape examiner was a trainee; and Kim's written and oral statements of which the officer was aware that contained a version of events that made it highly unlikely, if even possible, that a rape by three men occurred in the short time period they were apart that night. The motion goes between direct quotes from the statements, one of which is a summary, and paraphrasing and interpreting them. Because all the statments are attached, there is no attempt at deception. They are put right out there for the Court to see. So hold your bar complaints, the defense has done nothing wrong. They have once again demonstrated the gaping holes in the prosecution's case. Those rooting for the prosecution may disagree with their interpretation, but considering all of the statements and reports together, I don't see a problem. I certainly think it's a fair statement to say that she was "involved in some sexual manner" with four other men. I agree with Newport pretty much -- a fair reading of Jarriel's statement indicates Jarriel was her pimp not just her driver. The part of his statement where he relays waiting outside for her while she's on a "date", and then she comes out and asks him to stay another hour, and then another and he keeps saying ok and stays in the car by himself all those hours...use your common sense--he was making money off of what she was doing and every extra hour meant more money. Jarriel wasn't running a limo service which charges by the hour -- not if he was having sex with her too. And that little spat where she wouldn't get back in the car and he had to keep going after her and make her get in the car....it was like a scene right out of the movie Hustle & Flow, maybe Terrence Howard can play Jarriel in the movie. I was also struck by the continual references in Kim's statement as to how obsessed the accuser was with getting more money out of the guys...and how Jarriel would drive her to her parents house in between "appointments" -- how could they not know what she was up to? This case is a train wreck waiting to happen. The saddest part is that even if the three players are vindicated in a criminal court, their reputations will still be sullied because of the racial taunts, which people will attribute to them if it turns out that other players made them...and because of people who think that college kids drinking, partying and calling an escort service for a stripper are morally deficient in some way. By the way, is Lora the only one here arguing a rape may have occurred? It seems that way to me and maybe you all are giving too much attention to her arguments. And Lora, please don't answer Newport about your rape class. It's off-topic. Take iit to e-mail if you want to launch into non-case related issues. Bandwidth is still expensive. It wouldn't hurt for a few of you more loquacious ones to hit the tip jar once in a while.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#121)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:35:26 PM EST
    IMHO, they did reference his summary as well as her written statement and they attached both. You're going nowhere with this argument.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#122)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:47:42 PM EST
    TL, Ouch. And I wasn't going to go on about my class. Sorry, I know bandwidth is expensive. So's school. I appreciate your overview of the motion. I learned a lot from your comments. But I do have a problem with this:
    Those rooting for the prosecution may disagree with their interpretation, but considering all of the statements and reports together, I don't see a problem.
    I may disagree with their interpretation, but it's their misstatements of facts that I really have a problem with. Their whole argument is based on facts I hope. And when they get some wrong, it undermines their argument. They had at least three wrong in this motion alone that imho and I could find between us. They attributed writings to people that did not write the things they say they did. Two tend to discredit the AV's account (she never left the car (Kim wrote she did), she never went back inside (Kim never wrote it)) and one implies that Johnson confirmed that the AV was having sex with a client when we don't really know if she did or not (maybe she was dancing). I'm saying that these errors make their argument look better than it actually is, and I'm wondering how many more are contained in their comments about the medical reports. How can that not be a problem? BTW, weren't you going to comment on the errors I found in the article you linked to on the AV's inconsistent story from abc11? If you want me to stop posting so much, just say so.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#123)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:49:21 PM EST
    TL, I have to think that if you find my comments somehow being given too much weight, that maybe I'm on to something here. I'm happy to bow out if you don't want to read what I have to say.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:51:31 PM EST
    Posted by Newport June 12, 2006 09:53 PM "I do not believe that it is even possible for an oral rape to have been committed under these circumstances. I can not believe that Reade Selligman, or any other sane individual for the matter, would stick his member in the mouth of a woman who was fighting off three men. It would just be insanity to do something like this. The only possible oral rape that I could possibly conceive of would have to involve some form of weapon, i.e., knife to throat, gun to head etc. " The reality of rape and the drama you picture are miles apart. Have you ever seen a code red in a real ER? Or have you ever been to court and seen a real trial? Have you listened to the voice recorder box of a plane that crashed? Tragedy unfolds much more quietly in real life than on TV or in movies or in our imaginations.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#125)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:07:14 PM EST
    What are you talking about? Are you sane? Find me some cases involving an oral rape without a weapon. If they exist at all, I'll bet they are extraordinarily rare.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#126)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:26:17 PM EST
    Lora, I'm not chasing you away. Your input is very welcome. I just find it curious that you seem to be the only ones defending the accuser. You're right, school is important and expensive, and I don't want anyone who can't afford it to feel like they have to contribute. School's far more important. The tip comment wasn't directed to you, it was to all the commenters who post dozens of comments. Don't give it another thought.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger (none / 0) (#127)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:27:17 PM EST
    New thread here. Nifong seems to be doing more subpoenas without court authoriztion and this time for information protected by federal privacy laws. Comments here are closing.

    Duke Lacrosse: DA Nifong May Have Challenger | 127 comments (127 topical)