home

Weekend Duke Open Thread

Yesterday's Duke thread is filled to the brim. Lots of talk about the police report in which the accuser said she was raped by five men at the party and that there were four dancers, not two. More details here.

And how about this? The accuser's cousin claims the accuser turned down $2 million to walk away from the case. (hat tip La Shawn Barber.)

Also: Sports Illustrated: The Damage Done

< Gov. Schwarzenegger Refuses to Send Troops to Border | 2nd Cir. Refuses to Require Gov't to Address NSA Surveillance >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:40:50 AM EST
    Yes, on other topic, e.g., inmyhumbleopinion and with another name, tiger829. This name is also on at least one other board, also relating to the Skakel business. Where are you going with this?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:49:30 AM EST
    Newport:
    Jk, didn't the Supreme Court enjoin the Florida Supreme Court from ordering further recounts in the 2000 election litigation? I can't remember.
    I think so. But that went up through "normal" judicial review - I think review was expedited but the case still went all the way up to the Florida Supreme Court. This case would also be reviewable - but first it would have to go to verdict and normal state appeals. You are talking about something different - starting a collateral action in federal court and asking that court to enjoin proceedings in a state court criminal proceeding that is still ongoing.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:50:46 AM EST
    ding7777 wrote:
    According to this post , TL says IMHO was on the Skakel threads.
    Well that is illuminating! Thanks, ding7777. Now I see, Newport. I have no problem with just not responding. I've only expressed concern for the kitty, by my own choice never engaging at any other time.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:05:04 AM EST
    Jk wrote,
    You are talking about something different - starting a collateral action in federal court and asking that court to enjoin proceedings in a state court criminal proceeding that is still ongoing.
    Yes. That is exactly what I am pondering. I remember that Bush's lawyers did file a collateral attack in the Eleventh Circuit to enjoin the state proceeding and that it was heard en banc. The Eleventh Circuit failed to get involved largely for political reasons and largely because they felt that the case was so important that the Supreme Court should grant review, which it did. I remember that the chief judge of the 11th circuit was incensed that review was not granted and wrote a blistering dissent.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:16:57 AM EST
    Interesting: The AV's father: From age seven, after his family's house was lost in a fire, he was raised by a white family. Segilmann's father: Phil was raised by a black woman after his mother died when he was a small child

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:21:05 AM EST
    Ding, I saw that. Not real likely that Reade was hurling any racial insults.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:31:14 AM EST
    re the $2 million offer If this is true, can't the person(s) who offered the money be charged with obstruction of justice?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:49:55 AM EST
    noname said:
    IMHO - You are correct. The phone records only show connection times, not who was actually using the phone or how. I would note, however, that we can reasonably rule out text messaging as a possibility simply based on the connection times. No text message takes 30+ seconds to send.
    Can phones send photographs? How long would that take?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Alan on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:49:59 AM EST
    Madison posted:
    I just can't believe this "case" is still alive. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! Why doesn't the judge consider the motions?
    Because it's not required by law and not in his interests. North Carolina should adopt preliminary inquiries as a matter of urgency. If nothing else, concentrating the procedural and evidentiary issues in one hearing would have to be cheaper, as well as fairer, than this judicial buck-passing split up among multiple court dates. Durham might even be able to try major cases in good time. Same way full discovery is not in Nifong's interest as long as he can keep on finding 'new' evidence.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:40:32 AM EST
    jk said:
    I was not sure if in the first sentence you meant (a) the prosecution should present rigorous statistical studies about the relationship of vaginal swelling with rape, consensual intercourse, and other conditions (i.e., evidence to actually allow you as a juror to make these calculations), or simply (b) testimony from other sexual partners and medical testimony about other causes of VS, so that one could make a sort of crude approximation of how likely these injuries were in the absence of rape. Based on the second two sentences of the paragraph, I assumed you meant (b).
    However, if you meant (a), I think there would be serious problems with the admissibility of this type of evidence. You would need to show the evidence would be more probative than prejudicial, and any expert testimony on this issue would need to meet the reliability requirements of Daubert and Kumho Tire.
    I think a judge would be loathe to admit testimony that there is an x% chance that a person was raped based on VS.
    Well I would argue evidence of VS without any context is itself going to be more prejudicial than probative. Kind of like evidence of cocaine residue on cash found on a drug suspect. Naturally this additional evidence would not be of the form "VS means x% chance of rape" since you cannot compute such a probability based on VS alone. This is similar to blood type or dna evidence where you can say for example that 1% of the population has this blood type but not that a match means a 99% chance of guilt. I would expect the additional evidence to cover these points 1) How repeatable is a finding of VS, ie how often will different examiners disagree on whether it is present? 2) Can the SANE or SAFE exam itself cause the swelling? 3) How often and under what conditions will consenual coitus produce VS? Did the AV engage in consenual coitus in the relevant time period? 4) How often and under what conditions will rape produce VS (but not more serious injury)? 5) Typically how long will VS be detectable? 6) What are the other causes of VS besides coitus? How common are they and can they be eliminated in this case? I suppose rigorous statistical studies might be too much to expect but bearing in mine that the burden of proof is on the prosecution I would expect some evidence on how often VS would be found in women in general and the AV in particular who have not just been raped. Without such evidence I would greatly discount the VS finding.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:53:12 AM EST
    lora said:
    I don't think some posters have any idea how devastating a rape can be, and how devastating enduring the medical/legal procedure following a rape can be. Fortunately I don't have personal experience, but from my class I am getting an inkling. Imagine letting anyone touch your body anywhere, following a rape. Now imagine a thorough, lengthy, sometimes rough or painful (speculums are supposed to used without lubricant) exam in the most tender parts of you which have been recently violated. For hours you are not allowed to eat, drink, defecate, urinate. You are not allowed to remove the stink of the attacker from your body. There are often few or no accomodations made to the emotional state of the victim: there is often no privacy, the doctor may simply touch the victim without getting permission etc.
    If the exams are sometimes "rough or painful" this raises the issue of whether the exam itself, particularly if performed by a trainee, could cause the v*g*n*l swelling found in this case?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:04:21 AM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion stated:
    I don't consider Bob in Pacifica an AV detractor because he makes legitimate arguments that point out the weaknesses in the prosecution's case or corrects misstatements than impugn the defense's case. I consider Bob in Pacifica an AV detractor because, back when I read his comments, he continually lied about the accuser and her family.
    You don't have to lie to demonstrate a bias for or against the AV.
    I do have a better use for my brains, it just doesn't require much of my time.
    Which leaves the question of why you think the best use of your spare time is baiting the AV detractors on this board into overstating their case so you can jump on them?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:25:06 AM EST
    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:31:47 AM EST
    Shearer wrote:
    You don't have to lie to demonstrate a bias for or against the AV.
    A bias isn't really quite so offensive until it is accompanied by a willingness to lie.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:58:04 AM EST
    jk posted:
    You continue to make assumptions about what the defense is "representing." You did the same thing about the supplemental motion, where you assumed the motion said, "JJ said the AV had sex with four men." The motion did not say that.
    imho posted:
    I did not say that.
    jk posted:
    I did not say you said it. I said you assumed it.
    How do you know I assumed it? Was it something I said? ;) jk posted:
    where you assumed the motion said, "JJ said the AV had sex with four men."
    Show me where I made that assumption. I think This is my first post on the subject: Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 9, 2006 10:57 PM
    About this new info, from the motion:
    Had investigator Hinman bothered to interview Jarriel Johnson at the time ( a task the Durham Police Department did not accomplish until April 6, 2006), he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.
    Didn't Mr. Johnson stay in the car when he took the accuser to the hotels?
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 13, 2006 04:23 AM
    Talk Left posted:
    I certainly think it's a fair statement to say that she was "involved in some sexual manner" with four other men.
    imho posted:
    What four men? There is the male/female couple and the "older gentleman." The other appointments could be performances for lesbians. The supporting document, Jarriel's statement, does not mention any men other than the"older gentleman." The "involved in some sexual manner with four other men" claim is not supported by any of the attached documents.
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 12, 2006 05:47 PM
    mik posted:
    The motion the defense filed does not say that ___ had sex with men. It states that she "was involved in some sexual manner" with her clients. Removing one's clothing in a sexually provocative manner is "some sexual manner." Only ___ and her "clients" or "dates" will know what occurred behind closed doors.
    imho posted
    Actually it says:
    Had investigator Hinman bothered to interview Jarriel Johnson at the time ( a task the Durham Police Department did not accomplish until April 6, 2006), he would have discovered sooner that [redacted] was involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006.
    Jarriel's statement mentions one man. The "older gentleman" the accuser said "wants to see her perform." Investigator Hinman could not possibly discover the accuser did anything with "at least four different men during the weekend from March 10 through 12, 2006" from Jarriel's statement. The defense lied about the content of Jarriel's statement.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:00:16 AM EST
    I think Wilson called him on the 20 attacker story being in the new discovery and Cheshire tried to weasle out of it.
    That's one way of putting it, there are others.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:25:48 AM EST
    Newport posted:
    That's one way of putting it, there are others.
    That's why I wrote "I think."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:28:21 AM EST
    SomeWhatChunky posted:
    Looks to me like the local press supports Cheshire's version, not Wilson's.
    They haven't helped him out by supplying a quote where he mentions the five without the twenty. Are you saying Wilson let this go by:
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick,"
    And objected later to another quote that doesn;t contain the 20 attackers? Or maybe the 5 attackers was said first. Wilson objected and then Cheshire went on to make the none,3,5,20 remark? Look at the quotes we have. Look at what Wilson says. What makes sense here?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:38:54 AM EST
    James B. Shearer posted:
    You don't have to lie to demonstrate a bias for or against the AV.
    Thanks for that. My provoking the AV detractors to overstate their case makes me an AV supporter? I would say I have a bias against AV detractors, not because I believe the accuser to be telling the truth, but because I believe many of them do not.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:43:08 AM EST
    din7777 posted:
    re the $2 million offer
    If this is true, can't the person(s) who offered the money be charged with obstruction of justice?
    Is it too late to charge Kobe?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:51:51 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    IMHO,
    Yes, I do think you are primarly responsible for dragging down the quality of the discouse on the board. I think that's too bad - there aren't many places where you can have a good discussion about this case. I think this was the best.
    Posted by GUNSHY
    Newport: I like the "Fong" choice. Of course, that is a small step away from "Dong" which has all sorts of possibilities, too
    How about Liethong? Lie because he's a liar and thong because he's got hisself stuck up his you know what.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:00:39 AM EST
    jk posted:
    BTW, you never answered my question about the blood test. You kept repeating the blood can still be tested. My question was (slightly paraphrased here): can you think of any good reason (consistent with Nifong being an ethical and competent attorney) why the blood has not already been tested?
    imho posted from yesterday's hearing:
    OSBORNE: I take it from Mr. Nifong's representations here, there are no toxicology reports.
    JUDGE STEPHENS: At this point in time I assume there are none.
    NIFONG: That's correct.
    imho posted:
    I can think of a few.
    jk posted:
    I would be very interested in you sharing those reasons, if you would be willing to share.
    Not at this point in time.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:22:44 AM EST
    The reason there are no toxicology tests is because Mr. Nifong didn't order any. He couldn't afford to take the chance on what they might reveal. He knew they would reveal a very drunk young lady, he undoubtedly had other suspicions of serious illicit drug use. Fong wasn't willing to take the risk that a drug test might turn out all wrong for his Precious case and that speaks volumes about whether he's an honest and fair prosecutor whose job is to seek the truth and it also speaks volumes about his faith in his own concocted date rape drug 'theory'.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:23:07 AM EST
    Nifong and his cronies lack integrity and competence. Whether it's 3 or 5 or 20 attackers or 4 dancers or Kim assisting the team, the accuser has changed her story too many times to be credible to anyone other than Nifong seeking re-election in Durham. Call me naive, but I believe that the jury, regardless of race, will do the right thing here. The community does not win when innocent people are falsely convicted and when a selfish and deluded prosecutor like Nifong is rewarded for destroying justice. Groups that have been vicimized before are especially aware of how harmful a guy like Nifong can be

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:29:15 AM EST
    "Here I come to save the daaaaaay."
    That theme song from the old Mighty Mouse cartoon series could be the campaign theme songs for Lewis Cheek and now Steve Monks, two men contemplating a run for Durham County District Attorney.
    Are these two gentlemen donning crime-fighting capes and sallying forth to become the county's top cop because they want to make the streets safe for little old ladies?
    Nope. As far as I can tell, their main motivation is to make the streets safe for the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:52:00 AM EST
    atl52 sorry i screwed up the block comments. that first paragraph is obviously yours d

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:52:26 AM EST
    'The Abrams Report' for June 5
    ABRAMS: All right. Look, I should also -- I mean I think that there may have been a blood sample taken. Yale, you were saying there was no blood, I think they may have taken a blood sample. BONDI: OK, Dan, then they can still analyze it... ABRAMS: ... but there is no result. GALANTER: No, no, no. ABRAMS: Go ahead, Yale. GALANTER: They took an initial screen to determine whether or not there were any illicit drugs in her or alcohol. They did not do a toxicology report for the date rape drug. ABRAMS: But Pam is saying... GALANTER: That's what occurred. ABRAMS: ... that if they've got a blood sample, they could still take it. They could still do a test at a later time. BONDI: Dan, it happens all the time... ABRAMS: Yes.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:10:12 AM EST
    If he said 5 attackers in a sentence without the 20 attackers, none of the reports I have seen quoted him. If the above is the quote to which Wilson objected, Wilson was correct in wanting to "see that page."
    Now the Defense has Wilson (the LE?) declaring he was aware of the AV changing her story from 0, 3, and 5. That will probably help for grounds for dismissal.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:11:36 AM EST
    david_in_ct posted:
    The best thing that they have going for them against this is having Seligmann as one of the accused. The combination of the phone records, his well documented leaving time and the very clear exposition of Roberts leaves virtually no time for him to be involved.
    What about McDevitt? Cab driver tells of fares
    While driving Seligmann home, Mostafa received a call at 12:29 a.m. from the cell phone of lacrosse player Tony McDevitt, requesting another ride from the party, the records show.
    Mostafa told MSNBC that he returned to the house later to pick up another customer. He told FOX News that when he arrived at the house the second time, some players were on the front lawn and a light-skinned black woman was walking away from the house. She was arguing with the players, then Mostafa said the woman said, "I am going to call the police."
    FOXNEWS April 21, 2006
    Four of the lacrosse players then got into the cab; Mostafa described them as agitated. He then heard one player say to another, "don't worry, she's just a stripper." He also said, "it look to me like somebody get hurt. But what kind of harm ... I have no idea."
    CNN April 29, 2006
    "I heard her talking back to the guys" in what was apparently not a friendly conversation, he said.
    The woman began to drive away in her car, but suddenly stopped and backed up, almost hitting his taxi, Mostafa said.
    Four men got into his cab, and they appeared to be drunk, Mostafa said.
    One of them said, "She's just a stripper," Mostafa said
    WRAL April 20, 2006
    After dropping off Seligmann, Mostafa said, he returned to the house to pick up four more passengers. When he arrived, it looked like a party was breaking up, with people crowded on both sides of the street.
    While waiting for the men whom he would later drive to a nearby gas station, the Sudan-born driver saw a woman walking through a crowd of men toward a car, and heard someone say, "She just a stripper. She's going to call the police."
    Mostafa said the woman, wearing jeans and a sweater, appeared to exchange words with some people in the crowd before getting into the driver's side of a car.
    "She looked, like, mad," he said. "In her face, the way she walked, the way she talked, she looked like mad."
    When asked by a reporter with CBS News if he had a feeling that something had gone wrong or someone had been hurt at the party that night, Mostafa said, "Yeah, I got the feeling something had gone wrong."


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:15:56 AM EST
    IMHO stated, in part:
    Thanks for that. My provoking the AV detractors to overstate their case makes me an AV supporter? I would say I have a bias against AV detractors, not because I believe the accuser to be telling the truth, but because I believe many of them do not.
    methinks IMHO suffers from delusions of both adequacy and granduer. you've twisted and turned so many times on this case, i think you finally met yourself, coming and going. you know that's going to leave a mark, don't you? really dear, the only person who's been provoked to overstate a case is, well........................you. most of the posters have relied on fact, or what has been presented, in the press, as fact. you have gone out on the far limb of conjecture and speculation. bottom line: what the lawyers say, outside the courtroom, matters not a whit. what matters is what the actual evidence shows, which isn't much, at trial, assuming there is one. lora, on the other hand, has become totally immersed in her self-identification with the AV. to the point where anything pretty much goes. according to her, and many so-called "experts", a victim of rape has it both ways: they were so confused by the trauma, they made contrary statements; they were in shock from the trauma, and made contrary statements. this conveniently explains all contradictory statements, by an alleged rape victim. of course, this could easily be claimed by the victim of any trauma, because there is no set standard of how people are supposed to react, everyone is different. this would be why we tend to rely on forensic evidence (of which there is pretty much none in this case), and other, objective, third-party eyewitness testimony. again, there is precious little of this to support the allegations. as far as cousin jakki's (did she come up with that spelling?) claims are concerned, i've swallowed and barfed up workpapers with more substance. you can pretty much make all the claims you want, when everything is anonymous.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:21:43 AM EST
    ding7777 posted:
    Now the Defense has Wilson (the LE?) declaring he was aware of the AV changing her story from 0, 3, and 5.
    He claims to have read that page of discovery. The accuracy of the report may come into question. Was it you who pointed out he had his time of arrival over an hour too early? I think the Angel and Tammy in the report may turn out to be the "nervous" patient saying she worked for Angels Escort Service. That's what she told Sgt. Shelton about an hour earlier. Tammy works for the agency. She must be the person Kim called to locate the accuser's driver. Jarriel Johnson says he got a call from Tammy at about 1:00 -1:30 a.m.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:43:21 AM EST
    Looks to me like the local press supports Cheshire's version, not Wilson's.
    More firsthand evidence of toothprints on Wilson's pedicure. ABC11tv Attorneys Dispute Report in Duke Rape Case
    After the exchange, Wilson told Eyewitness News that he personally read all 1814 pages of discovery documents and has not read that the alleged victim changed her version of the story.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:50:06 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    He claims to have read that page of discovery
    Then he knows that the AV: 1. Claimed 5 rapists 2. Claimed 0 rapists 3. Changed her story several times

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:57:00 AM EST
    IMHO: I agree that McDevitt and Seligmann look similar, but twins? McDevitt Seligmann Me? Not so much.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:57:25 AM EST
    By that logic he would claim to know officer Sutton was called to the hospital at 1:22 a.m. We know that is incorrect. He knows what is in the report. It's accuracy may be in question.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:22:51 AM EST
    ding: Nifong and Himan claimed to read medical records before they were printed and delivered. Wilson claimed to read the entire 1800+ pages of discovery. Yet, none of them seemed to retain any of the information they read. Nifong couldn't remember condoms or not, Himan couldn't remember whether she had injuries that corresponded with the story she told, and Wilson couldn't remember whether she changed her story or not. I almost wonder if there are any literate people working in the DA's office. And as to the toxicology tests, I think I know why they weren't done.
    "We only do toxicology if the victim's story is highly suspicious," said Emilia Frederick, a sexual assault nurse examiner at UNC Hospitals. Frederick said toxicology tests are typically done when a rape victim cannot remember certain events.
    Her story IS highly suspicious. She certainly couldn't remember certain events with any clarity. They didn't do a tox screen because someone at DUMC examined the accuser, listened to her story, reviewed the evidence thus far, and decided it wasn't worth the money because there wasn't any rape. Actually, I seem to recall reading that the blood draw was used for a pregnancy test, but I can't find the link to where I read it. (No, they don't do the EPT tests in hospitals)

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:49:50 AM EST
    mik posted:
    IMHO:
    I agree that McDevitt and Seligmann look similar, but twins?
    Me? Not so much.
    I didn't say they looked like twins. Here's the buzz from some boards/blogs:
    Carter from Court TV: Reade Seligmann bears a striking resemblance to more than one other Duke lacrosse team member. Here is a comparison with #44.
    bertrand wrote @ Mon, 24 Apr 2006, 11:42 am EDT: Tony McDevitt who was present at the party after Seligman left looks eerily like Seligman.
    Chris Lawrence What's weird is that Tony McDevitt, a junior Duke lacrosse player who has a striking resemblance to the indicted Reade Seligmann, lives smack dab in that area code according to this site. McDevitt, along with four teammates, was on the season watchlist for the nation's top collegiate player before the incident.
    V a n c e H o l m e s . c o m They All Look Alike We've seen number 45 -- Reade Seligmann. Now meet number 44 -- Tony McDevitt. He was at the infamous March 13 party, and he's a dead ringer for 45.
    I patent on court tv She said #4 "looked like" ____, but she wasn't sure. That is not an ID. Futhermore we know at last two players on the team look very similar to Seligmann, including Tony McDevitt. If #4 was one of those two kids, her hesitation can easily be explained away.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by wumhenry on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:49:53 AM EST
    From the SIcom article:
    Junior goalie Dan Loftus and his brother, Chris, a sophomore attackman, grew up in Syosset, Long Island, sons of Barbara and Brian, a retired New York City fireman who worked 36 straight hours at the World Trade Center immediately after the attacks on Sept. 11. "I thought that was the worst day of my life," Brian says. "You want to know something? This is the worst thing." Like most of the parents, the Loftuses had grilled their sons. "How many times did I say to him on the phone? 'Danny, did anything happen?'" Brian Loftus says to Barbara one weekend in May. "I asked him 10 times. He goes, 'No, no, no, no.'" "This is not a time to lie and cover up for your friends!" Barbara remembers chiming in. "Did anything happen?" .... Ken Sauer, another retired New York City fireman, whose son, K.J., was a senior midfielder, spent Sunday at home in East Rockaway, N.Y., trying to figure out how to scrape up the money if his son needed to make bond. He looked into flights to Durham. In a suitcase he packed clothes, toiletries, the deed to his house. He watched the news and waited for the phone to ring. Players' parents, usually dependent on each other for news and support, didn't call each other much that weekend, but word had been passed that the wealthier families would ensure that no player would stay locked up .... "Without a scholarship I couldn't blink an eye at this place," says Carroll, another retired fireman's son from Long Island, who's the first in his family to go to college. .... "They are ruined for life," says Nina Zash of the three defendants, and that's the reason her son feels no relief. "It was a lottery drawing," Matt Zash says. "We know it could be any one of us."


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:01:59 AM EST
    They do look alike, but I think McDevitt looks more like Nick Glenn than he looks like Reade Seligmann. It's hard to get a true representation of what someone looks like from pictures versus "in real life." There is a general similarity of coloring and build, but I wouldn't call McDevitt "a dead ringer" for Seligmann.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:05:30 AM EST
    mik posted:
    And as to the toxicology tests, I think I know why they weren't done.
    Her story IS highly suspicious. She certainly couldn't remember certain events with any clarity. They didn't do a tox screen because someone at DUMC examined the accuser, listened to her story, reviewed the evidence thus far, and decided it wasn't worth the money because there wasn't any rape.
    Do you have any support for this proposed protocol? It is not the responsibility of anyone at the hospital to decided if there was or was not a rape.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:07:40 AM EST
    Nope. Just speculation on my part.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:08:24 AM EST
    mik posted:
    It's hard to get a true representation of what someone looks like from pictures versus "in real life."
    I agree. That may be the problem with photo line ups.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:12:53 AM EST
    imho:
    what about mcdevitt?
    I'm not certain what your point is here. I will go under the assumption that you are trying to point out that the cabbie got the sense that something was wrong and that he overheard the 'don't worry she's just a stripper' remark. The easy defense spin on the she's just a stripper remark is her documented fall down the stairs. The person who remarked as such isn't someone I'd want to be associated with but hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt of kidnapping, rape etc. My point about Seligmann is that from the publicly available documents he is pretty much in the clear unless you go to the position that this was a well thought out conspiracy where someone else was using his phone at the time to provide an alibi for him while he participated in a gang rape. In addition this also means that we throw out Roberts statement plus the statement of Bissey putting Roberts exit from the house after Seligmann's. If Roberts was in the house while the rape was going on then she is probably part of it. Surely a strange idea given that she went out of her way to at least marginally care for the AV after the party, when all she might have done had she been an active participant in the rape would be to leave. My reading of Robert's statement is that it is pretty clear and the tone of it does not imply that she was privy to the horrific crimes alleged. She talks of the 'the boys' and how in the beginning she thought the show was going pretty well. The only part which shows real aggitation is her desription of the AV being out of control after the broomstick remark and their exit to the bathroom. If I am sitting on a jury and the accuser identifies two people with 100% certainty (i don't have the citation for these remarks but I believe it to be out there, Nifong perhaps?) and one is proven to be wrong I certainly toss the other unless there is overwhelming corroborative physical evidence supporting the other. So far there are no publicly available documents that I have seen that contain such evidence. It is pretty clear that you have spent much time reading about this case and seem to have a good memory of the 'surrounding chatter'. For the sake of discussion do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann in play, even if it meant throwing out certain parts of the record? david

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:28:43 AM EST
    If Nifong is a "rodeo cowboy," what does that make Linwood Wilson? A rodeo clown? IMHO will sputter on about the 20, if the AV said it, if Cheshire were lying about it being in the most recent discovery, if Wilson meant this or that. She will be good for another forty posts on this even without anyone else's cooperation. Bottom line: Wilson got upset that the AV was characterized as changing her story as to the number of rapists, and, unfortunately for the prosecution, the AV has changed her story. Cheshire could very easily have mentioned the magical strippers Tammy and Angel. For that matter, if IMHO wants to sustain the AV's credibility, she might want to explain the location of the magical strippers. Maybe it was Zarqawi's safe house too. Truly amazing that IMHO can sustain herself so long on such thin gruel.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:34:57 AM EST
    David asked IMHO: ...do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann in play, even if it meant throwing out certain parts of the record? David, any time that IMHO has been asked anything like this she either doesn't respond or gives a response to something else. Don't expect an answer.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:37:10 AM EST
    mik, my guess why there wasn't a tox report was because the AV refused the test. Have we gotten any explanation for why there were missing pages in the SANE exam?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by wumhenry on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:39:33 AM EST
    Yep.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:44:50 AM EST
    According to Nifong, they don't exist. They are part of the "rape kit," but are not pages (if you can make sense of that, please let me know). Here's the exchange, as reported in the N&O:
    When responding to a request from Evans' lawyers, Nifong said that the legal team had asked for something that didn't exist. "People who don't do a lot of rape cases probably don't know that," Nifong said.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:47:22 AM EST
    Hi david,
    It is pretty clear that you have spent much time reading about this case and seem to have a good memory of the 'surrounding chatter'. For the sake of discussion do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann in play, even if it meant throwing out certain parts of the record?
    Not reallly. Still ruminating on that. I do have a problem with Bissey saying the women went inside and after a moment he checked his cell phone and it was midnight - and this:
    12:00:12 a.m. The first picture of the dancers. The accuser, wearing pink and white lace lingerie, is lying face down on the floor.
    You don't think the accuser could have mistaken Seligmann for McDevitt?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:08:24 AM EST
    imho: I have no doubt that the AV could have mistaken anyone for anyone. She was by all acounts seriously intoxicated and remained so for quite awhile. Having attended college and having had the experience waking up and not being able to remember the preceeding evenings events in 100% clarity I am sympathetic to the possibility of her misidentification. However, from the legal standpoint, without any DNA on or in the AV the case is pretty much over barring reverse jury nullifaction. As I stated before, if Seligmann is in the clear all the others walk with him. As for rank speculation on what a video might show of the entire evenings events, I really don't know. If pressed I would say that the worst thing that probably occured would have been something more suited to a civil tort involving breach of contract.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:21:58 AM EST
    david posted:
    As for rank speculation on what a video might show of the entire evenings events, I really don't know. If pressed I would say that the worst thing that probably occured would have been something more suited to a civil tort involving breach of contract.
    What if they took the money back? The first search warrant lists robbery as one of the offenses.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    What if they took the money back? The first search warrant lists robbery as one of the offenses.
    I don't recall whether or not the Grand Jury handed down an indictment for robbery. Again, from a legal standpoint it seems less than likely they could win this one. There are 47 suspects and it would be impossible to prove that any one in particular took the money back. The AV also made statements to the effect that Robert's stole the money or that she might have deposited it. These are big hurdles to climb even if there was a charge. As to whether someone went through her purse and took back some or all of the $400, could be, but we will never know. Actually, if that occured it would jive more with what the lax players said occured and could be the root of the argument which ended in name calling outside the house. Four hundred bucks for a dancer that passes out on your floor after four minutes is a bit irksome.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:37:06 AM EST
    Hey, Bob. If the accuser refused a tox screen, wouldn't that be recorded in her medical records? Also, if the medical professionals decided that she was incoherent and possibly under the effects of a date rape drug, could they force the issue of a tox screen EVEN IF the accuser didn't agree to it? I think the conversations purportedly overheard by the Duke cop reflected the opinions of the medical personnel as well: She was drunk and delusional and likely making it up as she went along.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:41:38 AM EST
    No, there is no robbery indictment. david_in_ct posted:
    As to whether someone went through her purse and took back some or all of the $400, could be, but we will never know. Actually, if that occured it would jive more with what the lax players said occured and could be the root of the argument which ended in name calling outside the house. Four hundred bucks for a dancer that passes out on your floor after four minutes is a bit irksome.
    I'm sure it's vexing, but you just can't take it back. Far as I know her purse is still missing. Osborn says the "boys" found it outside along with her phone, but I think he meant her make up bag which is listed on the search warrant as a seized item. What about Evans and the partial DNA? Think that can be admitted as evidence?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#57)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:48:43 AM EST
    Like most of the parents, the Loftuses had grilled their sons. "How many times did I say to him on the phone? 'Danny, did anything happen?'" Brian Loftus says to Barbara one weekend in May. "I asked him 10 times. He goes, 'No, no, no, no.'"
    "This is not a time to lie and cover up for your friends!" Barbara remembers chiming in. "Did anything happen?"
    I give them credit for realizing something could have happened and if it had, their sons may feel the need or pressure to cover up for their friends.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:55:26 AM EST
    Again: There is no way to separate the DNA from either of the two persons who comprise a mixed sample into "partial profiles." Therefore, there is no partial profile to match to Mr. Evans. He cannot be excluded as a possible source of some of the DNA present in the sample, and neither can a whole lot of other people. This is exactly the sum total of what the result means. There is no "match," partial or otherwise. Mr. Evans' attorneys are undoubtedly aware of this and are presumably going to have a competent witness if it should come to it. Another important fact, if it should come to it, is that those fingernails did not just materialize in that house. They have a history.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:55:59 AM EST
    As I posted earlier, the N&O reporter ( who was there -- IMHO was NOT!) states clearly that Wilson's outburst was in response to Cheshire's comment about the number 5, not 20. Previous post is here To me, Chesire's comment about now we have 3, 5, 0, 20 seemed to be his effort to "compile" all of the various AV stories that are out there. I do not think his statement says or even implies that all of those numbers were in the latest discovery - which they had just received minutes before. "Five" was a new one, and that was his point. But since the reporter failed to place every word Cheshire said in quotes, I suppose those who like to do this sort of thing can twist the article however they want. I would point out that most reporters don't quote every word or even nearly every word. It doesn't mean they don't report accurately. If a reporter writes (Joe said the sky was blue) or (Joe said, "The sky is blue.") I get it either way. But if you follow the above link, you can decide for yourself. Enough quibbling. The bigger message I took from the article is how it reinforced the complete lack of professionalism and huge amount of bias in the prosecutor's office on this case. What are they doing shouting out comments or rebuttals when a defense attorney is speaking to the press anyway? Does that seem like normal DA office behavior? Does that seem professional? If Wilson or any representative of the DA wants to publicly rebut a defense point in the press or comment on the case, fine. I'm sure the press would be quite happy to talk with them. This was not the forum or the right way to do that.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    If you want to push the stealing angle, I'd disagree about who truly stole from who here. Not that this is really germane to the case, but if a contractor takes my money for a service, then fails to provide the service, in most cases they have to give it back. Nobody disputes the women did not complete what they were hired to do. Walking of the job because you don't like what someone said doesn't absolve you of this responsibility.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#61)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:10:21 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    If you want to push the stealing angle, I'd disagree about who truly stole from who here. Not that this is really germane to the case, but if a contractor takes my money for a service, then fails to provide the service, in most cases they have to give it back.
    But can you take it out of his wallet when he isn't looking?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:12:11 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    As I posted earlier, the N&O reporter ( who was there -- IMHO was NOT!)
    Source?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    I'm sure it's vexing, but you just can't take it back.
    Is it technically a crime? I'm not certain one way or the other. Let's say I'm a ticket scalper outside a stadium and I offer you two tickets for $400. You give me the money and then I give you two fake tickets. You then reach into my pocket and liberate the $400. Are you guilty of robbery? I'm not a criminal lawyer (or any other kind for that matter) so I don't know but I would guess that they could claim the money was still their's because the transaction had not been completed. This probably gets very gray depending upon the amount of time that ellapses during posession of the money. I'm sure the Evan's DNA will be allowed in as evidence but even given that it is his it is extraordinarily weak. To find someones DNA on an object that was in the bathroom of the same person three days after the fact is probably completely irrelavent unless it was mixed in a fluid that was identifiable as the AV's, which it was not. What's in a garbage can in a bathroom? Hair, tissues, razors, all sorts of stuff loaded with DNA. These tests are also exquisitely sensitive and just a few cells are enough to get a reading, that means less than what is visible to the unaided eye. This is why the lack of DNA on or in the AV is so damning given what was supposed to have happened.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky wrote:
    Nobody disputes the women did not complete what they were hired to do.
    Well somebody could argue that we haven't heard from Angel and Tammy yet. Just wait.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#65)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:21:13 AM EST
    OT but
    Patsy Ramsey, whose 6-year-old daughter JonBenet's 1996 slaying has never been solved, died Saturday of cancer, her lawyer said. She was 49.
    link

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#66)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:24:43 AM EST
    david_in_ct posted:
    Is it technically a crime? I'm not certain one way or the other. Let's say I'm a ticket scalper outside a stadium and I offer you two tickets for $400. You give me the money and then I give you two fake tickets. You then reach into my pocket and liberate the $400. Are you guilty of robbery?
    The women did not show them fake ....oh, maybe they did, nevermind. The scalper committed a crime, the women did not. This is a dispute over services rendered. If I pick up my suit at the cleaners and after I pay for the cleaning decide it is not clean enough and during a dispute with the owner, I reach into the register to get my money back. I am stealing his money. There are legal avenues for recourse.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    Wilson's outburst is that of an errant sycophant. I suspect if you're working in the Durham DA's office these days, you're either espousing the party line or you're keeping your mouth shut.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    But can you take it out of his wallet when he isn't looking?
    No, but could you collect it from the floor if it had been scattered about and no longer inside the purse?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:31:20 AM EST
    There are legal avenues for recourse.
    That's funny, IMHO. Legal recourse for getting your money back from a couple of escorts/prostitutes!

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:36:49 AM EST
    By the way, who is to say the women DIDN'T commit a crime? What if they went in there with the intention of walking out with all of the money as soon as someone said something questionable or offensive? Why else would they operate on a cash up front basis? Most contractors require some money down initially and the rest upon completion.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#71)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky, Without knowing what quote Wilson was responding to, we can't rely on the reporter's CHARACTERIZATION of Cheshire's statement. Cheshire may have assumed Wilson was responding to the 5, not the 20. In that case he wouldn't be disingenuous, about the 5, just about the 20. We know what Wilson says he was responding to and we know it is on video tape. Wilson's explanation makes sense. The new discovery, apparently, doesn't say anything about a claim of rape by 20 guys. Why would he lie about something he knows reporters witnessed and is on video?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#72)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    mik posted:
    No, but could you collect it from the floor if it had been scattered about and no longer inside the purse?
    No. Just like if the contractor that owed you money had cash fall out of his pocket when he was working on your house, you can't just take it. It is his .

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    IMHO, Please don't tell us what we can and cannot rely on. You would not be a person I would rely on to interpret things. I have my opinion and you have yours. I previously posted the link to the article. Those who care to read it can decide for themselves. As to why he would lie.... Though I have opinions, in general, why the DA's office is behaving in the manner that it has is a mystery to me. Why his outburst in the first place?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#74)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:51:44 AM EST
    mik posted:
    That's funny, IMHO. Legal recourse for getting your money back from a couple of escorts/prostitutes!
    Were they hired to dance? If you don't pay the dancers, they have legal recourse. If they don't perform, you have legal recourse. If you steal a prostitute's money she has legal recourse against you. It doesn't matter that she is a prostitute. You can't steal from her. If you don't receive services rendered from a prostitute, in a county where prostitution is illegal, you have no legal recourse and if you pay her up front and take the money back, that's stealing. That's why they get the money up front.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#75)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:01:58 AM EST
    SomeWhatChunky, You can rely on a reporter's characterization if you like, I know better. I can show you many examples where they get it wrong, or just don't communicate it clearly enough for a reader to discern what they meant. I have written to reporters for clarifications and to report errors. They wrote back and made the corrections and clarifications. They acknowledged they got it wrong and thanked me. SomeWhatChunky posted:
    As to why he would lie.... Though I have opinions, in general, why the DA's office is behaving in the manner that it has is a mystery to me. Why his outburst in the first place?
    I think his outburst was a result of the frustration over the fact that the defense can have a spin-o-rama with the discovery and the prosecution can not.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:07:06 AM EST
    mik, if anyone can point to an online NC SANE rape kit to see what would have been on those pages, I'd appreciate it. It may just be that the missing pages were not applicable to the case, but I wouldn't trust Nifong to be honest about it. In any case, we can expect the defense to provide the whole thing in court.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    imho, in re a couple of things you posted.
    I agree. That may be the problem with photo line ups.
    and
    You don't think the accuser could have mistaken Seligmann for McDevitt?
    I don't want to misrepresent what you meant by the above, so please tell me if and how I am wrong (I have no doubt, by the way that you will do so, at length) in logical answers to the following questions: First, if there is a problem with the lineup, do you concede that the the DA might have indicted the wrong guys? Second, if the AV mistook Seligman, whom she of her own volition gave a "100% certainty" of being one of her rapists, for one of the other players, is her identification of anyone worth anything? Third, if the AV is 100% wrong about Seligman, how can there not be doubt about her identifications of either of the other two? According to the quoted statements from you, I would think that the answers to the above questions are: 1. Yes 2. No 3. There has to be doubt that she got even one out of three correct. Please. Enlighten me. And try to do so in a condensed fashion, because if "brevity is the soul of wit" then you are (sounds like "witness).

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:21:53 AM EST
    More for imho, stoking and stroking the ego:
    I think his outburst was a result of the frustration over the fact that the defense can have a spin-o-rama with the discovery and the prosecution can not.
    These people in the DA's office, and the police, are professionals, who have worked within the system and must work within the system, who know or should know how it works. If they don't like or agree with the Supreme Court's interpretations of defendants' rights, then work to change the law or find another line of work. Is it too much to ask them to act professionally, to respect the rights of defendants within our code of justice, to work within the rules and guidelines and codes of ethics and conduct of their professions?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#79)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    David asked IMHO: ...do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann in play, even if it meant throwing out certain parts of the record? I wrote: David, any time that IMHO has been asked anything like this she either doesn't respond or gives a response to something else. Don't expect an answer. IMHO responded: Not reallly. Still ruminating on that. You see? So simple. IMHO cannot risk being wrong. Can only knock down others. A cowardly intellect that cannot admit being wrong.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    Posted by SomewhatChunky June 24, 2006 11:02 AM
    If you want to push the stealing angle, I'd disagree about who truly stole from who here. Not that this is really germane to the case, but if a contractor takes my money for a service, then fails to provide the service, in most cases they have to give it back. Nobody disputes the women did not complete what they were hired to do. Walking of the job because you don't like what someone said doesn't absolve you of this responsibility.
    Yes, SomewhatChunky, it seems that strippers (if we judge by this case) can be in breach of contract -- at their own discretion -- and not have to return the money. I've never seen anywhere that Kim was ever questioned by anyone on what made her think she had the right -- unilaterally -- to walk out on a contract and yet not return the money? Or why she has still not returned the money? Or why this should not be considered "dishonesty" on her part? Or why this should not go to questions of her integrity and her overall credibility? Those are exactly the sorts of character flaws that IMHO is careful to point out whenever they occur. I'm not sure why she has not done so thus far?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    u dumb food nobody stole from that tramp, those boys dont need her money and didnt want tio see her naked they asked for white strippers

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#82)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    Regarding McDevitt and Seligmann resemembling each other: It doesn't matter. McDevitt was not identified by the AV. McDevitt's DNA wasn't matched, as none of the other three were. McDevitt wasn't indicted. Maybe if Nifong expands the number of rapists back up to five they can have still another photo ID session and the AV can choose another two. Maybe this time they can have their names underneath the pictures too. Pathetic. Really, really pathetic.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#83)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:36:31 AM EST
    James, You stated:
    Naturally this additional evidence would not be of the form "VS means x% chance of rape" since you cannot compute such a probability based on VS alone.
    I agree, but I refer you to your earlier post:
    1. As a concrete example of the reasoning involved suppose you estimate prior to examining the AV that there is a 50% chance a rape occurred. Suppose further you estimate that there was a 50% chance VS was already present before the alleged rape occurred (independent of whether or not the rape occurred) and a 80% chance that a rape will produce VS if not already present. Then VS will be found 70% of time (90%,50% for the rape, no-rape cases which we are assuming are equally likely). If VS is found then you should raise your estimate that rape occurred to 64% (9/14). Conversely if VS is not found you should lower your estimate that a rape occurred to 17% (1/6).
    While I understand you are presenting an oversimplified example and are not suggesting that VS alone determines the likelihood of rape, this is exactly the kind of statement I think would be misleading for a jury. While I think anyone with a basic understanding of statistics will be able to reasonably understand what you are talking about, I would hazard a guess that a majority of jurors have not even taken a high-school level course in statistics. It will also be difficult to construct a rigorous, multivariable statistical study that determines a likelihood of being raped. I think that most of the categories of evidence that you discussed would be allowed, in some form. But judges act as "gatekeepers" with statistical evidence, and rightfully so. They often restrict statistical evidence because of its potential to mislead and confuse the average juror.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    The women did not show them fake ....oh, maybe they did, nevermind.... There are legal avenues for recourse.
    Might give a whole new meaning to 'in camera' and 'discovery'. BTW, I recall from a post a ways back that your handle was associated with Isla Vista I spent a summer out there many many moons ago playing ultimate frisbee and cycling up into the mountains. What a beautiful spot.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    The only Glo I know from the ultimate world married a friend of mine named Adam who we always call mada. He has a brother named Chris. Both were players in NYC and then Boston.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:59:37 AM EST
    No robbery, no simple assault charged. Compare this with the affadavit for the initial search warrant. One TH, former prosecutor said, and I am paraphrasing, that at this point in a case the prosecution should have all it needs to go forward. And I would add, if one looks at what Nifong had, at the time of the indictment how is there a prosecutable, believable case?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:01:09 PM EST
    As I have posted before, taking money back from a failed transaction is not stealing, it is lawful self-help if it can be done without violence or trespass. The other posters are absolutely correct on this. First of all robbery requires some element of force, threat or intimidation. It is a face to face crime. Simple theft does not. Both crimes or, in the civil arena the tort of conversion, require on the part of the taker, the wrongful intent to deprive someone of his or her property. In this case, the players were not taking back their own property because the dancers, in essence, stole from them by failing to perform when paid to do so.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:01:21 PM EST
    fillintheblanks wrote:
    Wilson's outburst is that of an errant sycophant. I suspect if you're working in the Durham DA's office these days, you're either espousing the party line or you're keeping your mouth shut.
    A very real possibility. I am not a lawyer, have never worked in a DA's office, and otherwise have no inside information on what is happening within Mike Nifong's organization. But from a distance, it seems to me that Mr. Nifong might be imposing his will on the police and others. For instance, in the Sports Illustrated article, the police behavior towards the players initially seems almost comforting. The investigators apparently even declined a polygraph offer, indicating "the DNA test would be a better proof of innocence." Moreover, during team-wide DNA testing, one officer supposedly told the players: "Don't worry, guys...This will all blow over." If these officers were being truthful and genuine, then what changed? I've thought for a while that the Durham employees need to take a lesson from the recent corporate scandals and watch their actions carefully. This is a high-risk situation for them. If things go well for Mike Nifong, their careers will soar. But if this case bursts into flames...well...

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#89)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    Newport, I did not follow Bush v. Gore and the related litigation very closely. I would be interested if you have a link to the Eleventh Circuit decision, because I am curious as to the asserted legal basis for federal court intervention. I am just speculating, but I would guess it would have something to do with federal election law. The underlying issue in Bush v. Gore had to do with Florida election law, but it was in the context of a national election with obviously enormous political significance for the entire country. And still the Eleventh Circuit refused to get involved. Again, I don't really know the law in this area, but I don't see how a federal court could get involved in this case before a conviction. Habeas is a form of collateral review, but I think that only applies to convicted prisoners. Maybe one of the criminal defense attorneys can chime in?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    If the "rape shield" laws, one of the few such laws that operate to disadvantage defendants, work to allow a prosecution such as this, then perhaps we, as a society, need to rethink them. The law of unintended consequences seems to be in play.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:03:10 PM EST
    typo
    the players were not taking back their own property
    should be "the players were taking back their own property." the "not" does not belong in my first post.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:08:09 PM EST
    jk, you are correct. The basis for the federal invervention was due process and equal protection. Remember the issue was the counting of different votes in different ways in different locations. There may have been federal election law statutes in there as well. Like you, I do not know if a collateral attack under the civil rights act could be mounted. There is of course the opportunity for federal review post conviction in the unlikely event this case ever comes to that and state appeals are exhausted. This is a unique case and it may require unique actions to be resolved.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    Trying to access brain cells that were damaged or demolished in my younger years, the ones that relate to my Constitutional Law classes in law school. I think there are 14th amendment (du process) issues that could come into play. Think of black defendants challenging challenging the actions of police departments. Unfortunately, many of those actions are remedial and not proactive. By that I mean that until and unless you are harmed, you have to pre-emptive opportunities, especially as all of this relates to this case. You know what would be a trip? If Willie Gary takes on the Duke Three as his clients in a civil rights/due process action against Durhm.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:09:34 PM EST
    "du"? More like, DUH, or a Freudian slip. Read "due"

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#95)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    Bad typo day. Errata: doubled "challenging"; "you have no" should be you have "to" Damn those bloody marys.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#96)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:16:39 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Both crimes or, in the civil arena the tort of conversion, require on the part of the taker, the wrongful intent to deprive someone of his or her property. In this case, the players were not taking back their own property because the dancers, in essence, stole from them by failing to perform when paid to do so.
    Taking money from someone's purse in the commission of a rape? Sounds like robbery to me.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#97)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    Taking money from someone's purse in the commission of a rape?
    Source? Oh, quibling one.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#98)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    IMHO, You have not provided any quote to the Cheshire interview where he said words to the effect, "Ladies and gentlemen of the press, take note, all statements I am about to about to make relate exclusively to and are supported by the new documents we have received in discovery." Nor do I think it would be reasonable for anyone to make that assumption. Apparently, the media thought that Wilson was talking about the 5 attacker version. Maybe that is just because they are evil "journalists" or maybe it is because this was a new story that the DA had previously suppressed and only now had come to light. You think it is disingenuous for Cheshire to attach this page of discovery to his letter, but you don't think it is disingenuous for Nifong to withhold this document from the first set of discovery or for Wilson to have an outburst during Cheshire's conference without clarifying that he agrees with the 5 vs. 3 discrepancy but there is no basis for the 20? And you don't think it was disingenuous for Wilson to say in an interview later on Thursday that the AV didn't change her story? In terms of the blood tests, you can think of good reasons why the test was not ordered yet (consistent with Nifong being a competent and ethical attorney), but you are not willing to share them at this time. I can only think of two reasons for you to take this position: (a) you really are a Nifong sock puppet (which I think is presumptively unlikely but the evidence continues to mount), or (b) you don't really have any good reasons. Maybe there is a third explanation, but my imagination is limited.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:20:38 PM EST
    Since I started the "who stole from who thread" I'd like to make it clear that I do not believe the players took back any of the money they paid to the dancers. In fact, I think this was the main reason for some of the anger at the end of the night was the players feeling ripped off. We have no evidence that the players stole or took the money from the dancers. They have not been charged with theft, nor does it appear that it is an active area of inquiry. It really is not germane to this case. What does seems clear is that the dancers did not perform anywhere near the time that they were hired for. Maybe technically the players have legal recourse - but in the real world, this is one of life's little learning experiences. Since those who grasp at straws seemed to be grasping at the possibility of player theft, I wanted to ask if it would be theft even if it happened. I'm not a lawyer and the legal concepts involved were not clear to me. But I don't think player theft happened.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    imho
    Sounds like robbery to me.
    Then why was it not charged?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#101)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Those are exactly the sorts of character flaws that IMHO is careful to point out whenever they occur. I'm not sure why she has not done so thus far?
    You think Kim has character flaws?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#102)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:25:29 PM EST
    David wrote,
    I'm not certain what your point is here. I will go under the assumption that you are trying to point out that the cabbie got the sense that something was wrong and that he overheard the 'don't worry she's just a stripper' remark. The easy defense spin on the she's just a stripper remark is her documented fall down the stairs. The person who remarked as such isn't someone I'd want to be associated with but hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt of kidnapping, rape etc.
    The evidence will show that the "don't worry, she's just a stripper" remark was made in response to Robert's telling the boys that she just called the cops on them. Roberts called the police out of vindictiveness resulting from the dispute over the dancers ripping the boys off. Roberts announced to the boys as she was leaving the scene, "I just called the cops on you dumbasses." It was her way of getting even. It also shows that there was no rape because she would be calling the police to report name calling if she was so hot at the boys and she thought a rape could have occured.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#103)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    Sharon, gee, when you wrote "du" I thought you were slipping into French. It's not the bloody marys I worry about, it's the flexerils.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#104)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:27:32 PM EST
    It was her way of getting even. It also shows that there was no rape because she would not be calling the police to report name calling if she was so hot at the boys and she thought a rape could have occured.
    Damn, forgot the "not" again. I don't know what is happening to me today.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#105)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Then why was it not charged?
    I don't know. It was in the search warrant. Perhaps, as PB once pondered, this trial will be used as discovery for future charges. Maybe when David Evans' witnesses take the stand the accuser's memory will be triggered. I hope McDevitt isn't going to take the stand.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#106)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    IMHO asks: You think Kim has character flaws? Pathetic. Really, really pathetic.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#107)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    The evidence will show that the "don't worry, she's just a stripper" remark was made in response to Robert's telling the boys that she just called the cops on them. Roberts called the police out of vindictiveness resulting from the dispute over the dancers ripping the boys off.
    Roberts announced to the boys as she was leaving the scene, "I just called the cops on you dumbasses."
    What would four boys leaving the scene have to worry about if the cops were on their way? They are outta there. She's just a stripper, meaning what? The cops won't believe her? About what?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#108)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    Newport, clearly Roberts left the scene without any inkling that there had been anything like a rape at Buchanan. Good point. Again points out how Little Girl Kim shifted from initial observations to her current "get-out-of-jail-by-cooperating-with-Nifong" stance.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#109)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 24, 2006 01:22 PM
    SLOphoto posted: Those are exactly the sorts of character flaws that IMHO is careful to point out whenever they occur. I'm not sure why she has not done so thus far?
    You think Kim has character flaws?
    Well, do you think Kim has character flaws?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:39:26 PM EST
    imho:
    Perhaps, as PB once pondered, this trial will be used as discovery for future charges.
    Huh? Must have missed that one, but using a trial for discovery for . . . what future charges?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:39:38 PM EST
    At this point Roberts would probably like to tell the truth about Nifong and his tactics but she can't out of fear of retribution on the old probation violations. She's in a real tough spot. Once Nifong is not in office she may very well tell the truth.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#112)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    In one of the recent stories the AV's mother says that Duke must have fixed the DNA tests, or something to that point. Is this a prevalent belief in Durham, that somehow Duke is some sinister force controlling their lives? Weird. Were the DNA tests done with any kind of affiliation to Duke? It might have been in the SI article. The AV's father denies that his daughter is too distraught to go ahead with the trial, which would seem also to conflict with the story that the AV is missing. Anyone remember the source stories and offer a reason why we shouldn't believe they were reported accurately?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#113)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:46:10 PM EST
    JK, If I were there lawyers I would have somebody reseaching whether a collateral attack under the civil rights laws and due process clause could be mounted against an ongoing criminal proceding when evidence of political corruption is present. That is the issue and it is a good one.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:50:36 PM EST
    To Sharon and SomeWhatChunky, Re stealing of money Good points each. The crime has not been charged so we can only assume that there is no evidence or The Fong would surely have added it to the mix. The FA says repeatedly that Roberts stole her money, not the boys.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    I would also call a press conference, lay out the evidence of political corruption and ask for the U.S. attorney to investigate.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#116)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:54:40 PM EST
    jk posted:
    In terms of the blood tests, you can think of good reasons why the test was not ordered yet (consistent with Nifong being a competent and ethical attorney), but you are not willing to share them at this time. I can only think of two reasons for you to take this position: (a) you really are a Nifong sock puppet (which I think is presumptively unlikely but the evidence continues to mount), or (b) you don't really have any good reasons. Maybe there is a third explanation, but my imagination is limited.
    You suuure know how to sweet talk a girl, jk.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#117)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    Finally caught up again. Couple things. One poster asked me awhile back if I thought the police etc. may have misunderstood the AV? Yes I think it is entirely possible. I remind people that with Bissey, you have his exact words from taped interviews and his own written word and there are inconsistencies even there. With the AV, you have her words being repeated and often paraphrased by several others. She was crying when she was speaking to Sutton, and towards the end of her interview with Shelton, so she was upset. This would make it more difficult to accurately understand wht she was saying and open the door for many inconsistencies on the part of the listeners, not necessarily her. BTW, is this the entire police report from Sutton? It ends on a peculiar note: "Investigator Jones responded to Duke to attempt to interview Ms._____." Yeah? So what happened there? Where is it? Blanked out? Curious. BTW, Sutton's report contains a discrepancy with Shelton's: "When the responding officers arrive Ms._______ was passed out and had to be awakened with smelling salts." Not according to Shelton. So the officers can't even get the story right between themselves.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#118)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Well, do you think Kim has character flaws?
    Of course she does, don't we all? Self-professed hitmen get up on the stand and testify. Her criminal background isn't a problem, her profession isn't a problem, her changing her mind that a rape did not occur to it could have occured isn't a problem. We'll see if she can reconcile whatever statements she has given to defense attorneys, investigators and the media and how they impact the prosecution's theory of the case.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#119)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    What is the "prosecution's theory of the case." Many of us would like to know? Is it just vaginal and oral rape that is now in play?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#120)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    jk posted:
    Apparently, the media thought that Wilson was talking about the 5 attacker version.
    Keyword: apparently. For all we know the only time Cheshire mentioned the 5 attacker version, during that interview, was in the same sentence as the 20 attacker version. If so, how could the reporters know exactly what Wilson's objection was if his interuption was, "Oh really. Well I'd like to see that page?" If you scroll back you will see I was saying we need more information while others were crowing about Wilson having egg on his face. Hold the eggs, WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH about what was said at that interview to decide if Wilson was wrong, or if Cheshire was disingenuous, if Cheshire missread the 20 guys part and is not admitting it, WE DON'T KNOW.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#121)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    Mik posted this from today's WRAL news article:
    Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong told the court on Thursday he did not have a toxicology report to turn over, although he later refused to say if such a test was performed. UNC Hospitals sexual-assault nurse examiner Emilia Frederick told WRAL that toxicology tests are typically done when a rape victim cannot remember certain events. "We only do toxicology if the victim's story is highly suspicious," Frederick said.
    Mik nicely covered the "highly suspicious" angle on this. I have another comment: How can Fong refuse to answer whether he had a toxicology test performed? Is this the action of an "honest and ethical prosecutor" or a crafty, win-at-all-cost, personally involved prosecutor? He either had a test done or he didn't and he has to tell because if he had a test done and hasn't turned over the results, then that is something that the defense (and the public) needs to know about. And, I don't want to hear any BS about how he might be waiting on test results at this point.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#122)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    What is the "prosecution's theory of the case." Many of us would like to know? Is it just vaginal and oral rape that is now in play?
    NIFONG: The only people I have to persuade will be the twelve sitting on the jury, and if you want to know how I am going to do that, you will need to attend the trial.
    I'll fluff up the pillows in the guestroom. You can listen to the coyotes howl all night.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#123)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:25:49 PM EST
    From the same article:
    In a police report, the officer said the alleged victim could not walk or talk. Police then took her to the Durham Center Access for involuntary commitment. The facility offers substance abuse and mental health services. Once there, police said the woman told workers she had been raped.
    Someone asked about this yesterday, Lora I think, suggesting involunary commitment would require a doctor's order etc. Involuntary commitment was in play here in NC as it is in California.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    I wonder if Wilson still has a job or, if he does, whether he will be attending defense press conferences and speaking out again? Utter humiliation for the DA and his office to have something like this happen. Demonstrates the complete lack of control Nifong has over the office and the intense personal involvement of those involved. It is unprecedented to have a DA office employee challenge a defense attorney at a press conference. Things are really unraveling down in North Carolina and the good people down there need to wake up and do something about it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#125)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    Imho graciously offered some sweet-sounding hospitality -
    I'll fluff up the pillows in the guestroom. You can listen to the coyotes howl all night.
    If Newport can't make it, may I come? A week or two at Quibbler's B&B sounds like heaven. I'll bring the popcorn. Affectionately, Fill

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#126)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:41:46 PM EST
    IMHO, Re: the "sweet talk" I apologize if my last posting was a bit indelicate. I usually take what you say at face value. And it just doesn't make any sense to me that you work for Nifong - you wouldn't have the time to post on this board as often as you do. But I find it highly curious for you to say, I have good reasons, but I cannot share them. Why? For reasons of national security? Re: the egg on Wilson's face I think the late disclosure of the 5 attacker document coupled with Wilson's comments that the AV didn't change her story is plenty of egg, 20 attackers notwithstanding.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#127)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:52:14 PM EST
    fillintheblanks posted:
    If Newport can't make it, may I come? A week or two at Quibbler's B&B sounds like heaven. I'll bring the popcorn.
    Affectionately, Fill
    Fill, Newport has the right of first refusal, but you are second. I'm not half as obnoxious in person.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#128)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    JK, here is the link to the 11th Circuit decision. It is 128 pages long and I have not reviewed it other than to find the dissent of the chief judge on page 60. The case indeed involved equal protection and due process issues and it sought to stop state court proceedings. There may very well be a rich source of case law in the dissent for the boys to mount a collateral attack in this case. I won't know until I read it. link

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#129)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:55:45 PM EST
    IMHO, You wrote:
    If you scroll back you will see I was saying we need more information while others were crowing about Wilson having egg on his face. Hold the eggs, WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH about what was said at that interview to decide if Wilson was wrong, or if Cheshire was disingenuous, if Cheshire missread the 20 guys part and is not admitting it, WE DON'T KNOW.
    Another personal opinion presented as a fact. Putting it in CAPS doesn't make it true. We do know what the press thinks. You may not like it, but they reported it. While your little aside about how reporters you have corrected in the past were so appreciative of the fact brought tears to my eyes, it failed to make me completely disbelieve everything I read in the press. If you have so little faith in reporters, why do you put so much faith in something they put quotes around. Could they not screw that up as well? But rather than quibble, let's say I buy your argument and Wilson meant 20, not 5. Maybe he was just unclear as he interrupted Cheshire's press conference. If the reporters thought he meant 5, would it not seem reasonable to assume Chesire thought so too? What makes Wilson look like an idiot is when he says he had seen all the evidence and that the AV had not changed her story. I suppose one can try and reconcile her many stories. I think most would find it non-credible if you tried to stay she hasn't told different stories... Of course, maybe the NYT just got that one wrong too....

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#130)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    Newport, Re: Bush v. Gore The reason I suggested federal election laws, rather than due process and equal protection, is that violation of federal constitutional rights, by itself, does not give federal courts a right to intervene in state court proceedings. We presume that state courts will follow the federal constitution. If they do not, the aggrieved party after exhausting state-level appeals can petition for cert to the Supreme Court. Under the Anti-Injunction Act, federal courts cannot enjoin state court proceedings except under three narrow exceptions. The only one that I think might be applicable here is express authorization by Act of Congress. For example, I am aware of one such statutory authorization - the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act allows federal courts to enjoin discovery in state court proceedings if certain conditions have been satisified. There may be some specific provisions in the Civil Rights Act (I am very unfamiliar with that statute) that allows for federal intervention if there is compelling evidence of political corruption or if other conditions are satisfied. I don't know.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#131)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    jk wrote,
    And it just doesn't make any sense to me that you work for Nifong - you wouldn't have the time to post on this board as often as you do.
    Why not? The Nifong and the employees in that office don't even read their own files and they file no motions or responses thereto. What else do they have to do?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#132)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    The reason I suggested federal election laws, rather than due process and equal protection, is that violation of federal constitutional rights, by itself, does not give federal courts a right to intervene in state court proceedings. We presume that state courts will follow the federal constitution. If they do not, the aggrieved party after exhausting state-level appeals can petition for cert to the Supreme Court.
    You may not be right on this. Check the 11th Cir case out.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#133)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    How can Fong refuse to answer whether he had a toxicology test performed? Is this the action of an "honest and ethical prosecutor" or a crafty, win-at-all-cost, personally involved prosecutor?
    Are you serious? He is not supposed to discuss the evidence with reporters. He told Judge Stephens, he does not have a tox report at this time. That is all he is obligated to do.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#134)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:01:51 PM EST
    Newport, Can you repost that link? It is not working.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#135)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:02:09 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Why not? The Nifong and the employees in that office don't even read their own files and they file no motions or responses thereto. What else do they have to do?
    Exactly.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#136)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    Damn jk, I am not very good at that sort of thing, but I will try.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#137)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    We do know what the press thinks. You may not like it, but they reported it.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#138)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#139)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:08:21 PM EST
    jk, did that work? If not someone needs to tell me how to do it in excruciating detail.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#140)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:08:41 PM EST
    Newport's link

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#141)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    Newport, cymro posted excellent linking instructions here.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#142)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    Thank you, Imho, for this -
    Fill, Newport has the right of first refusal, but you are second. I'm not half as obnoxious in person.
    Immie (may I call you Immie?), please, just please don't call me "sweetheart" and tell me I can't leave. Okay? By the way, where do you live?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#143)
    by Alan on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    imho concocted:
    Are you serious? He is not supposed to discuss the evidence with reporters.
    Source other than Nifong?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#144)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    fillin, Let me give you the possibilities, 1. Durham 2. Santa Monica 3 Laguna Beach 4. West LA 5. West Hollywood 6. San Francisco 7. Marin County 8. San Jose 9. Napa 10. Cuba 11. Venezual 12. Iran Take your pick.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#145)
    by weezie on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    Fill! I thought I said that if I read that "Sweetheart" line again I was going to have to kick someone in the butt. Now, come over here...

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#146)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    Newport, The link worked. I have very briefly scanned the decision and will look at it in detail if I have some time later. But here is the primary distinction I see. This action sought a TRO and preliminary injunction against members of the county canvassing boards. It sought to order these members to stop doing manual recounts, based on a determination that Florida election law, as applied, was unconstitutional. The lawsuit did not seek to order the Florida courts to do anything. Footnote 1 emphasizes there are "no state defendants." What we are talking about here, I think, is an injunction against the state court in Durham County, asking them to stop a criminal proceeding. Or perhaps the injunction is only against Nifong, as DA, ordering him to cease prosecution. But I think those kinds of injunctions are very different than the type of relief that was sought here. I think we would need to find another kind of precedent to serve as guidance here. However, the discussion of Rooker-Feldman doctrine is interesting. It shows me I know a lot less about the interaction between state and federal courts than I thought.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#147)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    jk, and maybe the 1983 act does have a specific provision to stop state persecutons. I just don't know.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#148)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:37:47 PM EST
    jk, there is nothing more compicated in the law than federal court jurisdiction and the answer to this question will require serious study.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#149)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:48:57 PM EST
    All I am saying is that the Duke defendants ought to pony up the 10-20K (maybe not that much in NC)it would take to seriously research this issue. Maybe other avenues of attack would present themselves. This is a desparate time for those boys because of Nifong's corruption and determination to have a "lynching" to remedy past wrongs. What was it that Nifong said, "We will not have a black girl being raped in North Carolina by those rich Duke boys whose daddies know the right people etc., etc." There is no way out under state law; the motions to supress don't even have to be heard; there is no speedy trial statute so this can go on indefinitely; there is no way to get a probable cause hearing to challenge the underlying indictments; etc. And, if it goes to trial they will not be acquitted because of racial bias of the jurors. This case is the exact opposite of what used to happen in the South, only the races are reversed, it is a reverse lynching.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#150)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:54:59 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Let me give you the possibilities,
    1. Durham 2. Santa Monica 3 Laguna Beach 4. West LA 5. West Hollywood 6. San Francisco 7. Marin County 8. San Jose 9. Napa 10. Cuba 11. Venezual 12. Iran
    Take your pick
    Pretty good, Newport.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#151)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:55:49 PM EST
    You know I hit one on that list with 100 percent accuracy

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#152)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    to Lora
    BTW, Sutton's report contains a discrepancy with Shelton's: "When the responding officers arrive Ms._______ was passed out and had to be awakened with smelling salts."
    I don't see the discrepancy.... Shelton concluded that the AV was not really passed out because she began mouth-breathing after he (Shelton) used the smelling salts. That does not change the fact Shelton did use an ammonia capsule because he initially thought she was passed out

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#153)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:57:42 PM EST
    The new police report is not entirely accurate. Officer Sutton reported, "This is when NIKKI [the second dancer] called the police because [the Accuser] would not get out of the car." We know, from the 911 recordings, that "Nikki" is not the one who called - Kroger's security guard did. Can we trust that he used as much care to gather and report the other 'facts'?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#154)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 02:58:24 PM EST
    Is Sutton the female cop that was brought in to relate better to the FA?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#155)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:00:12 PM EST
    Newport, you wrote -
    And, if it goes to trial they will not be acquitted because of racial bias of the jurors.
    I tend to agree with you here, but I wish there were a Durham resident (preferably black) posting on this board who could give us a sense of the prevailing local black community's sentiment vis-a-vis this case. THIS IS A GENERAL CALL FOR SUCH A PERSON to post his or her knowledge of this sentiment. Thank you.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#156)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:02:06 PM EST
    No, MrPrescident, but when the best the Prosecution can do is rely on hoped for inaccuracies in their own police reports what does that tell you about their case? Do you follow what I am saying here? Have you ever seen cases where it is the PROSECUTION that tries to prove their own police reports are inaccurate? Should open up some peoples minds.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#157)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:07:44 PM EST
    Newport said:
    No, MrPrescident, but when the best the Prosecution can do is rely on hoped for inaccuracies in their own police reports what does that tell you about their case?
    That is EXACTLY what I was thinking. It seems that a fair number of the investigating officers think the AV is full of it. I am wondering how many times Nifong will have to treat a cop as a hostile witness. However, I disagree with you about the probability of an acquittal. I think it is very likely they will be acquitted ("very likely" is not exactly comforting, I know). I did find disturbing Bob's report about the mom's story re Duke tampering with the DNA results. I wonder how prevalent such conspiracy theories are in Durham. Does anyone have a link on that story?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#158)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    Obviously, they are very prevalent. See Cash Michaels for more details. I thought it was the father who accused Duke of doctoring the DNA. Doesn't matter, that whole family and especially Jack/Jakki are a bunch a liars.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#159)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:16:33 PM EST
    jk, regarding this -
    I did find disturbing Bob's report about the mom's story re Duke tampering with the DNA results. I wonder how prevalent such conspiracy theories are in Durham. Does anyone have a link on that story?
    This is the SI article which states - It has been almost two months, says the accuser's mother, since they have seen or talked to their daughter or her two young children. She and Travis have grown accustomed to the media descending on their home to ask about the case. "Duke did something to those DNA results so they would favor those boys," she said on the April afternoon after the results were released. She said her daughter had gotten angry with her parents each time they'd appeared on TV. "We told her we were just trying to help her," the mother said. "I asked my minister to pray with [her], but she won't come to church."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#160)
    by january on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    I did find disturbing Bob's report about the mom's story re Duke tampering with the DNA results. I wonder how prevalent such conspiracy theories are in Durham. Does anyone have a link on that story?
    That was from the story in Sports Illustrated.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#161)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:30:32 PM EST
    OK, it was the mother, I was wrong. I guess Duke doctored the DNA by putting the "boyfiend's" semen on the swab they took of the FA's vaginal cavity. I suspect that would be hard to do but I'm sure imho will tell us how it could have. The state crime lab and a private lab performed the sample analysis so if there was any doctoring by Duke it must have been done there.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#162)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:36:02 PM EST
    IMHO: The egg on Wilson's face comes from saying that the AV hadn't changed her story. To suggest he was familiar with the files and not know the various different ones makes him look like a clown. If Wilson said, "The 20 was third-person information from a member of the Duke police which has not been confirmed. The AV is only responsible for the zero, two, three and five-person versions," then we could say he was being honest. Or he could use the PTSD card. Whatever. He said the AV didn't change her story. He's a clown no matter how much juggling IMHO does for this circus.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#163)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    This is how IMHO defines the prosecution's theory of the case: NIFONG: The only people I have to persuade will be the twelve sitting on the jury, and if you want to know how I am going to do that, you will need to attend the trial. That is, he currently has no theory of the case other than keeping it chugging past November.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#164)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    I loved the reference to the latest Cash Michaels' story in the Johnsville News (which BTW has the best coverage of this case and must be giving Fong a serious case of the red ass). "Cash Michaels needs to see a proctologist because he has a blockage. Stuff that is coming out of his mouth should be coming out the other end." I laughed and laughed at that one.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#165)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    I guess Duke doctored the DNA by putting the "boyfiend's" semen on the swab they took of the FA's vaginal cavity. I suspect that would be hard to do but I'm sure imho will tell us how it could have.
    There I go quibbling and bringing down the conversation again. I just can't help myself.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#166)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 03:45:49 PM EST
    Newport said: [Nifong] either had a [tox] test done or he didn't and he has to tell because if he had a test done and hasn't turned over the results, then that is something that the defense (and the public) needs to know about. This is at least the second, maybe third evidentiary hearing where Nifong has been playing this little game. If he's the seeker of truth the DA is supposed to be, I can't see anyone (with the exception of maybe IMHO) endorsing this behavior. Why the games? Why not say, "I haven't run the test" or "We didn't take the blood to run the test" or whatever is the truth. I'm surprised the judge hasn't pinned him down. A seeker of truth does not hide truth. That's what Nifong seems to be doing.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#167)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    I don't want to misrepresent what you meant by the above, so please tell me if and how I am wrong (I have no doubt, by the way that you will do so, at length) in logical answers to the following questions:
    Please. Enlighten me. And try to do so in a condensed fashion, because if "brevity is the soul of wit" then you are (sounds like "witness).
    According to the quoted statements from you, I would think that the answers to the above questions are: 1. Yes 2. No 3. There has to be doubt that she got even one out of three correct.
    1. No. 2. Yes. 3. There no not have to be doubt about either of the other two.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#168)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    I tend to agree with you here, but I wish there were a Durham resident (preferably black) posting on this board who could give us a sense of the prevailing local black community's sentiment vis-a-vis this case. THIS IS A GENERAL CALL FOR SUCH A PERSON to post his or her knowledge of this sentiment.
    I live in Durham. It isn't as evenly divided between black and white as much of the media seems to want people to believe, so there isn't really a prevailing "local black community" sentiment. It just depends on who you talk to, how educated they are about the legal process, whether they feel a personal obligation to automatically defend All That is Duke, etc. The general sentiment I get from most local people of ALL races is that they wish the national media would just butt out because THAT (and all that goes with that) is what is drawing negative attention to Durham and Duke, NOT the actions or alleged agenda of one side or the other. This case stopped being The Biggest Thing Going On in Durham a long time ago.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#169)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:12:41 PM EST
    fillintheblanks wrote:
    I wish there were a Durham resident (preferably black) posting on this board who could give us a sense of the prevailing local black community's sentiment vis-a-vis this case. THIS IS A GENERAL CALL FOR SUCH A PERSON to post his or her knowledge of this sentiment.
    I can't help out, but CourtTV has a chat transcript with Newsweek reporter Susannah Meadows and North Carolina criminal defense attorney Woody Webb. Mr. Webb reports that racial tensions are running high:
    Being outside the courthouse right now, what's impressed me is the degree of community interest in this case. Black community leaders have submitted a ten point list of demands - one of which is that the case not be removed from Durham County. The community is rife with tension - racial, class and otherwise. It's a very dangerous situation.
    Then, Mr. Webb says:
    No, but the juries tend to be predominantly African-American. What is dangerous - and I've talked to other attorneys - is what will happen in the community if the trial takes place here, and the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict. I can't impress upon you too strongly how rife with tension, mostly racial, this community is, because of this case.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:27:30 PM EST
    Care to revise your opinion JK?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#171)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:48:10 PM EST
    No, MrPrescident, but when the best the Prosecution can do is rely on hoped for inaccuracies in their own police reports what does that tell you about their case? Do you follow what I am saying here?
    Yes, I follow what you are saying, but we don't KNOW that that is the best the Prosecution can do. We haven't seen ALL of the evidence because the Defense, not unexpectedly, has ONLY released the bits that it thinks might help establish reasonable doubt or get the case dismissed. That's the Defense's JOB. We're obviously NOT going to hear about the Prosecution's BEST evidence from the Defense.
    Have you ever seen cases where it is the PROSECUTION that tries to prove their own police reports are inaccurate? Should open up some peoples minds.
    I'm not the Prosecution. Maybe they won't bring it up at trial, or need to. It's a small error, but as a jury member, I'd be less likely to be persuaded by the Defense's insistance that SHE changed her story if the reporting officer (who presumably was not chemically incapacitated or in distress) couldn't even get the story straight. Is that the best the DEFENSE can do?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#172)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:52:50 PM EST
    The Duke case will be featured on Dateline tonight.
    Damage everywhere in this rape case (Edie Magnus, Dateline correspondent) I find the Duke Lacrosse team story upsetting no matter how it turns out. To hear Dan Abrams tell it - and he has now seen more than any other reporter on the story - there may not be enough evidence that the young black woman was raped by three white players on the team to warrant going to trial...


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#173)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:55:30 PM EST
    Glitch -- everything after the first sentence should be included in the quote in my post above.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#174)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:55:32 PM EST
    MrPrecedent says:
    It's a small error, but as a jury member, I'd be less likely to be persuaded by the Defense's insistance that SHE changed her story if the reporting officer (who presumably was not chemically incapacitated or in distress) couldn't even get the story straight. Is that the best the DEFENSE can do?
    Which part of the story couldn't the reporting officer get straight, or are you suggesting that the different stories the AV has seemingly told are because the reporting officers couldn't get things straight?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#175)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    Newport, You wrote:
    It was [Kim's] way of getting even. It also shows that there was no rape because she would not be calling the police to report name calling if she was so hot at the boys and she thought a rape could have occured.
    Bob in Pacifica echoed:
    Newport, clearly Roberts left the scene without any inkling that there had been anything like a rape at Buchanan. Good point.
    Couple of geniuses at work there. Two halves of one great brain. Kim admits, does she not, that it did not occur to her until later that the accuser may have been raped. And yet you guys seem to have pieced that together independently through your powers of deduction alone. Awesome. One thing though. If a rape did occur, and it occurred at a time when Kim was elsewhere, Kim might not have been aware of that. So I guess we should only give you guys half-credit today. Sorry.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#176)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:01:35 PM EST
    Newport, If you mean my opinion about acquittal, no. I think if the trial proceeds, I would guess about a 80% chance of an acquittal, 19% chance of a hung jury, and 1% chance of conviction. I think jurors will take their roles seriously. I don't think we can read too much into one defense attorney's comments about the pulse in the community. And many people who might think the defendants are guilty now probably don't know a lot about the facts of the case - I think it will be hard to say no reasonable doubt after a trial. I think many in the community don't necessarily believe a rape occurred, but that "something bad" happened and that the case should go to trial.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#177)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:07:54 PM EST
    MrPrecedent, But since no one here, or in the media, or in the prosecution bar, or in the defense bar, can tell us what evidence Nifong can possibly have to support a conviction, what does that tell you. It's easy to keep saying that you haven't seen the evidence that Nifong must have and that he must have something if he is pursuing this case. But what does he have other than the scrubbed up version of events from a drunken woman with serious mental health issues and a flawed ID. There is no physical evidence of a rape. Indeed, all the physical evidence points to the fact that no rape occurred. The only DNA found in the victim belonged to someone other than the accused. The witnesses stories are not consistent and there is no corroboration for critical parts of her story from the second dancer, from the boys or from the physical evidence. There is incontrovertable alibi information for Seligman. If she got Seligman wrong how can she be trusted to pick out anyone. She says Evans had a mustache, Evans has no mustache. She said Adam, Bret and Matt raped her but picked Dave, Colin and Reade. It took her at least three lineups to pick anyone and she was shown the players photographs each time. The second dancer said the case was a crock. She has no injuries consistent with the assault she alleges. No anal injuries were found. No DNA was found. The list goes on and on. What do you think Nifong could have, especially since the law does not permit him to hold anything back? Wiretaps? Players turning on each other when they have said from day one that there was no assault> What could he have? I suggest to you that what he has is nothing.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#178)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:09:43 PM EST
    MrPrecedent, as a Durham resident, and a Duke hater, demonstrates unequivocally why there will be no acquital.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#179)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:12:12 PM EST
    MrPrecedent posted:
    The new police report is not entirely accurate. Officer Sutton reported, "This is when NIKKI [the second dancer] called the police because [the Accuser] would not get out of the car." We know, from the 911 recordings, that "Nikki" is not the one who called - Kroger's security guard did. Can we trust that he used as much care to gather and report the other 'facts'?
    Hi MrPrecedent, I hadn't noticed that. ding7777, I think, pointed out the arrival time is about an hour early. I think we may find that officer Sutton misunderstood what the crying nervous patient said about Angel and Tammy also. Sgt Shelton does not mention G.D. Sutton at all. Where does Sutton's interview w/ the accuser fit in with Shelton's two interviews with her? Before, inbetween, afterward? MrPrecedent, as you may have noticed, there are a few commenters here that will have no kind words for you if you don't let them sip their Defense Spin Kool-Aid in peace.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#180)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:16:44 PM EST
    PB wrote,
    Kim admits, does she not, that it did not occur to her until later that the accuser may have been raped. And yet you guys seem to have pieced that together independently through your powers of deduction alone
    . Was that after she said the case was a crock and after Nifong reduced her bail? You're right PB, you are the real mental giant here.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#181)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    Posted by Newport June 24, 2006 06:07 PM MrPrecedent, blah blah blah...
    . What was that Newport? A screen test for Mr. Deeds Goes to Durham?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#182)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    I can't help out, but CourtTV has a chat transcript with Newsweek reporter Susannah Meadows and North Carolina criminal defense attorney Woody Webb. Mr. Webb reports that racial tensions are running high: Being outside the courthouse right now, what's impressed me is the degree of community interest in this case. Black community leaders have submitted a ten point list of demands - one of which is that the case not be removed from Durham County. The community is rife with tension - racial, class and otherwise. It's a very dangerous situation. Then, Mr. Webb says: No, but the juries tend to be predominantly African-American. What is dangerous - and I've talked to other attorneys - is what will happen in the community if the trial takes place here, and the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict. I can't impress upon you too strongly how rife with tension, mostly racial, this community is, because of this case.
    Oh, there WAS definitely a lot of tension while hordes of non-local reporters and 'advocates' were here everyday reporting and speculating and creating tension so to get their 15 minutes. There's not much point in promoting your circus if you can't convince some animals to jump through your hoops. I'm sure there will be some tension among some groups (not necessarily racial) regardless of what happens. But for the most part, LOCAL people understand that the case should be tried in a court of law, NOT in one of public opinion or of media goading and speculation, and are tired of the undue national attention the case is still receiving.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#183)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:27:32 PM EST
    Why should it be tried at all. What evidence is there that supports sending this case to trial. What probable cause exists to send this case to trial?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#184)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:27:52 PM EST
    Sharon, You asked Imho, but I thought I'd like to answer...
    First, if there is a problem with the lineup, do you concede that the the DA might have indicted the wrong guys?
    I would concede that the DA might have indicted the wrong guys even without a problem with the lineup.
    Second, if the AV mistook Seligman, whom she of her own volition gave a "100% certainty" of being one of her rapists, for one of the other players, is her identification of anyone worth anything?
    Sure. People aren't too good as unique identifiers. If she got one wrong it doesn't mean she got the others wrong. It just says she's capable of it.
    Third, if the AV is 100% wrong about Seligman, how can there not be doubt about her identifications of either of the other two?
    The AV said the photograph looked like Seligman. If the person who raped her looked like Seligman, but was not Seligman, she could be 100% right and Seligman could be 100% innocent. Not so with her identification of Finnerty.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#185)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:33:33 PM EST
    MrPrecedent posted:
    The new police report is not entirely accurate. Officer Sutton reported, "This is when NIKKI [the second dancer] called the police because [the Accuser] would not get out of the car." We know, from the 911 recordings, that "Nikki" is not the one who called - Kroger's security guard did. Can we trust that he used as much care to gather and report the other 'facts'?
    From reading the report, it's not clear if the officer is quoting the AV or describing information given to her/him by someone else. The way I read this portion of the report, s/he is trying to quote the AV.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#186)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:36:30 PM EST
    PB write: Couple of geniuses at work there. Two halves of one great brain. Around here sometimes you have to state the obvious. Repeatedly. And sometimes the obvious still doesn't penetrate. Your numb skull, for example. For example, you're still trying to make the AV's various version of events into some kind of comprehensible narrative that is in some way a coherent reason for why this trainwreck should go to trial, so you're still in denial. Kim also called the rape claim a crock that the AV was raped. That's also been said here before. Just in case someone here forgot. And even Kim's revised story, after Nifong "helped" her on her embezzlement problem, doesn't match the AV's various versions. So I defer to your superior intellect when you explain why the AV wanted to go back into the house to make more money after the rape. Or why she said zero and five. PTSD? Or why 44 ounces of beer and a flexeril or so didn't have any effect on her but why you cling to the date rape knockout theory, and why the date rape drug didn't knock her out because she fought back, and how the rape occurred while Seligmann was on the phone, or later when he wasn't there, or whether Kim was inside the bathroom assisting, or outside assisting or being pulled away from Kim, or if Kim was waiting in the car, or was it when she was looking for her shoe, or before. And what about Angel and the other imaginary stripper, Tammy? Maybe the police just didn't understand her, eh? And maybe they didn't understand her when she said that the players didn't wear condoms when they did except for what she spit out. And maybe you can tell us whether or not there was anal rape. By the way, I understand your bitterness. The last few days must have been particularly hard, your shattered illusions. But it's nice you can drop by to insult people.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#187)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:37:42 PM EST
    In fact Nikki did talk to the police through the Kroger security guard. Nikki was right next to the guard as the guard relayed Nikki's information to the police. Nikki can clearly be heard in the background on the recorded 911 call. This is a total nonissue.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#188)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    More PB wisdom: One thing though. If a rape did occur, and it occurred at a time when Kim was elsewhere, Kim might not have been aware of that. It probably didn't occur to her that a rape occurred when the AV wanted to go back into the house to make more money either. It probably didn't occur to her that a rape occurred when she had to get the cops to pull the AV out of her car either. I think the possibility of a rape occurred to her around the time of her hearing on the embezzlement thingie.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#189)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 05:49:34 PM EST
    Newport, You wrote:
    PB wrote:Kim admits, does she not, that it did not occur to her until later that the accuser may have been raped. And yet you guys seem to have pieced that together independently through your powers of deduction alone
    And then added:
    Was that after she said the case was a crock and after Nifong reduced her bail? You're right PB, you are the real mental giant here.
    She's always admitted that she did not think a rape occurred at the time, right? Just like you and Bob independently figured out. That's very impressive work. As to the other work, it's not so impressive. It's just the old run-of-the-mill prejudicial speculation. Because it doesn't make any difference what Kim believes, the fact that she changed her mind is irrelevant.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#190)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:02:55 PM EST
    Which part of the story couldn't the reporting officer get straight,
    The part about the SECOND DANCER calling police because the accuser wouldn't get out of her car.
    or are you suggesting that the different stories the AV has seemingly told are because the reporting officers couldn't get things straight?
    Well, since you asked - unless there is video & audio of all accounts, we don't really know whether ANY officer accurately recorded what anybody actually SAID, or if they just paraphrased (perhaps not accurately). What I was suggesting, though, is that the REPORT itself is not entirely accurate, so we can't be guaranteed that ANYTHING else in it is 100% accurate. If the Officer misunderstood or misstated WHO made the initial phone call, how do we know that he didn't also misunderstand or misstate what the accuser told him about the attack?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#191)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:09:26 PM EST
    Pat posted:
    From reading the report, it's not clear if the officer is quoting the AV or describing information given to her/him by someone else. The way I read this portion of the report, s/he is trying to quote the AV.
    The next sentences don't sound like quotes. They sound like he copied them off Shelton's report.
    THIS IS WHEN NIKKI CALLED THE POLICE BECAUSE MS.[REDACTED] WOULD NOT GET OUT OF THE CAR. WHEN THE RESPONDING OFFICERS ARRIVED MS.[REDACTED] WAS PASSED OUT AND HAD TO BE AWAKENED WITH SMELLING SALTS. BECAUSE OF HER MENTAL STATE SHE HAD TO BE TRANSPORTED TO THE DURHAM ACCESS CENTER....


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#192)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:14:46 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    Around here sometimes you have to state the obvious.
    I know, I know. But patting yourself on the back for saying the obvious seems a bit narcissistic doesn't it? You wrote:
    you're still in denial.
    That's right. You wrote:
    Kim also called the rape claim a crock that the AV was raped.
    The security guard at Kroger at first thought the AV was drunk. Upon closer inspection she decided she was not. People change their minds on occasion, after they consider things. It doesn't really matter what Kim believes, but I do think it more likely that the proximate reason for her reconsideration of the legitimacy of the AVs claim was her treatment by Butch Williams and the defense team's ensuing prejudicial characterizations of her statements. If you've had the experience of being used by defense attorneys, it is incredibly irksome. You wrote:
    And even Kim's revised story, after Nifong "helped" her on her embezzlement problem, doesn't match the AV's various versions.
    Yes. You'd think if she was exchanging a favorable story for favorable treatment she'd try and do a better job. That's why I'm only giving you guys a C for your quid pro quo story. You wrote:
    So I defer to your superior intellect when you explain why the AV wanted to go back into the house to make more money after the rape.
    I haven't acertained that she did. The reason I'm looking forward to a trial is that it provides an opportunity to take all these differing versions and see whether they can be explained. You wrote:
    By the way, I understand your bitterness. The last few days must have been particularly hard, your shattered illusions. But it's nice you can drop by to insult people.
    I'm not bitter. Sometimes it's hard to tell tone from posts on a blog. What I predominantly experience while posting is "joy."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#193)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:15:01 PM EST
    PB quoted me incorrectly,
    Newport, You wrote: PB wrote:Kim admits, does she not, that it did not occur to her until later that the accuser may have been raped. And yet you guys seem to have pieced that together independently through your powers of deduction alone
    I certainly did not write this piece of garbage attacking myself. You wrote this all by yourself.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#194)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    Mr. Precedent lamented,
    What I was suggesting, though, is that the REPORT itself is not entirely accurate, so we can't be guaranteed that ANYTHING else in it is 100% accurate. If the Officer misunderstood or misstated WHO made the initial phone call, how do we know that he didn't also misunderstand or misstate what the accuser told him about the attack?
    I assume Mr. Precedent that you would apply the same rule of evidence you espouse in your post to the FA's tale?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#195)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:23:13 PM EST
    PB wrote this fantastic post,
    As to the other work, it's not so impressive. It's just the old run-of-the-mill prejudicial speculation. Because it doesn't make any difference what Kim believes, the fact that she changed her mind is irrelevant.
    I beg to differ o' wise one. I think it is mighty important that Kim's 911 call chose to report calling of names rather than rape. I also think the fact that Kim said the next day that the case was a "crock" is mighty important. I also think that Kim was not an immediate outcry witness is mighty important. Where am I going wrong here?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#196)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    Mr. Precedent wrote:
    Well, since you asked - unless there is video & audio of all accounts, we don't really know whether ANY officer accurately recorded what anybody actually SAID, or if they just paraphrased (perhaps not accurately).
    There has been an Alice-in-Wonderland feel to this entire case. Normally, the defense tries to impeach the reports of police officers; here we have people favorable to the prosecution saying that police reports are probably inaccurate. Normally, the defense comes up with outlandish tales to explain away the findings from physical evidence; here we have people favorable to the prosecution saying that when the accuser't tale/tales contradict the physical evidence, the physical evidence should simply be ignored. Normally, people aren't indicted unless there's probable cause to believe at both a crime was committed and that they, in fact, committed the crime; here we have people favorable to the prosecution justifying the indictments on grounds that the accuser should be given her day in court, and if there's even a chance, as small as it might be, that the accuser's story is true, the case should go forward, procedural violations and all.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#197)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:26:23 PM EST
    PB conjectured,
    The security guard at Kroger at first thought the AV was drunk. Upon closer inspection she decided she was not. People change their minds on occasion, after they consider things
    Source? The security guard who is and was a black woman also said "ain't no way that woman was raped."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#198)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:26:40 PM EST
    Newport, You wrote:
    I certainly did not write this piece of garbage attacking myself. You wrote this all by yourself.
    The thing I appreciate most about you, Newport, is that you are never one to quibble. It's beneath you.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#199)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:29:29 PM EST
    PB expressed her view of the American justice system:
    I haven't acertained that she did. The reason I'm looking forward to a trial is that it provides an opportunity to take all these differing versions and see whether they can be explained.
    Shouldn't this be done before anyone is charged as part of an investigation to see if a crime occurred?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#200)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:30:28 PM EST
    Newport wrote:
    PB conjectured: The security guard at Kroger at first thought the AV was drunk. Upon closer inspection she decided she was not. People change their minds on occasion, after they consider things. Source?
    Common sense. Oh yeah. I read it in the newspaper too.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#201)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:33:02 PM EST
    I think jurors will take their roles seriously. I don't think we can read too much into one defense attorney's comments about the pulse in the community.
    Agreed. OF COURSE people standing outside around the courthouse (and cameras) are going to be interested in the case. OF COURSE a group of "black community leaders" with a list of "demands" is going to make the place look "rife with tension."
    And many people who might think the defendants are guilty now probably don't know a lot about the facts of the case - I think it will be hard to say no reasonable doubt after a trial.
    Unfortunately, there are people on BOTH sides with their minds made up who don't know a lot about the case (or the legal process). I don't know WHY so many people seem to think they are getting the WHOLE story from DEFENSE attorneys. It's their JOB to make things look lopsided.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#202)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:34:04 PM EST
    Well said Kartoum.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#203)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:34:37 PM EST
    Newport wrote:
    Shouldn't this be done before anyone is charged as part of an investigation to see if a crime occurred?
    Oh, I think it certainly was. But obviously the defense didn't agree with what the DA came up with reconciling the stories. When there's a disagreement of that type, where the accused person finds the result of the investigation unacceptable, you get either a plea bargain or a trial. And twelve angry men get to settle it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#204)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:39:09 PM EST
    Well then Mr. Precedent let us have one bit of evidence that supports a finding that the three indicted boys committed a rape? Just one other than the word of the accuser. Can you do this? If I get no reply I will assume that you cannot.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#205)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:39:59 PM EST
    PB said:
    It doesn't really matter what Kim believes, but I do think it more likely that the proximate reason for her reconsideration of the legitimacy of the AVs claim was her treatment by Butch Williams and the defense team's ensuing prejudicial characterizations of her statements. If you've had the experience of being used by defense attorneys, it is incredibly irksome.
    If she finds Butch William's characterizations "irksome," I wonder what she'll think of the AV's? Now that we know what the AV has said about Kim's role in the affair, I am very interested in hearing what Kim thinks of the "legitimacy of the AVs claim."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#206)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:45:50 PM EST
    PB wrote,
    Oh, I think it certainly was. But obviously the defense didn't agree with what the DA came up with reconciling the stories. When there's a disagreement of that type, where the accused person finds the result of the investigation unacceptable, you get either a plea bargain or a trial. And twelve angry men get to settle it.
    What about a probable cause hearing and consideration of motions to supress evidence and/or to dismiss? Should there be no check on this system you describe?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#207)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:47:10 PM EST
    Mr. Precedent observed.
    What I was suggesting, though, is that the REPORT itself is not entirely accurate, so we can't be guaranteed that ANYTHING else in it is 100% accurate. If the Officer misunderstood or misstated WHO made the initial phone call, how do we know that he didn't also misunderstand or misstate what the accuser told him about the attack?
    Wow you got it. I had assumed that the one hour log discrepancy was a typical administrative typo. But you hit the jackpot. Congratulations on discovering Mr Nifong's collaborating witness. Obviously another stripper was raped by those rampaging LAX Mongols before Precious inadvertently stepped into their malevolent lair. Also please note that that the scheming defense team redacted the complainant's name. You guys kill me.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#208)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    So I guess the point is that since the police wrote flawed reports we should presume that everything was actually in favor of the AV. Maybe all the cops and all the hospital personnel didn't understand that when the AV said she wasn't raped and when she said she was raped by five men, she was actually saying she was raped by three men. Or maybe they all misheard. Here's the problem, folks. The cops are the prosecution witnesses. If there's no witness to any rape, if there's no evidence, and if the various versions of the AV's story doesn't match anything else, chances are having incompetent police witnesses isn't going to sell the deal. It's expected, though, that once the prosecution's own evidence shows the AV to be delusional and lying that the people who want to believe the AV (or just hate Duke or the players) have to do something. Never mind that the AV said five, concentrate on the 20. Find inconsistencies in the police reports. Except that that's all the AV has left. Go ahead and tear apart the police reports. Then the AV dreamers can be left alone with the AV and her delusions.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#209)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:02:15 PM EST
    Bob, you got me cracking up. This might be the first case I ever heard of where the defense actually calls up the police to testify during the defense case, and The Nifong has to have his own police officers declared hostile to take them on cross and impeach them. Same with the medical personnel. There is no better description than "Alice in Wonderland." I wish someone would post up an appropriate quote from that fairy tale.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#210)
    by Alan on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    PB said:
    It doesn't really matter what Kim believes, but I do think it more likely that the proximate reason for her reconsideration of the legitimacy of the AVs claim was her treatment by Butch Williams and the defense team's ensuing prejudicial characterizations of her statements. If you've had the experience of being used by defense attorneys, it is incredibly irksome.
    I'm surprised to learn that irksome attorneys are a legitimate reason for Kim to put forward a completely new story that absolutely contradicted her previous story. I must have missed spite as a complete defence to falsifying evidence.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#211)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    PB wrongfully attributes quotes again:
    Newport wrote: PB conjectured: The security guard at Kroger at first thought the AV was drunk. Upon closer inspection she decided she was not. People change their minds on occasion, after they consider things. Source?
    What are you thinking? You wrote all of this stuff except the "PB conjectured" part and the "source" at the end. This is all you. If you are just trying to make me look bad, you have a really weird way of doing it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#212)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:10:31 PM EST
    Newport, when PB says, "The reason I'm looking forward to a trial is that it provides an opportunity to take all these differing versions and see whether they can be explained...", she ignores the problem that all the differing versions belong to the AV. Does she get called up to the stand to give competing versions of what happened and the jury gets to vote for which one is best? Okay, after Roberts was rousted she started churning out new scenarios too. Maybe she can appear as Roberts and then as Pittman.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#213)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:10:49 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    You may not like it, but they reported it
    Then it must be true.
    The security guard left the scene as police were questioning the alleged victim. According to police affidavits, the woman told police while she was in the Kroger parking lot that she had been sexually assaulted at a party.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#214)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:17:28 PM EST
    imho, you might want to put a link in your post because there is none. I guess you are searching for that quote and if it exists in some paper that you will endeavor to have it corrected.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#215)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    You may not like it, but they reported it
    Then it must be true.
    "I listened to that first call, and I thought, 'You called 911 because someone said something offensive to you?' That's just weird," said Kerry Sutton, who represents lacrosse team member Matt Evans.
    Evans is one of three captains of the team and lives at the Buchanan Boulevard house where the party was held. Sutton said Evans cleared out the house and locked it up when the party got too raucous.
    "I believe my client. He says he didn't do anything, and he believes nobody else did anything," Sutton said. "No matter how this turns out, it's a terrible thing for somebody."


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#216)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:22:37 PM EST
    Your point?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#217)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:27:20 PM EST
    There is no Mr. Precedent, he is just another sock puppet. He's gone and imho is here, they are both quibblers, what does that tell you.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#218)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:29:10 PM EST
    Newport, You wrote:
    What about a probable cause hearing and consideration of motions to supress evidence and/or to dismiss? Should there be no check on this system you describe?
    I don't have anything against "checks."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#219)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:34:42 PM EST
    This is from Hinman's report where he gets Kim's phone number.
    3/20/06 0856HRS - [...] She (Tammy) stated she did not know how it could have happened and that when she (Tammy) talked to MS. Pittman she (Ms. Pitman) did not know how or when it could have happened
    . Six days later, Kim does not believe a rape happened, even when discussing it with another employee. I wonder how many people Kim discussed it with before she changed her story

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#220)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:34:56 PM EST
    re: the police being able to involuntarily commit someone: I don't doubt that the police took the AV to the first facility for involuntary committment proceedings. I do doubt that she could have been committed on the police officer's word alone. Unless NC is way different than PA, at her arrival at the facility she would have had to be evaluated and I would presume a psychiatrist would have had to give the order. Anyone with more specific info, I'd welcome your post.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#221)
    by JK on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:35:17 PM EST
    Nifong supporters: Focus your attention on this portion of Sutton's report:
    NIKKI WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH ONE OF THE GUYS AND TRIED TO TALK HER INTO IT. SHE DID NOT WANT TO. NIKKI WANTED HER TO COME INTO THE BATHROOM WITH HER AND THE GUYS. SHE ENDED UP IN THE BATHROOM WITH FIVE GUYS WHO FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE AND PERFORM SEXUAL ACTS.
    How do we account for this portion of the AV's account? a) Is it police transcription error, i.e., an officer either misquoting, misunderstanding, or mischaracterizing the AV's statement? If so, what might the AV have actually said that an officer could misinterpret to mean Kim tried to coerce the AV to turn a trick? b) Is it an invented memory? If so caused by what? PTSD, flexeril and alcohol, date rape drug, a combination, or some other theory? c) Is it a true story? Did Kim actually try to coerce the AV to turn a trick and then either push or trick the AV into the bathroom? d) Is it a bald-faced lie? Was it said at a time when the AV didn't know if Kim would corroborate the AV's story and then changed later under the pretext of hysteria? e) None of the above. Please explain your answer.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#222)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:39:43 PM EST
    PB wrote,
    I don't have anything against "checks."
    Thank God. There may be hope yet.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#223)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:41:23 PM EST
    Here's the ABC linkfor the Kroger's parking lot rape report. The point is SomewhatChunky is under the impression if a reporter wrote something we must accept it to be true. Even quotes should be checked against another source, but reporter's characterizations of an event or exchange can vary wildly. And sometime they are just plain wrong. I wasn't looking for these today, I just happened upon them.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#224)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:45:15 PM EST
    jk, I hope you're not waiting for an answer. IMHO will state that you're a liar and PB will say that it's something that should be sorted out in front of a jury.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#225)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:47:24 PM EST
    Lora wrote,
    re: the police being able to involuntarily commit someone: I don't doubt that the police took the AV to the first facility for involuntary commitment procedings. I do doubt that she could have been committed on the police officer's word alone. Unless NC is way different than PA, at her arrival at the facility she would have had to be evaluated and I would presume a psychiatrist would have had to give the order. Anyone with more specific info, I'd welcome your post
    . Lora, this is why people get frustrated with you. You keep at it after it is explained to you that you are not right. Involuntary commitment is common. I explained to you how police can put 24 hour holds on dangerous crazy people. To suggest that they can't do this is ridiculous. What do you think the police do when they are called out to pick up a dangerous mentally disturbed person? Does every precinct have a resident shrink waiting around? I don't know about PA, but I do know for a fact that the cops can do an involuntary commitment for 24 hours in California and the article I provided for you shows that it can be done in North Carolina as well.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#226)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:48:40 PM EST
    Focus your attention on this portion of Sutton's report:
    SHE ENDED UP IN THE BATHROOM WITH FIVE GUYS WHO FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE
    Now that's not right. If a gal doesn't feel talkative no one has a right to force her to converse with them.
    AND PERFORM SEXUAL ACTS.
    and they wanted her to dance suggestively right afterward?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#227)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:49:59 PM EST
    Alan, You wrote:
    I'm surprised to learn that irksome attorneys are a legitimate reason for Kim to put forward a completely new story that absolutely contradicted her previous story. I must have missed spite as a complete defence to falsifying evidence.
    Was that my point? Or are you just giving me your customary snot-nosed bug-up-the-ass treatment? What the heck, in a good faith effort not to ridicule you, I'll just assume the former. There could be many reasons that Kim's stories might not be accurate. It will be interesting to see whether, in the final telling, her story corroborates or simply competes with the accuser's for authenticity.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:50:27 PM EST
    jk [please do not repost comments here, it takes up too much bandwidth, just mention the person you are responding to.] The only quote by Cheshire I have seen that took place during this exchange that mentions the 5 attackers is this one:
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are."
    If he said 5 attackers in a sentence without the 20 attackers, none of the reports I have seen quoted him. If the above is the quote to which Wilson objected, Wilson was correct in wanting to "see that page."
    "Oh really. Well I'd like to see that page," Wilson said loudly to Cheshire in a hallway of the Durham County Courthouse.
    "You're welcome to come get it," Cheshire said.
    "Yeah, I'd love to see it," Wilson said.
    Wilson walked away, and Cheshire continued talking with reporters.
    If that exchange is the basis for Chesire's letter, Cheshire is being disingenuous. jk posted:
    You also seem to be confusing the ethical duties of a defense attorney and a district attorney. A defense attorney's primary ethical duty is to defend the interests of his client. He is not allowed to lie, but if he tells a version of the truth that is shaded towards his client's interests, well that is exactly what he is supposed to do.
    I said:
    As a defense lawyer and advocate he can say, "wumhenry has declared according to Seligman's cellphone log, he was occupied in phone conversations with his girlfriend almost continually between 12:05 and 12:14, when he called the cab." It wouldn't be a lie, wumhenry did say that, but it wouldn't make him an honest defense lawyer and advocate.
    I think Wilson called him on the 20 attacker story being in the new discovery and Cheshire tried to weasle out of it. Posted by Newport June 23, 2006 11:37 AM
    GUNSHY, I guess that stupid ass investigator and the city manager have real big egg on their lying faces today.
    Posted by Newport June 23, 2006 12:17 PM
    The idiocy of this investigator is amazing. He should be fired immediately.
    Posted by GUNSHY June 23, 2006 12:19 PM
    I wish I knew. That one one line in that letter was so funny " I can only assume you motivation in questioning my assertion was simply ignorance. A simple reading of your file might solve that problem in the future."
    Posted by SharonInJax June 23, 2006 12:23 PM
    Every time I think that the law of averages alone should result in news that bolsters the prosecution's case, something like the Cheshire letter and the attached statement comes out.
    And it was brought about by the DA's OWN INVESTIGATOR, no less.
    If this weren't such a serious matter, it would be out and out laughable.
    Posted by Newport June 23, 2006 12:29 PM
    It doesn't appear to me that anyone in the DA's office has read the files either, Fong included.
    Posted by SharonInJax June 23, 2006 12:31 PM
    The Wilson incident makes it clear why the defense keeps trying to get the judge to order Nifong to certify that he has read all of his file. Maybe they need to include his investigators in that order.
    First reaction of imho Second reaction of imho

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#228)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    IMHO wrote: The point is SomewhatChunky is under the impression if a reporter wrote something we must accept it to be true. I have a feeling that Somewhat's beliefs are a little more nuanced than yours.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#229)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:55:54 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Lora, this is why people get frustrated with you. You keep at it after it is explained to you that you are not right.
    Newport is speaking for the people now.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#230)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 07:56:31 PM EST
    PB or MrP or anyone else with a good imagination: For the sake of discussion do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann at risk of conviction, even if it meant throwing out everything the AV has already said and letting her start over but does not materially contradict the known physical evidence (photos, phone logs etc). In other words if the AV could rewrite her whole story what could she say that would not contradict the known facts and yet would still support a rape conviction against Seligmann?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#231)
    by Lora on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:09:04 PM EST
    Newport, Sorry if I missed your article...I have to go now but next time I will scroll back and find it. I may not be entirely accurate but I do try. In my county there is a psychiatrist on call who has to sign off on an involuntary commitment. A police officer can bring the person to the hospital but the P.O.C. needs to be called. If they are a danger to themselves or others, then yes they would be committed. Obviously the doctor is not going to ignore the police if they say the person was running through town with a carving knife. In this case, the AV was NOT a danger to herself or others by the time she was able to communicate with those around her. I maintain that she would not have been committed because the psychiatrist would not have found her in need of it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#232)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:10:52 PM EST
    Here's the North Carolina statute Lora, § 122C-263 Duties of law enforcement officer; first examination by physician or eligible psychologist. (a) Without unnecessary delay after assuming custody, the law enforcement officer or the individual designated by the clerk or magistrate under G.S. 122C-251(g) to provide transportation shall take the respondent to an area facility for examination by a physician or eligible psychologist; if a physician or eligible psychologist is not available in the area facility, the person designated to provide transportation shall take the respondent to any physician or eligible psychologist locally available. If a physician or eligible psychologist is not immediately available, the respondent may be temporarily detained in an area facility, if one is available; if an area facility is not available, the respondent may be detained under appropriate supervision in the respondent's home, in a private hospital or a clinic, in a general hospital, or in a State facility for the mentally ill, but not in a jail or other penal facility. (b) The examination set forth in subsection (a) of this section is not required if: (1) The affiant who obtained the custody order is a physician or eligible psychologist who recommends inpatient commitment; (2) The custody order states that the respondent was charged with a violent crime, including a crime involving assault with a deadly weapon, and he was found incapable of proceeding; or (3) Repealed by Session Laws 1987, c. 596, s. 3. In any of these cases, the law-enforcement officer shall take the respondent directly to a 24-hour facility described in G.S. 122C-252. (c) The physician or eligible psychologist described in subsection (a) of this section shall examine the respondent as soon as possible, and in any event within 24 hours, after the respondent is presented for examination. The examination shall include but is not limited to an assessment of the respondent's:


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#233)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:18:22 PM EST
    Hi MrPrecedent. Great name. Very witty. Fellow Durham resident here. Welcome. It seems Durham is a much bigger city than people make it out, because in my circles (post-grad, gay and straight, lefties with families) the predominant belief is that Nifong really did a lot that violates what any defendant has a right to--and we are ticked off. You're right, this is not the biggest thing happening (Congratulations, Canes!) but still people are concerned and welcome the possibility that Lewis Cheek may run for DA. Perhaps you are out of my demographic and that's why we're not in sync. Though I suspect I saw you at the Farmers' Market this AM. Did you buy the last chocolate empanada? I thought so. Were you here for the Hardin years? The last media circus occurred during his tenure (the Michael Peterson case) and Hardin (and Freda Black) certainly spent a lot of time in front of TV cameras. I don't remember any them eating up the camera as Nifong did pre-election. If you haven't seen it, check out "The Staircase." Der Nifong mit mustache is not to be missed! Hope you are well on this rainy night. Imho and I are just sitting here with her cats having a few laughs; she's enjoying a glass of CA wine and I'm gorging on popcorn. Yum! Did I just hear a coyote?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#234)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:19:02 PM EST
    Lora wrote: In this case, the AV was NOT a danger to herself or others by the time she was able to communicate with those around her. I maintain that she would not have been committed because the psychiatrist would not have found her in need of it. It's my understanding that the AV was on her way to being involuntarily committed because of her public intoxication. It was her her rape accusation that brought her to Duke Medical Center. Without a rape accusation that would have disturbed the processing at the drunk tank, how long they would have held the AV must relate to the policy of the city of Durham and the NC laws. Lora, what do you think was going on a year ago when the AV was committed for a week?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#235)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    IMHO cited this article earlier. Here's what the security guard says:
    On the tape, which was recorded April 3, three weeks after the lacrosse party, the guard can be heard saying, "There ain't no way she was raped -- ain't no way, no way that happened." The security guard says she smelled alcohol on the driver, but not on the alleged victim. She says that the alleged victim "couldn't talk at all. ... She was out of it." The security guard also suggests the alleged victim may have been high on drugs. She had a series of conversations with the woman who was driving the car, but did not speak with the alleged victim. The guard says the woman behind the wheel entered the grocery store at approximately 1 a.m. and told her that she needed help, saying there was a girl in her car who refused to get out. A voice on the tape asks the guard whether there was anything mentioned about stolen items or sexual assault. The guard says that there was no mention of theft nor assault from either woman, adding that the alleged victim didn't act the way she'd expect someone to act after being assaulted or raped.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#236)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:32:48 PM EST
    Hope you are well on this rainy night. Imho and I are just sitting here with her cats having a few laughs; she's enjoying a glass of CA wine and I'm gorging on popcorn. Yum! Did I just hear a coyote?
    LOL. That's really funny. Ask her why Nifong files no responses to motions and doesn't know what is in his file.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#237)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:37:31 PM EST
    There's a dateline on the Duke case on right now. Channel 4.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#238)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:52:37 PM EST
    Law enforcement in Calif. does not have the right to detain someone for 24 hours for a psych emergency. They have the right to detain dangerous or severely ill people in order to transport them to a treatment facility or to be examined by a psychiatric emergency team/aka mobile crisis team who can place a 72 hour hold on the person if necessary.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#239)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:27:26 PM EST
    Posted by sam June 24, 2006 09:52 PM
    Law enforcement in Calif. does not have the right to detain someone for 24 hours for a psych emergency. They have the right to detain dangerous or severely ill people in order to transport them to a treatment facility or to be examined by a psychiatric emergency team/aka mobile crisis team who can place a 72 hour hold on the person if necessary.
    sam is correct about CA. Though for clarity the final sentence should read "can place up to a 72 hour hold ... if necessary."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#240)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:27:38 PM EST
    MrPrecedent says:
    What I was suggesting, though, is that the REPORT itself is not entirely accurate, so we can't be guaranteed that ANYTHING else in it is 100% accurate. If the Officer misunderstood or misstated WHO made the initial phone call, how do we know that he didn't also misunderstand or misstate what the accuser told him about the attack?
    So, are you saying that each and every different claim the AV is reported to have made should be discarded because we don't have Video or Audio of her making the statement? Or, perhaps, all reports of conflicting claims, except for the one about being raped by three guys? Maybe we should discard them all except for the claim that she wasn't raped which was recorded by Shelton.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#241)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:39:07 PM EST
    Posted by rogan1313 June 24, 2006 10:08 PM
    We know for sure that she dodged the drug screen that she would have gotten in the "drunk tank", and as a former psych inpatient and current criminal psych major I suspect that she knew the same.
    This is also true. And I suspect she would have known that, too.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#242)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 09:58:39 PM EST
    SloPhoto and Sam: Here is the Cal law
    § 5150. "When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation."
    Are you saying that the person the police bring in must be evaluated on the spot by a doctor before they can even be admitted?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#243)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:03:12 PM EST
    Sam, what about drunks or druggies? Can the police detain them for any amount of time?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#244)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    SloPhoto and Sam, If not, how long may the person sit in the facility before being evaluated by doctors for the purpose of determining whether to impose up to a 72 hour hold?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#245)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:28:42 PM EST
    I ask this because responding LAPD officers told me that they were taking a dangerous crazy person I reported lurking outside an apartment building in for a 24 hour hold. This was in 1991, I believe.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#246)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 10:35:41 PM EST
    IMHO wrote,
    The point is SomewhatChunky is under the impression if a reporter wrote something we must accept it to be true
    IMHO, please do not attempt to tell people what I am thinking. If you want to link to my posts fine - no problem with that. I do have a problem with your representing or trying to interpret what I am thinking. Like many things you write about, you have no idea what your are talking about. As usual, in another of your countless out of context attempts to twist what is said, you've implied that one cannot believe the press. Of course I know that sometimes they are innacurate. But you've attempted to twist that to mean one can never believe what they say (or maybe it is they can never believe what they say when it disagrees with your point). If I apply that standard, I'm not even sure Duke (or Durham) exists. Never been to either place. How do I know? I posted that even if you gave Wilson the benefit of the doubt about his twenty vs five argument (which was your big issue at the time), his statement in a press conference that there were no inconsistencies in the AV's story showed that he was full of it. Wilson's views were reported by several media outlets, not just one - I provided a link to that little known Duke-loving rag, the NY Times. Of course, that's a substantial point and you rarely address substantial points. So go ahead and spend a few minutes to go figure out how to quote out of context a few words of this post - you seem to take great pleasure in it. You're very good at it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#247)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:30:34 PM EST
    jk said:
    Again, I don't really know the law in this area, but I don't see how a federal court could get involved in this case before a conviction. Habeas is a form of collateral review, but I think that only applies to convicted prisoners. Maybe one of the criminal defense attorneys can chime in?
    Federal court intervention is theoretically possible but very unlikely at this point. Consider the experience of Clay Shaw. Jim Garrison, the deranged DA of New Orleans, a man who makes Nifong look like a model prosecutor, on March 1, 1967 had Clay Shaw arrested and charged with conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. Despite widespread belief that the charge was ludicrous, Shaw was unsuccessful in his attempts to get the federal courts to block a trial, although the trial was delayed while this was appealed up to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied Shaw's appeal on December 9, 1968 and Shaw went to trial. On March 1, 1969 the jury aquitted Shaw, who had testifed on his own behalf, after less than an hour of deliberations. Garrison promptly indicted Shaw again for perjury although he had no new witnesses or evidence. Shaw again turned to the federal courts for relief. This time he was eventually successful, federal district judge Christenberry (at the urging of the court of appeals and after a hearing) enjoined Garrison from continuing to prosecute Shaw. The opinion emphasized that a single frivolous and malicious prosecution was not enough for federal relief but that two could be. So if the boys take the stand at their trial and are aquitted and Nifong promptly indicts them for perjury they may be able to obtain relief from the federal courts. Otherwise probably not.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#248)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 11:39:47 PM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion posted:
    Thanks for that. My provoking the AV detractors to overstate their case makes me an AV supporter? I would say I have a bias against AV detractors, not because I believe the accuser to be telling the truth, but because I believe many of them do not.
    So you are not so much for the AV as against the Duke boys and their supporters. I can believe that.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#249)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:01:13 AM EST
    Funny, the Oliver Stone movie JFK made Garrison out to be a hero and Clay Shaw as evil. Just goes to show you about movies.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#250)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:11:34 AM EST
    jk said:
    While I understand you are presenting an oversimplified example and are not suggesting that VS alone determines the likelihood of rape, this is exactly the kind of statement I think would be misleading for a jury. While I think anyone with a basic understanding of statistics will be able to reasonably understand what you are talking about, I would hazard a guess that a majority of jurors have not even taken a high-school level course in statistics.
    I did say in my first post:
    This is a problem of probabilistic inference. These can be tricky especially for a lay person. I suspect many jurors have difficulty evaluating such evidence sensibly.
    jk:
    I think that most of the categories of evidence that you discussed would be allowed, in some form. But judges act as "gatekeepers" with statistical evidence, and rightfully so. They often restrict statistical evidence because of its potential to mislead and confuse the average juror.
    So it is better for jurors to remain blissfully ignorant of their inability to properly weigh some evidence? The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If average juror is incapable of properly interpreting some evidence without help and if the judge believes that attempts to provide help are likely to mislead and confuse then the judge should not permit the evidence to be presented by the prosecution at all.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#251)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:38:08 AM EST
    But since no one here, or in the media, or in the prosecution bar, or in the defense bar, can tell us what evidence Nifong can possibly have to support a conviction, what does that tell you.
    The Defense CAN, indeed, tell us exactly what evidence the Prosecution has that might support a conviction. WILL it? Of course not.
    It's easy to keep saying that you haven't seen the evidence that Nifong must have and that he must have something if he is pursuing this case.
    I have not said that. Nifong may not have anything. We won't know until the trial. However, doesn't it seem like the Defense could swiftly put an end to all of this (including any undeserved distress the accused and their families are suffering, plus expose alleged political agendas or corruption) by just releasing EVERY SINGLE PAGE of evidence for public scrutiny? If the Prosecution really has NOTHING against their clients, WHY are the defense attorneys keeping the REST of the evidence quiet?
    But what does he have other than the scrubbed up version of events from a drunken woman with serious mental health issues and a flawed ID.
    We won't know until the trial. You could ask the Defense. They already know.
    There is no physical evidence of a rape. Indeed, all the physical evidence points to the fact that no rape occurred.
    Those who examined her and the evidence claimed that there WAS physical evidence consistent with a rape. The jury will have the opportunity to decide whether that's what happened.
    The only DNA found in the victim belonged to someone other than the accused.
    We don't know that. It is not uncommon for there to be no conclusive DNA evidence after a rape. If that is the case here, it will come out when ALL of the evidence is finally revealed during the trial.
    The witnesses stories are not consistent and there is no corroboration for critical parts of her story from the second dancer, from the boys or from the physical evidence.
    We haven't yet heard the FULL accounts of the witnesses, suspects, nor seen ALL of the physical evidence. We only have the interpretations of the defense attorneys and media representatives, all of whom are being paid to point out inconsistencies.
    There is incontrovertable alibi information for Seligman.
    According to the defense's own timeline, which should not be a surprise to anyone. If his alibi is solid enough to rule him out as a participant in the Prosecution's timeline as well, then he has nothing to worry about.
    If she got Seligman wrong how can she be trusted to pick out anyone.
    We don't know that she got him wrong. If she did, I'm sure the jury will consider that.
    She says Evans had a mustache, Evans has no mustache.
    It's possible that he DID have one that night and took it off afterwards. If he has no moustache in the rest of the photos and videos of the party, that will surely help to create reasonable doubt and ensure his exoneration.
    She said Adam, Bret and Matt raped her but picked Dave, Colin and Reade.
    According to a police affidavit, they used aliases. At least one member of the team ADMITTED to police that he used a name that was NOT his own that night. They also used their numbers to hide their real identities during the party. WHY?
    It took her at least three lineups to pick anyone and she was shown the players photographs each time.
    They weren't all the same photos. Regardless, she picked them. Between her words and reactions to seeing them on the video of the last lineup and all of the photos/videos taken at the party, the jury should be able to determine if she remembers exactly which was on the couch, which was just drinking in the bedroom, etc. If she's not very accurate about those things, then obviously, her ability to identify her attackers can be questioned.
    The second dancer said the case was a crock.
    She also originally claimed that she didn't know the accuser and offered her a ride to safety after innocently finding her on the street that night. Either side would be foolish to build a case on her testimony.
    She has no injuries consistent with the assault she alleges. No anal injuries were found. No DNA was found. The list goes on and on.
    According to the Defense, which wouldn't be expected to say otherwise. DNA was, indeed, found. I don't recall them saying much about the pubic hair, though.
    What do you think Nifong could have, especially since the law does not permit him to hold anything back?
    He COULD have just about anything - photos, videos, emails, medical or forensics reports, phone records, unbroadcast statements from other players, etc. Whatever it is, the Defense doesn't appear to want it to come out. If they don't succeed in scaring or bribing the Accuser into not testifying, we'll find out during the trial.
    Wiretaps?
    Possibly. If so, and if the suspects are guilty, it certainly wouldn't be surprising that the Defense wouldn't eagerly release that portion of the evidence.
    Players turning on each other when they have said from day one that there was no assault>
    Also another possibility, if something did happen.
    What could he have? I suggest to you that what he has is nothing.
    Could be. Too bad the Defense doesn't just bare it all and put an end to the big mystery.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#252)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:39:35 AM EST
    jk, this is from a 4th Circuit (NC) decision and I think it answers the questions I was posing re federal court jurisdiction:
    The Younger doctrine requires federal courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction to enjoin pending state court proceedings despite the presence of alleged constitutional claims. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). While originally the doctrine applied to injunction of state criminal proceedings, it has been expanded to require abstention from injunction of civil enforcement proceedings, child custody and welfare determinations, quasi-criminal judicial proceedings like nuisance actions, and state administrative proceedings in which important state interests are at stake. (citations omitted) The Younger doctrine stems from the important principles of comity and federalism and from a recognition that state courts are as capable as federal courts of deciding federal and constitutional issues. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Comm'n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994). We have developed a three part test for determining when Younger abstention is appropriate. There must be (1) an ongoing state proceeding; (2) the proceeding must implicate important state interests; and (3) the proceeding must offer an adequate opportunity for presentation of the federal and constitutional claims. The principles of Younger were recently applied in a case similar to the instant one in which parents sued to enjoin ongoing state proceedings investigating their abuse and neglect of their daughter. Renn v. Garrison, 845 F. Supp. 1127 (E.D.N.C. 1994). The court applied our three part test and found that abstention was appropriate with respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. The Renn court found that child custody actions do implicate vital state interests. The Renn court further found that the state courts provided an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs and that no exception to Younger applied which required the federal courts to exercise jurisdiction. Younger abstention is limited by certain narrowly tailored exceptions. When a state action is continued in bad faith, when it constitutes harassment, or when it could result in irreparable injury without federal intervention, abstention is inappropriate. See Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 432-33 (1979); Renn v. Garrison, 845 F. Supp. 1127, 1130 (E.D.N.C. 1994).


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#253)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:46:43 AM EST
    Newport, leaping towards unfounded and amusingly erroneous conclusions, guesses:
    MrPrecedent, as a Durham resident, and a Duke hater, demonstrates unequivocally why there will be no acquital.
    I am a Duke hater??? Yikes - don't tell my boss! Can I keep my degree, parking permit, season tickets, etc.? LOL

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#254)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:52:24 AM EST
    Posted by Newport June 24, 2006 10:58 PM
    SloPhoto and Sam: Here is the Cal law
    § 5150. "When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of an evaluation facility designated by the county, designated members of a mobile crisis team provided by Section 5651.7, or other professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody and place him or her in a facility designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Mental Health as a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation."
    Are you saying that the person the police bring in must be evaluated on the spot by a doctor before they can even be admitted?
    I ask this because responding LAPD officers told me that they were taking a dangerous crazy person I reported lurking outside an apartment building in for a 24 hour hold. This was in 1991, I believe.
    Essentially, yes or someone trained in psych evaluation. A peace officer cannot place someone in a mental facility. Usually the police request a mobile team of two individuals to be sent out to the site to make a psych evaluation before the person is taken into custody. Once at the psych facility, a second team does another psych evaluation of the individual. Usually within 24 hours from 2 to 3 psychologists/psychiatrists will then interview the individual separately and then concur on whether the individual needs to be held for further evaluation, or if the person can be released into the custody of a relative or friend. This is all absent of drugs ingested or crimes committed. "Lurking" might constitute some sort of crime or suspicious criminal conduct under certain circumstances, I'm really not sure. In which case the individual might be taken into police custody. But a psych evaluation by psych personnel is required before a person can be admitted into psych custody. Yes.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#255)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:16:39 AM EST
    MrPrecedent, as you may have noticed, there are a few commenters here that will have no kind words for you if you don't let them sip their Defense Spin Kool-Aid in peace.
    Not to worry - they're harmless. Perhaps it's the best they can do.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#256)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:26:58 AM EST
    Why should it be tried at all.
    Because the Grand Jury said it should. It's not unusual.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#257)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:39:22 AM EST
    From reading the report, it's not clear if the officer is quoting the AV or describing information given to her/him by someone else. The way I read this portion of the report, s/he is trying to quote the AV.
    If that's the case, isn't it odd that s/he didn't clarify it as "Ms. ____ stated," as s/he did elsewhere in the report? Do you think the officer is also quoting the AV in the statements immediately following that one, describing herself as being passed out, requiring smelling salts, and being transported to the Durham Access Center because of her (own?) mental state?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#258)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:05:20 AM EST
    In fact Nikki did talk to the police through the Kroger security guard. Nikki was right next to the guard as the guard relayed Nikki's information to the police. Nikki can clearly be heard in the background on the recorded 911 call. This is a total nonissue.
    Nikki didn't call the police, as the police report claims. You may consider the few known FACTS a non-issue if you wish.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#259)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:08:59 AM EST
    James B. Shearer posted:
    So you are not so much for the AV as against the Duke boys and their supporters. I can believe that
    I am not against the Duke "boys" nor am I against their supporters. I am against the AV detractors. There are supporters of the Duke "boys" who are not AV detractors. Reade Seligmann's mother is one of them. Disbelieving the AV does not make one an AV detractor nor does it prevent one from being an AV supporter.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#260)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:14:20 AM EST
    MrPrecedent posted:
    Newport, leaping towards unfounded and amusingly erroneous conclusions, guesses:
    Those leaps often start from a firm foundation of made up "facts" whose "source" is his "common sense."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#261)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:24:24 AM EST
    Posted by MrPrecedent June 25, 2006 02:26 AM
    Why should it be tried at all.
    Because the Grand Jury said it should. It's not unusual.
    Well, OK. But it has already been clearly recognized on this board -- by all sides -- that the Grand Jury in this case is little more than a rubber stamp for the DA -- they act on his recommendation at least 99% of the time, so no, that is not unusual at all. But what you are really saying then is, "Because Nifong said it should." It is a legitimate question to ask why it should go to trial -- without even a preliminary hearing on the merits of the case -- simply on the say-so of one person named Nifong? When such a trial can be delayed for a year -- or more -- until it even gets started, that is an abuse of power by the government. Some states recognize this abuse of power and have established a check against it by not using the Grand Jury system for these types of cases. North Carolina has apparently not yet caught up with this area of jurisprudence.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#262)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:50:27 AM EST
    I assume Mr. Precedent that you would apply the same rule of evidence you espouse in your post to the FA's tale?
    I will if/when we actually hear HER account, rather than the paraphrasing or interpretations of those who have other agendas or made up their minds before hearing ALL of the evidence.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#263)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:18:33 AM EST
    Normally, the defense tries to impeach the reports of police officers; here we have people favorable to the prosecution saying that police reports are probably inaccurate.
    We do? Who? Where?
    Normally, the defense comes up with outlandish tales to explain away the findings from physical evidence; here we have people favorable to the prosecution saying that when the accuser't tale/tales contradict the physical evidence, the physical evidence should simply be ignored.
    Where? How can the physical evidence be ignored when we don't even know what it IS yet?
    Normally, people aren't indicted unless there's probable cause to believe at both a crime was committed and that they, in fact, committed the crime;
    The grand jury seemed to think there was. There's nothing abnormal about that.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#264)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:21:21 AM EST
    The security guard who is and was a black woman also said "ain't no way that woman was raped."
    Did she say that BEFORE or AFTER she put on her nurse disguise and conducted the rape kit?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#265)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:51:58 AM EST
    Newport, clearly confused, writes:
    Well then Mr. Precedent let us have one bit of evidence that supports a finding that the three indicted boys committed a rape? Just one other than the word of the accuser. Can you do this? If I get no reply I will assume that you cannot.
    Apparently, you have misread something. I am not a member of the Prosecution or Defense teams, therefore I have not seen all 1500+ pages of evidence. Like most everyone else, I have only read the small percentage of documents turned over by the Defense thus far. I trust that the jury will be presented with ALL of the evidence during the trial, and will make their decision based upon the WHOLE, the way our legal system is supposed to work - NOT based upon media soundbites or blogger speculation. If YOU HAVE personally scoured EVERY PAGE of the evidence, please DO share with us exactly WHAT is contained in the other approximately 1400+ pages. Or maybe you can convince the Defense to divulge the rest of it, if it's really so harmless.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#266)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:02:06 AM EST
    'The Abrams Report' for June 5
    GALANTER: They took an initial screen to determine whether or not there were any illicit drugs in her or alcohol. They did not do a toxicology report for the date rape drug.
    hmmm? And what were the results of that screen? You'd think if she was blowin' anything near just the legal limit (which for most people would not cause them to be "passed out drunk" or falling down drunk, or too impaired to dance, unable to talk) the results would be announced by Yale Galanter or Dan Abrams. Is it a dirty little secret? Did Nifong have the results of this alcohol screen when he hinted at an alternative scenario for the intoxicated state the defense has described? Maybe the remaining sample is small, so he is looking into the best testing methods. I recall reading about a test for GHB developed by researchers at UCSB. I know they were granted a patent a year or two ago, but I don't know if the test is on the market. It was sensitive enough to detect even low levels of GHB in a less than a drop of blood.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#267)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:10:12 AM EST
    So I guess the point is that since the police wrote flawed reports we should presume that everything was actually in favor of the AV.
    If you're eager to make unfounded presumptions and take a side without reviewing all of the evidence, go for it.
    Maybe all the cops and all the hospital personnel didn't understand that when the AV said she wasn't raped and when she said she was raped by five men, she was actually saying she was raped by three men. Or maybe they all misheard.
    Maybe they were all just 'administrative typos'.
    Here's the problem, folks. The cops are the prosecution witnesses. If there's no witness to any rape, if there's no evidence, and if the various versions of the AV's story doesn't match anything else, chances are having incompetent police witnesses isn't going to sell the deal.
    I certainly hope it wouldn't!

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#268)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:18:37 AM EST
    There is no better description than "Alice in Wonderland." I wish someone would post up an appropriate quote from that fairy tale.
    "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#269)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:25:03 AM EST
    Anybody else notice the similarities in styles, not to mention quantity, between the posts by our new member, MrPrecedent & IMHO? Maybe great minds think alike? We need a Durham resident and one appears. A prolific, but previously absent one, at that. I am impressed by the large volume of posts in the wee hours of the night for a Durham resident. That used to be IMHO time - and gee, who else is posting at this wee hour? No source, no proof. Just a theory.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#270)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:34:27 AM EST
    Lora, You wrote:
    In this case, the AV was NOT a danger to herself or others by the time she was able to communicate with those around her. I maintain that she would not have been committed because the psychiatrist would not have found her in need of it.
    I don't know about N.C., but where I come from there are three standards for involuntary commitment. You must either be a danger to yourself or others, or you must be unable to take care of yourself. When she was "passed out drunk" she could meet that third standard, but as soon as she achieved even a rudimentary level of coherence she would not, because she could simply call her family who would be willing to take care of her. Bob in Pacifica wrote:
    Lora, what do you think was going on a year ago when the AV was committed for a week?
    Was she committed? This would be news. On May 8th I asked you:
    Do you have evidence that she was involuntarily committed and that it was on psychiatric grounds?
    Your reply at that time was:
    I have no idea what the AV was hospitalized for last year, except that there is no such thing as "nervous breakdown" as a medical diagnosis. I don't believe that I ever raised the question of whether or not she was voluntarily admitted. Most psychiatric admissions are voluntary. The seriousness is that she was admitted at all.
    Now suddenly, in the style to which we've become accustomed, an admitted conjecture becomes the basis for the question:
    Lora, what do you think was going on a year ago when the AV was committed for a week?
    You can see why I don't respect you. Dirtying down people is about as low as it gets. These are people you don't even know, and you sit there blithely defaming them without a care in the world in between hikes.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#271)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:36:18 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    No source, no proof. Just a theory.
    Talk about great mind think alike....
    MrPrecedent posted:
    Newport, leaping towards unfounded and amusingly erroneous conclusions, guesses:
    imho interjected:
    Those leaps often start from a firm foundation of made up "facts" whose "source" is his "common sense."
    Looks like we weren't only describing Newport! It's a compliment to be accused of writing MrPrecedent's comments. "He's smart, you're d---."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#272)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:40:06 AM EST
    Newport, batting zero, guesses again:
    There is no Mr. Precedent, he is just another sock puppet. He's gone and imho is here, they are both quibblers, what does that tell you.
    You are, of course, welcome to your odd little fantasies, but you're wrong again. I do, indeed, exist. I'm pretty certain that I don't know "imho" but if "quibblers" is the term being used to describe those who are paying attention to and questioning the actual contents of ALL of the evidence, rather than blindly swallowing the bias-flavored Defense Kool-aid, I am proud to be one.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#273)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:43:51 AM EST
    PB posted to Bob in Pacifica:
    You can see why I don't respect you. Dirtying down people is about as low as it gets. These are people you don't even know, and you sit there blithely defaming them without a care in the world in between hikes.
    Maybe the kindly Dr. Bob in Pacifica, in his capacity as a faux psychiatrist, has recently gained access to her medical records.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#274)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:00:12 AM EST
    DavidinCt You wrote:
    For the sake of discussion do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann at risk of conviction, even if it meant throwing out everything the AV has already said and letting her start over but does not materially contradict the known physical evidence (photos, phone logs etc).
    Well, I've never thought Seligman was at risk of a conviction even if he did it. But I do think he has certain risks. I think it has yet to be established when the dance ended, and it has yet to be established where the three defendants were between the time the dance ended and the time Seligman called the cab. If the prosecution can put the three of them in the bathroom with the accuser during that time it would constitute a "risk" to them, no matter how crazy the accuser's stories have been since that time. If Evans can actually be put in the bathroom with Seligman, the jury might well begin to wonder why Seligman was not on the list furnished by the captains themselves, of people who attended the party. The defendants haven't claimed, nor have their attorneys, to my knowledge, that they weren't in the bathroom with the accuser. That's a point of interest.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#275)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:13:30 AM EST
    Imho, You wrote:
    Maybe the kindly Dr. Bob in Pacifica, in his capacity as a faux psychiatrist, has recently gained access to her medical records.
    If so, my apologies Bob.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#276)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:19:31 AM EST
    For the sake of discussion do you have a theory of the event which could be presented to a jury that would put Seligmann at risk of conviction, even if it meant throwing out everything the AV has already said and letting her start over but does not materially contradict the known physical evidence (photos, phone logs etc). In other words if the AV could rewrite her whole story what could she say that would not contradict the known facts and yet would still support a rape conviction against Seligmann?
    I personally don't see any point in creating theories that would totally erase the alleged statements of parties relevant to the case. I also wouldn't consider one side's timeline or interpretation of a few photos or phone records to be "known facts".

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#277)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:37:35 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifia wrote:
    Lora, what do you think was going on a year ago when the AV was committed for a week?
    Many hospitals aren't licensed to keep people against their will... They train the residents who man their emergency rooms to coerce the people brought to them to "consent" to being kept in their care by threatening them with involuntary commitment if they do not consent. Rarely if ever are the terms for involuntary commitment actually explained to these prospective clients, for reasons that are deemed humanitarian by the hospital. "We can do this voluntarily or involuntarily, whichever you'd prefer," is the way it's typically framed. Joseph Heller would be proud.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#278)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:28:44 AM EST
    PB posted:
    Imho,
    You wrote:
    Maybe the kindly Dr. Bob in Pacifica, in his capacity as a faux psychiatrist, has recently gained access to her medical records.
    If so, my apologies Bob.
    Some of the commenters here could take a lesson from how graciously PB accepts my gentle corrections.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#279)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:39:50 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    I posted that even if you gave Wilson the benefit of the doubt about his twenty vs five argument (which was your big issue at the time), his statement in a press conference that there were no inconsistencies in the AV's story showed that he was full of it. Wilson's views were reported by several media outlets, not just one - I provided a link to that little known Duke-loving rag, the NY Times. Of course, that's a substantial point and you rarely address substantial points.
    There are no quotes in the Duke-loving rag, the NY Times article. We have a quote from Wilson stating what he was objecting to:
    "I was upset about the 20," Wilson acknowledged. "There ain't nothing about 20 in anything I've read. I wanted him to show it to me. One of the police officers did say there were 20 people present, but he didn't say 20 people raped this woman.
    "We all know she said three," Wilson added. "We all know that because three people are charged. I wasn't questioning the three or the five. I was only questioning the 20."
    We have a quote from Cheshire that contains the statement Wilson says he was objecting to
    "We've got none, we've got three, we've got five, we've got 20. I mean, pick a number -- any number you want to pick," Cheshire told reporters outside the courtroom. "She's told so many different stories I'm not sure how many there are."
    and we have CHARACTERIZATIONS by reporters of what they THOUGHT Wilson was objecting to when he said:
    "Oh really. Well I'd like to see that page," Wilson said loudly to Cheshire in a hallway of the Durham County Courthouse.
    "You're welcome to come get it," Cheshire said.
    "Yeah, I'd love to see it," Wilson said
    What we DON'T have is a quote where Cheshire mentions the 5 without the 20. That is the quote Wilson would have to have objected to for the reporters' characterizations to be accurate and for Cheshire letter to not be a "twist" on what Wilson asked during the hallway interview.
    Wilson said in an interview Friday, however, that Cheshire was "trying to twist what I asked him." He said he was questioning the lawyer's reference to 20 alleged rapists, not the reference to five.
    It was in the later interview Wilson said he disagreed that she changed her story several times. The "20 guys" , could have been the tipping point for Wilson - the charge by Cheshire that changed her few changes to several. We don't know enough about the hallway exchange to know who has the egg on their face. The only quotes we have back up Wilson's version, not Cheshire's.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#280)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:43:48 AM EST
    The prosecution must assert a theory, based in fact, on which to base their claims. So far, Nifong's public comments have proven false: alleged lack of cooperation by the accused, statement that the DNA would conclusively identify the defendants, backtracking post-DNA that the guys wore condoms, speculation about a date rape drug, misrepresentations about the consistency of story and ID, anchoring his belief in a medical report that he had only heard described and that doesn't actually prove the case, the list goes on. That does not qualify as "spin" -- rather they are "lies". Whether Nifong had the "mens rea" to lie based on re-election or simply is relying on incompetent underlings like Linwood "Barney Fife lives" Wilson, take your pick. Either way the disconnect between truth and his public statements suggest that Nifong lacks integrity. MrPrecedent and IMHO, in their mutual admiration society, have held forth about the "defense spin kool aid"...the defense has demonstrated a fact base to support their assertions. Nifong has no case and that the facts that we have been leaked effectively preclude any scenario under which the accuser's story is correct. It is healthy to wait until everything is out in the open, but it would be helpful if you at least predicated your one-sided bias as either recognizing the probabilities or simply coming clean that you would like to see them guilty. If the latter, perhaps you and Mr. Chan Hall from central share some common ground.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#281)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:45:30 AM EST
    Hi MrPrecedent. Great name. Very witty. Fellow Durham resident here. Welcome.
    Hello. Thanks!
    It seems Durham is a much bigger city than people make it out,
    Different viewpoints make it a DIVERSE city, not necessarily a BIG one.
    because in my circles (post-grad, gay and straight, lefties with families) the predominant belief is that Nifong really did a lot that violates what any defendant has a right to--and we are ticked off.
    Care to list exactly what he did that is a violation?
    You're right, this is not the biggest thing happening (Congratulations, Canes!) but still people are concerned and welcome the possibility that Lewis Cheek may run for DA.
    Plenty of others aren't convinced that someone who concedes that he's had NO experience with criminal law during the past 25 years is the best person for a job overseeing criminal prosecutions for an area like this. At least Cheek admits that he hasn't seen all of the prosecution's evidence, either. How curious, though, that people declared that it WASN'T appropriate for Nifong to use this case to win an election, but it IS ok for someone else to consider doing it. Even two of the defense attorneys congratulated Nifong on winning the election and said he was the best man for the job.
    Perhaps you are out of my demographic and that's why we're not in sync.
    Not significantly. Perhaps we just don't talk to the exact same people. I've talked to many outside my own personal demographic, too. A lot of people will say what they think others want to hear until you get them talking about the actual facts of the case and legal system.
    Though I suspect I saw you at the Farmers' Market this AM. Did you buy the last chocolate empanada? I thought so.
    Not a chance.
    Were you here for the Hardin years?
    Yep.
    The last media circus occurred during his tenure (the Michael Peterson case) and Hardin (and Freda Black) certainly spent a lot of time in front of TV cameras. I don't remember any them eating up the camera as Nifong did pre-election.
    That crime happened less than three months after 9/11. The national media wasn't desperately searching for a juicy story to attract viewers at that point. I don't recall it being of daily interest to the national media until the trial was starting over a year and a half later.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#282)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:52:22 AM EST
    SomewhatChunky, did you notice they appear use the same vernacular as well?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#283)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:04:25 AM EST
    IMHO, are you familiar with Dick Cheney's "one percent" doctrine? Based on recent press reports, it serves as the underpinnings of our foreign policy. If there's a 1% chance that Saddam has WMD, the U.S. should act as if that will occur. I think you employ a variant of Cheney's doctrine. Given that everyone else present at the time of the exchange believed that the Linwood/Cheshire exchange was based on the new news of the 5 attacker comment, there's maybe a 1% chance that he meant to challenge the 20 attacker comment and was not merely backtracking after the fact. Yet you adamently cling to the hope that Linwood is right. On this case you're Cheney-esque...didn't know they allowed pets in the undisclosed location :-)

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#284)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:06:40 AM EST
    MrPrecedent says: What I was suggesting, though, is that the REPORT itself is not entirely accurate, so we can't be guaranteed that ANYTHING else in it is 100% accurate. If the Officer misunderstood or misstated WHO made the initial phone call, how do we know that he didn't also misunderstand or misstate what the accuser told him about the attack?
    So, are you saying that each and every different claim the AV is reported to have made should be discarded because we don't have Video or Audio of her making the statement?
    Nope. I'm pretty sure I didn't use the word 'discarded' or anything like it. Not sure where you got that idea. Have you seen evidence that there is no video or audio of her making statements?
    Or, perhaps, all reports of conflicting claims, except for the one about being raped by three guys?
    Nope.
    Maybe we should discard them all except for the claim that she wasn't raped which was recorded by Shelton.
    It was also reported by Officer Sutton, although it isn't clear whether he/she was actually quoting the Accuser or just copying the paper of the other officer. I imagine someone who has already made his mind up before all of the evidence is revealed would reject everything that doesn't back up his own biased opinion.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#285)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:24:10 AM EST
    Those leaps often start from a firm foundation of made up "facts" whose "source" is his "common sense."
    Well, then, it either isn't "common" or isn't "sense". Newport is clearly making it up because I haven't said ANYTHING to indicate that I have any animosity whatsoever towards Duke. Dick Brodhead and a few others might find such an accusation amusing, though, given the circumstances. hehehee

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#286)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:42:00 AM EST
    Hi Mr. Precedent. "Not a chance" on the chocolate empanada or the Farmer's Market? You should try them both before you say not a chance. Don't have a lot of time to reply--family obligations today--but briefly defendant's have a right to an untainted jury pool--calling them hooligans, displaying choke holds, saying DNA will prove something and then saying it doesn't matter when it doesn't, multiple line-ups without unknown innocents included--just for starters. By the way, whether or not you're employed by Duke doesn't matter--I can think of at least 89 people who are employed by Duke and have come down against these kids...(Group of 88 plus Joseph DiBona.) Wow, you have a parking SPACE? Not just a general lot pass?. Fann-cee! You must be a muckity-muck and not just an ordinary Joe. ;) There was something else you said but I need to attend to a child...do you have insomnia? I'm amazed at the volume and timing of your posting. Get some rest! Gotta go before said child explodes.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#287)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:45:38 AM EST
    Hi ATL, You wrote:
    I think you employ a variant of Cheney's doctrine. Given that everyone else present at the time of the exchange believed that the Linwood/Cheshire exchange was based on the new news of the 5 attacker comment, there's maybe a 1% chance that he meant to challenge the 20 attacker comment and was not merely backtracking after the fact. Yet you adamently cling to the hope that Linwood is right.
    When Cheshire intentionally brandishes the idea that the accuser once stated that 20 men had attacked her long after that idea has been vetted and sent on its merry way, nobody should give him a free pass simply because he's a paid shill. Fooled me once, shame on Cheshire. Fooled me twice...

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#288)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:02:51 AM EST
    alt52 posted:
    I think you employ a variant of Cheney's doctrine. Given that everyone else present at the time of the exchange believed that the Linwood/Cheshire exchange was based on the new news of the 5 attacker comment, there's maybe a 1% chance that he meant to challenge the 20 attacker comment and was not merely backtracking after the fact. Yet you adamently cling to the hope that Linwood is right.
    The fact I am adamently clinging to is the fact that we don't know enough about the exchange to know what statement by Cheshire Wilson was objecting to. We have Wilson's defense of his claim, that is backed up by the only quotes we have of their exchange. The reporters' characterization of the statement to which Wilson responded does not preclude it from being that quote by Cheshire and we have no other quote from Cheshire. alt52 posted:
    Given that everyone else present at the time of the exchange believed that the Linwood/Cheshire exchange was based on the new news of the 5 attacker comment,...
    Source?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#289)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:09:53 AM EST
    I take exception to James B. Shearer calling Jim Garrison deranged. Despite a lot of slurs coming from the national media at the time, and attempts by people in federal law enforcement to undermine his investigation, I think Garrison did reasonably well under the circumstances. If you read any of his books, or his interview in Playboy back in 1967 or '69 you won't find a deranged man. You may not agree with him, but you could never honestly call him deranged. Considering that the ultimate finding of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late seventies found was that there was probably a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that they pointed to the same people Garrison was investigating, history seems to suggest he was not so mentally ill as to not conduct a illuminating investigation. I believe Gaeton Fonzi wrote a book about the Garrison investigation that anyone with an open mind might want to read. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Shearer is a mathematician, and scientists like to keep things tidy in their thought processes. But you'd think that he'd show some allegiance to the laws of science, for example, when looking at the "magic bullet" in Dealey Plaza, or the DNA results in this case. Things can't be tidy when the Durham AV is a habitual liar who may actually be the only delusional person in this discussion. Likewise, I find it amusing to see Shearer say that the AV detractors have overstated their case when confronted with the case that Nifong has on his hands. The only case that exists is what the AV claims. There is nothing, absolutely no physical or eyewitness support of her final version of events. Everything points to the opposite, that the AV invented several stories afterward to avoid incarceration and eventually settled on the most plausible. Shearer will try to offer a statistical breakdown to back his opinion, but 17% of nothing is still nothing.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#290)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:15:26 AM EST
    Well, OK. But it has already been clearly recognized on this board -- by all sides -- that the Grand Jury in this case is little more than a rubber stamp for the DA -- they act on his recommendation at least 99% of the time, so no, that is not unusual at all. But what you are really saying then is, "Because Nifong said it should."
    No, that would be what YOU are really saying.
    It is a legitimate question to ask why it should go to trial -- without even a preliminary hearing on the merits of the case -- simply on the say-so of one person named Nifong?
    The grand jury isn't one person named Nifong. Maybe 99% of the time, he seeks indictments on cases where there is overwhelming probable cause.
    When such a trial can be delayed for a year -- or more -- until it even gets started, that is an abuse of power by the government.
    In the aforementioned Michael Peterson murder case in Durham, the crime happened in December 2001, the trial started in July 2003 (a year and a half later). In the case of the Accuser stealing the taxi, the crime happened in June 2002, she plead guilty to four misdemeanors in May 2003 (11 months). In the Kobe Bryant rape case, the crime happened in June 2003, the trial started in September 2004 (over a year later). In the Scott Peterson murder trial, the crime happened in December 2002, the trial started in June 2004 (a year and a half later). Waiting a year for a criminal trial is NOT unusual.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#291)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:17:07 AM EST
    Mr. Precendent says the case should go to trial because the grand jury voted to indict. Of course, not all grand jury indictments go to trial. Cases are thrown out all the time. In this case, it's clear that Himan misstated facts or outright lied about evidence in the case. That should be enough for an honest judge to throw out the case. Somehow I don't think it's going to happen, but it should.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#292)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:23:13 AM EST
    Precedent wrote: Too bad the Defense doesn't just bare it all and put an end to the big mystery. Mr. P, what does the defense have that it's holding back? The last I saw they were asking the court to unseal the AV's medical records. Considering that it's the DA's job to seek truth and the defense's job to defend their clients, it seems pretty curious that it's the defense that keeps asking the DA to reveal information to the public.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#293)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:27:50 AM EST
    PB wrote, concerning her theory of the case: Well, I've never thought Seligman was at risk of a conviction even if he did it. Is that because even if he did it he wasn't there? I think this kind of non-response response shows how desperately PB clings to the hope that the AV will be vindicated. Pitiful.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#294)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:29:43 AM EST
    ChanceArmy posted to MrPrecedent:
    Though I suspect I saw you at the Farmers' Market this AM. Did you buy the last chocolate empanada? I thought so.
    MrPrecedent replied:
    Not a chance
    I suspect it was SomewhatChunky who made off with the last chocolate empanada. No source, no proof. Just a theory.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#295)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:36:00 AM EST
    Chancearmy, You provide this list of violations...
    briefly defendant's have a right to an untainted jury pool--calling them hooligans, displaying choke holds, saying DNA will prove something and then saying it doesn't matter when it doesn't, multiple line-ups without unknown innocents included--just for starters.
    I remember in the Skakel closing arguments Jon Benedict, the prosecutor, referred to Michael Skakel as a "spoiled brat." The comment actually made it into Michael Skakel's appeal. Good luck selling the idea that referring to gang rapists as "hooligans" is indicative of bad faith on the part of the DA in this case. His mistake, if he's made one, is not in referring to rapists as hooligans (which actually constitutes a demotion from worse to merely bad, if you ask me) but in charging anyone with being rapists at all. That has a tremendous negative effect on the jury pool, and perhaps would not be allowed in a kinder gentler nation. As for the other three events decried, they are truly non-starters. The dna, as promised, excluded all but David Evans from being the scratcher, did it not? The fact that absence of dna does not absolve people of crimes as readily as the presence of dna is a fact of nature, is it not? And the lineup was released by the defense, not by the prosecution. So if it effected the jury pool, who's fault is that? As for the choke-hold, well... I'm going to let you think about that one on your own. If you need help, I'll be around.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#296)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:36:45 AM EST
    Another nugget from Mr. P: The Defense CAN, indeed, tell us exactly what evidence the Prosecution has that might support a conviction. Huh? And what evidence would that be? That the rapists removed the boyfriend's semen from her, raped the AV without condoms, then thoroughly removed all traces of their DNA and reinserted the boyfriend's DNA? Or that after the brutal three-man rape they hypnotized the AV to tell numerous conflicting stories to various police officers and hospital personnel? Or the mass conspiracy involving all the men at the party, plus Roberts, Angel, Tammy and the security guard at Kroger's? Mr. P, if the defense keeps turning up exculpatory evidence and the DA has nothing to back up his version of events, saying that it's the defense's obligation to prove their clients are guilty is INSANE. Or at the very least something more suited for a court in the Stalinist Soviet Union than here. I don't think you're IMHO's sock puppet because even in her most rarified moments she's not that wacky.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#297)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:42:18 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    Mr. P, what does the defense have that it's holding back? The last I saw they were asking the court to unseal the AV's medical records. Considering that it's the DA's job to seek truth and the defense's job to defend their clients, it seems pretty curious that it's the defense that keeps asking the DA to reveal information to the public.
    Did they release what the captains said to the police when questioned yet? I haven't seen it. Have they released the accuser's interviews from which the information in the search warrant was pieced together. Hmmm. Surely have that stuff, don't they? Can Dan Abrams be subpeonaed to testify in this case, or does his work qualify as work product protected by attorney-client privilege?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#298)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:54:12 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, In response to my:
    Well, I've never thought Seligman was at risk of a conviction even if he did it.
    You wrote:
    Is that because even if he did it he wasn't there?
    No. If he wasn't there, I will concede that he didn't rape her. I feel that the only way he could have raped her was if he was there. You continued:
    I think this kind of non-response response shows how desperately PB clings to the hope that the AV will be vindicated. Pitiful.
    Yes, dear. Now please, get some sleep. Oh, one thing. You reported that the AV was committed to a mental hospital for a week last year? Was that something you made up? Just curious.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#299)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    pb:
    Well, I've never thought Seligman was at risk of a conviction even if he did it.
    Does this derive from a general feeling toward the criminal justice system or just the particulars of this case?
    I think it has yet to be established when the dance ended, and it has yet to be established where the three defendants were between the time the dance ended and the time Seligman called the cab.
    I agree. Seligmann gets into a cab at about 12:19 a block away from the house. From there on out his whereabouts are pretty well known (atm photo, dorm sign-in etc). The publicly available information at this time contains a set of time stamped photos, which show the dancers performing between 12:00 and 12:04. Bisseys affadavit states that the dancers entered the house a bit before 12:00 because after they entered he looked at his cellphone. According the phone records attached to the defense motion Seligmann's phone was in near contiuous use from 12:05 to 12:16. The longest time lapse of no use is under 2 minutes.
    If the prosecution can put the three of them in the bathroom with the accuser during that time it would constitute a "risk" to them, no matter how crazy the accuser's stories have been since that time.
    I agree. However for this to have occured the following would have to be true. Seligmann in the moments prior to contemplating his gang rape would have had to give his cell phone to one of his friends. He would also have had to tell him his girlfriend's number. His friend would have to be a willing accomplice in the rape. The alternative is to have Seligmann participating in a gang rape while repeatedly dialing his phone trying to get in touch with his girlfriend. Leaving out the physical gymnastics required for such an effort, the dimension of such a psychological disturbance would be truly monumental. Kim has already attested in detail to the fact that she went into the bathroom with the AV after the aborted dance. She would now have to become a willing participant in the rape and needs to be indicted. Bissey's testimony puts her outside the house at around 12:20, well after Seligmann has left. If one is to believe that the AV was gang raped by a group which included Seligmann then something akin to the above theory must be true. Therefore all the back and forth about the AV's statements, her state of mind, whether or not all the doctors, nurses, and cops really heard what she said or misinterpreted it or mistranscribed it are completely irrelavent. Lay over this that in a trial the defendants must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring an ethical action a prosecutor must have a strong likelihood of prevailing. The above makes it pretty clear that at least Seligmann is innocent beyond any doubt whatsoever and is currently being ground under the wheels of the criminal justice system in a malicious prosecution worthy of the worst this country has offered. To those who say 'lets wait for the trial', why not just wait for the verdict? The 'evidence' established in a trial is only relavent to the jurors. Why not just take the verdict and go 'that's it' regardless of what is said at the trial. After all those 12 people get to determine the truth or falsity of all the 'evidence'. Why did anyone get bent out of shape when the cops that beat the crap out of Rodney King were found innocent? So what if there was a video that showed in equisite detail police brutality at its finest. As citizens we all have a stake in the criminal justice system. At a minimum we need to speak up when a travesty such as this one is unfolding in front of our eyes.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#300)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:12:13 AM EST
    To PB: I have lifted a paragraph from your response to ChanceArmy because I'm hoping you could clarify your meaning in the sentences I've emphasized in bold. I would like to discuss fingernail DNA, but I don't care to misrepresent your point. I am especially unclear concerning the first sentence. Thank you for your consideration, should you choose to respond.
    As for the other three events decried, they are truly non-starters. The dna, as promised, excluded all but David Evans from being the scratcher, did it not? The fact that absence of dna does not absolve people of crimes as readily as the presence of dna is a fact of nature, is it not? And the lineup was released by the defense, not by the prosecution. So if it effected the jury pool, who's fault is that? As for the choke-hold, well... I'm going to let you think about that one on your own. If you need help, I'll be around.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#301)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:17:12 AM EST
    PB, the AV spent a week in a facility for a mental illness last year. To say she was committed means she was hospitalized. Don't try to read too much into it, but please note the serious of a week's stay in a facility because of mental illness. Was she committed by state authority as being a danger to self or others? Don't know. Did she voluntarily commit herself with the authorities' agreement that she was unable to function by herself outside the premises? Don't know. Was she hospitalized because of some kind of drug addiction problem which became the subject of the authorities' attention, and she was given the choice of cleaning up or being arrested? Don't know. She was put into a hospital for a week for a mental illness. One can presume that if Bunny Hole has a good insurance policy that covers hospitalization, it still doesn't cover weeklong stays at the Betty Ford Clinic. The poorer you are in this country, the less apt you have private health insurance, or insurance that would cover voluntary stays at health spas. It's likely that the AV was hospitalized for a week at government expense because of some psychiatric manifestation which either the AV was aware of and wanted to control and/or the authorities deemed serious enough to hospitalize her. In this millenium in the United States it takes a lot to be hospitalized at government expense for a week for mental illness. In any mid-sized American city you will find plenty of homeless mentally ill people wandering the streets. A quarter century ago many of the same kinds of people were in mental institutions, but now are left to rummage through garbage cans or drink themselves to death in alleys. So for whatever reason the AV was institutionalized last year, and whether or not she voluntarily submitted, it was for something that was not a mere fancy on the part of a psychiatric evaluator. She was mentally ill. Mental illness that severe doesn't usually resolve itself, and consumption of alcohol and misuse of legend drugs usually exacerbates any problem. Combine that with the suspicions surrounding the alleged rape in 1993, where various stories emanated from the family reporting her as a 14 year-old minor seen in an emergency room for a gang rape and yet it not being contemporaneously reported to authorities. That suggests that the AV didn't go to an ER for a gang rape in 1993. If she is lying about getting treatment for that gang rape in an attempt to explain the seriousness of the alleged incident, and has two different versions about whether or not the father even knew at the time about the rape (thirteen years is a long time not to settle on one version of reality), and says she was treated for depression by a psychiatrist afterwards but the psychiatrist like hospital personnel also never informed authorities that she is treating a minor who was sexually molested (gang raped!), I would suggest that the AV may very well not have been telling the truth about any rape in 1993. To an honest and logical mind it is apparent that the AV has had a longtime problem with mental illness and with telling the truth. She may be delusional. She may be a habitual liar. Maybe a combination. Given what we do know about her, how many here, if asked by the AV that she wanted to sit in your car, would give her your keys?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#302)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    PB, the father said it. If she didn't, maybe he made it up. Or maybe she lied to her father like she lied to him about the Creedmore rape. Chances are if you're speaking up in defense of your daughter, you don't offer that she was hospitalized for mental illness for a week a year ago unless it was true, but this family seems to have a tenuous grip on reality. Or maybe the press invented the story.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#303)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:31:29 AM EST
    David, regarding your 10:02a.m. comment: Nicely written.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#304)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:43:17 AM EST
    bob, Having spent a whole working lifetime with numbers and such I have come to enjoy writing... thanks david

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#305)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    IMHO, even if you're correct that the reporters and Cheshire misunderstood the nature of the question, our dear Linwood did not dispute the fact that the accuser changed her story many times. That's the "so what" here. PB, if I remember correctly, the 20 number was raised by a university cop. The defense attorneys will pursue that line of questioning with the Durham cops and they, under oath, will likely elaborate on the many stories they heard. If you're willing not to take Nifong to the woodshed for the many lies he's told, surely you're comfortable withholding judgment on the 20 comment until it's fully vetted in court.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#306)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    Hi Madison, You quoted me here:
    The dna, as promised, excluded all but David Evans from being the scratcher, did it not? The fact that absence of dna does not absolve people of crimes as readily as the presence of dna is a fact of nature, is it not?
    Good catch. 1. I should have said scratchee, not scratcher. 2. I shouldn't have said scratchee or scratcher, because the person she scratched me not have left any dna, and Evans dna may have gotten on the nail by some other innocent form of transfer. 3. It may not be Evans dna, but may have come from any of a large number of non-suspects in the general population including, presumably, some kid working in a Chinese fingernail manufacturing sweatshop. 4. Hasn't someone stated that the sample was "mixed" and that more players than Evans could conceivably be the source of the mixture? Looks like we're in for some high stakes combinatoric arguments at trial. I hope these corrections have set the record straight. What I should perhaps have said is that the dna found on the fingernail cannot be used against any suspect but Evans, and that that fact, in combination with the fact that Evans was chosen by the accuser from a lineup that included these same suspects, will "tend" to reduce their exposure to bogus charges as "scratchees". Had the dna been more abundant, it might have actually made many of the suspects even less viable candidates.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#307)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:55:13 AM EST
    Hey PB...whatever any atty says in a closing (or opening) argument with a jury and a defendant in front of him/her is acceptable. Nifong made his statments to the media when no defendant had been named--and as a result a vigilante poster sprung up and non-LAX Duke students were assaulted merely because of their affiliation with Duke. Further, he said the actions were motivated by race...it will be interesting to see him prove that but he doesn't need to because he's already convinced enough voters that it was. I have to get back to my obligations--take care.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#308)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    ATL, You wrote:
    If you're willing not to take Nifong to the woodshed for the many lies he's told, surely you're comfortable withholding judgment on the 20 comment until it's fully vetted in court.
    Sure. I'll do that. I was just trying on the Cheney doctrine for size. It has a polemical appeal.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#309)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:25:25 AM EST
    alt52 posted:
    IMHO, even if you're correct that the reporters and Cheshire misunderstood the nature of the question, our dear Linwood did not dispute the fact that the accuser changed her story many times. That's the "so what" here.
    My post was in response to all the crowing about Wilson having egg on his face and the incompetence of the prosecutor's office, and Cheshire's letter goading him to read the prosecution's case file. My point is we don't know that any of that criticism of Wilson was warranted. It may turn out that it was Cheshire who either misspoke or misunderstood Wilson's valid objection.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#310)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    PB: Thanks. Point by point:
    1. I should have said scratchee, not scratcher.
    Yeah, I figured that was just a typo, best not to make a federal case of it.
    2. I shouldn't have said scratchee or scratcher, because the person she scratched me not have left any dna, and Evans dna may have gotten on the nail by some other innocent form of transfer.
    If she scratched someone with the fake fingernail, it is likely that DNA was left on the nail. If Evans' DNA comprised part of the sample tested, it is entirely possible that it arrived there as a result of innocent transfer from the trash.
    3. It may not be Evans dna, but may have come from any of a large number of non-suspects in the general population including, presumably, some kid working in a Chinese fingernail manufacturing sweatshop.
    No lab can process and run a mixed DNA sample and come up with separate partial profiles. So, yes, the pool of possibles is quite large. As for the Chinese kid, well, there you go again. Please consider PB: If these nails did not materialize in that house, they have a history. I submit to you that with so many "possibles," she may well have scratched someone. Who, I wonder? There is an obvious choice.
    4. Hasn't someone stated that the sample was "mixed" and that more players than Evans could conceivably be the source of the mixture? Looks like we're in for some high stakes combinatoric arguments at trial
    . Yes, the very reason that Evans cannot be said definitively to be a source of the DNA is that it is a mixture. (I remember Cheshire reading this from a paper. I also remember an earlier report about it from TV as coming from "a source close to the investigation." Don't ask me to find the sources. I won't. Get imho on it if you care so much.) No high-falutin' arguments needed. Just a really fine defense witness to testify about the DNA, someone likeable, not arrogant.
    I hope these corrections have set the record straight. What I should perhaps have said is that the dna found on the fingernail cannot be used against any suspect but Evans, and that that fact, in combination with the fact that Evans was chosen by the accuser from a lineup that included these same suspects, will "tend" to reduce their exposure to bogus charges as "scratchees". Had the dna been more abundant, it might have actually made many of the suspects even less viable candidates.
    For the record, there was plenty of DNA. Oodles of it, if it could be seen with the eye. The DNA had degraded. I need to go now, but there is more I wanted to say. Thank you for the calm (except for the part about the Chinese kid) response.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#311)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:29:12 AM EST
    IMHO wrote: My point is we don't know that any of that criticism of Wilson was warranted. Wilson said the AV hadn't changed her story. He's either a clown or a liar. Egg is the least of his worries.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#312)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    Ditto to Bob's comment, David in CT: I liked what you wrote and how you pharased it. PB, you said, in part:
    The defendants haven't claimed, nor have their attorneys, to my knowledge, that they weren't in the bathroom with the accuser. That's a point of interest.
    I'm not sure if they have specifically said anything about the bathroom, but they have unequivocably stated that none of the three raped the AV, assaulted the AV, or held her against her will. I take that blanket denial as including a specific denial of being in the bathroom with the AV.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#313)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    In May Ms. Pittman's probation violation hearing was rescheduled for July 24. If I remember correctly, the violation was in traveling out-of-state - to California, I think. She may have missed a meeting with her parole officer. I'm not sure. Can anyone here offer a likely outcome of this hearing? Will it be a fine, or an extension of her probation, or possibly jail time? What's typical in such events? Thx.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#314)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    re Nifong's claim that the team members would not talk to investigators There were at least 20 players that Precious did not recognize during the lineup - why didn't Nifong subpoena those 20 before the grand jury and either force them to testify or force them to assert the 5th and then give them immunity?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#315)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:35:28 AM EST
    ding, I asked the same question a few months ago, and someone said that the idea of twenty guys going on the stand and saying that nothing happened prior to the indictments would not do well for him getting his indictments. Because if, as the players have asserted, nothing happened and the among the twenty they were convincing enough that the grand jury had doubts about the charges that the police investigator brought forward, it might have ended the case. Afterwards, Nifong knew enough about the case and his lack of evidence that putting the players in front of the grand jury would only have sped along the decay process. That's presuming he was no concerned with finding truth. If he were seeking the truth, he could have tried putting the unindicted players through the grand jury route. But he wasn't. And isn't.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#316)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:37:12 AM EST
    I believe that the riskiest part of a trial for the defendants would be that thier attorneys 'OJ' the case. Because there is so much exculpatory evidence they could choose to use all of it in an attempt to overwhelm the prosecutions case. The DA's in the OJ case did the same thing. One of the things that prosecutors and defense lawyers often miss in presentation is that the crime either happened or it didn't. Either OJ killed his wife or he didn't. Same here, either the AV was gang raped or she was not. It's important to press the binary nature of the event so the jurors don't 'weigh' the evidence and come to a binary conclusion based on 'points' like a fight referee would. In OJ the prosecutors could have reduced their case to one point. OJ's blood and that of his wife, were found together in his car. The only way it got there is from OJ or he was framed by the police and or the lab. They should have spent their whole case trying to show how the framing was impossible and in any event without some reason and some shred of evidence to show that the framing took place there is no reason to vote for aquital. If the mere possibility of framing is an adequate defense then no one could ever be found guilty. Similarly here, the defense should try to refrain from attacking the AV except to pin her down to one story, whatever one she chooses and let her have it. Use other witnesses and all the other evidence to contradict it. Don't spend a lot of time with conflicting accounts generated by all the police, nurses, doctors etc. while risking falling into the 'if the glove don't fit trap'. Trials are not math tests, they are debates where the judges of the debate on average are just that average.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#317)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    david_in_ct posted:
    Seligmann in the moments prior to contemplating his gang rape would have had to give his cell phone to one of his friends. He would also have had to tell him his girlfriend's number. His friend would have to be a willing accomplice in the rape.
    He would not have had to do any of those things. He could have dropped his phone at the party. Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called. If it's like my phone it will display the names of those people if they are in the phone's memory. No one else has know what is going on in the bathroom. Reade may have left messages to his girlfriend during those calls. We don't know.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#318)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:42:50 AM EST
    thanks Bob In Pacifica

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#319)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:51:55 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called.
    And this person (to think it was funny) would need to know how Seglimann programmed his g/f's name in his phone's memory. In any event, luckily, this person handed the phone back to Seglimann as Seglimann exited the bathroom so Seglimann could call the cab company

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#320)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:54:42 AM EST
    wral.com May 22, 2006
    DURHAM, N.C. -- An exotic dancer who says she was gang-raped and beaten at a Duke lacrosse team party where she was hired to perform was given a test at a hospital to determine if she had a date-rape drug in her system, WRAL has learned.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#321)
    by wumhenry on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    Can anyone doubt that Nifong would love to play up the hush-money story if there's any truth in it? Betya anything he has questioned the AV about it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#322)
    by wumhenry on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:09:13 PM EST
    IMHO, grasping at straws, wrote:
    Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called.
    Why would anyone think that would be funny?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#323)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    Posted by wumhenry June 25, 2006 01:09 PM
    Why would anyone think that would be funny?
    Because when people are inebriated and/or immature, they often do things that they think are funny but aren't.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#324)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    Atl52 wrote,
    The prosecution must assert a theory, based in fact, on which to base their claims. So far, Nifong's public comments have proven false: alleged lack of cooperation by the accused, statement that the DNA would conclusively identify the defendants, backtracking post-DNA that the guys wore condoms, speculation about a date rape drug, misrepresentations about the consistency of story and ID, anchoring his belief in a medical report that he had only heard described and that doesn't actually prove the case, the list goes on. That does not qualify as "spin" -- rather they are "lies".
    Excellent post Atl52. Very well said.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#325)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    ding7777 posted:
    And this person (to think it was funny) would need to know how Seglimann programmed his g/f's name in his phone's memory.
    My phone lists the last ten numbers I have dialed by the names I used to place them in my phone book: 1.) Newport 2.) Madison 3.) ding7777 etc. ding7777 posted:
    In any event, luckily, this person handed the phone back to Seglimann as Seglimann exited the bathroom so Seglimann could call the cab company.
    "I lost my phone, anybody seen it? I'm outta here." I'm not saying this is likely, I'm just saying this is not true: david_in_ct posted:
    Seligmann in the moments prior to contemplating his gang rape would have had to give his cell phone to one of his friends. He would also have had to tell him his girlfriend's number. His friend would have to be a willing accomplice in the rape.
    Arguements are more sound when based on true statements. wumhenry posted:
    IMHO, grasping at straws, wrote:
    Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called.
    Why would anyone think that would be funny?
    wum, These are people who think holding up a broomstick and offering to shove it up two women's asses is funny and photographing an impaired woman falling down brick steps is funny. Maybe they think it's funny to call Reade's girlfriend and tell her he just watched two buck naked women perform sex acts on each other. Five guys thought it was appropriate to urinate off the porch in front of a woman they just met. She just happened to be a stripper, but maybe they did that in front of the women guests at the party weezie's daughter attended.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#326)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    Sam, apparently in support of IMHO contention, replied to wumhenry
    wumhenry
    Why would anyone think that would be funny?
    Because when people are inebriated and/or immature, they often do things that they think are funny but aren't.
    Since the only independent, allegations of inebriation implicate the FA how do you think the FA managed to operate Seglimann phone while in the bathroom? Did she leave any fingernail fragments wedged in the keypads?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#327)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    I am very depressed over the state of this case and have nothing to really add until something new comes out, which I expect it will. Maybe the phone records will show the FA making calls during relevant times. It seems that there is no way out of this persecution because in the state of North Carolina an obvious false accusation can be pressed by a single man who, because of the racial composition of the electorate, is not really answerable for his conduct so long as he goes against white Duke LAX players. There are no checks within the state system for a prosecution run amuck and Federal intervention is a remote possibility. We have people here who think that is OK, and so be it. They think that if the Grand Jury says to indict no matter what the facts of the case that this is OK. "It is common." These same people think that if the defendants want a "speedy trial" then a year or more is OK to wait. "It is common." Other cases show it is common despite the fact that at least the Peterson case, the defendant obviously did not assert his statutory right to a speedy trial. These same people think that it is OK to let the FA have her day in court and let the jury decide when all the available evidence shows that their is a tremendous abuse of prosecutorial discretion in bringing the case in the first place. These are the same tired worn arguments made by supporters of Nifong (and haters of Duke and/or the boys)over and over again. These arguments would not be made by the same people if the races were reversed and they know it. There are morals to this sad tale. The notion of justice in America will be damaged for decades to come. The public will not trust DA's pronouncements in the future, nor will they trust that the police can conduct an honest investigation to weed out false charges. Nifong will become infamous, a household word for dishonesty, race baiting and corruption. He will become most hated by fellow DA's who will eventually realize the effect Nifong's conduct has had on the public perception of the honesty and integrity of DA's in general. Lawyering-up will be the rule of the day, even for people that know they are innocent and would like to explain themselves. People will distrust people of other races even more than they do now. Racial hatred will increase. People will avoid living in racially mixed areas even more than they do now. We will grow apart, not together, as a result of this case and one white man's misguided attempts to correct past wrongs. Duke University will also be affected for years to come. Fewer people will want to attend Duke University because of its location and the smearing of its reputation. This is a sad case indeed.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#328)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    Seen this?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#329)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    imho posted:
    [Seligmann] could have dropped his phone at the party. Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called . . . We don't know."
    Absolutely right. And one reason why Seligmann's father had to borrow to post his son's bail was that he might have used all his money to bribe the presideny of Wachovia Bank to produce a false video showing Seligmann at an ATM a mile away when the rape allegedly was occurring. We just don't know.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#330)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    imho posted:
    [Seligmann] could have dropped his phone at the party. Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called . . . We don't know."
    Absolutely right. And one reason why Seligmann's father had to borrow to post his son's bail was that he might have used all his money to bribe the president of Wachovia Bank to produce a false video showing Seligmann at an ATM a mile away when the rape allegedly was occurring. We just don't know.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#331)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:36:22 PM EST
    khartoum,
    We just don't know.
    No we don't, so it wouldn't be very useful to form any conclusions based on that premise.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#332)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    david_in_ct: Your 12:37 post is excellent. Thank you. The central matter is whether or not the alleged rape occurred. From what we have seen of the evidence, the defense appears to have sufficient ammunition to counter the allegation in the form of negative DNA results, time-stamped photographs, an ATM camera, receipts, telephone calls, entry keys, cab-driver witness, neighbor witness, etc. They should, I agree, keep the argument narrowed to the question of whether there is proof that that this happened as alleged (whatever in the end Nifong settles on). The strongest evidence (physical and electronic) works very much in their favor. Attacking the accuser with a thousand inconsistencies in court may backfire, since I understand she is very soft-spoken and likely to engender sympathy. Most people would probably dismiss the "20 men" account as a misinterpretation, and so it would be a mistake for defense attorneys to pound away on that particular inconsistency. The best inconsistencies to use, I submit, would be her changing descriptions of the rape itself, involving various combinations of v*ginal, an*l, and oral. I don't think most people would buy that she couldn't tell her v*agina from her *sshole, so where she alleges one thing one place and another somewhere else, that may be an inconsistency worth pursuing, especially if it conflicts with the SANE examination. I agree with you too about the OJ case. The prosecutors lost this for themselves. They had overwhelming evidence, but their expert witnesses were not at all the best. They should have been able to foresee where the defense would try to steer the case, but they failed utterly.
    In OJ the prosecutors could have reduced their case to one point. OJ's blood and that of his wife, were found together in his car. The only way it got there is from OJ or he was framed by the police and or the lab. They should have spent their whole case trying to show how the framing was impossible and in any event without some reason and some shred of evidence to show that the framing took place there is no reason to vote for aquital. If the mere possibility of framing is an adequate defense then no one could ever be found guilty.
    My emphasis. I was just horrified that they could not explain why the EDTA was there. The prosecutors appeared completely flat-footed on this point and offered as a witness the fellow who performed the analysis, but who could not explain why this did not indicate a frame! This left the matter hanging and completely unrebutted. Those expert witnesses really do matter. I don't want to leave the impression that I dismiss the importance of good defense lawyers. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." That was absolutely brilliant! And OJ's acting wasn't too bad, either.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#333)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:51:46 PM EST
    This has gone way beyond all bounds of useful discourse if no one here is allowed to offer conjecture based on what evidence we allegedly have before us. There is no possible statement anyone can make here that cannot be answered in some way with "we just don't know." So what is the point? This is a discussion board, not a gathering of solipsists.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#334)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    My phone lists the last ten numbers I have dialed by the names I used to place them in my phone book: 1.) Newport 2.) Madison 3.) ding7777 etc.
    I understand that. But we don't know what Seglimann's mnemonic was for her. Whether it was her name or some other mnemonic, the person doing the "funny" would need to know it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#335)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    You are one smart cookie SloPhoto. Solipsism is an interesting theory of the human experience.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#336)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    Madison, what exactly is EDTA? A blood preservative?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#337)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:17:22 PM EST
    Madison, BTW, I think that your following point is one of tremendous importance:
    The best inconsistencies to use, I submit, would be her changing descriptions of the rape itself, involving various combinations of v*ginal, an*l, and oral. I don't think most people would buy that she couldn't tell her v*agina from her *sshole, so where she alleges one thing one place and another somewhere else, that may be an inconsistency worth pursuing, especially if it conflicts with the SANE examination.
    I would also add that most people would not buy the accuser changing stories regarding whether she was beaten, choked, etc. Most people know whether they took a beating or not. This is another important inconsistency that will be difficult to explain away regardless of post hoc rationalization theories.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#338)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    Here is a better link to the same cartoon. I believe Nifong is going to rely on the the legal theory that the jury only has to believe that a rape occurred, not that it occurred in the way described by the accuser --- on that and on having a Durham jury.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#339)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:45:04 PM EST
    Don't want to stir up the OJ case, but I don't think it was a good example of anything. Dr. Lee's testimony regarding the blood swabs still being wet the next morning was pretty definitive that someone switched something regarding the blood, and the sock testimony should have ended any arguments about tampering with evidence. Go to my blog and look at the 4/22/05 post about the case if anyone's curious. I thought the only attorneys who were decent were Scheck and the others from The Innocence Project. The rest of the defense constantly failed to pursue exculpatory lines of questioning, and the prosecution seemed to be playing for a tie. It was as if the bunch of them were filling television time instead of prosecuting a case. I have more faith in the various defense attorneys in the Duke case, and Nifong isn't even playing for a tie, he's playing until a week or so into November.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#340)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:47:42 PM EST
    SLOphoto wrote: There is no possible statement anyone can make here that cannot be answered in some way with "we just don't know." So what is the point? Thank you.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#341)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:48:40 PM EST
    imho:
    He would not have had to do any of those things. He could have dropped his phone at the party. Someone could haved picked it up and thought it would be funny to hit one of his numbers last called. If it's like my phone it will display the names of those people if they are in the phone's memory. No one else has know what is going on in the bathroom. Reade may have left messages to his girlfriend during those calls. We don't know.
    This is an interesting conjecture but a might bit incomplete. First, there were nine phone calls made from Seligmann's phone not one. Three consecutively to his girlfriend's number, then two to another number then three more back to his girlfriend and then one to the taxi co. So this is not a random call where someone picks up a phone and makes a call possibly by accident. This 'practical joke' goes on for 8 minutes, but ends conveniently when the rape is over so that Seligmann can call a cab. The 'practical joke' is also happening while a violent rape is going on a few feet away. Your theory posits that it is quiet and no one need know what is going on. Kim, by her statement, is also in the bathroom with the AV so presumably she is involved in the rape because she has not reported seeing one or being the victim of one. No one outside the bathroom knows what is going on because the AV is being gang raped quietly, or maybe Kim has brought the duct tape (though that would rule out the oral penetration). Then there is the photo which is taken at 12:30am which shows the AV dressed in bra and panties with a white teddy/garter over both. She is described by those that have seen her face as 'demurely smiling'. An interesting expression for someone that has been brutally gang raped 15 minutes prior. All of this also ignores all known incarnations of the AV's statements which allow for none of this. I think that a prosecutor that seeks an indictment and then a prosecution based on this set of facts is violating the public trust by such a degree that he needs to be disbarred or worse. If so many people weren't getting badly hurt, the absurdity of it all would be funny.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#342)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:49:49 PM EST
    Newport asked:
    Madison, what exactly is EDTA? A blood preservative?
    Yes, and an anticoagulant. Collection tubes can be purchased that are precoated with EDTA or contain an EDTA solution.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#343)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    Newport observed (among other lamentations)
    There are morals to this sad tale. The notion of justice in America will be damaged for decades to come. The public will not trust DA's pronouncements in the future, nor will they trust that the police can conduct an honest investigation to weed out false charges.
    Newport, I tend to agree with most of your post. However some of the outcomes, many of your predictions also give hope for optimism. In my opinion, other than allegations of child and domestic abuse, the charge of rape results in the greatest suspension of civil liberties of the defendant than any other accusation. This case is not totally aberrant. However because of a unique confluence of non material issues, the publicity and discussion that surrounds this case may lead to public skepticism towards accusations levied without collaborative evidence. This is positive. I hope and believe that if this unfortunate matter proceeds to trial that the victim will come across as emotive, sympathetic and totally believable. I have no doubt that the substance of her testimony itself will be credible only to those able to totally suspend the rules of logic, inference and common sense. The general public would benefit by observing that some individuals can convincing attest contradictory evidence without feeling any necessity to explain those contradictions. It's my opinion that the FA will be one of those witnesses. (No IMHO I can't prove it ... that's why it's an opinion) A professional defense will win in both the court of public opinion and in the legal venue. Evidence will be shown to be more persuasive than acting ability. This is another potential positive outcome. As you forcast, the innocent may well see cause to doubt the impartiality of the LE community. Well I agree that in a perfect world this mistrust inhibits the search for the truly guilty I am afraid that citizen naiveté results too frequently in miscarriages of justice. Most defendants are demonstrably guilty. However the powers afforded to every DA should cause citizens to regard allegations neutrally. This is especially the case when media outlets are limited or exhibit oedipal relations with each other or the local government. This post does not imply that I am unsympathetic to the injustices experienced by the accused. For both the LAX players and you I can only advise "Keep a stiff upper lip and don't quite fighting."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#344)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 02:53:25 PM EST
    When I worked in an emergency room many years ago they were the purple-top tubes, the ones with EDTA.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#345)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:00:18 PM EST
    Bob, Can you leave a link for your OJ blog? thanks david

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#346)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:00:19 PM EST
    david_in_ct
    First, there were nine phone calls made from Seligmann's phone not one. Three consecutively to his girlfriend's number, then two to another number then three more back to his girlfriend and then one to the taxi co. So this is not a random call where someone picks up a phone and makes a call possibly by accident. This 'practical joke' goes on for 8 minutes, but ends conveniently when the rape is over so that Seligmann can call a cab.
    They don't get through to anyone so they hit redial or punch another number. It ends when Reade gets his phone back when he needs it to get out of there. david_in_ct posted:
    The 'practical joke' is also happening while a violent rape is going on a few feet away. Your theory posits that it is quiet and no one need know what is going on.
    They can be dialing the phone from anywhere in the house or yard, just so they get it back to Reade in time for him to call for the cab. No one playing with his phone needs to know what is going on, much less be a "willing accomplice in the rape" as you suggested. david_in_ct posted:
    Kim, by her statement, is also in the bathroom with the AV so presumably she is involved in the rape because she has not reported seeing one or being the victim of one. No one outside the bathroom knows what is going on because the AV is being gang raped quietly, or maybe Kim has brought the duct tape (though that would rule out the oral penetration).
    Do you have a source that puts Kim in the bathroom while the accuser is being sexually assaulted?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#347)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    david, Bob in Pacifica's name is a link to his blog. I heard some nice music there a while back. I think he wrote it and performed it himself.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#348)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:06:39 PM EST
    I don't know if this works. My post is actually about the autopsies. I hope this works.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#349)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:08:12 PM EST
    It didn't. I don't know how to post the link and I don't care to learn. Hit my name, go to the "archive" button, scroll to April 22, 2005.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#350)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:16:19 PM EST
    Interesting Blog Bob. You are younger than I thought. 55 maybe? Is that a mustache you are wearing? If so, you better shave it before imho and her mixed-up sock puppet Mr. Precedent have you at the crime scene handing out invisible condoms. Speaking of mustaches, and given my penchant for throwing out personal attacks on those who disagree with me, wouldn't Brodhead's mustache be classified as a "Hitler mustache?" If so, he would do well to shave it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#351)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    immie, I am flattered that my number is first on your cell phone list but you really should give up hope, I am taken.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#352)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    imho tried again,
    Do you have a source that puts Kim in the bathroom while the accuser is being sexually assaulted?
    Yes. Try Sutton's police report, that is the ticket.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#353)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    Newport, You wrote:
    Lawyering-up will be the rule of the day, even for people that know they are innocent and would like to explain themselves.
    The lesson I will take from this is what a waste of time the lawyers were. You wrote:
    People will distrust people of other races even more than they do now. Racial hatred will increase.
    The gap between white people and myself has already widened tremendously because of this case. You wrote:
    People will avoid living in racially mixed areas even more than they do now.
    Oh, well, at least they can still move to Durham. You wrote:
    We will grow apart, not together, as a result of this case and one white man's misguided attempts to correct past wrongs.
    You give Orinoco too much credit. Not that many people read his posts. You wrote:
    Duke University will also be affected for years to come.
    Lest the old traditions fail. You wrote:
    Fewer people will want to attend Duke University because of its location and the smearing of its reputation.
    Sounds like a healthy response, if only because of all the public urination that goes on down there. Civil Disobedience used to be made of sterner stuff.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#354)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    Good one, Photios. fillintheblanks, re Kim's probation violation: my recollection is that in addition to leaving the state without permission, she never paid any of the restitution to her victim. The latter will be her biggest problem, but with the Great and Powerful Nifong on her side, she just might be able to "sit back, brush herself off" and click her heels to get out of it. So long as no one looks behind the curtain of his case. Along the same lines of children's stories, re the Alice in Wonderland analogy some here, including myself, have used: I will note that the first chapter is titled "Down the Rabbit Hole" which is eerily close to Bunny Hole Entertainment, is it not? "Curiouser and curiouser."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#355)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    LibrasSockPuppet posted:
    It's my opinion that the FA will be one of those witnesses. (No IMHO I can't prove it ... that's why it's an opinion)
    Have I ever asked someone if they have a source for their opinion? Calm down. LibrasSockPuppet posted:
    Since the only independent, allegations of inebriation implicate the FA how do you think the FA managed to operate Seglimann phone while in the bathroom? Did she leave any fingernail fragments wedged in the keypads?
    I don't know that Reade's phone was ever in the bathroom. Independent allegations of inebriation? Well, there's that photo of the guy on the floor with his pants slightly open and a wet spot on them, but may have just been very, very, sleepy. Ms. Pittman said in Vanity Fair:
    They were definitely drunk and drinking..
    Mostafa picked up four boys he described as "drunk" and "worried" and "agitated." We don't know if they were any of the indicted players or just potential witnesses. In an interview with Rita Cosby, Mostafa also described Seligmann and Wellington as "a little drunk."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#356)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    PB: Thanks for responding with your own answers to the questions I posed to imho. The problem I have with a scenario where Seligman's alibi evidence is, in the jury's opinion, convincing and the jury therefore decides that they do not believe he raped the AV, that her 100% positive id of him would, in my mind, cast considerable doubt upon her id of either of the other two accused. If she was 100% sure about Seligman, and the jury decided she was 100% wrong about him, how could they believe her 100% about Finnerty, or her 90% about Evans, still to be valid? I find it especially disturbing that she could be 100% wrong about the one who was in front of her, but a jury would continue to give her id of the men behind her credence.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#357)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:35:49 PM EST
    Imho, Newport posted this -
    immie, I am flattered that my number is first on your cell phone list but you really should give up hope, I am taken.
    And I'm certain you recall your promise -
    Fill, Newport has the right of first refusal, but you are second. I'm not half as obnoxious in person.
    It would seem I'm now at the top of the list. So, where do you live?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#358)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Yes. Try Sutton's police report, that is the ticket.
    It says the accuser stated Kim was in the bathroom with her while she was being sexually assaulted? I don't think so. noname agreed.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#359)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:43:00 PM EST
    Unfortunately, noname was wrong this time. Noname is usually right but mistakes are possible for all of us, and yes that includes me. I explained in my reply to noname how noname's analogy was not right under the facts of this case because Sutton's report has Robert's turning a trick and the trick was "in the bathroom." So, according to the FA, if anyone knows who was "in the bathroom" it is Roberts and Roberts herself says she saw no rape. Case dismissed.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#360)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    fillintheblanks posted:
    It would seem I'm now at the top of the list.
    So, where do you live?
    Not just yet. Newport is taken? Newpies just playing hard to get. I'm sure he has been taken, many times, but spoken for? I doubt that.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#361)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:48:03 PM EST
    Sorry immie, but you'll have to save your sweet talk for awhile, because I have to go now, time to work on getting rid of my propensity to hook.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#362)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:50:01 PM EST
    Newport writes:
    immie, I am flattered that my number is first on your cell phone list but you really should give up hope, I am taken.
    Did you ever notice how imho and Newport often use the same vernacular? Coincidence? I know a sockpuppet when I see one.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#363)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    SharonInJax, thanks for this -
    fillintheblanks, re Kim's probation violation: my recollection is that in addition to leaving the state without permission, she never paid any of the restitution to her victim. The latter will be her biggest problem, but with the Great and Powerful Nifong on her side, she just might be able to "sit back, brush herself off" and click her heels to get out of it. So long as no one looks behind the curtain of his case.
    I actually think it may be in Nifong's best interest to be harsh with Kim. If he is, he can project an appearance of impartiality. You know, something like, "You broke the law, now you pay for it" and unspoken, "no matter what your race."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#364)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    Mostafa also described Seligmann and Wellington as "a little drunk."
    Well, there ya go. If Segilmann was "a little drunk" maybe he kept re-dialing his g/f's number by mistake when he really wanted to get the cab co.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#365)
    by january on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:02:50 PM EST
    From IMHO
    These are people who think holding up a broomstick and offering to shove it up two women's asses is funny
    I've heard different versions of the alleged broomstick remark. Source?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#366)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    I wonder how Law & Order, in any of its incarnations, will play this case that they will, no doubt "rip from the headlines."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#367)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:06:11 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    If she was 100% sure about Seligman, and the jury decided she was 100% wrong about him, how could they believe her 100% about Finnerty, or her 90% about Evans, still to be valid? I find it especially disturbing that she could be 100% wrong about the one who was in front of her, but a jury would continue to give her id of the men behind her credence.
    The transcript of the line up reads:
    IMAGE 7 -- Seligmann
    Victim: "He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me"
    Sgt: "How sure of that are you?"
    Victim: "100%
    Some bloggers think he looks like Tony McDevitt:

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#368)
    by wumhenry on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    I asked why anyone would think it would be funny to use Seligman's cellphone to dail his girlfriend's phone number. The answer I got back was that these guys were drunk, and that various individuals present thought it would be funny to suggest that the performers use a broomstick as a sex toy, to piss from the porch within sight of Kim Pitman, and to photograph the AV after she fell on the steps. We don't know that anyone did any of those things because he thought it would be funny, but I can readily believe that the broomhandle remark was made in jest because using a full-length broomhandle with broom attached for a sex toy would be incongruous. That doesn't help me understand why someone, even if drunk, would think it would be funny to call Seligman's girlfriend from the party. What would your hypothetical jokester have planned to do to consummate the joke if the girlfriend answered the call?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#369)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    january posted:
    From IMHO
    These are people who think holding up a broomstick and offering to shove it up two women's asses is funny
    I've heard different versions of the alleged broomstick remark. Source?
    From the line up.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#370)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:22:06 PM EST
    wumhenry wrote:
    What would your hypothetical jokester have planned to do to consummate the joke if the girlfriend answered the call?
    Answer: We just don't know. Remember, that's the rule for some posters--throw out wildly implausible scenarios, and then suggest that because the scenario, however wildly implausible, can't be definitively disproven, we might as well assume it did. This would seem to be, by the way, Nifong's legal strategy for this case. imho wrote:
    The transcript of the line up reads:
    IMAGE 7 -- Seligmann
    Victim: "He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me""
    Indeed. It's frightening that someone could get indicted when he can produce a video of himself someplace else at the time of the alleged crime on the basis of the accuser, in what seems to have been her third go-around with an ID process, saying, "He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#371)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    imho: Seligman was not indicted because he "looks like" one of the AV's rapists. One does not indict someone for "looking like" the actual perpetrator. Following your reliance on the "looks like" then all Osborn has to do is ask the AV if she is 100% sure he is the man who raped her orally, right? Do you think she will, at trial suddenly be 100% sure that he is one of the rapists and not just someone who "looks like" one of the rapists? And she also id'ed a fourth man as "looking like" one of the perps, right? So we have a mystery man who "sort of looks like" one of the ones who raped her; Finnerty: 100% sure he is one of the ones who raped her; Evans: 90% sure (if he were wearing a mustache) he is one of the ones who raped her; and Seligman which she is 0% sure is one of the ones who raped her?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#372)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    From IMHO:
    These are people who think holding up a broomstick and offering to shove it up two women's asses is funny
    It was probably a lacrosse stick, but anyway -- and you left yourself wide open for this one IMHO -- I am quite sure that there are any number of posters on this board who would think it pretty funny to see a broomstick shoved up at least one woman's *ss that I know.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#373)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    What would your hypothetical jokester have planned to do to consummate the joke if the girlfriend answered the call?
    Is it a camera phone? Maybe send her a photo of the stripper's shoe on the floor. A photo of the guy "sleeping" with a wet spot on his pants? A photo of guys urinating off the porch? Maybe send her a photo of him coming out of the bathroom?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#374)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    It was probably a lacrosse stick, but anyway -- and you left yourself wide open for this one IMHO -- I am quite sure that there are any number of posters on this board who would think it pretty funny to see a broomstick shoved up at least one woman's *ss that I know.
    I think it was kind of Talk Left to not ban you for lying that you had never insulted other posters and you thank her by insulting her? Wow.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#375)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:38:16 PM EST
    Sharon, I'm just reporting what the transcript says. She didn't say she was 100% sure it was him, but that she was 100% sure he looked like one of the guys that assaulted her. SharonInJax posted:
    And she also id'ed a fourth man as "looking like" one of the perps, right?
    I wonder if that was McDevitt?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#376)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:42:01 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    So we have a mystery man who "sort of looks like" one of the ones who raped her; Finnerty: 100% sure he is one of the ones who raped her; Evans: 90% sure (if he were wearing a mustache) he is one of the ones who raped her; and Seligman which she is 0% sure is one of the ones who raped her?
    Witness identification isn't so mysterious, Sharon. It's imperfect. People are good at recognizing their relatives, less good at identifying strangers. They make mistakes all the time, but like baseball players, you can't get much of a sense of their abilities by a few hits or misses. It's obvious why this is the case. Trying to turn witness identification into something that is fully incriminating or fully exonerating isn't very useful. Context matters. If the only evidence against Seligman is the accuser's ID and the fact that the captains did not include him among the party-goers, Nifong is simply putting off his own embarrassment at Seligman's expense. But I don't understand why you would believe that to be the case? Aren't you a lawyer? Have you not seen first-hand how they act?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#377)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:46:58 PM EST
    sharon wrote:
    Seligman was not indicted because he "looks like" one of the AV's rapists. One does not indict someone for "looking like" the actual perpetrator.
    And this, of course, is why it's so important that the photo ID session, like so many other aspects of this case, didn't follow the state rules that people like PB so cavalierly and consistently dismiss. Had the photo session, as the State's Actual Innocence Guidelines suggest, been handled by a neutral law enforcement officer and not the duo from the DPD running the investigation, undoubtedly this "looks like" line would have been considered an insufficient ID. Instead, we got a follow-up question asking the accuser to give a percentage, and, voila, "looks like" became "100%." On that and that alone someone who can produce a videotape of himself someplace else at the relevant time gets indicted.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#378)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    Imho, in using this exchange -
    IMAGE 7 -- Seligmann
    Victim: "He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me"
    Sgt: ""How sure of that are you?"
    Victim: "100%
    as you have, you rebut SharonInJax' line of reasoning by imputing that "Victim" is unsure of her ID of RS as an attacker -or- that "Victim" is certain that RS only looks like an attacker, but is not an attacker. But yet, the poor bastard is indicted. I'm left thinking that Nifong needed a second or third player, so he scraped the barrel, and grabbed this fish. Your thoughts?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#379)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:01:02 PM EST
    PB, I agree about witness identification, generally, being not the most reliable evidence. But in this case the AV, from what we have seen so far, really, is not only the witness, she is the victim witness in a case that seems to me to be very light on physical, forensic evidence. The lack of the latter makes the former all the more critical. Imagine it this way: a woman walking alone one night is grabbed by a man who drags her into a deserted alley and rapes her. There is no DNA of his inside her, no physical evidence to identify him. In looking through mug shots, she sees one man and says "I am 100% sure that he looks like the man who raped me." Witnesses are found who place that same man around the scene, around the time, of the crime. Is there any case against him?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#380)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    Khartoum, You wrote:
    It's frightening that someone could get indicted when he can produce a video of himself someplace else at the time of the alleged crime on the basis of the accuser, in what seems to have been her third go-around with an ID process, saying, "He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me."
    Courage, son. You're making me nervous... Luckily, there's still hope that this may not be all that scarey. Nifong has not declared when he thinks the crime occurred. You've been watching "My Cousin Vinny" too many times... Maybe it will help you if you recall that Vinny won. Newsweek will win this case. When is the last time Newsweek ever lost a case. You tell me.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#381)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:14:42 PM EST
    Another thought: if the AV was only "100% certain" that Seligman "looked like" one of them, and if she was "sort of sure" another guy* who triggered a resonse and a possible id of him, would not the sensible, logical, fair and just thing to do be to have a line up? By that I mean an actual, live persons line up - two of them. Have Seligman in a lineup up with 5, 6, 7 other guys who look a lot like him in all the pertinent ways. Do the same with the other guy the AV noticed. If the AV can, then, pick one of the players out, then you have your case. And, if you want to be sure about Finnerty and Evans, have a real lineup for them as well. If Nifong truly wanted to seperate the innocent from the guilty, that would have been a better start than DNA orders and testing. Cheaper, too. *We've all seen the other player's picture, imho, please stop posting it and linking to it. Your opinion that there was another player or other players who resemble Seligman is fine, but unless someone asks you to show it to them (ala Investigator Wilson v. Joe Cheshire) save it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#382)
    by wumhenry on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:21:05 PM EST
    IMHO, grasping at the same old straw:
    Is it a camera phone? Maybe send her a photo of the stripper's shoe on the floor. A photo of the guy "sleeping" with a wet spot on his pants? A photo of guys urinating off the porch? Maybe send her a photo of him coming out of the bathroom?
    Two questions. First, if the intention was to send a photo, why would it be necessary to keep re-dialling the number? Second, why would anyone, drunk or sober, think it would be funny to send photos of any or all of the above to Seligman's girlfriend?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#383)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:23:42 PM EST
    Sharon You wrote:
    PB, I agree about witness identification, generally, being not the most reliable evidence. But in this case the AV, from what we have seen so far, really, is not only the witness, she is the victim witness in a case that seems to me to be very light on physical, forensic evidence. The lack of the latter makes the former all the more critical.
    I'm just a little behind the eight-ball here. I've seen one lineup and a page or two of another one. I heard a rumor that there were more. I'm uncomfortable making judgments about the quality of the lineups without seeing them in their full context. The defense, for reasons I can only guess at, are only comfortable releasing small fractions of the lineups. Is the only time the AV identified the defendants in the lineup that was published? How do we know that? Please don't say "common sense." Tell me how we know that. Were there no "fillers" in the other lineups? Tell me how we know that. Please don't say "common sense." Tell me how we know that.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#384)
    by wumhenry on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    If the AV fingered the same three guys in other lineups that were conducted with fillers, in keeping with the relevant NC good practice standard, wouldn't Nifong or a Durham PD spokesman have said so to parry all the criticism in this regard?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#385)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:35:20 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    *We've all seen the other player's picture, imho, please stop posting it and linking to it.
    Sharon, there are new posters all the time. It's hard to keep up with them. Mr. Precedent, Sam, Newport, et al... In the context of the charges of false identification that people are leveling here against the accuser, the fact that there are actually lookalikes among the small pool of suspects is totally pertinent information, is it not? You're hoping to make people search through old blogs for a link? What's with that?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#386)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:37:54 PM EST
    Not at all, imho. Reference that there is a photo of an undicted player who looks like Seligman. They ask for a link and you post it. Simple, and to my mind embarrassing an innocent player and his family.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#387)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:38:30 PM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    Two questions. First, if the intention was to send a photo, why would it be necessary to keep re-dialling the number? Second, why would anyone, drunk or sober, think it would be funny to send photos of any or all of the above to Seligman's girlfriend?
    Maybe they are too drunk to figure out how to use someone else's phone. Needling her that her "boyfriend" is at a party where debachery abounds? That could be the stuff of yucks. Do you think anyone laughed when the guy held up the broomstick, or did they all recoil in horror and demand the offending player apologize? Maybe they think degrading women is funny, SLOphoto does.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#388)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:42:23 PM EST
    PB said:
    Were there no "fillers" in the other lineups? Tell me how we know that. Please don't say "common sense." Tell me how we know that.
    However many photo ID sessions there were, the one on which Nifong pursued indictments had no fillers, and was conducted by the two lead investigators of the case, therefore violating the Actual Innocence Commission guidelines. Given your previously expressed strong support for "due process," I'm sure this outrages PB. As to the two previous photo ID lineups, they weren't disclosed (for undisclosed reasons) in Nifong's initial discovery turnover--which prompted a filing from Dave Evans' attorneys. That motion stated that there was a list of six photos, in their uniform shirts, of 2005-2006 lacrosse players (a Row "F"), in which Evans was included, but that the accuser didn't identify him. Of course, as you point out, we don't know, perhaps Nifong in that photo ID session also showed the accuser photos of dozens of lacrosse players from Wake Forest, UNC, and NC State; or photos of random Duke students. Funny how he didn't do that for the photo ID session that led to the indictment, isn't it?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#389)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:42:50 PM EST
    WumHenry, You wrote:
    If the AV fingered the same three guys in other lineups that were conducted with fillers, in keeping with the relevant NC good practice standard, wouldn't Nifong or a Durham PD spokesman have said so to parry all the criticism in this regard?
    If the defense had evidence that would make Nifong look bad at no expense to their clients, wouldn't they release that evidence?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#390)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:46:50 PM EST
    IMHO illustrated
    Independent allegations of inebriation? Well, there's that photo of the guy on the floor with his pants slightly open and a wet spot on them, but may have just been very, very, sleepy
    Thanks where can I see the pictures? I would prefer to produce my own observation 1. Drunk as a skunk? 2. Bored to tears by slipshod dance synchronization and unimaginative choreography? 3. Colloquial fashion statement?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#391)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:52:25 PM EST
    PB: Give them time. I'm sure there will be more motions, and more supporting exhibits. They are tag teaming the DA's office and the Durham PD, and it is an effective strategy to my mind.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#392)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:53:05 PM EST
    SharinInJax posted:
    Not at all, imho. Reference that there is a photo of an undicted player who looks like Seligman. They ask for a link and you post it. Simple, and to my mind embarrassing an innocent player and his family.
    Last I checked, the "false accuser" is also an unindicted "player." Did you voice an objection to photos of her wearing a "see-through red outfit with no undergarments" that were shown all over the media for the purposes of furthering the defense spin on the case? When you posted the accuser's name in an effort to humanize her did you consider that you might be embarrassing an innocent victim and her family?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#393)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 05:54:52 PM EST
    IMHO:
    Maybe they think degrading women is funny, SLOphoto does.
    No, SLOphoto does not. The jest -- which was prefaced as a jest -- was intended as completely gender-neutral.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#394)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:04:01 PM EST
    And since some people are really taking this thing all wrong, please allow me to restate my respect for IMHO:
    IMHO: Tone is everything. Gentle, gentle. It's still a tribute to your persona even when others don't recognize the fondness in the caricature. -- With respect to you as always.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#395)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    imho: Back to that again, are we? Point One: Posting a first name only of the AV? I don't see how that would embarrass her family. But if so, then I apologize, just as I did to readers of this board. Point Two: if the pictures had shown her face I would be outraged.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#396)
    by wumhenry on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:09:14 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    WumHenry, You wrote:
    If the AV fingered the same three guys in other lineups that were conducted with fillers, in keeping with the relevant NC good practice standard, wouldn't Nifong or a Durham PD spokesman have said so to parry all the criticism in this regard?
    If the defense had evidence that would make Nifong look bad at no expense to their clients, wouldn't they release that evidence?
    It seems that they don't have it but are trying to get it. My question stands.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#397)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    and, imho, I have never seen picture of the AV such as you describe. ". . . photos of her wearing a 'see-through red outfit with no undergarments' . . ." in any of the media. I have heard that description, but I've never seen a picture that fit that description.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#399)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:27:34 PM EST
    Khartoum, You wrote:
    However many photo ID sessions there were, the one on which Nifong pursued indictments had no fillers, and was conducted by the two lead investigators of the case
    How do we know that? Just asking. Don't get scared... You wrote:
    And this, of course, is why it's so important that the photo ID session, like so many other aspects of this case, didn't follow the state rules that people like PB so cavalierly and consistently dismiss.
    Guidelines aren't rules, Khartoum, and when you don't follow them, that doesn't in and of itself mean that a due process violation has occurred. This is a case where the use of fillers probably wouldn't have mattered much, since she had obviously seen many of the players at the party. It's probably better for the players that the lineup didn't have fillers, because it gives them another thing to gripe about. How hard would it have been, with fillers, for her to choose the players she had seen and claim they had raped her. Not that big a deal.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#400)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:31:48 PM EST
    WumHenry wrote:
    It seems that they don't have it but are trying to get it. My question stands.
    I saw two pages of a lineup from the defense. So you're saying that's all they got is those two pages? The ones where she neglected to name Evans? Have they filed a motion seeking the other pages? They should. Without due diligence you can get bitten on appeal.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#401)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:32:04 PM EST
    SharonInJax
    imho: Back to that again, are we? Point One: Posting a first name only of the AV? I don't see how that would embarrass her family. But if so, then I apologize, just as I did to readers of this board. Point Two: if the pictures had shown her face I would be outraged.
    OK. Send me a photo of yourself in an outfit similar to what the accuser is wearing on the stairs and I'll photoshop your face into a blur and only use your first name when I post it here. Any objections? ;)

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#402)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:38:25 PM EST
    PB wrote,
    This is a case where the use of fillers probably wouldn't have mattered much, since she had obviously seen many of the players at the party. It's probably better for the players that the lineup didn't have fillers, because it gives them another thing to gripe about. How hard would it have been, with fillers, for her to choose the players she had seen and claim they had raped her. Not that big a deal.
    What a truly idiotic statement for more reasons than anyone could possibly explain. PB you have an utter contempt for justice and due process and protection of innocents. Is this because you feel you got railroaded. So, the way you deal with your feelings is to hope that others get railroaded too. The defense is trying to find out about the previous lineups. No one knows what happened in them other than what Kartourm posted. I doubt anyone was identified because further lineups were conducted. They early undisclosed lineups may have had fillers and maybe that is why no one was identified. What would that tell you? Maybe the early lineups were turned over Thursday. If so, we will likely find out soon what happened in them.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#398)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:40:32 PM EST
    deleted, let's stop the sniping and stay on the case.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#403)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:42:13 PM EST
    Sharon, You wrote:
    imho: Back to that again, are we? Point One: Posting a first name only of the AV? I don't see how that would embarrass her family. But if so, then I apologize, just as I did to readers of this board.
    Am I wrong, or were you the person who posted where people on this board could find the accuser's full name. I'm just asking. Shall I go check, or do you remember doing that. How was that different from publishing her full name yourself?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#404)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:44:36 PM EST
    The pictures of the FA should be plastered everywhere and with her face exposed. Why should she be treated differently from the boys, whose faces are plastered all over, including wanted posters. There should be no double standard. The only reason for it is that no one has the b*lls to do what is right.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#405)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:44:41 PM EST
    Please stick to the details of the case. Many people come here to learn about what people think of the case -- they don't care for your personal details, sniping, and repetitive quoting of each other's posts. There is no need to reprint full sections of others' comments, people can scroll up and read. Please mention the commenter's name and make your responsive comment. Please let me know how many of you think that there should be a limit on the number of comments a person can post on a thread. Is 15 enough or too many? I'm considering placing a limit so the threads don't get dominated by one or two people. thanks.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#406)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:47:16 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    and, imho, I have never seen picture of the AV such as you describe. ". . . photos of her wearing a 'see-through red outfit with no undergarments' . . ." in any of the media. I have heard that description, but I've never seen a picture that fit that description.
    Unless she removed her undergarments while passed out drunk in Kim's car on the way to Krogers, that is also the description of what she was wearing on the steps - according to the defense's description of the time-stamped photos. An alternative to that scenario would be her getting back into the house after the 12:30 photo and losing her undergarments at that point. Maybe Sgt. Shelton should be asked if the back porch photos are representative of the clothing he described in his report.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#407)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:49:10 PM EST
    Newport, You wrote:
    PB you have an utter contempt for justice and due process and protection of innocents. Is this because you feel you got railroaded. So, the way you deal with your feelings is to hope that others get railroaded too.
    I have to say, Newport, the better I get to know you, the more amusing I find you to be. What I used to take as annoying rebukes are actually simply cartoon attempts at brazenness. Tex Avery would be proud to have created a character such as yours. Have fun.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#408)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:49:30 PM EST
    Talk Left, Great idea. One comment would be too many for some, but 15 seems like an appropriate number for most.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#409)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:52:23 PM EST
    I've been lurking here for a while, and would like to pose some questions I have regarding this case. I got interested in the case because I'm a Dookie, although I am not particularly pro-prosecution or pro-defense. Mainly I'm interested in whether we will ever get close enough to the truth to satisfy most reasonable people. My first question relates to discovery. I would greatly appreciate responses from anyone familiar with the rules of discovery in NC. I've heard reporters and THs speculate on whether Nifong has an "ace up his sleeve". If discovery rules are being followed, is it even possible for him (in the long term) to have any evidence he doesn't provided to the defense? If Dan Abrams is to be believed, then he has reviewed all (except the most recent) discovery, and he did not find anything particularly hurtful to the defense. I understand prosecuters can "slow-roll" by claiming tests, reports, etc. are not yet complete, but how long can one expect to get away with that? Perhaps a prosecutor could spring a surprise witness by claiming the witness only came forward at the eleventh hour, but the witness would have to go along with that story. Finally, if rules of discovery are NOT followed, can that evidence still be used, or does it become inadmissable? Can a prosecutor take his lumps for violating the rules, but still present his evidence? Thanks.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#410)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:53:34 PM EST
    Posted by TalkLeft June 25, 2006 07:44 PM
    Please let me know how many of you think that there should be a limit on the number of comments a person can post on a thread. Is 15 enough or too many? I'm considering placing a limit so the threads don't get dominated by one or two people.
    We're adults here and no one appears too shy to jump in if they wish. I vote no limits.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#411)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 06:59:12 PM EST
    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#412)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:01:57 PM EST
    Hi TL, I think if you limit it to 2 that should be plenty. That's the only way to increase your substance to falderal ratio.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#413)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:10:56 PM EST
    Two comments on a thread per poster would shut down the debate. It means until there is a new thread, which could take days, no one would be allowed to post.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#414)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:11:29 PM EST
    PB: I posted a link to a timeline, and did not warn that the AV's name was shown on that site, a site I had visited for the first time the night I posted the link. Mea culpa, but I do want it clear that my motivation was not to steer anyone in the right direction. That linking was strictly for a timeline that I found helpful because it contained links to where/who/etc. the info came from. That being said, I realize that some might not believe my motivations in either or any case, but there is nothing I can do about that, just as there is no way I can go back and delete it from others' memories. But I don't know what more I can do, and having it used as a challenge to the opinions I express, thrown back at me to show my evil, black heart is extremely frustrating.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#415)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:11:30 PM EST
    LibrasSockPuppet, I agree. I was wondering if Sharon thought the photo might be embarrassing to the accuser and her family. Sharon thought a photo of Tony McDevitt fully clothed might embarrass him and his family. Do you feel the photos comparing the physical resemblance of McDevitt to Seligmann have probative value?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#416)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:23:09 PM EST
    Thanks for the Sheehan link Libras, it was illuminating to say the least.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#417)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:26:46 PM EST
    IMHO Probative value yes. But the question is does Tony McDevitt have a reasonable expectation of privacy. To the extent that he has public record sports and other photos the answer is no. However I don't think he is Paparazzi fodder yet. However on a personal, rather than a legal,level I wonder if it is fair to tie yet another reputation to a crime that many (if not most) informed observers believe never occured. Tough ethical question that is not limited to this case alone.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#418)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:49:43 PM EST
    PB wrote: When Cheshire intentionally brandishes the idea that the accuser once stated that 20 men had attacked her long after that idea has been vetted and sent on its merry way... Vetted by whom? Who has denied that the AV said it? Who has denied hearing it from the AV? It was in a Duke police report. It was hearsay, but it hasn't been vetted and sent on its merry way at all. Hearsay can become testimony. It's a minor point with the zero, five and three-man rape to deal with, the extra two strippers, Kim participated in the rape and any number of other problems with the AV's narrative, but it hasn't been vetted, unless you'd like to share the vetting process with us. When the AV takes the stand, she'll have to explain away a lot of the things she's said and if there's a cop who heard her say 20, then she'll have to explain that too. In the meantime, you can share the vetting process.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#419)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:52:40 PM EST
    Newport wrote: Sorry immie, but you'll have to save your sweet talk for awhile, because I have to go now, time to work on getting rid of my propensity to hook. Wasn't that the AV's problem? You know, with wanting to go back inside to make more money?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#420)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    SharonInJax wrote: The problem I have with a scenario where Seligman's alibi evidence is, in the jury's opinion, convincing and the jury therefore decides that they do not believe he raped the AV, that her 100% positive id of him would, in my mind, cast considerable doubt upon her id of either of the other two accused. If she was 100% sure about Seligman, and the jury decided she was 100% wrong about him, how could they believe her 100% about Finnerty, or her 90% about Evans, still to be valid? I find it especially disturbing that she could be 100% wrong about the one who was in front of her, but a jury would continue to give her id of the men behind her credence. Just so. The defense will ask the judge in charging the jury to tell them that if they find any one of the three identifications wrong, then they cannot convict in either of the other two cases based on the AV's identification alone. A decent judge would indeed so charge the jury. But unless there is a change of venue, the case won't be presided over by a decent judge. It will be presided over by a Durham judge.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#421)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:56:36 PM EST
    AW123 posted:
    I would greatly appreciate responses from anyone familiar with the rules of discovery in NC.
    NC changed its guidelines in 2004, after a case in which a prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense in a murder trial. The prosecution is now obligated to turn over its entire file to the defense. So while Nifong could theoretically be holding back evidence, by doing so he'd risk having it excluded at trial. It's also not clear what his rationale would be, at this stage, for holding back evidence, given the risk of suppression. That 2004 case also produced the Actual Innocence Commission, which authored the photo ID guidelines requiring seven fillers to one suspect about which imho sneered earlier. Among the members of the commission was state AG Roy Cooper, NC's top law enforcement official, who endorsed its findings. imho has repeatedly said that Nifong wasn't obligated to follow these guidelines, but that's not at all clear. The guidelines are only two years old, and this seems to be the first high-profile case in NC where a prosecutor blatantly ignored the guidelines. The defense has filed a motion to suppress the photo ID. It certainly can be said that when Nifong authorized the photo ID session that didn't follow the guidelines, he knew that he was risking having the ID suppressed. Of course, if he had followed the guidelines, the accuser only would have had a 1-in-8 chance of picking a member of the lacrosse team, and those odds weren't very good for his political needs to get an indictment before the primary.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#422)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 07:59:34 PM EST
    I have had limited computer time these days, so I have only read comments through about 10 AM today. I'll try to catch up tomorrow. I wanted to respond to Newport. Thank you for the quote from the NC statute regarding involuntary committment. I also scrolled back and reread a post of yours, containing this piece. I believe it's the one I thought I hadn't read, due to your frustration with my post. From your previous post:
    Police then took her to the Durham Center Access for involuntary commitment. The facility offers substance abuse and mental health services.
    within 24 hours. There are exceptions for a violent crime. So I think I was right. The police officer can initiate involuntary committment proceedings; a psychologist or doctor has to complete them. I don't think they bothered to make that fine distinction in the write-up, that's all.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#423)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:02:18 PM EST
    Eh, sorry, I block-quoted too much of the post. The only part that was from Newport's post was:
    Police then took her to the Durham Center Access for involuntary commitment. The facility offers substance abuse and mental health services.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#424)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:09:49 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica is right about the 20-man rape story, and he could justly have stated his point even more strongly. The Duke cop claimed to have overheard the 20-man version, as he claimed to have overheard the Durham cops saying the AV kept changing her story. Baker and Wilson denied the latter, and were proved to be liars. Those who deny the former have not yet been proved to be liars, but the presumption must be that the Duke cop is telling the truth. Could it be the 20-man version was a misunderstanding? Certainly its possible that the AV said "There were 20 men at the party and 2 or 3 or 5, entirely unbeknownst to the other, innocent 18 or 17 or 15, took me off into the bathroom and raped me." But it is certainly no less possible that she said something like "20 men surrounded me shouting 'go for it!' while 2 or 3 or 5 of them took turns raping me". She already has, in addition to the two official three-man versions (Bret(t), Matt, Adam/Dan and Reade, Collin, Dave) and the 2-man version told to one of the medical people and the recently disclosed 5-man version, a six-man version where three rip Nikki away from her and three do the actual rape.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#425)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:16:41 PM EST
    Lora, you may have been right in your previous post, but I was questioning your post where you thought the doctor would have to sign off on the involuntary commitment before the person could be committed based on your experience in PA. I posted the NC statute and it does appear from the statute that the person only has to be seen within 24 hours. The NC system does not work quite the same way as CA. I was, however, WRONG about 5150's in CA which I did not think required immediate evaluation by a doctor before someone could even be admitted into a holding facility. SLOphoto, who has experience in this area, corrected me about CA by explaining that the police can only transport a mentally ill person to a holding facility, where they are evaluated immediately by a dr. before they even get in the facility. Hope this clears things up and shows that I will admit when I am wrong unlike others on this board.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#426)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:19:07 PM EST
    Considering the father's curious comment that Nifong doesn't care about his daughter, only about winning, I do wonder if Nifong has talked with the AV to try to come to a final version of the AV's stories that he's going to take to trial. In some ways it serves his purposes to stay as far away from her as possible until November.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#427)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:19:31 PM EST
    khartoum said: It certainly can be said that when Nifong authorized the photo ID session that didn't follow the guidelines, he knew that he was risking having the ID suppressed. Of course, if he had followed the guidelines, the accuser only would have had a 1-in-8 chance of picking a member of the lacrosse team, and those odds weren't very good for his political needs to get an indictment before the primary. Right. His setting up the ID session the way he did, avoiding any objective test of the accuser's reliability, is virtually a confession that he knew the accusation to be a fabrication. If you read the transcript you will see there is something at the beginning about their pretending she was just being asked to verify who was at the party, rather than to identify suspects. This looks like a feeble attempt to excuse ignoring the guidelines. I seem to recall, however, that Nifong also at one point said that he was in effect acting as substitute police chief and in that capacity had the authority to set aside any department guidelines.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#428)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:23:59 PM EST
    Kartoum, where has the defense filed a motion to supress the photo id's. I have been asking about this for a while and was directed to a motion that sought to supress the identification order which would include the id's but is not the motion I was thinking of. The motion I am thinking of is to supress the lineups under the 6th, and 14th amendments because they are unduly suggestive and overly prejudicial. I thought it might be premature to file such a motion (the mother of all motions in this case) because defense does not have all the lineup discovery yet. Could you clear this up since you are an NC lawyer.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#429)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:25:02 PM EST
    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#430)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:30:14 PM EST
    Posted by khartoum June 25, 2006 08:56 PM AW123 posted:
    imho has repeatedly said that Nifong wasn't obligated to follow these guidelines, but that's not at all clear.
    I deleted my copy but I believe paragraph 4 or 5 on page 1 of the guidelines says something to the effect that they are guidelines only and they do not create any cause of action.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#431)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:31:02 PM EST
    Further question to Khartoum, can you confirm that there is no law in NC that requires all exculpatory evidence known to the prosecutor to be provided to the Grand Jury during a session on whether to issue an indictment? And, do you know why Nifong doesn't have to file responses to dispositive motions and why said motions don't have to be heard before trial?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:41:14 PM EST
    atl52 I believe the real risk to the defendants is that the AV makes up an entirely new story at trial and tries to say that all that was spoken and attested to early on was colored by the 'stress' of the event and her impaired state of mind at the time. If you throw out everything she has said and start anew, it is possible to make up a consistent story simply because the tangible evidence (photos, phonelogs etc) can never (short of someone videotaping the whole thing) exhonorate anyone in a he said she said argument. The best thing that they have going for them against this is having Seligmann as one of the accused. The combination of the phone records, his well documented leaving time and the very clear exposition of Roberts leaves virtually no time for him to be involved. But again, all the evidence in the world presupposes that the jury will actually follow instructions and review it to the exclusion of whatever emotionally baggage they bring to the table. As has sadly been demonstrated over and over again throughout history this is far from a given. I guarantee you that there are more than 12 people in Durham that would vote to convict on the word of the accuser no matter what other facts were introduced. There are very real risks for all defendants at trial completely apart from the truth or falsity of the claims against them. They are big favorites, but I sure wouldn't want my kids to be in their place.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#432)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    Newport, is this the motion you're looking for? I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like they are trying to supress all identifications of Seligmann, not just the pictures or the order signed by Stephens.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#433)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:54:28 PM EST
    Photios, under the official 6 man version you point out, which is a nice catch, how does The NiFong explain his failure to charge the other 3 players who pulled Nikki away as aiders and abettors who would share full accomplice liability under the law? Why was there no attempt to have the FA id the aiders and abettors during the lineup session. This is the FA's official version of events after all.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#434)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:55:47 PM EST
    Thanks to IMHO for the referenced Dateline link:
    Abrams:  There's no question that if everything the second stripper is saying is true that there is a window of opportunity for something horrible to have happened in that house.  The problem is that the accuser's account is entirely inconsistent with the second stripper's.
    I saw the program and was surprised by Abrams' overall reserved tone, but this particular statement did stand out for me. So I put together the following example of a pretty serious inconsistency in the two accounts of the AV and of the second stripper. Posters here may choose to judge it for themselves: From Sgt. Shelton's Report, April 9, 2006, Page 3:
    She [the AV] said that "Nikki" wanted to go back inside, but that she did not. She said that she and "Nikki" got into an argument about going back inside.
    From Kim Roberts' written statement to police on March 22, 2006.
    She [the AV] then told me [Kim-"Nikki"] that we should go back to the house because there was more money to be made there.
    Both women agree that they had some sort of an "argument" that night about going back inside, but each woman points the finger at the other to say, "She wanted to go back inside, but not me." There is no way to reconcile those two versions of the story -- they cannot both be true. It is not likely that either one of these two women was so delusional that night that she could simply get it reversed that it was actually not her own idea -- in an "argument" -- to go back inside. That would be pretty delusional. But still if that is somehow true, then it only says that the entire rest of her statement is equally suspect of being pretty delusional. The other possibility is that one of the two women is lying about this point. That would be a substantial -- and substantive -- point to be lying about, considering what is alleged to have happened inside that house. And that would go directly to the question of how much of the entire rest of her statement is a lie as well. Which of the two women is in error? I didn't say, but it has to be one or the other -- or both.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#435)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    khartoum, thank you for your very enlightening post regarding NC rules of discovery. Is there any definition of what constitutes the "entire file"? I seem to recall that during the latest hearing, the defense requested certain information, but the prosecution stated that said information was not discoverable, and the judge agreed. (I hope that this doesn't appear to be nit-picking on my part; I am really trying to get a full understanding!)

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#436)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:03:36 PM EST
    Mik, yes!!! Thank you very much. Gosh, it's incredibly light on case law and argument. Maybe they just wanted to get the bare bones out. I would have expected to see much more analysis of case law and its application to the facts of this case. Constitutional law on photo array id's is expansive. Maybe expansive argument only happens on appeal. I'm not a criminal lawyer. Maybe the other defendant's will be filing their own versions of this motion soon. Plus, this motion will need to be supplemented based on the discovery of additional lineups!!

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#437)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:22:23 PM EST
    SLOphoto, you point out a very important inconsistency but I got the impression the one Abram's was talking about was the FA's account of being embraced with Robert's whereupon the boys pulled them apart and dragged the FA into the bathroom. Robert's statement, of course, is completely inconsistent with this. This is the point that Barry has been hammering on here, and rightly so. AW123: The DA claimed that the "work product" rule protected the information that the defense attorneys sought to discover. The "work product rule" is a doctrine of the law, codified in F.R.Civ.P. 26, I believe, that protects attorneys files from unwarranted snooping by opposing lawyers. It generally covers attorneys writings, investigation, and thoughts and mental impressions. It also may extend an immunity from discovery to certain work product materials prepared by others who work under the direction and control of the attorney. It is a very complicated subject.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#438)
    by january on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:26:01 PM EST
    january posted: I said, From IMHO
    These are people who think holding up a broomstick and offering to shove it up two women's asses is funny
    I've heard different versions of the alleged broomstick remark. Source? and IMHO said
    From the line up.
    Thanks for the link, IMHO. I know you'll forgive me if I tell you I just don't consider the AV to be a particularly reliable source. BTW, how's your cat?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#439)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 09:28:00 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted this:
    I saw the program and was surprised by Abrams' overall reserved tone...
    I had noticed this, too - on previous Abrams interviews. I attributed it to his recent promotion to general manager. Less aggressively vocal and more measured in his tone, he is.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#440)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:00:20 PM EST
    I think he's just bending over backwards to try to appear fair because he is a Duke grad. He has been very measured in his statements even going so far as refusing to say that the FA is lying.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#441)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:07:26 PM EST
    imho:
    They don't get through to anyone so they hit redial or punch another number. It ends when Reade gets his phone back when he needs it to get out of there. They can be dialing the phone from anywhere in the house or yard, just so they get it back to Reade in time for him to call for the cab. No one playing with his phone needs to know what is going on, much less be a "willing accomplice in the rape" Do you have a source that puts Kim in the bathroom while the accuser is being sexually assaulted?
    We know from the photos and Kim's statement that they danced for at least a few minutes. The last dancing photo is 12:04. It must take some amount of time for them to get from where they were being photographed into the bathroom. Let's say they accomplish their task in a minute though this could certainly be more. So we know that the earliest they can enter the bathroom is 12:04+. The most likely time somewhere 12:05-12:10 depending on how long they stayed arguing with the players when they decided to pull the plug on the show because of the broomstick remark. The phone log shows that the first call to Reade's girlfriend is 12:05:47. This means that the 'friend' who is playing with Reade's phone is doing so while he can not possibly be in the bathroom alone with the AV and his two companions in crime (unless of course Kim is in on the crime and her whole story is a cover) So while Reade is still in the house the friend is innocently dialing his phone and calling his girlfriend. According to statments by the players the girls were in the bathroom for 10 - 20 minutes. This jives well with Kim's statement. She say after they went into the bathroom they talked about whether there was any more money to be made. Kim said she did not want to stay but the AV did. Kim also says that the AV was very agitated. In Kim's statement she says that the boys were knocking on the door and that the AV was yelling at them to stop and leave them alone. This lends credibility to the players statement that the girls were in there a long time and that they the team wanted them out. Kim says that 'finally' she decided to leave. I read this to be that she had had enough of sitting in the bathroom. Bissey has asserted that he saw both the AV and Kim outside the house between 12:20 and 12:30. There is a photo of the AV presumably going back into the house at 12:30. Kim also says that she left the AV alone for fewer than 5 minutes. If Bissey saw both Kim and the AV at the earliest 12:20 and Kim was away from the AV for a full 5 minutes this gets Kim out of the house at the earliest 12:15. By the time she is leaving Reade has already called the cab company and has met up with Wellington who is with him until they get to the cab. So it appears that even if you assume that Seligmann did not make the phone calls to his girlfried and that one of his friends found his cell phone and instead of giving it back to him chose to call his girlfried 6 times and someone else twice, Seligmann still has no opportunity to be alone with the AV unless Kim's and or Bissey statements are false.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#442)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:09:38 PM EST
    imho: better version
    They don't get through to anyone so they hit redial or punch another number. It ends when Reade gets his phone back when he needs it to get out of there.They can be dialing the phone from anywhere in the house or yard, just so they get it back to Reade in time for him to call for the cab. No one playing with his phone needs to know what is going on, much less be a "willing accomplice in the rape" Do you have a source that puts Kim in the bathroom while the accuser is being sexually assaulted?
    We know from the photos and Kim's statement that they danced for at least a few minutes. The last dancing photo is 12:04. It must take some amount of time for them to get from where they were being photographed into the bathroom. Let's say they accomplish their task in a minute though this could certainly be more. So we know that the earliest they can enter the bathroom is 12:04+. The most likely time somewhere 12:05-12:10 depending on how long they stayed arguing with the players when they decided to pull the plug on the show because of the broomstick remark. The phone log shows that the first call to Reade's girlfriend is 12:05:47. This means that the 'friend' who is playing with Reade's phone is doing so while he can not possibly be in the bathroom alone with the AV and his two companions in crime (unless of course Kim is in on the crime and her whole story is a cover) So while Reade is still in the house the friend is innocently dialing his phone and calling his girlfriend. According to statments by the players the girls were in the bathroom for 10 - 20 minutes. This jives well with Kim's statement. She say after they went into the bathroom they talked about whether there was any more money to be made. Kim said she did not want to stay but the AV did. Kim also says that the AV was very agitated. In Kim's statement she says that the boys were knocking on the door and that the AV was yelling at them to stop and leave them alone. This lends credibility to the players statement that the girls were in there a long time and that they the team wanted them out. Kim says that 'finally' she decided to leave. I read this to be that she had had enough of sitting in the bathroom. Bissey has asserted that he saw both the AV and Kim outside the house between 12:20 and 12:30. There is a photo of the AV presumably going back into the house at 12:30. Kim also says that she left the AV alone for less than 5 minutes. If Bissey saw both Kim and the AV at the earliest 12:20 and Kim was away from the AV for a full 5 minutes this gets Kim out of the house at the earliest 12:15. By the time she is leaving Reade has already called the cab company and has met up with Wellington who is with him until they get to the cab. So it appears that even if you assume that Seligmann did not make the phone calls to his girlfried and that one of his friends found his cell phone and instead of giving it back to him chose to call his girlfried 6 times and someone else twice, Seligmann still has no opportunity to be alone with the AV unless Kim's and or Bissey statements are false.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#443)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:29:27 PM EST
    Yes, Newport, EDTA is a blood preservative. But to the chemist running an LC/MS (an instrument for analysis of all manner of samples) it is something more. EDTA is not normally present in huge amounts in blood, and so the analyst faces a problem with quantitation--he or she is looking for a relatively small "peak" in the "noise," leading to an answer with more error than perhaps is desirable. A way to improve the precision of the measurement is through the use of an internal standard. To establish the amount of say, EDTA in blood, the chemist adds a known amount of EDTA to the sample and this sample is run in addition to the "unspiked" sample. From the two results we get a better (read, with less error) measurement. Now in the OJ trial, the chemist went ahead and did that and the resulting "spiked" chromatograms, just by chance because of the amount he added, looked as if the samples contained the amount of EDTA we would expect from blood drawn into a tube. He never made clear that, well, duh, he had added EDTA as an internal standard and that the amounts actually detected in the samples were several orders of magnitude lower than those in the "spiked" samples. This led to the wrong conclusion that the blood found everywhere had derived from the tube (or two, I don't remember) drawn from OJ. The defense expert, who knew very well what was going on I am sure, said nothing to correct the misconception, but of course that was his job. This is why I get so irked by the twisting of scientific evidence and why I can barely contain myself when I see it misrepresented. I do not believe this is mere quibbling. I can only assume that the attorneys for these defendants know to find expert witnesses that can really present the exculpatory evidence to best effect; they do have a sound defense from where I'm sitting. more than you need to know about EDTA

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#444)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 10:43:09 PM EST
    Thanks Madison, I get it and no, it's not quibbling. Didn't know that EDTA was naturally occuring in blood. I see the point of adding a little EDTA to another "control" sample of the same blood to compare the "noise" levels of the two samples against one and another. Amazing that the DA's expert didn't explain this better since it was such an important point if this was the blood swabbed from the Bronco.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#445)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 25, 2006 at 11:07:10 PM EST
    Newport, I watched his testimony and I believe he did say it was the standard, but of course the jury probably didn't understand what that meant. Marcia Clark was responsible for making sure he explained it, and she didn't. Then on cross examination the defense attorney (don't remember which) kept pointing at the EDTA peak on the chromatogram, asking why it was so large and where did that come from, and the witness didn't answer. No redirect after that, I think, so the prosecution failed. If this comes to trial (what injustice) I expect that we will see a better presentation. What I took away from the OJ trial: when you want an expert witness, make sure to get an expert witness.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#446)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:16:22 AM EST
    David, I just read your timeline post above, which I thought was very good. I have always been confused about the timeline and I wonder if you could add to your post your analysis of when the FA would have gone back into (first reentry) the house as is alleged in Robert's statement to the police. When did she come out of the house? Then when did she go back to the house (second reentry or attempted reentry) to retrieve her shoe? Really would like to see the back end of your timeline.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#447)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 01:50:43 AM EST
    PB said:
    If the only evidence against Seligman is the accuser's ID and the fact that the captains did not include him among the party-goers, Nifong is simply putting off his own embarrassment at Seligman's expense. But I don't understand why you would believe that to be the case? Aren't you a lawyer? Have you not seen first-hand how they act?
    Well I more or less believe this to be the case. I expect Nifong has some additional evidence against Seligman such as photos showing he was at the party but I don't believe he has anything significant. And I think Nifong is hoping something will come up that will allow him to avoid admitting error if he stalls long enough. Perhaps the AV will back out or he will find some additional evidence implicating Seligman or the players will turn over the guilty rather than risk the conviction of the innocent, not that I think any of these are likely. I doubt Nifong has any additional significant evidence against Seligman because I believe the defense has allowed reporters to examine the discovery files and if there was anything signifcantly incriminating in them I would expect the reporters to have noticed or the defense to have started some pre-emptive spinning to discredit the evidence. And I doubt Nifong would risk blowing his whole case by leaving incriminating evidence out of the discovery files. Normally prosecutors tend to omit exculpatory evidence from discovery files when they are playing games. Finally I am having some trouble imagining what additional significantly incriminating evidence against Seligman would consist of. Do we at least agree that if Nifong has no additional significant evidence against Seligman then Seligman never should have been indicted?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#448)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:25:55 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, I find it truly amazing that you can attack Nifong and defend Garrison. Well at least this should give you some insight into Nifong's defenders on this group, they have the same blind faith in Nifong you have in Garrison and the same antipathy to those with a different view. Think about it. As for overstating the case I think it is 99+% likely the AV's current accusations are not substantially correct. I don't think it is 100% certain or that any particular bit of evidence against her story is conclusive. I think many of your posts against the AV are stated with a degree of certainly that simply is not justified by the available evidence.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#449)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:48:10 AM EST
    "Not a chance" on the chocolate empanada or the Farmer's Market? You should try them both before you say not a chance.
    Not interested.
    Don't have a lot of time to reply--family obligations today--but briefly defendant's have a right to an untainted jury pool--calling them hooligans, displaying choke holds, saying DNA will prove something and then saying it doesn't matter when it doesn't, multiple line-ups without unknown innocents included--just for starters.
    Please divulge your source for Nifong's ACTUAL statements. Also, as I asked before, WHICH was a VIOLATION of something? If defendants have a right to an UNTAINTED jury pool, why do you suppose the Defense seems to be working so hard to taint it? Do you think it is appropriate for one side to comment on the case, but not the other?
    By the way, whether or not you're employed by Duke doesn't matter--I can think of at least 89 people who are employed by Duke and have come down against these kids...(Group of 88 plus Joseph DiBona.)
    Did someone say that being employed by Duke would matter? If so, I missed it.
    Wow, you have a parking SPACE? Not just a general lot pass?. Fann-cee! You must be a muckity-muck and not just an ordinary Joe. ;)
    I can't imagine why it would make any difference to this discussion, but I said parking PERMIT. See above.
    There was something else you said but I need to attend to a child...do you have insomnia?
    Nope.
    I'm amazed at the volume and timing of your posting. Get some rest!
    I was rested. I don't think there's anything particularly special about the volume or timing of my posts, but I don't keep a catalog of everyone's activity here.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#450)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:56:56 AM EST
    Mr. P, what does the defense have that it's holding back?
    1400+ or so pages.
    Considering that it's the DA's job to seek truth and the defense's job to defend their clients, it seems pretty curious that it's the defense that keeps asking the DA to reveal information to the public.
    You'd think the Defense would be revealing it all if it truly doesn't implicate their own clients.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#451)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 03:06:30 AM EST
    You are a complete and utter fool Mr. Precedent if you think that the defense should release its entire file. I have NEVER heard of a single case where the defense has released its entire file, and neither have you. No competent defense attorney would do that because of fear of malpractice. You need to get out more. What has happened here though is something very close to what you seek and remarkable in its own right. The defense has actually allowed the media in the person of Dan Abrams to read the entire file and take notes on the entire file. Do you really think Mr. Precedent that they would do that if something incriminating was in the file? Wouldn't that be malpractice. I suggest to you that it would. What, you think Abrams is going to risk his career for the sake of LAX players by not telling if there was something incriminating in the file? Don't you think that that would come out and ruin his credibility forever. If you think he would take such a risk you are even more of a fool than you have already demonstrated yourself to be. Try and find some fresh argument or insight to add to this discussion other than simply repeating that the defense should release its file. It's tiresome and irrelevant.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#452)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 03:19:15 AM EST
    Anybody else notice the similarities in styles, not to mention quantity, between the posts by our new member, MrPrecedent & IMHO? Maybe great minds think alike?
    Are there guidelines on how many posts one is supposed to contribute?
    We need a Durham resident and one appears. A prolific, but previously absent one, at that.
    I wasn't absent. I've been reading here a month or so, off and on. I just wasn't posting before. Presumably, the person who requested a Durham resident was hoping someone would read his request here and respond. I did. Why is it so surprising or suspicious that a Durham resident is reading the discussion about a Durham incident, and responded to a request for a Durham resident's perspective? I was surprised there aren't MORE Durham residents here.
    I am impressed by the large volume of posts in the wee hours of the night for a Durham resident.
    Why is that impressive? Are Durham residents not supposed to be online or awake during the wee hours? If so, I missed the memo.
    That used to be IMHO time - and gee, who else is posting at this wee hour?
    Like any city, there are a lot of Durham residents up in the middle of the night. Lots of us are online.
    No source, no proof. Just a theory.
    Paranoid much?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#453)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 03:31:41 AM EST
    And the lineup was released by the defense, not by the prosecution. So if it effected the jury pool, who's fault is that?
    Exactly. The Defense CAN'T legitimately claim jury tainting as a reason why the case should be dismissed or the trial should be moved because IT has engaged in doing just that. It might be harder than usual to seat a jury, but there ARE people in Durham who aren't paying attention to the case.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#454)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 03:49:39 AM EST
    Huh? And what evidence would that be?
    Whatever is contained in the other 1400+ pages that it has not yet released to the public. I haven't read it, so I don't know what it is, if anything. Presumably, the Defense knows, and has decided that it is not wise to release it all, for whatever reason.
    Mr. P, if the defense keeps turning up exculpatory evidence and the DA has nothing to back up his version of events,
    Since we haven't seen the 1400+ other pages, and the rest of the photos and videos, we don't KNOW that the DA doesn't have something to back up his version of events. We only know that the Defense wants the public to THINK that he doesn't. Surprise, surprise.
    saying that it's the defense's obligation to prove their clients are guilty is INSANE.
    When did he say that? Source, please.
    I don't think you're IMHO's sock puppet
    You're right, I'm not.
    because even in her most rarified moments she's not that wacky.
    It sounds like you've missed or misunderstood something. Let's try this again: 1) The Defense supposedly has ALL of the Prosecution's evidence (1500+ pages) 2) The Defense CLAIMS that the Prosecution has NOTHING against their clients because it's the JOB of the Defense to say such things. 3) The quickest way for the Defense to show the public that Nifong truly DOESN'T have anything against their clients would be to release ALL 1500+ pages of the evidence. 4) Instead, the Defense releases only a very small percentage of the Prosecution's evidence (so far). 5) WHY doesn't the Defense just release the rest of the Prosecution's evidence, if it is, indeed, "nothing" as they claim?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#455)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 04:42:45 AM EST
    Posted by Newport June 26, 2006 04:06 AM
    You are a complete and utter fool Mr. Precedent if you think that the defense should release its entire file. I have NEVER heard of a single case where the defense has released its entire file, and neither have you. No competent defense attorney would do that because of fear of malpractice.
    Well, has anyone here ever heard of a single case of this?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#456)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:16:30 AM EST
    Seligmann gets into a cab at about 12:19 a block away from the house.
    Why so far away from the house, and at the corner of two different streets? Why does the cab driver indicate that he later returned to the same house if he picked the others up on the corner?
    From there on out his whereabouts are pretty well known (atm photo, dorm sign-in etc).
    What was he doing BEFORE he left, between the time the Accuser arrived at the party (11:30p) and the time he started making phone calls (12:05a)?
    The publicly available information at this time contains a set of time stamped photos, which show the dancers performing between 12:00 and 12:04.
    Are ALL of the photos from the SAME camera, and if not, were the various cameras' clocks synchronized? Did the Defense release ALL of the photos taken during the party? Do they really show what the Defense CLAIMS they show? Do any videos taken at the party support those claims? Why were "no photos" taken between 12:10 and 12:30am? Why were they taking photos of things like a woman "getting into" a car?
    Bisseys affadavit states that the dancers entered the house a bit before 12:00 because after they entered he looked at his cellphone.
    Which dancers? the Accuser, Nikki, Angel, or Tammy? Why were they wearing different clothing than the Accuser and Nikki, who had arrived a half-hour earlier, were wearing in the photos taken at exactly the same time he supposedly saw them outside?
    The above makes it pretty clear that at least Seligmann is innocent beyond any doubt whatsoever
    Maybe according to the DEFENSE'S timeline, which may or may not match the Prosecution's timeline. Also, WHY did the captains leave Seligmann OFF the list of people that attended the party?
    To those who say 'lets wait for the trial', why not just wait for the verdict? The 'evidence' established in a trial is only relavent to the jurors. Why not just take the verdict and go 'that's it' regardless of what is said at the trial.
    Works for me. It would be a lot easier if the national media would butt out.
    After all those 12 people get to determine the truth or falsity of all the 'evidence'.
    Y'mean the people on this board don't get to do it, without even seeing it all, a year before the trial starts? Gasp!
    As citizens we all have a stake in the criminal justice system. At a minimum we need to speak up when a travesty such as this one is unfolding in front of our eyes.
    Until you've SEEN ALL of the evidence yourself (as opposed to hearing the Defense's understandably biased characterization of it), you can't determine whether it's a travesty or not. Hopefully the Defense will ride in on its white horse and release the rest of the evidence and show us all that the Prosection does, indeed, have NOTHING to build a case on.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#457)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:31:00 AM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Well, has anyone here ever heard of a single case of this?
    Has anyone here ever heard of a defense team opening its entire discovery file to a news correspondent and allowing him to take copious notes and relate the file's contents on his television program?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#458)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:32:40 AM EST
    Nifong made his statments to the media when no defendant had been named-
    How do you propose the defense claim this harmed their clients, if there were no clients at that point? And how is this different from a DA or police chief warning the public about a recent crime, including a description of the assailant, and vowing to catch him?
    and as a result a vigilante poster sprung up and non-LAX Duke students were assaulted merely because of their affiliation with Duke.
    You're blaming Nifong for assaults committed by someone else?
    Further, he said the actions were motivated by race...it will be interesting to see him prove that but he doesn't need to because he's already convinced enough voters that it was.
    If race wasn't a factor, what was the point of the racial slurs prompting the first 911 call?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#459)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:39:23 AM EST
    James B. Shearer posted posted to Bob in Pacifica:
    I think many of your posts against the AV are stated with a degree of certainly that simply is not justified by the available evidence.
    I agree, that was the case back when I was reading them.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#460)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:44:51 AM EST
    I asked the same question a few months ago, and someone said that the idea of twenty guys going on the stand and saying that nothing happened prior to the indictments would not do well for him getting his indictments.
    Maybe he was trying to keep the players who were NOT involved OUT of the proceedings, out of respect for them and their families. Some of them weren't even at the party, and thus would have had nothing to offer.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#461)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:54:49 AM EST
    There's an interesing discussion over at court tv about finnerty's rumoured alibi. Apparently finnerty's lawyer as a matter of policy won't speak to the media but there's this gem: "Bill Thomas, a lawyer for a player who has not been charged, said that one of the two men under indictment did not even attend the party. He would not specify which one, saying only that "multiple witnesses and a commercial transaction" would provide an alibi." http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liduke194707832apr19,0,2009849.story?coll=ny-linews-headlines. Is even Nifong stupid enough to indict 2 people with rock solid alibis?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#462)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:08:29 AM EST
    This Mr. Precedent definitely isn't imho. Imho, while decidedly misguided in most everything she posts is not by any stretch of the imagination a dullard. If Mr. Precedent went to Duke I'm Arnold Palmer. I'm going to post up Talk Left later to see what can be done about him. I especially like his comment when he first showed up that he hadn't made up his mind on the case or something like that.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#463)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:09:52 AM EST
    banco55's link:
    "Bill Thomas, a lawyer for a player who has not been charged, said that one of the two men under indictment did not even attend the party. He would not specify which one, saying only that "multiple witnesses and a commercial transaction" would provide an alibi."
    There has been some backtracking on that claim. They had to change that to Finnerty wasn't present at the relevant time. Either the defense changed its strategy, Thomas misspoke, or the reporters got it wrong.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#464)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:12:16 AM EST
    Newport posted:
    I'm going to post up Talk Left later to see what can be done about him.
    What are you talking about?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#465)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:19:12 AM EST
    Posted by Newport June 26, 2006 07:08 AM
    If Mr. Precedent went to Duke I'm Arnold Palmer. I'm going to post up Talk Left later to see what can be done about him.
    Dear Arnold: The guy makes cogent arguments you dislike so you are going to complain to the managment?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#466)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:21:32 AM EST
    ChanceArmy posted:
    Further, he said the actions were motivated by race...it will be interesting to see him prove that but he doesn't need to because he's already convinced enough voters that it was.
    The accuser's father said he did not think the alleged assault was racially motivated, but many here consider him to be a liar and/or a fool. Ms. Pittman said the players were upset when the accuser showed up because they were expecting a white dancer. This might have led Nifong to believe the alleged sexual assault was racially motivated: MSNBC GRAPHIC DUKE UNIVERSITY RAPE INVESTIGATION ACCUSER'S STATEMENT TO POLICE
    Matt grabbed me and looked at me. He said, 'Sweetheart, you can't leave.' He grabbed the back of my neck and said, 'I'm going to kill you, n----- b---- if you don't shut up"...They started kicking me in my behind and my back...Matt hit me in the face while Brett kicked me."


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#467)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:28:26 AM EST
    sam posted:
    Dear Arnold: The guy makes cogent arguments you dislike so you are going to complain to the managment?
    I'm wondering how he's going to frame that complaint? "He is forcing me to call him and fool and a dullard. Something must be done about him!"

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#468)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:34:48 AM EST
    to MrPrecedent I think you misread the post... BIP and I were specifically talking about the 20 (or so) guys who were at the party but the AV did not recognize during the lineups If Nifong truely wanted information, or even if he just wanted to burst the solidarity of silence, a grand jury subpoena would have done that Nifong calling them "hooligans" and refering to their "Duke daddies" shows he has no respect for the players or their families

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#469)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:38:13 AM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 26, 2006 06:31 AM
    SLOphoto [link to post] posted:
    I see you intend to continue perpetrating a libelous, misogynist accusation against me about a misunderstanding that I never intended in the first place. IMHO, I posted my respect for you for everyone here to see. I would appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy by not linking my name -- repeatedly -- to a misunderstood post that caused a lot of unnecessary hard feelings. Please drop it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#470)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:39:21 AM EST
    The thing I can't understand is that either precious is thick as a brick (quite possible) or she wanted to get caught out lying. I mean she had to know that adding details like how she was beaten, strangled, no condoms etc., etc. would mean that even a durham jury might not be dumb enough to believe her. The 3 accused are just damn lucky she isn't a better liar.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#471)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:40:10 AM EST
    Open question: Are we expecting to hear anything new this week? I know there is a court date on July 20, but isn't there something in the first week of July? I have a vague recollection of something happening. Help me out here. imho? Mr. PB?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#472)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:44:23 AM EST
    James B. Shearer wrote: Bob in Pacifica, I find it truly amazing that you can attack Nifong and defend Garrison. First off, I was mostly commenting on your "delusional" comment about Garrison. He was a politician from New Orleans, so he was probably a little corrupt, but he wasn't delusional. I read the Gaeton Fonzi book, if you want I'll look around for the title. Again, the HSCA came to essentially the same conclusions, incomplete but pointing to the Ferrie group (which included Clay Shaw) as the most probable place to investigate the assassination of JFK. He certainly did not have enough information to convict after Ferrie died and the signature evidence was ruled inadmissible. Nifong has used this case to promote his own political goals. Garrison suffered nothing but grief from the national media and gained the enmity of the power of the federal government and its law enforcement agencies for deigning to consider that there was a criminal conspiracy to kill JFK. If Nifong doesn't have anything more than what we have seen, he should have gone to a judge and had this case thrown out even after he'd gotten the indictments in front of the grand jury. I guess my point here is the Garrison had a reasonable belief that there was a legitimate case for the crime committed. Nifong had no reasonable belief, had no legitimate case and no crime was committed.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#473)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:49:33 AM EST
    banco55, I have wondered how much she wanted to be believed too, see Madison's post to Lora about halfway through. Perhaps I'm being too generous with her, but I often try to figure out what may be motivating people (decidedly not a scientific exercise).

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#474)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:52:44 AM EST
    Talk Left, Regarding your thought about limiting posters' comments... What's needed is some artificial intelligence software that can calculate a post's "snipe factor" and can delete it if it's "full of it." The number of posts from any single individual doesn't bother me, but the contained word count does. There's a lot of empty air in some of the posts. Most of us long-timers here, though, have learned to skim over the posts that are empty. So, short of the "snipe factor" AI, I would ask that you don't limit postings.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#475)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:56:28 AM EST
    IMHO:
    Ms. Pittman said the players were upset when the accuser showed up because they were expecting a white dancer.
    Sorry, you're putting words in her mouth. Kim Roberts never said anything in her written statement about the race of the dancers being an issue with the players. Perhaps you're referring to the NPR interview?
    WILLIAMS: Are they upset? Did they object? ROBERTS: Yeah, they are very hesitant now if they want to continue with this, they they're not exactly sure , you know, so, anyway they decided, you know, to go for it.
    She says they are "hesitant" and "not exactly sure," but then she continues that the men "decided, you know, to go for it." If they objected to her race, why didn't they call "Tammy" at "Angels" and complain? In fact, in the same NPR interview, Kim Roberts is on the phone with the agency just moments after this exchange.
    WILLIAMS: And you had called the escort service and said, "We're here, every thing's cool... ROBERTS: Yep. Every thing's good. We feel safe.
    Therefore, it wasn't anything Kim Roberts said to Nifong that lead him to belive the attack was racially motivated.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#476)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:57:45 AM EST
    Madison, Finnerty is due back in court in D.C. on July 10th. Other than that, July 20th is the next court date for all three indicted players. I read they may set a trial date at the July 20th hearing. They are all three now at the second setting, after that there can be no more pretrial motions, with the exception of motions concerning evidence they feel they haven't received.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#477)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:57:52 AM EST
    Posted by banco55 June 26, 2006 07:39 AM
    The thing I can't understand is that either precious is thick as a brick (quite possible) or she wanted to get caught out lying.
    It is entirely possible that she just never expected Nifong to pursue the thing so vigorously. Everything that is being said about her being in hiding because she is traumatized could equally be interpreted as her being embarrassed that this thing went farther than she intended. Given the number of times she went back for lineup IDs, I think it is possible that she may have been stalling, because she did not want Nifong to pursue the allegations so vigorously. Either way I believe that she is probably very frightened by the results.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#478)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:07:07 AM EST
    Would it be too much to hope that the setting of a trial date also sets a date by which the pretrial motions must be considered and ruled upon? I mean, you gotta figure.... To my knowledge, nobody here knows how soon these motions need to be taken up. Is it logical to assume that the defense had hoped to have some of these motions dealt with before making more?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#479)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:07:18 AM EST
    Madison, Nifong scheduled a hearing for July 3 for the motion filed by unindicted players objecting to Nifong collecting their personal data from key cards and home addresses. I don't believe Evans, Finnery and Seligmann are involved in this this hearing.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#480)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:09:10 AM EST
    Thanks, mik! That was it.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#481)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:21:22 AM EST
    From the NPR interview:
    WILLIAMS: Are they upset? Did they object?
    ROBERTS: Yeah, they are very hesitant now if they want to continue with this, they they're not exactly sure , you know, so, anyway they decided, you know, to go for it.
    Kim replied in the affirmative. "Yeah" to either they were upset or they objected or both. Could be, "Were they upset?""Yeah." "Did they object?" "They were very hesitiant...." From the Vanity Fair article:
    Roberts tells Bissinger she could sense the hesitation in the young men milling about when the second dancer, who is black, arrived. The person who had told her that a white dancer had been requested "expressed in some way that they might not be happy" with the second dancer, says Roberts. "I can't remember how he put it or what way he said it, but I said to him, 'Well, they're going to have to make a decision and make it now.'"
    mik posted:
    Therefore, it wasn't anything Kim Roberts said to Nifong that lead him to belive the attack was racially motivated.
    We don't know what all Kim has said to Mr. Nifong.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#482)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:34:36 AM EST
    Could be, "Were they upset?" "Yeah." "Did they object?" "They were very hesitiant...."
    That's not how you transcribed it. It's not how it was said, either. We can all listen to this interview ourselves and hear her voice. Kim Roberts does not, herself, use the word "upset" when describing the men's reaction to the accuser's arrival at the party, not in her written statement, not in her interview with Juan Williams, and not in the Vanity Fair article. In fact, she continues in her interview for NPR:
    WILLIAMS: And you had called the escort service and said, "We're here, every thing's cool... ROBERTS: Yep. Everything's good. We feel safe. (emphasis mine)
    Why would she say that if the men were "upset?" You're correct in your assertion, "We don't know what all Kim has said to Mr. Nifong." So how can you also say, "Ms. Pittman said the players were upset when the accuser showed up because they were expecting a white dancer. This might have led Nifong to believe the alleged sexual assault was racially motivated"?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#483)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:37:06 AM EST
    You're welcome, Madison. If the hearing is in front of Stephens again, I wonder if he'll side with the other students. I just don't see how Nifong is entitled to go on this fishing expedition this late in the game.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#484)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:37:07 AM EST
    IMHO "They are all three now at the second setting, after that there can be no more pretrial motions, with the exception of motions concerning evidence they feel they haven't received." In your words, source? And by that I mean what's your source for asserting that no more motions can be filed? They can be filed anytime, right up to the time of the trial.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#485)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:37:39 AM EST
    James B. Shearer also wrote to me: I think many of your posts against the AV are stated with a degree of certainly that simply is not justified by the available evidence. This is a discussion group. None of us were at the party, so none of us have any certainty about anything there. What I think bothers you is that I tend to use deductive reasoning. There is no mathematical certainty in positing, If the AV claims to have been seen in the ER as a 14 year-old gang rape victim, and if by law all medical facilities have to report sexual molestation of children, and if there is no record of police involvement investigating this gang rape, then the likelihood is that the AV did not seek treatment for a gang rape at a medical facility. The AV's father claimed on television that no rape occurred. The mother and daughter allegedly witheld/did not tell the truth about the gang rape so that the father would not be harmed by the rapists. Another newspaper article said that both parents knew about the rape, but that the AV herself was afraid of reporting the rape for her safety. If the AV had presented herself for treatment for a gang rape at a hospital as a 14 year-old, she would not have had the choice of whether or not to report it. As a minor, it would have had to have been reported. Additionally, the AV or her parents, according to one story, claimed that the daughter had extensive counseling with a psychiatrist after the gang rape. But the psychiatrist would have had to have reported the sexual molestation of a minor to authorities. So in order to believe a rape was committed against the AV in 1993, 1.) you have to choose between the versions where the father knew or didn't know and come up with an explanation for why there are two versions of this fact; 2.) you have to believe that both the Duke Hospital and the unnamed psychiatrist would violate the law in not reporting a gang rape of a minor to the police. DA Nifong says that there probably isn't a record of the AV's medical care, but NC state law, as I understand it, says a medical facility has to hold onto records of minors until they are 30. Nifong also knows that there should have been a notification of police in 1993 of a gang rape of a minor. That, apparently does not exist. Therefore, it is unlikely that the AV was treated for a gang rape in 1993. Further, if she was treated by a psychiatrist in 1993, it was not for the trauma of a gang rape unless the AV lied successfully to the psychiatrist about the cause of her trauma (very unlikely). However, it is unlikely that the parents would lie about their daughter having psychiatric care if their intention is to back their daughter's case. So if I state that it's unlikely the AV was gang raped in 1993 as it has been presented to the press, the above is the basis for my belief. It's not impossible that the AV was at some point in her youth molested. There is very often a history of sexual molestation for women who go into the sex industry. But the problem with the story is that it has several variations (not unlike the rape stories at Buchanan) and that it doesn't jibe with what hospital personnel and the psychiatrist are required to do under law. After the father said that no rape occurred, the explanation (which I believe came from the mother) was the "we didn't tell him the truth because we didn't want him to get beaten up." It didn't make sense because the police, notified by the hospital that a 14 year-old was gang raped, would have arrested the men. He wouldn't have been in the loop unless he planned on going down to the jail to beat up the men. It also doesn't make sense because unless the father had been lifting weights and buffing up he still wouldn't have been fit enough to beat up the three men in 1997 when the AV did report the gang rape four years later. In short, the various stories establish (by the parents saying she was treated by a psychiatrist) a history of mental illness for the AV as early as age 14. Often mental illnesses manifest themselves at that age. The various stories also establish a family that has trouble telling the truth, another symptom of families wherein there is child abuse. In short, the current problems of the lacrosse players probably started when they were in grade school back in the early 1990s. Problems with the above? The parents or the AV may have lied to the press. And we know that some of what has been ascribed to them is false (Let us not forget the broomstick rape story floated earlier). The press may have made up the stories from whole cloth. It's possible but unlikely. It certainly isn't necessary. The problem for you is the process. There are no odds here, and occasionally someone can make a deduction and it can be wrong. It's possible. So far in this case, my posits have been borne out by later discovery. James, I don't know when you began reading this, but while I didn't believe that the AV was an honest witness from early on, I believed that the DA had substantial evidence of a crime. That was based on my trust of the legal system and the office of the DA. That evaporated after the second round of DNA testing and the discovery process.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#486)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:38:19 AM EST
    Oh, Thanks mik, I had forgotten about that motion. N & O June 21, 2006 N & O June 8, 2006 Judge Stephens will be rotated out of Durham County by then.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#487)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:43:17 AM EST
    localone posted:
    In your words, source? And by that I mean what's your source for asserting that no more motions can be filed? They can be filed anytime, right up to the time of the trial.
    Then the reporters got it wrong again: WRAL.COM June 21, 2006
    Seligmann's hearing is the "second setting," which is the deadline for filing pretrial motions not dealing with the suppression of evidence.


    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#488)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:47:01 AM EST
    When some of them were in pre-school.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#489)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:57:06 AM EST
    Thanks for the heads up on Stephens, imho. Any idea who will preside?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#490)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:59:18 AM EST
    Calendar says Ken Titus will be presiding but that can change. Titus is a very patient, non nonsense good judge. Served many years as a lower court judge, and is now a well respected superior court judge.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#491)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:59:42 AM EST
    Another hearing I forgot about is tomorrow - Evans noise ordinance violation.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#492)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:01:24 AM EST
    I remember Judge Stephens saying at the last hearing that Judge Titus would probably preside then. Durham judges.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#493)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:10:16 AM EST
    mik posted:
    That's not how you transcribed it. It's not how it was said, either. We can all listen to this interview ourselves and hear her voice.
    I didn't say that was how she said it. I am saying she may have been responding to the two questions in the order they were asked. She clearly replied to one or both of his questions in the affirmative. mik posted:
    Why would she say that if the men were "upset?" You're correct in your assertion, "We don't know what all Kim has said to Mr. Nifong." So how can you also say, "Ms. Pittman said the players were upset when the accuser showed up because they were expecting a white dancer.
    Because when Juan Williams asked her if they "were upset? Did they object?" she replied "Yeah, they were very hesitant..." She told the Vanity Fair interviewer:
    she could sense the hesitation in the young men milling about when the second dancer, who is black arrived. The person who had told her that a white dancer had been requested "expressed in some way that they might not be happy" with the second dancer, says Roberts.
    mik posted:
    This might have led Nifong to believe the alleged sexual assault was racially motivated"?
    Yes, in addition to the accuser's police statement according to MSNBC:
    Matt grabbed me and looked at me. He said, 'Sweetheart, you can't leave.' He grabbed the back of my neck and said, 'I'm going to kill you, n----- b---- if you don't shut up"...They started kicking me in my behind and my back...Matt hit me in the face while Brett kicked me.
    Bissey's statement to police:
    He yelled at the car that was driving off, 'Hey b!tch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt."
    N & O April 16, 2006:
    The woman said she and another dancer sent by a second escort service stopped dancing because several men at the party yelled a racial slur. In a court document used to obtain DNA samples from lacrosse team members, the woman said one man in the room threatened to sexually assault her with a broom handle.
    Maybe Kim told Nifong about this:
    From the Vanity Fair article: "They just hollered it our, 'N!gger,' N!gger,' 'N!gger," said Roberts. "They were hollering it for all to hear. They didn't care who heard it."
    Maybe others did. It might be a question the prosecution will ask Evans' alibi witnesses.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#494)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:13:48 AM EST
    To sam, Mr. P repeatedly saying over and over and over that the defense should turn over the documents is not a cogent argument. It is a stupid statement. We all got it the first time he said it. He has not made a single cogent argument that I am aware of on this board.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#495)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:14:02 AM EST
    Recalling yesterday's discussion about the AV's ID of RS and its impact on the jury re her other IDs... This is relevant if the cases are tried together. But if they're tried separately (What a nightmare that would be!), then not so much, I wouldn't think.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#496)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:23:15 AM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    It is entirely possible that she just never expected Nifong to pursue the thing so vigorously. Everything that is being said about her being in hiding because she is traumatized could equally be interpreted as her being embarrassed that this thing went farther than she intended....
    I agree, SLOphoto. [I agree w/ the entire passage, but trying to save bandwidth. Talk Left is getting annoyed w/ our habit of quoting each other's whole passages. I think it is helpful since our posts piggyback each other or when others don't get answered until many more have been posted inbetween, but it's her living room.]

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#497)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:29:04 AM EST
    imho, you said
    They are all three now at the second setting, after that there can be no more pretrial motions, with the exception of motions concerning evidence they feel they haven't received.
    Then you quoted WRAL saying:
    Seligmann's hearing is the "second setting," which is the deadline for filing pretrial motions not dealing with the suppression of evidence.
    The second quote shows that your first statement was incorrect, rather backwards. After the second setting there can be no more demand for discovery motions, it seems, nor for matters such as change of venue, reduction in bail, removal of the DA, etc. All issues not relating to suppression of evidence will, then, be filed before the second setting. But there can be many pre-trial motions after that date, dealing with suppression of evidence (due both to the quality of the discovery materials already received or due to the failure to turn over discovery materials).

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#498)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:29:52 AM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Has anyone here ever heard of a defense team opening its entire discovery file to a news correspondent and allowing him to take copious notes and relate the file's contents on his television program?
    Maybe it is unusual, but so what?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#499)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:41:32 AM EST
    Wumhenry In answer to your "so what," what possible tactical or strategic purpose would the defense gain for its clients by revealing its whole file. That's the only relevant inquiry. Same goes to the state. from which Mr. Precedent hasn't demanded a similar disclosure. Why would either side want to do this? Most people not on this site don't even know about half the stuff that has been leaked.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#500)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:02:30 AM EST
    Newpost posted:
    To sam,
    Mr. P repeatedly saying over and over and over that the defense should turn over the documents is not a cogent argument. It is a stupid statement. We all got it the first time he said it. He has not made a single cogent argument that I am aware of on this board.
    Newport, I just scrolled back and read everyone of Mr.Precedent's posts. I could not find one instance of him mentioning the defense holding back evidence that was not in response to another poster (mainly you) questioning prosecution's evidence: "the best the Prosecution can do is rely on hoped for inaccuracies in their own police reports what does that tell you about their case?" "many people who might think the defendants are guilty now probably don't know a lot about the facts of the case," "I think it will be hard to say no reasonable doubt after a trial." "Well then Mr. Precedent let us have one bit of evidence that supports a finding that the three indicted boys committed a rape? Just one other than the word of the accuser." "And what evidence would that be?" "Mr. P, if the defense keeps turning up exculpatory evidence and the DA has nothing to back up his version of events." You do it "over and over and over."

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#501)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:05:17 AM EST
    IMHO, you misunderstand me. I am not implying that others (the accuser, Bissey) didn't give Nifong reason to believe the attack was racially motivated. I am arguing your specific statement that Kim Roberts said to anyone the players were upset due to the race of the dancers, and that Nifong may have used that statement to view the attack as racially motivated. She said they were "hesitant" and "not exactly sure," implying they were indicisive, ambivalent, and apprehensive. If she said they were "upset," she would be implying they were agitated, distressed, and angry. The players were plenty upset at paying $800 for 5 minutes of dancing. Kim Roberts said they used racial epithets. What she didn't say was that they were upset (angry, agitated, distressed) about the race of the dancers. Why on earth would the men have proceeded to pay the women at that point? What she said was that they were hesitant (unsure, ambivalent, indecisive), but they did agree to the terms of the agreement and pay the dancers.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#502)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:09:43 AM EST
    Sharon posted:
    But there can be many pre-trial motions after that date, dealing with suppression of evidence (due both to the quality of the discovery materials already received or due to the failure to turn over discovery materials).
    Oh thanks, I read that wrong. I thought it meant they can only file motions requesting more evidence and the suppression of any evidence they receive as a result of the demand for that new evidence.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#503)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:10:27 AM EST
    IMHO:
    mik posted:
    Why would she say that if the men were "upset?" You're correct in your assertion, "We don't know what all Kim has said to Mr. Nifong." So how can you also say, "Ms. Pittman said the players were upset when the accuser showed up because they were expecting a white dancer.
    Because when Juan Williams asked her if they "were upset? Did they object?" she replied "Yeah, they were very hesitant..."
    "[T]hey were very hesitant" is a far cry from "they were upset." In light of the context, her "yeah" was merely a confirmation that they seemed to have a problem with the second dancer being black, not that they were upset about it.
    Maybe Kim told Nifong about this: From the Vanity Fair article:
    "They just hollered it out, 'N!gger,' N!gger,' 'N!gger," said Roberts. "They were hollering it for all to hear. They didn't care who heard it."
    Maybe others did.
    Apparently Bissey, who was all ears, didn't. He didn't hesitate to report hearing the convoluted remark about thanking the grandfather for the nice cotton shirt. Why would he not have reported hearing the n-word, if in fact he heard it? It's implausible to yours truly that white kids attending an elite university in the year 2006 AD would reflexively manifest racism by shouting the n-word in public, even when inebriated. Pitman's allegations re promiscuous shouting of the n-word were self-serving; they provided a seemingly legitimate excuse for quitting the job way early after taking payment for a 2-hour performance.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#504)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    Thanks, localone and fillintheblanks, for the info on Judge Titus. At least he doesn't appear to have worked in the Durham County DA's office with Nifong as his Chief Assistant.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#505)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:17:47 AM EST
    Add to mik's thanks my appreciation for the information on the judges. Now as to those motions: which judge rules on the motions already filed? Are these for Stephens only to consider, or do the motions pass to the next judge who rotates in?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#506)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:29:36 AM EST
    Does the defense have Kim's phone records? Since Kim called the escort service and said everything was fine after the AV showed up, the last call to the escort service prior to 12:00 should clear up when things started (Kim & AV preparing for the dance). I'm also curious what calls were made between 12:53 & 1:22.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#507)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:29:49 AM EST
    Madison, you asked, "Which judge rules on the motions already filed?" I'm not sure when, if, or how the already-filed motions are handled. But during the last hearing, Stephens all but exited the case. With the possible exception of the July 3rd hearing, it'll be the next judge that deals with the motions somehow.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#508)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:31:33 AM EST
    Generally, unless the case is specially assigned to one judge, the motions are decided by whoever hears them, and that's ordinarily the judge sitting at the time the motions are calendared. I remain very curious about what Orlando Hudson, who is the Senior Resident judge in Durham will do about the trial. Judges are elected in NC, Orlando is African American, and is known to love publicity. He tried the recent Michael Peterson case, which had a lot of notoriety several years ago.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#509)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:34:08 AM EST
    On another note, I don't believe Titus was ever a prosecutor. Stephens, on the other hand, used to be Durham's DA.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#510)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    No posts in a couple of hours? Is this thing working?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#512)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    markyb posted:
    Does the defense have Kim's phone records? Since Kim called the escort service and said everything was fine after the AV showed up, the last call to the escort service prior to 12:00 should clear up when things started (Kim & AV preparing for the dance).
    Good point.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#513)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 01:14:11 PM EST
    James B. Shearer posted:
    I doubt Nifong has any additional significant evidence against Seligman because I believe the defense has allowed reporters to examine the discovery files and if there was anything signifcantly incriminating in them I would expect the reporters to have noticed or the defense to have started some pre-emptive spinning to discredit the evidence.
    Only one reporter, Dan Abrams, has examined the discovery file. The other reporters have been spoon-fed what the defense or Dan Abrams wants them to report. Questions for Dan Abrams: Was the semen found on the towel or on the bathroom floor? Was the semen from David Evans? Where on the fingernail was the DNA found, on top or underneath? Did the DNA mixture yield any other partial "matches"? Were there partial DNA profiles of other players found on the fingernail? Yale Galanter claims there was an alcohol tox screen performed. If so, what were the results? Do any of the medical reports contain photographs? Do they show the injuries you and other reporters described in the time-stamped photos - bruises, cuts on both knees, cut on the foot, the cuts on the legs and buttocks that weren't in the buck naked "dancing" photos? Are theses injuries described in any of the medical reports from Duke University Hospital? Did the UNC medical report from 3/15/06 document the injuries her father claimed he saw the day before? Was the accuser's claim she may have hit her head on the sink related to any specific injury to her head noted by the UNC medical staff? Have you seen the two videotapes? Have you seen the CD containing photographs? If so, does the prosecution have photos taken at the party? Is it true the captains said Seligmann was not at the party? Were they asked individually to identify the attendees or did all three of them work together to compile one list? If they each made their own list of attendees, did all three of them leave Seligmann of their lists?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#514)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 01:36:28 PM EST
    WRAL is reporting that Cheek said today that he has still not decided what he'll do.

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#515)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    "[T]hey were very hesitant" is a far cry from "they were upset." In light of the context, her "yeah" was merely a confirmation that they seemed to have a problem with the second dancer being black, not that they were upset about it.
    The questions were: "Are they upset? Did they object?" The answers were: "Yeah, they were hesitant...." or "Yeah. They were hesitant..." wumhenry posted:
    Apparently Bissey, who was all ears, didn't. He didn't hesitate to report hearing the convoluted remark about thanking the grandfather for the nice cotton shirt. Why would he not have reported hearing the n-word, if in fact he heard it? It's implausible to yours truly that white kids attending an elite university in the year 2006 AD would reflexively manifest racism by shouting the n-word in public, even when inebriated.
    Bissey did not see Kim get into her car. By the time he came back outside she was driving away. As far as I know, Kim did not report hearing the "cotton shirt" remark. Bissey did say, "There were no kind words of the things I heard that were directed at the girls." Bissey only told us about one thing that he heard. Did he hear others? Your characterization of "Hey, b!tch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt," as convoluted smacks of denial. Do you not understand the meaning of the remark?

    Re: Weekend Duke Open Thread (none / 0) (#511)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:28:25 PM EST
    Time to close the comments here. But there is no news in the case. As soon as there is, I'll post a new thread. Please check back. Update: New thread is here .