home

Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:06:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Yesterday's Duke lacrosse thread generated 300 comments, so it's time for another. And a commenter got banned and had all his/her comments deleted because of repetitive insults to other commenters. So be forwarned, disagreement is fine, name-calling and personal attacks are not.

< Pentagon Study Confirms Detainee Abuse | Dinner With Murray >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread | 270 comments (270 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lora on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:19:40 PM EST
    For those of you who think the medical reports will really show no injuries, anyone remember this? I posted this quote on May 4 (I also took out a quote that some posters thought was not specific to this case): Theresa Arico, sexual assault nurse examiner and coordinator of Duke Hospital program (Herald-sun via NCCU Eagles fan page): <
    strong>"I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told."
    Do you really think that the head of the SANE program would say that if there wasn't back-up for it? I don't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Alan on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:41:58 PM EST
    Lora I don't think it's final proof. (I resisted the temptation to ask which story) I could cite the various defence motions as a counter-argument. The Cheshire motion, in particular, seems to go into great detail. We'll know when and if the medical report eventually becomes public. Until then we're whistling in the dark and we tend to read second-order interpretations according to the tenor of our overall beliefs about the case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:12:32 AM EST
    With all due respect to Ms. Arico's professionalism, I find this a rather tepid endorsement of the accuser's story (whichever one it was). Lora, it doesn't require some extraordinary backup, because simply, it is NOT an extraordinary claim (unlike a condomless rape which yields no perpetrator DNA): "I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told." It's a CYA statement. I would guess, though I do not claim to know for sure, that within neither the SANE report nor Ms. Arico's press was any other possibility considered. Nobody wants to know/ask: "Well, with what else can these injuries be consistent?" Well, I would like to know, but I'm never going to discover that in a SANE report. As I understand it, the SANE program is supposed to provide support for alleged victims of rape (from what I have seen, this is its highest priority, and why not?), to improve data collection procedures using trained nurses, and to turn over stronger forensic results with which prosecutors can get better rates of conviction. But I see a huge problem, which is a lack of control subjects and blind (couldn't really be double blind--that's cruel) studies. To wit, the concluding paragraph of a summary of the effectiveness of SANE programs from 2004: "...it appears that SANE programs are having beneficial effects on rape survivors' psychological well-being and they are improving the prosecution rates of sexual assault crimes. However, such conclusions are tentative because most published studies have not included adequate methodological controls or comparisons to rigorously test the effectiveness of SANE programs. To address these research and practice needs, it is important that researchers and SANE program practitioners develop strong collaborative relationships." The full summary is here. I don't know how to make the link yet--help. http://www.vawnet.org/SexualViolence/Research/VAWnetDocuments/AR_Sane.php

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Alan on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:16:37 AM EST
    here's the link

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    lora, if your so certain, want to make a small cash wager, that ms. arico is never called as a witness by the DA? since, according to all the published reports, she isn't the one who actually conducted the SANE, her comments are pretty meaningless.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:24:33 AM EST
    Thank you, sir. Oh, look, there's a URL button up there! (It's really late...)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by JK on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:27:13 AM EST
    I have finally read the Supplemental Discovery Motion filed Thursday and have a few comments. The notion that this motion is just defense counsel "churning" for fees is ridiculous. There are several important strategic purposes served by the motion. First, this motion is designed to provide additional support to the previously filed motion to compel. Apparently, Nifong has withheld quite a bit of discovery, and it appears that at least one of his tactics in doing so has been to avoid having many of the investigative details reduced to writing. Nifong's purpose in doing this is multifold - to keep the defense in the dark as long as possible and to maintain maximum flexibility in presenting his case. The purpose of the defense is equally obvious - to find out as many of the details about the investigative process as possible, to peg down Nifong's position, to develop a full record of the inconsistencies between the AV's multiple versions of the events, and to develop a full record of the inconsistencies between the medical data and the AV's versions of events. Thus, the fundamental purpose of this motion is to force Nifong to hand over any other versions of the medical reports (and other reports) that have not been provided and to force Nifong to memorialize in writing certain aspects of the investigation that have not been described in the reports. Another purpose of the motion is to educate the judge about (a) inconsistencies in the various stories of the AV, (b) the inconsistencies between Nifong's public statements and what the evidence shows, and (c) Nifong's ethical violations. Based on the timeline provided, Nifong and/or Himan either lied in court documents or (more likely) failed to memorialize in writing certain aspects of the investigation and the interactions with medical personnel. The most important part of this motion is the prayer for relief, which seeks a very detailed order requiring all law enforcement officers and anyone else involved in the investigation to reduce all their activities to writing and to certify that all activities have been reported in writing. If the court substantially grants this relief, it strongly limits Nifong's ability to present any new details, variations, or explanations of discrepancies later on at trial. If I were a criminal defendant, and my liberty were at stake, I would want this motion filed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 01:25:57 AM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    To those who are better informed:
    I have not flung any sh*t on this post, nor have I ever made a personal attack on anyone else who has ever posted here. The poster named "blakely" has me confused with someone else.
    That's a lie, SLOphoto. Posted by SLOphoto May 31, 2006 04:46 PM
    IMHO is not someone to be trifled with on these postings. She will pounce with all the predatory skill and ken of a saber tooth tiger if she catches the scent of a desirable prey. And I have watched a respectable number of would-be adversaries here on this site learn that lesson the hard way.
    You have yet to meet your match on this site, we both know it, and we both know why. You were not one of those people in Isla Vista who developed her intellect by humbly contemplating the jewel in the heart of the lotus flower. You lived on Del Playa.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 01:27:29 AM EST
    Talk Left, In case you don't know what provoked blakely, here are insults directed at just me, in just that one thread: Sundance: ******** I'm wondering why, in IMHO's and Blakely's world, every one is lying, spinning, misrepresenting, or misinterpreting (the lax players, the defense lawyers, the officer on the scene, the SANE nurse IT, the camera phone, the ATM camera, the THs, probably Seligmann's cab driver, etc.) except for Kimmy, Precious, Brian, Himan, and Nifong, even though those (excepting Himan) are the ones whose stories have been inconsistent. Not at all. Note that word-spinner IMHO even managed to make that seem derogatory. Newport: ******* And, IMHO, I now believe the earlier poster that thought Blakely is your sock puppet. Wouldn't it be something if IMHO really was Nifong? Is that even possible? We know he hasn't responded to any of the 30 or so motions that keep getting tossed his way. Could it be he was too busy posting as IMHO on TL? IMHO you are really out of your element here. It's not a matter of anyone fighting anything, it's a matter of a medical center following procedures to see that it's patients rights are protected and that it is complying with the applicable law. Those things require legal review and take time. Imho, you are really full of it. That was not the complete context of my statement. I said cases of oral rape with a noncompliant victim who is fighting back would be exceedingly rare if not nonexistent. If you would state the relevance of IMHO's post re Norm Early someone might respond to it. I'm sure IMHO could explain how this should not be trusted either. Those racist, but techno clever, boys could have all gotten together before the party and synchronized their watches with the doctored cell phone 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. Really. It seems to me that this goes to the very heart of the case. What would be much ado about something? Maybe IMHO's Coleman discussion, or maybe correction of typo's in a motion? Kinda like you carrying on over typo's and whether Coleman lied and whether Kim's assistance was rendered in the bathroom or whether she provided such assistance from another room, or the lawn, or the car, or another planet Sorry, IMHO, but the above makes no sense. Try again. Hey, IMHO, I want some of what you are smokin. wumhenry: ********* that was a test of candor, IMHO, and you flunked whatisthat: ********** This is an example of IMHO's world: For Liefong you say "...I will try to see if there is an explanation." For the defense, ANYTHING they say or write is a lie, incorrect, a loser, etc. IMHO, you are a fraud. I'll bet if the circumstances were different and most of this board were in favor of an actual AV (not FA as in this case), that you would be arguing the defense side. Again, one who just like to argue and likes the attention...which I will stop putting on you now. Darn, I got sucked in again. I used to lump Lora and IMHO together as the same...unreasonable and close-minded, but I must say, after Lora's posts last night, I view her differently. IMHO, on the other hand, why do you continue with this nonsense? It seems you could be a smart person who could actually contribute Oh crap, I just got sucked into responding to something ridiculous that IMHO posted. Now I see how it happens. value to this board...this is a "law board" right? Yet...you lose all credibility with your one-sided antics. I really thought you could add value to this discussion and was interested in your view. I was wrong. I'm sorry for setting the bar too high for you to be able to contribute. Bob in Pacifica: *************** What I have done for the last few days is comment on IMHO's intellectually dishonest games here. I don't think that many here besides a couple of fans (or alter egos) think that she's a particularly honest seeker of truth. And IMHO hasn't responded to what I wrote, as she hasn't responded to others here, when her bogus act is exposed. In an honest discussion, you discuss. If IMHO can waste two or three days berating Coleman for mentioning the investigators' failure to use fillers, when her own definition of what constitutes a filler even doesn't jibe with real-world standards, and all her marginal arguments had already been answered a long time ago by TL, then she must be able to find the time to answer a few questions. That's not her game, though. And it is a game. Your game is to bring up that Sharon mentioned the AV's name. You're due to bring it up again. Newport, IMHO, in her quest for intellectual dishonesty among the lawyers and the media, cannot recognize dishonesty in the police, the DA or herself. Alan: **** imho then introjected (a nicer word than fabricated) a previously unmentioned 'qualified doctor or nurse' to advise Dr Nifong on the medical content of the examination. Which position is yours? Or shall we have another imhological argument about the meaning of 'presence'? I don't see the benefit to filling an already speculative thread with a mountain of introjected imhology. Alan's speech on respect is a good closer: Posted by Alan June 16, 2006 11:36 PM Posted by blakely
    Then I suggest you and your friends raise the level of discourse by stopping the personal attacks on me and imho. But, of course, you won't do that. For some reason you and others think you have a God given right to sh*t flinging.
    You are not comparing like with like. No-one has said anything to or about you and imho that begins to approach the degree of spite you have used. TalkLeft has set standards of discourse for this board.Imputing child sexual assault does not meet them. You should apologise, both to those you abused and to our host who considers this her living room, if you want anyone's respect. ****************** If anyone plans to scroll through that thread hoping to find I responded with insults of the same tenor or anywhere near the same volume, they'll be sadly disappointed. I think they will be surprised at the level of civility I maintained. btw, I'm not complaining about the insults. I find it amusing that these commenters are so bent on discrediting me. Why are they so threatened by what I have to say?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 01:36:19 AM EST
    That was a good post, jk. What do you think of the part about Nifong's statements concerning his opinion on the use of condoms? I didn't get their point.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 01:45:16 AM EST
    You have to understand that obviously the defense attorneys would probably prefer to try the case against somebody who is less experienced than I am, or get somebody who is less committed to the case than I am, and you can certainly understand that. I mean, if I were one of those attorneys, I wouldn't really want to try a case against me either. Mike Nifong

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Alan on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 02:17:17 AM EST
    Which of the supposed insults do you say is equivalent to an imputation of child sexual assault, imho? I am looking for a list of equivalent insults, not equivocation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 02:32:46 AM EST
    Lora said:
    Theresa Arico, sexual assault nurse examiner and coordinator of Duke Hospital program (Herald-sun via NCCU Eagles fan page):
    "I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told."
    Do you really think that the head of the SANE program would say that if there wasn't back-up for it? I don't.
    As has been explained before, "consistent with" is artful wording invented by feminists to make rape prosecutions easier by appearing to say more than it does. In fact since rape need not cause physical injury the results of a medical examination will almost always be "consistent with rape".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 02:49:41 AM EST
    Lora, inmyhumbleopinion (6/16 5:37 pm) said:
    I think what we are seeing here is the fact that no signs, no injury and no symptoms are considered to be consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally.
    Her behavior was "consistent with a traumatic experience." She claimed to be experiencing pain in her v@ginal area and the nurse noted "diffuse edema of the v@ginal walls," but neither of these injuries or symptoms need be present. Same with lack of an@l injuries, signs, or symptoms.
    This makes the same point as my post above.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 02:54:14 AM EST
    Alan, You wrote to Blakely:
    TalkLeft has set standards of discourse for this board. Imputing child sexual assault does not meet them.
    Imputing false accusations of rape does, however meet the standard. It isn't necessary for the level of discourse to be allowed to descend that low, but Talkleft allowed it to, and it is not surprising that there are people who respond to that low standard in kind. It's what makes it a hot case. I would note that the same people who like to use the term FA to refer to the AV have also averred that falsely accusing someone of rape is a worse crime than rape itself. We can only imagine how serious the crime of falsely accusing a person of falsely accusing a person of rape might therefore be, but that's the sort of living room being run here. You wrote to Blakely: You should apologise, both to those you abused and to our host who considers this her living room, if you want anyone's respect. TL, I don't know whether you caught my post earlier in the week regarding your worries about the cost of bandwidth. Rather than donate to a cause I don't believe in, I would prefer to make my donation by authorizing you to delete all my prior posts as you have Blakelys, and Orinoco's before he reinvented himself. I have no interest in taking money out of your pocket for the pleasure of publishing my ideas on your vanity thread. If you want me to curse someone out in order to effect their removal, I'll be happy to, but I'd prefer to leave on better terms, as I honestly did not understand that this wasn't a for-profit site generating income for you. Nobody will object to my posts being removed, as they were for the most part against the flow of traffic. Thank you for your attention to this.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by Alan on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 03:55:53 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    Imputing false accusations of rape does, however meet the standard. It isn't necessary for the level of discourse to be allowed to descend that low, but Talkleft allowed it to, and it is not surprising that there are people who respond to that low standard in kind. It's what makes it a hot case.
    That's a ridiculous rhetorical stretch by which questioning the AV's story would be congruent to imputing child sexual assault to particular individuals on this board. Equally it would make judgements by the set of posters who declare false accusation worse than the crime itself (a much smaller number than those who question the AV's story) determinative of this issue. It is just flat out weird that you call for the judgement of that group, with whom you violently disagree, determinative on this issue but no other. Purely for the sake of clarity, I'll note that ascriibng a characteristic to a proposition is not the same as ascribing that characteristic to a proponent.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 04:58:49 AM EST
    Alan, You wrote,
    That's a ridiculous rhetorical stretch by which questioning the AV's story would be congruent to imputing child sexual assault to particular individuals on this board.
    Calling the AV a "False Accuser" is not analogous to "questioning the AV's story." Why not? Because there is no "question" in it. It is a conclusion, not a question. You wrote:
    Equally it would make judgements by the set of posters who declare false accusation worse than the crime itself (a much smaller number than those who question the AV's story) determinative of this issue.
    Determinative of what issue? The kind of living room Talkleft keeps? You wrote:
    It is just flat out weird that you call for the judgement of that group, with whom you violently disagree, determinative on this issue but no other.
    If I were a juror I would be all concerned about who is guilty and who is not in this case. My preferred concern now is that the accuser get a fair trial. The fix is in, the press core is irresponsibly behind it, the madding crowd is supporting their team, and the true question, which begins with whether three particular boys were ever alone in the bathroom with the woman now accusing them, hasn't come close to being answered.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 05:12:58 AM EST
    Alan, Just one other thing, You wrote that I "violently disagree" with the group of posters who suggest that it is worse to be falsely accused of rape than to be raped. I have not expressed an opinion of my own on that issue. I consider it a Sophie's Choice. I was simply pointing out that those who toss the term "FA" around without much caution while at the same time expressing the opinion that false accusations are heinous crimes run the risk of self-humiliating. Will they feel bad about that when the day is done? My guess is no. They're not the types.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Alan on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 05:56:19 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    My preferred concern now is that the accuser get a fair trial.
    The accuser is not on trial. Three others are on trial as the result of the accusation. That's not a fine rhetorical point.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 05:58:10 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion If you responded to this before, I didn't see it. re Coleman's letter
    What do you think he should have said?
    how about** [Having at least 6 lineups] strongly suggests the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim [mutilple] opportunit[ies] to pick three members of the lacrosse team who [attended the party and] could be charged. Any three students [who attended the party] would do; there could be no wrong choice.
    ** modified from previous thread for clarity

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 06:18:20 AM EST
    I think the risk of those who've called the AV a liar being proved wrong is negligible. Of course the difference is even if the various accusations that have been made in the media etc. are true and she's lying the media etc. have no power to send her to jail. While her potentially false accusations had the potential to send these boys to prison. In the first few weeks of this case supporters of the AV spent a lot of time slandering the whole team. Remember all the BS about white privilege/elitists etc? They were baying for blood. So it's a bit rich for those who engaged in that behaviour to now get all self-righteous and say "how dare we impugn the reputation of the AV". Will her supporters feel bad when these allegations are proven to be false? My guess is no. They are not the types.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 06:22:03 AM EST
    Imputing false accusations of rape does, however meet the standard. It isn't necessary for the level of discourse to be allowed to descend that low, but Talkleft allowed it to, and it is not surprising that there are people who respond to that low standard in kind. It's what makes it a hot case. I would note that the same people who like to use the term FA to refer to the AV have also averred that falsely accusing someone of rape is a worse crime than rape itself. We can only imagine how serious the crime of falsely accusing a person of falsely accusing a person of rape might therefore be, but that's the sort of living room being run here. You wrote to Blakely: You should apologise, both to those you abused and to our host who considers this her living room, if you want anyone's respect. TL, I don't know whether you caught my post earlier in the week regarding your worries about the cost of bandwidth. Rather than donate to a cause I don't believe in, I would prefer to make my donation by authorizing you to delete all my prior posts as you have Blakelys, and Orinoco's before he reinvented himself. I have no interest in taking money out of your pocket for the pleasure of publishing my ideas on your vanity thread. If you want me to curse someone out in order to effect their removal, I'll be happy to, but I'd prefer to leave on better terms, as I honestly did not understand that this wasn't a for-profit site generating income for you. Nobody will object to my posts being removed, as they were for the most part against the flow of traffic. Thank you for your attention to this.
    Inputing false accusations of gang-rape at this point, is merely stating facts. Once again, there could have been A rape, as in singular, but even that is highly unlikely. Since the FA has accused 3 boys of gang-rape, she is, by definition a false accuser unless you are maintaining the police records lie, and that she never accused anyone of gang-rape The lack of DNA is probative here and represents physical proof - or rather it's total absence on any part of her body or clothing - represents the proof that no gang-rape occured. I bet you can't find a single forensic DNA technologist in the world who thinks that it is possible for a gang rape involving or*l, an*l and vag*nal penetration to have happened without leaving some trace on or in her body, esp. if there was a struggle as the FA has claimed. Now I don't know about you, but I prefer to deal with physical evidence in this case as, you know, people can lie either deliberately or mistakenly. It takes a rather scary form of intellectual sophistry to try to place testimony on the same evidential plane as physical evidence. And since the physical evidence doesn't support your side -not even the nail- you and IMHO prefer to ignore it, debating on marginal points in the defense motions and, increasingly, as more and more people of power and intellect come to the conclusion that something stinks in Nifong's Durham you and she throw more and more intellectual and moral insults out from the safety of your keyboard. Quite frankly whether you posted 300 times or 3000 times to this debate, you've contributed little or nothing to it. I prefer your presence only in comparison to Blakely, as , at least, you can sometimes get a few posts off without insulting anyone. Keep up the "good work".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:01:35 AM EST
    ding7777, I did miss it last night, thanks for bringing it over to this thread. ding7777's proposed correction of Coleman's letter:
    [Having at least 6 lineups] strongly suggests the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim [mutilple] opportunit[ies] to pick three members of the lacrosse team who [attended the party and] could be charged. Any three students [who attended the party] would do; there could be no wrong choice.
    I just added one sentence:
    [Having at least 6 lineups] strongly suggests the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim [mutilple] opportunit[ies] to pick three members of the lacrosse team who [attended the party and] could be charged. Any three students [who attended the party] would do; there could be no wrong choice [if she was able to successfully avoid the wrong choices we have included, assuming all three captains did not lie and/or are not mistaken about every one of the players they listed as not being in attendance and assuming Mr. Charles Sherwood was not just blowing smoke up the reporter's @ss].
    or:
    [Having at least 6 lineups] strongly suggests the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim [mutilple] opportunit[ies] to pick three members of the lacrosse team who [attended the party and] could be charged. Any three students [who attended the party] would do; there could be no wrong choice [because we removed the photos of the five players we have reason to believe we not in attendance.]
    or:
    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. [If all of the players photographed were, in fact, at the party,] any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice, [though that scenario would rely on all three captains and Mr. Charles Sherwood being untruthful and/or mistaken when speaking to the police, and a reporter, respectively.]
    Here's a correction closer to Coleman's real letter:
    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. Almost any three students would do; from what the police were told the odds were against her making a wrong choice.
    How about this:
    Having had at least 6 lineups previous to the powerpoint presentation, strongly suggests the purpose of this identification process was not to give the alleged victim an opportunity to indentify her attackers, we'd all ready done that, but an opportunity to indentify potential witnesses to the crimes being investigated, therefore none of line up guidelines would apply.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by weezie on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:01:39 AM EST
    Happy trails blakester! Watch out for an errant pot upside your angry head.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:02:32 AM EST
    Alan, You wrote:
    The accuser is not on trial. Three others are on trial as the result of the accusation. That's not a fine rhetorical point.
    Nobody's on trial. Some people think there won't be a trial until January, but there are a lot of people predicting and working feverishly to assure there won't be a trial at all. They're looking to put the fix in. The world is watching to find out how Americans do business. A trial is the answer to be proud of. banco55, You wrote:
    Will her supporters feel bad when these allegations are proven to be false? My guess is no. They are not the types.
    Well, I can't speak for the New Black Panther Party, but as someone who has never claimed that the players raped the accuser, I personally don't feel I'll have much to apologize for when they are found not guilty. My interest is in having everyone have a fair trial. CIB you wrote:
    It takes a rather scary form of intellectual sophistry to try to place testimony on the same evidential plane as physical evidence.
    It takes a rather scary form of intellectual sophistry to try to place hearsay above evidence... This was one of Gottholt Lessing's points when, reflecting upon Christianity. He wrote (I'll paraphrase)...
    It is one thing to witness a miracle. It is quite another to hear about it second-hand. That nobody should deny.
    You are not a finder of fact... You are a reader of the newspaper. Rant all you want about what's true and what isn't among the barrage of statements from the defense attorneys and the reporters... A trial is the right place to determine where the physical evidence crosses paths with the witness statements.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:16:17 AM EST
    If I was a taxpayer in Durham I certainly wouldn't want this case to go to trial. How much money is going to be pissed away on something that should never have got this far in the first place?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:40:23 AM EST
    To change the subject and get back to Lora's comment (12:19). Did Ms. Arico actually review the accuser's SANE report or was she just speaking generally about what she thought the injuries were and the likelihood that they would be consistent with a rape. If she actually reviewed the SANE report and made those comments she made a BIG HIPAA violation. Somebody asked earlier if the request/fax for a patients records would be included in the discovery. I don't know . I just know that if a patient presents my office with a release of their records, we oblige without consulting our legal staff.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by David on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:45:47 AM EST
    PB, It's very clear that the DA is the one who does not want a trial, at least in the near future. He knows that under NC law a trial need not commence until 2007 safely past the November election. I'd contenend that the defense attys in this case wouldn't mind having a trial (if one is truly justified, given the apparent (and appalling) lack of corroborative evidence supporting the charges) before the end of summer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by spartan on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:47:55 AM EST
    I guess what I am trying to say is that the detective may have had access to some of the accuser's medical record before the actual subpoena was issued and complied with. I could make an argument that the alleged victim herself signed a release allowing the police department access to the rape exam. Then that document may not be in the police documents but in the medical records department of the hospital.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:54:42 AM EST
    David, You wrote:
    It's very clear that the DA is the one who does not want a trial, at least in the near future. He knows that under NC law a trial need not commence until 2007 safely past the November election.
    I'm not sure in what sense this is clear. Nifong made a statement that he didn't "expect" the case to come to trial (as I recall) until January and everyone was all over him for it. How is your statement that it is "clear" any more than the usual posturing people practice on this board?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:01:34 AM EST
    Blanco, You wrote:
    If I was a taxpayer in Durham I certainly wouldn't want this case to go to trial. How much money is going to be pissed away on something that should never have got this far in the first place?
    A lot of the money went for dna tests, which we are told would not have been necessary had the players cooperated. Beyond that has it been all that expensive? The police promised an aggressive investigation, but how much have they actually done beyond a few lineups and a couple of searches. As for the players' money, they can spend that however they please, as far as I'm concerned. College, beer, strippers, lawyers, bail... All these are voluntary expenditures that I don't consider my business.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:03:09 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    A trial is the right place to determine where the physical evidence crosses paths with the witness statements.
    I respectfully disgree with that generalization. I think that a criminal trial is the right place to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant facing credible allegations. It is the duty of the DA to assure that any charges brought have merit. It is his or her call. Ideally, this means allegations are investigated by police and evidence of the type expected in a particular case is obtained and evaluated before a grand jury is approached. It is not a perfect system (like that needs to be said). Personally, my eyes have been opened to the fact that a prosecutor's dragnet can be irresponsible and indiscriminate to the degree that this one has been. As noble as the excuse of "letting the accuser have her day in court" may sound, the fact is that the "case" is evidentially bankrupt, void of the kind of substantiation we expect in 2006. It seems to me that every other week I hear of a man being released from prison after DNA testing showed no match to the evidence in the rape he supposedly committed. These men's rape convictions, I am assuming, are among the 70-80% that were achieved without DNA of the defendant being present. A prosecutor does need to get convictions. That's the job. I would expect him or her to have a certain success rate, one reflective of the careful evaluation of which cases to bring to trial, the responsible synthesis of available evidence, and the skillful, respectful presentation of said evidence in court. I expect no theatrics from a DA. I expect, and if I lived in Durham county I would demand, intellectual honesty and a demeanor appropriate to the influence with which he has been entrusted.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:19:13 AM EST
    I wrote:
    I respectfully disgree with that generalization.
    Heh. Obviously, I meant disagree.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:20:55 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    My preferred concern now is that the accuser get a fair trial.
    This has been a recurring theme of a handful of posters here, as well as the dwindling number of pro-Nifong talking heads. It represents a sentiment that turns the American system of justice on its head. Unlike most other governments at the time the Bill of Rights was written, the Constitution seeks to provide guarantees that ensure the defendant, not the accuser, will have the right to a "fair trial." Our whole system of justice is set up to ensure that those charged with crimes--not those accuse them--receive every benefit of the doubt. After all, the accuser has the power of the state on his or her side. Moreover, the protections in the Bill of Rights are supposed to ensure that the government follows the rules in bringing criminal charges. But in this case, the prosecutor has violated normal procedures left and right. The system of justice seemingly valued by a few on this board reminds me of a place like Egpyt or Russia, where, for all practical purposes, those who are accused of crimes must prove their innocence, rather than the state having to prove their guilt.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:21:38 AM EST
    banco55 posted:
    Will her supporters feel bad when these allegations are proven to be false?
    My guess is no. They are not the types.
    banco55, Could you give us your definition of an AV supporter, and/or gives us some examples of AV supporters that post here?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    A lot of the money went for dna tests, which we are told would not have been necessary had the players cooperated. Beyond that has it been all that expensive? The police promised an aggressive investigation, but how much have they actually done beyond a few lineups and a couple of searches. As for the players' money, they can spend that however they please, as far as I'm concerned. College, beer, strippers, lawyers, bail... All these are voluntary expenditures that I don't consider my business.
    If it goes to trial it will be expensive. Obviously a lot of man hours will be put into this case by the judge, prosecutors etc. that could have been put into cases where the defendant actually has a case to answer. As for the players costs I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Durham ends up paying for them after a civil suit from the players.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:34:46 AM EST
    IMHO, Off the top of my head: Jessie Jackson and some of the Duke professors are/were good examples of AV supporters. As for AV supporters on this board: you are currently the closest thing we've got to one (as you well know).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:35:31 AM EST
    banco55:
    As for the players costs I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Durham ends up paying for them after a civil suit from the players
    I would.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:37:45 AM EST
    It takes a rather scary form of intellectual sophistry to try to place hearsay above evidence... This was one of Gottholt Lessing's points when, reflecting upon Christianity. He wrote (I'll paraphrase)...
    My, my, you keep on spinning along. The DNA results are public record, not "hearsay", and until you can deal with them it's rather obvious your side has no arguments. I think I'll take a page out of Bob's book and ask you to show me the evidence that a gangrape ocurred here. Not that I expect you will, you really have no leg to stand on in terms of facts on the physical level, so you are reduced to sophistry, word-play, and hope for secret evidence. Rather pathetic.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:46:17 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    A lot of the money went for dna tests, which we are told would not have been necessary had the players cooperated.
    May I ask by whom we are told this? And just what sort of "cooperation" by the players would have made DNA testing of all the team unnecessary, given how this case presented itself? How about false confessions by three players, to take it on the chin for the team, Duke University, and the City of Durham? The FACT is that even under this admittedly unlikely circumstance, their DNA would still be absent from the accuser's person. I submit that the DA would then be even more obligated to consider that the allegations are unfounded.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:53:53 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    Beyond that has it been all that expensive?
    Yes, expensive enough that other cases in the queue to have evidence tested prior to this one have been delayed substantially. I submit that the City of Durham does not have infinite resources. I also submit that it is not very efficient.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:09:27 AM EST
    cib posted:
    Inputing false accusations of gang-rape at this point, is merely stating facts. Once again, there could have been A rape, as in singular, but even that is highly unlikely. Since the FA has accused 3 boys of gang-rape, she is, by definition a false accuser unless you are maintaining the police records lie, and that she never accused anyone of gang-rape The lack of DNA is probative here and represents physical proof - or rather it's total absence on any part of her body or clothing - represents the proof that no gang-rape occured.
    Why don't you bring this proof to the attention of the authorities? It doesn't take proof of guilt to have someone charged and indicted and you have enough proof for a conviction! If one of the players goes on trial, for say, a singular rape of the FA, the convicted "false accuser of gang rape" can tell her story from the stand while cooties she got in jail jump out of her hair onto her orange jump suit. You should not withold your expert testimony that can prove "no gang-rape occured." Do not remain silent. Please come forward!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:12:10 AM EST
    banco55 posted: Off the top of my head: Jessie Jackson and some of the Duke professors are/were good examples of AV supporters. As for AV supporters on this board: you are currently the closest thing we've got to one (as you well know). Can you give us some examples of my support for the accuser?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:14:43 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    As for the players' money, they can spend that however they please, as far as I'm concerned.
    As for the players' money, I agree with you. However, I believe (but cannot prove) that none of these young men themselves had $400,000 to post bail. Obviously, their families were able to help them post bail, but we should not assume that all the accused parties have equal resources. Nor is it fair to assume that putting up such a sum of money does not constitute a considerable, even undue, burden upon these defendants. What I have heard during one hearing leads me to believe that this may be the case. They have lost credit for at least one semester at Duke; I doubt they'll get a refund. It is possible that these players have siblings with tuitions and that the loss, even if temporary, of $400,000 has tremendous ramifications for a great number of people.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:18:20 AM EST
    Why don't you bring this proof to the attention of the authorities? It doesn't take proof of guilt to have someone charged and indicted and you have enough proof for a conviction!
    We shall see after the trial- assuming this sorry excuse of a case gets that far- whether the FA is sued in civil court, committed, or charged with a crime. I hope you are not claiming it is NiFong's self-interest to charge her at this time? In any case, the evidence -no DNA- says what it says, and no amount of snark on your account is going to change it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:47:10 AM EST
    It is expected that this case will cost the defendants over three million dollars. I could give a heck about what it costs the city of Durham. In fact, I hope they need to have a special tax assessment prior to the November election.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    IMHO wrote: banco55, Could you give us your definition of an AV supporter, and/or gives us some examples of AV supporters that post here? It's like that definition of pornography. You know it when you see it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:56:00 AM EST
    Beyond that has it been all that expensive?
    Apparently, it has been so expensive that the City of Durham has delayed getting DNA analysis performed from crime scene evidence where five men were shot, execution-style, in November 2005 and four died.
    When he learned in April that testing on DNA samples from 46 lacrosse players were rushed and completed in less than three weeks, Harris said he and the other parents became incensed. DNA collected from the bloody townhouse the previous November was still sitting at the lab in Raleigh, waiting its turn.
    Think Nifong pushed this case to the front of the line because of the political capital it would bring him? No, he was looking for what Tom Wolfe called "The Great White Defendant."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:56:03 AM EST
    IMHO wrote: banco55, Could you give us your definition of an AV supporter, and/or gives us some examples of AV supporters that post here?
    Durgha. Never, to my knowledge was open to the possibility the FA could be lying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:01:34 AM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 17, 2006 02:25 AM
    SLOphoto posted:
    To those who are better informed: I have not flung any sh*t on this post, nor have I ever made a personal attack on anyone else who has ever posted here. The poster named "blakely" has me confused with someone else.
    That's a lie, SLOphoto. Posted by SLOphoto May 31, 2006 04:46 PM
    IMHO is not someone to be trifled with on these postings. She will pounce with all the predatory skill and ken of a saber tooth tiger if she catches the scent of a desirable prey. And I have watched a respectable number of would-be adversaries here on this site learn that lesson the hard way. You have yet to meet your match on this site, we both know it, and we both know why. You were not one of those people in Isla Vista who developed her intellect by humbly contemplating the jewel in the heart of the lotus flower. You lived on Del Playa.
    That is not a lie, IMHO. It's true. And it was a tribute to you, not a personal attack. "Surely, IMHO, you are not unaware of your persona on this board?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    cib posted:
    IMHO wrote: banco55, Could you give us your definition of an AV supporter, and/or gives us some examples of AV supporters that post here?
    Durgha. Never, to my knowledge was open to the possibility the FA could be lying.
    Does that mean I do not fit your definition of an AV supporter? If so, thank you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    spartan you said:
    I could make an argument that the alleged victim herself signed a release allowing the police department access to the rape exam.
    I will repeat what I said in an earlier post, not directed to you: If the AV had signed a release of her records, the SANE nurse would not have said to the police that she couldn't release any info due to the HIPAA laws. The statement was made after the AV was discharged form DMC, so if there were a release, she would already know, and it would not have required a subpoena.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    PB is still talking about the lack of cooperation by the lacrosse team as somehow bringing this terrible thing on all of them. I've asked several times before what specific cooperation could the teammates have offered that would have changed the course of the police and DA's actions. Only if a rape had occurred, and if other players knew and were concealing information on that rape, could someone cooperating with the DA have made any difference. The evidence is strong that no such rape occurred, that any cooperation with the police by the players was not rewarded or even believed by them, and that from very early in this case it was the authorities intention to bring charges against three players and lack of evidence did not deter them. It's clear that since early in the case Himan and Nifong have hidden exculpatory information found in their investigation and refused to look at exculpatory information offered by the defense. Both men have made statements about evidence that are at the very least misleading. Even Nifong's talk about the blue wall of silence was a lie, since he refused whatever cooperation the players lawyers offered. His continued failure to comment on discovery issues and other relevant findings since his primary victory is pretty telling as to his trial strategy: Let it hang out there until his November victory is assured, and then let it fall apart and walk away. Nifong seems to be insulated from most avenues of legal attack, so it's unlikely at this stage that he will get sued or go to jail for his misbehavior. When does he qualify for a pension in North Carolina? Maybe his next term will put him over the top. In the meantime, unless anyone actually has anything specific that the players could have done to cooperate with the DA, without presumption that a crime had been witnessed, please tell us or let that that blue wall of silence be retired along with they may have used condoms and the other pre-election gabbling from Nifong's lips.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    Bob, you said, reagarding the definition of AV supporters:
    It's like that definition of pornography. You know it when you see it.
    Exellent. And thanks for the past support vis a vis Durga and me. I don't see Durga as "stalking" me, but I have decided that Durga is too vexatious to my spirit for me to attempt any sort of dialogue.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    PB wrote: Nobody's on trial. Some people think there won't be a trial until January, but there are a lot of people predicting and working feverishly to assure there won't be a trial at all. They're looking to put the fix in. The world is watching to find out how Americans do business. A trial is the answer to be proud of. First, most of the world isn't particularly interested in this trial. The OJ Simpson trial, where a movie star and celebrity was on trial for murder in Los Angeles? Yes, that caught the world's attention. I don't think that there's all that much buzz around the world about this case. As far as what the world sees in American Justice, I would guess that they more likely notice how our Bill of Rights has been eroded over the last five years. How laws regarding illegal searches are blithely tossed aside, how the right to being charged and given a trial have been abridged, and how our nation's word regarding international treaties means nothing. Most of the rest of the world could give a damn about this little trial in a backwater town. +++ On PB's point of people "put[ting] the fix in" so there won't be a trial, I'll try once again to do what many others here have tried to explain. There has to be a threshold of reasonableness to bring this to trial. The only evidence we have that a gang rape occurred is one of the AV's several versions of the events of the evening. The physical evidence points against a rape having occurred. There is no eyewitness corroboration of a rape having occurred. There is plenty of motive for the AV to have lied about a rape having occurred. Even the presentation to the Grand Jury was flawed and the identification evidence may in fact be illegal. There is no logical basis to proceed with a trial. The AV, like every citizen, has a right to justice. But no citizen has the right to have a trial merely because he or she makes an unsubstantiated claim against someone else. If a neighbor claims that you stole his lawn ornament, should the police arrest you and the DA indict you without any evidence? If a store owner claims you shoplifted, without evidence that you had, should he be able to have you indicted for theft? Perhaps if PB were arrested for a crime she hadn't committed and had to go through the process she'd understand how her standard of justice would be better suited for a Kafka story than the U.S.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:51:32 AM EST
    Bob, good post, but I want a stronger statement than this:
    The physical evidence points against a rape having occurred.
    To something more like "The physical evidence bears no relation to the specific rape the AV said occurred in this case." It isn't, purely, that "a" rape could not have occurred. It is that THE rape that the AV charged (I keep hearing Regis in my mind when I read the AV's different recollections: "Is that your FINAL ANSWER?"), with the three named defendants, could not have occurred if the representations in the defense motions are borne out by the actual reports from the hospital from that night. And we have not even reached the issue of whether or not any of the three charged for THIS rape are "more likely than not" to have been the perpetrators.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:54:01 AM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    That is not a lie, IMHO. It's true. And it was a tribute to you, not a personal attack. "Surely, IMHO, you are not unaware of your persona on this board?"
    Oh, I am sorry, though I didn't understand some of it, I apparently did mistake the tone. Reading a commenter's tone on these blogs is a problem that can lead to silly misunderstandings such as this one. Now that I have the tone right I can see how being compared to a predatory saber tooth tiger pouncing in its prey is a compliment, but could you explain the laudatory aspects of this part of your tribute? From SLOphoto's tribute to imho:
    we both know it, and we both know why. You were not one of those people in Isla Vista who developed her intellect by humbly contemplating the jewel in the heart of the lotus flower. You lived on Del Playa.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:59:53 AM EST
    I also find the unstated premise that it's okay to indict these people because they are rich and can afford it to be reprehensible. As if spending beer money on lawyers is some kind of choice to be made. There are a lot more poor people indicted for things they haven't done. If one is bad, so is the other. And if the rich can be falsely indicted without question, then it is way more likely that poor people will be. Not a very good way to go about justice.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:00:13 AM EST
    cib posted:
    In any case, the evidence -no DNA- says what it says, and no amount of snark on your account is going to change it.
    It does not say what you said it says. You have not proven this to be true:
    cib posted:
    Inputing false accusations of gang-rape at this point, is merely stating facts.
    Because even if someone can find a qualified expert to make your claim on the stand in a court of law, you can't guarantee a jury will agree:
    cib posted:
    The lack of DNA is probative here and represents physical proof - or rather it's total absence on any part of her body or clothing - represents the proof that no gang-rape occured.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:16:57 AM EST
    The pathetic reduction of IMHO's logic, here: Because even if someone can find a qualified expert to make your claim on the stand in a court of law, you can't guarantee a jury will agree I am reminded of the history of all-white southern juries acquitting people who bombed black churches and killed innocent children. That this woman claims she was gang raped, claims they did not use condoms, and yet there is no DNA from any of them in her or on her should have been enough to have this case tossed out. Sure, a jury could overrule expert testimony. Maybe Seligmann was also in two places at once. IMHO's comments seem to say: I don't have a convincing argument against this. Maybe a jury that doesn't understand DNA will convict them anyway. So the Seeker Of Truth's best defense is now that a jury will overlook evidence and convict on their prejudices. Pretty pathetic.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:19:44 AM EST
    Bob, I have to agree with you on this:
    I also find the unstated premise that it's okay to indict these people because they are rich and can afford it to be reprehensible.
    Even the unindicted lacrosse player have faced mounting legal bills in this farce. From the Washington Post:
    Parents of non-indicted players already have legal fees exceeding $12,000.
    Brian Loftus has two sons on the Duke Lacrosse team. He is also a firefighter, one of the many that responded to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11. I don't think he just happens to have an extra $24,000 sitting in a bank account somewhere. Nifong is the one who said the team members were uncooperative. Let me see. Nifong asked, "What happened?" Team members replied, "We hired a couple of exotic dancers. We drank some beer. Maybe we got a little loud. Absolutely no one touched the women. There was no sexual assault by any team member on either dancer." Repeat again and again and again. Nifong said they were uncooperative because he didn't get the response he was looking for.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:22:39 AM EST
    Sharon commented on my mildness in her 11:51 a.m. post. Your criticism is accepted. I was deliberately understated only so I could make a grander point which I don't recall. Late Saturday morning. Another pot of coffee needed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    So the Seeker Of Truth's best defense is now that a jury will overlook evidence and convict on their prejudices.
    Isn't that what happened to OJ?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:26:00 AM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion at June 17, 2006 11:54 AM
    but could you explain the laudatory aspects of this part of your tribute?
    From SLOphoto's tribute to imho: we both know it, and we both know why. You were not one of those people in Isla Vista who developed her intellect by humbly contemplating the jewel in the heart of the lotus flower. You lived on Del Playa.
    The first sentence in full reads "You have yet to meet your match on this site, we both know it, and we both know why." More tribute. The second part about Isla Vista is an allegorical explanation of why the first part is true.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    Newport, My suggestion in the previous thread was merely that someone with a vested interest in an outcome favorable to the DA may be a poster. I have no idea who anybody here is. Although what you suggest could be true, it is an exceedingly unlikely possibility. Nonetheless, quite an entertaining thought.
    The only people I have heard say anything remotely good about Nifong are a few Durham crim defense lawyers whose judgment in the matter is not entirely unbiased. Would any defense attorney in Durham dare speak out against the sitting DA? That next plea deal might not be happening, you know what I mean?
    Do you mean to imply that Mr. Nifong is petty?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:44:50 AM EST
    Not criticism, Bob, but as one of the apparently few right coasters, I am well past my coffee fix. And my helmet sport son is in Oregon fishing, or something, with his dad so I have free rein of the computer on a Saturday. Reading imho and PB, and Lora in different ways, and D*rga, I am reminded of something I said to my . . . (can't call a 57 year old man a boyfriend, but for lack of a better term) early on when I first learned of and started following, obsessively, this case. Something along the lines of "If it turns out that the Duke lax players are as innocent as they claim, I can't wait for Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy to 'eat crow' and admit they were wrong." He laughed at my naivete, and said that, no matter what, I will never see that. They will never admit they were wrong about the pool of suspects in this case, they will never admit they were wrong to believe, for so long, in the AV. The same, I suspect, will be true for this board. But I keep banging my head against the wall, hearing that sound reverberating in your and others' posts. There are some that, no matter what happens, will always believe in the AV, will always believe the Duke players (poor choice of words but it fits) got off because they played the system. To some, "AV" will stand for Actual Victim.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:47:51 AM EST
    Madison, re: the SANE coordinator's comments, it would be a huge professional faux pas to say that she believes that the AV's injuries are consistent with the story (I'm assuming the one from the search warrant) the AV told, if there is no evidence of injuries. Her comments are more than just CYA, in my opinion. Sharon, If by the time Arico spoke, the search warrant info was common knowledge, she didn't reveal anything new. cpinva, My bets (and I've suggested a couple) are all of the "I told you so" type. Just for fun. But I don't think Arico will be called as a witness either. But that doesn't mean she hasn't spoken with the folks who examined the AV or read their reports. I can't imagine her stating what she did in public without doing that. James, Ms. Arico did say there were injuries. whatisthat, While I appreciate not being lumped with anyone else, I will say that imho's many posts provide the greatest number of quotes from and links to the sources that so many of us attempt to remember and discuss. I truly appreciate imho's effort and work to allow us all to look at the facts of the case, such as they are. And while imho's sense of humor apparently does not sit well with you all (I admit I enjoy it), when it comes to the personal attack crap that has been so prevalent lately, imho, while not running from a fight and exercising considerable restraint given the level of hostility directed toward her (him? I always thought so, lol, not that it matters), never starts it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#68)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    From SLOphoto's explanation of the laudatory aspects of his tribute to imho.
    The first sentence in full reads "You have yet to meet your match on this site, we both know it, and we both know why*." More tribute.
    The second part** about Isla Vista is an allegorical explanation of why the first part is true.
    The second part:
    **You were not one of those people in Isla Vista who developed her intellect by humbly contemplating the jewel in the heart of the lotus flower. You lived on Del Playa.
    SLOphoto: **Only one of us knows why and I have no clue to as the meaning of your allegory. Maybe others can appreciate what you are saying, but I am at a loss. Don't be shy, let your heart be heard.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:51:30 AM EST
    While I'm in ranting mode, and this may not be my first comment along this line: I think there is an internal inconsistency for someone to support both the AV and Nifong. He has, since the indictments were handed down, abandoned her. Every attack on her can only be countered by him, at this point. So where is he? Why has he not responded, in the same vein and forum as the defense attorneys, with a response to even one of their motions? If you care for the AV, if you care for rape victims as a class, how can you defend Nifong's actions, or lack thereof, all these weeks since he won the primary and developed the deer in the headlights attitude?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    Lora, I appreciate that humor is perhaps the most subjective of attributes. But
    And while imho's sense of humor apparently does not sit well with you all
    Do you chuckle when imho takes shots, albeit she says she's just joking, at a mother of an accused, at mothers of Duke lax players who are not accused? Are they, in your mind, "fair game" for nasty comments about their professions, lifestyles, or parenting practices? Along those lines, imho: So nice to see you worrying about the Evans' budget, that they are "paying" Cheshire to file motions like the last one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:00:40 PM EST
    In re: The SANE report Even IF the report said "consistent with" rape that does not explain how Nifong could claim to have read the report before it was generated; it does not say that, had the SANE examiner been told the "final answer" story of the AV, she would have agreed that it was "consistent with" the observed and observable injuries. "Consistent with a 'no choking, no condoms, an*l and v*ginal" rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    Lora wrote: Madison, re: the SANE coordinator's comments, it would be a huge professional faux pas to say that she believes that the AV's injuries are consistent with the story (I'm assuming the one from the search warrant) the AV told, if there is no evidence of injuries. Her comments are more than just CYA, in my opinion. Lora, I respect that you consider Ms. Arico's statement to be strong. I disagree with you that the statement is strong; it is mild and only serves not to contradict whatever was asserted (Take note that we-you and I-have to agree here on a story with which the results can be "consistent"--I accept what you offered). Ms. Arico has not taken a risky stand here because she has not said anything substantive: therefore she runs no risk of engendering a professional faux-pas, as you put it. Injuries, no injuries, whatever. SANE is predisposed to making a finding consistent with rape. AND I'll bet the discovery of semen in the accuser served to (INCORRECTLY) bolster her credibility. As we know (and we do know, this is not anyone's spin) that semen belonged to none of the players tested. It matched a man whom the accuser likely never mentioned as a possible source until after the DNA results came back. Go figure.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#73)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:26:19 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Do you chuckle when imho takes shots, albeit she says she's just joking, at a mother of an accused, at mothers of Duke lax players who are not accused? Are they, in your mind, "fair game" for nasty comments about their professions, lifestyles, or parenting practices?
    1. My there, there Honey satirical post [not directed any any specific mother]. 2. My Mrs. Evans harding working mother of two satirical post that was in direct reponse to the parenting practices of the accuser. 3. My on topic comment about Sally Fogarty's coping techniques posted in a thread introduced as: The dukesters need a new thread. What's in the news? The Washington Post explores how the players' families are coping. I can only think of three, but there could be more. Sharon, If you will concede there are far more derogatory comments and jokes about the accuser's father posted here, you can spare me looking them all up. I know you were sympathetic to him, but where was your indignation when others were brutally attacking him?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#74)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Along those lines, imho:
    So nice to see you worrying about the Evans' budget, that they are "paying" Cheshire to file motions like the last one
    I take that back. jk wrote an excellent post on the motion that changed my mind about it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Weekend Open Thread (none / 0) (#75)
    by blcc on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    Lora, The so-called rape kit is not a neutral source, you need to keep that in mind. This is not snark, btw. I'm just honestly quite often surprised by the general lack of knowledge - in the population as a whole, not just specifically this board - about what a rape kit is designed to do. Perhaps that's because both the language and the purpose live in two different worlds, as it were, and when medical jargon gets used in the legal realm it takes on a weight that the medical community never attributed to it. One of the e