strong>"I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My preferred concern now is that the accuser get a fair trial.

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.

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.

[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.

[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].

[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.]

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.]

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.

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.

The accuser is not on trial. Three others are on trial as the result of the accusation. That's not a fine rhetorical point.

Will her supporters feel bad when these allegations are proven to be false? My guess is no. They are not the types.

It takes a rather scary form of intellectual sophistry to try to place testimony on the same evidential plane as physical evidence.

It is one thing to witness a miracle. It is quite another to hear about it second-hand. That nobody should deny.

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.

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 trial is the right place to determine where the physical evidence crosses paths with the witness statements.

I respectfully disgree with that generalization.

My preferred concern now is that the accuser get a fair trial.

Will her supporters feel bad when these allegations are proven to be false?

My guess is no. They are not the types.

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.

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

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)...

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?

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.

As for the players' money, they can spend that however they please, as far as I'm concerned.

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!

Beyond that has it been all that expensive?

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.

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?

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.

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.

I could make an argument that the alleged victim herself signed a release allowing the police department access to the rape exam.

It's like that definition of pornography. You know it when you see it.

The physical evidence points against a rape having occurred.

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?"

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.

In any case, the evidence -no DNA- says what it says, and no amount of snark on your account is going to change it.

cib posted:

Inputing false accusations of gang-rape at this point, is merely stating facts.

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.

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.

Parents of non-indicted players already have legal fees exceeding $12,000.

So the Seeker Of Truth's best defense is now that a jury will overlook evidence and convict on their prejudices.

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 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?

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.

**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.

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

The only physical finding "inconsistent" with rape is an intact h*men

that view of the evidence. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the crime of rape. Section 1836, Comp. St. 1921.

"The slightest penetration, however, of the body of the female by the sexual organ of the male is sufficient; it is not necessary that the penetration should be perfect; nor that there should be an entering of the vagina or rupturing of the hymen; the entering of the vulva or labia is sufficient." 33 Cyc., p. 1422 (II).

"A SANE report merely crosses an early, low-set bar: could this woman have been raped?"

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?

By the way, it's my understanding that the AV didn't even mention the an*l rape to the SANE nurse. It must have been in one of the defense motions. Has that been verified? Seems to me to be something that she wouldn't have failed to mention.

On the other hand, Evans, Finnerty and Seligman's (particularly their mothers: I have yet to hear you criticize their fathers) have said nothing regarding this case. Your attitude toward them and your comments about them are unwarranted. And please, in furtherance of honesty, admit that they were cheap shots. Meant as humorous asides? I don't think so.

beenaround posted:

Please tell us truthfully what you think she was doing?

Giving people tuition in how to respect a hardworking mother of two?

Nothing like having your pimp sitting in your parents' house, playing with your children.

According to IMHO, this is meaningless because proof of anal rape does not require any "signs, symptoms, or injuries," consistent with anal rape, because "no signs, no symptoms, or no injuries" is also consistent with anal rape.

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.

the S.A.N.E.'s physical examination of the woman carries no evidentiary weight?

But because the evidence during such an exam is collected according to a standard protocol designed to better preserve it, do we then have greater confidence in the DNA results performed on said evidence?

How cheap is this?: SharonInJax posted: Nothing like having your pimp sitting in your parents' house, playing with your children.

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.

I wonder if the hearing of the motions (if they are heard) will be a public event. Who would want to miss this spectacle: defense counsel, knees trembling, attempting vainly to counter and parry the onslaught of arguments devised by the legal powerhouse that is the mind of Mr. Nifong.

Questions about whether or not a condom was used should really be answerable

Did you see Seligmann's hearing? Osborn didn't look too confident, especially after a few mild rebukes from Judge Stephens. Nifong seemed to be enjoying himself

SharonInJax posted:

Nothing like having your pimp sitting in your parents' house, playing with your children.

Spare me your indignation.

You are vulnerable. I know where your children are.

I have forgotten the context in which Sharon said that, but I took it to mean that the AV's pimp was telling her (the AV):

You are vulnerable. I know where your children are.

I am sure Osborn was nervous. He has been entrusted with the most solemn of tasks, defending an innocent man.

I posted earlier a quote of Nifong that says it all about the unbelievable hubris of this man. Yeah, I guess Cheshire and Osborn are quaking in their boots about the thought of going up against a legal giant like Nifong. Isn't this the same Nifong that has only tried traffic tickets since 1999?

Unfortunately, any swabbings that could have been analyzed for rubber or the like would not be probative of much here because the FA had sex with at least 5 men and maybe as many as 7 in the several days prior to the night in question. Some of these men may have used condoms, although the "boyfriend," did not.

Newport posted: Unfortunately, any swabbings that could have been analyzed for rubber or the like would not be probative of much here because the FA had sex with at least 5 men and maybe as many as 7 in the several days prior to the night in question. Some of these men may have used condoms, although the "boyfriend," did not. Source?

then there is nothing further I can do.

The statement of Jariel Johnson, the original N&O interview given by the FA, and common sense.

IMHO, I think you should bookmark this post of yours so that you can rely on it when you tell everyone how you don't engage in personal attacks.

Did you see Seligmann's hearing? Osborn didn't look too confident, especially after a few mild rebukes from Judge Stephens.

How cheap is this?: SharonInJax posted: Nothing like having your pimp sitting in your parents' house, playing with your children. Spare me your indignation.

Whether you believe me or not, my introductory sentence was, "how sad is this?" and I meant it sincerely, as in "how sad is it to live a life where this happens?" That was not "indignation" about that scenario, nor was it a condemnation of the AV, at lease it was not intented to be. I was feeling genuine pity for her situation, and for her children.

Nothing like having your pimp sitting in your parents' house, playing with your children.

could you lists the "few mild rebukes" that the judge issued?

But Stephens clearly bristled when Osborn asked to have free access to law enforcement records.

"I'm not going to sign an order allowing you to go rummage through all law enforcement records," he said. "I'm not going to order things that I believe will be done voluntarily."

When Osborn said he made the request because "this is a serious case," the judge cut him off.

"I deal with serious cases every day," he said. "This case is not going to jump ahead of the line of all of the other cases that we have here or be handled in any other way."

The driver for your escort service sitting in your parents' house playing with your daughter?"

How do I feel about people who work for escort services? I pity the women and despise the men. How's that?

How do I feel about people who work for escort services? I pity the women and despise the men. How's that?

As the presumed "facts" initially associated with the Duke lacrosse case have melted away, those on campus who aggressively condemned the lacrosse players have found themselves in an uncomfortable position. ...

What do you think of people who work for escort services?

Several weeks ago, however, Nifong revoked the deals regarding the 15 lacrosse players (but not the other 385 Duke students cited for comparable offenses).

I wish the author had given a link or some authority for that because, if it is true, that is another sign that Nifong is not performing his duties fairly.

But to play along: I'm closer to pitying men who hire escorts than despising them, somewhere in the middle I suppose. There weren't any "men who hire escorts" sitting in the AV's parents' house though, so what does that group of men have to do with my original comment and your interpretation of what I said?

I agree with this and I would despise the men who hire the escorts for performance as a prostitute. Anticipating an attack, the Duke boys did not hire the FA as a prostitute but as a dancer.

Bissey said after he saw the women exit the house the first time he heard one of the guys say to his friends, "It's only a hundred dollars," before the women were coaxed back inside. I wonder what the player was talking about?

Well then it certainly couldn't be rape now, could it? Toche

Thanks for the link, beenaround. Interesting article/post. The author said, talking about citations for underage drinking and noise violations against Duke students, that the informal "deal" was those charged would not be prosecuted if they would pay a fine, do community service, etc.:

Several weeks ago, however, Nifong revoked the deals regarding the 15 lacrosse players (but not the other 385 Duke students cited for comparable offenses).

I wish the author had given a link or some authority for that because, if it is true, that is another sign that Nifong is not performing his duties fairly

Thanks khartoum: I had read that Nifong withdrew the deals for the lax players, but didn't realize that he left them in place for other Duke students. So much for equal treatment under the law.

Nifong said he will reinstate the charges against players whose deferred prosecution deals are still active, unless they can show they were not at the party.

He said he is reinstating a noise violation and an alcohol possession charge against Evans because he was one of the men who threw the party.

"He was one of the people who rented the house that was serving alcohol to underage people and hiring strippers," Nifong said in an interview. "In order to put somebody under deferred prosecution, the DA has to, under requirements of the statute, certify that he does not believe the person is likely to do any further criminal acts. Under the circumstances, it's hard for me to see how we could maintain that."

That is why I expressed outrage that IMHO would attack you over this.

Durgha. Never, to my knowledge was open to the possibility the FA could be lying.

...but I have decided that Durga is too vexatious to my spirit for me to attempt any sort of dialogue.

COSBY: Let me bring in Yale. Real quickly Yale. I am going to give you the last word. Go ahead you have got a few seconds.

GALANTER: Rita, this case from the beginning has revolved around the credibility of the complaining witness. The complaining witness's own father called her a liar in the 1996 incident. This complaining witness, who is the father says was bruised, cut. The first police officer...

COSBY: Actually, Yale...

COSBY: Yale, I have got to correct you. I spoke to the father. He said he didn't know about it and he found out about it later.

GALANTER: No, he said she didn't have sex with the boy, and she wasn't assaulted. And basically called the report a complete hoax.

COSBY: Yale, that's not true. Yale, that's not true.

GALANTER: The first police officer on the scene does not see any bruises, marks on her body.

MURPHY: Yale stop talking. You are making a false statement.

GALANTER: Her credibility is an issue.

COSBY: Yale, that is not true. Yale, you got to listen. What he said is he did not know about it until later. It does bring up questions, but he said he did not know about it until.

GALANTER: He stated in an "Essence Magazine" article, Rita, that he was not aware that she was sexually assaulted.

COSBY: Which is different than calling her a liar.

Both of you thank you.

Beenaround, in case you are new here, it is not acceptable to post links to the accuser's name or personal data. I've deleted it, but please know it's an offense I consider ban-nable.

Just a thought (if there was $100 involved)... maybe the $100 was for Kim and Precious to perform on each other

TalkLeft is not a "for profit" site, it is a hobby of mine. The ads cover some expenses but bandwidth is expensive and the Duke threads have generated more comments than any other subject in the 4 years I've been doing this.

This is classic Yale Galanter. His commentary on this case is a disgrace. To her credit, Rita Cosby kept correcting him. Dan Abrams just crowed along with him.

Just to clarify, IMHO is not so much a defender of the AV as an attacker of the men on the lacrosse team. I'm not sure of her motive. I remember that azballfan hated Duke and would advance any argument that would besmirch the college, but I'm not sure what IMHO's motives are. Maybe after we get the diagnosis of the AV's mental illness we can petition to have IMHO's relevant psycho-history released.

What if the $100 bucks was just whatever the unnamed theoretical player had thrown in as his share of payment for the night's entertainment?

Rita Cosby doesn't know what she is talking about. Why is that so hard for you to understand. The father stated that "those boys didn't do anything to her" and that's a fact.

BIP, ding, What if the $100 bucks was just whatever the unnamed theoretical player had thrown in as his share of payment for the night's entertainment? If it was a captain, or co-host of the party, or even an underclassman asked to pony up some $$ for beer money and strippers, he might have been ticked at the way the evening devolved, and the perceived "waste" of money.

If you do not know the circumstances of his saying that to a reporter, you need to brush up on the facts of this case. I've been over it many times here before

I was going to ask you to clarify your question to me, Durga, but before I could do that I saw another of your posts, reminding everyone about my use of the AV's first name: If, as it seems apparent, you cannot let go of that, then I see little point in trying to carry on a dialogue with you.

I don't know what you do or don't comprehend or what you think is intellectual or pseudo-intellectual. If you have trouble understanding things, read them over, or go back and check the context. You haven't impressed me as an intellectual giant either. Maybe we read different books. 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.

Yeah? Very nice. All I did was answer a question for Sharon and then asked her one, nothing about mentioning the AV's name 3 times. So get off it.

since I am relatively new here, I do not know that to which you refer. Based on what I do know about how you attempt to twist facts that other people would think untwistable, I am not persuaded that the father did not say something very close to what I stated.

Her father said something to the effect that "those boys did nothing to her." So if you believe the dad, take your pick. She lied or she hallucinated.

This discrepancy has been explained many times here. The mother said they didn't tell the father because they were afraid he would drive to Creedmore and confront the boyfriend and get himself hurt. The father is described as being "120 lbs, dripping wet."

And if you believe that, then you have to weigh the father's comments about the 1993 (1994?) rape, about which he said something to the effect that "those boys didn't do nothin' to her." That is, the AV's father said that his daughter filed a false rape charge back then.

Bob, this is my problem with you. You know the mother has explained why they kept the 1993 rape from the father. How many times have I typed out "a reporter described him as 'all of 120 lbs soaking wet?'

When was the father's statement made? If the father hadn't been told about the Creedmore rape allegation at the time he made his statement, what prompted him to say "those boys didn't do anything to her?" Maybe he investigated the facts and determined that "those boys didn't do anything to her." Do you know for a fact that he didn't know about the allegation and investigate? Did he at a later time say "boy, I didn't know what I was talking about because I didn't even know she alleged a rape?"

About 6 weeks after the lacrosse party, a reporter asked him about the previous rape charges. He denied she had been raped in 1993 in Creedmoor because they still had not told him about it.

Finally, his wife had to tell him what their daughter said happened to her 13 years earlier.

Maybe the father was just being truthful and the mother wasn't. Maybe the father knew about the allegation and knew that there was nothing to it.

Is it at all possible that what Bissey overheard was, "It's only four (or even eight) hundred dollars"? He wasn't within the group of people having the conversation. He was on his porch next door. It's unlikely that this was shouted, a la the cotton tee shirt remark.

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

Empirical studies that directly compare the evidence collected by SANE nurses and physicians on objective criteria would better inform the debate over whether nurses are competent medical forensic examiners.

"I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told."

It is really funny how you give the benefit of doubt to the mother in this story (who as I understand it was trying to cook up a civil case with the PI attorney Gary) but you will give no benefit of the doubt to the Duke players. Just one more example of your blatant bias and intellectual dishonesty.

To revisit Ms. Arico, "I can reasonably say these injuries are consistent with the story she told." She is saying that there are injuries. Injuries that would be consistent with being choked, hit, kicked, and raped.

IMHO, why is it so hard for you to accept that one of the players probably ponied up $100 of the $400 total and was mad about losing it for a nonperformance. What makes you think everyone contributed equally? Maybe some of the guys didn't have any cash and maybe one guy had a hundred in his pocket and chipped in more than the others. What do you think that they passed a hat to 40 guys and everyone put a twenty in. Maybe most of them were flat broke.

I have no idea if the accuser is lying about the Creedmoor incident if the mother is lying, if the father is lying, I'm just telling you what their story is so you know better than to assume,like Yale and Bob in Pacifica have, that since the father told the reporter "those boys didn't do nothing to her" that proves she filed a false police report, it doesn't.

In any case, Arico did not examine the AV, and she cannot provide original evidence.

Doctors that have never seen the patient in question can testify to the findings in the medical report.

Doctors that have never seen the patient in question can testify to the findings in the medical report.

I wonder if any photographs were taken?

• repeating arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
• adopting special meanings for a term in argument without declaring the special meaning
• repeatedly posting the words '*gobble* *gobble*'

So with the Durham District Attorney, Police Department, and the accuser all under withering attack, is there still a case, and will it go forth? Indeed, what do all of these defense motion disclosures really mean? While objective observers certainly agree that Nifong's case seems, at least in the "trial by media," to be clearly up against the ropes, there is much that many of his critics are clearly overlooking. Virtually all of the prosecution's evidentiary documents that the defense has now so skillfully revealed for maximum effect in the court of public opinion in recent days, in fact were derived from very early in the Durham police investigation. Indeed, much of it isn't new at all. Many of the issues and questions about credibility raised by police and prosecutors about the accuser and her story, as reflected in those documents, were part of the process to check out the validity of her account and background three months ago. In fact, the alleged victim told The News and Observer on March 25, her first and only interview, that she hesitated at first to report the alleged assault. "My father came to see me in the hospital," she told the paper. "I knew if I didn't report it that he would have that hurt forever, knowing that someone hurt his baby and got away with it." Durham police indicated that it took them 31 hours to secure a search warrant for 610 N. Buchanan Blvd, the site of the party, because the alleged victim was not immediately forthcoming with the details. In fact, virtually all of the discrepancies noted in those recent defense motions apparently were investigated and straightened out by the time Nifong began preparing his case to go before the grand jury to secure three indictments. I think Cash might be assuming a little much here. Clearly if he went with only what the defense has made public, no indictments would have been forthcoming, which means Nifong should have more than he has so far allowed to be revealed. Cash doesn't know the Grand Jury process. The above comment is pretty funny and damning really for Nifong when you think about it. It always amazes me how little people really know about today's grand juries and how captive they are to the prosecution. Regarding contradictions in what the medical exam after the alleged assault showed, a Durham police affidavit, a legal document, clearly indicates that a medical report on the accuser's injuries was subpoenaed from Duke Medical Center, and it showed "injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally." What report did investigators subpoena that defense attorneys apparently haven't seen?

How do I feel about people who work for escort services? I pity the women and despise the men. How's that?

She is saying that there are injuries. Injuries that would be consistent with being choked, hit, kicked, and raped. As the head of the program, she wouldn't say there were injuries if there were no injuries. I'm betting that there were injuries and we will find that they were documented.

At this point she doesn't deserve the "benefit of the doubt" because there is no doubt that she is a false accuser. None.

At this point, based on the evidence we have seen, I think it is highly unlikely the AV is telling the truth. But you don't think there is room for any doubt at all?

And let's also assume that she misidentified her attackers - that doesn't mean no rape. Are you saying (a) there is no doubt that each of the three indicted players are innocent or (b) there is no doubt that none of the players raped her?

Given that we know Nifong has already committed discovery violations, do you think it's impossible that he has any solid evidence that he has so far failed to produce?

BTW, someone here (I don't remember if it was you or someone else) said that certain talking heads have seen the entire file and have concluded that there is nothing compelling in it against the players. I am sorry, but I have very little confidence in reaching a conclusion based on some TH's assertions about the state of evidence that has not been publicly released.

But keep in mind that (1) the defense has not released all of the evidence, and (2) Nifong may not have disclosed all of the evidence to the defense.

"I would not be surprised if condoms were used. . . . Probably an exotic dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex."

"I'm not going to sign an order allowing you to go rummage through all law enforcement records," he said. "I'm not going to order things that I believe will be done voluntarily."

The purpose of the motion is to force Nifong to take a position - to either produce some evidence suggesting condom use, or to essentially admit that there is none, in which case his credibility is diminished.

If this case ever makes it to trial, Himan will be shredded. It won't be pretty.

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.

Of course, once the bathroom door closed and the words "Sweetheart, you can't leave" were uttered...

I WAS arrested, falsely accused, and permanently tarnished by the experience. The well-heeled perpetrators formed a wall of silence and hid behind lying attorneys. Medical records were fabricated by lawyers and doctors to coverup their wrong-doing. So I know personally some of the techniques people use when threatened with prosecution.

Orinoco, By the way, glad to have you back. I liked you better unfiltered, but I understand

Asked for an interview last week by NEWSWEEK, Nifong declined, but sent an angry e-mail accusing the national media of getting spun by defense lawyers and sticking to his earlier comments to the press. "None of the 'facts' I know at this time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially," he wrote. He lashed out at "media speculation" (adding, "and it is even worse on the blogs"). He said that he was bound by ethics rules against commenting any more about the case or evidence.

Second, he seems angry at the blogs. As far as I know, this TalkLeft forum is the most prominent site for discussing the case. Has he been reading everything going on here?

There are a lot of Duke haters out there.

imho posted:

Doctors that have never seen the patient in question can testify to the findings in the medical report.

A nurse is not the same as a doctor. An expert witness can offer opinions about medical findings, but that is not the same as 'can testify to the findings...'

May I ask why you raise the issue of doctors in relation to a quote from a nurse?

I wonder if any photographs were taken?

Photographs of? Taken by? I may think I know what you mean but it's always best to get imhology clarified.

Faster Medical Response to Rape Helps Victims and Prosecutors A SANE nurse completes about 80 hours of training and must maintain expertise with continued training and a minimum number of exams each year. In contrast, a typical emergency room doctor has little training in gathering forensic evidence and may complete only one or two such exams each year. The doctor is not only rushed and pressured but often ends up reading exam instructions as he or she goes along.

And while many doctors wanted to avoid sexual assault evidentiary exams because they can lead to time-consuming court appearances, SANE nurses' job includes that of expert witness, and their experience gives them a distinct edge in that role.

Mark Purcell, a detective in the Alexandria City Police Department, said most rape cases, especially those involving acquaintance rape, end up before a jury. SANE nurses' expert testimony carries a lot of weight, especially in acquaintance rape cases where subtle forensic evidence is often the only barrier between a her-word-against-his situation. "They make tremendous expert witnesses," he said. "They're very hard to impeach."

Purcell, who along with his partner handles sexual assault cases for the city, said the Inova Fairfax Hospital SANE program has led to more rape convictions. First, he said, the sensitive treatment of victims gives them greater confidence in the system and increases the likelihood they'll cooperate in the investigation. Second, the evidence and expert testimony provides juries with stronger evidence to convict.