Duke Case - Release of Time-Stamped Photos BIG Mistake

[TorchTheWitch]

The defense in the Duke rape case has a problem. The cab driver who the defense is using to uphold the alibi of Reide Seligmann, one of the players charged, revealed in his interview that the second stripper, Kim Roberts, got into an "old white car" and sped away from the scene when he was called back to the party to pick up more players after dropping off Reide. He is unable to say whether or not there was anyone else in the car. He states he returned to the house at 12:50 when he saw the stripper in the "old white car" and whoever else may have been with her leave the scene.

The defense has stated that the following photo shows the accusor being helped into a dark colored car AFTER the party was over. However, it is known that BOTH strippers left the party together in the same car, and there are 911 call(s) and a police dispatch transcript that back that up... remember the guard from Kroger that called the police to report the "drunken" woman who stated the strippers were together in the same car? The defense stated that this photo was taken AFTER the party according to the time-stamp on the photo, yet the accuser didn't leave the party in that car, and defense even says that the accusor was DROPPED OFF at the party in a dark colored car...



http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1187945,00.html
The crucial photo was taken, defense sources say, at approximately 12:41 a.m., and shows the accuser calmly being helped into a car to leave the party. Taken together with other time-stamped photos from earlier in the evening, it is crucial to the defense argument that there was not enough time that night for a rape to occur. In fact, prosecutors will argue, that photo actually shows the accuser being dropped off at the party, not leaving it, and that it was taken well before midnight. In that photo, the accuser is shown in a black or dark-colored car, which matches a description of the car defense and prosecution sources say dropped her off at the party. The person in the driver seat of that car allegedly is not Kim Roberts, whom prosecutors will argue drove the accuser away from the party after the alleged rape.

Prints taken from digital cell phone cameras have time stamps, but can be altered, according to digital photography experts. Only the cameras themselves have true embedded time data to correspond with photos taken. "If the prosecutor can discredit that photo, or one photo, their meanings are all suspect," another lawyer in Durham says.

I had assumed that these photos were taken with a regular camera, and this is the first I've seen anywhere that the photos were taken with a camera phone. I don't know how camera phones work since I have never owned one, but I'd be interested to know how easily the time-stamps can be changed and if each photo can individually have it's time-stamped changed.

Ah, but here's the REALLY interesting part...

One of the defense attorneys in the case has THIS to say about those time-stamped photos...

The revelation of a possible contradiction of the time-stamped photos has caused dissension within the ranks of the defense attorneys for the players. Leaking the photos was "a grevious strategic error that was not approved by any other member of the defense," an attorney for one of the players not yet charged in the case tells TIME. "The person who released them did not have the authority. The who are in the cross hairs would make that call. The person who released them is going to be looking at the bad end of a bar complaint after this is over," said the attorney.

Releasing those photos was a big fat giant mistake. If it can be proven that the time-stamps were altered it shows a DELIBERATE attempt to cover-up whatever happened at that party. No wonder this unnamed defense attorney is complaining about this "grevious strategic error" in releasing those photos. Now, where IS that camera phone???

:popcorn:

[Jigarotta]

1. a summarization?

I can't quite follow the sequence of events here.

the defense is claiming that the photo was of the stripper After the party (with late time date stamp), showing she left the party unharmed???

so IF the photo was altered, this could have been the pic of her Arriving at the party?

am I understanding this correctly?

[LostinVA]

6. No, it's more like both the photos AND the cabbie's testimony can't be

right... and they are using both as alibis. And, the photos are screwing up the later alibi of the accused and the cabbie's "testimony."

The victim was dropped off in a dark colored car and left in a white car. The photos with the time stamp that is being used to show the accused weren't there at the time of the rapes show her with a dark car, NOT the white one. ie the photo would thus be of her ARRIVING. So, the times would have been fiddled with.

The cabbie gives pick up times that match the announced alibis... but has the victim leaving in a DARK car. But she left in a white car -- Roberts' *second dancer's) car. It also calls into question the veracity of the cabbie.

So... all of the alibis. along with the time-stamped photos AND Roberts' interviews are NOT corresponding.

Oi.

[Jigarotta]

10. Oi is right. thanks for bringing me up to speed, LostinVA nt

[LostinVA]

11. This is very confusing... it makes me think of Spender's quote

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

[TorchTheWitch]

12. No, no, the cabbie got it right

The cabbie said the accusor left in the WHITE car (the correct one), not the dark car she arrived in. Did I screw that up in the OP? (oh dear, I better check that).

So the cabbie who the defense is using to corroborate the alibi of Seligmann is actually screwing things up for the defense by telling the truth about her leaving in the white car.

On Edit... Bah! The OP is fine, but it's this post I screwed up! haha! Anyway... The cabbie isn't sure if the accusor was in the white car or not when it sped away since he didn't think he saw anyone else with Roberts in that car. But at Kroger, BOTH strippers were together in the white car as the guard and the police attest. So although the cabbie can't say for sure if there was anyone other than Roberts in the white car, we already know from other evidence that she was. The cabbie is just being truthful about what he actually saw.

[LostinVA]

18. OMG -- I'm so confused.... You're right

I just reread it again... it's so confusing to keep it all straight!

[jberryhill]

155. The Kroger Guard Saw a Dark Car, Not A White Car

"BOTH strippers were together in the white car as the guard and the police attest."

Ummm....

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1849938&page=1

The guard was on duty at the store on the night of March 13, when the two women pulled into the store's parking lot in a dark sedan.


Where do you get the guard and police saying a white car?

[Neil Lisst]

177. Yes, the Kroger guard DID see a dark car.

But that fact doesn't fit with the OP's vision, so it gets ignored.

[Marie26]

178. Car colors

There's something that's nagging at me. Why is the defense lawyer so sure to emphasize that "irrefutable evidence will show the photo is correct and the navy blue car is what matters." That photo above is not a navy blue car - it's a black Honda Accord. I guess it's possible the light is wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. Yet the cabbie said a woman got into a white car & leave; and when police came at 12:55, they said they saw a green Honda Accord still parked in front of the house. I feel like this is significant, though for the life of me I can't figure out why.

[Neil Lisst]

184. I don't know what happened, but I can speculate

I believe the truth is in between what both sides are saying.

When the dancers arrive, they either arrive together or separately. I suspect they arrived separately, and that the accuser had a ride scheduled for a certain time later, much later than a few minutes after the dancing started.

The first dance is done, and the rowdiness of the group, and the size, frighten the dancers, who then retreat to the bathroom.

Beyond that, I don't know, but I have ideas.

Is it possible Kim Roberts did NOT want to leave the accuser there, but also did not want to drive her away from there? Is it possible she went outside and sat in her car, waiting for the accused to either find her ride and get it there, or something else? I imagine her sitting on the bathroom floor, calling for a ride, while doing something with her nails.

What I see primarily is a big disagreement over the show, with the women deciding to bail out, and there being some dispute with the players over the amount they were to be paid for the abbreviated show.

I still cannot fathom three big men, a dancer and a broom all fitting into any bathroom one would find in such a home. Especially doing all the things described. Try to get 4 people just standing in your average bathroom in your average 60 year old college rental home.

It's possible Kim Roberts left the bathroom after changing, went to her car, and waited while the accused remained. And it's possible that's when people started shoving bills under the door. I still think it's possible further business was conducted.

[jberryhill]

187. Yes

That "green Honda accord" makes a cameo appearance in the warrant affidavit, with no connection to anything.

There could be some facts of that evening that nobody wants to tell the truth about - Who dropped the victim off at the house?

But "black", "dark", and "navy blue", relative to events that all happened after sundown, are pretty much quibbles.

[Neil Lisst]

189. Bingo! It was after midnight, and the lighting would make ...

... would make delineating colors very difficult. Of course, white and dark cars are more easily differientiated than brown, blue, black, green at night under limited light.

Why didn't the accuser get in the car with Kim Roberts earlier? I think it's likely Kim was pissed about the gig, pissed at her partner, and didn't want to have to drive the accuser home. Kim might have told accuser to call to get her ride and Roberts would hang around.

After time passes, Roberts agrees to take the accuser with her, but she intends to dump her off at some 24 hour store, so the accuser can get her ride by going there and calling, and waiting for her ride.

But when Kim gets to the store, the accuser won't get out of the car, so THAT is when Kim calls the police. The Kroger guards says accuser is NOT drunk, but that KIM ROBERTS SMELLS OF ALCOHOL.

[Marie26]

201. Yeah, but

that's a lightened version of the photo & it still looks deep black to me. According to the prosecution, the dancer was dropped off in a black car (which matches the car in the photo here). I wonder if Kim Robert's car is dark blue & that's why the defense is so insistent on referring to the photo as a "navy blue car" - when most people would just call it black based on its appearance in this photo. And it's still weird that there's apparantly 3 dark sedans at that house now - the drop-off car, the 2nd dancer's car (maybe), & the green Honda that's never mentioned again.

[jberryhill]

208. It's a picture of a video of a picture...

...and a lot of those pixels are saturated. But just because some defense attorney said "navy blue", I wouldn't go to "so insistent". He said it once... we read it a brazillion times by now.

I have a hard time with the pose as an "arrival".

Car pulls up. Door opens. White guy reaches into the car and sticks his hand behind her head, and she sticks her leg out sideways and back?

Now, if you are trying to get someone who is off-balance "into" a car, it's pretty common to cradle their head so they don't bang it on the door frame. But it's pretty unusual to yank someone out of a car by their head.

That roof is badly oxidized though, and eventually we'll know whose car was in the Kroger parking lot.

[TorchTheWitch]

212. It's DEFINITELY her ARRIVING - here's why

Copy the photo and put it into your graphics program. Zoom it. Look at what she's wearing. She's wearing that gray/black long sleeved shirt or dress that another photo of her on the steps shows her wearing when she arrived at the party. But she left the party in a pink and white halter top and booty short set which apparantly was her costume of choice for the party. Her street clothes were left at the party because the search warrant for the house listed her clothes on it (which I don't recall were recovered, so not only did they ditch her shoe, they may have ditched her clothes).

Her head isn't being cradled. The arm in the photo reaching into the car has a watch on the wrist that's just at the door frame. She's facing him turned sideways in the car, so her one leg isn't out of he car behind her so much, it's just cocked at an angle. Her other leg is inside the car braced against the floor as most people do when they go to step out of a car. But it's her clothes that is the give away. And look at the driver. That person apparently has little or no hair. It looks very much like a man wearing a white sleeveless shirt.

I'm going to go find that other photo that shows her on the back steps arriving in her street clothes that show what top she was wearing and the one later after the party in her pink and white costume.

It's definitely the arrival photo just based on the clothes she has on.

Well I'm still looking for the photo of her arriving at the party in that gray/black long sleeved shirt or dress, but here's the one where she's leaving the house in her pink and white costume...

[FreakinDJ]

13. I guess cell phone records and ATM reciepts are incorrect too

maybe the cabbie was mistaken

Many here at DU wish voting machines were as accurate as ATM reciepts

[TorchTheWitch]

39. This seems to be a difficult concept for you

The ATM receipts obviously show the correct time. The card swipe for Seglimann to get in his dorm building would show the correct time. The cabbie's documentations would show the correct time. But if the time-stamps on the photos DON'T show the correct time, she could have been raped and afterward Seligmann went out to set up his "alibi" knowing that the time-stamps on the photos would be alterted to reflect that he wasn't there long enough to have been involved in anything criminal.

If this is the case, then he didn't anticipate the cabbie going BACK to the party, seeing what he saw and reporting it truthfully, and he wouldn't have anticipated the guard at Krogers and the police finding BOTH strippers in a very different car, and he wouldn't have anticipated that those alterable time-stamps would even be challenged.

The following photo is the cabbie in question (Moez Mostafa of On Time Taxi) pointing out his call records on his office computer regarding this incident. Cabbies document the time they picked someone up and the time they dropped them off.

[FreakinDJ]

68. You forgot the Cell Phone calls

Cell Phones have records too. Which by the way are controled by the network for billing purposes. So NO you could not alter the time on the phone and have it reflected in your bill.

So you have Phone Records, and ATM Records, and Time Stamp photos (which because altering can ALWAYS be detected I would thinkj very unlikely any attempted to forge these) and the word of the cabbie, who just might have made an honest mistake.

Memory has proven much more unreliable then digital records

[TorchTheWitch]

79. Where are these phone records?

The defense has had plenty of time to get them. Why aren't they waving them around? And isn't it interesting that they only vaguely mention the cell phone records and have instead hammered on the ATM receipt, the dorm card swipe and the cabbie. The cabbie is the DEFENSE'S star witness. And that same cabbie just blew their time-line theory apart.

Look, it's very simple. The DEFENSE is claiming that the release of those photos was a "grevious strategic error" to the point that the attorney that released them may end up being DISBARRED. Don't you think this DEFENSE attorney knows better than you do? Don't you think that if he thought the cabbie was just "mistaken" even after they propped the guy up as their big eyewitness that he would have SAID so? If the cabbie was merely "mistaken" do you think the DEFENSE attorney would be crying to the major press that the release of the photos was such a big error that the attorney who did it may end up being disbarred? Don't you think that if the cell phone records would have any impact this DEFENSE attorney would SAY so instead of saying the releasing the photos was such a grevious error that the attorney that did it may end up being disbarred?

If you want to continue grabbing at straws I suggest you take yourself and your computer to the nearest horse barn... you may have more luck with among the nags and the crap.

[BrownOak]

151. Disbarred????

Nobody is saying that the guy is going to get disbarred. The other attorney are upset because he released evidence in a trial where he is not representing the accused.

As for the phone records, they were provided to the News & Observer, as referenced in this article:

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/430963.html

[Spike from MN]

137. How come the cabbie

"just might have made an honest mistake" but the woman in this story is invariably referred to by some as a "lying whore" or worse? Why is that?

Note to FreakinDJ: I am NOT saying that you called her that because you obviously didn't in the above post. I'm just pointing out the difference regarding the words you used to describe the cabbie vs. the terms others often use to describe the woman.

[BrownOak]

85. Some thoughts to address

That doesn't seem likely for a number of reasons.

If you want to look at the proposed problem it boils down to this - the car in the photo is the same color as the car that was described dropping off the AV (alleged victim). That, combined with the fact that the car described by the cabbie upon his second trip to the scene was white. This allows someone at Time to postulate about what the prosecution may do to attack the alibi which would center around the idea that the images were changed via Photoshop or some other editing program. That's certainly a possibility, but before accepting that you'll need to address a few of the reports that are out there:

1. The arrival - If the Time's report of a possible prosecution attack on the alibi is followed then one of the things that would need to happen is that that photo of the AV in the passenger's seat of the car would have to be upon her arrival. The photo shows one of the players with the AV at the door of the car. However, in the neighbor's account of the activities that night, he describes seeing at or around 11:50 two women walk to the back of the house, where a man greets them. If the prosecution is going to claim the photo is of the AV's arrival and one of the suspects is there greeting her at the curb, it can only occur if the suspect leaves her at the curb and walks back to the house. It's unclear at this time if Bissey (the neighbor) saw the dancers arrive, but if he did, then the Time scenario is improbable because there's no mention of the player greeting them at the curb.

2. Got, got, got, got no time - (yes, I'm quoting Guess Who lyrics when discussing who may have committed a potential crime) Again, going back to the article above, the neighbor says he saw the women going into the house at midnight. At 12:53, the police receive the first 911 call. We know this is from Kim Roberts, the second dancer and that she made the call from her car. This clearly establishes the only time window for the potential assault as just around midnight to 12:53. But Bissey also testifies that he saw one of the women returning back to the house between 12:20 and 12:30 to get her shoe. As the AV is the one missing the shoe you can logically infer this was her and you can also deduce that it was unlikely the possible assault had happened prior to that as it would be very doubtful she would walk back to the house for her shoe after an assault, regardless of her level of inebriation. So, without even considering the defense's photos, that leaves the most likely time for the assault to occur as being between 12:20 and 12:53, which is enough time for it to happen, but it's also after the time that Seligmann was picked up by the cabbie.

3. Photoshopping Pictures - Everyone knows it's relatively easy to edit photos in Photoshop or some other program. However, if those files are viewed with something other than the naked eye, then the trail - at least as I've been told - is easy to determine. I've also heard that the time stamping the defense is referring to is not the stamp that's on the picture, but the one that's in the metafile, which is supposedly harder to edit.

4. The Car - In one of the Rita Cosby stories on this she and the Time reporter Greg Fulton state that the car in the photo looks very similar to Kim Roberts' car. Given that the car has some very distinctive markings, it should be easy to identify if it is Ms. Roberts' car. My guess is that will be exactly what happens and what you'll end up seeing is that the cabbie mistakenly identified the color of the car.

This opens the door for the prosecution to question the accuracy of those photos, but isn't the simplest explanation that the cabbie mistakenly recalled the color of the car?

[FredScuttle]

116. Don't you ever tire

of defending these guys? I mean, unless you're on the payroll or something, I can't figure it. I imagine when they introduce the broomstick at trial, you'll be saying "Ha! that proves none of them touched her with a body part!"

[BrownOak]

134. I'm just not as comfortable as you

with jumping to the conclusion that they're guuilty without looking at the whole picture.

I look at that Time article and there are so many problems with what they are trying to propose that it's impossible to not question.

[FredScuttle]

135. But you are comfortable swallowing whatever malarkey the defense feeds you

OK.

[BrownOak]

141. Not at all

It's just that you find anything you disagree with to be defense malarkey. In the post that you responded to, the only things I cited were the neighbor's account of the evening and a Rita Cosby interview with the author of the Time article cited in the OP. Neither of those would seem to be something served up by the defense.

[TorchTheWitch]

132. Oh boy

1. The Arrival - At 11:50 Bissey says he saw the two strippers walk to the back of the house. He doesn't say he saw them at the front of the house being helped out of a car, so we must assume he didn't see that. It's perfectly plausable that whoever helped the women out of the car upon arrival didn't walk back to the house right away and just told the strippers to just walk around to the back on their own, or he followed somewhat behind or in front of them and Bissey just didn't see him.

2. Time - You're assuming that the woman could not have been raped between 11:50 or 12:00 and 12:20 or 12:30 solely based on the fact that she went back for her shoe and you find that unlikely. Remember that she also left her purse, her cell phone, her ID, her keys and her money in the house along with that shoe. She was also apparently dressed in her costume and not in her street clothes as the photo of her leaving the house shows her in her costume. It's perfectly plausible that she went back to the house for all of her other things along with the shoe and her street clothes, and in her inebriated state only mentioned the shoe, or in her inebriated state she only clearly mentioned the shoe which was the part Bissey heard or Bissey simply didn't hear her mention anything else other than a shoe.

It is also perfectly plausible that she was only thinking of her shoe in her inebriated state but also in a shocked state. It is clear that rape victims and other people who have suffered a severe trauma may do inappropriate things like laugh or walk home in the wrong direction or aren't aware they are naked or any number of odd things. There was a DUer on here not too long ago that mentioned after her rape she laughed inappropriately for no reason that she can possibly understand.

And just where IS that shoe? It wasn't found in the house when the police searched it. The police continued to look for the shoe in the dorm rooms they searched and couldn't find it, and the stipper still doesn't have it. Looks like someone got rid of that shoe. Wonder why that could be? What is so interesting about that shoe that it disappeared?

3. The Photos - That's what you heard. Anything I've read has indicated that the defense is indeed talking about the time-stamps on the photos... in fact, they've said so repeatedly. In any case, here's an interesting article about changing the time-stamp on photos which also mentions changing the metadata...
http://www.slate.com/id/2140303
That doesn't mean it takes a serious computer hacker to adjust the numbers. Within a span of about 20 minutes, the Explainer was able to download a utility called ExifTool from the Web and edit the time stamps on all his photos: Each and every one now appears to have been taken at 12:30 a.m. on the night of the Duke lacrosse team party.
The article goes into a good deal more depth.

4. The Car - Fulton appears to be mistaken about Roberts' car. Her car is WHITE. The defense has claimed themselves that the car the accusor was dropped off at the party in was a dark colored car just as the photo of the car they are claiming she was put into shows. If the cabbie can't see the difference between a white car and a dark colored car, he has no business driving so much as a tricycle on a public road. I hardly think he's mistaken about what color the car was that he saw a woman he was able to identify on sight get into and drive away in. There is also the guard's story at Kroger and the police that went to Kroger's to talk to the strippers. I hardly think they would be mistaken about the color of the car as well.

But what really tells me that these photos are a big problem is that THE DEFENSE SAID SO. There would have to be something so terribly wrong with those photos that compelled one of the defense attorneys to state to TIME that it was a "grievous strategic error" to release them. So grievous in fact that the attorney that did so is going to have a problem with the Bar Association. Now, why in the world would the DEFENSE say that if it wasn't so?

If the defense never said anything about the photos they could have relied on Bissey's time line and still have had some credibility. But no, they wanted to trash the accusor up down and sideways so some baffoon of an attorney went and released those photos that they ALL crowed over, but now that they've been caught with their pants down they're crying that it was the fault of the attorney who released them. This didn't just kill their photo theory, their star eyewitness (the cabbie) was the one to kill it. So now they have a problem with both their photos and their eyewitness as well as their own credibility.

No time for a summer friend, no time for the love you send... ah, time to spin some Guess Who.

[BrownOak]

149. Oh boy, oh boy

1. Correct, as I said in the original post, it depends upon if Bissey saw the separate arrivals of the dancers. But how likely do you see it that at least two guys would be waiting out front for the dancers to arrive and that when they come, they would leave them at the curb rather than walk them back to the house?

2. Yes, I do see it as difficult to believe that the AV returned to the house, not because it was something as trivial as a shoe, but that she would return at all. Now I understand that it could be that the AV was in shock at the time and that needs to be considered. But still, I'll need more than some anecdotal evidence to weigh the possibilities on that. As for the other shoe, I have no idea where it is.

3. But the problem here is that one of those photos has the time stamps matched with a watch in the photo. The defense has claimed - which has not been verified - that they can produce an expert who can attest to the sequencing of the photos but not to the time stamping. Furthermore, while you can change the data in the metafile, I - and again, this is far from expert stuff here - believe that the change is recorded in the hex code.

4. You are mistaken about the car. The Rita Cosby segment the other night quoted "sources close to the second dancer" stating that she wasn't in a white car that entire evening. They also state that the picture in the car appears to be the second dancer's. But the real proof of all of this is in the second 911 call where the security guard at the Kroger describes the car driven by Ms. Roberts. In that call she says it is a dark blue vehicle that looks black at night.

I think you may be reading too much into the comments from the one defense attorney. Leaking the photos was a strategic error, which could as easily mean that the attorney didn't want the prosecution to be able to attack the credibility of the photos until the trial as it could that they time stamps were forged. In fact, the comments about a bar complaint would be more in line with someone releasing photos when they are not the attorney for the charged defendants than it would be for tampering with potential evidence which would be something more worthy of criminal charges (assuming those photos become evidence).

The photos are only damaging if you are operating from the belief that the cabbie was correct and the second dancer was driving a white vehicle. But, by the second dancer's own account in that second 911 call, the car in the picture is the car Roberts drove that evening.

[jberryhill]

158. You can't have it both ways

The Kroger guard said both women were in a dark sedan.

So, since you "hardly think they would be mistaken about the color of the car as well" then your theory is that they switched cars on the way to Kroger?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1849938&page=1

The guard was on duty at the store on the night of March 13, when the two women pulled into the store's parking lot in a dark sedan.

The cabbie and the Kroger guard can't both be right about the color of that car.

[jberryhill]

160. Yes, it is the simplest explanation...

...particularly since the Kroger guard, who spent a WHOLE lot more time engaged with the women and the vehicle, described it as a "dark sedan".

But we all know that Kroger guards are lying rape apologists, or something like that.

[Neil Lisst]

175. Why do all these witnesses, photos, and time hacks ...

... hate women and strippers?

They're such bigots! (it's the WORD of the DAY!!)

Some of our friends here need to go back to school and learn what the word "bigotry" really means.

[Neil Lisst]

179. I don't know what happened with the cars, but ...

... anyone who thinks the color is going to negate the cabbie's testimony doesn't understand that the OTHER evidence will corroborate most of his timeline.

It is possible he got the color wrong, but still saw what he saw.

Eyewitnesses remember better what they HEARD than what they see. They're notorious getting major details wrong. The question is whether we believe this is a truthful witness. I think a jury will find him truthful, mainly because his testimony fits with the ATM evidence.

This cabbie will have a lot more credibility as a witness than Kim Roberts or the accuser.

[jberryhill]

157. And the Kroger Guard?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1849938&page=1

The guard was on duty at the store on the night of March 13, when the two women pulled into the store's parking lot in a dark sedan.

Next week on Celebrity Deathmatch - the cabbie vs. the Kroger guard on the color of a car...

[TorchTheWitch]

9. that about the size of it

Follow the link to the TIME story. It's explains it pretty clearly in much better detail than I did. Quite an interesting story.

[LostinVA]

2. Yummers... popcorn... where are the Milk Duds?

Who cares if they might pull off my crown.

[tatertop]

5. Where are the apologists as the noose tightens on those Duke boys?

They better show up. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

:beer: (That's root beer, I never drink Guinness before
5 PM.)

:popcorn:

[LostinVA]

8. I'm sure they'll say that the dancers'' pimps told them to lie

about what car they had so that they could scam the boys out of their money.... or something.

[Jigarotta]

16. or that it's a known fact that 40% of cabbies are liars.

some cult site said that, somewhere.

[LostinVA]

19. Wrongo! 40% of all cabbies make false accusations

in their time logs when it concerns a sports team who uses sticks. It says it on www.limodriversarebetterthancabbies.com

[Spike from MN]

36. OK, I'll jump in here.

TTW, why the HELL are you trying to confuse us with FACTS? The FACTS don't matter in this case. Or in any rape case. Because ALL rape accusations are FALSE ACCUSATIONS made by lying scheming mentally-ill gold-digging alcholic drug-addled whores. Goddamnit, how many times do I have to repeat this before everyone starts believing it?

"I'm not a fan of facts. You see, facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are." -- Stephen Colbert

:sarcasm:

[tatertop]

43. We are way low on apologists today

[FreakinDJ]

70. You need to prove your case before you condemn

[Marie26]

102. Looks like you found one! nt

[FreakinDJ]

69. Right here - any questions ??????

I still don't think the DA has a case

[tatertop]

74. Maybe you want to make that picture go away

[jbnow]

23. I prefer

Junior Mints to Milk Duds. Do they still make either one?

[LostinVA]

25. Yup, they still make both!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TorchTheWitch]

47. Uh, you know you're talking about Junior Mints and

Milk Duds, right?

I can personally attest that Junior Mints and Milk Duds are still on the market. I saw them today at the CVS counter with my own eyes. And I bought Junior Mints and a KitKat since they're my personal favorites, and I am trying at this moment to ration out my Junior Mints and eat them very quietly so my hips won't know.

Although I really don't recommend the Junior Mints in combination with orange juice... ick. Clearly my afternoon snack combination was a "grevious strategic error".

:rofl:

[timber84]

49. I vote for junior mints however the cookie dough bites

are rather scrumptious too.

[Jigarotta]

52. Liar! I'm assuming you're a woman to make such outrageous statements! . ;)

;)

[TorchTheWitch]

60. ACK! I'm caught!

It was the comment about the hips that gave it away, huh?

Damn, I really need to be careful about those subtle revealing statements.

Pass the Milk Duds. I ate the KitKat on the way home in the car and now I'm down to my last Junior Mint.

:ROFL:

[yellowcanine]

3. If the prosecutor hasn't seized that camera phone he/she is derelict

in their duty. An expert could examine the phone and possibly determine if any alterations were made to the time/date.

[Jigarotta]

7. how do you know that it hasn't been seized?

5 posts in and it's already a possible dereliction of duty on the procesutor's part?
lol.
let the games begin.

[yellowcanine]

14. Lighten up. I said "IF they haven't seized that camera phone"

So, no I don't know. But yes, it would be a dereliction of duty if that hadn't been done. I fail to see how the number of posts is of any relevance whatsoever.

[Jigarotta]

4. I'm sure there will be a perfectly reasonable explanation

for this from the law and order and statistician and the psychology major types around here. :sarcasm:

[FreakinDJ]

15. A Women’s irrefutable right to accuse men

Is that is what this is all about. Every day we have an argument on DU because in the name of women’s equality we need to debate this case.

Women/Prosecutors have the right to go to the media, but when the accused/defense do its smearing the victim.

Women should be taken for their word, and all men are liars.

Women can be raped, but women are incapable of raping young boys.

I fail to see how this falls under “Equality Issues” any more. It is not about equality at all and becoming more oppressive every day.

and to think we call ratpublicans hypocrits

[Neil Lisst]

17. Men bad. Women good.

Don't you understand?! Women don't lie. They don't fart, either. Allegedly.

[FreakinDJ]

21. Corner on many issues

It is not about gender equality

[Jigarotta]

22. Neil, you may be onto something.

I may have lied when I complimented your 'toons.
;)

[Neil Lisst]

44. I'm referring to ...

... the attitudes a few posters exhibit here. It's the only form of bigotry openly allowed here.

[TorchTheWitch]

50. Oh RIGHT

The only form of bigotry??? PFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT... Try being a stripper on this forum, bud.

:eyes:

[Neil Lisst]

53. that's not bigotry

it's reality

You take your clothes off for money, you disrespect the relationships men have with their wives or girlfriends, and you encroach on their ability to meet their family's needs.

[Jigarotta]

56. leaping lizards! Where the HELL is the man's responsibilty...

you make it sound like they are all innocent and succubussed into something they want no part of. Like some evil voodoo is at work against them...

fercrissakes.
lord love a duck, some really nasty things are being exposed here.

and it's a good thing, I suppose.
but damn, fricken scarey.

[Neil Lisst]

59. nowhere do I excuse their conduct

and your attempt to deflect attention to them, instead of the dancer, is an attempt at diversion. The issue raised was rather there is bigotry here towards strippers. I'm pointing out it isn't bigotry, but a rational approach to a social problem that undermines families.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TorchTheWitch]

84. Are you accusing me of being a drunk?

I have never had a drink in my entire life. Can you say the same?

Or are you just accusing all strippers of being drunks?

Which is it?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TorchTheWitch]

89. And you don't recognize this as bigotry?

Dude, I DO this job. I WORK with these people. Are a lot of them a bit fucked up on something? Sure. No more than average kids their age. Keep in mind most of these women are college age and they act like their age. By no means are we all like that and I'm hardly some bizzare acception. Most of the women I've worked with, and I've worked in countless numbers of clubs all over the country, don't behave that way. You CAN'T behave that way at work and make money. This is NOT an easy job. Customers don't just throw their wallets at you. This job is about sales, and the one with the best sales skills wins. The ones with the drug and alcohol problems cause trouble and get fired. Clubs don't WANT those kinds of women working in their club for what should be obvious reasons. Even the ones that are clean and sober and TRY to make money aren't often very successful because their sales skills aren't good enough. Most of the women I work with are single mothers, corporate world workers dancing part time to make ends meet because their suckky corporate job doesn't pay the bills, college students trying to get their tuition paid so they won't have reems of debt later, etc. Then their are the women like me who wasted too many years getting reamed in the corporate world and gave it the boot.

It is most definitely not a "generally recognized truth" it's a generally recognized STEREOTYPE.

Quit your damn bigoted stereotyping and actually try to learn something about that which you have no experience with.

[Neil Lisst]

169. Wow, you must be the only person here who understands stripping.

NOT.

It's not brain surgery, and it's pretty much the same everywhere.

Most strippers are young women who have serious emotional problems, drink and drug, and hook on the side.

Since I don't believe anything you say, your testimonials don't mean anything to me, but I'm sure your posse thinks they're great.

[bettyellen]

114. wow, the only stripper i ever knew did it because it wa 6-7 the money she

could make as a bartender or waitress. so she could make more time for auditions.
she felt sorry for the loser dudes who felt compelled to spend their paychecks on her- and the idiot women who waited home alone for them.
but not sorry enough not to grab every penny while she could. you think she shoulda gave a shit about all those guys' "happy homes"?
sorry dude, that's so delusional it sounds like you have the subsatnce abuse problem.

[LittleClarkie]

143. I have no problem with presuming innocence for the alleged attackers

I DO have a problem with presuming negative things about the alleged victim.

Can't BOTH sides be innocent until proven guilty?

[Neil Lisst]

163. No. But I am accusing strippers of drinking all day.

With a few exceptions, I suppose.

[TorchTheWitch]

91. delete

[Neil Lisst]

164. Yes, it's rational. It's a word that means logical.

It's RATIONAL to place blame on the stripper and her customer.

They're both part of the same problem, and shame on them both.

[Neil Lisst]

167. dupe

dupe

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TorchTheWitch]

90. Well, aren't you presumptious

I work in a club. The club pays the bouncers. Ask them what the going rate is.

And no I don't solicit! Why are you assuming that because I'm a stripper that I'm automatically a prostitute? Do YOU solicit?

Those husbands and boyfriends come to ME. If anyone has a problem with them spending money and time with strippers then try telling them to keep their asses out of the club... and see how that works out for ya.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FredScuttle]

115. "real people work"

like your good friend, the Swami?



http://www.anandaanswers.com/test.html

[LostinVA]

118. Fred, what has the Swami been up to lately?

I miss his mystical pearls of wisdom...

[FredScuttle]

122. Well, between fending off sexual harassment suits

and promoting important research into rape false reports, the Swami has kept a busy schedule....next Monday, he's scheduled to appear at the Bloomington Farmer's Market to preach about fulfillment through unsolicited contact with nubile young women on public transportation. Then, he's hosting a double feature screening of "Lipstick" and "The Accused" as part of his "That Bitch Lyin'!" film series.

[LostinVA]

125. Ooooh! Is the film series so soon???

I thought it wasn't until June. Damn. I may be busy that weekend teaching my "Feminazi Freedom: How to Make the Shakiest False Rape Accusation Stick to even Mr. Rogers" workshop. It's sold out. I'm so excited!!! It's the first time I've ever lead a Feminazi Workshop. Although I have helped at quite a few How to Dress like a Ho seminars.

btw... I heard the Swami is having a special "Intimate Movie Event: She Really Wanted It" to raise money for Promise Keepers. I think he'll be showing "9 1/2 Weeks."

[FredScuttle]

127. Yeah, the Swami's schedule really messes us up

I had plans to attend the Robert Chambers Freedom Anniversay party in lower Manhattan that weekend...it's just "Bobby" and a few friends drinking a toast to the good old days when "rough sex" was OK and leaving a body in the park was par for the course.

Good luck with your course and make sure you leave room for me to sign up for your fall seminar - "Strippers - Playthings for the Privileged or Good Supply of Skin for Upholstery?"

[LostinVA]

129. I miss the good old days when the rough sex defense was

a Constitutionally protceted right. Ah.... the 80's... are you giving away dismembered Barbie dolls as party favors?

I think you may prefer the other class we're having this fall: "Strippers: Mentally Unbalanced Drunk Scam Artists Who Are Prostitutes... Or Just Crazy Mixed Up Kids?" Torchthewitch is our Keynote Speaker.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

131. Grrr... I was busy this weekend painting and doing yard work

I alwyas miss the best threads.....

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spike from MN]

148. I caught that thread. Fred was really on a roll!

I laughed my ass off reading that one. It was good entertainment.

And Fred, what exactly are you signing up for? I think LIV's subject line said something about rough sex and you jump right in with "Excellent -- sign me up!" Whoa! I really have to start paying more attention here because I'm obviously missing out on all the fun stuff. ;)

[LostinVA]

215. Spike, you gotta come down to Virginia

I'll show you a good time.... see how excited Fred is??? Speaks for itself...

[Occulus]

176. "coked up harpies"

LOL

[Jigarotta]

139. I think some here may miss those 'rule of thumb' days too...

where a man could beat his wife as long as the stick used wasn't thicker than his thumb.

o, pining for those days they are.

bleh.
some of the throwbacks here......

[LostinVA]

216. I know -- it makes you wonder if they grew up next to Nuclear power

plants or something...

[Spike from MN]

156. Unsolicited contact

with nubile young woman on public transportation? Oh boy, do I have the website for him.

Getting harrassed while out in public in NYC? Just snap a pic of the harrasser and post the pic and your story on the site. Expect to find pics of His Holy Swaminess popping up any day now.

http://www.hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/

[LostinVA]

119. self delete dupe n/t

[bettyellen]

121. you think strippers aren't "real people". well that explains everything

there is worth knowing about you.

[sendero]

95. Whoa, whoa, whoa....

... I've gotten myself flamed here many times for pointing out the fallacy of the "moral superiority" of women.

But you are painting strippers with a pretty broad brush there. If a man is going to a strip club, HE is disrespecting the relationship with his wife or gf (unless said wife or gf is cool with it), not the stripper.

[Neil Lisst]

161. they're BOTH doing so

like I said, he's culpable, too

the point is that strippers, as a class, are hustlers, pure and simple

[bettyellen]

126. it's childish regressive bullshit that faults women for what men do.

right up there with the dog eat your homework.
grow the fuck up, stop hiding behing the titties, ya big baby.

[Neil Lisst]

162. your comments are the childish BS to which you refer

[FreakinDJ]

64. REALLY being a stripper is a form of bigotry

WOW - you sense of association is amazing

Try being a Duke LAX team member with prayer vigils conducted outside your domitory, WACKOs screaming "Time to confess", the New Black Panther Party claiming they are coming on the campus to conduct their own investigation.

I think Thou doest protest too much

[FredScuttle]

123. Boo-friggin-hoo for the poor lacrosse lambs

I weep for their victimization...how dare people not let them live their normal lives - drinking, puking, public nuisance, disrespecting the neighbors, yelling racial slurs, yadda, yadda, yadda....

Time to bring out the world's smallest violin for these poor souls :nopity:

[Spike from MN]

152. C'mon. Cut 'em some slack. Besides, you forgot broomsticking.

"Drinking, puking, public nuisance, disrespecting the neighbors." Hell, that's MY life you just described Fred. I thought I was doing just fine until I saw your post.

Those poor LAX guys have it SOOOO much worse than the woman. That lying whore is being treated with kid gloves by everyone. So what if she has to see "We Support LAX" posters everwhere she goes. Big deal. And she acts like having her name dragged through the mud by the MSM is a terrible thing. Hell, she's getting her 15 minutes of fame isn't she? What the hell does she have to complain about? That every iota of her rape case, not to mention her personal life, is being scrutinuzed nation-wide on a 24/7 basis? So friggin' what. Cry me a goddamn river. If she didn't want that kind of attention she shouldn't have gotten raped in the first place. She has no one to blame but herself.

:sarcasm:

[JVS]

108. Oh, I've seen a couple other bigotries, hatred of Calvinists, for example

But I'm not going to quibble

[Jigarotta]

82. guess you haven't seen comments here about

Babs, and Condi, and Paula kahn, etc. etc. Couric, Coulter, yadda yadda.

You saying all women here think these women are good?

...??
what the hell Are you saying?

[Neil Lisst]

172. I'm saying that

... there is an ever present gender bigotry here at DU, mainly by a handful of women and few of their eunuchs.

[Jigarotta]

186. as opposed to the gender bigotry,

mainly by a hella lot more than a handful of men and a few of their eunuchs?

okey dokey.

why you worry so over a handful of women you disagree (and I am certain it is not restrained to the women of DU) with is beyond me. Perhaps if you didn't have some of your knuckle dragging insights on rape you wouldn't have this problem.

[Neil Lisst]

188. see what I mean?

You can't respond to a post you don't like without resorting to the kind of insults one hears from 13 year old girls.

You think it's fine to sling insults to men, or about men, and the reason you do is the double standard. Your side does almost all the name calling here, and almost all the bitching about namecalling.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Neil Lisst]

195. another one bites the dust

I have to read of this nonsense, in order to rebut it, so I read the comments of several of the irrational here, but your posts are just juvenile, irrelevant comments. So I'm dumping you in the IGNORE pile with the other crazies with weak game.

[LostinVA]

217. Yup, real men like Fred Scuttle and Thomcat

And Jukes -- wherever he's been lately. And, my Dad and my BIL and my male friends. REAL men, regardless of political affiliation, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.

[Jigarotta]

20. what a buncho hogwash. nt

[FreakinDJ]

24. You would be surprised

After Opera aired the special about female pediophiles last week, how many women were on Opera's website saying the boys (13 and 14 years old) should be the ones punished.

That is so sick

Making a 13 year old boy responcible for a 27 year old woman's actions

Like I said. It has nothing to do with Equality

[lukasahero]

28. Sorry but this is so much bullshit I can't stand it anymore

Please go search ANY thread here on DU about older women sleeping with young boys. You will find the VAST majority of people who say it's no big deal are the MEN who wish it had happened to them.

As for Oprah, got a link?

[FreakinDJ]

38. I participated in the threads

Men were not saying it wasn't damaging for youth to be coerced by female pediophiles.

At least not the men who it actually happened to.

so yes that would be a double standard. Especially because there are several cases where 14 year old boys have been financially responcible for the offspring of these rapes

[lukasahero]

40. Please provide links

I will dig around DU and provide the links from these discussions here supporting my claim if you provide links supporting yours.

[Marie26]

71. You won't get any.

Unless it's from the Swami.

[LostinVA]

93. Yup... the infamous swami!

[FredScuttle]

124. The great and all-knowing Swami!

who just happens to have a Q&A on sexual harassment charges leveled against him on his home page



http://www.anandaanswers.com/test.html

[lukasahero]

226. Oh I knew that

I just wanted to make it blindingly clear to anyone else who might be following the discussion. Thanks for helping to prove my point. ;)

[Jigarotta]

200. apparently the missing link is linkless. nt

[lukasahero]

227. Of course

Thanks for noticing. :)

[Jigarotta]

29. so questioning what we have heard on the Duke case somehow...

makes one a supporter of pedophiles?

how did you get from A to L?

[LostinVA]

31. Damn! I havethis poster on Ignore -- it sounds like a good one

[FreakinDJ]

34. Why didn't you leave me on ignore then

Certainly don't reply for your benefit

[lukasahero]

35. Read much?

The poster says they have you on ignore and don't know what you posted. "Must have been a good one." As in, "I didn't read it because I have the poster on ignore."

I think you are simply trying to bully her.

[Marie26]

83. Yes

I don't know who that person is, but they are trying to bully her. I finally broke down & made a little ignore list of the most blantant, ugly, misogynists on this board. I've said my piece & I've heard their insults. Why should I subject myself to that crap anymore? There are certain posters who will try to bully, demean, & insult anyone who expresses an opinion supporting the dancer in this case. And God forbid if you are a female expressing support. It's a little scary & really disturbing. I'll probably get such a response here, but at least I don't have to see it. My self-esteem & my blood pressure don't need it. I fully expect them to get even nastier if the players' case goes south.

[LostinVA]

94. Guess what? I still have him on Ignore!

He's just pissing into the wind..... that is just so sad and pathetic, LAH... bullies don't know what to do when they have no one to bully. I almost pity him.... but it's more to laugh at him, so I will... hahahahahhaha.

I would alert on the dude if I could read it... but guess what? I can't!

Hahaha!

[timber84]

42. So mellowdramtic...........

nanny nanny boo boo!

[AllieB]

45. That's a mature response

but, given the quality of the posts on these threads, I guess that's to be expected.

[timber84]

46. yeah her I' have you on ignore's are really mature aren't they

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

33. Double standard here is so prevelent it STINKS to high heaven

Is that relevent enough for you

[yellowcanine]

27. I believe it was a DEFENSE attorney saying that releasing the photo was

a mistake. Your sense of a double standard seems a little misplaced. Why don't we allow this case to play itself out in the courts before we make judgements about whether some kind of double standard is being applied?

[lukasahero]

30. Thank you

I hate it when those pesky facts get in the way. ;)

[FreakinDJ]

41. The original story on MSNBC

I think the headline of

"Prosecutors reportedly claim prints were doctored, don't show correct time"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12521096/

so that would be your double standard

The Prosecutor release information to the Press = good
The Defense releases information to the Press = Smearing victim

Thanks

[Jigarotta]

58. I'm no Perry Mason but

if the defense, or whomever, didn't release the said pics to begin with, there would not have been a statement or comment about them from the prosecution. Defense opened that can of worms, Prosecutor did not.

[FreakinDJ]

61. He said She said - typical

but how many Press confrenses did the DA hold promising arrest would be made - even before the investigation was completed, even before both sets a DNA testing were completed.

Yes there are 2 cases present, 1 being the actuall court case and investigation. @. Being the media war being waged, and yes the DA drew first blood so to speak

[TorchTheWitch]

101. What he said/she said?

He said/she said is what happens when there's no evidence and no other testimony other than the accuser and the accused. That is quite obviously not the case here.

I have no idea whether or not the prosecutor made claims that arrests would be made before all the evidence was in. Arrests were made, though just as he said. Believe it or not the prosecutor knows far more about this case than you do, and therefore would be a far better judge of whether or not arrests would be made.

So what if the DA "drew first blood"? What the hell does that have to do with the facts of the case?

What in the world are you trying to argue here?

[JVS]

107. Hmm

:popcorn:

[marions ghost]

37. so the purpose of leaking

the photos by the defense was what?...to try to intimidate the accuser into dropping the case?...to attempt to neutralize the charges? or was it just primarily to affect public opinion?

I'm a little slow in these things...just trying to figure out motives.

I just can't see what the advantage was for the defense to leak these photos. Strategy-wise it doesn't seem like a good move. So what were they thinking?

:shrug:

[tatertop]

51. Post #39 by TorchTheWitch really nails it

[marions ghost]

55. thanks

I understand that the defense may have thought they had an airtight alibi...but then still, why would they actually release the photos? It seems like you would just CLAIM that you had photo evidence to support the defense, and not release the actual photos. Like the defense attorney who was pissed off said, the photos were released without proper approvals or something. So my question is, why WOULD a defense attorney (or someone else) release them prematurely? There seems to be no advantage in that. I'm just trying to understand what the strategy was, or why this happened. As soon as the photos were released I remembered thinking, "why'd they do that?" It didn't make sense to me. It seemed like they were trying to railroad the prosecution into backing down or something like that. But I wasn't sure. It did seem dumb.

[tatertop]

62. Perhaps those Duke Boys hoped that in her drug-induced state

she would not recall real clearly exactly what took place.
In which case these photos would have served the dual purpose
of confusing and intimidating the rape victim while
exonerating the accused via the media.

[FreakinDJ]

78. Toxicology was inconclusive

That was the statement on the SANE report so how can you say

Perhaps those Duke Boys hoped that in her drug-induced state

Toxicology examination which is routine in rape investigation must be AUTHORIZED by the victim. So if she did not authorize the exam it would the nurse's visual observations only and inconclusive

[TorchTheWitch]

99. Says who?

We don't KNOW what the toxicology report says. We don't KNOW if she authorized one or if she didn't. We don KNOW if a toxicology report even EXISTS. How do you claim a toxicology report is inconclusive when you don't know it exists?

Wow... just wow.

[LostinVA]

100. Because this is BUsh's America, Torchie, and facts don't count

Just say it long enough and loud enough and it's true!

Guess what? I still have this poster on Ignore!

[FreakinDJ]

104. DA Nifong said the Toxicology report was INCONCLUSIVE

in HIS press release

Nice Job CHEERIE PICKING the information you selectively wish to hear by the way.

I hear they might have openings in the White house with the Plame investigation an all

You really sould consider

[FredScuttle]

113. Link please

n/t

[FreakinDJ]

150. SANE guide lines

SANE guide lines for obtaining toxicology request

The medical guidelines section discusses the importance of obtaining a conscious victim's consent for any toxicology screens. However with unconscious victims, while it encourages making decisions to take urine samples on a case-by-case basis, it still states that emergency personnel "should" take a urine sample on unconscious victims if they believe a victim was given a controlled substance. Some advocates who have worked with sexual assault survivors have expressed concern about any approach that might test without consent as it may further traumatize the victim.(p.45)

http://www.vawnet.org/SexualViolence/PreventionAndEducation/Approaches/SchoolBased/IL_AvertingCampDateRape_sum.php

If she was indeed drug with GHB that would be evidence

GHB has been the most vexing of drugs in many ways, but particularly in terms of drug-facilitated sexual assaults. Gone from blood in about four hours and from urine in about twelve, it is difficult to detect even when the victim comes forward immediately. Delays in police response, police agencies/hospitals still taking only blood evidence, and typically lengthy delays at hospitals before examinations are done and urine samples are taken have all contributed to make it a perplexing nightmare.
http://www.projectghb.org/newsletters/20030415.htm

Can't find the nurse's statement right now, it was here on DU. But Nifong has never indicated he had any toxicology evidence

Police logs show that the woman was taken to the Duke hospital at 2:31 a.m., after a stop at a substance-abuse center, and that she claimed she had been raped. She was examined by a sexual-assault nurse and likely given a battery of blood and urine tests. According to Nifong, a hospital report later showed that her injuries and emotional state were consistent with having been raped.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12442765/site/newsweek/page/4/

[Marie26]

154. Where does any of that say

that a toxicology report was inconclusive?

[Spike from MN]

159. Here's the toxicology report.

In a report released earlier today by the Duke hospital detailing the results of the toxicology test that was performed on the alleged victim in the Duke Lacrosse rape case, the blood test results showed no signs of illicit drugs. The Blood Alcohol Concentration was measured to be .15. No presence of illicit drugs was found in the urine sample taken from the alleged victim. The medical exam performed by the sexual-assualt nurse showed no signs that the victim had been buggered in the previous 36 hours. The nurse stated that the results prove without a doubt that the alleged victim is an alcoholic lying whore and that the accused Lacrosse players are innocent young men that have been wrongfully accused.

No link because I just made that shit up. No sarcasm tag needed. At least in theory anyway.

[Marie26]

180. LOL

You had me going for a second there. I thought, if it's in indented text, it must be true! (till the end, of course). You could've probabably thrown in a random link & fooled a lot of people. :)

[Spike from MN]

185. Well, I kind of figured

that using the term "buggered" in an official medical report was a bit of a giveaway. ;) I considered adding a link but was having a hard time picking the site to link to. The story can be found at so many places it was hard to choose:

www.the-bitch-is-a-lying-whore.com
www.there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-rapist-there-are-only-lying-whores.com
www.the-fucking-bitch-is-a-lying-whore.com
www.all-women-who-accuse-men-of-raping-them-are-liars.com
www.the-drug-addled-fucking-bitch-is-a-lying-whore.com
www.rapists-r-us.com
www.the-alcoholic-drug-addled-fucking-bitch-is-a-lying-whore.com
www.rape-deniers.com
www.the-mentally-ill-alcoholic-drug-addled-fucking-bitch-is-a-lying-whore.com
www.pro-rapist-and-proud.com
www.the-gold-digging-mentally-ill-alcoholic-drug-addled-fucking-bitch-is-a-lying-whore.com
www.broomstickers-unite.com
www.did-I-mention-that-the-gold-digging-mentally-ill-alcoholic-drug-addled-fucking-bitch-is-a-lying-whore.com
www.be-glad-it-was-a-broomstick-and-not-my-stick.com
www.oh-and-she's-a-crappy-mom.com
www.if-you-rape-someone-don't-ever-admit-it-because-the-chances-of-ever-being-prosecuted-are-minuscule.com

I'm sure there are others but that's just a short list of the ones I came across. Please feel free to make additions to the list for the sake of completeness.

Hopefully the sracasm tag really isn't needed at this point. But ya never know.

[LostinVA]

218. HAHAHAHHAHAHA

Hysterical to read first thing in the morning -- I love ya, Spikey!

Bet all these posters will start crowing about how SANEs really ARE expert witnesses in rape cases!

[Jigarotta]

72. could have been pure unthinking panic, is all. nt

[Marie26]

142. The pictures were released before indictment

And they had a different motive then - stopping this before anyone is indicted. They controlled the photos & could select which photos to release & how to structure them to support the time-line they had constructed. And they know how the media works. The cable TV news shows are fueling the media circus, & they need images, pictures, to draw people. If they wanted the TV shows to hype this defense, they knew they needed to release something to fuel the fire here. Pictures will get coverage & publicity; and give a sense of authenticity to the defense's (IMO baseless) claims about the victim's demeanor. And it also lets the woman know that they are playing hard-ball here in the hopes she & the DA will drop the charges. So, it probably served a number of strategic purposes, none having to do w/an actual trial. But it was extremely reckless & risky to do so. Once the players were actually indicted, they were just stuck w/the photos & timeline they'd constructed. Just IMO.

[marions ghost]

147. thanks

oh yeah...I forgot they came out before the indictment...of course

Then that would make sense as u say, to use the pix to blow it all up and intimidate the accuser and prosecution into dropping the charges. And what gets me is that the lawyers may have known there were "problems" with the photos, by their own recent admission, and yet they still decided to run with it.

I'm kind of wondering why the drunken revellers were so diligently photographing it all anyway...is this a new fad--this minute-to-minute documentary, My Party with Strippers? I don't think it was for the college yearbook...

[Marie26]

168. You know what I think?

And this is total speculation & I'm labeling it as such. I think those dancers were set up from the beginning. It was a trap, all of it. The player who made the reservation used a fake name, and lied about what the gig entailed. The dancers thought it would be a bachelor party of 5 men, only to find 40+ drunk lacrosse players when they arrived. According to the dancer, the players were using numbers & fake names to refer to each other throughout the party. And the players are snapping photo after photo of the dancers throughout (except for that mysterious gap in time). The most disturbing thing to me is that there's one photo every few minutes for the rest of the party, but there is a series of photos of the dancer lying there on the back stoop.

Why did the players have such a need to conceal what was going on there? Why go to such lengths to cover up the real gig & the real reservation? Why were they referring to each other w/numbers from the time the dancers arrived? Is it really so shocking that college guys would hire a stripper? No. So what were they trying to hide? I think they were planning to do something illegal that night, something they knew would be illegal, & so made sure to conceal their identities first. And made sure to have cameras ready. And made sure to have drinks prepared. And no other guests besides other lacrosse players. What if they were planning to assault a dancer all along? I can't forget that sociopathic email one player sent out an hour after the event, inviting his buddies to the another "party" next week, although, he says, there won't be any sex "this time"; he's planning to hire some dancers & kill them. Chilling. Who knows if that was an actual plan or just a weird email. But if you think of it, what's to say that this party wasn't set up in the same way? The need to conceal identities, & have cameras ready, suggests to me that the players were planning something more than a typical party here.

[LostinVA]

219. I'm unfortunately starting to agree with this theory

My SO and myself nw-ere talking about this very thong yesterday. I say "unfortunately," because I hate thinking that a group of men could come up with and go along with this. I'm starting to think a group of them wanted to have a sex show -- broomsticks as dildos, the women having sex with each other, getting "serviced," whatever -- and when things quickly fell apart, the true sociopaths among them did what they wanted to do. There are just too many weird instances of set up and cover up....

Where was the second stripper during this time period, btw? Have we ever heard? Was she dancing, and just lucky enough to not be the target of the real sociopaths?

And, that email. It is chilling. I don't know what to think -- the guy was pissed he didn't get to "get any"? I don't know...

[Jigarotta]

54. this is what I think they may have been thinking.

the pic may have been altered in haste by one of the men, after the crime, on advice from someone else he may have called in a panic for help. It was done to cover up.

and released to influence public opinion - which seemed to have worked in the Duke guys favor.

put in any allegeds, etc., where appropriate.

[TorchTheWitch]

57. Apparently, they weren't

thinking that is.

The DEFENSE attorney complaining in the time article that the photos should never have been released said that there has been major dissention between the various defense attorneys about the photos, yet they all hammered away in the media claiming all kinds of allegations against the accusor because of them and swore up down and sideways that it exonerated the accused.

Their OWN eyewitness who they've been lauding is so important to the defense turns out to actually crash their time-line theory.

They were stupid. And they were also evil to still use those photos to try to discredit her.

[FreakinDJ]

65. Being her 3rd rape allegation she discredited herself

Where was the Body Guard.

Every Stripper the performs private parties ALWAYS brings their own Body Guard

You would think after the 2nd rape allegation of 3 black youths raping her she might have choosen a different line of work - like Taxi Driver. Or at least insist on hiring a body guard.

BTW: what ever happened in the 2nd gang rape trial?

http://www.wral.com/download/2006/0428/9057546.pdf
http://www.wral.com/download/2006/0428/9057549.pdf

[Jigarotta]

75. yet another reason this was 'all her fault'...

she didn't have a body guard.
how much more 'asking for it' can it be?

She wouldn't have been raped if she had a manly bodyguard to protect her.
What's a boy to do....

I think all women should be escorted by their brothers or husbands or uncles whenever they decide to leave hearth and home. I hear it works great in some countries.
:sarcasm:

[Marie26]

81. I hear

burkas are the new big thing. We wouldn't want to be tempting nice boys into doing something criminal that will be all our faults, right?

[marions ghost]

92. OR how about

having young MEN escorted everywhere they go by their MOTHERS, sisters, and aunts? That might do it.

Riiiight, it's blame the victim time again. She should've had a bodyguard because everybody knows you get gang-raped at college parties. So it's irresponsible not to take a "real man" along to protect you from those feral lowlife criminals attending 40K per year universities? Wait, I thought these were fine young gentlemen, the cream of American society...but now they need heavy intimidation so their Inner Sadist won't get out? :crazy:

[Occulus]

181. .

"She wouldn't have been raped if she had a manly bodyguard to protect her.
What's a boy to do...."

Look, I know you're being sarcastic there, but just go back and take a look at what you unconsciously wrote there:

"manly bodyguard"

now, filter those two words through the mysoginism and sexism upthread. Go ahead, take your time.... there so much there, you'll need snacks. I'll wait.

---

Now that you're back, do you get what I'm trying to say here?

"Bodyguard" does not, necessarily, translate to 'male'.

[LostinVA]

221. But bodyguards in these circumstances are pretty much always males

Per the dancers on DU -- they take physically intimidating bouncers with them.

[TorchTheWitch]

225. Actually there's a reason for that

In these kinds of situations, the clients really need to see someone with a penis because at the time they're going to look at anyone with... er... "pink parts" differently. The idea is to not have to deal with anything. The main job of the bouncer is to protect you if need be, but it's important in these outcall situations where they just look fierce and intimidating so the odds are they won't need to do anything.

Club bouncing can be different though. Usually the one at the door is the biggest and most frightening looking. The idea is to have the customers immediately upon entering the club get stared down by this guy so for anyone coming in that may want to misbehave will feel intimidated and think twice. Usually that's all it takes. Then around the club there are other bouncers of somewhat intimidating porportions and a few guys that one would wonder why they ever thought they could be a bouncer. Women could certainly bounce in a club if they have the proper training. Size isn't that big of a deal. I actually work with a dancer who's a petite little thing, but she's a third degree blackbelt and I've seen her take care of herself. Even most of the bouncers wouldn't want her pissed off at them!

[BrownOak]

87. There was only one previous allegation of rape

The documents you linked are pages 1 and 2 of the same report.

However, there is this:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/breaking_news/14473881.htm

which is the defense's court filings today which apparently contains a police report from 1998 where the AV stated that her ex-husband tried to kill her. That could be hyperbole from the moment of a domestic dispute though and details are sparse at this time.

[Neil Lisst]

182. it shows another incident where she tried to use police to lock up

... whoever she was mad at.

As a civil plaintiff, she can be made a lot more sympathetic. But as a criminal complainant, she's a GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card.

[TorchTheWitch]

96. WHAT 3rd allegation???

Your links point to page one and page two on ONE rape allegation made in 1996 regarding a rape in 1993. The second allegation is the current one. Where's the third?

And no, strippers don't ALWAYS bring body guards. Although it's obvious they should. This was her first time ever doing outcall stripping and the stupid agency didn't provide security for her. Any decent agency will. Some outcall strippers still prefer to provide their own security since they can't necessarily trust someone they don't know to protect them, but they'll use the agency provided security as a driver and to push the buttons on the boombox.

[timber84]

98. There is a third allegation made by the victim that her husband tried to

kill her.

[FreakinDJ]

103. WRONG AGAIN she claimed to be raped at 14 years old too

14years
17years
27 years old

Geez from the way you act i thought you would be up on things

http://www.wral.com/download/2006/0428/9057546.pdf
http://www.wral.com/download/2006/0428/9057549.pdf

[TorchTheWitch]

109. Dude, you are really lost

Obviously you haven't kept up on this story at all. There are TWO, count 'em, TWO rape allegations. The first one was when she was 14 in 1993 which she did not report until she was 17 or 18 in 1996. That's the FIRST allegation. ONE rape at the age of 14 which she didn't report until she was 17 or 18. Got it? Read it again just to be sure. Read it until it finally sinks in.

The SECOND one is the current one regarding the Duke players at the age of 27.

Seriously, you REALLY need some reading comprehension.

[FreakinDJ]

111. Yahoo says assualted at age 14 gang raped at 17

heres the story in yahoo

DURHAM, N.C. - The woman who says she was raped by three members of Duke's lacrosse team also told police 10 years ago she was raped by three men, filing a 1996 complaint claiming she had been assaulted three years earlier when she was 14.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427/ap_on_sp_co_ne/duke_lacrosse_1;_ylt=AohJsROc34UpY5OZZOllS7He.6Uv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I was confusing it with this account

But family members immediately went on the offensive about the young woman’s history. The mother of the alleged victim told ESSENCE magazine that her daughter did go away to a hospital in Raleigh, North Carolina, for about a week last year, where she was treated for a “nervous breakdown.” While the accuser’s parents did not say they knew what brought on the breakdown, they did say that their daughter was upset about mounting bills. The mother also told ESSENCE that when her daughter was 17 or 18, she was raped by several men, one of whom was someone she knew. The attack took place in the town of Creedmoor, about 15 miles northeast of Durham, and was a “set up,” according to the accuser’s mother.

Family members said that after the first alleged assault, the young woman underwent about a year of professional therapy and received a course of prescription medication. Her parents said that they were not aware of any other drug use in their daughter’s past, as defense attorneys have suggested.
http://www.essence.com/essence/lifestyle/takeastand/0,16109,1188001,00.html

Am i reading this wrong

[BrownOak]

136. Yes and no

The woman filed a police report 10 years ago in which she claimed she was raped by three men three years prior to that.

The Essence article is inaccurate.

[TorchTheWitch]

105. Did he?

It's not a rape accusation, so what difference does it make? Maybe he did try to kill her. Maybe that has something to do with why he's an ex-husband. We don't know, and it doesn't matter.

http://www.nbc17.com/news/8655830/detail.html
DURHAM, N.C. -- The former husband of a woman who claims Duke University lacrosse players raped her at a party is speaking out.

The man told NBC 17's Rucks Russell that he saw his ex-wife last week and immediately knew something was wrong.

"I (saw) her last week at a store. She didn't look too good. At the time, I knew something was wrong, but I didn't know what, because normally she's always smiling and laughing and talking, but she just cut the conversation short, and she went her way and I went mine," the accuser's ex-husband said.

"My heart goes out to her because I know the person she really is. I know she's a sweet person. She's loving and kind, and I don't think she would go out here to make something up like that. She would never try to do anything to hurt anybody, because she was a sweet lady to me," he said.

ooooooooooo, he sure sounds pissed off at her about that false allegation that he tried to kill her, huh?

:sarcasm:

[Marie26]

110. Well done

Thanks for posting that. It's also telling that he adds "I don't think she would go out here to make something up like that." Well, if she made up a claim that he tried to kill her, wouldn't he think she would make up something like that? He's vouching for her honesty & that says a whole lot.

[marions ghost]

73. hmmmmm...

so you are saying that in order to do damage control after the photos were released...that instead of coming out and saying what they're saying NOW (ie. this was a mistake), they all bloviated hard and claimed the photos exonerated the accused, and gave everyone the distinct impression that this would skewer the accuser at trial. So you are saying the defense lawyers KNEW that there was a "problem" with the photos but yet they went ahead and pretended that it proved innocence and planned to show them at trial? Is this not a way of obstructing justice?

These days I guess everyone accepts that lawyers don't need to abide by any ethical codes. Were there ever any ethical codes? (I'm not up on the history, only go by what I see happening now).

IF the pix were altered I wonder if it was only the accused who did that-- OR did they have some help?

Will the photos be discredited now, or will the prosecution have a chance to try to prove evidence-tampering? Or does it fall short of that?

I realize this is all speculative chat, nothing definitive. Just trying to get clear on how much legal damage has occurred, and to whom...

[Marie26]

80. Right

I've said for awhile that those photos would come back to haunt them - the defense timeline was totally inconsistent w/the cabbie's testimony, and the neighbor's testimony. Someone's lying. And it's hard to keep all your lies straight. They should never have released those photos, but did so in a desperate rush to smear the victim here. The things they claimed about those photos would make you head spin - it would show the victim was already intoxicated, it would show she was smiling & happy, it would show she'd been "painting her nails" because of the red blotches on the front stoop. Blah, blah, blah. They selectively leaked & spun those photos to try to prove an alibi here.

But didn't they think how weird it was that these players were taking all these photos? Didn't they think people would question the half-hour w/o any photos? Didn't they think anyone would notice if they changed the timing, or the cars? Why try to provide an alibi that people can poke holes in rather than simply requiring the prosecution to prove their whereabouts? Why would they take such stupid risks if they had such a solid case? Really, it's the defense team's desperation & lies, more than anything else, that convinced me that woman was raped by someone on the lacrosse team. And I think it's a hopeful sign that that web of lies is starting to come undone.

[BrownOak]

88. Wait a moment

Other than the color of the car from the cabbie, what doesn't fit with the neighbor's report or the rest of the things that have been reported at this time?

[Marie26]

97. Lots

I could go back & do a detailed timeline, but I just don't care enough any more. It doesn't matter what I say, you will find a way to spin it. The neighbor's story had the dancers' staying inside for 20+ minutes before leaving & being coaxed back in; while the defense timeline had them leaving only a couple minutes after 12:00. The cabbie first says he got a call at 1:01, then revises that to 12:29, but mis-states it as 12:39. The defense photos - ugh. There's photos till 12:03, then a half-hour gap till 12:30. They had a photo that they claim was taken at 12:30 that shows the woman rummaging through her purse & apparantly smiling. SEE? The defense claims triumphantly. No woman who was raped would ever be smiling! Therefore, she couldn't have been assaulted during the time she was at the house till 12:30. That was all they had to "prove" that the assault couldn't have occured till after 12:30, & it was paired w/the photo of her sprawled on the back stoop at 12:37, and leaving in the black car at 12:41.

The defense tried to create a smooth timeline leaving the impression that nothing had happened before 12:30 (based on her smile), & then she went out onto the back stoop at 12:30, fell on the stoop, & left immediately after. But in that 12:30 pic, she's carrying her purse - yet the police later found her purse, and all her money, inside the lacrosse house. So did she start to leave w/her purse, then decide to turn around & go back into the house to leave her purse behind, then run back out & collapse on the back stoop? Why did the neighbor say that he saw her run back in to retrieve her purse shortly before the dancers left? So she was leaving, then ran back in to retrieve her purse, got it, walked out & smiled for the cameras, went back in to lose it again & walked out to collapse on the back stoop? Do you see how nonsensical this is? - I think that picture of her standing on the stoop was actually taken of her entering the house. Just like the black car is actually the one that dropped her off. They were clicking away the whole time she was there. The defense took the photos of her entering, & claimed it was her leaving - stitched it together w/the photo of her collapsed & presented it to the media for people like you to swallow whole-heartedly.

It's beyond sad that I remember all this. And I have a question for you - this whole time you've been clinging to those defense photos. How do you feel about the fact that they apparantly falsified the times? Doesn't that explain the discrepencies in the car color perfectly? Why would you still try to defend their claims?

[BrownOak]

120. One at a time

The neighbor's story had the dancers' staying inside for 20+ minutes before leaving & being coaxed back in; while the defense timeline had them leaving only a couple minutes after 12:00.

The reason you have this as an error is that you state the neighbor said the dancers returned to the house after 20 minutes. But that's not the case. The neighbor said that One of the women he saw earlier gets out of the car and says she needs to get her shoe. She walks to the back door of the house.

You can also get an account here where it says:

Bissey saw two women arrive and, after they were in the house 20 minutes, come out. As they got into a car, men shouted, Bissey said.

"Some of them were saying things like, 'I want my money back,' " Bissey said.

He recalled the racially charged statements at least one man was yelling at the victim.

"When I was outside, one guy yelled at her, '... Thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt,' " Bissey said.

After a few minutes, everything seemed to calm down, he said. One of the women headed back into the house, saying she forgot her shoes.

There's no spin here, Bissey never made the statements you claim about the dancers returning to the house after 20 minutes.


The cabbie first says he got a call at 1:01, then revises that to 12:29, but mis-states it as 12:39.

But what's the signifcance of this? You can scream out "look, inconsistancy" and hope that discredits the cabbie, but all it really says is that he's not the brightest blub on the tree. He may have the times incorrect, but he also has his cell phone records which clearly indicate when the calls come in. The records are right there at 12:14 and 12:29.

Again, that's not spin, that's fact.


They had a photo that they claim was taken at 12:30 that shows the woman rummaging through her purse & apparantly smiling. SEE? The defense claims triumphantly. No woman who was raped would ever be smiling! Therefore, she couldn't have been assaulted during the time she was at the house till 12:30. That was all they had to "prove" that the assault couldn't have occured till after 12:30, & it was paired w/the photo of her sprawled on the back stoop at 12:37, and leaving in the black car at 12:41.

Except that the time of that photo, as claimed by the defense, coincides perfectly with Bissey's account that the AV went back to the house sometime between 12:20 and 12:30.


The defense tried to create a smooth timeline leaving the impression that nothing had happened before 12:30 (based on her smile), & then she went out onto the back stoop at 12:30, fell on the stoop, & left immediately after. But in that 12:30 pic, she's carrying her purse - yet the police later found her purse, and all her money, inside the lacrosse house. So did she start to leave w/her purse, then decide to turn around & go back into the house to leave her purse behind, then run back out & collapse on the back stoop? Why did the neighbor say that he saw her run back in to retrieve her purse shortly before the dancers left? So she was leaving, then ran back in to retrieve her purse, got it, walked out & smiled for the cameras, went back in to lose it again & walked out to collapse on the back stoop? Do you see how nonsensical this is?

Do I ever see how nonsensical it is because:
The purse wasn't found in the house by the police.
The neighbor said she went back to retrieve her SHOE, not her purse.



Just like the black car is actually the one that dropped her off. They were clicking away the whole time she was there. The defense took the photos of her entering, & claimed it was her leaving - stitched it together w/the photo of her collapsed & presented it to the media for people like you to swallow whole-heartedly.

Except in the timelines above, Bissey states that the women walked to the back of the house where they were greeted by one of the players. This doesn't seem to jive with the picture the Time article is painting. Or, how about the Rita Cosby report that the car in that picture is in fact Kim Roberts' vehicle.


And I have a question for you - this whole time you've been clinging to those defense photos. How do you feel about the fact that they apparantly falsified the times? Doesn't that explain the discrepencies in the car color perfectly? Why would you still try to defend their claims?

Where, other than an article from Time postulating that prosecutors are certain to attack the credibility of the time stamps based on the color of the car being off in the cabbie's story, where are you getting the idea that the defense "apparently falsified" the times? There's nothing to support that claim at this point. You have consistently asked me for verified reports, not spin. Where's the verification on this?

If it makes you comfortable, throw out the photos all together. You still have the neighbor's report that he saw the AV returning to the house around 12:20 to 12:30. Logically it seems difficult to buy that the AV returned to the house after the assault. So doesn’t that place the most likely time for the crime to have possibly been committed at some time after 12:30?

Right now you have a cabbie who has given the wrong time and the wrong color car. But that’s it.

[Marie26]

196. That's it?

OK, I now have the time to do a detailed post on this case that I swore I'd stop posting about. I was giving an overview based on my memory of this case & I'll be more detailed here. I'll try to take your objections one by one, OK?

- "Bissey saw two women arrive and, after they were in the house 20 minutes, come out." He says the men were shouting racial slurs & one dancer went back inside.

So, Bissey is saying that a dancer re-entered after 20 minutes, just like I said. But according to the defense, the two women came in about 11:50, danced, shut themselves in the bathroom for 20 minutes & left the house at about 12:30 (40 minutes later) w/o ever reentering the house. So is Bissey wrong about seeing the dancer go back in the house after 20 minutes? According to the dancers, they left the house almost immediately once they were threatened & went back inside after a player came & apologized. The neighbor says a dancer went back in after 20 minutes, the accuser says they went back in after a couple minutes, & the defense claims they never came back inside at all after leaving at 12:30. I don't know who's right, I just know the 3 stories aren't consistent. Bissey claims that the dancers left the house after 20 minutes (and one went back in) conflicts w/the defense's claims that they left after 40 minutes never returned to the house at all. Who's right?

- The choice here is that you can believe the cabbie, or you can believe the photos. But they both can't be right. The cabbie has stated that he saw the woman get into a white car & the dancer's car in the photo is black. He claimed he saw the dancers leaving at 1:07, put the photos are at 12:41. You claim that the cabbie's inconsistency is just a bad memory, but he showed the actual log of a call from 1:01 that he claimed was from the home, and once informed this was impossible, he changed it to 12:29. Which is weird - why wouldn't he remember getting the 2nd call for the same location while Seligmann was in the car, instead of first claiming it was a half hour later. I don't care what his cell phone records say - he also displayed a call from Seligmann that Seligmann's own cell phone records didn't show. If you can't trust what he said then, why can we trust what he says now? It's conflicting w/the defense's own story and photos either way & makes him very impeachable at trial.

- Except Bissey's claim that the AV went back into the house conflicts w/the defense's claim that they never went back into the house at all. So, is the neighbor's account wrong, or the defense's? You can't claim that a photo of the AV going back into the house at 12:30 corraborates the defense's story here - because the defense's story is that she never went back in the house at all. According to the defense, the dancers left after locking themselves in the bathroom, & and the players had locked the door behind them. The dancer stood there awhile, fell, & left w/o ever re-entering the house. That conflicts completely w/the neighbor, and the woman's, statement that the players convinced her to go back into the house. Care to explain that?

- I got all confused about why I would have thought she went back in for the purse until I remembered where I heard that - from the defense team. According to defense counsel, "The women go out to the second stripper's car at about 12:20, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand." The defense is saying she went back to get her purse, but the neighbor's saying she returned for a shoe. Another contradiction between the defense & the neighbor's story. But whatever. What I am really talking about here is her make-up bag. She had two bags that night - a purse & a make-up bag that contained her ID, her cell phone, & her money. It's not really clear which bag (if any) she went back for. But she is carrying the make-up bag as she stands on the stoop at 12:30, and that's the same make-up bag that police eventually found in the lacrosse house along w/her ID, cell phone, & money two days later. OK. So, obviously, she must have gone back into the house from the time that photo was taken, in order to leave the make-up bag behind. But according to the defense, she never re-entered the house after that photo was taken. The defense says she tried to re-enter the house to get her purse at 12:30, but the guys had locked the door, & she stood on the stoop awhile, fell down, & left. That can't be true. If she never re-entered the house after 12:30, how did her make-up bag end up back in the house? That must be a lie, no? Or else, if you choose to believe the defense's story that she did not re-enter the house after 12:30, that photo must be from earlier, when she first entered the house w/her makeup bag & purse in hand. Choose the lie - cause one of them must be.

- So now you believe everything Rita Cosby says? Cosby is saying that the car is Kim Robert's car because that's what the defense has said the car is. Cosby would have no independent way of knowing this, anymore than we would. The car's owner would be ridiculously easy for the prosecution to prove - just compare Robert's car to the car that dropped the woman off. The marks are distinctive enough that it should be easy to tell which car is the one in the photo. And just because Bissey saw a player greet them at the back stoop doesn't mean anything - someone else could have been outside in front when the woman arrived. Bissey doesn't say he actually saw her being dropped off, so we don't know when she arrived or who was there. That's your weakest objection, by far. There is nothing to prevent that photo from being her arriving, just like there's nothing to prevent that 12:30 photo from being taken much earlier. Indeed, the photo doesn't fit into the defense's own timeline for 12:30, cause she's still got the make-up bag in her hand that was eventually left behind.

- This article is a lot more than Time "postulating," it's Time reporting categorically that "In fact, prosecutors will argue, that photo actually shows the accuser being dropped off at the party, not leaving it, and that it was taken well before midnight. In that photo, the accuser is shown in a black or dark-colored car, which matches a description of the car defense and prosecution sources say dropped her off at the party."

Be intellectually honest here - this is an argument that is coming from the prosecution itself, not something that Time is making up. And that photo matches the car that both defense & prosecution say dropped her off. The pro. isn't basing this on the cabbie's error about Robert's car, but on the description of the drop-off car. Is the prosecution so stupid that they wouldn't check to see if the photo matches the drop-off car first before making this argument? No. If the pros. is saying this will be argued, it's because they've already checked & the photographed car matches the drop-off car, not Robert's car. If the defense really lied about this, they're in some pretty big trouble because their creditability will be shot. The prosecution is arguing that the defense "apparently falsified" the time of that photo - if you're willing to believe things from the defense side, why not the prosecution's argument? Wouldn't they be in a position to know the matching car here? The crime could have occurred anytime from 11:45 to 12:55 - if the times of these photos is manipulated, we have no way of knowing when the crime could have occurred during that window. According to the defense's own original "theory," she never re-entered the house after 12:30 - so if you really want to buy the defense line here, no, it couldn't have happened after 12:30. We just don't know, & if the defense is falsifying evidence, the clues will be misleading & wrong.

There's a whole lot more here than a cabbie getting a couple details wrong. The defense's timeline conflicts w/the neighbor's testimony, the cabbie's testimony, and the defense's own photo evidence. If the prosecution has matched the alleged 12:41 photo to a different car, the entire series of photos will become a liability at trial.

Impossible defense timeline - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335371/site/newsweek /

[Neil Lisst]

199. the timeline will be calibrated to the ATM machine

That piece of the evidence will be the piece that all others turn around. Once its accuracy has been verified as best it can, it will become the Key record in setting the timeline.

Next will be all the phone records, not just the accused, but the records of Kim Roberts and the accuser. All the phone records will allow a detailed timeline to be built, placing certain people (or someone on their phone) on the phone at that moment. That includes the calls to 911 by Kim Roberts about the N word, and the call to police from Krogers.

Then, we'll hear from all the people those people were talking to, and find out what they say was going on.

The truth is, a rape that takes 5 minutes can be thought to last 30 minutes, so that statement by her doesn't really mean much.

The records are going to be important, because eye witnesses aren't always reliable. The neighbor may be a great witness, or he may turn out to be some prick with a grudge to settle with his neighbors.

[jberryhill]

203. I don't see a conflict with Bissey...

Except Bissey's claim that the AV went back into the house conflicts w/the defense's claim that they never went back into the house at all. So, is the neighbor's account wrong, or the defense's?

I'd want to know Bissey's viewpoint.

If Bissey saw the AV go up the steps to the back porch, and not come down the steps, then Bissey would probably say "she went back into the house".

If she was passed out on the porch, would Bissey see or know that? It was at night.

Choose the lie - cause one of them must be.

Witness accounts can differ without anyone lying. If she was locked out of the house and sat down or passed out on the back porch, and Bissey is some distance away at an angle at night, then it seems perfectly normal that Bissey would assume she went into the house when she was really locked out but not visible to Bissey.

I mean, you see someone go up the back steps. You don't see them come down the back steps. So you figure they probably went into the house.

That's not lying. That's just making a perfectly reasonable inference.

[Marie26]

205. How do you explain

the photo showing the woman holding the make-up bag at 12:30, when the defense claims she never re-entered the house after that point, yet the make-up bag was found at the house?

[jberryhill]

206. I'll plead ignorant in the accessories department

If you can help me understand the difference between a purse and a make-up bag.

I assume you mean the picture of her on the porch with a rectangular object of some kind. Is that a make-up bag or a purse? I dunno.

[Marie26]

207. It's both. She has both bags in her hand. nt

[jberryhill]

209. If you say so, okay...

I wouldn't know a make-up bag if it bit me.

So, if she's got both bags there then there are three possibilities:

1. She DID go back into the house and leave a make-up bag there. Why? I don't know. But that would be a significant hole in the "she didn't go back in" version of events.

2. The lacrosse players, wanting their money back, took the make-up bag from her and took it back into the house. She doesn't remember that, and they don't want to admit that.

3. The "make-up bag and ID" reported on the seizure inventory was not hers (although I think elsewhere it is reported as hers)

[Neil Lisst]

210. the make up bag probably belonged to a girl who stayed there 3/15

with one of the three house residents.

They seized it on the 16th, right? I don't recall the time, but they like to go in early.

[Marie26]

211. It was the dancer's make-up bag

According to the search warrant: "The victim's make-up bag, cell phone and identification were also located inside the residence during the search warrant. Finally, a pile of twenty dollar bills were recovered inside the residence totalling $160,00, consistent with the victim's claiming $400.00 in cash, all of it twenties, was taken from her purse immediately after the rape."

So, since it was the victim's bag & ID, we can eliminate your option 3, and that leaves options 1 & 2, both of which mean that the defense's version of events is not truthful.

Here's another hole: The defense claims she went back for her purse at 12:20, & was not allowed in - yet the 12:30 photo shows her holding the purse. How did she get it?

There's two choices here - You can choose to believe the time-stamp on the photo, or the defense's timeline of events - but you can't believe both. You can believe the photo was taken at 12:30, and you must conclude that the defense's claim that she didn't re-enter the house is false. Or, you can choose to believe the defense's claim that she didn't re-enter the house after 12:20, and must therefore conclude that the 12:30 time-stamp on the photo is false. One of the defense's claims here isn't true.

[jberryhill]

170. You've Introduced a New Suspect...

Who dropped her off in that black car, if she didn't leave in it? Don't you think anyone who had been with her that evening is an important witness?

But someone just dropped her off and said, "Bye, have a nice time", then drove away, and you don't have any curiousity who that might have been?

On the details:
"yet the police later found her purse"

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke5.html - Makeup bag with ID. Not purse.

"Doesn't that explain the discrepencies in the car color perfectly?"

How did the Kroger guard see them arrive in a "dark sedan"?

[FreakinDJ]

106. ATM reciepts and Phone records are more reliable evidence

Try searching "supressed memory syndrome" and you will see just how inaccurate and easily influenced memory is.

[Kingshakabobo]

112. Nobody is commenting on the fact that the photo above shows...

.....the victim missing her right shoe. The same right shoe that is missing in the post rape photo on the porch. Unless she was traveling shoe-less, that would indicate the photo was taken after the party??????? No?

[Marie26]

128. Does it?

Which photo are you talking about? The 12:30 photo I've seen of her looking through her purse only shows her from the waist up. Is there another one? Or do you mean the 12:37 photo?

[Kingshakabobo]

138. 12:30

It's on Abram's website in video form. I don't know how to post it.

[Marie26]

144. And I don't know

how to see it. I tried doing a search for Abram's photos from that time, & the only photo I can find is the shot I mentioned. So... :shrug:

[Kingshakabobo]

146. Try this

Left hand side near top under Abrams.....highlight it ...Video: Exclusive photos in duke case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036652/

figured it out:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=d6da0a14-7180-4418-b8ee-1d9e44591de4&f=00&fg=copy

[Occulus]

183. something else about that photo

It appears that there is someone else in the picture; only their arm is visible in the photo. The hand reaching into the car seems to be grasping the seat belt, behind the front passenger seat.

This is common, especially when riding in someone else's car: often one must reach far back to grab a seat belt when putting it on. If someone's seated behind you, you'll ask them to hand it to you; if someone's standing outside the car, you'll ask them, if it's too far back for you to easily reach.

My point here is, this is something you do when you get in and fasten your seat belt as you are about to leave, not when you take it off to exit the car.

Take that observation for what it's worth.

[jberryhill]

190. You don't generally have your leg trailing behind you...

...when you get out of a car either, but, hey, the cabbie couldn't be wrong about the color of the car. Only the Kroger security guard could be wrong about the color of the car.

Realizing that the women had left in the wrong colored car, the lacrosse players chased them down and made them get into a dark car before they got to the Kroger.

[Neil Lisst]

193. I appreciate your efforts.

Logic and reason have not been treated this disrespectfully since scientists tried to convince the church the universe didn't revolve around the earth.

The mental gyrations done to explain away even the most fundamental evidence is amusing.

[TorchTheWitch]

204. To get out of the seat

If I'm in the passenger seat, I tend to grab the seatbelt widget at the top of the car to use as an anchor to swivel around in the seat to get out. If this is a Honda, they have bucket seats that aren't easy to swivel around in to get out of the car. My mom had a Honda Accord and that's how I'd get out of her car.

Never did like those bucket seats. Hell on the lower back.

Who's in the driver's seat? It looks like a man.

[marions ghost]

224. looks like a man I think too

would be good if he could testify

[Neil Lisst]

223. No, man, she arrived shoeless, with blood on her leg.

I agree. That makes no sense.

[Yupster]

140. The more confusing this whole thing becomes

the better for the defense.

They don't have to prove anything. They just have to raise doubts. The prosecution has to make the proof, and they have to make it in a clear enough way for the jury to follow them. It seems to me that the more the defense can confuse things, the better off they are.

It's an old Harry Truman quote, "If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em."

In this case, I would much rather be the defense counsel than the prosecutor.

If the trial is about arguing over pictures and timelines, and drunkedness and alibis, the defense wins. It's just wasted time that is not used to prove the defendants guilty which is the burden the prosecution carries.

[Spike from MN]

145. "In this case, I would much rather be the defense counsel

than the prosecutor."

Hell, I'd say that's true for pretty much EVERY rape case. First off, rake the vicitm over the coals. She's an alcoholic drug-addicted lying whore. If there's DNA evidence, it was consensual sex. Prove it wasn't. If there is no DNA evidence, nothing ever happened. "I've never even met the girl." Prove that's false. Make the victim become the defendant and then just kick back.

One only needs to look at the Orange County case to see how difficult it is to get a conviction. Even with a VIDEOTAPE of what the guys did to the 16-year-old girl while she was completely unconscious, the first trial resulted in a hung jury. The second trial resulted in convictions but the guys only got 6 years each which was too damn lenient IMHO. And don't even ASK how the girl in that case was treated by the defense. It's too ugly for words. I can provide a links if anybody wants them but they're not for the squeemish (or anybody even remotely human for that matter). Don't say I didn't warn you.

[jberryhill]

197. I wish people would stop saying things like:

"She's an alcoholic drug-addicted lying whore."

People who agree with the DA here keep using phrases like that, which I really don't see being used by those who are skeptical of government officials.

I have to believe there are some people who enjoy using language like that, and think it is okay to say things like that if they pretend to be quoting someone else.

[jberryhill]

153. That picture wasn't taken by a camera phone...

Camera phones don't have flashes, and I don't think it is that bright at night in Durham.

What IS going on in that picture? That .jpg file has certainly been played with, as you can easily see by the discontinuity in the roof line, apparent smoothing in the upper right corner, the discontinuity in the rear tire caused by an apparent black "border" line applied around the lower left and left side of the photo, and the odd gray band over the roof of the car. That .jpg file above didn't come that way out of any camera.

To the extent that anything in that obviously altered .jpg file can be trusted, the roof of the car is badly oxidized. I wonder what the other side of the car looks like.

& what's with the leg?

So, to be clear... you are saying that she was dropped off by someone not identified driving a black car that arrived at the same time as Roberts, so the two of them entered together, and they left in Roberts white car?

Whomever dropped her off in the black car never returned to pick her up? How was she planning on leaving?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1849938&page=1

The guard was on duty at the store on the night of March 13, when the two women pulled into the store's parking lot in a dark sedan.




On edit: I see now that the .jpg above appears to be a lightened screen capture of an mpeg from the Abrams report. That explains the image artifacts recited above.

[Heddi]

165. camera phones do have flashes

mine does, at any rate.

It is a Samsung A950 and not only is a 1.3 megapixel digital still camera, but also takes digital video as well....

Although while it is a flash, it's not a flash like on a regular camera. More like a bright light that stays on and illuminates the area until the shutter snaps. It's not strobe-light-y like on my digital camera (where the flash strobes as the picture is being taken).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000DZXJSC/102-2708181-1219342?v=glance&vi=reviews

"The phone's 1.3 megapixel camera with flash makes getting great shots easy"

OF course, I have NO idea if this is even the pohne they used, but as far as I know (and what the lying liars at Verizon told us), this is the only cameraphone that has a "flash"

[jberryhill]

166. As noted...

...the .jpg posted above appears to be a lightened screen capture.

[Heddi]

171. Not trying to be dense

but what you're saying is someone took the picture and used something like photoshop, etc, to lighten the picture so that it (the image) was more clear?

[jberryhill]

173. Yes

If you look at the Abrams video, the picture is very dark. It looks like someone took a screen cap and lightened it. The .jpg posted in this thread has a lot of artifacts in it that could not possibly be an original file from either a cell phone or digital camera.

[Marie26]

191. What do you think

about the jagged edges on the photo? There's random black crops at the edges for no apparant reason. And somehow, the reflections seem all off to me. You can't see inside the back window or the side window cause the reflections are so bright, but from what? A phone camera? The image appears blurred out & her posture is just odd. It's just all wrong, somehow.

[jberryhill]

194. What I think is...

That particular .jpg - the one posted above - appears to be a screen capture from a video news report. If you watch the Abrams video, linked elsewhere in this thread, you'll get a better view of the photograph.

But you are here essentially looking at a photograph of a video of a photograph. That's why you see blurring typical of .mpeg compression artifacts in an amongst bad cropping to remove title bars that were superimposed on the video.

What you are not looking at is an original .jpg file from a camera.

I thought I had been clear about that already.

It's also been lightened, since there is no apparent flash shadow, and I doubt it's that bright at midnight in Durham.

But if that is an "arrival" scene, then it is beyond bizarre that she was met at the curb by someone cradling the back of her head to help her get out by sticking her leg sideways and behind her.

I dunno... maybe that's how you get out of a car in NC.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TorchTheWitch]

198. Wow

What in the world are you blathering about?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TorchTheWitch]

213. Attacking the messenger again?

Yep, nothing new there.

[Neil Lisst]

214. You're slinging insults and namecalling again.

You attack others, then try to cover it up by playing the victim. Hey, that sounds familiar.

Try commenting in a way that isn't personally insulting. This isn't backstage at a topless club, you know.

[Scout]

220. you seem to be paying attention to them....

why don't you put them on ignore?

[Neil Lisst]

222. More silliness.

You've overthought it.

Read my other comments.

The ATM will peg the key time, and all the timeline will be built around that. The phone records of all involved will draw a picture of who was on their phone when, and who they were talking to, who can tell us what they said.

All this supposition about cars supposes you know it all, which you don't.

[Moderator]

228. locking

This has become inflammatory.