If [the Defense] thought they had enough [flaws?], they would move for dismissal

I do find it amusing how people are so quick to exonorate these young men despite only hearing the defense story for months.

I don't recall the defence demonstrating a choke-hold at a public meeting.

So that's why IMHO keeps bringing up the bad names and the broom sticks? She's a feminist? Boy, I never would have guessed that.

I do find it amusing how people are so quick to exonorate these young men despite only hearing the defense story for months.

The defense attorneys have been spoon-feeding him [Dan Abrams] the inside scoop for months. He's going to bite the hand that feeds?

For something really newsworthy, yes. It isn't there.

By now - unless he wants to get himself in even more hot water in the future- he's released everything substantial he has.

14. Nifong has - to the defense. Why didn't Abrams answer any of the questions in the above link? Some of them were discussed on his show before he saw the discovery. Now he can discuss them with authority, instead of conceding, "we don't know." We still don't know. He knows, why isn't he reporting it?

I saw Nifong do that in an interview with Abrams, did he also do it at a public meeting?

PB: You're taking it out of context, that's all. You have to remember the detail that ALL the other suspects have been excluded.

Madison: 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.

imho concocted:

I saw Nifong do that in an interview with Abrams, did he also do it at a public meeting?

My recall, which may be wrong, is that he also demonstrated the choke-hold at a rally at NCCU. Either way, we do have more to rely on than just the defence account. the problem with the Nifong account, for all is graphics, is that it does not accord with the reported medical results.

BTW, I'm sill looking for your authority for he proposition that Nifong is prohibited from comment once [three players, but not two,] are indicted.

Posted by ding7777 June 27, 2006 04:27 PM 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)?

PB: You're taking it out of context, that's all.

I'd be willing to bet that until the defense gets a statment of particulars from Nifart, they don't want Dan Abrams discussing any of that. Why tip your defense to the prosecutor? Oh, and IMHO you might take note that I'm claiming the defense might "have something" more that they don't want to tip to NiFart.

One could also take the rather silly position that there is evidence in that pile of dung that NoDong calls his "investigation" that isn't good for the defense, but I doubt Dan Abrams would stake his credibility on covering up for the defense.

There is no scientific basis on which to heighten suspicion of Mr. Evans as a "scratchee" just because he lived in the house or attended the party. His "non-excludability" (that might be a word) is no weaker than anyone else's from the population of non-excludeds.

But the primary question on the board now is - Why isn't more info from the pages being reported?

Thoughts:

1. Hmmm. Releasing discovery as has been done is a singular occurrence AFAIK. Perhaps MSNBC has no clue how to deal with it.

2. Cynicism. For MSNBC to report the entire contents of the pages may be biting the hand that feeds them. That is, after having all the available info, why would viewers continue to tune in?

3. No gun. The defense shared the pages with Abrams only so as to debunk the notion that there is a "smoking gun" and stipulated that Abrams not report details.

4. Further crimes. Perhaps the pages contain details of some of the players and/or women committing additional crimes. These details would have come from the early testimony of Evans et al. The defense will use this info only if the case goes to trial. They asked Abrams not to publicize it.

5. Damaging details. Perhaps the pages contain details such as the identities of the broomstick commenter and slurring players. Again, they asked Abrams not to publicize it.

6. Promotion. Abrams' tone has changed since his promotion, which occurred right around the time he read the discovery pages. In his new role, he and MSNBC may not want him to get "into the weeds" so much.

...he will "remain NBC News Chief Legal Correspondent, providing legal analysis and commentary for 'Today' and other NBC News and MSNBC programs."

IMHO, you do have the most annoying tendancy to practice law without a license of anyone I have ever seen.

I don't believe Abrams was allowed to make copies of any of the documents, only take notes. While they may be accurate, there is the possibility of some inaccuracies in his notes. Without physical evidence in his possession to fact check what they are airing, the legal department may be discouraging the airing of direct quotes of the discovery via Abrams' notes.

With the July book opening tomorrow, it may well be their plan to dole out bits and pieces of the discovery throughout the month. We all know there are important court dates on July 3rd and 20th, which will likely again spike viewership.

Shoddy reporting WILL come to light at the time the evidence is introduced at trial and will result in heads rolling. MSNBC does not want to position itself as the National Inquirer of cable news channels.

Why is it that some continue to hold out hope for a smoking gun, or think that there is something bad in the discovery file when Nifong, who has shown he will leak if he thinks he has something, has made no leaks.

do you think the answers to any of these questions are "really newsworthy?"

No heads will roll.

Haven't you heard of Dan Rather? How about Mary Mapes? Jayson Blair? Gerald Boyd? Howell Raines? Heads have rolled in the past. MSNBC took a risk promoting Abrams to GM, even though he's never been to J school or been a news director. If they suspect wrongdoing on his part, they have due cause to fire him.

If Evans semen was found on the bathroom floor or on the towel found just outside the bathroom door I think that is a potential smoking gun.

What violations did he commit against the accused between the first two indictments and the third indictment?

Dan Abrams is a reporter, he is not a member of the defense team. ..... Abrams claims he knows as much about this case as anyone but Nifong. Why isn't he reporting it?

do you think the answers to any of these questions are "really newsworthy?"

Partial Profiles Use of "partial profiles" is a newly emerging and fairly disturbing trend. A partial profile is one in which not all of the loci targeted show up in the sample. For example, if 13 loci were targeted, and only 9 could be reported, that would be termed, a partial profile. Failure of all targeted loci to show up demonstrates a serious deficiency in the sample. Normally, all human cells (except red blood cells and cells called "platelets") have all 13 loci. Therefore, a partial profile represents the equivalent of less than a single human cell. This presents some important problems:

1. A partial profile essentially proves that one is operating outside of well-characterized and recommended limits.
2. Contaminating DNA usually presents as a partial profile, although not always. For this reason, the risk that the result is a contaminant is greater than for samples that present as full profiles.
3. A partial profile is at risk of being incomplete and misleading. The partial nature of it proves that DNA molecules have been missed. There is no way of firmly determining what the complete profile would have been, except by seeking other samples that may present a full profile.

Most forensic laboratories will try to obtain full profiles. Unfortunately, in an important case, it may be tempting to use a partial profile, especially if that is all that one has. However, such profiles should be viewed skeptically. Over-interpretation of partial profiles can probably lead to serious mistakes. Such mistakes could include false inclusions and false exclusions, alike. It could be said that, compared to the first PCR-based tests introduced into the courts, use of partial profiles represents a decline in standards. This is because those earlier tests, while less discriminating, had controls (known as "control dots") that helped prevent the use of partial profiles. The earlier tests will be discussed below, primarily for historic reasons, but also because they do still appear on occasion.

Dan Abrams is a reporter

Analyzing the tissue, scientists concluded it came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of 46 lacrosse players who gave DNA samples for testing, the sources said.

At the same time, scientists ruled out a possible match with any of the other 45 students, according to the sources

Has DNA analysis excluded all the clients for those one-on-ones that the AV performed in the weeks prior to March 13? How about all her friends and acquaintances, or friends of her children?

And this is before dealing with the fact that the nail was found in a garbage can days after the event. In no version of the AV's story did the fingernails crawl across the floor and leap untouched into the garbage can. That means someone cleaning up picked them up and threw them into the garbage can, which itself contained plenty of sources of all kinds of DNA from the residents and visitors to the house.

The fact that the DNA doesn't match Evans in the face of all of the above shows how thin the gruel is that sustains those who want some evidence of a rape.

Yes, I agree a gang rape could occur without injury, just as you said. I don't know how often it happens that way, but I expect it would be way harder to prove

I asked about Nifong's claim that these rules prohibit him from comment once indictments issue. Your claim is that the rule applies only from identification or possibly from indictment. Where does the rule say that?

except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

A written accusation charging that an individual named therein has committed an act or omitted to do something that is punishable by law.

The purpose of an indictment is to inform an accused individual of the charge against him or her so that the person will be able to prepare a defense.

You evade that question, and instead raise a further question about the timing of Nifong's violations. Finnerty and Seligmann were identified on 4 April and indicted on 18 April. I do not have an exhaustive and sourced list of the Nifong violations. I'll do some research.

BTW, I'm sill looking for your authority for the proposition that Nifong is prohibited from comment once [three players, but not two,] are indicted.

Defense attorneys expressed outrage at the indictments.

"We are shocked, absolutely shocked," attorney Bill Thomas said. "We always thought she would pick out somebody who at least had a conversation with her or paid her. This is outrageous."