TL, funny I never read about it. The link you gave is dead on my computer, am I doing something wrong.

InnocentByStander did.

StrawMan........I was not referring to that statement. You switched the argument. Newport said to name one case of oral rape that did not involve a weapon such as a gun or a knife and I did it. People say, "Name one. Just name one." and even if you do they won't admit it.

Obviously, IMHO, you have never been the victim of a police setup.

Obviously you have never actually worked on the inside directly with police officers over a long period of years.

The fact that you "don't believe ANY of the players would be in a worse position" for having coöperated just shows that you have never personally seen what actually can happen -- sometimes -- to naïve people who think just like you do.

You can pontificate about this all you want, IMHO, but it is obvious that you've never seen it from the inside. You don't know what everybody who has ever worked on the inside knows from long personal experience -- that there are just about as many cops and robbers among cops as anybody else. And that goes for DA's too.

It's not about hiring strippers, it's about how they reacted when the stripper party went bad. The whole team's reputation is sullied from the broomstick joke/threat and the racial slurs because the players who made those remarks are cowardly hiding behind the Blue Wall. The code of silence they adopted in protection of one another is what led many people to conclude the players are morally deficient.

But how, then, can you defend Nifong's behavior, conduct, speaking, and the lack thereof since the election? If he has half the faith in her that all of you have shown on this board, he should do something, say something, NOW.

But do you have a son? If so, have you asked yourself how you would feel if he had been wrongly accused of rape, and particularly the rape charged in this case? If you don't have a son, how about a brother, or father, or husband? Would you want any male in your life to have to go through what the accused are going through, based on the AV's accusations, and damnall little more?

Actually, I am well aware of the workings of law enforcement - from the inside. If the people with whom you have experience are the norm, we'd be seeing a lot more suspected wrongful convictions than we do. The truth is most people plead to lesser crimes than not only they are charged with, but than what they actually, often by their own admission, committed. Look at the accuser's "night on the town." She fully cooperated [once the police chase was over ;)] and was treated more than fairly. She made a wise decision.

Look at the accuser's "night on the town." She fully cooperated [once the police chase was over ;)] and was treated more than fairly. She made a wise decision.

I don't want to keep talking about this, because it is off topic and nit-picky, but niether InnocentByStander nor you ever pointed out an oral rape carried out without a weapon.

If you and InnocentByStander want to play that game, fine. Sodomy is not rape. Sexual abuse is not rape. Once again, no one was charged, plead guilty, or was convicted of rape in the McDonald's case.

I am dropping this subject at this point as it has nothing to do with the Duke case.

Newport said to name one case of oral rape that did not involve a weapon such as a gun or a knife and I did it.

People say, "Name one. Just name one." and even if you do they won't admit it.

The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Jones, Appellee.

[Cite as State v. Jones (1997), ______ Ohio St.3d ______.]

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 14649.

In the early morning hours of February 3, 1994, Teressa Robinson found herself abandoned by friends in an unfamiliar neighborhood of Dayton. While searching for a telephone, she encountered Andre Jones, defendant-appellee, who offered to help. Instead, he led her to a nearby park, struck her in the face, and commanded her to perform oral sex. Robinson complied out of fear.

..... again forced Robinson to perform oral sex.

..... Jones contended at trial that all the sexual contact was consensual.

The jury found Jones guilty of two counts of oral rape, ...

The court of appeals affirmed the convictions.

Bissey said he saw the "skimpily dressed" accuser leave the house between 12:20 and 12:30 a.m., but then heard her say she was going back inside to retrieve a missing shoe.

The Durham AV's forced-blowjob story is harder to swallow (heh) because she alleges that she put up a fighting resistance.

The incident in the McDonald's is irrelevant because the guy didn't put his dick at risk. (So I gather from comments here; I haven't viewed the video.)

The Ohio case *is* relevant, but note that the victim submitted under duress without a struggle. The Durham AV's forced-blowjob story is harder to swallow (heh) because she alleges that she put up a fighting resistance.

Instead, he led her to a nearby park, struck her in the face, and commanded her to perform oral sex. Robinson complied out of fear.

"The victim's four red polished fingernails were recovered inside the residence consistent to her version of the attack. She claimed she was clawing at one of the suspect's arms in an attempt to breath (sic) while being strangled. During that time the nails broke off," the police statement said.

COSBY: What did she say that the men said to her in that house?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE [accuser's father]: She said they were making racial slurs. They was calling her (BLANK) you know and all of that. She says she remember that while they were beating her.

COSBY: What else did she describe about what it was like in the house?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She did tell me she thought she was going to die. She said she thought they were going to kill her.

The crime of oral copulation doesn't require the victim deep throat the guy. It depends on the laws of the state. In California, penis pass the lips is sufficient evidence for a conviction.

If I were a wouldbe rapist confronting a resistant victim who is being held down by two accessories because she is unwilling to submit, I wouldn't want to put my naked penis anywhere within snapping distance of her mouth.

Yet, rapists do it all the time.

Yet, rapists do it all the time. It's commonplace for a rapist to stick his penis in the mouth of a resistant victim while others are forcibly restraining her?! What makes you think so?

Even if the guy in the McDonald's put his thing in her mouth, it's not analogous.

If a woman is being forced, by only one man, to orally copulate him, she could chance biting him and running for her life. If she is trapped in a bathroom with two more attackers, I doubt many women would consider the "bite and run" tactic a viable option.

The incident in the McDonald's is irrelevant because the guy didn't put his dick at risk. (So I gather from comments here; I haven't viewed the video.) The Ohio case *is* relevant, but note that the victim submitted under duress without a struggle. The Durham AV's forced-blowjob story is harder to swallow (heh) because she alleges that she put up a fighting resistance.

Even if the guy in the McDonald's put his thing in her mouth, it's not analogous. The distinguishing circumstances are: 1)she was compliant; the culprit did not need to have her forcibly restrained; 2)she was duped into believing that the guy in the room with her was acting under color of authority, following orders from a police officer.

I didn't say it was commonplace, you did.

And I'm not in the mood for word games.

You implied that a rapist would not forceably orally cop a victim because the victim might bite them.

I suggest you read more case facts.

So I'll ask: What could the players have done differently to be better off than their current situation?

If she is trapped in a bathroom with two more attackers, I doubt many women would consider the "bite and run" tactic a viable option.

From the defense motion: Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once [redacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;... Defense motion with [typos] corrected: Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in this written statement, Ms. Pittman [does not] inform the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once [redacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she [did not] stay there;... hahahha! Yeah, typos. Osborn needs a new legal secretary. Weird how a few well placed [typos] can change the whole impact of the defense arguement.

TL and others, I wonder why the defense has not yet filed a motion to suppress the photo id's. That seems to me to be the strongest dispositive motion to be filed. It will obviously take some work, not a quickie like the recent motion, but they are no doubt going to file it soon. I suspect they are waiting for discovery to understand the full scope of ALL the attempts at obtaining an ID and description of these alleged to be involved. In the article re Professor Coleman requesting a special prosecutor, he states that it was the photographic ID that caused him the most concern in this case. I really don't understand the motivation of the Durham PD not to include fillers in the photo lineup to challenge the accuser's credibility. I understand Nifong's motivations, but I do not understand what the Durham PD and especially this Himan has to not perform proper police work. Wasn't Himan the investigator they sent after the poor cabbie. The police department doesn't answer to the DA as far as I know, but it sure seems like they do in this case.

The defense filed a motion to suppress the photo lineup weeks ago. You can read it here.

I do not buy the argument that a rapist would be afraid of a bite because they are raping by force and have the victim concerned about how much farther they would be willing to take it.

In my opinion, no male would put his penis in the mouth of a struggling female.

Why stick it in an orifice that has lots of teeth that can be accidentally used when a vagina or an anus has no teeth.

Yep, I be a man. And being that rape is about power and control and a great deal of victims are in shock or beaten into submission, I can clearly see how a woman would be afraid to bite. If a man can commit rape, what is to stop him from killing? Ridiculous argument.

By the way, you two sound as if you have never had your arse kicked.

I run outside and lock my car doors

I went to the bathroom with Precious and told her I wanted to leave. Precious felt we could get more money and that we shouldn't leave yet. She was uncontrollable at this point and was yelling at the boys who were knocking on the door to leave us alone. I finally decided to leave the house. I left the bathroom and exited the house w/ my dancing gear on. I went to the car wanting to leave, but not wanting to leave the girl in the house alone.

Racially motivated insults are never appropriate, but how do they equate with what is alleged in this case? Are the accused boys the ones that hurled insults? Seligman wasn't even there.

You don't know who called who what and what was said by the dancers.

They have a facility at Halsted and North avenue and you name the day and we can go 3 rounds of course,

Come on now Newport all I want is 3 rounds. I am much more refined these days, don't need to square off in the street like pond scum, I prefer laces and leather. I am game.

IMHO,

what about my typo correction? You didn't like it?

I got side-tracked, but I'm on it. While you're waiting, maybe you could comment on that Ohio oral rape case. Convicted on two counts of oral rape. No weapon. It wasn't hard to find, though maybe I just got lucky. It was the first result on my first google search.

But then again, I have never raped anyone, do you have some special insight we should know about?

Ahhh, you have fallen for those silly feminist myths about rape being about power and control.

Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 14, 2006 02:12 PM Painstakingly transcribed by imho:

As Newport said, you have to look at it from the guy's point of view, because it's his decision. I wouldn't want to risk *my* penis on an assumption that a struggling victim who wasn't afraid to stratch her assailants would draw the line at biting. Moving right along: I don't find it hard to believe that a struggling victim might be afraid to bite a wouldbe rapist's dick. But would she be afraid to keep her mouth closed? A blowjob requires *active cooperation.* To allege that one was struggling yet gave someone a blowjob doesn't jibe.

Moving right along: I don't find it hard to believe that a struggling victim might be afraid to bite a wouldbe rapist's dick. But would she be afraid to keep her mouth closed? A blowjob requires *active cooperation.* To allege that one was struggling yet gave someone a blowjob doesn't jibe.

Try this on for size IMHO:

Defense motion with [typos] corrected:

Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in his typed summary of this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once [redacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;...

How's that? You happy now that the typos are corrected?

extrapolations

Newport, you missed my point

If you work, I hope you are self-employed and painstakingly transcribing on your own dime.

I think it is pretty easy for a man to say, I would refuse and kick some arse, because men are not generally raped outside of prison.

I do not think an assault happened here, however, when considering the alternative i.e. ending up in a coma or dead, I would have to side with having a penis in my mouth. I will live to fight another day or do anything to get it over with. Again, being afraid of serious bodily harm can do wonders for what you are willing and unwilling to do.

As I have told you before, you don't know that Himan's written summary as you call it is of Pittman's written statement. You don't know that it is inaccurate at all. Himan may very well have interviewed Pittman, got her story orally, left Pitman to start writing her story down and then set off to document, in his words for the record, what her story was. He may very well have not been working off of her written statement but an earlier oral statement that he heard and which did not include anything about Precious going back into the house.

Defense motion with [typos] corrected:

Investigator Himan omitted from his probable cause affidavit that in his typed summary of this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house. The affidavit also omitted that once [redacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there;...

As I have told you before, you don't know that Himan's written summary as you call it is of Pittman's written statement. You don't know that it is inaccurate at all. Himan may very well have interviewed Pittman, got her story orally, left Pitman to start writing her story down and then set off to document, in his words for the record, what her story was. He may very well have not been working off of her written statement but an earlier oral statement that he heard and which did not include anything about Precious going back into the house.

By the way, is the "Kim helped them rape me" story off the table now? Was there ever an explanation as to its origin and its eventual disposal?

Do we know how long she fought? Did she ever succumb out of fear?

ROBERTS: .... I can never say that a rape did or did not occur that is for the courts to decide.

By the way, is the "Kim helped them rape me" story off the table now? Was there ever an explanation as to its origin and its eventual disposal?

Does anyone have the source of that story?

can't remember who the defense leaked that to. Was it Yale Galanter? Megyn Kendall? Does anyone have the source of that story?

By the way, is the "Kim helped them rape me" story off the table now? Was there ever an explanation as to its origin and its eventual disposal?

I can't remember who the defense leaked that to. Was it Yale Galanter? Megyn Kendall? Does anyone have the source of that story?

GALANTER: Yes. He's got to say why did the complaining witness say to Kim Roberts, we should go back in after they were both presumably safely in the car, and let's make some more money. He's got to explain why does the complaining witness say Kim Roberts was in the bathroom with me while I was getting forcibly raped by three men and she assisted. Not only did she assist, she stole my property and money. He's got to explain why none of those facts and circumstances...

ABRAMS: What about this? What about this? The accuser also said, she--quote--"she told the sexual assault nurse examiner in training that Kim Roberts Pittman, the second dancer, assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault...

GALANTER: Was in the bathroom...

ABRAMS: ... and that Kim Roberts Pittman...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: ... stole all her money and everything.

That is now Kim's "spin" for making the most out of this case, in preparation for her political future on the speaking engagement circuit. "I can never say....." That leaves it open ended enough for a lifetime's worth of speeches.

"He's got to explain why does the complaining witness say Kim Roberts was in the bathroom with me while I was getting forcibly raped by three men and she assisted. Not only did she assist, she stole my property and money. He's got to explain why none of those facts and circumstances..."

I have been hoping that more African-Americans such as Professor Coleman would come forward and use Mike Nifong's grotesque carnival as evidence that criminal justice procedures need to be altered for the benefit of suspects and defendants.

Kim, the AV, and Bissey now all have both women going back inside the house. The opportunity is there.

The main threat to that is that Bissey's time is on the late side (12:20-12:30).

BTW, anyone want to take bets that in ONE of the many ID sessions, there is a photo of Dave Evans with a mustache?

BTW, anyone want to take bets that in ONE of the many ID sessions, there is a photo of Dave Evans with a mustache?

Indeed. The time on Kim's addendum is 4PM, while the time on her statement is 2:15PM.

Himan's first entry is 12:40PM that same day, and his second entry, after recording his version of Kim's statement is 15:33 where he records that the players did not turn up for a meeting.

I am inclined to believe that Kim's addition was a genuine attempt to make sure that her account was accurate, while I think that Johnson's addition is simply designed to put the AV in a better light, and is contradicted by the detail he used earlier in the account.

IMHO, there is no ambiguity in the statement in the affidavit. Galanter probably just did what anyone else did and added "the bathroom."

What is so interesting about this?

How would this take it to another level.

Finally she [the AV] told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole "all her money and everything."

"He's got to explain why does the complaining witness say Kim Roberts was in the bathroom with me while I was getting forcibly raped by three men and she assisted. Not only did she assist, she stole my property and money. He's got to explain why none of those facts and circumstances..."

A mustache must present only on the upper lip, otherwise it's a beard or some variation thereof like a goat tee, no?

IMHO wrote,

I got side-tracked, but I'm on it. While you're waiting, maybe you could comment on that Ohio oral rape case. Convicted on two counts of oral rape. No weapon. It wasn't hard to find, though maybe I just got lucky. It was the first result on my first google search.

I already responded to that one. There was not a noncompliant victim in that case.

Posted by Newport June 13, 2006 12:07 AM 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.

In case this hasn't been discussed already, here is Professor Coleman's excellent letter requesting that Mike Nifong abandon his involvement in this case and turn it over to a special prosecutor.

According to the police account of the identification, however, the police officer who presided over the proceedings told the alleged victim at the outset that he wanted her to look at people the police had reason to believe attended the party. Thus, the police not only failed to include people they knew were not suspects among the photographs shown the woman, they told the witness in effect that there would be no such "fillers" among the photographs she would see.

I explained to her it was very important not to say anyone was present at the party if they were not, or say they were if she could not recall they were present.

This strongly suggests that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.

Whatever the truth is, Nifong can no longer personally restore public confidence in the prosecution of this case. Someone with professional detachment and unquestioned integrity must review the case and determine whether the evidence against the three students warrants further prosecution. That would serve the best interest of the alleged victim, the three defendants and public.

According to what the captains, reportedly, told the police, there were at least five wrong choices.

Additionally, Investigator Himan swore that "[a]ll of these parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party." The Defendant's name was 42nd on the list of the 46 members of the Duke Lacrosse Team and therefore was included in this set of "the last five."

The defense attorneys claim some of the players were at out of state job interviews - pretty easy to alibi.

If you're looking for a person in a small house, then you are going to find them.:

I guess being a "filler" doesn't prevent you from being indicted for a crime.

Obviously the captains were mistaken when they listed Seligmann in the last five as not being present since he was photographed at the party. What's to say they weren't mistaken with the other four? I have heard the job interview story before, but I don't remember where I heard it, whether it was a news source quoting a defense attorney or somthing someone else just repeated. If they were out of town, why would Nifong NOW be seeking their key card information? Why was he able to obtain their DNA? Truly, I don't believe there were any "fillers." If "Precious" identified someone as her attacker, that person was indicted.

If they were out of town, why would Nifong NOW be seeking their key card information? Why was he able to obtain their DNA?

To gain a better perspective on the situation at Duke, I contacted a good friend of mine from high school whose brother is on the Duke lacrosse team. My friend chose to remain anonymous to protect her brother. Needless to say, her description of the situation at Duke does not match the media's portrayal.

"A few of the seniors were in New York that weekend for job interviews," she noted, "They were still DNA tested and are being attacked just by affiliation.

"Life is living hell for the guys down there," my friend added, "People spit on them on the way to class, the campus food courts won't serve them."

Posted by Pat May 27, 2006 09:05 AM A second, and more ominous explanation, may be that Nifong discovered that one or more of the originally identified players was not in town during the party (several were on job interviews)

...Third, you keep mentioning the 46 players as all being "guilty" in some way, shape or form. Do you know that six of the players who gave DNA weren't even in Durham at the time of the alleged rape? They were in New York for job interviews, yet they are lumped in with everyone else. Do you know that some of the players who were there that night had only popped in and popped out of the house for brief periods of time, unaware of the goings on? But hey, let's just lump them all together!

Tom Brodsky Duke alumnus

It just so happens their inclusion makes Coleman's claim. "Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice," incorrect.

But, of course, criticizing the AV, Roberts or the DA doesn't fall under the purview of IMHO's micromaniacal scanner.

"Roberts went back into the house to look for the other woman, but didn't see her."

I mean, how hard is it? This is not like looking for your lost keys. If you're looking for a person in a small house, then you are going to find them.

Unless she was already on the back porch.

IF there is a blue wall of silence, then SOME of the other lacrosse players would have known what was going on. The accuser said they were separated when they reentered the house. Why wouldn't they post a lookout? Why was Kim allowed back in the house?

Nifong still does not know who all was at the party, who was out of town and who was not.

If a juror sees a photo of Evans taken at the party and say he looks like this, what matters is if a juror could think it is reasonable that the accuser considers that a mustache, whether other facial hair is present or not.

If the police were going by what the captains, reportedly, told them, they thought Seligmann was a filler.

IMHO, players not at the party would not be "known innocents." "Known innocents" also called fillers or foils, are persons who resemble the description of the perpetrator given by the accuser but who are known to have no involvement in the incident. For example, if she described her assailant as blond, blue eyed, mustached and about 20 years old, a "known innocent" would be someone not connected to the incident who is blond, blue eyed, mustached and about 20 years old. The DA should have shown her at least eight photos, one by one, for each of the three suspects she described. For each of the suspects she described, only one would be of a duke player matching that description, while seven would be of known innocents who resembled her description of the perpetrator, not the Duke student. The DA waited three weeks to show her a photo lineup. By that time, he had to have a pretty good idea which of the players were suspects according to her description.

The important thing is: this photograph isn't of Dave Evans. Yet the identity of this player is easily found. Is imho now suggesting that this player actually had something to do with the rape--that he was might have been the player identified by the accuser as having a "mustache"? If not, the consistent linking to this photo is outrageous.

...for purposes of a trial, what you or I, or even a juror considers is a mustache is not important. If a juror sees a photo of Evans taken at the party and say he looks like this, what matters is if a juror could think it is reasonable that the accuser could consider that a mustache, whether other facial hair is present or not.

Why do these details appear now and not when she was first making a statement for the police?

Kim now confirms - by adding a missing piece to her story, not necessarily completely changing it - (and I suspect that there are even more missing pieces from her), that the AV went back inside, and that she did, too.

IMHO is consistent with this stuff (linking pictures of other people when referring to Evans) because she wants to correct the misstatements of the lawyers and the media.

IMHO:

It just so happens their inclusion makes Coleman's claim. "Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice," incorrect.

Wrong. The job interview story is still hearsay from the anonymous sister of a player. Duke played Loyola in The First Four tournament in San Diego on March 11, a Saturday. I don't know how many seniors would be allowed to miss a tournament for job interviews. I have no reason to trust this statement. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, we must assume that all 46 were in town and available as suspects. None of the lawyers for the other players has come out and said, "Here's his airplane ticket! He was out of town! Release him from suspicion!" I think the lack of that statement is more probative than the quote of an anonymous sister.

Investigator Hinman swore that "[a]ll of the parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these three residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party.

Chuck Sherwood said his son went to the party not knowing that a stripper had been hired and departed soon after arriving. "I think he left because he didn't have much interest in what they were doing," he said. What transpired after that, Sherwood said, his son couldn't say.

He expressed frustration that police had taken DNA even from players not at the party and could have more clearly stated not all were there.

"That incriminates all of them to some extent and gives the impression they knew what was going on," Chuck Sherwood said.

I don't understand how Nifong can petition for key card data for all 46 players AFTER he said no further indictments were coming. True, he can't take the captains' statements as accurate. Why would he want to investigate who was present at the party now? Doesn't he have his suspects? Doesn't he have enough evidence to support a conviction? If that is not the case, why, then, did he indict three men before he had the whole story?

There is, to my knowledge, no photograph of Evans with a mustache. To suggest that the accuser could have been referring to this player with her comments about one of her attackers having a mustache--who imho now identifies--is absurd. There is absolutely no connection between whether or not one player on the team did or did not shave for a couple of days before a photo was taken in April 2005 and whether or not Dave Evans had a mustache on the night of March 13-4, 2006.

Commenters are debating what is and is not a mustache. A team member, reportedly, has signed an affidavit stating there is a rule against Duke lacrosse team members having a mustache. A former Duke lacrosse team member that posts here has stated Pressler had a "no facial hair" policy. This photo of Matt Zash shows what some might consider "facial hair." It was taken last year at a game Pressler coached. I am using this photo to illustrate how much hair is, apparently, allowed on a player.

Posted by Newport June 13, 2006 10:04 PM

If Cheshire produces a photo of Evans with any more growth than in that photo you just posted he's screwed as far as I'm concerned. That photo better be clean shaven or no more than a couple days growth or he will lose all credibility. I just was trying to be funny with my reference to a "real mustache" like the one you can wax and twirl.

The prosecution can investigate the case all the way through the trial, if it ever comes to that.

I don't know who was or was not at the party. Hinman's sworn statement says the three captains that live at the house named five players that were not there . . . If that is true, Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.

A former Duke lacrosse team member that posts here has stated Pressler had a "no facial hair" policy. This photo of Matt Zash shows what some might consider "facial hair."

IMHO wrote: I think the public would best be served if Coleman learned the facts of the case before calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor. She bases this on the fact that there were five students that the team captains indicated were not at the party, and that this at least impeached Coleman's opinion that the police photo ID did not meet the criteria for filler pictures. To honestly state that, IMHO would have to believe that the police did fully investigate and believe what the team captains had said, which does not appear to be the case. The police did not say, "Well, the team captains say these guys weren't there, and therefore they couldn't have been there, so we'll include their pictures as fillers." I think a more likely presumption is that the police did not believe what the captains said and included those photographs because they wanted all team members in the lineup. If Seligmann were a filler and the AV identified him and he was indicted, then he wasn't a filler. Therefore, the police did not use fillers because THEY (and not the team captains) had not eliminated those men as possible suspects. If it is proven in court that Seligmann wasn't there when a rape could have possibly occurred does he return from the indicted class to filler class? If Finnerty is found to have not been in the house at all when the strippers were there is he now also a filler? If the case is dismissed are all the players now fillers? Myself, I think that the public would be better served if Nifong were not prosecuting the case, for the many things pointed out all these many times, to include: failure to fully investigate the AV's differing accounts of the alleged gang rape; failure to fully weigh the AV's history of mental illness and substance abuse, her past charges of rape and failure to pursue those cases (to indicate she may have a history of filing false charges), her criminal history; failure to reasonably examine the evidence at hand (DNA results, statements at odds with the AV's various versions of events, etc.); failure to examine evidence offered by the defense which they claim is exculpatory; inconsistencies in the AV's own varying accounts of her intoxication or lack thereof; failure to test for intoxication of the AV (or, alternatively, hiding results of such a test); heavy-handed use of the court system to coerce false testimony from Roberts, the cab driver and students present at the party; his public statements in violation of NC codes for DAs. For starters. But, of course, criticizing the AV, Roberts or the DA doesn't fall under the purview of IMHO's micromaniacal scanner.

Newport, IF Galanter, without any other information, took this sentence from the motion: Finally she [the AV] told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole "all her money and everything." and turned it into this: Galanter's version: "He's got to explain why does the complaining witness say Kim Roberts was in the bathroom with me while I was getting forcibly raped by three men and she assisted. Not only did she assist, she stole my property and money. He's got to explain why none of those facts and circumstances..." you wouldn't see the problem with that?

IMHO, if you're going to keep linking to a photo of a player who has not been accused in this incident, then I'm going to start dropping hints regarding a certain substance-addicted, mentally-unstable prostitute with veracity issues who's a daily threat to the well-being of her children - as well as other innocent parties in city of Durham.

fillintheblanks If you're looking for a person in a small house, then you are going to find them.: Unless she was already on the back porch.

I have always suspected that the boys locked the door and did not let precious back in the house when she came back to either 1) see if there was money to be made, 2) look for her shoe, or 3) look for some other property, depending on who's version of the story is to be believed.

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.

I think Kim may have wanted to see if she could make a little more money too.

IMHO,

Back atcha.

THIS IS A GOOD PLACE TO GET INFO ON THE DURHAM PROSTITUTE PSEUDO-RAPE CASE.

BTW, you may think she's "decent", but it's clear that your bar for "decent" is perilously low. Would that be the soft bigotry of low expectations?

"Sleazy" and "skanky" are among the nicest words I can come up with for a drug-addled hooker who endangers her children on a regular basis and falsely alleges felonies which could put innocent people away for ten or more years. I don't even want to calculate what a gigantic waste of money she's been....

Could [Seligman] have been committing a crime while dialing these numbers? Sure. Is it likely? I wouldn't think so, but then again people do some pretty wild stuff when they've been drinking.

But the interview with the sister must be proven?

imho stated:

I don't know who was or was not at the party. Hinman's sworn statement says the three captains that live at the house named five players that were not there . . . If that is true, Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.

Yet again, we have the claim that someone disagreeing with imho's opinion is lying, or fibbing, or factually incorrect.

I don't know who was or was not at the party. Hinman's sworn statement says the three captains that live at the house named five players that were not there.

From the MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS:

Investigator Hinman swore that "[a]ll of the parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these three residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party.

Maybe he's lying, maybe the captains are lying or mistaken. We don't know. According to Hinman's sworn statement the police were led to believe five of the photographed players were not at the party.

According to Chuck Sherwood, ex-Duke lacrosse goalie and father of the sole black player currently on the team, not all players photographed for purposes of identification were at the party.

He [Chuck Sherwood] expressed frustration that police had taken DNA even from players not at the party and could have more clearly stated not all were there.

If that is true, Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.

Chuck Sherwood said, "...that police had taken DNA even from players not at the party ." That means the power point presentation Coleman is discussing contained photos "from players not at the party."

If what Chuck Sherwood says is true, there were wrong choices and Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.

If what Chuck Sherwood says is true, there were wrong choices and Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.

If what Chuck Sherwood says is true, there were wrong choices and Coleman's statement is INCORRECT.

I sat down with the victim in the briefing room at the conference table and explained to her we were going to sit in the far side of the room at the desk and look at people we had reason to believe attended the party.

"The officer was telling the witness that all are suspects, and say, in effect, 'Pick three,' " Coleman said. "It's so wrong; it had to be done for a reason other than identification." (emphasis mine)

I sat down with the victim in the briefing room at the conference table and explained to her we were going to sit in the far side of the room at the desk and look at people we had reason to believe attended the party.

"The officer was telling the witness that all are suspects, and say, in effect, 'Pick three,' " Coleman said. "It's so wrong; it had to be done for a reason other than identification." (emphasis mine)

Why do you get sucked into responding to IMHO's comments? Most of IMHO's comments are ridiculous and focused on details that have nothing to do with this case really.

Is she smart enough or experienced enough to know that she could refuse a tox screen if rape is alleged?

Going way back to BIP's comments as to the animus that AV might have had to file the charges, is it possible or likely that, with the motivation solely of self-preservation, she cried "Rape" simply to avoid a tox screen?

I agree that Nifong making all of the statements to the press was unethical, especially now that we see he was making statements "wildly" without anything to back them up...

Does Nifong attending that "town meeting" and making the statements he did expose him to the possibility of civil action, especially considering all of the evidence that is now coming out that he knew about?

to inmyhumbleopinion

If the police were going by what the captains, reportedly, told them, they thought Seligmann was a filler.

TalkLeft explained to you why neither Seligmann not the other alibied teammates were "fillers."

TL posted:

IMHO, players not at the party would not be "known innocents......

I doubt the police were [not] including the players they had reason to believe were not there, as fillers. It just so happens their inclusion makes Coleman's claim. "Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice," incorrect.

IMHO wrote:

Nifong still does not know who all was at the party, who was out of town and who was not.

Then it's not true that they put "fillers" in the lineup. They didn't put anybody in the lineup who they knew was not present.

Furthermore, the sergeant's instructions to the AV were coaching. If (as many of us strongly suspect) the rape accusation was a lie, the AV might have picked three alleged culprits without bothering to try to remember whether she saw them that night. The sergeant helped her to minimize the risk of picking someone with an ironclad alibi by instructing her to concentrate, in the first place, on filtering the suspect pool for those she remembered having seen at the party.

Seriously IMHO, the issue regarding the photo lineup is NOT whether or not there were a few Lacrosse players that may have been out of town and were "fillers" by your definition. The issue is that it wasn't done properly.

Thanks in advance for your comments. Now I have to go write my resignation letter and put my house up for sale since I will be spending all of my time on this blog and not working. IMHO, how do you do it?

As a left wing feminist and lawyer, I am beyond tired of IMHO. Shut up. You really don't know what you are blabbering about.

As a left wing feminist and lawyer, I am beyond tired of IMHO. Shut up. You really don't know what you are blabbering about.

SUO - you're right, I forgot about greed.

Alan - very interesting direction. I can only think that the two you mentioned would have to be correct. However, I find BIP very pursuasive in his estimation that she made up the allegation on a spur of the moment when caught in a pinch.

TW, I checked the charitable contributions to UNC Law by alum. For 2005-2006, Nifong gave nothing. Nice guy. The taxpayers and the State of NC supported the students. Our tuition back them was $250 per semester but Nifong gives nothing in return. What does that tell you?

I also wonder about the bruising her father claims she had later that day. Could it have been that she finally came clean with Matt after he picked her up at the hospital and he beat the living cr@p out of her?

Just thinking. I'm not asserting any of this as remotely true.

Would it be fair to assume that the boyfriend did NOT know her line of work?

If you want me to lay off? Maybe it's time for you to lead by example and STFU.

Would be very interested in how the first rape claim first arose...was a boyfriend mad?

Coleman, it's worth recalling, was not only Duke Law School's only rep. on the Actual Innocence Project, but he's also the former Democratic chief counsel to the House Ethics Committee. Just a hunch--but my guess is he doesn't need lectures from imho on how and the manner in which he should comment publicly.

Investigator Hinman swore that "[a]ll of the parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these three residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party.

TW, I checked the charitable contributions to UNC Law by alum. For 2005-2006, Nifong gave nothing. Nice guy. The taxpayers and the State of NC supported the students. Our tuition back them was $250 per semester but Nifong gives nothing in return. What does that tell you?

I posted earlier regarding a civil suit. Do any of the lawyers/legal experts on here think that the accused have grounds for a civil case against Nifong and/or the DPD based upon what has come out the past few days regarding evidence that they had and ignored or that they lied in affidavits without even having reports yet?

Greetings from the peanut gallery. Newport, the NBP fellow got away with his remarks because the judge had not yet entered the courtroom. Nutfong was there but, apparently, pre-occupied with shuffling papers and practising his head shaking and simpering performance. In any event, being an officer of the court and all, I guess Nutfong felt the kid deserved the threat and who cares about a well represented defendant anyway.

It tells me a lot - about you.

Around 2 p.m. that afternoon **** calls me asking if I could drive her that night. I agree and ask what time, she says around 4 p.m. As I get close to her parents house she calls me and says that Matt [Mathew Murchison, her boyfriend] is coming over to bring her something. I told her that I would wait until she called me at the the car wash on Fayetteville St. Around 5-5:30 p.m. she calls me and tells me that he's gone. About 5-10 minutes later I arrive at her parent's house.

This is an interesting question and I doubt anyone really knows what the answer is. It would require a lot of legal research into immunity law, how far it extends, to whom it extends, and whether it can be pierced.

FILAN: Norm, I think that you can appoint a special prosecutor if there is not just a conflict of interest, but the appearance of impropriety, and one could argue that there is the appearance of impropriety in this case, because perhaps it was brought with political motivations and now that the evidence doesn't sound like it's panning out, he's not going to drop it. Do you think that could be a basis for a special prosecutor?

NORMAN EARLY, FORMER DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You know, a prosecutor should always try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. If people perceive one that does not mean that a special prosecutor should be appointed. Let's remember that even though Mr. Coleman was on this commission appointed by the university, he knows no more about this case than you know, Yale know, or that I know about this case.

In his report, they said that they were not able to interview all the witnesses and they also said they didn't have time to do the job thoroughly, so this gives him no more reason to call for a special prosecutor than anyone in Durham County. It seems to me that what's happening here is the same old thing, with defense giving snippets of information. Why doesn't one of the defense attorneys, as you requested last week, Susan, give up the entire file and let the public make up their mind about what's in the file, rather than distorting the information that's in the file, and giving us only those pieces of information that seem to favor the defense. Give it all up, and let people make up their own mind about whether this case has any merit or not.

but he must not have because he made a glaring error: unless the three captains and Chuck Sherwood are liars, THERE WERE WRONG CHOICES. From the MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS: Investigator Hinman swore that "[a]ll of the parties named in this application with the exception of the last five were named by these three residents of 610 N. Buchanan as being present at the party.

All those who believe that would also believe that when the accuser claimed Dave Evans had a mustache, she really was referring to the other player, who 11 months before was unshaven.

Why doesn't one of the defense attorneys, as you requested last week, Susan, give up the entire file and let the public make up their mind about what's in the file

You remind me of the dearly departed Orinoco.

Ten days ago such misconduct on the part of a DA would have seemed to me unlikely, but now I think Nifong is capable of ANYTHING.

There is, of course, another possibility. If Evans was not ruled out by the sophisticated second test, he a fortiori wouldn't have been ruled out by the first test. We know Nifong was leaking results from the second test some days before the official report was released, and it seems a safe assumption that he also had a pretty good idea what the results of the first test were going to be before those were officially reported. (When did he first start making remarks about condoms?) If he knew as early as April 4, he might well have had Himan steer Precious in Evans's direction. Ten days ago such misconduct on the part of a DA would have seemed to me unlikely, but now I think Nifong is capable of ANYTHING.

The thing is, you spend so much time and energy posting here, that you've started to get sloppy about your manners. Maybe every 2,500 posts someone needs to remind you to play nice.

Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 15, 2006 08:22 PM The Abrams Report' for June 14 NORMAN EARLY, FORMER DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You know, a prosecutor should always try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. If people perceive one that does not mean that a special prosecutor should be appointed. Let's remember that even though Mr. Coleman was on this commission appointed by the university, he knows no more about this case than you know, Yale know, or that I know about this case. In his report, they said that they were not able to interview all the witnesses and they also said they didn't have time to do the job thoroughly, so this gives him no more reason to call for a special prosecutor than anyone in Durham County.

to inmyhumbleopinion

What is your definition of a "wrong choice"?

Coleman is the first professor at Duke to show any backbone in this matter and the fact that he is black is even more impressive in my book.