home

Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions

New motions were filed by the defense in the Duke lacrosse players' alleged rape case. You can read them here and here.

The accuser's name does not appear to be blacked out in the motions, but please don't use it in the comments.

< On Prosecuting Leakers and the Media | Missouri Federal Judge Halts State Executions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:51:41 PM EST
    Just when you think the prosecution's case couldn't get any stranger:
    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."
    I understand that the no evidence of a crime is spin by the defense attorneys. However, I just have two questions: 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?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#2)
    by james on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:54:21 PM EST
    Two Notable Points: The defence believes that an investigator is deliberately not writing down or turning over his notes (which is a way to circumvent discovery). The defence also wants to know the identity of a 'SANE male nurse'. This could be interesting if he had any contact with the SANE in training nurse. Other than that, I think that Osborne is filing motions that annoy the judge as much as the prosecutor. The second motion is a prime example of that. Of course, it doesn't really matter as Nifong intends to try the three together - Cheshire is less annoying. I wonder if Osborne is doing this pro-bono or on some sort of credit terms. With the bond issue (400k had to be borrowed) I am curious as to whether Seligman's parents are asset rich but cash poor. The News and Observer has 'turned against' Nifong at this point - everything is negative and Sheehan has even lambasted him, which is amusing. Nifong's sister had a lovely editorial in the N&O recently. Among the more amusing points was that Nifong could not bring himself to become a defence attorney after being a prosecutor - the implication being that all defence attorneys in all cases are scum and all defendants are guilty. 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.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#3)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 05:57:14 PM EST
    january posted:
    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.
    january, then you leave me in a tough spot. Of the people that were there, only the accuser and Kim have told us what was said. WRAL line up transcript p. 12
    victim: He said, um, he was going to stick broomsticks up your @sses.
    The search warrant version (while holding up the broom so they could see it):
    "I'm gonna to shove this up you."
    Ms. Pittmans's hand written statement:
    We continued with the performance until one of the boys brought out a broomstick and after asking if we had any toys, said he would use the broomstick on us.
    That statement made me uncomfortable and I felt like I wanted to leave. I raised my voice to the boys and said the show was over.
    FOXNEWS.COM:
    Although she would not talk extensively about the party, she confirmed some of what the other dancer told police -- including that the women initially left the party after one of the players threatened to sodomize the women with a broomstick.
    Is this a sign chivalry alive and well? Those versions suggest he made the kind offer to service them with the broomstick, himself. In this final version, he was merely offereing to hand the broom over - leaving the ladies with the burden of pleasuring themselves. A defense attorney offered this version: Vanity Fair:
    According to defense attorney William Thomas, representing one of the team captains, it was shortly after the performance had begun that one of the players asked the dancers if they had brought "any toys," an apparent reference to sexual toys.
    Thomas said the same player who made the reference to "toys" subsequently lifted a broomstick and said words to the effect of "Here, you can use this."
    january posted:
    how's your cat?
    My cat's neck is totally healed, thanks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#4)
    by james on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    With approximately one dozen conflicting statements from the accuser, how did this ever get this far in the courts?
    The courts in NC take a long, long time to decide on anything; no one in this state has a right to a speedy trial and we just (a few years ago) passed a law requiring a 'real' discovery process in response to a man who was sent to death row when the prosecution hid evidence that the trucker was alive when the defendent allegedly killed him (he was later aquitted in a retrial). Interestingly, these prosecutors, one of whom is a judge, still haven't faced disciplinary action because the disciplinary board continues to come up with 'lame' excuses that 'kill' the investigation (number of years passed, etc). The judges are elected...no judge in Durham is going to kill the case out right. That said, wait until it gets closer to the trial date.
    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). That said, she'd have to be pretty dumb to keep 2000 on her in Durham - especially when you don't know the people you're going to meet. And especially if you're going there to strip...people get killed over quite a bit less around here. if she did bring the money I wouldn't put it past Kim Roberts to have taken it. She's already said she's in it for the money:)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#5)
    by james on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:07:59 PM EST
    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). I'm sure she will make a wonderful witness. Umm, the broomstick deal is sort of pointless if it wasn't said by one of the individuals charged. And even then the AV will apparently perform with a foreign object for cash (in a hotel room though). Yes, it's insensitive but if you don't really believe this wasn't a 'two way' conversation I think that's garbage. I'm sure one side was telling the 'boys' how pathetic they were and the 'boys' with massive egos were telling the 'girls' what they thought about them. Insulting someone doesn't mean that a crime occurred. This is especially true if the insult (or racial comment) came from an individual not charged.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#6)
    by james on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:11:00 PM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:16:25 PM EST
    James says:
    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).
    Well, for all we know the AV might have been servicing a deep-seated need by the males in Durham to play pat-a-cake.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#8)
    by january on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:38:13 PM EST
    Hi, IMHO - very glad to hear about your cat. And thanks for the very comprehensive answer to my broomstick question. I note you have provided me with even more versions of the story than I had previously. 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.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    I have limited knowledge of the justice system in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). So, the first item in the second motion mentioned above struck my attention. 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.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    Newport, Thanks for your previous post. I accept that in certain situations the police have the authority to detain a person as an "involuntary committment" for up to 24 hours. James, Various versions of the "broomstick remark" have been acknowledged by both the defense and the prosecution (thanks for posting them, imho). I believe that it is seen by both as the tipping point for the stopping of the dance. That is, 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. But this was before the defense felt they needed to come up with the idea that the dance was halted because the AV was too injured and impaired to continue.) 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.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:19:01 PM EST
    Thanks, James, for the info about the judges. That was the Alan Gell case, right? Just curious--who were the prosecutors (and current judge) that were involved in that? I was mostly being sarcastic about the $2,000.00. After all, the accuser's supporters want us to believe she's a hard-working mother/student honorably trying to support herself and her two children. I can't imagine taking that much money to a place where I wouldn't be able to keep an eye on it, or at the very least, have a bodyguard available to watch my belongings. If we were to belive that she made all that money in one night (since she wouldn't be able to make a bank deposit at night) and we take her current hourly "rate" of $200, that means she had one BUSY day.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:34:41 PM EST
    interesting motions. i especially enjoyed the second one, where the defense accused the DA of false accusations and prosecutorial misconduct. now that's entertainment! beenaround: yes, the defense has the right to know the specifics of the allegations made against them. if not under the NC constitution, than under the U.S. constitution. the defense also has the right to confront their accuser(s). finally, there is a presumption of innocence, absent a showing, by the state, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did commit the crime. this means that the defense need do nothing, it's the state's burden to prove a crime was committed, and the accused did it. the broomstick issue means, well............nothing. unless they're claiming they were assaulted with it. rude? yes. gauche? absolutely. crimininal act? nope. making me feel uncomfortable isn't the same as assaulting me. even taking into account defense "spin", these are pretty harsh assertions, by defense, in those motions. whether the judge dislikes one and/or more of the attorneys is irrelevant. unless he intends to create reversable error, he'll follow the program. especially in such a high profile case. hell, this could be his ticket to higher office.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#13)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:46:18 PM EST
    Lora wrote:
    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.
    I insist.
    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.
    The taxi-driver and the neighbor testified that there was much unhappiness, and the apparent reason for it was that the players felt gyped. Bissey heard some of them demanding their money back. That happened after both women had left the house for the last time, so you can't draw any inference from it about the tone of the broomstick remark. If anything, the fact that they were overheard angrily demanding their money back tends to bear out their version of events, not the AV's.
    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.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#14)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:55:57 PM EST
    january posted:
    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.
    It was either a joke or a threat. One of the defense attorneys claimed Ms. Pittman reached forward to slap one of the players. It could be one of the triggers for the anger the attorneys said the players felt towards the women. btw, the broomstick conversation is a carryover from the last thread. It was a discussion about what these guys might think was funny - photographing a woman falling down on the brick stairs, and a taking a series of photos of her lying in a heap, bleeding.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 07:59:15 PM EST
    Not to be boorish but I tend to doubt the reason the players hesitated about going through with the dance was because of some racist feelings. If anyone's seen pictures of the accused I can see why they might hesitate to hire her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:19:28 PM EST
    In the interest of full disclosure, I am currently of the opinion that the AV's claim is false and that the accused are innocent of these charges. 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... Also, the filings always have spelling or grammatical errors in them. This is just suprising.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:25:37 PM EST
    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?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:29:42 PM EST
    Clubblvd said:
    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...
    Osborne represents Seligmann - but, the three defendants and their attorney's are trying to do two things: (1) pin-down the time-line because it has been alleged that Finnerty was late in arriving at the party - thus, they are trying to create an either/or situation for the prosecution and (2) they are trying to give the jury someone to blame for all of this....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.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:33:26 PM EST
    It's been discussed here before, but I'm still unclear about the "motion" process. When will the motions be acted upon? Is there a requirement to do so? And who must initiate a response - the judge or the DA?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:39:54 PM EST
    clubblvd: After the release of page 1304 of the discovery file along with the accompanying letter to Wilson it was clear that this had gone way beyond the normal give and take between prosecutor and defense. The defense is out for Nifong's head and everyone else's who had a hand in getting these charges to where they are now. 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'. If they do have the cards and by all accounts it appears they do, they may be able to raise the political stakes high enough so that the AG of north carolina gets involved. Nifong's game now appears to be to let the clock run out and hope that political passion cools. The defense tactic of turning up the heat by directly accusing the prosecutor of malicious conduct is probably a good play.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:50:15 PM EST
    Pat:
    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.
    Yes, exactly. This is the right tactic to use in a case where the star witness is the one against whom the alleged crime has been purpetrated. Going after her directly risks the anger and sympathy of the jury. Much better to bring her along gently, allow some room for her disturbed state of mind and whale on the prosecutor.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    fillintheblanks, Re Motions It may have been mentioned here but no one has ever answered the questions I and others (Madison, for example) have raised about the motions. Here's the best I can do at this point, others please feel free to jump in and correct me. 1. Does the prosecution have to file a response to anything? Apparently not according to TV personality Woody Van. There is some support for Woody's position based on the fact that The Nifong has not filed anything. 2. Do motions of substance ever get heard in a Durham court before trial? If so, when and how is the hearing set? Answer: no one knows. I believe PatsyMac said substantive motions don't have to be heard before trial at all. 3. How is it that Nifong can calendar a hearing on an issue he wants heard, e.g., the snooping on Duke addresses etc? Answer: Unclear. Apparently the DA can calendar motions for hearing but the defense can not. I hope this helps.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:59:49 PM EST
    Lora, BTW I ran into a couple of sheriff's deputies today while out with the dog and I asked about involuntary commitment. They said that they hadn't done any recently, but they used to take crazy people to a local hospital for a 24 hour hold. I asked if they would be evaluated prior to admission and they said no, maybe that would happen the next morning when a doctor was around. So, there is local practice to consider too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:05:04 PM EST
    I agree with David 100 percent on the recent motions by Osborn. He is defending a young man who wants desperately to go back to school and who should never have been indicted in the first place. Osborn, who, in my opinion, has to this point done a very professional job, must do all he can to force the issue for his client and hope that some judge will at least order up a hearing to let him go free.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    David, last night I considered all the timeline evidence available to the prosecution at the time of Seligman's indictment last night and I was unable to come up with any window of opportunity for Seligman to be guilty of anything under the various scenarios expounded by the witnesses Bissey and Roberts and the photgraphs. I am going to post my findings with timeline information later.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#26)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:08:50 PM EST
    banco55 posted:
    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.
    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: 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 and cuts on both knees, bruises and cuts on her arms, a cut and or blister on the foot, extensive bruises clearly visible on the legs and thighs, cuts on her legs, bruises on her backside and scratches on her legs, cuts on her right butt cheek, elbow scraped, ankle cut and bleeding? 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: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:10:17 PM EST
    Thanks, Newport. It helps, but it's still murky.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:11:13 PM EST
    Pat an David_in_CT, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can certainly see the logic in what you are saying. 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.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:22:07 PM EST
    club: I'd agree with that as a strategy if Nifong did not have the clock on his side. If the trial were set for Aug 1st then there would be no need for antagonzing Nifong and raising the political heat. 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. Being found not guilty in a rape case is not a nice thing to carry around with you for the rest of your life. In the eyes of the law you are no different that OJ.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#30)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    Clubblvd posted:
    Given that, am I the only one who winces a bit when reading Osborn's motions?
    I winced.
    ....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 think it makes Osborn look silly.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    nite all.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#32)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    january posted:
    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.
    It was either a joke or a threat. One of the defense attorneys claimed Ms. Pittman reached forward to slap one of the players. It could be one of the triggers for the anger the attorneys said the players felt towards the women. btw, the broomstick conversation is a carryover from the last thread. The context being a discussion about what these guys might think was funny - photographing a woman falling down brick stairs, and a taking a series of photos of her lying in a heap, bleeding...ah...good times...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:34:37 PM EST
    Except for the last couple, those are all good questions immie. I'm sure if there was something in the discovery that Abrams was uncomfortable with he would have said so. He gave no indication that he saw anything incriminating in the file other than the FA's statement. Why don't you email him your questions? Your Boy leaked the only bit of evidence we know about -- the fingernail. If there were photo's of the FA all beat up, the existence of the photo's would have been leaked too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    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 you think that is bad behavior immie, you should go to a few fraternity parties up at your local colleges.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:41:40 PM EST
    Banco, You wrote:
    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.
    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.
    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).
    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. You wrote:
    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. 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.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#36)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    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.
    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.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#37)
    by wumhenry on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:08:15 PM EST
    If the defendants take the fifth in the case, and their stars aren't properly aligned that day, something bad might happen to them.
    You mean, if they don't testify. Right, something bad could happen to them if they don't testify, even if they're innocent. And something bad could happen to them if they do testify, even if they're innocent. A hung jury and mistrial, for instance. Not that bad things haven't already happened to them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:15:31 PM EST
    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. and the victims rights advocates and sexual assualt counsolers probably dont interadct with false accusers so thats why their stats are so low on false reports. this is very sad for these young men they are being prosocuted because their parents are rich and they urinated on sidewalaks and drank beer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:23:07 PM EST
    WumHenry, You wrote:
    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.
    Yes, that's another hypothetical story. Nifong may have simply gone against the recommendations of the investigators, police oficers, and medical staff, all of whom may have felt that the accuser was just a mentally ill, drunk, lying, whore/felon because he saw in this prosecution a way to get keep Freda Black from getting back at him for firing her. Good point!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 10:57:48 PM EST
    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." Sutton was aware of the various inconsistent stories. The Duke officer that overheard the DPD officer (as yet unknown) talking about the case reported that DPD did not think the case was serious and that it would "blow over." I think if this case does get to trial that the police will not be very good witnesses for The Nifong. I am also unaware of any Duke medical personnel stating their belief that the FA was raped. The investigators do not have the ability to overrule Nifong and they may just be going along because they want to keep their jobs. In sum, Wumhenry's scenario is more likely at this point.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#41)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 11:57:39 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    If there were photo's of the FA all beat up, the existence of the photo's would have been leaked too.
    They have been:
    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."
    Now how do we reconcile those descriptions with this? From the defense motion:
    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.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:21:20 AM EST
    IMHO, what's your point? The cell phone photo's may not be very good resolution (probably not good at all without enhancement) and perhaps the "bruising" was skin discoloration or blotches that were mistaken for bruising. Perhaps the photo was grainy, it was dark out remember, and I don't think those camera phones even have a flash. I would trust the doctor's statement of injuries more than a reporter's analysis of injuries from a low resolution cell phone picture. Wouldn't you? The lawyer may have overstated the bruising as well. The cuts do seem to match up fairly well with what was reported at the hospital. Unless you are just pointing out that the FA has miraculous healing powers and the bruises from the cell phone pictures healed before she got to Duke hospital. 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?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:48:15 AM EST
    Bob in Pacifica took exception to my characterization of Jim Garrison which he rendered as "delusional". Actually I said "deranged". This was of course a layman's opinion not a professional diagnosis. However it has been reported that Garrison was discharged from the National Guard in 1952 after army doctors found he was suffering from a "severe and disabling psychoneurosis". If the AV had received such a diagnosis I can just imagine what Bob in Pacifica would be saying but somehow I suspect he will give Garrison a pass. I have been wondering what additional evidence Nifong could present at trial. If he takes a page from the Garrison playbook he will call a whole series of dubious characters who will testify that they overheard incriminating statements from the Duke boys. If one of these witnesses blows up in Nifong's face, by for example revealing under cross examination that he fingerprints his daughter whenever she comes home from college to make sure a ringer hasn't been substituted, Nifong will claim he was the victim of a clever defense plot. Perhaps someone familar with North Carolina discovery procedures can tell us when Nifong would have to reveal such witnesses to the defense?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:51:52 AM EST
    Imho, while we are on the subject of pictures. Do you have an explanation as to the FA attempting to reenter the house at 12:31 am to either retrieve her shoe (Bissey) or, "make more money" (Roberts), with a smile on her face if she had been beaten, choked, kicked, hit, and raped orally, vaginally, and anally in the preceeding 30 minutes by three men. She must not have been too traumatized if she wanted to reenter that house to save a shoe. Why is that single photograph not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this case is a hoax? I would really appreciate your views on this and puhleeese don't tell me that she could have been raped after 12:31 am.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:52:04 AM EST
    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.
    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).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:14:39 AM EST
    mik asked:
    With approximately one dozen conflicting statements from the accuser, how did this ever get this far in the courts?
    How many conflicting statements has/will the Defense made?
    And where on earth did she get the $2,000.00?
    I think this was the first I have heard about $2,000. Does anyone have a link to the source where the Accuser allegedly made this claim? Thanks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:15:21 AM EST
    As a non-lawyer I'm curious what do people make of Mark Gottleib's (a chief investigator in this case according to one of the motions) notes not being included in the discovery because he has not yet submitted his reports. Is this normal? The "Every investigation has a slow one...." Is is some nefarious Nifong / Gottleib plot to hide some key evidence they don't want the defense to see? Gottleib's just not finished? It seems to me that it would be hard to remember details months after an investigation took place. If Gottleib's investigation is a work in progress, are any notes he might have but not yet given to the DA supposed to be turned over? Does turning in notes at a late time allow for some creative "editing"? Does this happen often? If it does, why wasn't that tactic used by others in investigators in this case? Or might there be others we don't yet know about? Could the prosecution delay producing these notes indefinitely? If not, for how long? Any other explanations or thoughts?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:23:03 AM EST
    I have never seen a link to the source where the AV said she had $2,000 stolen. The motion (link in today's header) says it was in the discovery. As has been so often pointed out, we don't have all the discovery. It seems hard to believe Osborn would say it was there if it wasn't somewhere, no matter how "weak" the source or context from which it was pulled. It's a number, not an interpretation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:26:51 AM EST
    James mused:
    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.
    Has Nifong SAID that he knows the 'absolute truth'? I only recall him saying that he BElIEVED a rape had occurred.
    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.
    Would he (and thus, the media) have had an audience if the public was NOT interested in the case?
    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.
    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?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:31:32 AM EST
    James states:
    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).
    How are you making this determination? Are you one of the few people who has actually SEEN ALL of the evidence?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:38:57 AM EST
    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.
    Maybe videos of the incident show the reactions or responses of the accused when the broomstick threat/offer was made. If a broomstick was used in the alleged assault, they might be relevant. Or, if videos show that the Accuser said, "oh yeah, rape me with a broomstick, baby", they would have evidence that she consented to it being used on her.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:45:13 AM EST
    beearound asks:
    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.
    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?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:03:29 AM EST
    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?
    If Nifong actually has anything beyond what has already being leaked than the case won't get dismissed so that would seem to be a rather dumb strategy. From what I've read the judge can't dismiss the case until the prosecution has rested at the trial.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:08:54 AM EST
    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?" It puts nifong on the spot. If he offers something vague like you suggested that could be telling in and of itself. Not to mention I think the defence would have something to say about a non-answer like that either during pre-trial or in another motion.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:19:56 AM EST
    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.
    Yes, a photo taken at 12:03a allegedly shows that the dancers have stopped dancing and the players are no longer smiling.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:25:58 AM EST
    wumhenry stated:
    That's only half true. According to Kim Pitman's written statement, it didn't spook the AV.
    If you're referring to the broomstick incident, Kim Pittman's written statement says, "The commotion riled Precious up and caused her to get irate."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:27:42 AM EST
    banco55 said:
    If anyone's seen pictures of the accused I can see why they might hesitate to hire her.
    Where did you see unobscured photos of the accused?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:29:03 AM EST
    google it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:30:41 AM EST
    How many conflicting statements has/will the Defense made?
    Apples and oranges. The prosecution is held to different standards - they have to prove something specific beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense need do nothing, though most defense attorney would like to show reasonable doubt. Lots of conflicting ways to do that.
    Would he (and thus, the media) have had an audience if the public was NOT interested in the case?
    Does the public's interest have anything to do with the rules governing prosecutor conduct?
    Maybe videos of the incident show the reactions or responses of the accused when the broomstick threat/offer was made....
    Are there videos? I didn't know that. If so, I'd appreciate a link.
    Isn't it possible that the Defense is using its allegations against Nifong's conduct as a distraction?
    Anything's possible. Speculation or is there evidence of this?
    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?
    It's not just the timeline they are asking about. They also stated that they thought there was no evidence of a rape in the discovery other than the AV's stories. There are many stories in the discovery, some of them wildly different. The defense says she even said she hadn't been raped in the discovery. Which story is it? Seems a reasonable question. At some point, the prosecution will have to answer it. Maybe some NC attorney can fill us in when that point is?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:32:09 AM EST
    banco55 writes:
    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.
    What are you declaring to be "known facts"?
    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?
    How do you propose this be done before all of the known evidence is even released?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:51:31 AM EST
    MrP, A common theme you expouse is "how can you say/do this before all of the know evidence is released." Well, you can't. There could always be some bombshell (or lots of little bomblets) that are discovered right up until the end of the trail. Maybe Nifong doesn't even know about them yet. What's the point - this is a blog. All we can talk about is what we know about. Beyond that, we can speculate. Just because someone doens't put "In my opinion" before every statement they make doesn't mean we can't figure out that it's their opinion. Asking someone to comment on evidence not yet known is in itself speculation. Many people who are upset with Nifong think there has been an abuse of prosecutorial discretion if not outright misconduct. My Question to you (Hypothetical, to take it out of this case): Let's pretend there was an evil prosecutor who charged someone simply because their neighbor accused them. No evidence at all, in fact they had a solid alibi backed up by many unrelated eyewitnesses. Yet the evil DA indicts them based on the testimony of the neighbor. Let's pretend we all agree the prosecution has no merit. Yet, the prosecution can always say "Well, you haven't seen all of the evidence" or "we haven't finished our investigation." Anything's possible, if your definition of possible includes all possible unknowns. Is there any mechanism in the system to stop such a prosecution before trial? Is it reasonable to try an do so? If so, what and how?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:58:39 AM EST
    david_in_ct says:
    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'.
    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? 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.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:07:01 AM EST
    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.
    Source or speculation? Anything's possible. Maybe the cops had access to a player's email account or computer. Evans said he gave the cops access to his email accounts....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:17:36 AM EST
    inmyhumbleopinion says:
    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.
    Indeed. If the Defense would just release ALL of that "nothing" to the public NOW, the Prosecution wouldn't have any surprises to offer at the trial. If the Defense is telling the truth, we'd ALL be able to see EVERYTHING that Nifong has, and his and the Accusers' intentions would be exposed once and for all. It would save the Defense, the Accused, their families, and the City of Durham a lot of time, energy, and money, and the players could continue with their schooling and lives, completely vindicated. 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: . . .
    Good questions! I have wondered about a lot of that myself!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:20:19 AM EST
    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.
    Perhaps Nifong is following the same thinking in regards to the actions of the Defense?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:23:52 AM EST
    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.
    Wouldn't RELEASING the remaining 1400+ pages of evidence do just that, if they do, as alleged, contain NOTHING that implicates the Accused?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:26:53 AM EST
    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.
    UNLESS the rest of the photos and/or videos show stuff that the Defense doesn't want a jury to see.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:30:42 AM EST
    Tell it SomeWhatChunky let that dimwitted Duke student have it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:32:03 AM EST
    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?
    Sure it might. If Nifong/Precious now say the alledged rape happened at 10pm, Seligmann would have been doing something else. That "something else" would be his new alibi. The time of the allegations matter.
    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?
    "Hypothetically" is a key word. Nifong, who knows what he has (one hopes) indicted Seligmann, not McDevitt. If all he has is a photo ID (was it the third try?), he doesn't have much.
    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.)
    This was addressed on the other thread in several posts. I'm not going to find it, but it's there (something about malpractice and it never ever happens). What's your point ? Why should they do it to convince us? None of us have a vote. There's already a large amount of people and media who think the prosecution has no case - so far, that doesn't seem to matter. I don't think any judge is going to take a poll. The defense is trying to address it through the court where it belongs.
    Here are some questiones I haven't seen answered by Dan Abrams: . . .
    What's the point? If Dan answered all of those questions, one could ask twenty more. One would never run out of possible questions. Dan did say that he had reviewed the entire file and that the case was even weaker than he thought. I don't have his exact words, but he made it clear he thought there was no case. You either trust his judgement or you don't.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:35:10 AM EST
    SomeWhatChunky, Your hypo would not disturb Mr. P unless it involved him or someone he liked, otherwise it's ok. I have a feeling Mr. P isn't too well liked. Maybe he doesn't like those badly behaving Duke athletes that take all the hot girls away from him.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:35:43 AM EST
    PB:
    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.
    Very well-done! I wonder if the players were examined for scratches or other evidence of a scuffle.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:41:12 AM EST
    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.
    It is not unusual for trauma victims to not remember details of their experiences, especially right away. In many cases, that is a blessing.
    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.
    Are you suggesting that you and the Accuser have matching thought patterns or abilities?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:41:22 AM EST
    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 guess all you are pointing out is that you agree with me that we don't know but that the players may have actually been in the bathroom with the accuser. That's because we don't know their alibis well enough. We don't know where Evans was or Finnerty in enough detail to say they weren't there at any of the possible times, and while Seligman's phone logs are extremely helpful to him, his own alibi witness, contradicting the statements of at least one of the captains to the police, places him within striking distance of that bathroom within what he characterizes as a short time after the dance. We don't even know where the players claim they were. If we can't say that the defendants were NOT in the bathroom alone with the accused during the time between the dance ending and the defendant leaving the premises, I don't think we're in much of a position to claim that a rape couldn't have occurred, in which case I don't think we're in a very strong position to claim that Nifongs interest in pursuing the case is job security. People who make such claims are practicing their polemics, which is a lot of fun. Like predicting home runs when you are watching baseball games can be fun. Sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:47:30 AM EST
    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."
    So says his report, which may or may not be accurate. (The Durham Police Department is not exactly known for its accuracy or integrity.) In any case, it's not their job to decide if she was really raped, only to observe the scene and record statements.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:50:58 AM EST
    PB, You're right - we don't know all of the things you say we don't know. We don't - I assume the defense knows what is in the discovery and so does Nifong. The defense is going after Nifong in a very very agressive manner - they are attacking his competence and all but accusing him of prosecuting this case for personal gain by their election comment. That's rare. Osborn flat out says there is no evidence of a rape. None. Would that make sense if they "knew" some of things you speculated about above. If there motioned is heard, Nifong would simply point them out. Since we don't know it's speculation either way, but based upon the defense actions (not spin, but court actions) I think they think Nifong doesn't have anything. They "know" more than we....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:51:20 AM EST
    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?
    Has the Defense stated that they have released ALL of the photos?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:51:40 AM EST
    Corruption in the banana republic of durham? I'm shocked.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:54:16 AM EST
    So says his report, which may or may not be accurate. (The Durham Police Department is not exactly known for its accuracy or integrity.)
    Well, if the new standard is "We don't know" and "What we do know may or may not be accurate" there's not much to talk about is there? Goodnight all.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#79)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:36:42 AM EST
    Mr.Precedent posted:
    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.)
    Hi MrPrecedent: Just after Talk Left's own comments and just before the posters' comments begin, there is a link to the Duke Lacrosse Threads Archives:
    The accuser's name does not appear to be blacked out in the motions, but please don't use it in the comments.
    Posted Monday :: June 26, 2006| Duke Lacrosse
    79 comments to "Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#80)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:55:39 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion
    One of the defense attorneys claimed Ms. Pittman reached forward to slap one of the players.
    If true, do you think Nifong will charge Kim with assult?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#81)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:59:58 AM EST
    Lora posted:
    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.
    wumhenry posted:
    I insist:
    charlotteobserver.com Sun, Apr. 09, 2006
    The dance lasted fewer than four minutes, Cheshire said, when the second dancer stopped the performance after an offensive remark from a player.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#82)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:13:16 AM EST
    zabmom posted:
    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.
    Is the fact that he didn't rape you the only reason you never told anyone? Did you feel it would upset you parents/loved ones if you told them what had happened to you? Did you fear reprecussions from your attacker? Did you fear others might blame you for contributing to the incident? Did you feel you had done something that may have brought this on yourself? Did you feel any guilt or shame? Did you just want to pretend it never happened? You don't have to be raped to be a victim of sexual assault. Many victims of sexual assault experience these reactions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:13:53 AM EST
    Mrprecedent:
    I wonder if the players were examined for scratches or other evidence of a scuffle.
    You can read it for yourself from the Nontestimonial Identification Order or in the Sports Illustrated article, "The Damage Done."
    Following the advice of lawyers, the team members entered the lab with jackets over their faces to hide from a news photographer -- only to be photographed inside by investigators, who pawed and stared at any scratch or bruise on their shirtless torsos. "There's some scarring right here," said the woman scanning Carroll's side. She was looking at three 12-year-old marks from chicken pox. After opening wide for the DNA swab, Carroll and at least three other players heard the same refrain from an officer as they departed. "Don't worry, guys," he said. "This will all blow over."


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#84)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:22:23 AM EST
    ding7777 posted:
    If true, do you think Nifong will charge Kim with assult?
    I think he should. It would bolster his case when he charges the player with threatening to sodomize the women with a broomstick, unless her victim takes the fifth when asked why he was slapped by the defendant.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:23:53 AM EST
    Here is a well written article that asks what part the N&O & Sheehan had in all of this , it seems that their biased news reporting set in motion this train wreck
    On Mar. 26 the N&O reported on a vigil at the house on Buchanan Blvd held by supporters of the woman the N&O reported two days earlier was the "victim" of an horrendous crime. Here's an excerpt from the Mar. 26 report: "This is to let her know that we're with her," Tompkins said. "If anyone could come and take a piece of her grief, we would." Religious groups, neighborhood associations, and students and faculty from the university sang "Amazing Grace" and prayed. Allyson Van Wyk challenged parents of the lacrosse players to talk to their children. "The parents need to make them stand up and be men," she shouted. The next day, Mar. 27, Sheehan followed that with her "Team's silence is sickening" column, in which she savaged the players for doing no more than following advice of counsel. She ended with: Every member of the men's lacrosse team knows who was involved, whether it was gang rape or not. Until the team members come forward with that information, forfeiting games isn't enough. Shut down the team. But what did the N&O report Nifong said as the N&O broke the story and during the next few days? I undertook a customized search of N&O archives for the period Mar. 24 to Mar. 30 using the input word "Nifong." The first time an article with "Nifong" appeared in the search result was Mar. 28, after the publication of the N&O's first three Duke lacrosse stories and Sheehan's column.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:35:10 AM EST
    IMHO SAID I think he should. It would bolster his case when he charges the player with threatening to sodomize the women with a broomstick
    It is not a proven fact that they were threatened with a broom stick, the students version of what happened was that when asked if the stripper brought "toys" they said "no" and one guy there held up a broom and said "we could use this". His statement would be immature but hardly a threat, if in fact that is the way it happened.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:53:21 AM EST
    Mrprecedent:
    Hypothetically, if the case goes to trial and Seligmann is, indeed, innocent, but was maybe mistaken for [redacted] (who bears a striking resemblence to him), might he turn against [redacted] to save his own ass?
    Why on earth is Seligmann waiting? Why isn't he screaming from the rooftops? HE'S the one suspended from school. HE'S the one racking up seven digit legal fees. BTW - I think Seligmann might have been misidentified for this prosective perpetrator or this one or one of these. Heck, it could've been ANYONE, yet Nifong CHOSE to indict Seligmann after refusing to meet with defense attorneys.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#88)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:55:22 AM EST
    James B. Shearer: I think the book about the Garrison investigation may have been written by James DiEugenio, not Fonzi. In any case, if in the years after her discharge from the military, after liberating Nazi death camps (what Garrison did), the AV had risen to be the DA of a large city, I might have more confidence in her dozen versions of events. And, as I've said, the House Select Committee's investigation essentially backed Garrison's theory of the case. I think you're making false analogies and I don't want to discuss the JFK assassination here. I'm sure TL would agree. There's enough official misconduct in Durham that we don't need to stray from the topic.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#89)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:58:28 AM EST
    GUNSHY posted:
    It is not a proven fact that they were threatened with a broom stick, the students version of what happened was that when asked if the stripper brought "toys" they said "no" and one guy there held up a broom and said "we could use this".
    His statement would be immature but hardly a threat, if in fact that is the way it happened.
    I know it's not a proven fact, that's why I said Nifong could CHARGE him. Which student's version is that? There is something interesting thing about the accuser's specific claim that the player said he was going to stick it up "your @sses." When I read the search warrant version "I'm gonna shove this up you," I didn't assume he meant up their "@sses," I assumed otherwise. If he said it to a guy, sure, but saying it to women in the context of sex toys I assumed he meant the alternative destination for the broomstick. The accuser quoting the "stick it up your @sses" line is interesting in that it's not the meaning I would take if the player had merely said, "Here, use this." I think he was more explicit in his offer to assist the ladies. [btw in the Vanity Fair - the hard copy, not the on-line version, Bill Thomas refers to a broomstick, not a lacrosse stick.]

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#90)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:07:31 AM EST
    mik posted:
    BTW - I think Seligmann might have been misidentified for this prosective perpetrator or this one or one of these. Heck, it could've been ANYONE, yet Nifong CHOSE to indict Seligmann after refusing to meet with defense attorneys
    OMG! Did the captians also leave Phil Mickelson, Vince Vaughn, Heath Ledger, and Jake Gyllenhaal off the list of party attendees? Pretty slipshod "cooperation."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:13:47 AM EST
    Hey, weren't there rumors of some non-team members present at the party?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#92)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:17:47 AM EST
    If nothing else, Osborn's motions challenge Nifong to limit the charges to one version. His questions remind me of the various versions, with Roberts abetting the crime or not, with Roberts being pulled away from the AV by three unidentified and unindicted players. Remember in the search warrants the vague phrase about at some point the AV was separated from the other dancer. The charge is that the rape happened after midnight, not before, so we can presume that the AV wasn't raped before she got there. I think that Osborn is trying to show the court that Nifong doesn't even have a coherent theory of the case, which I believe is true. I also agree with others here that Osborn wants the charges dropped so that Seligmann can get back to school. I presume he won't be able to attend classes until the charges are dropped or the trial is over.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#93)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:21:08 AM EST
    PB wrote:
    I'm happy to stipulate that I don't have enough facts to claim beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser was raped.
    thank god for small favors me:
    According to Kim Pitman's written statement, it [i.e., the broomstick remark] didn't spook the AV.
    Mr.Precedent:
    If you're referring to the broomstick incident, Kim Pittman's written statement says, "The commotion riled Precious up and caused her to get irate."
    The commotion she was referring to was not the broomstick remark. According to her narrative got riled up afterward, when she was in the bathroom with Kim Pittman and the players were clamoring for them to come out and go back to work. Nice try, Mr.P., but no cigar.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#94)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:23:05 AM EST
    The Media Rush to Duke's Defense
    Not in the Duke case. Here, journalists are tripping all over themselves to quickly and repetitively report the biased view of the young men's defense attorneys, family members, and other supporters. And the prosecutor, after saying a bit too much too early about his case, now is saying nothing at all, leaving the defense spin unchallenged and gaining both in perceived credence and volume. There is nothing wrong with this defense strategy -- I would do it, too, I suppose, if I were representing the alleged rapists -- but just because it's a good idea for lawyers doesn't meant it is good journalism. There is no balanced coverage in the Duke case. There is just one defense-themed story after another.
    The lawyer for the players is named Bob Elkstrand and you shouldn't be surprised to learn that his version of events at that moment plays neatly into the defense theme that has been offered up on behalf of the young men. "Elkstrand was struck," Newsweek reported, "to see how little hesitation the players showed. After all, if the DNA of any one of those men matched DNA found on the accuser's body, it could ruin his life; disgrace followed by many years in prison. But there was no talk of hiring individual lawyers or stalling for time; the players seemed to want to get on with it. 'I was watching to see if anyone hung back,' Elkstrand told Newsweek. No one did."
    Now, I do not suggest that Elkstrand was lying to Newsweek (although lawyers lie to journalists all the time in the zealous representation of their clients). But obviously Elkstrand has a deep bias in favor of the people he is describing to Newsweek -- otherwise he wouldn't be worth his weight in gold lacrosse sticks as an attorney. Of course he is going to say that all of the players came forward. Of course he is going to say he "was struck" by their portrayed innocence. What else is he going to say? "I thought that one guy in the back looked a little shady?"
    hahaha

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#95)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:25:54 AM EST
    mik posted:
    Hey, weren't there rumors of some non-team members present at the party?
    If that is what the captians said in their police statements that would qualify it as a rumor.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#96)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:27:45 AM EST
    Correction: the "commotion" that annoyed the AV was Kim Pittman's reaction to the broomstick remark.
    We continued with the performance until one of the boys brought out a broomstick and after asking if we had any toys, said he would use the broomstick on us. That statement made me uncomfortable and I felt like I wanted to leave. I raised my voice to the boys and said the show was over. The commotion riled Precious up and caused her to get irate.
    Like I said before, no cigar.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#97)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:33:43 AM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    The commotion she was referring to was not the broomstick remark. According to her narrative got riled up afterward, when she was in the bathroom with Kim Pittman and the players were clamoring for them to come out and go back to work.
    Nice try, Mr.P., but no cigar
    Nope. No cigar for you, either wum: From Kim's handwritten police statement:
    I raised my voice to the boys and said the show was over. The commotion riled Precious up and caused her to get irate. I went to the bathroom with Precious and I told her I wanted to leave.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#98)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:34:09 AM EST
    It's nice to know that you can leave the country but things here do not change. I have tried to catch up but where to start. I have to say the partial DNA match is worthless. It doesn't matter how much the AV supporters want that to be true it isn't. DNA profiling rests on the variability from differences in the number of repeat units (base pairs). The patterns observed at four to eight different loci may be unique for an individual. The testing kits have to match a specific number of loci for they're to be a match. That's very important because if the kit needs eight to make a match anything less should not be admissible within the court of law. The kits are approved for use by the FDA they have to meet certain standards. When you start to have only three to five matches you broaden your genetic pool so much that the test will reveal just the basics. What I'm trying to say is that if Evans is Anglo Saxon finding three loci matches doesn't mean a hill of beans my brother could have those matches. It's controversial but there have been studies that are testing racial groups for example if you have a certain pattern your from West Africa. The theory is that the genetic drift is much larger on the individual level than the group level. So I don't know how many matches there was with Evans but "consistent" could apply to many.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#100)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:47:38 AM EST
    IMHO, you should've read my 8:27 comment before popping off. The point is that what made the AV irate was not the broomstick remark. That's why Mr.P gets no cigar, and neither do you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:51:48 AM EST
    Alas, if only the broomstick commenter had had a cigar handy...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#102)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:53:13 AM EST
    Is Susan Filan going to hold off on mixing up her next batch of D S Kool-aid? 'The Abrams Report' for June 23
    DANIELS: That's OK. Let me pose this to all three of you actually, which may be dangerous, but I'll do it anyway. Is it possible that we're hearing all of this from the defense attorneys, the defense attorney is saying I've got this document, I've got this document, just trust me, it's in there. Do any of you believe that perhaps the prosecution is saying it really does all make sense? I'm not talking right now, Nifong is probably saying, but it does make sense.
    GOSLEE: Well I'll tell you what I saw yesterday if I can jump in. What I saw was--I think I saw it on Susan's face when she was standing in front of the courthouse, was almost--and maybe I'm wrong, Susan--it seems as though there was a shift in your belief, because if you look at the resolve of Nifong, who is a seasoned prosecutor, who is--the resolve that he demonstrated or exhibited yesterday said listen, I'm going to stay the course, I know my case better than you do. As we said on this program weeks ago, they have turned over everything. I suggested then that they simply had not turned over everything, because you never give up everything...
    DANIELS: Let's go to Susan because her face is priceless right now.
    Susan, go ahead.
    FILAN: Well I mean...
    DANIELS: Shift?
    FILAN: ... what happened to me yesterday was I got extremely sobered by my experience in that courtroom. It's one thing to read accounts, it's one thing to listen to people talk about it. It's an entirely different thing to be in that courtroom and see a true case or controversy unfold with an impartial judge on the bench, taking very seriously each discovery request as it comes in, and it just reminded me that I don't know. I don't know everything that Nifong has got.
    GOSLEE: Precisely...
    FILAN: I don't know Nifong's position. I have heard from the defense. I have looked at these documents myself. I still feel that it's a very, very scary case to have to make as a prosecutor. I don't know whether it's right to bring this case. I don't know whether it's right--I don't know. That's what you saw in my yesterday, Georgia...
    (CROSSTALK)
    DANIELS: All right.
    (CROSSTALK)
    GOSLEE: ... been saying go ahead and drop the case, haven't you?
    DANIELS: Georgia, I think you made a very good point. Susan, I think you answered very well and Yale, you've been great, so let's just end there. Georgia...


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#103)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:56:35 AM EST
    IMHO, you should've read my 8:27 comment before popping off. The point is that what made the AV irate was not the broomstick remark. That's why Mr.P gets no cigar, and neither do you.
    wum, you were wrong, which we all are at times, the difference is that you were quite nasty about it. Your "correction" doesn't change that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#104)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:57:17 AM EST
    Where's the "commotion" in Kim raising her voice to say the show is over?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#105)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:03:51 AM EST
    IMHO - Interesting Washington Post link (The Media Rush to Duke's Defense - Andrew Cohen). I love how he chastises the media for reporting and analyzing available facts. Just to give everyone a taste of who Andrew Cohen is, here is a quote from an earlier article of his (April 18):
    It is inconceivable that prosecutors would push to bring charges in a case that is as weak as the defense attorneys would have us believe. Whatever else we know about this story, we know that there is more to it than has so far been disclosed; that Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong has more incriminating evidence than he so far as told us about. Whether that is a good eyewitness, strong physical evidence or even a DNA link that no one is talking about, there is more "there" there that the defense attorneys either don't know about or at least aren't telling us about.
    That's right boys and girls, Mr. Cohen is from the "Nifong must have something more if he is prosecuting this" camp. It is good to see him trying to keep the media from jumping to conclusions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#106)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:11:57 AM EST
    After posting a long excerpt from a WaPo semi-editorial about press coverage of the Duke case, IMHO commented: hahaha Ah, but look whose pants are on fire! The case, for the first month or so, was all the prosecution's spin. The DA talked a bit too much? Yes, according to the rules of conduct. Now the discovery keeps knocking the case down to nothing more than a series of lies and delusions by a tragic, intoxicated sex worker. Because there is no evidence of a rape aside from the now dozen various versions of events spewed forth by the AV, the press may indeed be skeptical about the case and look for more information about case. It's a trainwreck. hahaha, indeed! Pathetic, really pathetic.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#107)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:11:59 AM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#108)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:15:45 AM EST
    noname, I do not believe Mr. Cohen knows what this word means.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#109)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:16:12 AM EST
    ding7777 posted:
    Where's the "commotion" in Kim raising her voice to say the show is over?
    The defense has said the players' racial slurs were in reaction to Kim's "white boy limp d!ck" [paraphrased by imho] remark. They have also said Kim's remark is what prompted the "broomstick-hardy-har-har"[characterized by imho]. I would guess the players made some racial slurs before the ruckus spilled out into the yard.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    MrPrecedent demonstrates his lack of intelligence when he says:
    The Durham Police Department is not exactly known for its accuracy or integrity.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    Where's the "commotion" in Kim raising her voice to say the show is over?
    I would think that the "commotion" was the boys being told that $200/hour was being turned into $400/5-10 minutes. $2400/hour? Nice pay scale, even the defense attorneys don't get paid that much.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:22:15 AM EST
    fillintheblanks: "Alas, if only the broomstick commenter had had a cigar handy..." Or that "small vibrator" from earlier in the evening.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#113)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:22:27 AM EST
    Andrew Cohen's mea culpa is quite interesting. Loosely paraphrased, he seems to be saying:
    We can't be trusted. I mean, usually we are helping to lynch those poor, downtrodden defendants, but in this case, we are helping to lynch that poor, downtrodden AV. Well, except at the beginning.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#114)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:23:41 AM EST
    IMHO:
    I would guess the players made some racial slurs before the ruckus spilled out into the yard.
    Well, of course you would!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#115)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:24:39 AM EST
    to inmyhumbleopinion Kim said she went to the bathroom (not the yard) after the commotion/ruckus Strange that she would forget about those racial slurs when she wrote her account but remembered the racial slurs that prompted her to call the cops

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#116)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:35:10 AM EST
    Strange that she would forget about those racial slurs when she wrote her account but remembered the racial slurs that prompted her to call the cops
    I suspect, for reasons stated previously, that her allegation about use of the n-word is a fiction. She may have invented it to justify her 911 call, which may have been malicious.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:35:51 AM EST
    From the WaPo editorial:
    Usually, reporters breathlessly take everything prosecutors and the police say at face value, often to devastating effect upon criminal defendants.
    Wasn't that exactly what the reporters DID do for the first month? Where was Mr. Cohen's outrage then?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#118)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:37:37 AM EST
    I though it was the broomstick comment alone that sent Kim running for cover in the bathroom and that the racial epithets were reserved for later when the women were leaving in the car and the men wanted their money refunded. And the cotton shirt remark was a return for Kim's l!mp d!ck white boys having to pay to see it remark. Am I mistaken?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#119)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:45:38 AM EST
    the racial epithets were reserved for later when the women were leaving in the car
    According to Kim Pittman. However, Bissey, who was listening and reported having heard the peculiar comment about the nice cotton shirt, did not report having heard racial epithets.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#120)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    I think the last couple of "racial slurs" speculations were prompted by IMHO's
    I would guess the players made some racial slurs before the ruckus spilled out into the yard
    .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#121)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    Thanks, ding and wumhenry. I thought I had missed something.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:29:48 AM EST
    imho, why don't you respond to my 1:51 am post rather than continuing your smear campaign regarding how those two buck naked strippers performing sex acts on each other were somehow defiled. Also please tell us whether the strippers have defiled themselves in any way.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#123)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:30:59 AM EST
    ding7777 posted:
    Kim said she went to the bathroom (not the yard) after the commotion/ruckus
    Strange that she would forget about those racial slurs when she wrote her account but remembered the racial slurs that prompted her to call the cops
    Did I say the ruckus went directly from the dancing area to the yard? No. Kim says it went from the dancing area, to the bathroom where Kim claims the accuser was yelling through the door at the players who were knocking. She was saying to them, "leave us alone." Kim went outside and the ruckus spilled out into the yard according to Bissey. The accuser claims they were using racial slurs during the dance. I don't think anyone's account is going to include everything that took place. Look what the captains, reportedly "forgot" - a strapping 6 foot one inch 215 pounder!!! wumhenry posted:
    According to Kim Pittman. However, Bissey, who was listening and reported having heard the peculiar comment about the nice cotton shirt, did not report having heard racial epithets
    Bissey did not see Kim get into her car. By the time he came out she was driving down the street. He didn't even know who was in the car. As far as I know Kim didn't report hearing the "convoluted" "Hey, b!itch, thank you grandpa for my nice cotton shirt" remark. Bissey said, "There were no kind words of the things I heard that were directed at the girls." Things. Plural. I wonder what other unkind thing(s) he heard?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#124)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:35:46 AM EST
    After showing up too intoxicated to perform and stealing the players $800 I do not think many would have offered "kind" words for the strippers when they departed.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#125)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:43:47 AM EST
    Newport posted:
    Imho, while we are on the subject of pictures. Do you have an explanation as to the FA attempting to reenter the house at 12:31 am to either retrieve her shoe (Bissey) or, "make more money" (Roberts), with a smile on her face if she had been beaten, choked, kicked, hit, and raped orally, vaginally, and anally in the preceeding 30 minutes by three men. She must not have been too traumatized if she wanted to reenter that house to save a shoe.
    Could you please find me some decriptions of that photo? I know D.S. Abrams described her as having a "demure smile," but another reporter's said they couldn't tell if she was smiling or not. How do the photos depict her "attempting to reenter the house?" Description please? Newport posted:
    Why is that single photograph not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this case is a hoax? I would really appreciate your views on this and puhleeese don't tell me that she could have been raped after 12:31 am.
    If the defense team agrees with you, they can save a lot of time and money by entering that photo into evidence and resting their case. You should e-mail Osborn with your trial strategy ASAP.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#127)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:49:34 AM EST
    To all: As if it couldn't get any stranger, read the following link about Duke's AD and his son. What is it about drinking at Duke? http://www.wral.com/news/9431635/detail.html

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#128)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    beenaround:
    You know, I have observed that women tend to embellish things, perhaps because they remember the emotion of the event more than the actual words. Perhaps that is what Pittman did.
    That's going to go over well, here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#130)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:00:22 AM EST
    Newport posted:
    Also please tell us whether the strippers have defiled themselves in any way.
    I agree with PB - I don't have a problem with that.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#131)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:02:31 AM EST
    noname says:
    beenaround:
    You know, I have observed that women tend to embellish things, perhaps because they remember the emotion of the event more than the actual words. Perhaps that is what Pittman did.
    That's going to go over well, here.
    Yeah, maybe I should have used some women because, of course, women vary as much as men do, even if the means are different.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#132)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    mik posted:
    I though it was the broomstick comment alone that sent Kim running for cover in the bathroom and that the racial epithets were reserved for later when the women were leaving in the car and the men wanted their money refunded. And the cotton shirt remark was a return for Kim's l!mp d!ck white boys having to pay to see it remark. Am I mistaken?
    The accuser said the racial slurs began as they were dancing. One attorney claims the "limp d!ck" remark was made before the broomstick remark. 12:04 ish? The "Cotton shirt" remark was made at about 12:52 ish? That's quite a cooling off period if they want to blame one on the other.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#133)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    The accuser said the racial slurs began as they were dancing.
    In which version of her story?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#134)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:17:12 AM EST
    Evans Found Guilty
    DURHAM, N.C. -- A player involved in the Duke lacrosse rape investigation was found guilty Tuesday...


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#135)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:18:50 AM EST
    IMHO - Funny

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#136)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:18:51 AM EST
    mik posted:
    In which version of her story?
    The N & O reporter's version.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#137)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    Man freed in wife's death threatens to sue county seems to have some similarities.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#138)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:21:30 AM EST
    IMHO: It's not in the search warrant for the house. It's not in Kim Pittman's written statement. In fact, the first reported use of the "n-word" by Ms. Pittman is as she and the accuser are pulling away. She also states that the broomstick remark was made during their performance, not in response to anything she said. Can you cite your references?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#139)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:30:59 AM EST
    Challengers to DA try to get on ballot
    "This isn't about Duke lacrosse," Cheek said. "It's about dealing with crime in a fair, evenhanded and appropriate way in our city. The lacrosse case isn't the problem. It pointed out the problem.
    Toldja he might be a fibber.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#140)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:31:07 AM EST
    IMHO posted:
    Bissey said, "There were no kind words of the things I heard that were directed at the girls." Things. Plural. I wonder what other unkind thing(s) he heard?
    Why not help us out and speculate wildly? After all, we don't know.
    If the defense team agrees with you, they can save a lot of time and money by entering that photo into evidence and resting their case. You should e-mail Osborn with your trial strategy ASAP.
    Thanks. Insightful comment.
    One attorney claims the "limp d!ck" remark was made before the broomstick remark. 12:04 ish?
    Whch attorney? Source?
    In which version of her story?
    The N & O reporter's version.
    Can you give us a link. The N&O has discussed the case a few times. Thanks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#141)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:35:49 AM EST
    mik posted:
    Can you cite your references?
    Sure, for what?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#142)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:39:38 AM EST
    IMHO:
    "This isn't about Duke lacrosse," Cheek said. "It's about dealing with crime in a fair, evenhanded and appropriate way in our city. The lacrosse case isn't the problem. It pointed out the problem." Toldja he might be a fibber.
    OK, I'll bite. Tell us how we're supposed to deduce from that that Cheek is a liar.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#143)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:46:02 AM EST
    Dancer gives details of ordeal
    Just moments after she and another exotic dancer started to perform, she said, men in the house started barking racial slurs. The two women, both black, stopped dancing.
    Vanity Fair July 2006 (hard copy, not on-line version)
    According to defense attorney William Thomas, representing one of the team captains, it was shortly after the performance had begun that one of the players asked the dancers if they had brought "any toys," an apparent reference to sexual toys. Thomas said Roberts responded by saying something to the effect of "What's wrong, white boy, is your d!ick too small?"(Roberts refused to comment on Thomas's claim. A source, however, readily conceded that she did make a comment similar to the one described by Thomas, but only at the end of the evening, after one of the players called her a "n!gger.")
    Thomas said the same player who made the reference to "toys" subsequently lifted a broomstick and said words to the effect of "Here, you can use this."


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#144)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:00:53 AM EST
    I believe Dan Hill started this campaign to get Nifong off the Duke Lacrosse case. He recruited Cheek to do it for him. Herald Sun June 12, 2006
    Several of Cheek's colleagues predicted Monday that he would be an excellent prosecutor, although one expressed skepticism because of Cheek's past representation of Duke on issues unrelated to the lacrosse case. Another said Cheek might be perceived as a puppet for those recruiting him to run for district attorney, including Duke graduate and former City Councilman Dan Hill.
    Hill said Nifong's handling of the lacrosse rape case had much to do with his backing of Cheek. In particular, Hill cited early statements by Nifong that, he said, don't seem to be supported by recent revelations from defense attorneys.
    "Lewis would never have gotten us in the position Mike Nifong has got us in," said Hill. "In my opinion, those first eight days were disastrous. Mike Nifong had me convinced a rape occurred that night in that place by Duke lacrosse players. Now it doesn't look that way. I'm concerned about his [Nifong's] judgment in this case. It has put Durham in the limelight in a very negative fashion."


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#145)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:03:21 AM EST
    The accuser claims they were using racial slurs during the dance.
    Which isn't corroborated by Pittman's detailed account. Pittman said nothing about racial slurs during the dance. And according to Pittman, the AV wasn't willing to leave when Pittman got huffy about the broomstick remark. If the players had been shouting racial taunts, you'd think the AV would've been more willing to support Pittman's walk-out.
    Precious and I began our show which, in my opinion, seemed to be going well. Precious began showing signs of intoxication at this point. We continued with the performance until one of the boys brought out a broomstick and after asking if we had any toys, said he would use the broomstick on us. That statement made me uncomfortable and I felt like I wanted to leave. I raised my voice to the boys and said the show was over. The commotion riled Precious up and caused her to get irate. I went to the bathroom with Precious and I told her I wanted to leave. Precious felt we could get more money and that we shouldn't leave yet.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#146)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    IMHO says:
    A source, however, readily conceded that she did make a comment similar to the one described by Thomas, but only at the end of the evening, after one of the players called her a "n!gger.")
    Hmmm, so now you are hiding behind anonymous sources reported by the media. Aren't you the one who constantly calls for all sources to be presented and verified?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#147)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    From Pittman's Vanity Fair interview:
    Just moments after she and another exotic dancer started to perform, she said, men in the house started barking racial slurs. The two women, both black, stopped dancing. "We started to cry," she said. "We were so scared."
    There are some glaring discrepancies between these assertions and the description of the event in the handwritten statement she signed before Nifong gave her a sweetheart deal on her probation violation. In the earlier statement, she said nothing either about racial slurs during the brief performance. Nor did she say that anyone cried. Rather, she said that she "raised her voice" and called it quits because she was frightened by a ribald remark about a broomstick. She also said that the AV was annoyed by the commotion that she, Pittman, stirred up by threatening to leave and that the AV was not willing to leave with her. In contrast, in the Vanity Fair interview there's no mention of the broomstick comment; instead, racial taunts are the fly in the ointment and both women are frightened and break into tears. Pittman is a real piece of work.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#148)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:38:19 AM EST
    wumhenry, I think that quote is from the accuser in the N&O interview here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#149)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    Still waiting for the explanation requested in the comment posted at 11:39AM.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#150)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:40:46 AM EST
    Thanks, mik, I stand corrected.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#151)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:42:48 AM EST
    imho, you really should grow thicker skin because it is not useful to waste your intellect worrying about who called who a name and whether someone insulted the saintly womanhood of intoxicated strippers. I knew you'd pull that crap with the picture. You know it's reentry after she was in the car because that's what Bissey observed, and it's also what Robert's in her statement to the police said happened. As to whether defense would rest their case on the picture, that is not the point and it wasn't my question. My question was whether the picture proves this case is a hoax? I think it does and it explains why there is no forensic evidence -- because no rape occurred in that house by those boys. There are people on this board, you included, that cling to the hope that a rape occurred so that you can feel vindicated in all the abuse you have leveled at the innocent boys. That will not happen and the picture shows us why that will not happen.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#152)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:04:25 PM EST
    Newport said:
    imho, you really should grow thicker skin because it is not useful to waste your intellect worrying about who called who a name and whether someone insulted the saintly womanhood of intoxicated strippers.
    What can you do? At least there's some evidence that somebody was called something by somebody. As far as any substantive arguments backing up the AV's collection of short stories -- it's the old "We just don't know. We haven't seen all the evidence." A valid point, but you can only use a variant of that so many times....

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#153)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:04:44 PM EST
    The $2,000 may have been charged as stolen just to have an excuse for being short cash to give to her "boyfriend."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#154)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    imho Why do Dan Hill's comments make Lewis Cheek a liar?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#155)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:14:50 PM EST
    I believe Dan Hill started this campaign to get Nifong off the Duke Lacrosse case. He recruited Cheek to do it for him.
    So? No argument there. Lots of people would like to get Nifong off the case. Politicians flock when opportunity knocks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#156)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:19:29 PM EST
    Why wouldn't the DA have a theory of the case by now? It's been almost two months since the indictments. You'd think that if he was going to take this thing to trial he would know whether or not Roberts helped, whether or not there are three unindicted coconspirators who pulled Roberts away, when during the evening the rape occurred, etc. There is much confusion because the only witness to the rape, the AV, has given so many different accounts. One can say that the DA gains an advantage by not sticking to one story prior to the trial, but a search for truth doesn't involve gameplaying in order to gain an advantage. Why not charge people and not tell them what the crime was? That would certainly give the prosecutor an advantage. Pitiful, pathetic.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#158)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    The $2,000 may have been charged as stolen just to have an excuse for being short cash to give to her "boyfriend."
    Doesn't seem at all unlikely. Nor does it seem unlikely that it was, in fact, stolen, by convicted embezzler Kim Pittman.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#159)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    So? No argument there. Lots of people would like to get Nifong off the case. Politicians flock when opportunity knocks.
    I don't have a problem with that. Why deny it? localone, if you are in a position to have an informed opinion on the subject, do you think Dan Hill could be considered "connected to Duke?"

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#160)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:28:38 PM EST
    I was just reading Mr. P's 5:35 am post and was shocked because some of it actually was valid argument. Then I discovered that it was not Mr. P's post but PB's post that Mr. P did not properly quote but simply repeated in full!! Wow! BTW, Mr. P., TL has asked that wholesale repeating of prior posts not be done. She has asked this on more than one occasion and currently you are the greatest violator of that simple request. It wastes her bandwidth and does not add to the discussion to have you go through every single comment and take your little snipes at each statement. I think will will find Mr. P that with a few notable exceptions, myself included, most on this board are quite liberal like yourself. The difference between them and you rests in notions of fairness that you seem to miss.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#161)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    From the National Journal piece:
    Instead of backing off, many in the rush-to-judgment crowd have simply hedged their presumption of guilt and shifted to smearing the lacrosse players -- including sons of three retired New York City firefighters, and others from modest backgrounds -- as a bunch of privileged, thuggish, racist, and (horrors) white jocks
    To whomever it may concern: if the shoe fits, wear it!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#162)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:33:06 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with that. Why deny it?
    I'm not going to defend a politician running for office - I think lots of 'em lie all the time. The good ones make it vague enough that you can't call it that. As to why: How about trying to pander to everybody to get votes? It wouldn't be the first time a candidate has tried to avoid an issue and say something for everyone. Are you implying that this has any relation or relevance to the defense? If so, what?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#163)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:33:13 PM EST
    The "shoe" being "the rush-to-judgment crowd" and who have "hedged their presumption of guilt and shifted to smearing the lacrosse players ... as a bunch of privileged, thuggish, racist ... white jocks."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#164)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    Imho, in a word no. He's a long way from his college days if that's the sole basis for your question. A "Duke connection" doesn't really matter in this case anymore. A lot of people, myself included, despise Duke around here and most folks still think Durham is being dragged down by the performance of this prosecutor. I just don't get your point---is it that Lewis is some puppet of Dan Hill? You've got your politics wrong on that one, imho. Cheek is well known and much more of a force than Hill. But still, answer my question. Why does anything Dan Hill says make Lewis Cheek into a liar?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#165)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    imho, you really should grow thicker skin because it is not useful to waste your intellect worrying about who called who a name and whether someone insulted the saintly womanhood of intoxicated strippers.
    I don't know what you are talking about. Newport posted:
    I knew you'd pull that crap with the picture. You know it's reentry after she was in the car because that's what Bissey observed, and it's also what Robert's in her statement to the police said happened.
    That dead granny of mine used to say, "If there is one thing I find most unattractive in a person it is coarseness." Not that I trust the time-stamped D.S. photos, but let's go with the 12:30 time: that photo could have been taken after she had been alone in the house for ten minutes as per Bob Ekstrand: NEWSWEEK April 18, 2006
    According to this timeline, provided by defense attorney Ekstrand, the alleged victim was never alone in the house for more than about 10 minutes.
    Have you found a description of the photo that determines that she was coming, not going? How about one the determines she is smiling? Newport posted:
    As to whether defense would rest their case on the picture, that is not the point and it wasn't my question. My question was whether the picture proves this case is a hoax? I think it does and it explains why there is no forensic evidence -- because no rape occurred in that house by those boys. There are people on this board, you included, that cling to the hope that a rape occurred so that you can feel vindicated in all the abuse you have leveled at the innocent boys. That will not happen and the picture shows us why that will not happen.
    And noname has observed that women tend to embellish things?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:50:09 PM EST
    A lot of people, myself included, despise Duke around here
    How is it you can "despise" an institute of higher learning? Please share all the things the university does collectively that warrants such a feeling.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#167)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:52:49 PM EST
    IMHO says:
    And noname has observed that women tend to embellish things?
    No, no. That was me. noname was chastising me for it, IIRC.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#168)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    Jlvingston Okay, maybe despise is strong for you, but maybe not, if you don't live here. There is an arrogance that the institution exudes, whether in its medical center, its law school (where I used to be employed), its undergraduate programs, its athletic programs. I could give you lots of examples. The students don't help in the local hangouts (there's a great story about police officers being taunted by Duke students about their intelligence when they broke up a loud pool party...of course they were then arrested. Not wise to call a cop dumb when he has the gun and the badge.) The Cameron crazies. But here's one: the tragic case of the Santilian girl and the failed transplant. Most legal/medical/public relations types who witnessed that pr debacle said Duke would have saved itself millions of dollars with a little humility, right at the beginning. I've seen it often in court. I take it you're from Duke? Or not from around here?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#169)
    by january on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Discovery questions: I apologize if this is boring and repetitive, but it has been bothering me. Dan Abrams has seen all the discovery to date, and has said he has found nothing which would strengthen the prosecution's case. Would Abrams really miss a pretty big opportunity to reveal some hitherto unknown, damning evidence that would change the tenor of this story? Surely he wouldn't be inclined to jeopardize his career in that way? Wouldn't it be very easy to prove him wrong? You can argue that the defense didn't give him everything, but they are using that discovery information on which to base their motions, and if they withheld anything or changed it in some way, wouldn't that be pretty easily refuted by Nifong, or even the judge? And didn't Abrams say he checked the page numbers and was confident he had seen it all? And, finally, if Nifong has something damning, why isn't it in the discovery? I thought he was required to turn it over? Legal minds out there - can he legally produce something at the last minute that he has not turned over to the defense?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#170)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    beenaround - I wasn't chastising you, I was just pointing out that many here will not accept that sort of generalization, particularly as part of an argument. Thanks, BTW, for correcting IMHO.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#171)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    beenaround posted:
    No, no. That was me. noname was chastising me for it, IIRC.
    Oh, sorry noname. Thanks for the correction, beenaround.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#172)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    I think it is Dan Hill's campaign, he just needed a politician on the ticket. I asked localone if Dan Hill was "connected to Duke": localone posted:
    Imho, in a word no. He's a long way from his college days if that's the sole basis for your question.
    The basis for my question is that he was described as a "prominent Duke supporter." Anyone know if this Dan Hill is related to Dan Hill who was the Blue Devil All-American football star that used to recruit for Duke's football team? That Dan Hill was co-captain of Duke's most famous football team ever. Their only loss was to USC in the 1939 Rose Bowl game.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    Sounds like a cop theory, "I take it you are from Duke" or "you are not from around here" It is either one or the other now isn't it? Every college has its idiot students, ask any local in a college or military town and they will tell you stories about being talked down to as well as the arrogance and bad behavior of the drunk students/drunk soldiers. These problems are not specific or unusual in college towns, have you been to a few others? I am not a Dukie, have a friend and her hubby who are both Docs there and are both ten times the person i could ever dream of being. But they are not representative of every duke doc either.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#174)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    can he legally produce something at the last minute that he has not turned over to the defense?
    Probably not, unless it's newly discovered and couldn't have been discovered earlier by exercise of due diligence. In which case, I assume the judge would grant any reasonable request from the defense for postponement of the trial.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#175)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    Still waiting for IMHO to explain why she called Cheek a liar.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#176)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:19:50 PM EST
    imho, there is also a sequence of photo's that have her standing on the porch starting at 12:31 am that document her falling down the steps 7 minutes later I believe. She is looking through her purse or makeup bag in the picture at 12:31 am. If she had been raped just moments prior to 12:31 am she would not be standing on the porch for several minutes trying to regain entry, she would have been running out of there screaming and crying like she was being chased by a pack of wolves. Your point is not valid when considered in view of the available evidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#177)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:30:43 PM EST
    Hi january, I don't think your question is boring at all. I listed some questions for Dan Abrams. I wonder why (AFAIK) he hasn't talked about any of these topics. Does anyone really think we will not see one bit of evidence that favors the prosecution in the 1294 pages Abrams read? I don't. And yes, january, I think it will become apparent, eventually, that Abrams wasn't as forthcoming as a more neutral party would have been. He is in an interesting postition here and to retain it he has to curry favor with his benefactors. If he did find something incriminating and aired his findings do you think he would be invited to Durham to review the next 536 pages of discovery? I don't. His biased evaluation of the discovery does not even have to be intentional. He has, in his own words "ranted on this program" calling for the case to be dropped. Is it any wonder that inconsistencies in the accuser's and Kim's statements jump out at him more readily than inconsistencies that could favor the prosecution? As far as his reputation as a "journalist" goes, I think he's earned his quotation marks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#178)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    Wumhenry is correct re the failure to disclose evidence. There is a rule in most courts re discovery that has been requested or is required by law to be produced, produce it if you want to use it. In criminal cases there is the additional constitutional burden to turn over all exculpatory material to the defense called "Brady" material after the famous Supreme Court case, or risk reversal on appeal in case of a conviction. Finally, NC as of 2004 implemented an open file discovery practice which requires the prosecutor to open his file to the defense attorneys to eliminate any chance for a dispute as to what constitutes "Brady" material. The prosecutor's duty to disclose discovery materials is an ongoing obligation that continues up to and during trial. So if Nifong has anything and he wants to use it or if he doesn't want to use but wants to avoid either sanctions or reversal on appeal, he has to turn the material over.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#179)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    funny, I google "dan Hill duke" and I come up with imho's identical Dan Hill question from a thread on TL on June 10. wum, in case your question is serious, Cheek said something along the lines that his supporters are not connected with Duke. Imho found some indications that Hill, one of Duke's many alums and one of Cheek's many "supporters," is or was a fundraiser for Duke. Therefor, imho's comment that Cheek "might be a fibber." I guess it all boils down to what your definition of "connected" is, and how that word applies to a non-homogeneous group.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#180)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    To january: I have the same questions about the discovery as you do. I also can see no upside for the defense to wildly mischaracterize the evidence, because that could ultimately place their clients in far greater peril. Dan Abrams wouldn't miss the opportunity for a "scoop" if something was questionable; he'd be fair about it, though. Can Nifong spring something at the last minute? I'd like to know, but I have to ask, like Abrams always did, what could it possibly be to so counter the preponderance of the evidence? To Newport: If you can believe it, I've never seen the party photos. (I've been about as eager to see them as I would be to use the captains' bathroom.) Since they're such a part of the discussion though, I must ask: where can I find them, please?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#181)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    wumhenry posted:
    Still waiting for IMHO to explain why she called Cheek a liar.
    I didn't say he was a liar.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#182)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one:
    funny, I google "dan Hill duke" and I come up with imho's identical Dan Hill question from a thread on TL on June 10.
    Finally, an unimpeachable source! I was hoping one of our newer posters new the answer.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#183)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    This case is a unique case re changing stories and theories of the prosecutor. Normally, I would agree that a bill of particulars would not be required of a prosecutor because the defense will ordinarily have a pretty good idea of the prosecution's case from available discovery and be able to prepare for whatever case the prosecutor eventually presents at trial. This case is different. There is no cohesive story, there are only changing stories and it is right that the defense has no way of knowing from the discovery what the prosecutions theory of the case is at this point. The defense cannot prepare to rebut Nifong's theories of the case at this point. I think the bill of particulars has merit. At the very least it points out the fundamental unfairness the defense faces in this case. Will the motion be granted? No, because it will be heard by a Durham judge. Would it be granted if heard by a federal judge? Probably not in toto, but there would be a good chance for at least some relief to be granted.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#184)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    Kitkat wrote:
    I have to say the partial DNA match is worthless.
    You're taking it out of context, that's all. You have to remember the detail that ALL the other suspects have been excluded. Oh sure, the defense playbook will claim a) that the rape didn't happen and that b) if it did happen she was raped someplace else by somebody else. But that deconstruction of the prosecution's story line won't necessarily be successful, in which case the fingernail dna might come off as quite strong.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#185)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:46:26 PM EST
    IMHO splitting hairs once again when called on something:
    I didn't say he was a liar.
    but you did say:
    Toldja he might be a fibber.


    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#186)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:50:18 PM EST
    Based on what I have heard here (from Madison and others who are scientists in the field) re the reliability of this particular mixed DNA sample and what it shows I do not believe that it will even be admitted at trial as evidence to prove that Evan's was a scratcher. It may be admitted for some other purpose, but right now I can't think of what that might be. If it is admitted, and there is a conviction, then there would be a strong ground for appeal based on the scientific unreliability of the evidence. Madison: I have seen the photo's but I can't remember where. MSNBC maybe.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#187)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    kitkat says:
    The theory is that the genetic drift is much larger on the individual level than the group level. This might be way off topic, but please tell me how genetic drift applies to individuals.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#188)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    sacastic unnamed one posted:
    Imho found some indications that Hill, one of Duke's many alums and one of Cheek's many "supporters," is or was a fundraiser for Duke.
    The phrase used was "prominent Duke supporter." Karl Rove could be referred to as one of George Bush's many "supporters." From I've read, it seems Dan Hill is "the man" behind the campaign to oust Nifong. Cheek is an ancillary figure(head). Hill spent $15,000 on mailers before Cheek decided if he was even going to run. He still is undecided.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#189)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    The campaign fund Hill is soliciting money for spent the $15,000. I don't know if any of it came from Hill himself.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#190)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:56:09 PM EST
    Heh. PB wrote:
    You're taking it out of context, that's all. You have to remember the detail that ALL the other suspects have been excluded.
    My emphasis. That is simply untrue. All of the other white lacrosse players tested have been excluded as a possible source for part of the DNA in the mixture. Oh, and the fingernails have a history.
    Oh sure, the defense playbook will claim a) that the rape didn't happen and that b) if it did happen she was raped someplace else by somebody else.
    They will stick with a), because that can be demonstrated. They will not move to b).
    But that deconstruction of the prosecution's story line won't necessarily be successful, in which case the fingernail dna might come off as quite strong.
    My emphasis. No, it will never come off as "quite strong." And did I mention, the fingernails have a history.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#191)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:58:28 PM EST
    What is the statement that you regard as a lie, and what proves that it's a lie? I want an exact quote, not a paraphrase.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#192)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 01:58:45 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    IMHO splitting hairs once again when called on something:
    You think I didn't contemplate how I was going to phrase that BEFORE I posted it? wumhenry has been called on accusing me of saying something we all can see I never said.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#193)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    My previous post did not address the possibility that Nifong has exculpatory evidence that he does not want to use but that he hides said evidence and the defense does not know about the evidence from any other source. In this case there would obviously be no sanction because no one would know about it. Is it possible, sure, probably happens more often than anyone would like to admit. There is, of course, the famous recent case in North Carolina where the prosecutor did not turn over information showing the defendant was in jail at the time the charged murder was taking place and caused the defendant to be convicted and sent to prison. The case was reversed some time later and the defendant freed when the information was found in the prosecutor's file by whom, I don't know. I believe the prosecutor in that case claimed he didn't know about the document that was in his file and the prosecutor was not sanctioned. Sound familiar? Now you know why defense attorneys keep asking the judge to order Nifong to certify in writing to the court that he has read his own file. The public statements of Nifong and his own investigator Wilson that are contradicted by the available discovery also bolster the defendants attorneys arguments in this regard as well.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#194)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:18:34 PM EST
    "You're taking it out of context, that's all. You have to remember the detail that ALL the other suspects have been excluded." what are you talking about it is exactly in context. Did you read the rest of the post? You and others have been throwing around the "partial" match. and I put it into a scientific context. Although to be fair if the match was say 5 or six it helps the odds but you still have a very large pool. I believe (imho) your good a research that the lab stated that it matched others in their database as well. which is what i would expect with a very small partial. re: genetic drift this is ummm i shouldn't have included that it makes it to complicated. gotta run to the second job.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#195)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:18:49 PM EST
    re: Newport's post of 3:01 P.M. I really hate to consider this possibility, such outrageous misconduct. What a ridiculous place North Carolina seems to be! (This is my opinion only. I'll be checking on my own state soon.) This perhaps explains why Nifong didn't want to meet with the players and their attorneys before the indictments? If he just didn't know about it, he wouldn't be required to take alibis into consideration, huh?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#196)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    I wonder if the FA's official statement says condoms were used. Probably, and Nifong will claim that that is what he is working off, all prior statements be damned. The defense will not release the whole FA statement because it is likely too inflamatory but maybe they will tell us whether what, if anything, the official statement says about condom use. Heard a district attorney quoted recently as saying in his twenty years of practice trying rape cases that he had never heard of a rape case being prosecuted where semem other than that of the alleged rapist was found in the victim. Thus, in rape cases you either get no semen or the rapist's semen but you don't get someone else's semen as is the unfortunate case here. This case is breaking new ground on many levels.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#197)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:30:38 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    You think I didn't contemplate how I was going to phrase that BEFORE I posted it? wumhenry has been called on accusing me of saying something we all can see I never said.
    Been around this board for a while - of course I think you thought about it. I didn't say you said he was a liar. I didn't say you said anything - I just quoted your posts twice. As I did say, splitting hairs.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#198)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:32:02 PM EST
    Newport, Regarding the accuser's "official statement": I would be very interested in the date she made it. If even that can be trusted. (At this point, I believe I have lost faith in the Durham authorities. I hate this.)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#199)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    Madison wrote,
    This perhaps explains why Nifong didn't want to meet with the players and their attorneys before the indictments? If he just didn't know about it, he wouldn't be required to take alibis into consideration, huh?
    Probably true, receiving such information wasn't pressing at that time, getting indictments was. I don't know Nifong's motivations. I used to think they were purely political, then I though "white guilty," then I though just incredibly stubborn in some combination with the foregoing. There is at least some thought as expressed in a recent editorial that political motivation is not the driving force behind Nifong's actions, and that what does drive Nifong is that he is a "lunatic." As in the case of Garrison of New Orleans, history will be the ultimate judge of Nifong's motivations.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#200)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:36:12 PM EST
    Madison, I think the date of her official statement is known, but I don't know it. Imho will post it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#201)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    Posted by Bob In Pacifica June 27, 2006 01:19 PM
    Why wouldn't the DA have a theory of the case by now? It's been almost two months since the indictments.
    Whatever else may be said about Nifong, he has given no indication that he is in any hurry to proceed with this case. He's not under any pressure to check with other witnesses to try to formulate a specific theory until after he can talk further with the AV, and right now she apparently is not talking to anybody. Without a clear -- and resolute -- statement from her, Nifong can't really provide a clear -- and resolute -- theory of the case. I think his position is essentially, "I believe her, that's why I filed the charges. When she gets ready to she will provide me with the rest of the information I need to get a conviction."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#202)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:39:18 PM EST
    At least Nifong got himself made famous. I would think that on the national level he is now the best known North Carolina elected official.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#203)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    Newport wrote:
    ...what does drive Nifong is that he is a "lunatic."
    Source? (sorry, couldn't help it) Thanks for the laugh. It has seemed mighty bleak of late.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#204)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:00:31 PM EST
    Newport wrote:
    ...what does drive Nifong is that he is a "lunatic."
    Source? (sorry, couldn't help it) Thanks for the laugh. It has seemed mighty bleak of late.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#206)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    Regarding nifong's motivations, I don't know a thing about Black America Web but has an interesting take...
    It is unlikely Nifong is holding some trump card, and he is not delusional. It may be that he has simply set himself on a course to exact some form of cosmic justice. [snip] It's not unreasonable to think that Nifong is keenly aware that the charges of black women against white men have been ignored throughout the years and decided such would not be the case on his watch. [snip] A lack of evidence, however, is not a stumbling block when one is pursuing justice that exists in the nether regions of ethereal reality. The lives of real people become abstractions, as agendas trump facts and the merits of a case take a back seat to good intentions.
    There's a lot more in the article...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#205)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    imho, there is also a sequence of photo's that have her standing on the porch starting at 12:31 am that document her falling down the steps 7 minutes later I believe. She is looking through her purse or makeup bag in the picture at 12:31 am. If she had been raped just moments prior to 12:31 am she would not be standing on the porch for several minutes trying to regain entry, she would have been running out of there screaming and crying like she was being chased by a pack of wolves. Your point is not valid when considered in view of the available evidence.
    The photo of her falling on the steps is time-stamped 12:31:26 a.m. Thirty nine seconds after the "demure smile" photo. She is photographed lying on the stairs inbetween then and being helped to Kims car ten minutes after the falling photo. This is from the Johnsville News site. It looks like they compiled descriptions from different reporters to make this timeline:
    12:30:12 a.m., (photo time stamp) The accuser is on the back porch, carrying what appears to be her purse and a makeup bag. Her clothes are intact.
    12:30:47 a.m., (photo time stamp) Photo of accuser on back porch apparently smiling. [also described as "demurely smiling" or as "having her mouth open with her teeth showing"] She appears to have a purse in her hand.
    12:30:47 a.m., (photo time stamp)altered photo of [redacted] leaving 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. with her purse
    12:31:26 a.m., (photo time stamp) But 30 [39] seconds after the last photo, next photo shows the alleged victim stumbling down the back steps of the house.
    Next there are a series of photos of her lying on the back steps:
    12:37:58 - 12:38:18 - accuser lying on stairs, cuts, and abrasions visible. happened when she fell. fresh nail polish was on the handrail. it wasn't on the other handrail pick before she went out there. all of her clothing is intact
    It's a good thing a pack of wolves weren't chasing her. She wouldn't have been able to escape them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#207)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    imho, there is also a sequence of photo's that have her standing on the porch starting at 12:31 am that document her falling down the steps 7 minutes later I believe. She is looking through her purse or makeup bag in the picture at 12:31 am. If she had been raped just moments prior to 12:31 am she would not be standing on the porch for several minutes trying to regain entry, she would have been running out of there screaming and crying like she was being chased by a pack of wolves. Your point is not valid when considered in view of the available evidence.
    The photo of her falling on the steps is time-stamped 12:31:26 a.m. Thirty nine seconds after the "demure smile" photo. She is photographed lying on the stairs inbetween then and being helped to Kims car ten minutes after the falling photo. This is from the Johnsville News site. It looks like they compiled descriptions from different reporters to make this timeline:
    12:30:12 a.m., (photo time stamp) The accuser is on the back porch, carrying what appears to be her purse and a makeup bag. Her clothes are intact.
    12:30:47 a.m., (photo time stamp) Photo of accuser on back porch apparently smiling. [also described as "demurely smiling" or as "having her mouth open with her teeth showing"] She appears to have a purse in her hand.
    12:30:47 a.m., (photo time stamp)altered photo of [redacted] leaving 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. with her purse
    12:31:26 a.m., (photo time stamp) But 30 [39] seconds after the last photo, next photo shows the alleged victim stumbling down the back steps of the house.
    Next there are a series of photos of her lying on the back steps:
    12:37:58 - 12:38:18 - accuser lying on stairs, cuts, and abrasions visible. happened when she fell. fresh nail polish was on the handrail. it wasn't on the other handrail pick before she went out there. all of her clothing is intact
    It's a good thing a pack of wolves weren't chasing her. She wouldn't have been able to escape them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#208)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:04:49 PM EST
    Regarding nifong's motivations, I don't know a thing about Black America Web but has an interesting take...
    It is unlikely Nifong is holding some trump card, and he is not delusional. It may be that he has simply set himself on a course to exact some form of cosmic justice. [snip] It's not unreasonable to think that Nifong is keenly aware that the charges of black women against white men have been ignored throughout the years and decided such would not be the case on his watch. [snip] A lack of evidence, however, is not a stumbling block when one is pursuing justice that exists in the nether regions of ethereal reality. The lives of real people become abstractions, as agendas trump facts and the merits of a case take a back seat to good intentions.
    There's a lot more in the article...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#209)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:17:56 PM EST
    Is there an echo in here? Echo!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#210)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    Sorry about that! I was experiencing technical difficulties...couldn't seem to connect..didn't seem to have posted. Again, sorry.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#211)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Whatever else may be said about Nifong, he has given no indication that he is in any hurry to proceed with this case.
    Has he given an indication to the contary? Has he done anything to stall the proceedings? He agreed to the move to the second setting for Seligmann at his first setting hearing. Judge Stephens said they don't usually do it that way, but left it up to Nifong who had no objection.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#212)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    to Madison What's the difference between what PB wrote (ALL the other suspects have been excluded) and what you wrote (All of the other white lacrosse players tested have been excluded)?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#213)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    What Madison said. What Madison said. :-)

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#214)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    imho distorted,
    The photo of her falling on the steps is time-stamped 12:31:26 a.m. Thirty nine seconds after the "demure smile" photo. She is photographed lying on the stairs inbetween then and being helped to Kims car ten minutes after the falling photo.
    Another example of your intellectual dishonesty imho. The first photo has the FA standing on the porch at 12:30:12, she is still standing on the porch at 12:31:26, this is one minute and 14 seconds later. This is a long time to be standing on a porch looking through your bag after you had just been raped, beaten, choked, kicked and hit by 3 men. I would think most people would find his extraordinarily implausible. I may be wrong. BTW, I agree with you on the wolves. Wolves, and canines in general, are so much faster than any human being (Carl Lewis included) that escape would be impossible.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#215)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:35:42 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    As I did say, splitting hairs.
    and the rest of the story.... What SomewhatChunky posted INCLUDING what was left off the second time:
    IMHO splitting hairs once again when called on something:
    tsk... tsk...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#216)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    So, IMHO, are you backing down from calling Cheek a fibber?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#217)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    wum, Why are you such an enabler? wumhenry posted:
    So, IMHO, are you backing down from calling Cheek a fibber?
    I didn't say he was a fibber.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#218)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:00:46 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Another example of your intellectual dishonesty imho.
    Have you pointed out a previous example? Did I say you were being dishonest when you said you believed this to be true? Newport posted:
    imho, there is also a sequence of photo's that have her standing on the porch starting at 12:31 am that document her falling down the steps 7 minutes later I believe.
    No. I just pointed out that you were incorrect. Newport posted:
    If she had been raped just moments prior to 12:31 am she would not be standing on the porch for several minutes trying to regain entry, she would have been running out of there screaming and crying like she was being chased by a pack of wolves.
    Turns out she wasn't. Not standing on the porch for several minutes, and not determined to be trying to regain entry. One person's trying to regain entry is another person's "photo of [redacted] leaving 610 N. Buchanan Blvd." Newport posted:
    The first photo has the FA standing on the porch at 12:30:12, she is still standing on the porch at 12:31:26, this is one minute and 14 seconds later. This is a long time to be standing on a porch looking through your bag after you had just been raped, beaten, choked, kicked and hit by 3 men. I would think most people would find his extraordinarily implausible. I may be wrong.
    Well, we don't know what she was doing in between those two photos. She may have fallen down and gotten up. We don't know. We do know 39 seconds later she took a dive and 6 and a half minutes after that she was photograped lying on those steps. Why didn't she just run away? Can't wait to see the results of the alcohol screen Yale Galanter claims was taken. Why didn't Abrams tell us how drunk she was? Hmmmmm?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#219)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:11:34 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    Well, we don't know what she was doing in between those two photos. She may have fallen down and gotten up. We don't know...... Why didn't Abrams tell us how drunk she was? Hmmmmm?
    Good to see were back to the "We don't know" and the pure speculation based on... nothing. Hard to argue with any of that. I hope Nifong has something a tad more concrete.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#220)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:13:28 PM EST
    You're right we don't know. We are all sopolists as SLOphoto said and we don't know anything at all. I love it how, when confronted with facts you don't like and no reasonable explanation is available to counter those facts that you resort to the "we just don't know." How nice!! I could also have added that the FA was probably standing on the porch for some length of time before the photographer snapped the first picture. So, 1 minute and 14 seconds is the bare minimum amount of time the FA could have been on the porch assuming the same camera was used for the photos. We also know that the FA did not fall down and then try to get up between 12:30:12 and 12:30:47 because she is looking through the bag and showing her teeth at 12:30:47. Her clothes are also intact. Moreover, if she fell down between 12:30:12 and 12:31:26, as you speculate why didn't she end up at the bottom of the stairs at the time of this speculative fall? You are trapped on this one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#221)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:19:21 PM EST
    wumhenry - I believe IMHO asked if Cheek might be a fibber. While I think she was insinuating he is a fibber, there is no way to prove it. IMHO does this a lot, and I wish people would stop taking the bait. You're chasing a ghost.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#222)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:25:15 PM EST
    noname posted:
    I wish people would stop taking the bait.
    Me too. I tried to warn wum.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#223)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    I got it wrong, though. She didn't ask. She made a statement. Unfortunately, all she said was: "Toldja he might be a fibber". I couldn't find the quote she was referring to, but I am willing to bet it is evasive as well.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#224)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    "Evasive" is probably the wrong word. I should have gone with "intentionally vague".

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#225)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:46:39 PM EST
    Posted by inmyhumbleopinion June 27, 2006 04:27 PM
    SLOphoto posted: Whatever else may be said about Nifong, he has given no indication that he is in any hurry to proceed with this case.
    He agreed to the move to the second setting for Seligmann at his first setting hearing. Judge Stephens said they don't usually do it that way, but left it up to Nifong who had no objection.
    Does that indicate to you that he is in a hurry to proceed with the case?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#226)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    Good to see were back to the "We don't know" and the pure speculation based on... nothing. Hard to argue with any of that.
    It is Newport who is assuming that the accuser is inexplicably [if she had just been attacked and beaten etc.] standing in one place for one minute and 14 seconds. I am saying we don't know - there are other possibilites to be considered. Newport thinks a single photograph is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this case is a hoax. Newport posted:
    We also know that the FA did not fall down and then try to get up between 12:30:12 and 12:30:47 because she is looking through the bag and showing her teeth at 12:30:47. Her clothes are also intact.
    What? hahaha. That is silly. I didn't say she could have fallen so violently that her clothing could have been ripped off and her teeth could have been knocked out.
    Moreover, if she fell down between 12:30:12 and 12:31:26, as you speculate why didn't she end up at the bottom of the stairs at the time of this speculative fall?
    I guess that would depend on if she fell onto the porch or if she fell onto the stairs. Newport posted:
    You are trapped on this one
    Keep trying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#227)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Does that indicate to you that he is in a hurry to proceed with the case?
    To me, it indicated he passed up an opportunity to delay the case.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#228)
    by january on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    Thanks to all who responded to my discovery questions. You have confirmed my understanding. Tiny questions for IMHO though:
    He is in an interesting postition here and to retain it he has to curry favor with his benefactors.
    Do you mean the defense? Wouldn't he be more concerned about currying favor with the guys who pay him? I submit there was nothing to strengthen the prosecution's case, just like he said. If there's something damning there, he has a scoop and doesn't need the other 500+ pages. Plus, why in the world would the defense have let him see it in the first place?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#229)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:23:47 PM EST
    IMHO says:
    I am saying we don't know - there are other possibilites to be considered.
    I'll concede the answer is "We don't know" to an infinite number of possible questions. I'll also concede that there are countless possibilities to almost anything "we don't know." What's the point? We also don't know that you didn't murder Nicole Simpson. We undoubtedly could invent countless possibilities that show you might have. Should you be charged? I think you "should know" and have "a specific possibility" in mind before indicting someone. I hope Nifong does, otherwise this case is a travesty. In my opinion, he does not. If you're in the "We don't know" and "it's possible" camp that's a position. There seems to be lots of other info out there, but if you feel that way, good for you. That's your opinion. Not much to talk about though. And it's a really weak (or at least repetitive) argument to constantly use against whatever anyone else might say. There are very few complex subjects in life where you can't make both these claims against some related issue.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#230)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:25:57 PM EST
    That dead granny of mine used to say, "If there is one thing I find most unattractive in a person it is coarseness."
    IMHO it's difficult to think of anything more coarse or vulgar than stripping for money. Let alone prostituting onself.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#231)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:34:58 PM EST
    Posted by Newport June 27, 2006 05:13 PM
    You're right we don't know. We are all solipsists [Sp corrected] as SLOphoto said and we don't know anything at all.
    No, we don't know anything at all. And for that matter, we won't know the truth even after the trial. The same rape shield laws designed to protect true rape victims from being held up to public ridicule also protect a potential false accuser from being exposed. If those laws prevent the jury from hearing the full truth about a potentially false allegation, then how much "truth" value is there going to be in their final verdict?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#232)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    I guess that when the photographer testifies that the FA was attempting to reenter the house when he snapped the photo to confirm Bissey's testimony that he saw the FA going back to the house at 12:30 to retrieve her shoe, and to confirm Robert's testimony that the FA attempted to reenter once to make more money that you will change your mind on whether the FA was "leaving" in this photo. But, I doubt it even then. It will just be more of "we just don't know." You are a real piece of work.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#233)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    banco55 posted:
    IMHO it's difficult to think of anything more coarse or vulgar than stripping for money. Let alone prostituting onself.
    That is so low. Poor granny can't even defend her reputation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#234)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:46:07 PM EST
    Imho says the supposed fall that happened between 12:30:12 and 12:31:26 didn't muss up her clothes or cause her to cease smiling in the 12:30:47 photo. I supposed imho would also say that the rape that the FA alleged happened just minutes before also didn't muss up the FA's clothes. Or, if it did, the boys cleaned her up real good before putting her out on that porch. We just don't know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#235)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:50:37 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    I'll concede the answer is "We don't know" to an infinite number of possible questions. I'll also concede that there are countless possibilities to almost anything "we don't know." What's the point?
    The point is: Newport is making the assumptions that she was trying to get back in, and then she was standing in one place for at least one minute and fourteen seconds, and using those assumptions to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this case is a hoax. I am saying the photos do NOT definitely show her trying to get back in. I saw one description that said it shows her leaving 610 N. Buchanan, and they do NOT show that she was standing in one place for at least one minute and fourteen seconds, therefore Newport HAS NOT been able to use these photos to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this case is a hoax. If he wants to frame his scenario as a possible interpretation of what the photos show, I have no problem with that, but read his posts. That is not what he says.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#236)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 05:57:23 PM EST
    An even more important point that I probably didn't emphasize enough (probably because I didn't think it that controversial that the FA was attempting reentry in the 12:30:12 photo's) is why is the FA looking through her bag if she is leaving? Why isn't she racing out of there like a bat out of hell? Isn't looking through the bag much more consistent with attempted reentry where she is killing a little time while waiting to be let in? Of course it is. This single photo does show beyond a reasonable doubt that the case is a hoax, and it certainly explains the total absence of forensic evidence of rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#237)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:03:31 PM EST
    Newport asks:
    An even more important point that I probably didn't emphasize enough (probably because I didn't think it that controversial that the FA was attempting reentry in the 12:30:12 photo's) is why is the FA looking through her bag if she is leaving? Why isn't she racing out of there like a bat out of hell?
    That one's easy. So she could figure out when her money went missing, and thus who to accuse for it. After all, one might be going to accuse the Lacrosse players of being rapists, but to claim they are also theives might give the game away.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#238)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:04:39 PM EST
    I am framing my interpretation of the photo's as a possible scenario of what the photo's show and I am further suggesting that my possible interpretations are so much more likely than any other possible interpretations (such as the ones you suggest) that my interpretations are likely correct to the point that the photo's demonstrate the case is a hoax. I hope that clears up what I meant.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#239)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:07:20 PM EST
    january posted:
    Tiny questions for IMHO though:
    He is in an interesting postition here and to retain it he has to curry favor with his benefactors.
    Do you mean the defense? Wouldn't he be more concerned about currying favor with the guys who pay him?
    He has curried favors with the guys who pay him. He just got a huge promotion. january posted:
    I submit there was nothing to strengthen the prosecution's case, just like he said. If there's something damning there, he has a scoop and doesn't need the other 500+ pages. Plus, why in the world would the defense have let him see it in the first place?
    The defense attorneys have been spoon-feeding him the inside scoop for months. He's going to bite the hand that feeds? If this thing actually goes to trial, he'd be pretty short-sighted to turn on them at this point. Duke lacrosse players' families, reportedly have been sending in "tips" to Abrams! The fact that he has not, to my knowledge, answered any of the questions on the list I posted tells me he is not fully disclosing what he knows about the case. Why don't we know if Yale Galanter is correct that there was an alcohol screen done? Why don't we know if the DNA was found under or on top of the fingernail? Whose semen was it and where was it found? Are there photos in the medical reports? Do they show the injuries described in the defense photos and the injuries the accuser's father claimed he saw? These are all "scoops" Abrams is passing on.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#240)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:14:37 PM EST
    What did dead granny say about quibbling?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#241)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:16:49 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    What did dead granny say about quibbling?
    How do you think she died?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#242)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:31:27 PM EST
    Here is Newport's question to me:
    Why is that single photograph not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this case is a hoax? I would really appreciate your views on this and puhleeese don't tell me that she could have been raped after 12:31 am.
    WE DON'T KNOW if she is trying to reenter the house, because WE DON'T KNOW if she is coming or going. WE DON'T KNOW if she stood in one place between photos. WE DON'T KNOW if she is too impaired to make a hasty exit. We do know she fell down the stairs 39 seconds after the second photo and we do know she wasn't helped to the car until ten minutes after that. In the meanwhile she was photographed lying on the porch steps. Does she look like someone capable of leaving the scene in a full run "like she was being chased by a pack of wolves" as Newport suggested she would if she had just been raped?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#243)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:36:22 PM EST
    With a Giaconda smile, Imho asked, "How do you think she died?" Well, we just don't know, do we?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#244)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:39:14 PM EST
    fillintheblanks posted:
    Well, we just don't know, do we?
    You don't. I do.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#245)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:40:34 PM EST
    The fingernail question kind of irks me, because I really don't think the under/on question is as simple or as pertinent as it seems. If the sample was "on" the top of the nail, it seems highly likely that it would have been picked up in the trash can, or in some way as to leave a (microscopic) "glop" on the smooth surface of the nail. So if the "on" question is answered affirmatively, maybe it's a les damning piece of evidence (weak though it already is). But I don't think that being "under" the nail is particularly damning either, not even taking into account the tenuous nature of the "match." For many, the unstated assumption has been that "under" the nail must mean that it got there via scratching, but given that we're talking about adhesive nails that were un-attached at the time of the finding, you've got a much larger surface on which a sample could be found. And part of that surface is sticky, making it more likely to pick up, via the most casual contact, microscopic bits of material that could contain DNA. I believe it was PB who posited that the position of the sample under the tip of the nail would be more likely to indicate scratching, but somehow that's been turned into a simple "heads or tails" question about the location of the DNA sample. Since we're dealing with two sides of an entire (root to tip) fake nail, I don't really see how it would prove anything were Abrams, or anyone else to trumpet out the answer to the "on" or "under" conundrum.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#246)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:44:55 PM EST
    And yes, I realize that the above post is kind of out of context. I just didn't think discussions of anyone's dead refinement-loving granny would particularly advance the thread. Unless, of course, she's exhumed for jury duty in Durham. . .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#247)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:51:12 PM EST
    We may not know anything at all but we DO KNOW THE FOLLOWING: IF MIKE NIFONG HAD ANY EVIDENCE OF A RAPE AT ALL HE WOULD HAVE FILED AN OPPOSITION TO ONE OR MORE OF THE DEFENSE MOTIONS AND TOLD US ABOUT HIS EVIDENCE.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#248)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 06:54:47 PM EST
    TandT wrote,
    I believe it was PB who posited that the position of the sample under the tip of the nail would be more likely to indicate scratching, but somehow that's been turned into a simple "heads or tails" question about the location of the DNA sample.
    Actually I got the idea from Newport.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#249)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:00:29 PM EST
    PB, thank you for proper attribution and notice that I complimented you earlier when I noted that I couldn't believe Mr. P was so reasonable and then figured out he was quoting you.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#250)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:09:26 PM EST
    Bissey in the only statement that we have says he observed the FA walked toward the house at 12:30. This along with all the other evidence shows that the FA was attempting reentry -- not leaving. Let me say this to you imho -- all available facts support the FA attempting to reenter the house at 12:30 and standing there looking through her bag for at least 1 minute and 14 seconds. You oppose these available facts not with other facts but with speculation. Facts win over speculation every time. In this case we really do know.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#251)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:19:34 PM EST
    ThinkandType, You wrote:
    Since we're dealing with two sides of an entire (root to tip) fake nail, I don't really see how it would prove anything were Abrams, or anyone else to trumpet out the answer to the "on" or "under" conundrum.
    Well that's just it. If it were right at the point under the nail where one would expect it to be from scratching, the very fact that there are a vast number of "neutral" places underneath the nail that are not of that ilk would dramatically strengthen the case for Evans being the scratchee. Not that the accuser couldn't have scratched Evans for some other reason than in the resistance of a gang rape.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#252)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:33:00 PM EST
    IMHO, Though I tend to agree with Newport's theory, I'll give you the fact that it's not something I'd base my whole defense on. You wrote about Abrams:
    The defense attorneys have been spoon-feeding him the inside scoop for months. He's going to bite the hand that feeds?
    I think he would if there was any reason to do so. In my opinion, there's little doubt he'd do so. If there was any incriminating evidence, the defense wouldn't show him the file. I think he has integrity and is a pro. If you don't think so, that's your opinion.
    The fact that he has not, to my knowledge, answered any of the questions on the list I posted tells me he is not fully disclosing what he knows about the case.
    IMHO, you'e slipping. The quality of your diversions isn't what it use to be. Of course he's not stating everything he knows. He read over 1000 pages. He gets on the air for a few minutes to talk about this case. He has to summarize - and the summary is.... This is a really weak case. BTW - what's so special about your questions. Because MSNBC didn't answer them, one must conclude..... I am confident you could generate a list of new and unanswered questions on an ongoing basis. Most of us could make a list of questions which "we just don't know." Abrams got to read what the DA and the defense "know." I think he can put it all together in an objective manner. You may disagree, but it's a diversion to state that he hasn't disclosed all he knows.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#253)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:33:09 PM EST
    Agreed PB

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#254)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 07:40:31 PM EST
    Posted by Newport June 27, 2006 08:09 PM
    Bissey in the only statement that we have says he observed the FA walked toward the house at 12:30. This along with all the other evidence shows that the FA was attempting reentry -- not leaving.
    The context of the photo is certainly important to interpreting it. I would like to add this for consideration. We know that she left the party w/o her cell phone, her purse, her money and her shoe. She appears to be looking into the make up bag for something. It can't be her car keys since she is not driving, and she already has on her makeup, so what is she looking for? It seems more likely that she is taking some kind of inventory at this point. IF that is true .... Then is it more likely that she is leaving and saying to herself, "Yep, sure enough my cell phone and my money are missing, so it's time to leave now." Or is it more likely that she is saying to herself, "Hey, my cell phone and my money are missing, I need to go back inside and retrieve them before I leave"?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#255)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:00:07 PM EST
    Yours is an excellent point SLOphoto. Since I am so "coarse" according to your dead granny, does this mean that I will be joining SomeWhatChunky as posters not on your Christmas card list? I had thought I was in high favor with you prior to today's coarse comment. I will try to be more delicate, soft, soft.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#256)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:01:15 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    It seems more likely that she is taking some kind of inventory at this point. IF that is true .... Then is it more likely that she is leaving and saying to herself, "Yep, sure enough my cell phone and my money are missing, so it's time to leave now." Or is it more likely that she is saying to herself, "Hey, my cell phone and my money are missing, I need to go back inside and retrieve them before I leave"?
    Could be the money, but I recall hearing that her cell phone is visable in a porch photo. Maybe she needed it to call 911? According to Osborn "the boys" found her purse and cell phone outside and brought them into the house. She left the party without just about everything, including her skivvies.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#257)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:05:53 PM EST
    Newport posted:
    Since I am so "coarse" according to your dead granny, does this mean that I will be joining SomeWhatChunky as posters not on your Christmas card list? I had thought I was in high favor with you prior to today's coarse comment. I will try to be more delicate, soft, soft.
    SLOphoto can guide you in that department. He has a way with compliments [not posting a link out of courstesy].

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#258)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    Funny how getting drunk and high will do that to you. Those blunts pack a wallop.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#259)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:06:29 PM EST
    my dead granny??

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#260)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:08:04 PM EST
    PB posted:
    Well that's just it. If it were right at the point under the nail where one would expect it to be from scratching, the very fact that there are a vast number of "neutral" places underneath the nail that are not of that ilk would dramatically strengthen the case for Evans being the scratchee.
    But if it is under the nail in any other location, all that might prove is that adhesives are sticky. And I tend to think that Abrams et al, are not likely to waste air time confirming such a thing.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#261)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    SLOphoto: I forgot to add "To IMHO" in my post. I was referring to IMHO's dead granny who called me "coarse" earlier today.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#262)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:14:11 PM EST
    SLOphoto can guide you in that department. He has a way with compliments [not posting a link out of courstesy].
    Thank you IMHO for not posting a link to it while still bringing this matter up -- yet again....out of "courtesy."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#263)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:32:00 PM EST
    SLOphoto, Have you considered acknowledging your "jest" was directed at me and simply apologizing if you feel it was inappropriate? Everyone makes mistakes. Admit it. Apologize. It's done.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#264)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:43:09 PM EST
    SomewhatChunky posted:
    I think he would if there was any reason to do so. In my opinion, there's little doubt he'd do so. If there was any incriminating evidence, the defense wouldn't show him the file. I think he has integrity and is a pro. If you don't think so, that's your opinion.
    It's a question: He's going to bite the hand that feeds? Answer it as you will. SomewhatChunky posted:
    IMHO, you'e slipping. The quality of your diversions isn't what it use to be. Of course he's not stating everything he knows. He read over 1000 pages. He gets on the air for a few minutes to talk about this case. He has to summarize - and the summary is.... This is a really weak case.
    So many unanswered question...so little airtime.... SomewhatChunky posted:
    BTW - what's so special about your questions. Because MSNBC didn't answer them, one must conclude..... I am confident you could generate a list of new and unanswered questions on an ongoing basis. Most of us could make a list of questions which "we just don't know." Abrams got to read what the DA and the defense "know." I think he can put it all together in an objective manner. You may disagree, but it's a diversion to state that he hasn't disclosed all he knows.
    What make my questions so special is the fact that they are unanswered and a reporter who had access to the answers and has a vehicle with which to deseminate them is chosing not to. If a reporter knew that an alcohol screen was done and the accuser registered below the legal limit that would be big news. If she was blowin' a 0.21 that would be big news. Don't you want to know if that information is available? If it is, don't you want to know if she was under the influence of alcohol or not? How much airtime does it take to answer that question?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#265)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 08:44:00 PM EST
    TandT, You wrote:
    And I tend to think that Abrams et al, are not likely to waste air time confirming such a thing.
    I think Abrams compromised his jounalistic integrity early in this case, and is now actually obligated to the defense. It's an easy thing to have happen. News always has a little bit of the infomercial in it, but Abrams has gone over the line... I suspect, like many modern commercial journalists, he is unaware there is such a line. Just as defense attorneys have an idealized view of themselves as cogs in a system greater than themselves, so do journalists. Their idealized role is to provide the public with the information it needs to self-govern. The deals they make for access can often place them in a position of being propagandists rather than information disseminators, and that's what has happened here to Abrams. It's pretty obvious.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#266)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:00:22 PM EST
    IMHO, I agree it would be another "nice to know." But just one of many - there are countless questions which are both unanswered and not addressed by Abrams. Why are any of them particularly special? I'd like to know what the captains said in their statements that night. I'd like to know the details on all the photo lineups. I'd like to know what photos are in the discovery. I'd like to know how Nifong deals with all of the inconsistencies that have been beat to death here. Heck, like many of us, I'd like to know everything in the discovery. But, WJDK. Personally the story with the 4 dancers and 5 rapists was bigger news to me. It told me alot about her credibility - drunk or sober, wild inconsistent stories are wild inconsistent stories. I don't think Abrams mentioned that either. The time I saw him (no idea how many times he was on the air on this topic) he didn't get buried in the details. You don't need to be drunk to act like it. Lots of ways to get there. Nifong says no tox test. I'll take him at his word.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#267)
    by january on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    From IMHO
    The defense attorneys have been spoon-feeding him the inside scoop for months. He's going to bite the hand that feeds?
    For something really newsworthy, yes. It isn't there. From PB
    Just as defense attorneys have an idealized view of themselves as cogs in a system greater than themselves, so do journalists. Their idealized role is to provide the public with the information it needs to self-govern. The deals they make for access can often place them in a position of being propagandists rather than information disseminators, and that's what has happened here to Abrams. It's pretty obvious.
    PB, are you seriously saying you think Abrams would put his job on the line because he's somehow "obligated" to the defense? You must really think he is stupid! He finds something that points definitively to the guilt of the Lacrosse players and doesn't break the story? He would be found out, and he would be fired. It isn't there.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#268)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:31:14 PM EST
    IMHO: OK, I apologize. I admit that the jest was directed at you -- I've never denied it. And I'm truly sorry I ever said it. That being said, and I'm being completely honest now -- I was thunderstruck by your response. You either did not like or simply did not understand the subtle humor I put into the caricature. It was based on a numerous collection of your own previous posts, far too many to describe and explain here how they all interrelate. There were so many subtle, combined elements to it that I truly, honestly thought you would respond with a huge LOL! But you did not. I gauged the situation completely wrong. Yes, I made a mistake, and I have learned from my mistake. I will not try any more humor with you anymore. Fair enough? So this will also mean that as long as I do not snark or snipe you, that you will not snark or snipe me? So we can try to avoid any future misunderstandings, because that is only fair, right? Mutual no snark and no snipe. Now is that going to be enough for you to drop this thing -- finally and completely -- or do you still want something more from me? Respectfully yours, SLOphoto

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#269)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:32:30 PM EST
    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#270)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:32:43 PM EST
    PB, Interesting perspective on the journalism viewpoint. It's a little bit of a tangent to the fingernail thing (my original point being that sometimes the "answers" we demand are pointless if we're asking the wrong questions), but I like your take on the bigger picture of journalistic responsibility. I think Abrams on one side, and the Rita Cosbys/Nancy Graces on the other are both culpable in different ways. Abrams tended to lean towards the defense earlier than most, and Grace (for example) was pretty slanted to the prosecution's angle from the get-go. Because both "sides" tend to wrap themselves in the cloak of media "impartiality" (to varying degrees of success), it really does blur the lines between news and opinion. So to extend where you were going with the Abrams/defense tie in (a sense of obligation to one viewpoint and a point where taking sides trumps the factual value of what's reported), I'd argue that the same tie-in happens/happened earlier in the reporting trends of this case with the prosecution side and different media personalities. So in place of news, we get choosing and defending of opposing positions, and an American Gladiator style approach to the public's "right to know," wherein there are few facts--only winners, losers, and points to be gained or lost. Arguably, that's what happens in a blog like this, however (to my knowledge) few if any of us have ever claimed the kind of dual responsibility and impartiality a good media source needs in order to avoid the dreaded in-quotations "journalist" moniker.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#271)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    You should have stopped after the first paragraph.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#272)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:41:23 PM EST
    Thanks, SomewhatChunky. "Suspicion of Throwing Water" made me LOL.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#273)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:47:40 PM EST
    You know SLOphoto, the only reason she keeps bringing that up is because she knows you are sensitive to it and she takes advantage of your "niceness."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#274)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:48:24 PM EST
    Posted by sam June 27, 2006 10:33 PM
    You should have stopped after the first paragraph.
    OK sam, your turn. Now, what do I owe you to drop it?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse: New Defense Motions (none / 0) (#275)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:55:44 PM EST
    Big news for you Duke commenters. A blog of your own. If you visit TalkLeft just for Duke, change your bookmarks. All posts since the beginning as well as all of your comments are now on one page. TalkLeft's webmaster Mike Ditto created this for you. Yes, I'm paying him, so if you'd like to chip in a few bucks (but only if you can afford it) just go here. Comments are closing here, and here's the new thread.