home

Duke Lacrosse Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:24:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Dukesters need a new thread, comments are overflowing at the last one. In today's Duke lacrosse player news:

  • Coach breaks silence--Basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski discusses the scandal caused by the rape allegations
  • USA Today editorial saying the facts are growing shorter for Nifong, i.e., the case keeps unraveling
  • Michael Gaynor in the Post Chronicle tells the accuser to pray and apologize and calls her by her real name in a very nasty opinion piece. I'd still like for commenters not to do that just yet.

< Film Opening: The Road to Guantanamo | Another Saddam Defense Lawyer Kidnapped, Killed >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse Open Thread | 380 comments (380 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Alan on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    imho concocted:
    If all of these boys had been under the authority of said granny, they would be the 2006 NCAA men's lacrosse champions.
    No doubt Nifong will drag said granny screaming to the gaol now that you have confirmed her negligence as a proximate cause for the false accusation. You, of course, will advise the poor woman to waive the right to counsel and the right to silence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lora on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    Jeez, it takes more than a couple of lunch times to read all these posts, unless you're a speed reader, which I'm not. Still catching up. But I want to reply to mik and january. As to the relevance of the abc11 story, hey it is just one of many examples of errors about the case in the news. That's all. I brought it up again as an agreement with putting the term journalists in quotations, based on my own personal experience. People have been saying that these little errors are irrelevant. Little errors add up. When they influence how people view the case, they matter. January, I am merely replying to commenters who have opinions about my post. You keep on harping as to how I am harping on it. I happen to dislike letting errors stand uncorrected, as many of us do. mik posted: Posted by mik June 21, 2006 06:18 AM Lora: The quote from the story that you claim is incorrect: The alleged victim called her "Nikki" that night. According to the report, neither woman told police that Roberts also performed at the lacrosse team's party. It's subtle, but the point is that at the Kroger parking lot that night, Kim didn't tell the police she danced at the party and "Precious" didn't tell police the woman that drove her to the Kroger danced at the party. She talked of "Nikki" dancing, but didn't identify her as the owner of the car the police pulled her from at Kroger. It wasn't until nearly a week later that Sgt. Shelton identified Kim Roberts through her escort agency as the other dancer that night. Posted by mik June 21, 2006 06:21 AM In other words, Lora, the story is talking about Sgt. Shelton's report from the early morning hours of March 14 ONLY. AT THAT TIME, Sgt. Shelton had NO IDEA that the owner of the car in the Kroger parking lot was "Nikki." Kim Roberts told police she picked up "Precious" from the side of the road near 610 N. Buchanan. And "Precious" didn't say much of anything (other than "No"). mik, The point of the story is that the AV kept changing her story, not that Sgt. Shelton didn't know who "Nikki" was. The title is: "Police Report: Alleged Victim Changed Story." She didn't. She correctly stated that another dancer besides herself danced that night. Using the dancer's pseudonym is not changing her story.
    The alleged victim called her "Nikki" that night. According to the report, neither woman told police that Roberts also performed at the lacrosse team's party.
    To substitute the proper noun "Roberts" for the pronoun "her" which represents the name Roberts:
    The alleged victim called Roberts "Nikki" that night. According to the report, neither woman told police that Roberts also performed at the lacrosse team's party.
    Untrue. The AV meant Roberts and the article says so. The AV didn't change her story. And...yes I definitely have speculations on KIM's changing story. Just haven't caught up yet. Later.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    Alan, Said granny is dead.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    Well, I have now been hit over the head by the board's three resident radical feminists, i.e., imho, pb and "durga_is_my_homey" and I have survived to live another day, much to their dismay I would think. I would note that the board's other prominent AV supporter, Lora, is not remotely associated with this unique group. These three will continue on spewing their hatred of "the White Man" and all the things said "Man" has done. It is the unifying principal in their religion, and the Duke boys will be made to pay. Indeed, one member of this group is so wedded to her "belief system" that she cannot even show empathy for the wrongly accused when she herself claims to have been wrongly accused and had her life ruined because of it. That, is serious faith. Another member hates all things "Duke" as well as the foregoing hatred of the "White Man" and is determined to bring about the destruction of these Duke boys by supporting a race pandering DA and pointing out journalistic errors. Finally, a third member of this group pops up occasional to spout off in incoherent fashion about tending to rape victims never mind that there is no rape victim here, and, indeed, the only victims are the Duke boys. These boys do not deserve this and I hope all reasonable members of this board would agree.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    Has anyone heard from the AV lately?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    Lora: This is the story we are discussing, are we not? If it is not, I apologize. I have apparently been debating the points at hand under a misunderstanding. If it is the article we are discussing, please read the first paragraph:
    The woman who accused three Duke lacrosse players of raping her changed her story and appeared to fake being unconscious, according to a police report obtained Friday by Eyewitness News.
    The story is dealing new information obtained from the report made by Sgt. J. C. Shelton regarding the 911 calls made on March 13 & 14 regarding racial epithets and the Kroger disturbance. NOWHERE in this report does it say that the accuser IDENTIFIED Kim Roberts as "Nikki." She said she danced with a "Nikki," but she doesn't idenfity her as the driver of the car at the Kroger. In fact, the accuser makes no mention of how she got to the Kroger. Indeed, the name "Kim Roberts" (or "Kim Pittman") is not recorded ANYWHERE in Shelton's report. It does not say anywhere that the accuser identified Kim Roberts as "Nikki." Shelton doesn't learn that "Nikki" is Roberts until he calls Angels Escort Service on 3/20/06 (the page following Shelton's written statement). What was that word, wumhenry? Sisyphean?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:35:53 PM EST
    An affidavit was filed today in support of the bond reduction for Reade. Here's a link to an article that discusses it. I hope I've done this link correctly.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:38:11 PM EST
    Correction: It never indicates that Shelton ever learns the identity of "Nikki." It is Himan who placed the call to Angels Escort Service and subsequently learned the identity of "Nikki."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    Who here believes a gang rape was perpetrated on the AV by Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans? Anyone?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by barry on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    And...yes I definitely have speculations on KIM's changing story. Just haven't caught up yet. Later.
    The only "changes" in Kim's story is her claim that the AV left the car to retrieve her purse (originally "left the car because she felt more money was to be made") and her later *addition* that she went back in the house to look for her but couldn't find her. The purpose of that "addition" was to give the false rape a window of opportunity. It was a malicious statement on her part against the boys. Shame on her. However, in her pathetic attempt to corroberate the AV's account, she has discredited a key part of her story -- the event right before the rape in the bathroom. The dramatic separation at the master bedroom door. It didn't happen, and that's enough to conclude that the rape is a fabrication. Now let's talk about the AV's changes in her story. How about her claim to the sane nurse that Kim carried her on one side and "Brett" carried her on the other all the way to the back of the house while she kept telling them "no". That conflicts greatly with the search warrent acount which is based on her written statement. Or can you reconcile them?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    PatsyMac's link: Indicted Duke lacrosse player to seek bond reduction at hearing

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    Heck, who here believes the accuser had consensual sex with anyone at the party (other than Kim Roberts)? Bob, I think we were both going to the same point earlier. I didn't couch mine as gently as you did. It just irks me to see people who are willing to cloak her with the mantle of Victimhood. They claim she's not responsible for the complete and utter mess she has made with her life. She couldn't help it. It was beyond her ability to pull herself up out of the disadvantaged situation in which she found herself. Nope. Claiming she is less than capable is claiming that she is less than complete. Isn't that what the civil rights movement was fighting against?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    the piece wasnt nasty, it was real she needs to hear the truth

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    mik posted:
    It just irks me to see people who are willing to cloak her with the mantle of Victimhood. They claim she's not responsible for the complete and utter mess she has made with her life. She couldn't help it. It was beyond her ability to pull herself up out of the disadvantaged situation in which she found herself.
    Can you name these people?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    cpinva posted:
    it would have been leaked by someone, probably some low level employee in the DA's office, for a nice piece of change, to a tabloid. i guarantee it. if you truly think it would remain a secret, i have a bridge for sale...
    Couldn't someone who the works in the private lab have done that? Why do you assume the source of the leak was the DA's office?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    Long time reader, first time commenter. I've been following this board almost since the beginning. The conversation has been much more intelligent here than on other boards. Until lately.
    Posted by Bob In Pacifica June 21, 2006 01:41 PM Who here believes a gang rape was perpetrated on the AV by Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans? Anyone?
    Can I take a page from imho's book and assume that since no one has answered this question, no one believes a gang rape was perpetrated by Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans? Does anyone believe Precious was raped by anyone on the LAX team? Sexually assaulted? Assaulted?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:52:37 PM EST
    As time ticks by in Duke's rape case, facts grow short
    It also is sorely testing the justice system's fairness....
    ...What's missing is a keener, calmer sense of justice. The judge in the case, Ronald Stephens, says he won't hold a trial for another year, despite defense pleas for a speedy trial.
    To elevate this case over others would be unfair, Stephens says, and while that might seem reasonable, it is dead wrong. This is not just any other case. It is one that has scarred both the accused and the accuser while stirring racial animosity. That damage should not be perpetuated.
    Further delays benefit no one. They just tarnish a legal system that, under the klieg lights, is showing some ugly blemishes.
    From a transcript of the hearing:
    OSBORN: Yes, sir. This is a serious case.
    STEPHENS: I deal with serious cases every day, and frankly I respect the seriousness of this case. But this case is not going to jump ahead of the line of all the other cases that we have here or be handled in any other way. I surely respect everyone here and the seriousness of this. But frankly, it takes priority, but we have other cases that take priority, too. And we're not going to stop what we're doing to make sure that we accommodate everybody inappropriately....
    OSBORN: Did we just move it for a second setting? Put it on for June 19th for a second setting?
    STEPHENS: Well we can do that. We have other cases that are on June 19th. Frankly, administratively, are you satisfied that you have all of the discovery? I don't normally move it to a second setting until all the discovery has been complied with because frankly if you get too far along in the settings where you're not in a position to be able to keep -- to move it on.
    OSBORN: We want to -- I want a trial as fast as we can. This young kid wants to go to school in the fall.
    STEPHENS: OK.
    OSBORN: And he can't until this is resolved.
    STEPHENS: Well I mean, I understand and appreciate that. But again, given the number of cases that we've got in front of it and everything else, I can't surely can't assure you of that. All I can do is comply with your requests if they're reasonable. Mr. D.A., do you care if he goes to second?
    NIFONG: Not really.
    STEPHENS: You have turned over everything you got?
    NIFONG: I turned over everything I have. My position is we're likely to at some point ...
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:55:33 PM EST
    IMHO - What is your point?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    smokinburt posted:
    Can I take a page from imho's book and assume that since no one has answered this question, no one believes a gang rape was perpetrated by Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans?
    Hi smokinburt. What does that mean? smokinburt posted:
    Does anyone believe Precious was raped by anyone on the LAX team? Sexually assaulted? Assaulted?
    I've never said I believed her claims, but I'd like to see the prosecution's case before I make the declaration that I disbelieve her. Only seems fair.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:14:59 PM EST
    noname replied to imho (in callous disregard for Newport's desperate plea)
    IMHO - What is your point?
    The author seems to be implying that judge Stephens is callously and needlessly delaying the trial.
    That damage should not be perpetuated.
    I didn't get that impression from watching the hearing or reading the transcript.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    On June 21, 2006 at 08:34 AM inmyhumbleopinion wrote:
    the persistent wumhenry posted:
    The ineffable IMHO wrote:
    Is it that the "stripper" is presumably getting paid for these dates that it is reasonable to consider her v@gina could be injured during one of them?
    Who said it was injured? Diffuse swelling is a condition, and apparently not an abnormal one.
    You keep trying to nail me, wum, but you keep missing. Don't give up. It is from jk's post.
    Wrong. I was quoting from a message you posted at 7:33AM yesterday (6/21). The message included a quote from jk, but those are your words. Look it up.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:23:16 PM EST
    imho, My apoligies, I misread this post of yours.
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 21, 2006 10:30 AM cpinva, If you do not reply to this I will not take it to mean that you could not refute any of my points. I will consider no reply may be your response to Newport's plea to Talk Left's commenters:
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    IMHO - I just don't see how the transcript contradicts what the author is saying. Oh well.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    Lets see, IMHO: Victoria Peterson, Durham activist Houston Baker, Jr., Duke Professor of English Jesse Jackson, Rainbow Coalition Ruth Sheehan, N&O editorial writer Erin Texeira, AP writer Timothy B. Tyson, Writer for the News & Observer Cash Michaels, Wilmington Journal writer Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party How's that for starters? I have links for all of these, but I think I overloaded the software and wasn't allowed to post all in one message.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:32:38 PM EST
    From the (poorly edited) article-
    You told The News & Observer that the Duke party was the first time you had been hired to dance provocatively for a group. Both hirer and hiree were at fault in that respect, and then it worsened catastrophically.
    Ie., "you must also be responsible for those 'boys' and their subsequent behavior which I won't mention as I know they know better but don't want to acknowledge they did something wrong".
    [---], a false claim or rape hurts everyone.
    Man, what a s*itty editing job. So, is anybody ever going to suggest these "boys" be accountable for the behavior on their part we are aware of? Is anybody going to say, "hey, come forward and man-up to what was said by whom"? Let us know who said "thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt!"? Let us know who said, "(she is/they're) just a stripper". Let us know who said, "(...)shove this broom handle up your (a*s/whatever)"? I mean, my gosh, even Kim has been honest about her past/actions and she isn't even charged with a crime. Newport (whose desperate pleads are being ignored)-
    Well, I have now been hit over the head by the board's three resident radical feminists, i.e., imho, pb and "durga_is_my_homey"
    "Hit over the head"? You got asked questions to substantiate your own comments and got an understandable reaction to your more melodramatic incessant ones. Or are we responsible for those? If so, you may want to give Michael J. Gaynor a call. And radical feminists? Ha-ha-ha-ha!
    I have survived to live another day, much to their dismay I would think.
    "Dismay"? Your off-the-wall comments made me laugh, though for intellects sake I'd still like to know how you concluded imho hates whites/men. I think s/he has been nothing but fair. And funny.
    These three will continue on spewing their hatred of "the White Man" and all the things said "Man" has done.
    When did I say I hated "the White Man"?
    It is the unifying principal in their religion,
    Are you Ann Coulter?
    and the Duke boys will be made to pay.
    These men (looks like I've bee more respectful to men in that regard than you. They are men after all) got criticized by me for their comments, behavior, and lack of accountability. Further, analyzing information both ways it can go is what people should do. Unless you think white men should be exempt from as much...
    Finally, a third member of this group pops up occasional to spout off in incoherent fashion about tending to rape victims never mind that there is no rape victim here, and, indeed, the only victims are the Duke boys.
    Oh, d*mn, I was hoping this one would be me-
    Another member hates all things "Duke" as well as the foregoing hatred of the "White Man" and is determined to bring about the destruction of these Duke boys by supporting a race pandering DA and pointing out journalistic errors.
    It is more off the handle and ridiculous. But forgive for being on a time-limit, diminishing my time to compose a post. Otherwise, I'd post in a coherent fashion about the behavior of rape victims.
    Does anyone believe Precious was raped by anyone on the LAX team? Sexually assaulted? Assaulted?
    I believe she could have been, I believe she could be lying. I don't believe, given what I've studied about rape victims, inconsistencies/lies about details of a case amounts necessarily to the claim of rape being a lie (especially when it wasn't reported when the alleged victim felt comfortable about it, rather she just kind of ended up with police). I like to see everything in order to consider every possibility both ways that can account for anything deemed problematic. However I have seen/heard only one side (that of which is not innocent of misleading, hypocrisy, and flat-out lying). That hasn't stopped others from deciding what really happened already, and that is fine, but it has unfortunately amounted to falling on old stereotypes and tactics historically found in rape-cases in addition. And, as I've said, I don't believe the possibility of her lying - or the nature of her profession, or the perception that the "white man always gets blamed" - exempts the men from their own bad behavior, what they've said, and their lack of accountability. Or that it justifies the excuses that have been made for them, the complete lack of acknowledging it was as bad as it was, and totally holding the AV to a higher standard than them. The reason I comment about that is because for one it is happening so much, for two it is something I can say I know has happened. Don't want it to distract from the case/facts/details? Don't lay it out on the table to distract from the details.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:34:07 PM EST
    smokinburt replied to imho (in callous disregard for Newport's desperate plea)
    imho,
    My apoligies,I misread this post of yours.
    cpinva,
    If you do not reply to this I will not take it to mean that you could not refute any of my points. I will consider no reply may be your response to Newport's plea to Talk Left's commenters:
    Hi again smokinburt, Oh. hahaha. As you now know, that was just a little snark. I hope you keep commenting.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:37:28 PM EST
    noname posted:
    IMHO - I just don't see how the transcript contradicts what the author is saying. Oh well.
    I'm just putting the transcript out there so readers can form their own impression.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:42:24 PM EST
    Durga_is_my_homey posted;
    Newport (whose desperate pleads are being ignored)
    hahaha.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:42:58 PM EST
    Hi Smokinburt, You wrote:
    Can I take a page from imho's book and assume that since no one has answered this question, no one believes a gang rape was perpetrated by Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans?
    That's not Imho's book. That's Bob in Pacifica's book. In my experience, Imho tends to avoid "proof by assumption," whereas Bob in P. does little but. Bob in Pacifica's question that he likes to repeat over in over like a child practicing to play the trumpet is meaningless to me. We haven't heard the prosecution's case. Even a motion to dismiss requires hearing the prosecution's case. I know "due process" is a joke to some people here, who complain about the expense, but to me it is a promise of citizenship. It's why we fight. To answer Bob's trumpet blasts, I don't believe the rape happened, nor do I believe the rape didn't happen. The problem space has not been properly carved out, even as a simple matter of procedure. As a substantive matter, we don't know what the Prosecution time line is, and we don't know where the defendants were when the accuser was in the bathroom. That's a lot not to know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    Durga - There are two things here I definitely agree with you about: 1. The Michael Gaynor article is so badly written that I was embarrassed reading it at times. 2. The assumption that you all are radical feminists was pretty funny. In his defense, though, I think Newport was using "radical" to indicate degree, as opposed to using it as a particular feminist philosophy distinct in many ways from main stream feminism. I could be wrong about this, of course.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    The prosecution has failed to provide a fact-based account of the sexual assault. The defense has provided evidence that raises "reasonable doubt" and precludes every scenario possible under which the accuser's tale could be plausible. As we know, that does not mean "game over" as too many defendants are wrongfully convicted based on police and prosecutorial misconduct, of the sort that Durham has exhibited on a national stage. Sadly, everyone will have to wait until a judge resolves this -- as another poster describes Nifong wins by running out the clock, the players wait, and justice loses. I don't expect Newport's "group of three" to acknowledge the strength of the defendants' arguments in IMHOfong's case because she enjoys the sparring too much. Not worth paying attention to for those who actually care about the truth and the lives of the defendants.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    Durga_ et al. wrote:
    I don't believe the possibility of her lying ... exempts the men from their own bad behavior, what they've said, and their lack of accountability.
    I.e., even if the accusations restated in the indictment are lies, the lacrosse players should be punished for bad behavior or something they said? What behavior? What statements?
    Or that it [i.e., the possibility that the indictment is based on lies] justifies the excuses that have been made for them, the complete lack of acknowledging it was as bad as it was, and totally holding the AV to a higher standard than them.
    What is the "it" that was so terrible? If the AV is lying (which the known evidence strongly indicates) and the lacrosse players aren't, taking her to task for bearing false witness is not applying a double standard.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    Durga -
    So, is anybody ever going to suggest these "boys" be accountable for the behavior on their part we are aware of? Is anybody going to say, "hey, come forward and man-up to what was said by whom"? Let us know who said "thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt!"? Let us know who said, "(she is/they're) just a stripper". Let us know who said, "(...)shove this broom handle up your (a*s/whatever)"? I mean, my gosh, even Kim has been honest about her past/actions and she isn't even charged with a crime.
    What does being "accountable" for their behavior mean to you in this context?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    Is there any proof that places any of the defendants in the bathroom with the AV, either singly or as a group, at any time during the evening? Some keep asking for proof that they weren't there. What's the proof that they were?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lora on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    Almost caught up! Mik, Yes, that is the article I referred to. I understand that Shelton at the time apparently had no idea that Nikki" was "Kim." I still don't think that bit of information is related to the article stating that neither woman said Kim danced, even though they were referring to the police report. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    I know "due process" is a joke to some people here, who complain about the expense, but to me it is a promise of citizenship. It's why we fight.
    Due process is not a joke, to be sure, but invoking "due process" as though it somehow prevents us from saying here whether we believe the AV's accusation is ridiculous.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Alan on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    PB posted:
    To answer Bob's trumpet blasts, I don't believe the rape happened, nor do I believe the rape didn't happen. The problem space has not been properly carved out, even as a simple matter of procedure. As a substantive matter, we don't know what the Prosecution time line is, and we don't know where the defendants were when the accuser was in the bathroom. That's a lot not to know.
    You've destroyed your own case. If we don't know these things then the accusation has not been sufficiently tested to justify putting the defendants on trial. There are many things in your Bill of Rights. Several, yourself among them, have demanded in these threads that those rights be ignored or waived. What is not in your Bill of Rights is a right of alleged victims to have untested accusations sent to trial. Another DA disgraces N.C.
    But someone else apparently won't take the case unless Nifong himself asks to be relieved. The law apparently puts that power in his hands alone.
    In a state whose lawmakers truly valued justice in their "criminal justice" system, someone else would have the power to remove prosecutors who've gone off the rails. The attorney general comes to mind, or the chief justice.
    But in North Carolina, lawmakers seem to put local prosecutors at the top of the judicial heap. As they've demonstrated lately, DAs can get away with lying to judges and lawyers in order to send innocent people to death row. They can get away with lying to the public in order to win re-election.
    At least have the honesty of your convictions. If grand juries are just camouflage for unfettered prosecutorial discretion, then abolish them in favour of allowing prosecutors to bring charges at will. Equally, if you are serious that the defendants' conduct (apart from the alleged rape) merits some punishment I suggest you start your engines for a racial vilification law, the prohibition of stripping and other measures.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    I know "due process" is a joke to some people here, who complain about the expense, but to me it is a promise of citizenship. It's why we fight.
    The most basic element of "due process" is the state following the rules in its investigation. In this instance, Nifong has broken just about every rule in the book--prejudicial public statements (NC Ethics Rule 3.6), refusing to consider exculpatory evidence NC Ethics Rule 3.8), ignoring the state guidelines on witness ID's, demanding DNA samples on the basis of group identification and then failing to use the samples as he promised the court he would. And now we have defense allegations that he misled the judge in obtaining the order for those samples. It's kind of hard to invoke due process to defend Nifong's actions, or to argue that his case ought to move forward.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    Durga, you said, in part:
    I mean, my gosh, even Kim has been honest about her past/actions and she isn't even charged with a crime.
    Could you please give me one or two examples of this?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 21, 2006 03:34 PM Oh. hahaha. As you now know, that was just a little snark. I hope you keep commenting.
    I've been following this case very closely from the beginning. As a University of Colorado graduate, I certainly see some parallels to the allegations made against our football team. A great read on the subject is the book "Buffaloed: How Race, Gender and Media Bias Fueled a Season of Scandal". In fact I just pulled up the book on Amazon and the latest customer reviewer wrote, "The young men of the CU football team, their coaches, and the University suffered unnecessarily because of a DA with a political agenda, weak university administration, and a few women who were misguided by legal, media, and social pressure." Sound familiar to anyone?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:46:58 PM EST
    smokinburt -
    Sound familiar to anyone?
    I'm a CU grad as well, and have seen the same similarities throughout this circus.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:54:48 PM EST
    wumhenry replied to imho (in callous disregard for Newport's desperate plea)
    Wrong. I was quoting from a message you posted at 7:33AM yesterday (6/21). The message included a quote from jk, but those are your words. Look it up.
    Yes, wum, I know. In my reply to you: Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 21, 2006 08:34 AM I said:
    It is from jk's post. We were speaking in general terms:
    I pointed out the phrase he used from the very post you are talking about. I quoted him and used exactly his own phrase in my reply to make my point. from jk's post:
    is it absolutely reasonable for the jurors to consider the evidence of her "dates" as a possible alternative explanation for her injuries?
    I was comparing "college girls" and "married women" to "strippers." We had brought the discussion beyond this case and these strippers. Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 21, 2006 07:33 AM
    How about a "college girl" with an active social life? What if she went out with seven different men in the week before she claimed she was raped. If she says none of the dates involved v@ginal sex is it absolutely reasonable for the jurors to consider the evidence of her "dates" as a possible alternative explanation for her injuries?
    How about a married woman that slept with her husband every night of the week preceeding her alleged rape? If she says they did not engage in v@ginal sex is it absolutely reasonable for the jurors to consider the evidence of her sleeping in the same bed as her husband as a possible alternative explanation for her injuries?
    Keep trying, wum. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, unless, I as suspect, you are running on military time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 03:57:15 PM EST
    Alan wrote:
    If grand juries are just camouflage for unfettered prosecutorial discretion, then abolish them in favour of allowing prosecutors to bring charges at will.
    Although, as this case seems to show, a grand jury may bamboozled by a prosecutor who withholds key evidence, the conclusion that we should do away with grand juries is a non sequitur. To support that conclusion, you need a convincing demonstration that grand juries never curb, or inhibit, prosecutorial excess.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:04:26 PM EST
    I said relative to man the who served nearly 20 years in prison for a raping a woman he had never set eyes on. Tell that guy how awful it is the Duke University lacrosse season was cancelled, some boys may miss a few semesters, Evans lost his job on Wall Street and how their parents have to borrow $400,000 from friends or tie up $400,000 of their own assests to keep their kids from spending one minute behind bars.
    I can't imagine someone who was falsely imprisoned for 20 years not thinking how awful it is that the State has the power to ruin a coach's career, put finacial burdens on the parents, and derail the lives of (at least) 3 students

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    I'd note that most common law countries don't have grand juries in the american sense instead most of them have a hearing where a judge decides if there is enough evidence to indict. In many ways I think that would be a better system. Shouldn't the feminists be angry at the damage Precious has done to real rape victims? The old saw was that false rape allegations are very rare. Yet in the highest profile rape case in years the accuser has turned out be a liar.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by wumhenry on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Keep trying, wum. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, unless, I as suspect, you are running on military time.
    Your smugness is unwarranted; nothing you say in the message that ends with that remark has any bearing whatever on the point that I raised with you. My point was simply that your supposition that the AV's vagina was "injured" was ill-founded.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:15:57 PM EST
    Alan, you wrote:
    You've destroyed your own case. If we don't know these things then the accusation has not been sufficiently tested to justify putting the defendants on trial.
    We are precluded from knowing these things by the ethical guidelines the Prosecutor is supposed to follow. You wrote:
    At least have the honesty of your convictions. If grand juries are just camouflage for unfettered prosecutorial discretion, then abolish them in favour of allowing prosecutors to bring charges at will.
    That's your conviction, not mine. Khartoum, You wrote:
    The most basic element of "due process" is the state following the rules in its investigation.
    I don't agree with your interpretation of Nifong's "ethical violations." But even if I did, there is a process for dealing with ethical violations. An ethical violation isn't an automatic free pass for people accused of crimes, particularly when those so-called violations occured prior to the defendants even being charged. Think and Type, You wrote: Is there any proof that places any of the defendants in the bathroom with the AV, either singly or as a group, at any time during the evening?
    Some keep asking for proof that they weren't there. What's the proof that they were?
    I've got an eyewitness that says they were there. You got anybody who says they weren't? WumHenry, You wrote:
    Due process is not a joke, to be sure, but invoking "due process" as though it somehow prevents us from saying here whether we believe the AV's accusation is ridiculous.
    Oh, I agree. Of course, nobody , least of all me, has done that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    I have finally caught up after taking a little time away. I don't recall who recommended to "pace yourself," but it's sound advice. To Newport: I don't know whether Heracles rested during the Twelfth Labor, but you have certainly earned a break from it. Also, I agree that the young men who stand accused do not deserve this. To barry: In rereading my comment yesterday in which I quoted your post (fingernail DNA), I fear that I could have given the impression that I found your argument to be unsound, but that is not true. Your use of the word "match" in reference to Mr. Evans afforded me an opportunity to hold forth on a matter about which I am deeply concerned, which is the use and misuse of scientific/forensic evidence. You strike me as a cogent and fair-minded voice, one among many who comment here. Please accept my apology if I offended you. To Photios: Your illustration of the process by which individuals are excluded or not excluded from the pool of "possibles" was excellent and clear. It should be emphasized, as I believe you did, that the process of analyzing a DNA mixture never yields individual profiles. Thus, one cannot determine that Mr. Evans is one of the sources in the mixture. To Bob in Pacifica: Yeah, where is she? Wrestling with her conscience? A vain hope, probably. As to your other question: No, I do not believe the gang rape alleged by the accuser happened. It could not have happened without creating a mountain of physical evidence, both in the house and on the accuser herself. Its utter absence, coupled with the existence of more than two accounts by each of the two strippers leads me to conclude that this is a hoax. That the players profess their innocence plays no role, but their consistency sounds a note in their favor. I believe this is how the DA should have reasoned. There was someone else I wanted to respond to, but I forgot. Later.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by Lora on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    Ok, I have finally caught up and I am dizzy with the shifting issues that have been put forward. I hardly know where to begin. I have learned some information about SANE (or SAFE as they are sometimes called - Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner, I believe) exams from class and I have seen a rape kit. It was very sobering. I understand (if the women's center source in class was correct) that the exam and these kits are uniform throughout the nation. I must say that my first reaction with regard to this case was that if the defense really did make available the entire results of the two sheets of questions/diagrams of the SANE exam, that it would seem that no injuries related to the alleged attack, other than the vaginal trauma, which could be significant, were recorded. I doubt they would make a pdf file available because there are explicit diagrams. They could blank them out and describe any checks or markings. Wait, was there one? I sort of remember seeing a link a few hundred posts back. These inconsistencies bother me, though: the defense has insisted for some time that the AV arrived at the party extensively bruised and injured, and they have, so they claim, and so they leaked, pictures to prove it. Why were these injuries not recorded? Either she was bruised and injured or she wasn't. The defense can't have it both ways. What about reports of upper body injuries observed at the first hospital (sorry I don't have a link but I can look for it if folks wish it)? I believe imho asked about reports from the first hospital as well. We haven't heard squat about them from the defense. I learned that a rape exam takes on the average 4-6 hours. I believe the AV was there at Duke for 5 hours. It's definitely no picnic; it was described in class as a "gynecological exam gone mad," and it was the opinion of our presenter that it is very unlikely a woman would subject herself to it unless she had actually been raped and thought she'd want to press charges. She'd have to be extremely motivated to endure it otherwise. Some folks have speculated that the AV wanted to avoid a night at the substance abuse facility sleeping it off. Frankly it sounds far preferable to me. She might not even have had to stay there. She was regaining coherency when she arrived; chances are they wouldn't have kept her. I think speculation has ranged that she would have gotten in trouble with her folks or possibly even lose custody of her children. But she could have called a driver or boyfriend to come get her and she could have changed at her apartment first. I really doubt custody would have been in jeopardy. The main thing is if the kids are safe and cared for, and they were. I also learned that moisture ruins evidence. Should a rape victim feel an overwhelming need to change his/her clothes (yes men can be raped too of course), they should put them in a PAPER bag. If they put them in a plastic bag, they almost may as well not even bother, because condensation and moisture will ruin the evidence. What do we have in a bathroom, people? Condensation and moisture. Possible reason for lack of DNA evidence from the bathroom. BTW, for all you folks worried about spending 20 years behind bars for a false accusation for rape (I don't deny that this could happen), here's a reality check: in PA, the average length of time behind bars for any convicted sex crime? 128 days (handout in class).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    Your smugness is unwarranted; nothing you say in the message that ends with that remark has any bearing whatever on the point that I raised with you. My point was simply that your supposition that the AV's vagina was "injured" was ill-founded.
    wum, read the post. I wasn't talking about the AV anymore, I had moved on to comparing what jurors might consider when the victim is a "college girl," a "married woman" or a "stripper." I was using jk's EXACT phrase in the comparison. My smugness is not about you being wrong, sooner or later you'll get it right. It is about the obvious fact you are reading every word I write. I like that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    Forgot to add this case is a good argument for either abolishing rape shield laws or applying them to the accused as well as the accuser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    I don't agree with your interpretation of Nifong's "ethical violations." But even if I did, there is a process for dealing with ethical violations. An ethical violation isn't an automatic free pass for people accused of crimes, particularly when those so-called violations occured prior to the defendants even being charged.
    Actually, that's not true: it's not at all uncommon for judges to throw out cases or convictions on the basis of legal technicalities. That's part of the system of "due process" that you celebrated in your post. Of course, conservatives don't usually like that--they denounce legal "technicalities"--but I hadn't gotten the sense from your previous postings that you were a George Bush fan. My apologies. In this case, it doesn't matter that the photo ID process, which violated state guidelines, occurred before arrests were made: they were the basis of the subsequent indictments. And I'd be curious to hear your reasons on why Nifong's myriad character denunciations didn't violate Rule 3.6; or how his refusal to consider exculpatory evidence offered by defense attorneys didn't violate Rule 3.8. Indeed, your argument--that if "violations occured prior to the defendants even being charged," the prosecution essentially has a free pass--would seem to conflict with the Bill of Rights, which generally is interpreted to mean that "due process" begins at the start of an investigation, not when the prosecution charges people. (Again, you and the Bush administration seem to have the opposite view on what constitutes "due process.") But, as we've all discovered, they have a different way of doing justice down in Durham.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:48:23 PM EST
    I've got an eyewitness that says they were there. You got anybody who says they weren't?
    Who's your eyewitness?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:54:02 PM EST
    Thinkandtype - besides the three indictees, don't you have about 22 eyewitnesses? Toss in the cab driver and the restaurant server and you've got 24.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    Sundance, I know. I was just curious about who PB's magical eyewitness to the contrary was.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:11:12 PM EST
    thinkandtype and Sundance: There is an eyewitness who places them there. Magical? Aha!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:16:36 PM EST
    I thought she was referring to Kimmy. Who else could it have been?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    Gollum! He was always a sneaky sort. Always sneaking, sneaking...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:20:50 PM EST
    Lora says:
    BTW, for all you folks worried about spending 20 years behind bars for a false accusation for rape (I don't deny that this could happen), here's a reality check: in PA, the average length of time behind bars for any convicted sex crime? 128 days (handout in class).
    Don't you think you are being dishonest here? The defendants are charged with a violent gang rape. The sentence for such a crime is far longer than the mean, and it is unlikely that privileged white boys would get much remission in my opinion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:22:27 PM EST
    Sundance: Yesssss, my precioussssssss.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:26:22 PM EST
    I was gone for awhile, but I put my question up, whether anyone believed that a gang rape occurred, for good reason. I wanted to know what those who defend the AV, or who dislike Duke, or who want a trial, feel about the evidence. IMHO, as is her want, never directly comments on my posts anymore. Neither PB nor Durga are sure a rape occurred. I wanted to weigh the feeling of the pro-AVs (for lack of a better term) regarding the evidence that's been coming out over the last month. It's easy to play IMHO's game of dancing in the margins while avoiding the meat of the case. It appears that everyone here admits that there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the 3 men.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:33:42 PM EST
    Bob - I came to this site because I wanted to learn about the evidence and the legal issues. I've learned a whole lot, thanks to all of you. I am open to something coming out at a later date that might change my opinion, but at this point not only do I believe that there is a reasonable doubt, I believe they are truly innocent. Lora - thanks for the info on the SANE exam. One issue, though, is that I thought she preferred a SANE exam to the substance abuse facility was to avoid a tox screen. No one here seemed to agree with me, but I suspect that there was something that she wanted to keep unknown. Madison - Nifongollum wantses the preciousssss! The Precious was in the bathroom. Nifongollum was trying to get Precious. He was the magical witness! No wonder he won't drop the case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:41:24 PM EST
    Sundance: He appears to be obsessed with Duke Lacrosse, yes? Perhaps there are recoverable memories in his subconscious, or...maybe I'd rather not know. She is magical because she can make herself disappear!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:44:16 PM EST
    Khartoum, In response to my:
    An ethical violation isn't an automatic free pass for people accused of crimes, ...
    You wrote:
    Actually, that's not true: it's not at all uncommon for judges to throw out cases or convictions on the basis of legal technicalities.
    I would think in order for my statement to be "not true", as you claim, it would have to actually be "automatic" that ethical violations result in convictions being thrown out. Had you written "that's true," rather than "not true", in other words, your sentence would have actually made sense. The opposite of what you actually wrote. You wrote:
    Of course, conservatives don't usually like that--they denounce legal "technicalities"--but I hadn't gotten the sense from your previous postings that you were a George Bush fan.
    Got a chip on your shoulder much? You wrote:
    Indeed, your argument--that if "violations occured prior to the defendants even being charged," the prosecution essentially has a free pass--would seem to conflict with the Bill of Rights, which generally is interpreted to mean that "due process" begins at the start of an investigation, not when the prosecution charges people.
    I didn't write the exceptions to the guidelines. I just agree with Nifong that he hasn't violated them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#65)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:45:58 PM EST
    mik replied to imho (in callous disregard for Newport's desperate plea):
    Lets see, IMHO:
    Victoria Peterson, Durham activist Houston Baker, Jr., Duke Professor of English Jesse Jackson, Rainbow Coalition Ruth Sheehan, N&O editorial writer Erin Texeira, AP writer Timothy B. Tyson, Writer for the News & Observer Cash Michaels, Wilmington Journal writer Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party
    How's that for starters? I have links for all of these, but I think I overloaded the software and wasn't allowed to post all in one message.
    Oh, Sorry. I thought you attributing "the mantle of Victimhood cloaking" to commenters here, but I see you were not. The post I was asking mik about:
    Heck, who here believes the accuser had consensual sex with anyone at the party (other than Kim Roberts)?
    Bob, I think we were both going to the same point earlier. I didn't couch mine as gently as you did. It just irks me to see people who are willing to cloak her with the mantle of Victimhood. They claim she's not responsible for the complete and utter mess she has made with her life. She couldn't help it. It was beyond her ability to pull herself up out of the disadvantaged situation in which she found herself.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:49:35 PM EST
    Earlier PB wrote: In my experience, Imho tends to avoid "proof by assumption," whereas Bob in P. does little but. IMHO does a whole lot of inferring. I would rather think that I do a lot of deduction. I think about the week-long argument with IMHO regarding the father's comment on the earlier gang rape. IMHO seemed to infer that the father didn't even know about the alleged rape until he was on TV being asked about it. I pointed out the curiousness of the mother and daughter lying to the father to conceal the rape for his benefit. I believe it was PB who found the article which had the father knowing about it and how the daughter was severely traumatized about it and got psychiatric help. I don't know who the source of the information for the article was but I presume it was from family members if not the AV herself. So if the father knew back then about the "gang rape" and he now says it didn't happen suddenly what I deduced from the original story seems to be accurate, certainly more accurate than IMHO's game-playing. But the introduction of a psychiatrist makes the story even more questionable. If a child reports to a doctor that she was raped, gang raped in this case, the doctor is obligated to report it to police authorities. So we have some kind of mental breakdown for the daughter at the age fourteen, we have no contemporaneous report of rape by the doctor to authorities, and we have a father who states on national TV that his daughter wasn't raped. The AV reports the rape three years later, but then does nothing to follow through with her charges. Maybe when this case collapses we'll find out more about this curious past incident, but it's beginning to sound like some kind of imagined antecedent to what the AV invented this time. Or so I deduce.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:49:42 PM EST
    Police Report: Alleged Victim Changed Story
    The report also shows inconsistencies with the story from the second dancer, Kim Roberts. The alleged victim called her "Nikki" that night. According to the report, neither woman told police that Roberts also performed at the lacrosse team's party.
    The alleged victim called her "Nikki" that night? And what did the alleged victim say about "Nikki?" from Sgt. Shelton's report:
    She said that she and "Nikki" danced and put on a show for the men at the party.
    According to the police report the accuser did tell Sgt. Shelton Roberts danced that night. From the police report, it can not be determined if Sgt. Shelton understood the woman the accuser called "Nikki" was Kim Roberts. From the police report, it can not be determined if the accuser was trying to shield that information from Sgt. Shelton. Therefore, from the police report, it can not be determined that the accuser was inconsistent in regards to Kim Roberts having danced at the party. The article lists it as an inconsistency, yet from the police report, that can not be determined. I think Lora is right.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:51:06 PM EST
    Hi Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    It appears that everyone here admits that there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the 3 men.
    I don't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#69)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:58:31 PM EST
    Posted by PB June 21, 2006 06:51 PM Hi Bob in Pacifica, You wrote: It appears that everyone here admits that there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the 3 men. I don't PB, just to make this clear, you believe beyond a reasonable doubt, with enough certainty to send the three defendants to prison, that a gang rape was committed? That was the question asked. You are certain that there was a gang rape on the AV by Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans? Because earlier today you said: I don't believe the rape happened, nor do I believe the rape didn't happen. That's not a certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 05:59:36 PM EST
    Lora, I had a few responses to your comments. 1.
    in PA, the average length of time behind bars for any convicted sex crime? 128 days (handout in class).
    "Any convicted sex crime" would begin with minor offenses such as indecedent exposure and move all the way up to rape. As beenaround noted, that is FAR different from what the defendants face here: conviction on any one of the three charged offenses could result in substantial prison time. Did the handout give an average time for an exceptionally violent rape? 2.
    Some folks have speculated that the AV wanted to avoid a night at the substance abuse facility sleeping it off.
    I don't know that it would have been a one-night stay, and I don't know that the AV knew that either. And yes, it could earn her a child endangerment charge that, even if she could refute it, would be a major stressor. Likely, the kids would be given over to her parents' custody, but it could involve the State in her family until she worked things out. 3.
    She was regaining coherency when she arrived; chances are they wouldn't have kept her.
    I've learned not to suppose that I know how they do things in NC, but in my state she would not have been going home anytime soon. She was "in the system" by then, and she would have to wait to be cleared. Tox screening would have absolutely have been done, and in that case she would have no right to refuse it, as she may have done at DMC.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:02:16 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    I would rather think that I do a lot of deduction.
    If, by deduction, you mean that you start with the answer you are seeking to prove and look in the data only for those factoids that support that argument, I think you are right about that. It's not an ideosyncratic epistomology. 75% of this board is made up of people who do that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#72)
    by barry on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:05:30 PM EST
    I've got an eyewitness that says they were there. You got anybody who says they weren't?
    Correction, you've got a "witness" who said that "Adam", Matt, and Brett were there. Adam, as you know, was called "Dan" by others. A rapist with two false names? Or was she thinking of Dan Flannery, someone who used the alias "Adam" in the call to the escort agency, someone who would have stuck out in her mind? Coicendtal? Nah. You've got a "witness" who alleged that Kim helped carry her to the house while she kept telling them "No". Not corroberated by Kim or the players. You've got a witness with no injuries to support "rape". No vaginal tearing, no ANAL injuries of any kind. You've got a "witness" who alleged that she and Kim held on to each other for dear life until they were finally separated by six men. Problem is, no one corroberates that either, and that's a key part of her story. In fact, both the players and "Nikki" give a totally different, consistent story. She went back in to retrieve her purse. There was no dramatic separation at the master bedroom door. Ergo, you've got a "witness" with zero credibility. Reade Seligmann, on the other hand, has not only a witness alibi but also a phone log alibi. Take a look.
    I was at the lacrosse party at 61 0 N. Buchanan Blvd. in Durham, NC on March 13 running over to March 14, 2006. After the two women danced for a few minutes in the main livingroom, they then left the main living room. 3. Shortly thereafter, I then left the residence through the back door and talked to Reade. As, I went out the back door, I did not see or hear anything unusual. Once outside, I saw Reade, who appeared normal in all respects. We were both tired fiom playing golf that afternoon, and we had practice the next day. In addition the dancers had stopped dancing and were obviously impaired when they left the main living room. Reade said he had just called a cab and asked if I wanted to leave with him. We walked down the alley to Watts Street, took a left and walked to the corner of Watts Street and Urban Avenue (about a block from 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.) to wait for the cab. Our plan was to go to the Cookout Restaurant, get takeout food, and go to our respective dorms.
    So apparently he was outside making phone calls. Not ejaculating in a crocodile's mouth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:06:26 PM EST
    Bob, why do you bother. It's not worth it and they (the gang of three) are not worthy) of your eloquent arguments.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:13:55 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
    Much of the evidence I have neither seen nor heard. That being the case, I have no idea whether there is enough of it to convict the 3 men.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:14:10 PM EST
    Barry - he was not ejaculating in a crocodile's mouth with a condom on his head. Please endeavor to be accurate!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:17:55 PM EST
    Barry, exactly, a rapist with two false names. Adam was id'd and he is known to be Dan but she didn't pick Dan so the only way Adam could be the rapist would be if Adam were also the codename for Reade, Colin or Dave Evans, i.e., "a rapist with two false names." Bites the DPB in the ass. This is a fine example of logic in action. Are you a Duke student?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:20:41 PM EST
    Barry, Thanks for that... You posted Reade's alibi witness claim that:
    In addition the dancers had stopped dancing and were obviously impaired when they left the main living room.
    Kim didn't sound at all impaired when she called 911, nor did she sound at all impaired at Kroger's... She said she didn't take her drink, maybe that's why. I wonder what made Reade's friend think she was impaired?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    Maybe because of the way she overreacted to the broomstick comment, that would be my guess.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    BTW, the security guard at Kroger smelled a strong smell of alcohol on Kim so maybe she wasn't quite so entirely sober as she says she was.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:26:27 PM EST
    PB said:
    I didn't write the exceptions to the guidelines. I just agree with Nifong that he hasn't violated them.
    Do you have a link where Nifong says he hasn't violated Rule 3.6 on prejudicial public statenments; Rule 3.8 requiring prosecutors to consider all evidence before indictment, even if it doesn't help the accuser; or NC Actual Innocence Commission's Guidelines requiring seven fillers for every suspect? I hadn't realized he made a statement that he hadn't violated these three provisions. As I said before, someone with an unlimited conception of prosecutorial power can support Nifong's actions--but it seems extraordinary for that same person to be celebrating "due process" at the same time.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:27:55 PM EST
    Sundance, you said:
    Barry - he was not ejaculating in a crocodile's mouth with a condom on his head. Please endeavor to be accurate!
    Thanks, I needed that visual to make me laugh a little about this whole frigging mess. The constant struggle to refrain from responding to some of our fellow (is it politically correct to call a female a "fellow"?) posters has worn me down today. I mean, if I didn't know better, I would think imho is flirting with Newport, by continuing her attempts to goad him into responding to her by mentioning him in every one of her answers to everyone else. Obviously, I have let myself get too immersed in following this board, but I am enjoying the Tolkien references about poor Nifongollum and his Preciouss. Those tricksy defense attorneys, and those wicked, wicked Lacrosserss who hurt his Preciouss.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:30:15 PM EST
    Sorry Sharon, but imho doesn't like men remember, and she especially doesn't like white men who graduated from Duke and played sports there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Open Thread (none / 0) (#83)
    by weezie on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 06:31:29 PM EST
    And don't forget that false moustache that everybody was passing around, along with the two false code names. (I thought we needed an oldie but goodie right about now!)