None of the discovery shows that any crime actually occurred. In fact it shows that the accuser [redacted] even stated that no rape occurred, and gave approximately one dozen conflicting statements, including one story where she alleged her co-worker robbed her of $2,000.00."

With approximately one dozen conflicting statements from the accuser, how did this ever get this far in the courts?

and where on earth did she get the $2,000.00?

Umm, she'd been 'working' in the not so distant past. I wouldn't be surprised if she had that kind of cash on her - 400 for the stripping and more for 'one-on-ones'. Note: we can debate what a 'one-on-one' is in Durham with respect to the accuser but people do not pay to talk about physics, civil rights, and the like. (there was a sex toy encounter a few days ago for example).

Exactly where, when, at what time, and how does the State contend the Defendant committed a first degree rape.

early on in the case, the defense stated the dance was halted due to "offensive remarks." (I don't have a link atm but if folks insist I will hunt.

The atmosphere was growing tense...isn't there supposed to be a picture showing an allegedly not-happy crowd at one point? So I think it is reasonable to suppose that the broom remark was not just a mere joke.

Clearly it does not prove or disprove rape, but the comment appears to have made the women uneasy about their safety.

I would just hesitate to use it as illustrative of anything whatsoever (even what drunken college boys might consider funny) when nobody seems to know what was actually said, and when the AV and Kim (who are responsible for your versions) have provided many different accounts of other events on that evening.

Given that, am I the only one who winces a bit when reading Osborn's motions? I think asking for a bill of particulars is a good move from a strategy standpoint, but I think he overdoes the bashing of Nifong (deserved though it may be). Wouldn't the motion(s) be more effective if he just set out his clearly persuasive case and kept the snide comments to a minimum? I can't see a judge (particularly this one) being impressed with this sort of gamesmanship in a legal filing that he is being asked to afford attention to...

I believe the defense recognizes that the jury will want to blame someone for the trial - and their are three parties - the AV, the defendants, and the DA.

I've yet to see one AV supporter (IMHO, PB etc.) on this or another board offer a hypothetical of how all the known facts fit together to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Precious was raped by the accused.

Given that, am I the only one who winces a bit when reading Osborn's motions?

....and other strange actions on the part of DA Nifnog. ....by Mr.Nifong who is seeking elected office. ..this entire dscovery which consists mainly of extraneous, irrelevant material.

I would just hesitate to use it as illustrative of anything whatsoever (even what drunken college boys might consider funny) when nobody seems to know what was actually said, and when the AV and Kim (who are responsible for your versions) have provided many different accounts of other events on that evening.

I've yet to see one AV supporter (IMHO, PB etc.) on this or another board offer a hypothetical of how all the known facts fit together to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Precious was raped by the accused.

Yet I've seen convincing evidence that it could in fact be proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt (if that was in fact the standard).

Does anyone know of a convincing hypothesis (on or offline) on how the known evidence fits together to prove in a court of law that they did it?

Sure. As far as we know, not a single disinterested person who came in contact with the AV after she was picked up at Kroger's does not believe she was raped.

If the defendants take the fifth in the case, and their stars aren't properly aligned that day, something bad might happen to them.

Nor do we know that a single disinterested person who came in contact with the AV after she was picked up at Kroger's does believe she was raped. Including Nifong, who had a painfully-obvious ulterior motive for saying he believed her, whether he actually did or not.

If there were photo's of the FA all beat up, the existence of the photo's would have been leaked too.

At midnight (12:00:12) there is the first picture of the alleged victim. She is laying down on the floor, partly clothed, with the second dancer standing over her. Regan reports that she could see what appeared to be sores, or small open wounds on both of her knees, and bruises, and a blister on her right foot.

12:00:29 a.m. Dancers are performing. The accuser has what looks like bruising on her knees.

12 a.m.: This is the first picture of the strippers. Students are watching the show, but not grabbing or attempting to touch the women. Bruises are clearly visible on the legs and thighs of the alleged victim.

In a photo taken at 12:37:58 the alleged victim is lying down. It looks like she fell, Regan reports. According to Regan, there appear to be new bruises on her backside and scratches on her legs.

12:37:58 a.m. The accuser is lying on her back on the back stairs. She has a cut on her right foot. She has cuts on her right butt cheek.

A 12:37 photo shows she's lying on the back stoop; she fell, according to Ekstrand. Her elbow is dusted and scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding.

At 12:37, she can be seen lying on her side on the stoop; her ankle is bleeding, her elbow is scraped and two drops of blood appear on her thigh.

12:37:58 a.m.: A series of photos are taken, all showing the woman lying on her left side on the back porch, seemingly passed out or asleep. She had visible cuts on her legs and buttocks that did not appear in the previous photos.

The cuts may be from falling. The cuts on her buttocks line up with the edge of a screen door she may have hit on the way down.

Durham attorney Bill Thomas said some of the photographs, taken when she arrived at the house, indicate the woman was injured before getting to the party March 13. They show extensive bruises and scrapes on her legs, especially around the knees, he said.

The photographs show the accuser has bruises and cuts on her arms, legs and feet," Cheshire said. "These are visible at the very start of the dance."

Asked to "Describe all signs of physical trauma," Dr. Manly's complete response was: "Pt. has right extremity marks to right lateral knee scratch, non bleeding. Mark is approx. 7 cm in length. Laceration to anterior patella approx. 3 cm in length, non bleeding. Laceration to medial right heel, approx. 2 cm in length, non bleeding." Thus, after a thorough sexual assault physical examination, the only physical trauma noted by Dr. Manly was three small scratches on [redacted]'s right knee and right ankle.

Hypothetically, the three players who spoke to the police may have made statements that can be interpreted by reasonable people as constituting guilty knowledge. They also may have placed the three defendants in the bathroom with accused, for all we know. Or they may have placed the three defendants in places where they demonstrably were not. Who knows? If Nifong can place the boys in the bathroom with the accuser, he's doing pretty well. It's down to he said she said.

With approximately one dozen conflicting statements from the accuser, how did this ever get this far in the courts?

And where on earth did she get the $2,000.00?

She then goes on to say that only a jury can decide and that only the accused and accuser know the 'absolute truth'. Funny, I thought Nifong did as well.

Another interesting point that Nifong chose to raise: He only spoke to the media because it was a case that the public was interested in, essentially. That's great.

Anyway, I'm sick of reading about him as I eat my breakfast. I wish he would just turn it over to a special prosecutor or even an ADA.

This case is going to go down to the AVs credibility. There's no 'evidence' to speak of that can't easily be explained away (the examination for one).

What exactly do alleged comments about a broomstick made by one player, presumably not one who is charged, have to do with whether a rape took place and whether these did defendents committed it if it did take place? This is just another distraction.

Does a defendant have a right to know:

Exactly where, when, at what time, and how does the State contend the Defendant committed a first degree rape.

Isn't it possible that the Defense is using its allegations against Nifong's conduct as a distraction? If there is something in the 1400+ pages of (as yet unreleased) evidence that the Defense doesn't want the public to know, what better way to keep it quiet than to get the case dismissed on other grounds?

The atmosphere was growing tense...isn't there supposed to be a picture showing an allegedly not-happy crowd at one point? So I think it is reasonable to suppose that the broom remark was not just a mere joke. Clearly it does not prove or disprove rape, but the comment appears to have made the women uneasy about their safety.

That's only half true. According to Kim Pitman's written statement, it didn't spook the AV.

If anyone's seen pictures of the accused I can see why they might hesitate to hire her.

How many conflicting statements has/will the Defense made?

Would he (and thus, the media) have had an audience if the public was NOT interested in the case?

Maybe videos of the incident show the reactions or responses of the accused when the broomstick threat/offer was made....

Isn't it possible that the Defense is using its allegations against Nifong's conduct as a distraction?

Seems to me that "at the party at 610 N. Buchanan on March 13-14, 2006" would be sufficient. If the Accused have airtight alibis and the Accuser's claims are so unbelievable, why are specifics about the Prosecutions's timeline needed? Didn't the Defense already offer the ONLY POSSIBLE timeline?

I've yet to see one AV supporter (IMHO, PB etc.) on this or another board offer a hypothetical of how all the known facts fit together to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Precious was raped by the accused.

Does anyone know of a convincing hypothesis (on or offline) on how the known evidence fits together to prove in a court of law that they did it?

I take the tenor of the motion to mean that the defense for Seligmann is so sure of his facts and alibi that they want to go 'all in'.

SOMEONE who received McFadyen's email apparently turned HIM in, so it's possible that not all of the players are remaining as silent as has been suggested or hoped for.

Something tells me the defense isn't leaking "all the known facts." I'm pretty sure Nifong plans to present more evidence than has been aired on the Abrams Report. Stay tuned.

Here are some questiones I haven't seen answered by Dan Abrams: . . .

It's just that Nifong seems so willing to make himself look bad (his inappropriate comments early on; his almost comical response to newsweek; etc) that the defense almost doesn't need to assist him in his efforts. My initial reaction is that it might be better to take the high road, avoid having the judge tell both sides to "cool it", request the prosecution's concept of what the story/timeline and then completely dismantle it with the evidence (which should not be hard based on what has been circulated to date). Basically, follow the thinking that you should never interrupt an enemy that is in the process of destroying himself.

Since the trial is scheduled for next spring, without some major upheaval, the defendants are going to have to live under the alleged rapist moniker for a long time. If they can somehow blow up the case in the motion phase and get it tossed out and then immediately go after durham and duke with civil actions it might serve to get most of stain off the defendants. It feels like the defendants goal is not only to be cleared but in such a manner as to get some of their reputations back.

I will say that it was a very good idea to take those photo's and whoever had the foresight to do it should get a gold star from the three defendants.

If they're so sure of his facts and alibi, and he can account for his location and actions the entire time, why do they need specifics? Will his alibi or story change depending upon the Prosecution's proposed timeline?

Hypothetically, if the case goes to trial and Seligmann is, indeed, innocent, but was maybe mistaken for McDevitt (who bears a striking resemblence to him), might he turn against McDevitt to save his own ass? Was McDevitt the fourth player identified as looking like one of the attackers?

So WHY doesn't the Defense go ahead and release the rest of it? (If someone offered a legitimate answer to my questions about this on the other thread, I'd love to read it - please post a link, as I haven't yet figured out how to get back over there. Thanks.)

Here are some questiones I haven't seen answered by Dan Abrams: . . .

1. You should demystify yourself about the use of the term "AV supporter." It isn't apt. 2. I'm happy to stipulate that I don't have enough facts to claim beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser was raped. I don't have enough facts to claim the defendants were ever within ten feet of her. I see nothing surprising about this. In fact, I would be surprised if it were not the case, at this point in the process. The rules of discovery derive from the rights of the defendant to have all the evidence. The public has no such right to discovery. The press usually has to barter favorable press for "access" to the defense's stuff. That's who Dan Abrams is. The reason jurors are asked not to deliberate until they have heard all the evidence is so that the simple-minded among the jurors don't jump to conclusions based on prejudicial presentations of the evidence. In the present arena, leaping to conclusions is an even more perverse practice, because the press has even less responsible rules for judging what constitutes evidence than the courts. Sure. As far as we know, not a single disinterested person who came in contact with the AV after she was picked up at Kroger's does not believe she was raped. So, hypothetically, her story could be so convincing, (regardless of whether it is true) that it passed the litmus test of a whole slew of medical professionals and law enforcement officers other than Nifong, many of whom may wind up in a position to testify on her behalf. If the jury is convinced that she was raped, the question will be where and by whom? That will be a lot easier. Hypothetically, the three players who spoke to the police may have made statements that can be interpreted by reasonable people as constituting guilty knowledge. They also may have placed the three defendants in the bathroom with accused, for all we know. Or they may have placed the three defendants in places where they demonstrably were not. Who knows? If Nifong can place the boys in the bathroom with the accuser, he's doing pretty well. It's down to he said she said. There is the dna. If the dna found under the fingernail was found under the tip of the fingernail, right where one might expect it to be if you scratched someone, that dna could well increase in relevance. The last ten years have seen a rise in the number of "hanging juries" I am told. If the defendants take the fifth in the case, and their stars aren't properly aligned that day, something bad might happen to them. If they're smart (and they've already proven that with their SAT tests, isn't that right) they'll testify. No way could Nifong make them look bad, in my opinion, unless they actually are bad.

i find it hard to believe that the false accuser was so traumatized by the gang rape and beating that she couldnt remember what happened.

when i was 13 a young man who was 15-16 touched me and tried to rape me. he stopped because i was yelling and fighting but i remember everything i never told anyone because he never raped me. but i remember it all. i know its not the same as a gang rape but i two of my friends were raped and u dont forget.

I'm not a lawyer but from my understanding if two of the accused have alibis that the defence is already pushing in court documents the defendant's statements aren't going to contradict the alibis. So the FA's timeline must be way off for that to be true with two of the accused (assuming the reported restaurant alibi is correct).

I don't know that there is any indication that the DPD believed the FA was raped. She recanted to Shelton and kept "changing her story."

If you think that all the bruising showed up later and that her eyes swelled shut then I would expect Nifong to have taken pictures of that and turned them over to the defense. Apparently Abrams didn't see them. Same for the head ache she complained of at UNC the next day. If something visible was wrong with her head Nifong would have had pictures made. Where are they?

So says his report, which may or may not be accurate. (The Durham Police Department is not exactly known for its accuracy or integrity.)

So WHY doesn't the Defense go ahead and release the rest of it? (If someone offered a legitimate answer to my questions about this on the other thread, I'd love to read it - please post a link, as I haven't yet figured out how to get back over there. Thanks.)