Is it ok to have sockpuppets as well as your regular account TL? Because I'm beginning to suspect a certain pro-prosecution poster of having more than one account.

Posted by Sundance June 15, 2006 09:37 PM And why is blakely so angry?

Lora and imho: have either one of you noticed that, to continue to susatin the AV's story, you have to distort the plain meaning of words, and commone sense understanding?

"Assisted in a rape" means more than verbal inducements, imho. And if Kim "assisted" in a rape, and the AV said the rape happened in a bathroom, give the words their normal meaning: if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom.

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."

Is there anything preventing Freda Black from getting on the ballot?

State law would also prohibit Black from appearing on the November ballot as an independent candidate. State law contains what is known as the "Sore Loser's Clause," which forbids an unsuccessful candidate from a political party primary from appearing on the November ballot in the same race during the same year. Similarly, the law also says that any write-in votes cast for Black in the General Election would not be tabulated.

"Once you are on the primary ballot and lose, there is no way for you to get votes in November," Ashe said.

[Kim] just made $400 for five minutes work...(okay, an hour of her time). No, she went back inside and made a quick tour to assuage her conscience before she burned rubber to get out of there, with "Precious" or not.

Apparently, once Kim left the house the second time (when the rape was supposedly occurring), she was told by the young men AT THAT TIME that the accuser was ALREADY passed out on the back porch. Photos at 12:30 had already been taken. "Precious" was on the back porch. That's why Kim couldn't find her in the house.

Yes, the "Sore Loser's Clause."

IMHO, I suspect your definition of "wrong choice" differs from Coleman's. I would guess that he means "known innocents" -- or somebody who was not even remotely involved in the case and thus could not be indicted. He may well be incorrect by your definition, but he'd be perfectly correct by mine. Cling to your definition if you want to, but I don't think you're going to convince anybody.

What doesn't add up, is that if the partyers did let the AV back in, why didn't she get her shoe? And where did her purse get to? (Sorry, I do not buy the "Kim stole it" theory, although it is possible, just not likely in my opinion.) If they didn't let the AV in, why did they let Kim in? You'd think they would either let them both back in, or none.

Posted by SharonInJax June 11, 2006 10:55 AM The SANE nurse's report contains no opinion or conclusion that (the AV) had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted va*inally and a*ally

So it was Dr. Nifong who said (loudly and often) that the AV's injuries were "consistent with a sexual assault" (as the AV described it happened), not a nurse or doctor? What, Nifong's not a doctor but he plays one on TV?

Lora and imho: if you are ever chosen to be on a jury, listen to the judge, okay? Your attention to, and imagining of, things that are not admissible, your alternate opinions about non-evidence are good for discussions such as these. But, please promise: if you are ever on a jury, DON'T DO THIS.

if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom.

imh posted: Sharon, if you are ever on another jury don't make an assumption like you did in having the accuser meaning Kim was in the bathroom with her and the three attackers. We don't have enough information to do that.

SharonInJax posted: if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom.

I seem to recall that when the results of the second round of testing were announced it was said that there was material from several persons adhering to the fingernail, and that there were TWO players who could not be eliminated as sources. My analysis will be based on that assumption.

N&O May 19, 2006: The DNA Security report said Dave Evans, one of three senior co-captains living in the rental house on Buchanan Boulevard, could not be excluded as the source of the DNA found on an artificial fingernail taken from a wastebasket in a bathroom at the house. But the report also noted that 14 of the 3,561 profiles in the company's DNA data bank could not be excluded as sources.

The Durham Herald-Sun reported that scientists who analyzed the tissue concluded it came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of 46 lacrosse players who gave DNA samples for testing. Scientists ruled out a possible match with any of the other 45 students, sources told the newspaper.

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.

Nifong requested the second test by DNA Security because the Burlington lab has more sophisticated capabilities than the State Bureau of Investigation lab in Raleigh, defense attorneys said. The SBI tests showed no DNA links between the accuser and the members of the lacrosse team.

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.

(Sorry, I do not buy the "Kim stole it" theory, although it is possible, just not likely in my opinion.)

The defense said early on she was in the bathroom doing her nails and the photos reportedly show nail polish on the back porch railing.

I keep going back to that, imho and Lora, and others: if Seligman, or Finnerty, or Evans, were your son/father/brother/husband, would you be so fervent and quick to explain away the problems with the AV's testimony?

IMHO:

(Sorry, I do not buy the "Kim stole it" theory, although it is possible, just not likely in my opinion.)

Why is this so unlikely

Show nail-polish on the back-porch railing like the photos show her having showed up with abrasions and clearly injured? Then photos documenting the bleeding and obvious and very clear cuts/bruises/whatnot? That the same SANE exam that is claimed to exonerate the players as far as physically doesn't even appear to back-up? That kind of "showing" I'm a bit skeptical about. When would she have done her nails? If while in the bathroom with Kim (which, somehow I doubt), they would have dried by then. Or, if they were wet, they'd have smeared else-ware first. I also highly doubt she had gone into the bathroom that second time she went up to the house to do them....

But, then, I'd tell them that their racist, sexist, and demeaning remarks that now everybody knows about but none of their buddies want to be men about is their own damn fault

Alan, What I don't get, if they weren't letting the AV in, why they would let Kim go in to look for her. They'd just tell her then that the AV was on the back porch. Makes no sense.

Brown said she hasn't told Nifong she'll be working against him. She said she contacted him about 10 days ago, as rumors circulated about an unidentified possible write-in candidate, to ask if he would require her services and hasn't heard back. Nifong was unavailable for comment Thursday.

As I have said before, I am not looking at evidence as if I were sitting on a jury. There is definitely reasonable doubt at this point. Whether the times (including the photo time stamps) are all correct I'm not so sure.

If the date was altered perfectly, yes, impossible to detect. Altering perfectly with no trace, exceedingly difficult.

Memories of particular events are not isolated, independent entities. Rather, they take on meaning in a context of other memories that a person uses to make sense of each new event. Traumatic experiences can interfere with the flexibility with which people normally assimilate new experiences and reconcile them with past experiences. Thus, someone who was severely traumatized in the past may interpret new experiences rigidly in line with the memory of that past trauma. The reverse also occurs; that is, someone who has suffered a recent trauma may reinvent the past in light of that recent experience. When an experience is interpreted as being too threatening to assimilate, it may appear in the form of intrusive thoughts or memories, or else it may be "forgotten" in what we observe as amnesia. A word of caution: An intrusive thought cannot be assumed to correspond to a real event, any more than any other memory can. Its accuracy must be assessed in the light of other available evidence.

Someone that was not at the party is a "WRONG CHOICE" whether or not they can prove it.

Also, I would presume that any discussion between police investigators or Nifong and the AV would have to be memorialized.

Maybe she just made up the story because she is a vile and vicious hooker...

IMHO, I suspect your definition of "wrong choice" differs from Coleman's. I would guess that he means "known innocents" -- or somebody who was not even remotely involved in the case and thus could not be indicted. He may well be incorrect by your definition, but he'd be perfectly correct by mine. Cling to your definition if you want to, but I don't think you're going to convince anybody.

IMHO posted

Someone that was not at the party is a "WRONG CHOICE" whether or not they can prove it.

This isn't part of my definition of a wrong choice, and you know it, if you can read. I said somebody who was not even remotely connected with the case and could not be indicted was a wrong choice. By that definition, Coleman is absolutely correct. Your definition is yours, mine is mine, and Coleman's is Coleman's. Stop trying to impose your definitions on the rest of us.

Stop trying to impose your definitions on the rest of us.

1) explaining here why there is no reasonable doubt about the time stamps inside the cameras being correct. Meaning, "or if tampered with, then that will be detectable."

Why didn't the DA search for the AV's DNA in the bathroom?

Description of items to be seized 1. Any DNA evidence to include hair, semen, blook, salvia (sic) related to the suspects and the victim 2. Blue bathroom carpet/rug

17. Large rectangle green bath rug 18. Small bath mat, 19. white floor cleaning wip, hand towel with initials, 21 swabbings 22. 5 fingernails, 23. dish rag

I think the first test was just for sperm DNA from the swabs, maybe?

Brown said she hasn't told Nifong she'll be working against him. She said she contacted him about 10 days ago, as rumors circulated about an unidentified possible write-in candidate, to ask if he would require her services and hasn't heard back. Nifong was unavailable for comment Thursday.

WOW!

Nifong doesn't respond to anybody, not the motions, not the press, not the defense lawyers, and not even his campaign manager!

Perhaps, like the mystic powers of prescience invoked in the medical conclusions, Kim 'assisted' from a distance by the use of telekinesis?

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." gives us enough information to say this?:

SharonInJax posted:

if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom.

Maybe she just made up the story because she is a vile and vicious hooker...

"I have never got my arse kicked. I am the legendary undefeated fighter/blogger of the world"

Do you think this: 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." gives us enough information to say this?:

SharonInJax posted: if the AV said Kim "assisted" then she was in the bathroom. I don't.

• Pittman assisted the rape and was therefore present when it happened
• Pittman is vested with myserious and unknown powers which enable her to assist a rape in one room while she is herself in another

If you are referring to anything I may have written, I think you misunderstood me.

We don't know that the accuser used the word assisted. If the accuser told the nurse, "I know she was in on it. She set me up."

Being indicted doesn't change the fact you are a "WRONG CHOICE." Tell this filler who spent almost 20 years in prison, that he was not a "WRONG CHOICE." I find it amusing that you have to tell us what a law professor meant to say. Perhaps he got sucked into the defense spin and didn't realize that among the photos the accuser was shown were photographs of people who were not at the party. It is a misconception about the power point presentation I have read several times.

What about Himan's lies, IMHO? How long can you ignore those? You are the great corrector of all manor of typo's and general piddle-squat, why not show your real skills and address the Himan LIES? Step up.

1. Any DNA evidence to include hair, semen, blook, salvia (sic) related to the suspects and the victim

Could the nurse have recorded this as: "patient claims Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault?" Do you think we know enough from the nurse's statement to put Ms. Pittman in the bathroom during the attack? I don't.

Read my post again, IMHO. I never made any contention about what Coleman meant to say. I only said that his definition of "wrong choice" is probably different from yours, as is mine.

Posted by january June 15, 2006 10:08 PM

IMHO, I suspect your definition of "wrong choice" differs from Coleman's. I would guess that he means "known innocents" -- or somebody who was not even remotely involved in the case and thus could not be indicted. He may well be incorrect by your definition, but he'd be perfectly correct by mine. Cling to your definition if you want to, but I don't think you're going to convince anybody.

DNA Security of Burlington analyzed 23 "evidence specimens" at $450 apiece and 50 "reference specimens" that cost $250 each, according to papers filed in Durham County Superior Court.

I really thought my answer was clear,...

My definition of a wrong choice is somebody in the lineup who could not be indicted.

Although criticism of Nifong's handling of the Duke lacrosse case arose during his primary campaign, Brown said she did not abandon her candidate because she had never lost a campaign. But she fielded many questions about Nifong.