A better board with more factual detail on the arrests

Photios, not that TL needs any defense, and I'm sure that at least one poster will criticise me for this, but I think TL was just responding to your use of the word "better" in your post.

Photios wrote, A better board with more factual detail on the arrests

I could see how this could be taken the wrong way.

Seligmann's attorneys specifically asked for access to the accuser's computer, which they said is believed to be in the possession of the Durham Police Department,

Newport, interesting posts. Do you happen to have a link to the news stories about the boyfriend's arrest? thanks.

There are 35,000 outstanding warrants in Durham county but only those having connections to the [accused] accuser are being rounded up.

Is the instant lineup so outrageous that it has literally never happened before?

Now, she described Brett as a white male and chubby. The accuser said Matt was a white male, heavy-set, with short hair. And finally, she described an individual named Adam as a short, white man with rosy cheeks and fluffy, brown hair.

photios, i wouldn't worry too much about any "testilying", because this case will never see a jury.

Thanks Talk Left, but I'll pass on the forums. I will monitor the discussion from time to time. Thanks to you and this community, best regards.

I am concerned about justice and the rights of the accused and I want to know about why so many peripheral actors in this case are being hauled into court. I don't see a conflict. After all, they're supposed to have rights too.

I too wonder what the DA's IT guy has found on the AV's computer. Dates? Amounts paid? Might be great info to turn over to the IRS as yet another means to continue the farce.

Also, has anyone seen anything else in court regarding the AV's phone records for that evening? The last time I recall it being discussed in open court Nifong was saying there was a question of ownership. Maybe I missed some hearing or motion on it. I can't imagine that ownership hasn't been resolved by now. Records of her phone calls must be in the defense's hands anyway. Maybe there's nothing there.

Maybe Precious called up someone that night during the period of time she was supposed to have been raped, and that person's knowledge of what was going on would be most illuminating.

This to me is outrageous on its face and violative of equal protection. There are 35,000 outstanding warrants in Durham county but only those having connections to the accused are being rounded up.

Another problem with the lineup that no one has discussed is that the pool of potential suspects were readily available for viewing by the accuser before she was called in to make the famous 4/4 ID. This 4/4 ID session occured over three weeks after the alleged rape.

The accuser could have viewed the Duke Athletic Department web site numerous times after the incident, but before her ID session to provide recollective "memory" to later pick out her alleged attackers.

I believe this is just another example of Duke's failure to protect its own students -- the web site photo's should have been taken down immediately to protect the rights of the students.

A trial is in the best interest of the Defendants if they can show that they couldn't have committed the rapes.

I do have many things to add to this discussion that haven't been previously addressed, as well as questions that can possibly be answered by some posters in the Durham area. They are legitimate questions, and the answers may or may not change the opinion I now hold, which is that a rape did indeed occur at that party, and that a trial is indeed needed to sort out the truth. I know that admission of these views will make me extremely unpopular coming right out of the gate, but that's OK. Popularity contests are not my thing.

My first question, though, is to all... Why the animosity toward imho and the others who disagree with the majority on this board, up to and including actively trying to get at least some of these posters removed? This IS a "discussion" board, is it not? So, is discussion of the Duke case the purpose here, or is this meant to be a choir, with the members preaching the same sermon to each other and singing the same songs? If that's the case, then it serves no purpose.

The main pieces of evidence that the accusation is not substantially correct are: .... 2. The inherent unlikelihood that three rich white kids would forcibly rape (in such a way) a black woman in the vicinity of many uninvolved witnesses.

3. The inherent unlikelihood that such a forcible rape would not be noticed.

4. The claim by all the potential suspects that no sex occured.

5. The failure of a timely rape exam of the AV to find substantial evidence of forcible rape or even sex.

6. The initial skeptical reaction by Roberts. 7. The evidence that the AV is not a reliable person. 8. The narrow time window in which a rape could have occured.

9. The apparent lack of possibilities for still secret evidence that Nifong could have supporting the allegation.

If she'd only been dancing for 2 months, she wouldn't have been required to claim it on any tax returns as of yet.

A far better outcome for them would be for the AV to recant. If she's been lying, that's the least she owes the defendants.

Not to mention the unlikelihood that three rich white kids would rape a $100-a-trick prostitute within earshot of many uninvolved witnesses.

Considering how many Durhamites work for Duke, it doesn't seem that far-fetched that she would have had ample time/opportunity to study the photos even if the online source was suspended.

And Newport, I'll be watching for your posts.

Mr P, could FA or any of her family/friends possibly have had the chance to obtain the "WANTED" posters featuring the entire lax team that were heavily circulated on campus and in Durham?

She'd been dancing for several years accoring to the Brian Taylor interview. It was the one-on-one dates as an outcall escort that she'd only been doing for a couple of months.

Barring that (since I think it's highly unlikely to happen), the best they can hope for is for the new DA to review the evidence in depth and announce that he doesn't have a strong enough case to warrant prosecution since there's not enough evidence for a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Perhaps even coached? Some people wanted blood.

Finally in the case of inmyhumbleopinion, I believe she sometimes baits her opponents in hopes of provoking them into saying something stupid and indefensible that she can then repeat back at them until the end of time.

If there is video or photo footage of an assault or one of the other players caved, it's likely they'd have plenty to continue as planned...

If she'd only been dancing for 2 months, she wouldn't have been required to claim it on any tax returns as of yet.

According to the interview I read, he had just met her two years ago, and had seen her dance at a couple of clubs.

Mr. P - why do you think anything like this exists?

Bottom line: The AV's career in the sex industry doesn't have probative value in determining whether or not a rape occurred.

If there is video or photo footage of an assault or one of the other players caved, it's likely they'd have plenty to continue as planned...

Mr. P - why do you think anything like this exists?

Mr P asks,"Why would SHE add images of the ones who definitely WEREN'T there to her list of choices?" Right, so correct my misunderstanding; are you suggesting that perhaps FA picked men who weren't there after having studied a team roster? I'm not trying to antagonize, just not clear if you are agreeing or disputing.

Which is it? Two months or two years?

Actually, it's longer than that. She was auditioning for a job at a strip club when she decided to joyride in a taxi she didn't hire in 2002. That's four years ago where she was seeking employment as an exotic dancer.

I don't necessarily think it DOES exist. I think it COULD exist.

We know that a "confidential source" turned over the McFadyen email. WHO was it?

And the fact that at least one of the defendants has an airtight alibi for that time period.

Not to mention the unlikelihood that three rich white kids would rape a $100-a-trick prostitute within earshot of many uninvolved witnesses.

: AND they already paid her $400 for her "services."

It's official. Lewis Cheek will be on the ballot in November.

Yes, it does mention that he hasn't yet made up his mind whether or not to run. However, I think it's just a foregone conclusion that he will win.

Why? Where? Not in the discovery unless Nifong is planning an illegal trial by entrapment.

Do you think Dan Abrams is lying when he says he saw everything?

If so, why? He has a lot more to lose by lying than by telling the truth.

And why would the defense not be looking for a plea bargain if such evidence exists?

Evans turned over all his e-mail records.

I don't think Seligmann's alibi is completely airtight (although it is certainly helpful for his defense). In any case I am considering the evidence in relation to whether a rape occurred at all. Whether the three accused are guilty is a different question. It is fairly common for rape (and other crime) victims to make faulty identifications so I would not consider proof of Seligmann's innocence by itself to be strong evidence that a rape did not occur.

Note it is my understanding that the quoted rate for escort services generally does not buy any illegal services although these can often be purchased for an additional negotiated price from the escort. So I don't think the assumption by some posters that the AV's escort dates always involved coitus is justified.

While one would like to think Nifong is sure to lose I am not so sure. Jim Garrison was reelected to a third term as DA in 1969 after pulling stuff that was much worse than what Nifong has done so far.

I don't really see why this is evidence against rape.

But reading imho's obvious glee over the possibility of Finnerty being found guilty in DC, (his vulnerability based solely on the Durham charges of which he could easily be innocent) and mocking once again the players and their families' support of them, brought it home to me this morning. I found myself wanting to argue with her/him/whatever, but realized how pointless it is.

I'm still hoping for someone to explain away the lack of DNA evidence.

And condom use doesn't do it.

As long as the Defense doesn't release stuff like that, it's not likely to get out anytime soon. I'd guess that they think they have a pretty good chance of getting the charges dropped if they keep up with their current spin, whether the players are innocent or guilty. The job of the Defense attorneys is to get their clients acquitted, not to make sure the public has all the facts.

If so, what explains the apparent lack of KIM's DNA on the Accuser?

Amen, weezie. There's nothing that will kill a thread for me faster than to see three or four posts in a row by one of the trolls. Same topics over and over and over and over and over.

Then there is the "but we don't know all that Nifong has," expressed to the nth degree of absurdity by Mr. P's hypothesis that there is video or still photos of the actual rape itself.

(BTW, at least one of those tapes turned over has to be the 4/4 lineup.)

IF there were such evidence, as others have noted (1) the defense would not still be sticking to the "no sex of any sort" argument;

(2) the "rapists" would have noticed someone taking pictures/videotaping and so would never have claimed no rape occurred;

(3) even if Abrams did not view the tapes and dvd, they would be described in the discovery papers;

(4) the police would not have needed the AV's photo identification, nor would they have needed all the information, and dna, they have sought and are seeking from the other players at the party;

(5) condoms v. bareback would never have been an issue; (6) oh, why try to use logic to answer Mr. P's specious arguments?

I don't know, maybe it is the discussion board format that showed it so clearly to me, or maybe it is the realization that I have allowed others to "push my buttons" in ways that are vexatious to my spirit and cause me to veer off-topic and into a frustrating, no-win exercise.

But reading imho's obvious glee over the possibility of Finnerty being found guilty in DC,

(his vulnerability based solely on the Durham charges of which he could easily be innocent)

IMHO:

1. I wasn't talking to you.

2. I guess we can add post counting to the list of mindless, time consuming, obsessive behavior.

As long as the Defense doesn't release stuff like that, it's not likely to get out anytime soon. I'd guess that they think they have a pretty good chance of getting the charges dropped if they keep up with their current spin, whether the players are innocent or guilty. The job of the Defense attorneys is to get their clients acquitted, not to make sure the public has all the facts.

Mr. P, this is one of the silliest things you've said yet. Are you are saying that incriminating documents exist, but only the defense has them and the prosecution has never seen them?

If the prosecution had them originally there is no way the case would get dropped on defense spin.

In fact, even the implication that defense spin is going to decide this case is absurd on its face.

Why would they even have tested for Kim's DNA?

And you completely ignore, of course, the fact that the AV stated no condoms were used.

There are only three instances of more than two posts in a row by one commenter. One by me when I was posting reference material in the Case Evidence and Timeline thread. I included no commentary. No thread to kill. One by Photios doing the same - posting reference material. One by Mr.Precedent where posted three comments in a row - answering comments from other posters. It did not kill the thread. There are over 40 comments after his "three in a row thread killer." Get your facts straight if you hope to make a point.

2. I guess we can add post counting to the list of mindless, time consuming, obsessive behavior.

Speaking of counting posts; how many is MrP allowed per thread?

none of Mr.Precendent's 30 posts were off topic

Is it me or does this assault sound a lot less serious than first reported?

I imagine they'd want to show a jury how the Accuser began crying when Finnerty's photo came up.

IF there were such evidence, as others have noted (1) the defense would not still be sticking to the "no sex of any sort" argument

Why not? If they can successfully goad the public into demanding that the charges be dropped, how would admitting sex now help them?

They appear to have been under the impression that nobody on the team was (or would be) spilling beans (and maybe photos). It appears as though at least one team member HAS.

Nifong seems remarkably certain about the merit of the case, for an almost 30-year veteran of the office who has "nothing". Isn't anyone else curious as to WHY?

What leads you to think that any player has given incriminating testimony to the prosecutor?

So how would this probation work? Does Finnerty need to hide any minor past offenses (drinking in the Mexican restaurant for example), or can he freely discuss this (if this is his supposed alibi) since it happened before his sentencing?

So if it doesn't apply retroactively, is there any reason not to go public with his alibi (assuming it is as good as some suggest)?