Find Law: The Cold Hard Proof that the Duke Defendants are Innocent

[pnwmom]

In these three columns, a legal columnist sifts through the evidence and calls for the prosecutor to show his cards -- as is required by N.C. law -- or drop the case.

"Is the District Attorney in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal Turning A Blind Eye To Valuable Evidence?

"The Cold, Hard Proof That Suggests The Three Defendants Are Innocent" -- May 19, 2006

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060519_spilbor.html

SNIP

"Thus far, the defense camp has come forward with a host of seemingly reliable, exculpatory evidence -evidence that will be admissible in court, and that is likely to sway a jury. I'm not talking about, maybe, kinda, sorta, or could be, exculpatory evidence either. I'm talking about weighty evidence - receipts, photos, phone records, alibi witnesses, an absence of DNA, and now actual DNA - that directly supports the defendants' claims of innocence.

"A plethora of proof supporting a defendant's claim of innocence - not just the government's failure to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- is a rare pearl in the practice of criminal defense. It should cause the D.A. to reassess his case.

SNIP

Some pundits have suggested that the only explanation for the District Attorney's pressing on in the light of strong evidence that the defendants are innocent, is that he has a card up his sleeve. . . .

"He ought to opt to reveal it right now - to give the defense a chance to counter it. When evidence suggesting innocence is as strong as it is in this case, it's wrong to just let the case go to trial and "see what the jury says." These three young men's live will be forever affected, even if they are acquitted. Even an arrest leaves a scar; the scar of trial is far deeper."

SNIP

ALSO:

"The Defense Remains Way Ahead of the Game" -- April 28th

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060428_spilbor.html

SNIP

"Let's start with the time-stamped digital camera photos. There was speculation that the time-stamps might have been altered - but defense attorneys pointed out that the time stamps matched the time shown on watches in the photos themselves, disproving that theory quite conclusively.

"The key photos place the accuser on the back steps of the house where the party took place at 12:30:47 a.m. - and there again (this time with a cut on her foot) at 12:37:58 a.m. - leaving only about seven minutes for the alleged rape to have occurred. Meanwhile, other photos make clear that there was no other time frame during which the rape could have occurred.

SNIP

At 12:24 a.m., according to an ATM receipt, Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank. Was this a clever ploy by Seligmann to create an alibi by having someone else use his card while he was raping the accuser? Hardly. A cabdriver confirms Seligmann's trip, with a friend, to the bank, and it appears phone records will show him calling an out-of-state girlfriend just after the ATM trip. The driver's account is confirmed by his log of stops. And presumably, Seligmann's friend can confirm all this, too.

SNIP

The bottom line: Extremely persuasive evidence - much of it the result of machine records, not human testimony - shows that Seligmann was gone during the entire period of time when the attack could have occurred.

ALSO:

"The Rape that Never Was" (Why the case should be dropped) -- April 14
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060414_spilbor.html

[texasleo]

1. they're white males, so they must be guilty

:sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

2. Some people appear to think so.

Actually, I was not favorably predisposed to the defendants myself, because of the Duke/athlete/frat boy thing, but the more I learn about the case, the more flimsy it's turning out to be.

Nobody should have to face criminal prosecution with a case that ALREADY has such large holes in it. The prosecutor has better things to do with his time and the State's money . . . like find some criminal cases he has an actual chance of proving.

[Lerkfish]

5. or, they're rich white males, so they must be innocent

:sarcasm:

[Bucky]

143. They are guilty or they are innocent. Therefor they are white.

I have this radical notion that race is not as important as people are making it out to be. I don't say that in regard to this case so much as in regard to reality.

[ugarte]

6. Sadly, this case does seem to be more about reparations than facts

Somehow these three have been singled out to pay for the sins of many, whether the evidence is there or not.

[pnwmom]

10. I think that's probably it. They figure SOMEONE must have done it (but

none of the three guys she's admitted to having sex with), so as long as SOMEONE goes to jail. . . .

[ComerPerro]

37. obviously the girl is lying. She's black AND a stirpper

that's two strikes right there

[pnwmom]

46. As another woman, I was biased in her favor, initially.

I'll admit it. But that was when the prosecutor was loudly proclaiming that the DNA evidence would prove which of the (then) 46 defendants were guilty.

Except the DNA evidence didn't come through for him, even though the rape kit was used within hours of the "attack." So he indicted two defendants anyway.
Then it turned out that one of the defendents had about as strong an alibi as ANYONE EVER HAS -- complete with time stamped video and camera photos, etc. So he indicted a third defendant.
Then it turned out that the witness only identified the third defendant with "90% certainty" -- IF he had the mustache that the video shows he DIDN'T have.
And then we learned that the line-up photos were limited to members of the lacrosse team only.

And somewhere along the line, I lost my bias toward the woman, and began to wonder what kind of justice system we are going to have if we accept the way the State of North Carolina has handled this case?

[idgiehkt]

216. They are probably trying to avoid riots.

It doesn't bother me at all that they are taking the road they are taking with this. If they dismiss this case without turning over every stone, things are gonna burn to the ground and innocent people are gonna get hurt, most likely. I'm kind of pleased about the things that this case has brought to light and thrown up on a projector screen for all to see.

Of course, I'm not following this case til it goes to court, if that happens. I can't affect it in anyway...so why bother. I'm down here, of course, and I'm a Tarheels fan, as well, so I'd just as soon step back and 'let God sort 'em out' as the saying goes.

[idgiehkt]

215. well, one was a gay-basher

and one did write that e-mail about 'skinning alive' some woman. LOL, maybe this might prevent them from doing some abomination in the future. Just think, if a Yale cheerleader can become pres. and drop chemical weapons on innocent civilians in Iraq, imagine what a bunch of sociopathic Duke lacrosse players can become one day.

I'm not weeping for these guys, even if they are innocent. I thought Aileen Wuornos was justified in what she did, and they fried her nonetheless. When you think about the number of innocent minorities in this country that have been lynched/hung/executed (some probably by the ancestors of our golden boys) somehow my heart just isn't breaking for these guys.

[NaturalHigh]

229. The guy who wrote the e-mail...

is NOT one of the three men charged. Please get your facts straight. You seem to be in the camp of people who think that these guys need to pay for the sins of others by spending a good portion of their lives in prison. Will any innocent white guys do to settle your lust for retribution, or do you just hate these guys in particular?

BTW, how was Aileen Wuornos justified in killing (at least) seven men? Do you really believe that all seven raped and assaulted her, even though she finally disavowed those claims?

[MadHound]

3. Bottom line, let's have this go to trial, and see what the jury says

The defense is, improperly in my opinion, trying this case in the media. The prosecution is playing it close to their chest, and rightly so. A call for the prosecution to reveal their case now is wrong, even unethical, and the prosecution should rightly know it.

Whether or not these men are guilty or not, I don't know. Frankly I don't care. However I do think that it would be best for everybody if people would stop trying this case in the media(and thus tainting the jury pool) and instead let the trial in actual court proceed.

[Karmakaze]

4. Actually...

you do realise that the prosecution HAS to reveal the case BEFORE the trial, don't you? If you read the articles it tells you (as should common knowledge) that the prosecution has to give to the defense its entire case - there can be no surprises from the prosecution during trial - in fact such surprises would be grounds for mistrial.

Once again if you read the articles you would see that what this writer is saying is that even with what we know now, there is reasonable doubt - in fact the vitim herself was only "90%" sure that one of them men charged was involved - and she claimed he had a moustache which he never had - as photos from the night prove.

So if there is reasonable doubt now, then the charges should be dropped, simply because you legally and ethically CAN'T just try a case and see what happens. A prosecutor must be 100% positive that a crime was commited and that the people charged did it AND that he can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That is a REQUIREMENT, that in this case does not seem to be met.

[Moosepoop]

7. It's a requirement that only guilty suspects go to trial?

That's not how it works.

[pnwmom]

16. It's a requirement that the only suspects who go to trial are those the

prosecutor, based on the totality of the evidence available, are convinced can be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT to have committed the crime. If you read the articles, you might learn something. At this point there are truckloads of reasonable doubt. And the prosecutor has chosen not to follow standard procedure, because he isn't even looking at the evidence that the defense wants to make available.

[Karmakaze]

124. That IS how it works....

Do you seriously believe that prosecutors should be allowed to put people on trial that they can't prove to be guilty?

For example, why don't we just arrest YOU, and put YOU on trial for the Duke case? I mean we can't PROVE you did it, but we may be able to convince the jury, right? And even if we don't and they find you not guilty, then justice would have been served, right?

You can't seriously believe that is justice, can you?

[Moosepoop]

144. If that IS how it works...

Then how do you explain all the people who go to trial and are found "not guilty"? Not every trial ends with a guilty verdict, you know. If it were done your way, there would be no need for trials at all, would there? Just the prosecutor pronouncing the guilty verdict.

I think in this case, the prosecutor does believe the crime was committed, and I think he does believe that he can win the convictions.

But either way, you're saying that a person has to BE guilty in order to go to trial. Sorry, you're just plain wrong on that.

[Karmakaze]

148. Not at all...

I am saying that a prosecutor has the legal and ethical obligation to view ALL the evidence, including exculpatory evidence, and make a fair determination as to whether he can prove the accused guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. Often the prosecutor does have that belief and the jury still disagrees acquits.

But if the prosecutor refuses to consider exculpatory evidence when making the determination to charge and bring to trial an accused, he is perverting the course of justice. If the prosecutor KNOWS there is reasonable doubt but goes to trial anyway, he has, in my opinion committed a crime himself.

The trial process itself is so damaging to an accused person, both financially and socially, that it could be considered a form of punishment. If the prosecutor knows that the accused will be freed, then the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the prosecutor is trying to punish the accused without them having been convicted of a crime.

It all comes down to the evidence. Say one of the accused can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have been the perpetrator. That means he is INNOCENT. To try him anyway is abhorent and unjust.

[Moosepoop]

164. Whose job is it to decide on the evidence?

It all comes down to the evidence. Say one of the accused can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have been the perpetrator. That means he is INNOCENT.

And a trial is the place for that evidence to be seen, heard, weighed, judged, and ruled on. That is why we have them.

If a prosecutor believes he has enough evidence to win a case, he's perfectly entitled -- in fact, duty bound -- to pursue it. Even when the defense makes claims to the press that the prosecutor is ignoring evidence.

This whole damn thing is a tempest in a teapot. They're yelling that one of the lawyers went to Nifong's office, and he refused to look at whatever "proof" they say (have they ever said what it was?) that they have.

Big deal.

Send a copy of it by certified or registered mail, so it has to be signed for. Then he's got the "exculpatory evidence", it can be proven that he has it, and if it's really so bang-up surefire positively PROOF that the suspect is innocent, then they can raise a stink legally.
Or hand it to the prosecutor in court. That would be a definite way of making sure he has it, and that it's on record.

But then, they'd lose the press advantage of crying about the mean ol' prosecutor who REFUSES to see their evidence. They'll milk this one till it runs dry, by then they'll be up to something else. It's what they're paid to do.

[Karmakaze]

166. Well...

You are mistaking "decide upon guilt" with "decide upon evidence". Of course it is the jury that decides guilt, BUT the evidence is weighed each step of the way, first by the police, who decide whether to submit a case for prosecution, then the prosecutor who decides whether to submit a case for trial.

If the police KNOW a person is innocent, then they ethically should not submit the case to the prosecutor for prosecution. If the prosecutor KNOWS a person is innocent then he should not submit the case for trial.

Now of course there are many factors a prosecutor must take account of but it boils down to two main factors: 1) is the evidence of guilt strong enough to obtain a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and 2) is there exculpatory evidence that shows the accused is innocent.

If the prosecutor ignores exculpatory evidence and goes to trial with a weak case, then he is ethically, and possibly legally, wrong.

Remember not only must there be no evidence that the accused is provably innocent (for example the accused was in prison at the time of the crime), but the evidence must be strong enough to obtain a conviction.

Lets just say that the three accused are in fact guilty. If the prosecution's case is weak and easily defeated, then the double jeopardy rule will mean that guilty men will walk free. That is why the prosecutor must be aboslutely sure that he has all the evidence and that with it he can obtain conviction.

Conversely, if he has a weak case and ignores exculpatory evidence that proves the accused are innocent, then he will have financially damaged the accused by forcing them to trial when his case was unwinnable. I would suspect the state would not be pleased with the obvious lawsuits to follow, and he may in fact find himself personally liable, possibly even crininally.

As for the exculpatory evidence - there is at least ONE accused man who can prove that he was not in the house at the time of the alledged rape. If he was not there, he could not have committed the rape - people can not be in two places at once. So what did the prosecutor do? He had the witness arrested for an old warrant. The timing on that particular arrest is awful convenient. In any case there is physical evidence that proves the accused was not present - ATM receipts being one of them (and I assume if the prosecutor really wanted to test the evidence he could get a warrant for the ATM video.

The evidence for at least one of the accused being innocent is far stronger than the evidence of his guilt - a faulty ID that will likely be inadmissable in court.

Finally let me put a hypothetical question to you that no one else seems willing to answer:

I accuse YOU of raping me. Tests on me show injuries consistent with rape and semen is discovered. That semen is compared to your DNA but does not match. You on the other hand have ATM receipts, a taxi driver witness, and logs from your home security that show you were nowhere near me at the time I said the rape occured.

Do you think it would be justice for you to be hauled in front of a court to prove your innocence?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

233. I disagree

The job of a prosecutor is to get convictions, same as the job of a defence lawyer is to get acquittals. Seeing that justice is done is the job of the judge and the jury.

"Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard that a jury should apply before finding someone guilty, but the standard a prosecutor should apply to decide whether or not to bring a case to trial should be lower - "reasonable chance of a conviction" or something to that effect, for some value of "reasonable".

[MadHound]

8. And the fact that you're basing this opinion on what the defense has said

Only goes to show that the defense's ongoing trial by media is effective.

As far as disclosure goes, no, the prosecution doesn't have to disclose its full case to the defense. Various issues and witnesses can be withheld under varying circumstances. These guidelines are governed by various court cases and motions, for example:
State of North Carolina vs William Todd Anthony, "Discovery--evidence admissible under Rules 803, 804 and 404

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in a capital prosecution for first-degree murder by denying defendant's motion to compel disclosure of evidence the State intended to offer pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rules 803(24), 804(b)(5), and 404(b). Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5) contain notice requirements and an order compelling disclosure would be redundant; moreover, the State here provided the particulars of the hearsay statements to defendant and defendant did not move to continue or assert surprise. Rule (404)(b) is not a discovery statute and there is no support for the assertion that disclosure of Rule (404)(b) evidence is required.<http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2001/183-00-1.htm>

Or the North Carolina Rainbow Case<http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/katuah96/961023a.htm>

As you can see, disclosure isn't as cut and dried as you would like to think. Sorry, but this isn't Law & Order.

And frankly, the only ones who can determine reasonable doubt is a jury. In this case the prosecution ran the case before a Grand Jury, and got the thumbs up. Therefore, the issue of reasonable doubt is moot right now, it will be up to the jury that is seated for this case to determine that issue.

So why not suspend judgement until the case is heard? Rather than trying it via the media, with incomplete knowledge and an unknown case. All we're really hearing is one side of the issue, the defense's side. Never a good why to decide the issue of guilt or innocence. Let's wait until the trial is heard to make that determination. That is, after all, why we go to the bother and expense of a trial, in order to prevent the scapegoating of one side or the other by the general public.

[pnwmom]

18. The prosecutor tried this case in the media in 70 interviews before

he finally shut up. I'd say the defense has some catching up to do.

No judge has ruled in this case that the defendant's aren't free to proclaim their innocence, including by showing their exculpatory evidence to the media if they choose to do so. In the absence of a judge's order, it's the State that has the obligation not try the case in the media -- not the defendants lawyers.

[MadHound]

30. The prosecutor may have made seventy interviews

However the only ones who are making headlines with this case are the defendants and their lawyers. And yes, the defendants are free to proclaim their innocence far and wide, backing it up with whatever evidence that they have. However this is a tactic commonly known as trying the case in the media, and it is usually done for a couple of reasons. First, to try and throw the jury pool. Given the long lead time in this case between the arrest and the trial, the defense has ample opportunity to try and convince as many people as possible that they're innocent, thus fostering a predisposition on the case that they hope potential jurors will bring to the trial. The second reason this tactic is used in many cases is because the defense realizes that they have a weak case, thus they're hoping if they shout loud enough and long enough, put up enough of a snow job that their version of events will become the official truth.

I have no dog in this fight, I find it abhorent that so many people are perfectly willing to proclaim guilt or innocence before there's even a trial. I would suggest that folks on both sides of this settle down and let the case take its course. But sadly, people have already been convinced one way or the other based on incomplete evidence, hearsay and rumors, and are now deadset against giving up their preconcieved judgement. Sad, actuallly pathetic when one thinks about it. And what's going to be worse is when the official verdict is finally given, which ever group is on the "losing" side is going to have its own little group of diehards, calling the ruling a conspiracy theory, a travesty, or worse.

Let's just wait for the trial, let the jury decide. Right now they're the only ones who are going to be able to truly decide who is guilty or innocent. After all, they are going to be the first ones with ALL the information needed to make such a judgement.

[pnwmom]

42. The prosecutor got PLENTY of headlines and a great deal of publicity

about this issue while he was running his primary election campaign. (He didn't need national headlines for his election, only local ones.) Now that that's over, he's moved on to other things.

I have a dog in this fight. I think this country is moving more and more toward totalitarianism. If this case is a good example of the workings of our "justice system" -- of the type of case our state legal systems are prosecuting these days -- then we're ALL in trouble.

It's easy for you to say "let's just wait for the trial." Meanwhile, three defendants are having to live with this black cloud over their lives for a YEAR. And the accuser is having to wait for her justice. Since the prosecutor put this cloud over their heads -- by his actions in making this a media event -- and he says he has the evidence, then he should move this case to the front of the line and get it over with. It's not fair to anybody to delay.

[MadHound]

50. Well, I have to admit that my knowledge of this case is a bit cursory

I haven't been hanging all over the headlines on a daily basis, nor checking out the local papers. However that being said, the only headlines that I've seen or heard of have come from the defense, not the prosecution.

And frankly I doubt that any prosecutor who is running for office would actually want a case like this during an election year, nor would one try and use it as a stepping stone to re-election. Entirely too easy for it to blow up in his face and wind up costing him the election.

And frankly I don't see how you make a connection between the creeping totalitarianism in this country and this case. Actually I think that this is simply another example of our justice system at work. No, it isn't perfect, yes it moves slowly, but it is a far cry from totalitarianism.

Yes, I realize that this wait is hard on all of those involved, both the defendants and the plaintiff. However waits like this are not uncommon, and it isn't some indication that there is an overarching conspiracy originating in the prosecutors office. Sadly, this is simply another indication of how undermanned, underfunded and overworked our justice system is. I'm sure that there are cases that are pending who, if they got bumped backed down due to the celebrity nature of this case, would be justifiably pissed that their date in court was moved simply to accomodate a high profile case. I know I would be if that happened to me.

And I find it very telling that those on this board who are supporting the defendants don't only get pissed when somebody dares to suggest that the defendants might actually be guilty, but also get pissed when somebody is merely calling for calm and to wait for the justice system to take it's course. What, do you just want these guys released without a trial? How is that justice? It seems to me that releasing them without a trial based merely on what their attorneys are saying would be a miscarriage of justice. This case was run before a Grand Jury, who evidently determined that there was enough evidence to proceed to trial. Why not let justice take its course, albeit it a slow one?

[pnwmom]

62. What really bothers me is the prosecution's refusal to sit down with

the defense and go over the exculpatory evidence. Normally, a prosecutor is happy to do that. He wants to know what he's going to be faced with at trial. He has nothing to lose, and everything to gain. If the defense has a strong alibi, a good prosecutor would rather NOT put the case to trial.

Why is it that this prosecutor is unwilling to meet with the defense? Doesn't he care whether he's prosecuting the right guys or not?

The creeping totalitarianism I feel isn't so much in the justice system itself, but in the voices of the DU'ers I've been hearing in other threads. The ones who were saying that the students were probably guilty, because they were rich, white, and Republican -- or even because they LOOKED Republican. It has been a real awakening for me, because these kids don't LOOK all that different from the ones my own son goes to college with.

[MadHound]

68. Well, given how the defense keeps running to the press

I would be hesitant to meet with him also. Way too easy for an innocent statement to be taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

And yes, I agree with you that people who take a look at the kids and make their own pre-determination of guilt based on skin color, income level, etc. shouldn't be doing that either. Pre-judging one side or the other is wrong, period.

That's why I'm simply waiting for the trial:shrug:

[Common Sense Party]

145. I presume they are innocent, until such time as they are proven

guilty.

I hope anyone else would do the same for me.

[BrownOak]

100. Not anymore, NC is an Open Discovery state

As far as disclosure goes, no, the prosecution doesn't have to disclose its full case to the defense. Various issues and witnesses can be withheld under varying circumstances. These guidelines are governed by various court cases and motions, for example:

...snip...


Actually, the laws have changed in North Carolina as of 2004 when Session Law 2004-154 was passed and signed into law. Both sides must share what they have and what they expect to use prior to trial. The changes are listed below for those so inclined to read them. Furthermore, the prosecution has stated to the court they have provided everything they have to date.


The actual changes are:
G.S. 15A-902.
(a) Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order the State to:
(1) Make available to the defendant the complete files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution of the defendant. The term "file" includes the defendant's statements, the codefendants' statements, witness statements, investigating officers' notes, results of tests and examinations, or any other matter or evidence obtained during the investigation of the offenses alleged to have been committed by the defendant. Oral statements shall be in written or recorded form. The defendant shall have the right to inspect and copy or photograph any materials contained therein and, under appropriate safeguards, to inspect, examine, and test any physical evidence or sample contained therein.
(2) Give notice to the defendant of any expert witnesses that the State reasonably expects to call as a witness at trial. Each such witness shall prepare, and the State shall furnish to the defendant, a report of the results of any examinations or tests conducted by the expert. The State shall also furnish to the defendant the expert's curriculum vitae, the expert's opinion, and the underlying basis for that opinion. The State shall give the notice and furnish the materials required by this subsection within a reasonable time prior to trial, as specified by the court.
(3) Give the defendant, at the beginning of jury selection, a written list of the names of all other witnesses whom the State reasonably expects to call during the trial. Names of witnesses shall not be subject to disclosure if the State certifies in writing and under seal to the court that to do so may subject the witnesses or others to physical or substantial economic harm or coercion, or that there is other particularized, compelling need not to disclose. If there are witnesses that the State did not reasonably expect to call at the time of the provision of the witness list, and as a result are not listed, the court upon a good faith showing shall allow the witnesses to be called. Additionally, in the interest of justice, the court may in its discretion permit any undisclosed witness to testify.
(b) If the State voluntarily provides disclosure under G.S. 15A-902(a), the disclosure shall be to the same extent as required by subsection (a) of this section."

It also changes 15A-907 as follows:
If a party, subject to compliance with an order is required to give or who voluntarily gives discovery pursuant to this Article, discovers prior to or during trial additional evidence or witnesses, or decides to use additional evidence,evidence or witnesses, and the evidence or witness is or may be subject to discovery or inspection under this Article, he the party must promptly notify the attorney for the other party of the existence of the additional evidence.evidence or witnesses."

[pnwmom]

101. Thanks, BrownOak, for the info.

[Marie26]

141. That's right

The Prosecutor has to disclose the full case & evidence to the defense. However, the Pros. is supposed to refrain from sharing evidence w/the media that inculpates the defendants. What this means is that the picture we see in the media is never accurate, since it's being released to the media by the defense. They'll publicize the helpful evidence (line-up process, etc.) and keep quiet about the harmful evidence (DNA, etc.) So, we don't really know the full extent of the Pros.'s case.

[Karmakaze]

125. You are wrong...

The firs case you cite does not mean that the prosecution does not have to hand over all information:

"Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel the State to disclose whether it intended to offer evidence pursuant to Rules 803(24), 804(b)(5), and 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. Defendant filed his motion to compel on 2 February 1998, asserting that: (1) Rule 404(b) evidence “is rarely found in pre-trial discovery,” and he “will likely not have the chance to meet any such evidence at trial without prior notice”; and (2) he “is entitled to try to avoid 'trial by ambush' with respect to the evidence admissible under” Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5). On 5 February 1998, the trial court orally denied defendant's motion, stating:
The Court in its discretion on motion to compel State to disclose whether it intends to offer evidence under Rules 803<(24)>, 804(b)(5) and 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, the Court in its discretion will deny this motion. The Court further notes that both Rules 803<(24)> and 804(b)(5) have separate provisions which require the State to provide notice in advance. Therefore, that is dealt with in the rule itself. The Court therefore in its discretion will deny that motion."

In other words the motion to compel was denied because the rules under which such evidence is admissible already compel discovery:

However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it gives written notice stating his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant, to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of offering the statement to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statement.

Once again - surprise is not allowed.

The second case you linked is a defense motion to compel discovery. There is no ruling I can see, so for all I know the government WAS compelled by the courts to make such information available.

Just because the government/prosecutors often try to avoid the rules, does not mean the rules are not there.

"So why not suspend judgement until the case is heard? Rather than trying it via the media, with incomplete knowledge and an unknown case. All we're really hearing is one side of the issue, the defense's side. Never a good why to decide the issue of guilt or innocence."

Actually, that is not true. We heard all sorts of claims from the prosecution UNTIL the defence shot them all down. NOW we are not hearing anything. Why? Because they have NOTHING?

Seriously, there is clear exculpatory evidence that one of the men charged was not even present at the time of the alledged crime, yet the prosecutor is forging ahead. Here is a question for you. If it gets to trial, and it is clear that the prosecution has nothing against that man except for clearly false testimony from the alledged victim, what do you think should happen to the prosecutor who ignored the exculpatory evidence and put him on trial anyway?

I personally believe that if that turns out to be the case, the prosecutor should at the very least lose his license and possibly even be charged.

[MadHound]

134. If it goes to trial, and it is clear that there is no evidence against

A defendant, the that defendant should be released as a free man:shrug: That's what one does in our justice system. Sorry, but if we disbarred every prosecutor for bringing defendants to trial with little or no evidence, then we wouldn't have any prosecutor at all.

Why is there this huge push on to start dismissing charges and releasing defendants now, before there's a trial even? This case went before a Grand Jury, and evidently there was enough there there to go ahead and convince them that a trial was needed. So why the big push to release the defendants? I say let the trial go ahead, and the truth will come out then.

And *you* may have heard all sorts of stuff from the prosecution, but I certainly didn't, it wasn't making national news. Now the defense claims certainly have, and in my opinion, they're attempting to try this case in the media in order to taint the potential jury pool. Big no no.

I say let's go ahead with the trial and let justice sort it out.

[Karmakaze]

147. You obviously have NO idea

Are you seriously stating that you have no problem with prosecutors charging and putting on trial people even when there is no evidence that proves their guilt?

As for the information not making national news, I am not an American, and I heard about it. So if you didn't, its NOT because it wasn't spread far and wide. The prosecution started the media trial - the defence answered it and destroyed many of the prosecution's claims.

I seriously can't believe you really think anyone should have to go through an expensive trial if a prosecutor wants them to, even if he has no evidence against them. If there are many Americans like you, it is no wonder that you are not marching in the streets over the "detention" without trial of "suspected terrorists". You seem to have no idea of how your justice system is supposed to work.

[MadHound]

158. Sorry, but the law has been followed in this case

And a Grand Jury has cleared it to go to trial. Obviously there is enough "there" there in order to allow things to procede.

I find it disturbing that there are so many DUers who, based on a biased media campaign launched by the defensive legal team, are now wanting the prosecution to throw in the towel on the case and not proceed to trial, even though the Grand Jury has cleared it to do so.

And I find it hilarious that you presume to know what I'm politically active about, or what my judicial knowledge is. Frankly friend, you have no clue as to who I am or what I do. Thus your assumptions are simply shots in the dark, and wind up making you look foolish.

And your claim of knowledge about our judicial system is belied by your wish to do away with a trial, even though the Grand Jury has cleared the case. I don't know where you live, but in the US when a Grand Jury clears a case for trial, it does mean some minimum standards concerning the case have been met, and the trial is not simply a witch hunt. I would suggest that you do some research on the subject.

[Karmakaze]

168. Sorry but you are wrong.

A grand jury simply looks at the evidence presented (ie the evidence the prosecution wants presented) and determines if there is a case to answer.

Anyone can present enough evidence to have anyone put on trial for something. For example if the ONLY evidence the grand jury hears is that a person was raped and she claims that John Smith was the perpetrator. That is sufficient to have the grand jury issue an indictment. Rememeber, a indictment is not a trial, it is simply a charge. In many states, Grand Juries are not used and the prosecutor himself can simply file the charge without review.

"The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment.

The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.

Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence."
http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

Probable cause. That is the same requirment as used by judges for a search warrant. It does not mean the evidence proves guilt, simply that enough evidence has been presented by the prosecutor to allow a reasonable person to believe a crime has occured and that the accused may have committed it.

The prosecutor does not have to present exculpatory evidence the the Grand Jury though, so the probable cause determination by the Grand Jury is really nothing more than a rubber stamp. I say you punched me. You have proof that you were not even in the state when I said you punched me. The prosecutor only presents my accusation to the Grand Jury, and they find probable cause. That is what appears to be happening in the Duke case, and in my opinion it is highly unethical.

[MadHound]

171. Well thank you for restating my explanation of Grand Jury functions

I really do appreciate the help, and the little historical interlude was cool:eyes:

Now then, again you are providing an incomplete example. A Grand Jury can choose to disagree with the prosecutor, and find that there isn't enough of a case to proceed to trial. This is generally called a runaway jury, and though it doesn't occurr on a regular basis, it does happen enough to keep the prosecution honest.

In your example, if you accused me of punching you, and took it to the Grand Jury, the GJ would ask for evidence of said occurence. If you couldn't provide any, well then the GJ would probably come to the conclusion that there isn't enough of a case to warrant proceeding further. This would be a runaway jury.

Evidence, friend, it all still comes down to evidence. If you don't have it, the Grand Jury won't allow the trial to proceed. And since, in this case, the GJ did recommend that the trial proceed, apparently there was indeed evidence.

[BrownOak]

220. Witch Hunts

OK, so let's say that the DA goes to the grand jury and says I have these three items:

1. An allegation from the victim.

2. An affidavit from the investigating officer who states that: a Forensic Sexual Assault Nurse (SANE) and Physician conducted an examination of the victim after the assault. Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped vaginally and anally.

3. A 100% positive identification of the suspects.


That's enough right there to get an indictment.

But what if the affidavit from the investigating officer fails to mention that the SANE nurse and the Physician never stated that the alleged victim showed injuries consistent with sexual assault and that the assessment was the opinion of the investigating officer based on his reading of the reports. What if the medical professionals had only said injuries consistent with trauma?

What if on that 100% identification the prosecution fails to mention that the police used a lineup procedure that gave the alleged victim a 100% chance of picking someone who was in the pool of suspects? What if they fail to mention that there were at least 4 previous lineups where the alleged victim wasn't able to make an identification?

Because by the rules of a grand jury, that scenario is allowed to happen and the way the DA has handled his court filings to date, it's very possible that's just what did happen.

And while you keep telling people that a grand jury indictment is an indication of some minimum standard, most attorneys I deal with will tell you that the bar for a grand jury indictment is absurdly low. That's why more than half the states in the country have dropped them.

[MadHound]

222. And what have those states that have dropped Grand Juries

Replaced them with? Oh, yeah, that's right, nothing. The prosecutor can bring a case without meeting any standards at all. And that is somehow better why?:shrug:

And where are you getting your informaiton regaring the nurse, the physician, their statements, and allegations about the lineup? Yeah, that's right, from the information provided by the defense:eyes: Like they don't have an agenda.

Let the case go to court, frankly at this point if I were in the defendants' shoes I'd want the case to proceed forward. One of the historically bigger reasons why we have trials is the exonerate the defendant, if that is what the jury finds. Drop the case now and the defendants are going to be haunted for a long while, if not the rest of their lives, by whispers about did they or didn't they. Let everybody have their day in court, and let the jury decide. Either the defendants will be cleared, and the cloud permanently removed from their life, or they will be found guilty. Either way, justice will be served.

[BrownOak]

228. Nothing speaks volumes

Replaced them with? Oh, yeah, that's right, nothing. The prosecutor can bring a case without meeting any standards at all. And that is somehow better why?

The fact the many states opt to go directly to a preliminary hearing after an accusation has been filed should tell you a lot about the relative value of a grand jury. Call me crazy, but I just don't see how a hear at which only one side is represented can be balanced or objective.

Where am I getting this information? Well let's see:

The nurse and physician statements - sure that information came from the defense, but their source for the information was the medical reports from the state, medical reports that were provided to the judge with the motion. So, you can discount what is in the motion, but unless you think that these high-priced and well respected attorneys are going to intentionally lie to the judge with the understanding that he probably won't bother to read the supporting documentation you have to assume that those statements are in the medical reports.

The allegations about the player-only lineup - no, sorry, I got that information from the police report itself.

Mr. Nifong suggested we put together the mug shot type photographs into a group since we are under the impression the players at the party were members of the Duke Lacrosse Team and instead of doing a line up or photographic array, we would merely ask the victim to look at each picture and see if she recalled seeing the individuals at the party.

http://www.wral.com/slideshow/dukelacrosse/9141851/detail.html


The allegations about the multiple lineups - again, part of the defense's motion to the court and it references the documentation in discovery. So, while only one page documenting the first of those lineups is included in the motion, it's again illogical to assume that the other pages aren't available from discovery as well since the filings with the court state that they are.

Lastly, it would be nice to believe that if these guys were found not guilty they would be exonerated by the general public. But there will always be a portion of the public who will believe they will have gotten off because they were rich and white.

It's too late for justice to be served. Justice would have been served if Nifong had shown more restraint at the start of the prosecution. Restraint from announcing to the press the players were guilty and restraint from pushing to rush charges before his election date.

[pnwmom]

152. I'm shocked that so many otherwise intelligent and "progressive" DU'ers

seem to have so little understanding of the magnitude of the situation when all the forces of the State are thrown into the prosecution of a felony indictment. I'm shocked at all the DU'ers who say they approve of the prosecution of a defendant -- who will then lose months or even years of his life and huge sums to legal fees -- EVEN if the case turned out to be flimsy in the end. EVEN if there was clear exculpatory evidence available from the very beginning that the prosecutor chose to ignore.

Don't you realize that we would ALL be vulnerable to malicious or false prosecution -- we could all be losing our jobs and our houses (due to legal bills) and maybe even our freedom -- if the government pursued every set of charges that an accuser brought to them? Without considering any alibis or other obviously exculpatory evidence?

Yes, the government doesn't win every case. But it still bears the responsibility to be "choosy," both on the grounds of limited resources (they can only prosecute so many cases) and on the grounds of fairness to the defendants. Even if completely innocent, and found innocent at trial, a person who has lived through a felony trial has already received a serious punishment. No one can get back the time in their life. No one will repay them for the legal bills. If the prosecutor makes a determination -- after looking at all the evidence on both sides (which this prosecutor has refused to do) -- that he is unlikely to win a case, then he must not go forward. In a society that says we are "innocent until proven guilty," this is a simple matter of justice.

[MadHound]

159. I'm shocked that so many DUers have no concept about a Grand Jury

And what a GJ does. It means that the case has met a minimum set of standards for the case to proceed to trial. It is the mechanism that insures that trials aren't conducted arbitrarily or unneccessarily. Yet despite this case having met those standards, many DUers still don't want the case to go to trial. And they are basing their opinion on the media sideshow that the defense is putting on:eyes: Talk about gullible.

What is your dog in this fight? Why are you so intent on not seeing a trial? You having time and again based your arguements on what the defense is saying, and are refusing to consider that there is actually something there. You're quite worked up about this case, why? Many cases go to trial with the same amount of evidence, under similar circumstances, yet I don't hear you screaming about them? If justice is being served in those cases, then it is being served in this one.

Let the case go to trial. If the defendants are exonerated and feel that they've been wronged, hey, they can always sue for malicious prosecution. And apparently you would be a perfect witness:eyes:

[pnwmom]

160. A grand jury only sees what the prosecutor puts before them.

If the prosecutor decides not to present alibi evidence (which he refused to accept from the defense) then the Grand Jury will not see it. It will only be seeing the prosecutor's side of the case. And the minimal standards are exactly that -- minimal. With a court docket that is crowded enough that trials are backed up for a year, you'd think prosecutors would be exercising their judgement and putting forward only cases that are likely to overcome the hurdle of reasonable doubt.

I am "worked up about the case" for the reasons I stated. I am worried about a government that is getting more and more oppressive and totalitarian, and I think that if we continue along this path, all of our rights will be in jeopardy. Many of us don't like the defendants in this case. They seem snotty and spoiled and entitled. But if we look the other way when they are facing a politically-related prosecution -- that's my opinion, but I can't see any other reason for it -- then we are all traveling down a dangerous road.

[MadHound]

161. "Politically related prosecution"?

Wow, you have jumped in with both feet.

Get this, it is a CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR AN AN ALLEGED RAPE! There is nothing political about it. And while your reasoning for why many people are calling for this trial to go forward, "snotty and spoiled and entitled" may apply to a few around here, I think that the majority of people are like myself, we don't give a damn who the defendants are, we just want to see justice served, one way or the other.

And if you are so concerned about the fallibility of Grand Juries, why is this only coming out now, for this case? There are many many other cases throughout history, and currently, that have met the requirement of a Grand Jury and proceeded to trial. Yet the only one I hear you screaming about is *this one*. Or is this simply a new cause that you've taken up recently?

Frankly Grand Juries have been right many more times than they've been wrong, and despite the flaws in our judicial system, over the years it has worked out fairly well. Much better than trying a case in the media and allowing the public to decide. If it turns out that the defendants are aquitted, then they can make the decision to sue the prosecutor and the DA's office. And guess what, then those defendants will get to use that Grand Jury system you so despise to push forward their case.

Whoa, what a jurisprudential concept.

[pnwmom]

177. Apparently you don't know much about the beginning of the case.

While he was in the midst of a close Democratic primary election campaign, this prosecutor took the opportunity to appear before the media more than 70 times, setting forth his case against the Duke students. The majority of the Democrats in Durham are African American, as is the accuser, and when she made the accusations there was a general outcry in the community in support of her. (I'm not criticizing that at all -- that reaction is completely natural.) If he hadn't brought the indictments when he did, he might have lost the primary.

Not surprisingly, he stopped giving interviews after his election campaign was over.

So, yes, I think this was a "politically related prosecution" but not in the way you assumed I meant. The indictments were meant to support the reelection campaign of the incumbant prosecutor.

[MadHound]

188. Sounds more like an accident of timing to me

After all, what person would honestly want a case like this during an election year. A case with huge potential to blow up in one's face, no matter how the verdict came down, a no win case either way. I know I certainly wouldn't want such a case if I were in his shoes, and I don't know many prosecutors or politicians who would.

Frankly I think that this is one reason why the case was assigned a trial date after the election. This is a no win political situation for any DA, so I think Nifong wants to quietly get elected without the interference of this case hanging over his head, then to go back afterwards and bring it to trial.

[marshall]

190. Or more likely, dismiss it

I think Nifong did believe he had a strong case for the first few days, and unfortunately for him he shot his mouth off to the press. His back was to the wall and he couldn't risk offending people by dismissing the case, so he plowed ahead, redacted important information from what was presented to the judge and grand jury, and got his indictment.

I think he is just waiting for the most opportune moment to dismiss the case and pretend it never happened.

[MadHound]

191. And if that happens, fine

And if it doesn't, the case goes to trial and this entire mess is settled one way or the other. Frankly I don't care one way or the other, I'm just sick of people thinking that they can already determine a guilty or not guilty verdict from what is being released to the press. Determination of guilt or innocence only happens in a court of law, not in the press.

[marshall]

192. Speaking for myself

I don't presume to be deciding the legal guilt or innocence of anybody merely by discussing what we know about this or any other case. One of the reasons I think our judicial system is as open as it is is so that we can discuss things involving the courts. I am not as interested in the outcome of this particular case as I am interested in how law enforcement and the courts handle things like photo lineups, redacting testimony before giving it to a judge or a grand jury, etc.

[pnwmom]

194. That's what is bothering me, too. It has been enlightening to see

how vulnerable we all are to manipulations by the police and prosecutor.

[MadHound]

197. It has also been enlightening to see

How many here are also subject to manipulation by the defense team's double pronged tactic of trying this case in the media, and thus tainting the jury pool.

[pnwmom]

195. But is it really fine? IF it turns out that this prosecution should never

have happened, is it fine with you that these parents had to spend enormous amounts on attorney bills -- much less all the time and emotional agony involved -- for a case that should never have been brought?

[MadHound]

198. Yes it really is fine

If it turns out that these kids are innocent, fine. And if their parents think that this prosecution was malicious, there are legal avenues open to them. If the public thinks that Nifong overstepped his bounds, there are political avenues open to them(which I'm sure Nifong is *fully* aware of)

But all of this, the original case and subsequent issues from there, all need to get their day in court. Yes, people are having to spend money. That's what happens when one is accused of a crime. I don't hear any outcry about other cases that have been brought on a *much* shakier legal basis, why is that? Is it because those kids don't dress and look smart, like your children? Why no outcry over the African American men and women who are falsely accused on a weekly basis, especially since they don't have the resources that these Duke kids do? Sadly, that lack of funds can often lead to false imprisonment, yet still no outrage.

And if this case goes to trial, and if the defendents are found guilty, are you going to be satisfied that justice was done? Or will you think that it was somehow a travesty? All because these kids remind you of your kids. How very objective:eyes:

I think you need to take a step back for a more objective view.

[marshall]

199. You have a good point

Madhound, that is a really good point that looks at all the issues. I think people relate to a story and its issues based on how much the individuals involved are like them. That is why it was considered socially important to have television shows with ethnically diverse casts, and why school textbooks are pushed to include material about varied ethnicities.

Hopefully those of us who find this case compelling will take the opportunity to contemplate how the issues impact everybody.

[Karmakaze]

210. That is bullshit...

YOU are the one that would have innocent African Americans hauled in front of a jury simply because they are accused! That is YOUR argument - that no matter how little evidence it is up to the courts to decide so who cares if the prosecutor is only doing it for personal gain!

Don't try and lay that off on us, that is outcome of YOUR belief system. Although I am willing to bet if this WAS African American men accused of raping a rich white woman, you would be preaching a different tune.

[MadHound]

221. No friend, what is bullshit

Is people who are willing to exonerate three suspects in an ongoing rape case, merely because self same people have bought into the classic defense ploy of trying the case in the media. Even though proper legal procedure has been followed, even though a Grand Jury(a fearture of US and English jurisprudence that self same people are fulling supportive of when a verdict is as they wish, but dismiss out of hand when a jury comes to a conclusion they don't like) has cleared the case to proceed, these people somehow, someway can miraculously tell guilt or innocence based on what they read and hear in the MSM. Do all of you folks believe everything you read or here in the MSM? No, you don't, I see evidence of that every single day here. So why in the hell are you believing what is filtered through the MSM regarding this case? Well, one reason I've read in this thread is because the accused remind others of their children. Talk about bullshit!

Then let's talk about even greater bullshit, and that reagards people who are so hell bent in their opinion on this case that the can no longer civily discuss the case. Their suspension of disbelief in the legal system goads them to label anybody who opposes them, even so much as to simply let justice take it's course, as some sort of racist, misogynist, and other vile things because apparently their intellect is too small to allow them to effectively defend their moral and intellectual position with anything other than ad hominem attacks and insults. That my friend is bullshit!

It is sad to see you reduced so. You are willing to throw away our legal system and instead are putting your faith in what you see on television and what you read in the paper. You give no effective case for this position, instead offering insults and invective. Pathetic, truly pathetic. Your words betray a moral and intellectual bankruptcy on a vast scale. Perhaps you need to take a break, educate yourself, study the law, and above all, calm down. One should not invest so much of oneself into a cause to the point where they are reduced to insults and ad hominems in place of reasoned discussion. It is poor form, and only makes you look foolish.

[Karmakaze]

232. Yet more bullshit.

Even though proper legal procedure has been followed, even though a Grand Jury(a feature of US and English jurisprudence that self same people are fulling supportive of when a verdict is as they wish, but dismiss out of hand when a jury comes to a conclusion they don't like) has cleared the case to proceed, these people somehow, someway can miraculously tell guilt or innocence based on what they read and hear in the MSM.

You are claiming proper legal procedure has been followed. In fact, it appears proper legal procedure HAS NOT been followed - you don't charge men for a crime when they can PROVE their innocence. You don't force them to trial when they can PROVE their innocence. Proper legal procedure says a prosecutor only charges and brings to trial people they can prove beyond reasonable doubt are guilty. Nifong KNOWS he can't do that.

Their suspension of disbelief in the legal system goads them to label anybody who opposes them, even so much as to simply let justice take it's course, as some sort of racist, misogynist, and other vile things because apparently their intellect is too small to allow them to effectively defend their moral and intellectual position with anything other than ad hominem attacks and insults. That my friend is bullshit!

I agree that is bullshit, which is why I pointed it out when YOU did it. Let me just point it out again for you:

"I don't hear any outcry about other cases that have been brought on a *much* shakier legal basis, why is that? Is it because those kids don't dress and look smart, like your children? Why no outcry over the African American men and women who are falsely accused on a weekly basis, especially since they don't have the resources that these Duke kids do?"
Post #198, MadHound

So are you seriously trying to say you are not suggesting that pnwmom, for example, is a racist with this statement? Of course you were! Your bullshit is duly noted.


You give no effective case for this position, instead offering insults and invective.

Bullshit. Myself and others have shot down every one of your arguments, which is why you resorted to implying we were racists. Once again your projection is showing.

You claim that the Grand Jury is some sort of proof of a "good case" against the accused. The fact is the Grand Jury was not presented with ALL the evidence (especially the exculpatory evidence), and besides that a Grand Jury can not, BY LAW, make findings of fact. They personally might believe that the entire case is a load of bullshit, BUT they have no right to find that. As long as the prosecutor presents a reasoned argument for indictment, they have to indict. This is why the saying goes that a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

So there is one of your arguments GONE.

Secondly you seem to believe that putting men on trial for a crime they didn't commit is justice. The fact is, not only is it NOT justice, it is an ethical, and possible legal breach for a prosecutor to put men on trial unless he believes he can prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused is guilty. In at least one case, the evidence PROVES that the accused could NOT have had anything to do with the alleged rape, if there was one. THAT is unjust, no matter what you may think. In fact there is evidence that the prosecution is attempting to FRAME these men, for example the prosecutor ordering a photo line-up carried out in a manner that went against even police policy. You don't order someone to break the rules UNLESS you believe it is necessary to get the result you want.

There is another of your arguments shot down.

Thirdly you claim the defense is attempting to "try this case in the media". The fact is long before the defense gave ANY statements, Nifong was making all sorts of claims to the media, such as that DNA tests would prove that some of the Lacrosse players raped the alleged victim. Of course when it didn't he then turned around and said he was going to carry on with the prosecution anyway.

So that is yet another of your arguments shot down.

Fourthly you claimed (in post #3) that calling for the prosecution to reveal their case was "wrong, even unethical". The fact is, it is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT!

Another argument shot down.

Finally, you yourself shot down all your arguments in post #50 by admitting that your "knowledge of this case is a bit cursory". In other words you don't know what has been going on, but as far as you are concerned, and apparently because these are rich white men, they should go to trial no matter what.

Then you have the gall to start accusing people who DO know what has been going on, and who have made reasoned argument after reasoned argument, of "moral and intellectual bankruptcy on a vast scale"

Sorry pal, but you are doing a far greater job of that than we could possibly do.

[BrownOak]

217. He's already essentially fully elected

He's running unopposed in the general election.

[Moosepoop]

163. Snotty and spoiled and entitled??

But, but... I thought they reminded you of your son! Don't you like him?

Many of us don't like the defendants in this case. They seem snotty and spoiled and entitled.

[pnwmom]

176. My son is clean cut, athletic, and wears clothes like theirs.I didn't say

he acts like them. In fact, he's also a math nerd and quite shy -- so often he doesn't smile enough. People who judge people on the kind of clothes they wear or an "aloof" appearance would type him incorrectly.

[pnwmom]

14. Yes. Prosecuting a case does not mean throwing stuff at a wall and

seeing what will stick. A prosecutor isn't supposed to spend the State's time and money on a case with little chance to be proven -- even if he were absolutely sure of the guilt of the defendants. Which this prosecutor obviously is not, since he refuses to even look at all the exonerating evidence.

[Mandate My Ass]

the jury looks at all the evidence

the DA provides the incriminating evidence, the defense provides the exculpatory evidence and the jury decides if the burden of proof has been met.

[pnwmom]

19. The prosecutor is NOT considering the exculpatory evidence, though

he has an obligation to do so ethically and practically. He only has so much time and money and can't waste it on unwinnable cases. Yet he is referring to consider the alibi evidence, for one thing. Why? This isn't normal prosecutorial behavior.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. the jury looks at all the evidence

the DA provides the incriminating evidence, the defense provides the exculpatory evidence and the jury decides if the burden of proof has been met.

[LisaL]

203. If somebody accused you of rape, or robbery, or kidnapping,

or all of the above combined, would you then say you should have to go to trial and prove your innocence even if there was not a shred of evidence against you? Just wondering?

[Yupster]

23. I learned that watching

My Cousin Vinnie.

[pnwmom]

12. Bottom line, prosecutor's normally are SELECTIVE about the cases they

prosecute. They are SUPPOSED to consider the evidence carefully before they decide to prosecute. This guy obviously hasn't. Just one for instance. He claimed to the media, when he asked for the 46 samples of DNA, that the results would conclusively show who had raped her. This was a reasonable conclusion because she wasn't one of those rape victims who comes in a week or two after the rape, when evidence would be gone. She had the rape kit done within a matter of hours. When none of the samples yielded the results he predicted, he indicted three suspects anyway.

[MadHound]

31. Well, apparently the prosecutor had enough

To convince a Grand Jury that he should go forward. Then again, the Grand Jury could be in on this tin foil conspiracy theory too:eyes:

[pnwmom]

34. It's called "indicting a ham sandwich." And it's not that unusual.

[MadHound]

52. LOL, now it's the Grand Jury's fault!

Sorry friend, while I'm fully cognizant of the fact that standards are relaxed a bit for Grand Jury hearings, they aren't thrown out the window, and there are certain standards of evidence that do have to be met. Apparently these were, hence the case is proceeding to trial.

Sorry if this goes against your preconcieved notion that these defendants aren't guilty, but this is our system of justice, and for the most part it has turned out to be a pretty decent one, decent enough that I wouldn't want to see it done away with.

Rather sad that when things haven't gone the way you wanted that you decide to attack the Grand Jury. Sorry, it isn't justice for the select few friend, it is justice for all, even though we might disagree with it.

But hey, your boys will have their day in court, and the truth will come out them. Let's wait and see what emerges. Who knows, we might all be suprised.

[High Plains]

59. Your respect for the independence of grand juries is admirable.

I'm just not sure it's warranted. The only evidence the grand jury hears is that which the prosecutor gives it. And he's not required to give it exculpatory evidence.

[High Plains]

60. A "pretty decent" system of justice?

You must not be paying attention.

[MadHound]

67. Better than anything else that has come down the pike

Sorry that it isn't working to meet your own personal goals with this case, but hey, that's the way justice is, impersonal.

Does it have problems, yes, has it ever been corrupted, yes, more than once. But taking the entire body of US jurisprudence over the course of American history, one would indeed have to say that it is a pretty decent system.

Or would you rather go with the old fashioned method, throwing people into a pond and seeing whether or not they floated:eyes:

[BrownOak]

218. Not everybody agrees with you

More than half the states have scrapped the grand jury process in favor of evidentiary hearings or preliminary hearings where the accused is represented.

[MadHound]

223. Umm, please read for comprehension, not speed, nor blinded by fury.

I was refering to our justice in the all inclusive sense, not in the particular sense. If you have a comment on that, I'm all ears, so to speak.

[BrownOak]

227. My bad....

See, I must have gotten confused when the subthread started speaking about grand juries.

I must have been reading something else when you told pnwmom that you were "sorry if this goes against your preconceived notion that these defendants aren't guilty, but this is our system of justice" when specifically discussing the grand jury issuing the indictments.

If it makes it more comfortable for you then you can pretend that my response was posted right after your post
#52 from which the above quote was taken. That way you can avoid this ridiculous premise you have that a grand jury is some sort of statement about any significant degree of evidence being present and instead wax poetically about our system of jurisprudence.

[pnwmom]

65. I don't want the justice system done away with. I want the presumption

of innocence to be retained, and I have been surprised to see so many DU'ers willing to throw that out the window. (Not on this thread, actually, but on a number of others.)

[northzax]

17. right, if...

if the prosecutor thinks he has a strong enough case, and if he thinks, based on his evidence, that a: these are the guilty parties, and b: that he can reasonably expect a conviction. otherwise, he's just wasting everyone's money.

[stepnw1f]

39. Oh, Wise Words

no sarcasm...

[MadHound]

53. Thank you for the kind words and breath of sanity

I find it amusing that I'm getting attacked, not for choosing one side or the other, but simply for advocating that we let justice take it's course and let a jury decide.

Makes me wonder what country I woke up in:crazy:

[stepnw1f]

71. Same Here... weird isn't it?

Actually, people want us to claim they are innocent. Making that decision is fine, but if you assume that they be guilty, then oh no, no, no. Weird. I don't trust what is written about this very case. Seems too many have a stake in it's outcome.

[Karmakaze]

149. You're being attacked for not understanding justice

Let's say I accuse YOU of raping me, and a prosecutor decides "Hey lets put it before the jury and let them decide". There is no evidence against you, but there is evidence that you were not even physically capable of being the rapist, but the prosecutor charges you and puts you on trial anyway.

Do you think THAT is justice?

If you do, you have a very serious problem.

On edit: here is a more extreme example -

Why don't the prosecutors just arrest every man in and around Duke University and put them ALL on trial for raping the woman. The jury can decide which one of them did it, right? Sure they will have been accused of rape and had to go through an expensive and lengthy legal process to prove their innocence, but that's justice, right?

[MadHound]

167. LOL, that's a good one, I *don't understand* justice

That's right, I don't understand that a prosecutor collects evidence, I don't understand that he then presents that evidence to a Grand Jury, I don't understand that the Grand Jury then decides if there is enough of a case for the prosecution to proceed, no, I don't understand any of that:eyes:

There is one little cognizant point that you are forgetting in your hypothetical examples, and that is evidence. Grand Juries don't allow a trial to proceed without it, prosecutors don't have people arrested without it. And apparently, given that these two events have occurred, it seems that there is indeed evidence in this case. That critical element you are forgetting in your hypothetical examples, evidence.

Geez, and you say *I* don't understand justice, hell, you're leaving out a huge component, evidence:rofl:

[Karmakaze]

169. Nope, you obviously don't...

That's right, I don't understand that a prosecutor collects evidence, I don't understand that he then presents that evidence to a Grand Jury, I don't understand that the Grand Jury then decides if there is enough of a case for the prosecution to proceed, no, I don't understand any of that

You obviously don't understand justice then. Because the prosecutor only has to present enough evidence to the grand jury to convince them that there is a probable cause a crime was committed by the accused. The prosecutor doesnt have to present exculpatory evidence, although ethically, he should. So the end result is that the Grand Jury only gets half the story, with the accused having no right to argue the evidence presented or to present his own evidence.

In other words the grand jury is a rubber stamp.

There is one little cognizant point that you are forgetting in your hypothetical examples, and that is evidence. Grand Juries don't allow a trial to proceed without it, prosecutors don't have people arrested without it.

Once again you are wrong to a degree. Probable cause is all that is needed, and probable cause can simply be an accusation by an alledged victim. I say you punched me. The prosecutor goes to the judge and says that I say you punched me, and an arrest warrant is granted based on probable cause. If I can present a bruise, even better, but it is not required.

Once again the same holds true for the grand jury. The prosecutor goes to the grand jury and puts me on the stand. I testify that you got angry at me and punched me. The grand jury declares that there is probable cause and an indictment is handed down. Of course I would have to be convincing, but even if you could prove beyond ANY doubt that you never punched me, the grand jury need not be told that.

No evidence, apart from testimony from the "victim", and yet both an arrest warrant and an indictment can be handed down, should the prosecutor choose not to present exculpatory evidence. That is how it works - and it all relies on an ethical prosecutor presenting solid evidence of guilt AND any evidence of innocence. If the latter is withheld then it all just falls apart and becomes nothing but a joke, which is what Nifong seems to be doing in this case - making a joke out of the justice system.

[MadHound]

172. *shakes head*

Again, one key thing that you are forgetting about GJ proceedings is that they have to have evidence presented to them, either eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. No, it doesn't have to be overwhelming, or beyond the shadow of doubt, but there does indeed have to be evidence.

If I punch you, and the prosecutor comes before a GJ with your case, with no evidence(bruising, or photo of bruising) or an eyewitness, the GJ is going to laugh him right out of court. And why shouldn't they, after all, the prosecutor has not met those minimum standards.

One other thing that you're forgetting is that while a defendant can't present a thing before the GJ, the members of the GJ can question both the prosecutor and anybody testifying on the stand.

Oh, and probable cause, it is a concept that is found either by a judge or the GJ. You don't walk into court with it.

I would suggest that you do some more research, for you knowledge base concerning how a GJ works is lacking.

[Karmakaze]

209. Wrong again...

The prosecutor doesn't need ANYTHING but a victim ID - in this case one which he was guaranteed to get by a phony line up. As for the GJ being able to question the witnesses, do you seriously believe that makes a difference? I sit there and say you punched me, no one saw it and there is no physical evidence, but it happened. No matter what they ask, if I stick to my story, there is probable cause based on my ID of you as someone who commited a crime against me.

Remember the GJ CAN NOT make any find of fact. They can NOT decide whether I am lying or telling the truth, all they can do is say that I have presented a charge against you and I am sticking to my story. Of course if my case is as weak as only my word against yours, then I may lose the case if the trial jury believes you and not me, BUT that is the trial jury.

Now if the prosecutor KNOWS there is exculpatory evidence but does not present it to the GJ, then THEY have no way of finding out it exists. The defense are not allowed to present it to the GJ. So even if you had lock solid proof that you did not punch me, if the prosecutor refuses to make that available to the GJ and I stick to my story, they will hand down an indictment simply because they are not able to make a finding on fact.

It is that simple.

You're the one that needs to do the research my friend.

[MadHound]

224. You obviously have only a vague, nodding acquaintance

With how the law works. No wonder you feel compelled to respond with insults and ad hominems. Your practical knowledge is small. I would suggest that you go sit in on a couple of cases, don't base your legal knowledge solely on what you see on Law and Order.

If you accused me of punching you, and yet you had no mark, no witnesses, no evidence, I would be released in short order. There are certain minimums that have to be met in order to proceed with a case. Under your fevered imagination, prosecutors can bring cases against anybody merely based on an accusation. That isn't how American jurisprudence works pal. I suggest you go find out how it does work, OK. It will make you look much less foolish in future discussions.

[Karmakaze]

234. Wait, you are ALMOST there!!!!

If you accused me of punching you, and yet you had no mark, no witnesses, no evidence, I would be released in short order.

By who? It wouldn't be the police and prosecutor would it? It wouldn't be because based on the evidence they know they would not be able to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt, would it?

You have managed to prove MY point. Now, if only you could understand that!

The fact is a Grand Jury is ONLY as "just" as the prosecutor presenting a case to it allows it to be. If the prosecutor does not inform them of exculpatory evidence then they have no way of knowing about it. Thus even in our hypothetical situation, a Grand Jury would be forced to return an indictment, simply because they are not allowed to decide whether I am telling the truth or not. Can you understand that? Even if they think I'm lying, they are not allowed to let that determine the outcome!

Only a trial jury is allowed, by law, to make findings of fact. In fact, that is their entire job. The Grand Jury can only decide on probable cause - ie if the prosecution as presented an argument for indictment that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a crime may have been committed.

I say you punched me. A reasonable person would conclude that if you punched me, a crime had been committed. A Grand Jury however are not allowed to decide whether you did, in fact, punch me! That is the trial jury's role. All they can decide is that I say you punched me, and there is no evidence that you did not, so you must be indicted for it.

That is why the justice system relies on the prosecutor NOT to bring charges unless he reasonably believes he can prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, it is pretty clear that he does not.

[stanwyck]

99. Thank you, MadHound. This is for the legal system

not DU.
Stop the obsessing over this case. We don't have all the facts. This is mindless and beneath DU.
Please. Please. STOP.

[pnwmom]

102. Presumption of innocence, speedy trial, issues of race and class and bias

and prosecutorial overreach -- these are all things that are worthy of discussion. This isn't mindless debate. If you think it is, feel free to find another thread that is more worthy of your time.

[stanwyck]

105. we don't have the facts. So our discussion

borders on the loudtalkers of hateradio. Read this thread. There's nothing substantive. This is Matt Drudge visits DU.
Why not wait until the trial for all this endless speculation? And that's all it is: speculation.
But I will take your advice and move on.
These continual useless threads are a waste of time. I just hate to keep seeing them crop up at DU.

[pnwmom]

108. There is plenty that is substantive in the articles that you've chosen

not to read.

[LisaL]

200. Oh that's a load of shit.

Nifong gave a large number of interviews in the beginning, even demonstrated how the woman was supposed to have been strangled on TV.
So, please, enough with crap that defense is the one trying this case in the media. Of course now Nifong has shut up. Could it be because most the things he claimed in the beginning were false?
And he has actually nothing to say to justify his behavior? Or charging these men?

[LisaL]

205. I could go to the police tomorrow and accuse you of some hideous

crime. I guess you will have to go to trial and see what the jury says?
Even if we never actually met? Cause according to you, that would be the right course of action. All righty, then.

[Kingshakabobo]

9. The Find Law people are a bunch of thigh-rubbing-misogynist....

rape-apologists.


:sarcasm: ...of course

[Moosepoop]

162. Not all of them. Just Jonna Spilbor. n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

11. funny how the word "suggests" didn't make it in the subject line

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

13. If you read the whole article, you'll see that the subject line fits well

in the box as well as with the tenor of the whole article.

[bloom]

20. What happened to all the cries for "DUE PROCESS"

So now it's "it's wrong to just let the case go to trial and "see what the jury says."


I am so NOT surprised.



What a bunch of crap.

[Goblinmonger]

24. You might want to sit down for this, bloom.

I agree with you. I think there are way too many people in this country that are way too eager to dismiss this case as being possible.

[Karmakaze]

150. You don't seem to understand DUE PROCESS

That is the part where the prosecutor weighs ALL the evidence and determines whether he can prove the guilt of the accused. If he can't he drops the charges, if he can he brings them to trial.

The idea is that the prosecutor can't just leave the accused in limbo forever. It doesn't mean he should just put on trial any person he thinks might have done it.

[ComerPerro]

21. Receipts and phone records prove nothing

I've heard people say shit like "based on the timeline set up by the receipts and phone records, there is only a window of a few minutes where the rape could have taken place."


Uhh, yeah... Rape only takes a few minutes in some cases.

And I don't find it hard to accept that the defendant could have raped her, then right after called his girlfriend as though nothing had happened and gone out for fast food with a buddy on the way home...

[Kingshakabobo]

22. He would have to have been raping her WHILE calling his girlfriend.

12:03:57 a.m., (photo time stamp) Photo of both strippers by the door leaving the room. The photo clearly shows that the accuser left behind her right shoe on the floor. The men in the room are sitting.

12:05:00 a.m., (cell phone record) Reade Seligmann makes a cell phone call. Between 12:05 and 12:14 a.m. Mr. Seligmann called his girlfriend, another Duke sophomore, 6 times and another person twice. None of these eight calls is longer than 36 seconds.

12:07:00 a.m., (cell phone record) Reade Seligmann makes a cell phone call to his girlfriend.

12:09:00 a.m., (cell phone record) Reade Seligmann makes another cell phone call.

12:10:39 a.m., (photo time stamp) A young man passed out. His shorts are slightly pulled down.


Between 12:10:39 a.m. and 12:30 a.m.: No photos were taken during this time.


12:11:00 a.m., (cell phone record) Reade Seligmann makes another cell phone call.

12:14:00 a.m., (cab company record & cell phone record) Reade Seligmann makes cell phone call for cab, On Time Taxi.

about 12:15:00 a.m., The two women leave the house. The neighbor, Jason Bissey, finishes his shower.

12:18:00 a.m., The accuser & Kim Roberts return to the house.


12:19:00 a.m., (Moez Mostafa, owner of On Time Taxi) picks up Reade Seligmann and Robert Wellington at the corner of Watts Street and Urban Avenue (1.5 blocks from house). He takes them directly to the Wachovia Bank at the corner of West Main Street and Ninth Street in Durham, N.C.

12:24:12 a.m., (bank receipt & security camera) Reade Seligmann uses the Wachovia Bank ATM. He was at the ATM for approximately two minutes (12:24:12 a.m. to 12:25:23 a.m.)

[ComerPerro]

25. because, you know, obviously those clocks are all syncronized

[Kingshakabobo]

27. Uh, yes they are..............

The timestamps on the photos match blown-up photos of party-goers wristwatches and the cell records match the cab company incoming call-log and the ATM photo corroborates the cabbie's story AND call -log. Furthermore, the dorm entry-swipe fits the time-line.

But hey, maybe Verizon, the bank and the dorm security people are in on it??????

[ComerPerro]

29. I'm telling you, its a difference between three or four separate clocks

could add in even just an extra minute in there.

12:00:00 on the camera isn't exact to the second as 12:00:00 in the cab and 12:00:00 on the cell phone and 12:00:00 on the ATM and 12:00:00 at the dorm, etc...

[pnwmom]

32. She says they spent a half hour raping her. How's a minute going to help?

[ComerPerro]

35. He rapes her, gets what he wants, then leaves

she claims multiple people raped her.

[Lindacooks]

72. That isn't proof.

Anybody else could have used the cell phone. The only way that's proof of Seligmann using the cell phone is if it's surgically attached to his face.

The taxi driver has proven to be an unreliable witness; for instance, he said the women got into a white car, when it was black.

The space of time with no photos is PLENTY of time for a gang rape.

And if there's a security camera showing Seligmann using the ATM at that time, why hasn't it been released? If it exists, SHOW IT.

[pnwmom]

75. She says the attack lasted for a half hour, not 9 minutes.

[Lindacooks]

119. And have you ever been raped? Do you think that her estimate

of time, under that kind of duress, should be given such weight?

Give me a break.

[pnwmom]

153. Actually, I made a mistake. It's only 7 minutes. Only seven minutes

between the two time-stamped pictures, neither of which were taken in the bathroom. That means that after accounting for "transit" time, there was LESS than 7 minutes for her to be raped by three different men and to pull her clothes back together, then return to the back porch.

So yeah, I don't think her time estimate should be given much weight at all. I did at first, when I heard only Nifong's story of the case, but not any longer.

[BrownOak]

239. The only problem with that type of thought

is that you can apply the "under that kind of duress" to anything that the alleged victim has said. I understand that we're talking about a very traumatic event and just what it can do to a person, but so far I've seen people use that as an explanation for her emotional state when the police arrived at the Kroger, her interaction with the investigating officer that evening, her inconsistencies with what she reported as happening, her identification of the suspects, and her estimates of the time.

Essentially what this does is make anything that the AV has stated fully insulated from any critical examination. Anything of course except those statements which allege guilt toward the suspects. If you are going to throw out any inconsistencies in the AV's statements to the police then by extension you can't put much stock in her identification of her supposed assailants.

[Goblinmonger]

135. Read some depositions some time

and you will get a feel for how completely shitty people are on telling time. Much less when they are being raped. People in accident cases will say that is was 10 seconds from the time they entered the intersection to the time they were sruck by a car in the intersection. And they are under oath and seriously believe that is possible. People suck at judging time and distance.

Maybe it felt like half an hour. My guess is it would. Maybe more than one person raped her?

[pnwmom]

154. She says she was raped by three men. Do you really think there

was time for her to walk to the bathroom, survive three rapes, pull herself together and walk to the back porch -- all in 7 minutes? (I was wrong about 9.)

[Kingshakabobo]

83. Sure. And little green aliens coulda raped her too.

Give me a break.....

Here. Satisfied?

[Lindacooks]

118. No.

That still doesn't mean that he didn't rape her.

And now you're on ignore.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

36. The accuser claims that the attack last for a half hour, not a few minutes

Or do you not believe her either?

[LisaL]

236. And I don't find it hard to accept that she lied, made the whole thing

up, and defendants did nothing to her at all.
Especially considering all the evidence pointing in that direction.
Especially considering she kept changing her story, that she admitted to drinking various amounts of alcohol, that she admitted to taking flexiril, that she was given several line ups, that she picked the defendant in a line up that had pictures of lacrosse players only, that DNA inside of her belonged to her "boyfriend" and not to any of the defendants.
No, I don't find it hard to accept that this case is one big lie, not at all.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Boy, There Are Some Disturbing Sentiments Here

Somehow i consider it anathema to progressive or liberal thought to EVER fail to presume innocence.

It seems some here have already convicted these three young men. I don't know if it's a "frat boy jock" hatin' thing or what.

But, as a resident of Illinois, where, in the the last 10 years 8 people have been released from death row because THEY DIDN'T DO IT, and in 4 cases, the prosecutors knew AT THE TIME, that they had the wrong people, i'm very skeptical of prosecutors who appear on TV as much as the fellow down in N.C. did. I couldn't care less about the career of a prosecutor. I care about justice and the truth.

I just sense a vibe on this thread that some are presuming guilt, and would like to get the whole thing over with, so this "slime" does time.

All i can say is: "What if they didn't do it?"
The Professor

[Kingshakabobo]

28. I grew up watching the Jeanine Nicarico case....

.....now those d-ckheads Birkett and Ryan have moved on to bigger and better things. Birkett is running for rethug Lieutenant Gov.

http://www.tilljusticeisdone.com/

Between 1984 and 1994, then DuPage County State's Attorney Jim Ryan attempted to put Rolando Cruz to death not once but three times for a crime he did not commit and we, the taxpayers of Illinois , quietly footed the bill.

The DuPage County criminal justice system first blew their chances at prosecuting Dugan to the fullest extent of the law in 1983 when the late Naperville Chief of Police, James Teal, rightly insisted -as he told a few members of the coalition when we met him at a fundraiser for Rolando Cruz and Alex Hernandez- that law enforcement should have focused their efforts on "the sexual predator profile, preferably a white young male and a loner." In the early seventies -actually since 1972- Dugan was already known in DuPage and surrounding counties as an arsonist, a burglar and as an incipient sexual predator.

One year later, former DuPage Deputy Sheriff John Sam warned those in charge of the investigation that Cruz, Hernandez and Steven Buckley, the three men originally convicted for the Nicarico crimes, were not the right men and "that the killer was out there and would kill again" -which he did, twice, murdering Donna Shnorr in 1984 and Melissa Ackerman in 1985.

Birkett's predecessor, Jim Ryan, was handed yet another chance to prosecute Dugan in 1987, a year and a half after the convicted murderer first hypothetically spoke about his implication in the Nicarico case. (See "Documents" on this web site) Former Illinois State Police Commander Ed Cisowski, at Jim Ryan's personal request, had just concluded his independent probe of Dugan's assertions about the crime, and he too, had no doubt that it was Dugan "and Dugan alone, who kidnapped, raped and killed Jeanine Nicarico."

Instead of taking Cisowski's findings seriously and correcting the injustices against Cruz, Hernandez and Buckley in 1985, Jim Ryan allowed the case to drag on for ten long and expensive years.
Besides blowing their chances at prosecuting the right man sooner, the DuPage County criminal justice system -including Birkett- not only have repeatedly attempted to put to death innocent men but have never apologized for their errors and continue, even to this day, to smear those wrongfully convicted by having many people-including the Nicaricos-believe that the vindicated men were guilty and escaped punishment.

[stepnw1f]

38. Funny, Because I'd Say the Opposite

That there are plenty already convinced they are innocent.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Aren't They Supposed To?

If not, then what is the point of the presumption of innocence?
The Professor

[stepnw1f]

43. Why? This isn't a Court or the Jury of that Court

Why should anybody have to make a decision one way or the other? This is pure public perception of a case that is being tried by the public, hence the numerous posts on this case. Does that concern you as much as the public deciding now rathewr than when all the info is presented?

[ProfessorGAC]

54. I See.

Our justice is limited only to the courtroom itself, and not how we actually approach the concept of justice.

How very narrow.

It would NEVER concern me that people PRESUME someone is innocent. It concerns me that you don't seem to care about that basic premise of our criminal system.
The Professor

[stepnw1f]

66. Actually Professor I Am Open to Either OPINION

That does not make my point of view narrow at all. How rude of you instead. I don't know if they are innocent or guilty, and I'm fine with that, because my life does not reside in a courtroom, where things tend to be black and white. Am I being narrow? Nope...

[ProfessorGAC]

86. Dupe

.

[ProfessorGAC]

87. As Soon As You Put The Principle Only In The Context. . .

. . .of a courtroom, you have, indeed narrowed your vision, whether you would like to admit it or not.

Concepts do not reside in a place. They either exist as valid ideas or they don't.

So, are you being narrow? Yep! You've narrowed everything to whether we're in a courtroom or not. How can that NOT be more narrow than a concept in the abstract?
The Professor

[pnwmom]

55. The prosecution made this a media event. Why shouldn't the defense

be able to counter that with the evidence that they have? And nobody in the public has to make a decision one way or other.

[stepnw1f]

69. So You are the Defense

I know... I can see that. Rather biased I'd say... that was my point. So stop brow beating those who don't agree with you. This isn't a court where we have to follow the "innocent until proven guilty".

Example: Is Bush guilty of lying us into a war or not?

If you say yes, then you too are guilty of breaking your golden rule of "Innocent until proven guilty". See what I mean?

People on this forum are free to express OPINIONS on this case.


Peace

[pnwmom]

77. I started out thinking the defendants were probably guilty.

But when first the DNA evidence didn't come through, and no toxicology report came through, and the prosecutor refused to meet with the defense to go over exculpatory evidence, and the photo-lineup turned out to be rigged (only included photos of lacrosse players, so inevitably the I.D.'s pointed to lacrosse players), and the prosecutor put off the trial for a year, I changed my mind.

I do think that these three are most likely innocent -- and that we may never know who is actually guilty (other lacrosse team members, the accuser's other hookups, or the accuser herself -- of a false accusation) -- and that the crime now is that these three will have to wait for a year for the State to come clean.

[bloom]

137. No they/we are not supposed to

presume that the guys are so innocent that there doesn't even need to be a trial.

Go volunteer at a women's shelter - where women who have been raped are helped through the rape trial process and see if anyone tells her that the rapist(s) should be believed but not her. Just go see.

[pnwmom]

155. No one is saying that a rapist should be believed and not her.

But when an accused (we don't know any of the students is a rapist) has a strong alibi, consisting of bank photos, etc., that alibi should be seriously considered before the prosecutor seeks an indictment -- but this the prosecutor refused to do.

[Karmakaze]

170. Isnt that what is supposed to happen?

Considered innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law?

"Innocent" is meant to be the DEFAULT belief, not an option.

[pnwmom]

40. The same thought disturbs me, Professor. What kind of justice system

do we ALL want to live in?

The kind where a defendant has a right to loudly proclaim his innocence?
The kind where a defendant has a right to a speedy trial?
The kind where a defendant is presumed to be innocent?
The kind where a prosecution has to prove guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

Or would we all rather live in China? Or the old Soviet Union?

[stepnw1f]

48. This Isn't The Justice System..This is a Discussion Forum

You are really reaching... are the defendents relatives of yours, because your statememnt is beyond ridiculous? Trying way too hard to gather public support here for the defendents.

While the court decides, they are Innocent until proven guilty, but for some reason you feel DU is the system. Stop trying this in public, and wait to see what happens. Until then, people can believe whatever they want!

[pnwmom]

51. No, I have absolutely no connection with the defendants or their

families. I do have a college age son and a daughter in grad school, so I see the case through that prism. As a parent, how would I feel if my daughter were raped? How would I feel if my son were unjustly accused?

In both cases, I'd want a justice system that acted as fairly and quickly as possible. This prosecution is doing neither.

[Yupster]

85. I do think that a defendant

should be able to demand some sort of a speedy settlement to his case. These young men are having their lives torn apart and their families are probably living in fear every day. They have a right to demand a quick end to it one way or another.

[DelawareValleyDem]

94. What's 'speedy'

and what qualifies as a 'settlement'? Seligmann's attorney requested, not demanded, a trial before the next school year, but the judge indicated that he won't give this case priority over others and that it won't be handled any differently.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060518080909990008&cid=431

[pnwmom]

96. The common view outside of NC is that 6 months is the limit for

a "speedy" trial. Lots of DEFENDANTS ask for extra time in order to delay the process, hoping witnesses might go away, new exculpatory evidence might come to light, etc. And these requests for additional time are usually granted. (Think Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald was ready to proceed as soon as he got the indictment. It was Libby's lawyers who requested the delay.)

This is unusual because it is the State here who seems to need extra time, even though its case should have been prepared when it asked for the indictments.

[DelawareValleyDem]

126. Bear in mind

that a JUDGE has already denied the request for an accelerated trial, for the reasons stated in my other post. While the defense may regard this an an unacceptable delay, perhaps they can console themselves with the realization that treating this case differently would have been fodder for those who believe the defendants will receive preferential treatment for being rich white males.

I see no evidence that the defense is being denied their right to a 'speedy' trial. If the defense feels otherwise, due to a six month or any other time limit, they have the option of further petitioning the court.

[Yupster]

116. To me "speedy" should be

within reason up to the defendant.

Being indicted for rape or murder, or almost anything is incredibly traumatic. It should be settled as quickly as possible. I don't know what speedy is, but it seems in a case like this all the evidence is in, and the trial should begin. If the courts are so locked up they have to wait a year, then there needs to be more courthouses or less crimes.

Maybe the most famous such abuse was Confederate President Jefferson Davis. He was indicted for treason, and demanded his trial to prove his innocence. Then the government asked for a delay, then another, then another, then another, and finally they just decided never to try him. They just left him indicted and called him a traitor. Not a week goes by here on DU where someone will call him a traitor though he was never tried, and he demanded a trial to prove himself innocent.

[marions ghost]

90. In rape cases

there is a relatively low chance that "justice" will be done. 'Innocent til proven guilty' doesn't really fly when the system itself is so biased.

Justice and the Truth...fond idealistic notions often used to hide serious crimes. The outcome will be the outcome, whether just or not.

[ProfessorGAC]

91. Ridiculous

The type of crime is irrelevant to the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty. Just because some crimes are harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't invalidate the basic soundess of the premise.

And don't even try to make this about me not understanding rape cases. I'm talking in the abstract, and from the perspective that i, unlike conservatives, would rather have some guilty people go free if it means NO innocents get convicted.

I have a zero tolerance for innocent people going to jail. That principle is inviolable, and the crime involved does not matter.
The Professor

[marions ghost]

93. I do not believe

that the type of crime is irrelevant to the outcome. That's assuming that justice has an equal chance in all cases. Theoretically that might be a nice goal, but it is not true in reality. Far from it.

Also I don't think that the old argument about 'letting some guilty people go free if it means no innocents get convicted' really works these days if you break it down. Regardless of the nature of the case, some innocents will continue to be convicted and plenty of the guilty will go free. The system is failing. It's all about who you know and what kind of lawyer you can afford...all about how to sidestep the intent of the law, not about justice prevailing. I want to see equality under the law as reality, not as empty rhetoric.

The main difference I see between you and me is that you still believe in the legal system whereas I don't. I think this urge to believe is why so many onlookers get invested in a case like this Duke thing. After being so abused by our government and corporate criminals, people desperately want to believe there is such a thing as a functional judicial system. They are understandably nervous about it. But IMO our judicial system is as corrupt as everything else. It's a total mess. Time to face that. Denial will not get us anywhere.

I certainly don't blame people for wanting to believe that there is sanity somewhere...that there is somewhere to go if you have serious grievances and seek legal solutions. I just can't, after what I've seen. No need to get huffy when others don't see it as you do. Peace to you and yours.

[NaturalHigh]

193. What do you suggest, then?

Should there be any less presumption of innocence for defendants accused of rape? Should the accuser always be believed even though false rape accusations have been proved?

[pnwmom]

97. Are you saying that they shouldn't even try for a just outcome

in THIS case? Because different suspects, men who were actually guilty of rape, got off?

[marions ghost]

106. oh for heavens sake

of course the accuser and accused TRY for a "just" outcome. :eyes: Always worth a try...even in a broken down and corrupted system like we have in the US. Justice occasionally happens. But if the accused is more powerful and well-heeled than the accuser, then the accuser will be at a huge, often insurmountable, disadvantage. And because of the usual sexist biases, a woman who accuses is already at a disadvantage to begin with.

You can't blame people for not expecting a just outcome, given the history and statistics concerning rape cases. Others have posted the facts on this. I'm just arguing the point that when you have a situation where all too often justice is NOT served, you can't expect people to play nice and give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Everyone WISHES we could trust the legal system, but the reality is that often it is manipulated. True equality under the law does not exist in this country. This seems very obvious to me, but I guess people don't get it.

Good grief, I am not so stupid as to advocate that some innocent person should 'pay' for others who have gotten off. But if you look at what actually happens in the justice system, this is often EXACTLY what happens.

[pnwmom]

113. I know what you mean. I had to watch a case go on involving a relative

where I had my eyes opened. (One of those involved was a very-well connected individual who used all his connections for an unjust outcome.) But I'm just not ready to give up on the system yet.

[marions ghost]

114. OK so

you'll at least concede that the system needs fixing --for any future credibility. Seems to me as a first step you have to recognize the inherent injustices within the system and how they apply to different types of cases. Being white and male and wealthy has been a huge advantage historically. Men have been getting off rape charges for a long time. The unusual thing in the Duke case is that the accuser apparently believes she even has a case.

[pnwmom]

115. I've been reacting to what I've been seeing on these boards --

where the first reaction of most DU'ers was to assume guilt because these guys were "rich and white."

I don't think we should be making assumptions about anybody based on their race, social status, etc.

I'd be just as upset if the evidence (or lack thereof) was the same-- and the three accused were black basketball players at Duke--and the white Republican prosecutor was holding dozens of press conferences and trolling for votes before a Republican primary.

[marions ghost]

117. I think anyone might reasonably

suspect that something happened at the house that night, given the circumstances.

However in the aftermath of the allegations lots of people here were discussing the case without passing judgment one way or the other. Many prefaced their opinions with, "I don't know...or none of us can know"...some disclaimer like that. So I do NOT agree that "most DUers" were assuming guilt--that's an overgeneralization. On the other hand I'm not surprized that some, especially those who advocate for rape victims, would voice the opinion that the players may well be guilty. This is a perfectly rational opinion, given the statistics on rape.

I think people here were making the further point that IF they WERE guilty, the system would ensure that attaining any justice for the victim would still be an uphill battle. Especially true since the accused are rich and white, and "elites" are used to covering for each other. Look at how that operates in the political arena under Bushco. There is a connection. It is not an unfair assumption to say that rich white guys will have a big advantage in the American legal system. It is fact.

The prosecutor is just doing his job. It will come down to whether the woman will stick by her story and if the evidence supports her story well enough. If credible, she might have a chance to prove her case. I don't know how anyone could argue that the boys are not being treated fairly. If innocent, they have nothing to worry about.

[pnwmom]

120. Did you think it was fair that the line-up from which she made her

I.D.'s consisted ONLY of Duke lacrosse players? Line-ups are supposed to include non-suspects. At the time she made her I.D.'s all 46 white players were still suspects.

[marions ghost]

136. In this case

I doubt they told her that the 46 were all on the team. She had never seen any of them before. So it was still a very difficult job to narrow it to 3. I'm not sure how many more non-suspects you would add to make it seem more "fair" or what that would accomplish. How would it be more fair? I do hope that the testimony of some of these players who were not indicted might eventually be fruitful, as obviously there are others who know for a fact what did --or did not --happen in the house that night. There are players who know the truth and their official testimony will carry a lot of weight. If a crime did take place, then it's possible some will either tell the truth or not be able to lie very well. If a crime did not take place, then they have no need to lie and it should be very easy for them to testify.

I wouldn't attach too much importance to this question about IDs. These IDs are not definitive. Often a traumatized victim makes mistakes. She did say she was not as certain about the third as the other two. There has to be other evidence. If any one of these guys has been wrongly accused, they will be heroically exonerated. But if they are guilty of "assisted lying" which occurs daily in courts around the country, then how do you crack the case except to play hardball? How does a case get solved in a society in which "under oath" means exactly nothing, a society in which it is ONLY a crime if one is caught, and a society in which the guilty go free or unpunished more often than not, esp in cases where one side has an inherent advantage? These boys are not saints, judging by past records of behavior, just as the accuser is not. Do we think they would not be inclined to lie in court?

'Fairness'is such a relative term these days as to be rendered meaningless. Is it fair to attack the accuser as a whore and a nutcase? Is it fair to put so much pressure on her that she drops the charges? The Defense has been ruthless in their efforts to discredit the accuser so far. The prosecution must be equally tough.

[pnwmom]

151. The line-up consisted of the players in their team photos wearing their

matching uniforms. So it was obvious who they were. Also, no matter who she picked, chances are that person was at the party, at least for a while. Under those circumstances, it would appear that she'd made a good I.D. even if she'd gone eeny-meeny-miny-mo.

That's not how line-ups are supposed to work. Under normal circumstances, a line-up would be set up with photos of non-suspects mixed in. That way, if an accuser was just guessing, chances would be high she'd pick a non-suspect. But in this case, if she was just guessing, anyone she picked was already a suspect. There wouldn't be any way to tell if she was guessing or actually recognized a suspect.

Of course it's not fair to attack the accuser as a whore, a nutcase, or in any other way. But I haven't seen that on this site. What I have seen, and I've seen a lot of it, is for DU'ers to assert that the students are probably guilty because they are rich, white, and entitled-acting. Or because their parents are Republican. Or because they LOOK like Republicans.

And that's just stupid. DU'ers shouldn't ever descend to the Anne Coulter level, no matter how much righteous indignation we may feel.

[marions ghost]

156. OK well...statistically speaking...

46 is a large enough sample in order to ensure that she would need to have a coherent visual memory of the 3 attackers in order to ID them. With 46 to choose from, her chances of getting all three attackers right if she is just guessing (ie. making random picks) are 1 in 91,080. (Expressed as a decimal, the odds are .000010973, where the probability of certainty is 1. As you can see, this figure is a lot closer to 0 than it is to one).

As far as fairness, it seems to me this lineup had to include the entire team, since they were closing ranks and operating under a code of silence. Some players say they were not even present during the visit by the dancers, and therefore it would damage her story considerably if she picked any one of them. I suppose you could make her choose from the entire Duke yearbook, but the prosecutor's job is to get positive IDs and too wide a range would also be unfair to the accuser. Obviously her credibility now rests on how accurate her picks were. If she has made mistakes it will come out.

If it is not even fair in your nook to judge the players as "rich, white, and entitled-acting" (with the usual negative connotations associated with arrogance and privilege), then it is certainly not fair to characterize the accuser as a whore and a nutcase, based on her background. However I think you know that the trashing of the accuser has been very effectively done. Realistically you can't stop people from making such assertions on both sides.

You continue to avoid the question of difficulty of proof in a case such as this, especially when we live in a society where lying and cover-ups are practiced daily by the highest authorities. What is the meaning of "fair" in a corrupt society where there is no set of rules commonly adhered to?

If the defense can use this technicality to discredit the prosecution's case I am sure they will do so. That's a risk the prosecution took. But it does not persuade me that the case is a false accusation any more than the Defense's release of cell phone pictures persuades me that the defense has an airtight alibi. It's all just fodder for dissection (and further distortion) at the trial.

[Karmakaze]

173. What the hell? You have no idea what you are talking about

46 is a large enough sample in order to ensure that she would need to have a coherent visual memory of the 3 attackers in order to ID them.

Seriously what the hell? Are you serious? Do you even know what the line up is supposed to accomplish? She is not trying to find the attackers to prove she remembers what happened, she is being asked WHO DID IT.

If all the photos she is shown show people suspected of having done it, she can just pick at random, and those are the guys who will be arrested - which is what she apepears to have done considering one of them has fairly conclusive proof he could NOT have been the attacker, and that the alledged victim claimed she was "90% sure" about another except he had a mustache - which that person had never had and photos from the night prove it.

2 out of three do not match her description, yet becuase she picked them out of the line up, they are going to be put on trial.

Basically what you are saying is that as long as this woman can pick three MEN and say "they did it" that is enough for you, no matter what other evidence is presented.

No wonder the justices system is fucked up if that's what people think is justice.

[marions ghost]

178. OK

Go back to my earlier post, where I said (quote): "These IDs are not definitive. Often a traumatized victim makes mistakes. She did say she was not as certain about the third as the other two. There has to be other evidence." Clearly you did not read that far back. OF COURSE there has to be other evidence. I never at ANY time said that "the woman can pick three men and say they did it, no matter what other evidence is presented." (So how about not pelting me with false allegations?)

In any case of violent assault, the accuser may make a mistaken ID even though she was in fact raped. The visual memory in humans is not very accurate, although it can be heightened under stress. Of course it is worsened by drug/alcohol impairment. So all I am saying is that this was not an easy job for her--obviously her credibility is on the line. For the accused, this is the same risk people face anytime they are out in public. Anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other Lacrosse players, the primary eyewitnesses to events that occurred during the entire time the woman was in the house, chose to close ranks and remain silent. In circumstances of non-cooperation, it is perfectly reasonable that the rest of the team was included in the lineup. The Lacrosse players have not been treated more unfairly than anyone else in these circumstances.

[pnwmom]

179. It makes sense that the rest of the team were suspects, at least

at first. (Though you'd think her initial descriptions would have eliminated at least some as suspects right away. For example, if all her assailants had brown hair, that should have eliminated the blondes.) But what doesn't make sense is including ONLY suspects in a lineup.

[marions ghost]

180. Bottom line

she had no advantage over the accused in the type of lineup that was used. I don't think the Defense even cares about this. (It's only relevant if they can use it against her, convincing people in the same way that you seem to be convinced, that it gave her unfair advantage). The advantage is her's ONLY if she is correct and they are guilty. If she has chosen innocent players then that's greatly to the Defense's advantage and they will make mincemeat out of her.

Other evidence will be introduced which will support or undermine her ID's.

[pnwmom]

182. In yet another blow to the prosecution's case

it turns out that the nurse who performed the rape exam was still "in training" and not certified.


http://www.wral.com/news/9343920/detail.html

SNIP

"Wednesday's motion also claims that the initial examination performed on the alleged victim did not reach a conclusion as to whether she was raped and that the only trace of physical trauma included a scratch on the alleged victim's knee and heel.

Osborn writes that the alleged victim said she was hit, kicked and strangled, but that the investigator in the case, Benjamin Himan, omitted that "the examining physician … at 3:14 a.m. found no neck, back, chest or abdominal tenderness."

He also writes that the investigator's probable cause affidavit omitted that the sexual assault examination found that "no condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used during the alleged sexual assault."

The motion also states that the nurse who did the examination was not technically certified as a sexual-assault nurse, but that she was still "in training."

SNIP

[marions ghost]

189. My interest

in this case right now is limited to the usual pre-trial legal procedures--such as ID, DNA testing, various legal motions and filings, attempts to obstruct justice.

I'm not interested in discussing aspects of the case that remain to be explored at trial. This speculation about the medical evidence you have so oddly posted to me is just another sleazy effort by the Defense to create doubt and contaminate the jury pool. Don't be fooled. There is no way to know the truth or meaning of this speculation about the medical evidence at this time.

[pnwmom]

196. Sorry I couldn't read your mind.

[Karmakaze]

208. That evidenc eis already produced...

Remember that last person to be charged was charged on the basis of a "90% sure" ID. Importantly though, she said he had a moustache. The man she ID'ed never had a moustache and the photos from the night prove it. That right there is proof of a faulty ID.

Of course the defense cares about this!!! Are you nuts? The police violated THEIR OWN PROCEDURES in order to produce a line up guaranteed to result in a Lacrosse player being picked. That suggests that the police are TRYING TO FRAME the players. If you think that is not important to the defense, then I have a bridge to sell you!

It is very simple really, imagine this scenario: A mugging victim claims he was mugged by a black man. The police go out and pick any black man off the street at random and arrest him for the crime. They haul him into a line up, only for him to find himself being the only black man there. The witness sees ONE black man and points at him. Is that a fair line up?

Well the result is the same. In this case by having no one but the players in the line up, no matter who she chose, she would have chosen a suspect. So the ID is absolutely worthless. It means nothing because she could have done it blindfolded and got the same result. It is meaningless.

So the question is, why did the prosecution do it? Why did they hold such a faulty line up that is destined to be supressed by the judge? Could it be that they had no other way to point the finger at any of the players, and the prosecutor needed an arrest to bolster his chances of reelection?

Im not even a lawyer and I could get the lineup thrown out of court. These guys are gonna have the best laywers they can get. You can't tell me the prosecutor doesn't KNOW that the ID is gonna get tossed. Which of course is why he paid a private lab to come up with a bullshit DNA "match" - it in fact is not a match at all, but simply a "is consistent with". It could also be consistent with someone else.

The point is, the case as we know it right now is a sham. Sure there may be some "hidden evidence" but there also may not. If there is not, then by continuing to prosecute these men the Prosecutor is perverting the course of justice. Which is why legal professionals like FindLaw are saying the prosecutor should "put up, or shut up". He should lay out the "hidden evidence" if there is any, so that the public can SEE that justice is being done (another one of those pesky requirements of justice).

[pnwmom]

157. I said, "Of course it's not fair to attack the accuser. . . " What part of

that sentence didn't you understand?

OTOH, you didn't understand my point about the large lineup. Having a lineup consisting solely of suspects isn't right, whether there are six suspects or 46 suspects. One of the reasons we can trust an ID from a lineup is that the accuser has shown to be capable of picking out a suspect from a LARGER group of people who could NOT have been guilty of the crime. If she picks out somebody who wasn't even there, then her ID is no good.

In this case, all she could pick from were people who most likely attended the party. So she picks out a few. . . and -- no surprise -- they had all been at the party! But for all we know, she could have picked them blind-folded and done just as well.

The fact that she had 46 possible suspects might have made a fair lineup process long and tedious, but that's no reason it shouldn't have been done.

[Moosepoop]

165. You haven't seen this?

Of course it's not fair to attack the accuser as a whore, a nutcase, or in any other way. But I haven't seen that on this site.

Wow, for someone who spends as much time on these threads as you do, not to mention starting a number of the threads yourself, I'm not sure how you missed all the posts that have done just that.

Either you've seen them, and don't recognize them because they echo what you feel, or there's a reading comprehension problem at your end.

And you're the one telling other people to read what's posted, and they might just learn something. Try taking your own advice.

[Karmakaze]

174. present a link then...

just one.

[Blackhatjack]

33. Discovery Rules in NC require DA to disclose exculpatory evid before trial

Otherwise the defendant and their counsel cannot evaluate any kind of plea offer prior to commencement of a trial, and if evidence is not disclosed it may be barred from admission at trial or a mistrial may be declared.

AS to impeachment evidence regarding witnesses at trial, the defense is not entitled to receive that evidence until the witness testifies, and in that case the Defense will move and be granted a suspension of the trial to have an opportunity to examine the impeachment evidence before cross-examination.

Trial by ambush is not viewed favorably in NC, and the trial judge is going to be plenty upset with the DA if they hold back evidence that could assist he defendant in proving his innocence.

It is the timing issue that is preventing the public from knowing whether the DA has a case. However, the DA has a duty not to spend taxpayer money to effect a trial in a case where the evidence is not sufficient to reach the jury. Also, less well published, the DA has a duty to search for the truth which includes evidence that could prove the defendant's innocence, and where found to dismiss charges to promote the ends of justice.

Edit: ADDED --We just had two prosecutors investigated for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, which resulted in the Court overturning the defendant's conviction and release from prison after serving years on death row. The evidence involved the State's key witness. They failed to disclose the key witness's recorded statement to another witness that "they" had to "come up with a story"(presumably to satisfy the Investigators and extricate themselves from liability). They subsequently accused the defendant, and no mention was made of the existence of different initial "stories." The prosecutors were damned in the press, never apologized, and allowed to escape punishment because of a statute of limitation issue.

[pnwmom]

47. Thank you Blackhatjack. And welcome to DU!

[fishnfla]

44. So whats the ace up Nifong's sleeve?

The best evidence would be if one of the players turned state's evidence and they are somehow keeping that from the discovery

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. That's what I was thinking.

It must be something.

[pnwmom]

49. Why must it be something? Maybe the prosecutor saw this case

as a good opportunity for votes in the Dem. primary. He's probably going to wait a "decent interval" and then drop the case.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Hmm, you're right. It could be a big conspiracy.

"Well... as you can see... many of us are devastated by this news. This is obviously some kind of conspiracy meant to destroy an innocent man. And I have taken it upon myself to spearhead the Jim Cunningham defence campaign. But unfortunately my civic duties have created a conflict of interest... which involves you."

[pnwmom]

70. I didn't say it was a conspiracy of any sort. But the prosecutor may have

chosen to go forward with the case based LESS on the strength of the evidence and MORE on the value of the free media publicity in the month running up to his hotly contested Democratic primary election. It's entirely possible that, facing a primary in a district where the majority of voters were the same race as the accuser, the prosecutor decided that he might lose some votes if he DIDN'T quickly move to prosecute someone.

[progressivebydesign]

56. WHY are you constantly pushing this meme???

What's in it for you? Are you a Duke alumni? A la crosse player? A sports groupie? What's with all the energy on this?? It's a bit odd...

[pnwmom]

57. I'm a person who believes in our justice system, and a Democrat

who can't believe how willing so many other Democrats are to presume these guys are guilty. I have read DU'ers say they're probably guilty because their parents are rich. Because women never lie about these things. Because the students are white and "entitled." Because their parents are Republican. Because their parents LOOK Republican.

My son is clean cut and has short hair and is athletic. It has been a shock to me to realize how many DU'ers would look at him and just KNOW that he must be guilty of anything a prosecutor could throw at him.

[MadHound]

64. Yes, but why are you wishing to free the defendants now

Before the trial has even started, and after the Grand Jury found enough evidence to allow the trial to proceed?

That sort of attitude betrays you, that you are absolutely convinced that the defendants are innocent, and hence no need for a trial.

Yes, it is an inconvience for the defendants, things like this are. But hey, if that had the common sense to not throw a party where racists, strippers and underage drinking was present, that wouldn't be in this position. Play with fire like this, and once in awhile you will get burned. Whether they're guilty or innocent, hopefully they've learned a lesson about when, where and how to throw a party:shrug:

Let's just let justice take its course.

[pnwmom]

73. "Whether they're guilty or innocent, hopefully they've learned a lesson

about when, where, and how to throw a party"??????? Whose attitude is betraying WHO?

Because some students were stupid enough to attend or throw a party where strippers and alcohol and racial epithets were present, they deserve -- guilty or innocent of a rape -- to live under the cloud of violent felony charges for a YEAR?

It's easy for you to say "let's just let justice take its course." You think they deserve what's happening to them, just for having the nerve to go to the wrong kind of party. Ugh.

[MadHound]

76. You're taking statements out of context friend

What I meant by my statement is that when you throw such a party that combines such explosive possiblities, racist epithets, strippers, underage drinking, they shouldn't be suprised when something bad happens, either a rape actually occuring, or a false accusation.

Sorry, but that's a lesson I learned even before I attended college, you don't want to be drowned in shit, don't go to where it is being produced:shrug:

It isn't a matter of deserve or not, it is simply a matter that they put themselves in a pretty dicey situation and got burned. And like I said, I do hope that they've learned a lesson. Not because I'm a vindictive fuck, but because I hope that there isn't a repeat of this in the future.

[High Plains]

231. "an inconvenience for the defendants" ???

That's a pretty cavalier attitude.

Ah, yes, they should be subjected to this because they threw a party in bad taste.

Yes, let's let justice take its course. I will be looking for your posts here when this case ends. Of course, I imagine that you will be perfectly happy with a not guilty verdict because it will have shown that "the system works."

[LisaL]

219. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger?

WTF are you to tell others what they can and can not discuss? If you don't like it, go discuss something else. Frankly, I find your attitude odd. Are you Nifong's mother, perhaps? AV's cousin? Hah?

[Last Stand]

61. A 7-minute gang rape?

I'm inclined to agree that whatever evidence they have against these men should be made known. I assume they have some things they haven't disclosed as yet, but I hope that their case is substantial if they go forward.

[pnwmom]

63. Welcome to DU, Last Stand.

[Jade Fox]

74. I find your obsession with this case downright creepy...

To use and oldie but goodie: Get a life. Let the justice system do it's job.

[pnwmom]

78. So rather than actually read and comment on the articles, you'll

just make a judgement about me. That's certainly an enlightened attitude.

[Jade Fox]

81. No, I won't encourage you by commenting on your posted material.....

and if this obsession of yours is an example of what you consider enlightenment, please see my first post.

[pnwmom]

82. If you don't have anything to contribute, why not go somewhere else?

[Jade Fox]

84. And let you continue taking up space on this board.....

with your questionable agenda? Nope. Sorry.

The rest of us are not required to remain passive in the face of your "Tabloidization" of Democratic Underground.

[pnwmom]

95. You're just contributing to the amount of space this thread takes

up on the board. What a lame argument.

[LisaL]

206. Taking up space on this board?

What kind of nonsense is that? WTF put you in charge of deciding who is allowed to post, and who is not? In fact, you might take your own advice, get the hell away from the board and save valuable space.

[elehhhhna]

79. Trying the case in the media, CHapter 7,468,908

[pnwmom]

80. The prosecutor gave more than 70 interviews to the media in the

run up to his primary election camapaign, all about this case. The defense is still playing catch-up.

[LisaL]

238. Well, can you imagine what some DAs and police do when

the media is not there, if they were able to do everything they did in this case with media watching? Usually media's attention to expose problems with a system is good thing, no? Or are we now supposed to blindly trust police and prosecution? I guess they can do no wrong? When exactly did that happen?
I must have missed that new policy on DU. Let the system take care of it, ignore it, don't talk about it? WTF did we all start blindly trust that the system will always do a right thing?

[madmusic]

88. If these guys were Black, Latino or poor White, BYE-BYE for years.

[onenote]

89. and what exactly is your point?

Are you assuming that these guys are innocent but that equally innocent black, latino, or poor whites would get convicted? Undoubtedly its true (and unjust) that a minority or poor defendant is more likely to be unjustly convicted than a well-to-do white defendant, but that's hardly a basis for criticism of innocent white defendants.

[madmusic]

110. It was criticism of the system. n/t

[madmusic]

111. Dupe

[BrownOak]

92. It's not that clear anymore

I think the only part of your statement that I would agree with would be the "poor" part, but I wouldn't limit it to poor white people.

One of the popular points early on in this whole mess - before there was anyone arrested - was that if these guys had been black then they would all have been in jail by a given point in the case. But if a white prosecutor had behaved toward a group of black suspects in the same way that Nifong has handled this case, you can bet you would have seen more people examining his actions. That's assuming that you're dealing suspects who would draw the same level of attention such as a basketball team or some other public figures.

[madmusic]

112. You're right, "poor" is correct.

[Hosnon]

128. Or rather...if SHE was white...nt

[LisaL]

204. Lucky for them, they are not poor.

Although having money is apparently a deadly sin.

[stanwyck]

98. Could you just let our legal system take care of this?

and stop your continual obsession with this case? It's in the hands of the courts now.
All this endless speculation and gossip is meaningless.
Why do you keep posting about this?
Please. Let the courts handle this. DU doesn't need to be dragged down by tabloid drivel.

[pnwmom]

103. It's your choice. There are actual legal issues to be debated here

related to what constitutes a speedy trial, what it means to be presumed innocent, how an accuser ID's the defendants, when an indictment should be brought, etc. It doesn't have to be tabloid drivel unless people who don't even want to read the articles want to make it that way -- into a "he said, she said" case.

[stanwyck]

107. I guess I missed all your threads about

the black men accused of rape by white accusers who have to wait for their speedy trials.
Your motivation and obsession with the case bothers me. Is it because the accused are wealthy white men? And the accuser is black?
All of a sudden, you're obsessed with due process and "legal issues". Meanwhile, Texas executes black defendants who are mentally retarded. And others who could be innocent.
But your constant threads are about, gasp!, the audacity of accusing white men of rape.
And no speedy trial!
Horrors.

[pnwmom]

109. Fine. Why don't you start those threads?

[Karmakaze]

212. Dont fall for that bullshit...

They are trying to accuse YOU of what THEY are doing. They are the ones who would see innocent black men put on trial because that is what THEY think is justice.

I, and I believe you, think differently - I believe justice should be blind, BUT FAIR. It doesnt matter who the accuser or the accused is, what matters is the process by which justice is sought. In this case that process is flawed, either intentionally or through incompetence. I would be saying the same things if it was black men accused of raping a rich white woman.

The fact that such cases rarely get discussed here is because if they ARE discussed, no one here on DU would disagree. THAT is where the racism lies. In the fact that there are people on here that seem to believe white people have no right to justice simply becasue black people are often denied it. I believe differently I believe ALL people have a right to justice, and if THIS case can bring about the changes needed to help ALL people receive justice, then all the better.

The person you responded to seems to believe that justice should not be done in this case, which only allows the further injustices to be done in other cases, including the ones he or she feels more "appropriate" for discussion.

[pnwmom]

104. The legal system has chosen to let the three defendants sit under the

cloud of violent felony charges for another year. They - and the accuser -- deserve to have the case heard sooner, and not put behind less serious criminal cases like simple drunk driving.

[TorchTheWitch]

121. Big deal

A bunch of idiot pundits that think they know what the evidence is when they don't know anything more than anyone else outside the loop. Nice way of making yourself look stupid to say the DA needs to reassess his case when they have NO CLUE what his case IS and NO CLUE what the evidence is.

Dorks.

[pnwmom]

123. How do you know the attorney who wrote the column hasn't

been shown the defense evidence? Especially the alibi evidence that the prosecutor's refusing to look at?

Did you happen to read the articles or are you just making assumptions about what's in there? I'm asking because the author of the articles mentioned a number of specific details that I hadn't seen anywhere before.

For example, the fact that the time stamps on the video match the times that you can see on actual clocks and on wristwatches -- which all but eliminates the possibility that the time stamps were tampered with. And leaves only a seven minute period during which the whole attack could have occurred.

Maybe I misunderstood you before, but I've gleaned from your posts that you think that the assertions in the defense's legal findings cannot be trusted. That may be, but if the lawyers do lie in those filings -- if they claim, for example, that they have a piece of evidence that they don't actually have -- they can be disbarred. The court has to be able to trust that the lawyers have the evidence to back up the claims they make. So the penalties for deliberately lying about factual matters could be severe. I doubt if any good lawyer would want to risk his practice by lying for any of his clients.

From FindLaw's April 28th article:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060428_spilbor.html

"Let's start with the time-stamped digital camera photos. There was speculation that the time-stamps might have been altered - but defense attorneys pointed out that the time stamps matched the time shown on watches in the photos themselves, disproving that theory quite conclusively.

"The key photos place the accuser on the back steps of the house where the party took place at 12:30:47 a.m. - and there again (this time with a cut on her foot) at 12:37:58 a.m. - leaving only about seven minutes for the alleged rape to have occurred. Meanwhile, other photos make clear that there was no other time frame during which the rape could have occurred."

[TorchTheWitch]

127. Never happen - the defense isn't stupid

These defense attorneys aren't stupid, that's why whoever wrote this shit hasn't seen all the defense evidence, and I guarantee you they haven't seen any of the prosecution's evidence which is what MATTERS in the case. No attorney anywhere ever will try their case in the press no matter which side of the aisle they're on. Trials are for court rooms... DUH (geez, does it even need to be said?). The defense will show or claim to the press precisely what they want to for precisely the reason they want to... nothing more, nothing less. After all, it's their JOB to poison the jury pool however they can and try to convince the accuser to drop the case by publically raking her over the coals whether it's with information that is accurate or complete bullshit.

Therefore, whoever wrote this crap knows nothing more than the rest of us. This is nothing more than the same crap we've been arguing here for months. Even if for some bizarre reason the author(s) of these articles snuck into the offices of the defense counsel and read their entire file and examined all their evidence, they STILL wouldn't know enough to make any decisions as to whether or not the defendants are innocent or guilty because they wouldn't have seen any of the prosecutions evidence.

HOW can anyone make a determination as to whether or not anyone is innocent or guilty without examining the evidence from BOTH sides in a case? Why in the world do you think we have trials in this country anyway? Would you actually prefer it was done differently? Would you prefer that anyone accused of a crime is determined to be innocent or guilty OUTSIDE a court of law WITHOUT seeing ALL the evidence from BOTH sides? Apparently, that's exactly what the author(s) of these articles think because that's exactly what they're doing... and for some silly-ass reason, you agree with them.

Nifong HAS to go forward with this case as it meets the criteria for doing so... there is some physical evidence that the accuser was raped, the accuser identified her alleged attackers, and she wants to go forward to trial. PERIOD. That's ALL that is necessary to go forward to trial, and it is the DUTY of the prosecutor to go forward to trial when all these criteria are met, which they are. THE END.

I guarantee you that the defense knows there is evidence in this case that hurts their clients, and hurts them a LOT. Seligmann's attorney, Osborn, in his own recent motion that is entirely based on his interest in supressing evidence the prosecution plans to put forth at trial said...

http://www.wral.com/slideshow/news/9258203/detail.html
1. On May 18, 2006 the Durham County District Attorney's Office hand-delivered to the Defendant's counsel "Response to Defendant's Request for Voluntary Discovery, Statutory Notices and Reciprocal Motions." Contained within that discovery disclosure, the State noted: "Notice is also given to the Defendant, pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 15A-975(b), and where applicable N.C.G.S. 90-95(g) & (g1), of the State's intention to introduce at trial the following: (1) Evidence obtained from a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant when the Defendant was not present at the time and place of the execution of that warrant; (2) Scientific data accompanied by expert testimony; and (3) S.B.I. chemical analysis laboratory report and statement of chain of custody."

By the way... S.B.I. = State Bureau of Investigation

The SBI chemical analysis laboratory report is the toxicology report defense claims to not have. If the prosecusion intends to introduce it in court as evidence, then it says something pertinant to the case (in other words, most probably the presense of a date rape drug). If there's no evidence of a date rape drug in that tox report, the prosecution wouldn't have a need to introduce it at trial... in fact, if it just showed that the accuser was drunk or on some street drug, they definitely wouldn't want to introduce it at trial as it would hurt the prosecution's case rather than help it. They also wouldn't want to introduce it at trial if it showed nothing... there would be no point to introduce evidence that shows nothing, so it shows SOMETHING, and it shows something that is bad for the defense.

The reason that Seligmann's attorney is filing this motion is because they ALREADY want to try to supress evidence the prosecution has told them they intend to use at trial. If they already want to try to supress it, it says something nasty the defense is afraid of. Osborn ALREADY knows he wants to try to supress physical evidence and/or expert testimony... he KNOWS there's evidence that hurts his client so much that he doesn't want the jury to know anything about it. If Seligmann's alibi is as strong as Osborn has been claiming to the press, why in the world does he have any interest in trying to supress physical/testimonial evidence the prosecution intends to introduce at trial, and why does he have this interest to try to supress this evidence ALREADY when he said himself in his motion that he doesn't even know specifically what all that evidence is?

Bottom line... this just proves that Seligmann's alibi is not as strong as his attorney has been claiming to the press just as has been argued here for weeks on end. Seligmann's own attorney's motion shows that he wants to supress evidence, therefore, his client's alibi is not as strong as he has been claiming and may, in fact, be no alibi at all.

Now, you can continue to argue that Seligmann couldn't possibly have raped the accuser or been anywhere in the vacinity when the alleged rape occurred, but you would then have to pretend that Seligmann's own attorney isn't worried about the evidence that the prosecution intends to introduce at trial and is SO worried about it that he ALREADY knows he wants to supress portions of it, and specifically portions of physical evidence and/or expert testimony regarding physical evidence.

One more time... Seligmann's own attorney does not believe that his client's alibi is strong enough or sufficient to exist at all as he ALREADY wants to supress physical evidence and/or testimony regarding physical evidence that he KNOWS is dangerous to his client or he wouldn't have filed the motion to begin with.

[Kingshakabobo]

130. You make a pretty big leap when you say the defense is worried about

....the alibi just because they are looking to suppress other evidence. If I'm in a fight for my life, and until the charges are dropped, I want my attorney fighting on ALL fronts and not giving the other side ANY quarter. NONE. I just don't understand how you can say (A) is weak if they are arguing against (B). It doesn't make sense.

Re: The toxicology report. I've always believed that IF she was raped, she was given GHB. That COULD explain her "sudden" intoxication and, possibly, her behavior in the Kroger parking lot(in addition to and/or trauma). That said, I don't know how that implicates Seligmann even IF she is shown to have date-rape drugs in her system. As a matter of fact, it would make more sense of why she mis-identified Seligman and POSSIBLY Evans. Couple that with the bogus line-up and it's very possible at least two people are on trial that shouldn't be.

[pnwmom]

133. I agree. Even if she was raped by someone at that party, chances

appear to be high that she could have misidentified the particular assailants. She was drunk or under the influence of something. Later, she was shown a rigged line-up that included only lacrosse team members. Evans was one she couldn't identify at first, then said "90% sure" (a contradiction in terms) IF he had a mustache.

If she was raped and justice isn't done, the police should get a large share of the blame for not showing her a normal lineup that included people other than the 46 original suspects.

[TorchTheWitch]

138. This is about physical evidence

The line-up doesn't come into this at all. Osborn wants to suppress certain items of physical evidence and/or expert testimony regarding that physical evidence. That's what the motion is about... physical evidence. Osborn has repeatedly claimed that Seligmann had no physical contact with the accuser either consensual or otherwise and was not even there when the alleged rape occurred... therefore, if Osborn has been truthful in the press, there wouldn't BE any physical evidence concerning Seligmann, and no reason to try to suppress any of it much less have a need to decide WHICH items of physical evidence and/or expert testimony concerning that evidence to try try to suppress.

The line-up is an entirely separate issue, and Osborn already addressed that in a previous motion...
http://www.wral.com/slideshow/dukelacrosse/9141884/detail.html?qs=;s=1;w=800

[onenote]

146. actually, its about keeping options open

As I read it, the defense is arguing that the information provided by the defense as to certain evidence that the prosecution intends to introduce is too vague for the defense to determine whether a motion to suppress is appropriate and thus is seeking (a) more time to file a motion to suppress and (b) a more specific statement by the prosecution regarding the evidence that is contemplated. In addition, the defense is specifically demanding any tox studies on the grounds that, according to the defense, the prosecution has not produced any such studies but has otherwise suggested that they might exist.

Not sure how you get from there to (a) an intent to suppress specific physical evidence or (b) knowledge by defense counsel regarding the existence of specific physical evidence.

What am I missing?

[TorchTheWitch]

140. Not a leap at all

If you know how to read the meaning in a motion it's pretty evident what the person filing it is thinking and planning.

Osborn already knows he wants to suppress physical evidence that he claims has nothing to do with his client. Not only that, he wants to suppress SPECIFIC evidence and/or expert testimony regarding that physical evidence. If Seligmann's alibi is as ironclad as Osborn has been claiming, and Seligmann had no physical contact with the accuser either consensual or otherwise that he has been claiming there would BE no physical evidence he'd have any desire to try to suppress as there would BE no physical evidence regarding his client. If all he was doing is covering his bases, he'd just file motions trying to suppress ALL the evidence, but no, he's only interested in specific evidence, which is the reason for the motion in the first place. Why would he care about trying to suppress specific physical evidence if his client wasn't even there when any rape occurred, which he claims, and when his client had no physical contact with the accuser, which he claims? Whatever that evidence shows, Osborn is so worried that it is damaging to Seligmann that he doesn't want the jury to even know about it much less argue it in court.

That said, I don't know how that implicates Seligmann even IF she is shown to have date-rape drugs in her system.

There you go. If the tox report doesn't implicate Seligmann, why is his attorney interested in possibly trying to suppress it? But we don't know that Osborn is focusing on the tox report specifically as something he wants to suppress. All we know is that there is physical evidence, expert testimony regarding that evidence and/or chain of custody that Osborn wants to suppress. What that specifically is we don't know yet... could be the tox report, could be something else or any combination of physical evidence, expert testimony or chain of custody. I could guess that he's interested in suppressing the tox report since he already filed a motion to force the prosecution to produce it when there are other items we know of that haven't yet been produced, like the SANE report, which he isn't filing motions requesting the court force the prosecution to produce... he even mentioned the missing items like the SANE report in his motion but hasn't requested the court force their production as well.

[Kingshakabobo]

142. Let's assume worst case scenario.

Let's assume she DID have a date rape drug in her system. Why is that relevant to Seligmann?

Also, I just re-read the motion. It doesn't appear he is looking to suppress. He is only asking that the clock keep running on the suppress time-clock(10 days) since the state has not been forthcoming with full discovery. He is only keeping his options open at this point. The seems logical AND prudent.

I think you are reading WAY too much in to it.

[pnwmom]

131. Assuming that the defense isn't lying, and the toxicology

report has not been produced, wouldn't it make sense for the defense attorney to file a motion that would prevent any tox report from being sprung at them later? Wouldn't that be a normal defensive motion?

[TorchTheWitch]

139. No

Normal procedure if you want the prosecution to produce an item of evidence you file a specific motion requesting exactly that, which Osborn already did...
http://www.wral.com/slideshow/news/9258193/detail.html

There are no "normal defense motions". Each and every motion is specific for each any every thing you want to request the court do for you. Osborn is correctly filing motions for each thing he is requesting from the court. His motion about requesting a postponement of the deadline he has to file any motions to suppress the evidence he wants to likewise has been done correctly.

If you want the court to suppress evidence, you file a motion specific to what evidence or testimony you want to suppress to request that the court to do that. If you want the court to force the other side to cough up discovery, you file a motion specific to what discovery you want to request that the court force the other side to cough up. If you want to request the court to suppress the line-up, you file a motion requesting that the court suppress the line-up, etc., etc. You don't just file motions willy-nilly without rhyme or reason.

[Karmakaze]

175. You are contradicting yourself

First you claim that this motion to extend the deadline for filing a motion to supress means that that Osborn wants to supress something specific, then you claim that if Osborn wants to supress something specific he files a motion specifically to supress.

That is a contradiction. If Osborn KNOWS there is somthing he wants to supress, why file a motion for extension and not just a motion to supress?

You have read way too much into this motion and are using your faulty reading of it to infer guilt.

When I read that moption, all I see is a defense attourney saying "the state has not given us the evidence, and thus we can not meet the deadline to file for suppression of any evidence the state has not given us - please reset the clock so that the defence is given the time it is due when the state actually gives us the evidence."

The state claimed there is a lab report. There is no indication what that lab report is. It could be a toxicology report, it could be a report regarding the false fingernails, it could be anything. It could also be a report that has been falsified by the lab. So until the defense knows what the report is, how can they know whether to ask for it to be supressed?

Remember the defnce doesnt only ask for supression of evidence because it proves the defendant guilty - it could also be irrelevent, or it could be false or misleading.

For example a report that says a DNA test is "consistent with" the defendent is misleading because it makes it seem like an identification when in fact it is simply not an exclusion. A broken window is "consistent with" burglary. It is also "consistent with" a storm. A being "consistent with" B does not prove that B happened, it simply means that B is possible. But a jury could be misled by such evidence into believing that B has been proven, so a defense attourney would want such misleading evidence supressed.

[marshall]

181. How many more smoking guns for the defense will there be?

Now it appears the prosecution was trying to conceal the fact that the second dancer told the police a week after the incident that the allegation was a "crock" (her words).

Now I wonder what else will surface, piece by piece, as the defense wrests information out of the prosecution's hands.

[pnwmom]

183. And the nurse who performed the rape exam was still in training -- not

certified.

http://www.wral.com/news/9343920/detail.html

SNIP

"Wednesday's motion also claims that the initial examination performed on the alleged victim did not reach a conclusion as to whether she was raped and that the only trace of physical trauma included a scratch on the alleged victim's knee and heel.

Osborn writes that the alleged victim said she was hit, kicked and strangled, but that the investigator in the case, Benjamin Himan, omitted that "the examining physician … at 3:14 a.m. found no neck, back, chest or abdominal tenderness."

He also writes that the investigator's probable cause affidavit omitted that the sexual assault examination found that "no condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used during the alleged sexual assault."

The motion also states that the nurse who did the examination was not technically certified as a sexual-assault nurse, but that she was still "in training."

SNIP

The motion also states that the dancer, in an earlier private performance, had used some sort of device that could have caused some "signs" of penetration.

[LisaL]

202. There has already been more than enough information

to provide reasonable doubt for any reasonable person. For instance, even though Nifong hinted at date rape drug use, the woman had admitted to drinking alcohol and taking muscle relaxant flexiril. Flexiril can cause dizziness and drowsiness when combined with alcohol.
The woman had admitted drinking beer, although she could not settle on the exact amount she drank (ranging from nothing to a lot). Which is not surprising, as she kept changing the rest of her story as well.

[Karmakaze]

211. Guess what? Nifong says there is NO toxicology test!

Read it and wonder whatever happened to justice:

DURHAM, N.C. -- Lawyers representing one of three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape want details about any toxicology tests performed on the accuser, asking in a motion filed Monday whether such evidence even exists.

"No such toxicology report, if it exists, was provided to the defense," wrote attorneys Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner, referring to nearly 1,300 pages of evidence prosecutors provided to defense attorneys last week.

<SNIP>

"If there was a toxicology report available, it would've been included in the discovery I handed over to the defense," Nifong told WRAL on Monday.

Nifong told WRAL he had turned over all the evidence he has to-date and that when any new reports or documents come in, they too, would be handed over to the defense

http://www.wral.com/news/9256654/detail.html

So TorchTheWitch got it TOTALLY WRONG. Unless TorchTheWitch is saying Nifong is lying AND refusing to hand over evidence as required by law.

Leaving that aside for the moment, can anyone believe that a toxicology report was NOT done? I mean seriously! She was heavily intoxicated - and Nifong hinted that it was due to a date-rape drug, but NO toxicology report was done to PROVE it? I call shananigans!

On edit: Oh and by the way - for all those who believe that there is some secret evidence that the prosecution hasn't handed over, read that statment from Nifong again. He claims he has handed over ALL the evidence he has.

[NaturalHigh]

213. If he really has handed over all the evidence...

he should be censured for even bringing this to a grand jury. When the Duke players are cleared, I hope they sue the hell out of their accuser and Nifong. Then she can be on the nightly news defending herself, just like these guys have had to do.

This whole thing has turned into a travesty, no justice involved. Nifong only pushed it to get votes in the primary election from people who want to see some guys tossed in jail whether they are guilty or not. Sadly, we have many of those types here, the ones who ignore facts and just assume guilt.

[LisaL]

235. Not only that, she admitted to drinking alcohol, and taking

a muscle relaxant flexiril. Hello? Flexiril and alcohol do not mix well. Her admission makes Nifong's hinting and hypothetical speaking about date rape drugs completely repulsive. Considering she admitted to drinking and taking a drug flexiril on her own free will.

[Marie26]

129. How is this news?

Seems to be the same columnist expressing her opinion that the Duke Lacrosse players are innocent. As people have said here. I don't see any new evidence or news in those columns, other than rehashing all the same stuff we've already heard. BTW, the heavy snipping of these articles makes them a little disjointed.

[pnwmom]

132. They were long articles, snipping was required. I assume anyone who

wanted to know more could read the actual articles, which included legal analysis that was not rehashing.

[Katherine Brengle]

184. Yaay, another alleged rape victim bashing thread!

Let the courts sort it out for pete's sake. DU doesn't need this.

[pnwmom]

185. Who's bashing a rape victim?

I am bashing a prosecutor who I believe rushed this case to premature indictments in order to help him in his close Democratic primary election campaign.

[marshall]

186. The alleged rape victim is a victim of prosecutorial misprision

I opined last week that the alleged victim was subjected to racist taunts, humiliation, and less money than she would have expected for her performance. I was told I had a vivid imagination, but my supposition has since been supported by statements from the second dancer.

I don't want to bash a rape victim, and like many others I took her story at face value in the beginning and, due no doubt to my natural inclination to distrust rich frat boys, I assumed that indeed twenty of them did rape her as she alleged. When that number was reduced to three I just thought she was confused by the trauma.

The lack of DNA was the first thing that started me thinking there was something wrong here, exacerbated by the fact that the prosecution promised explosive revelations from the DNA tests. Then one of the accused had what (unless proven wrong) appeared to be an air tight alibi. This was followed by the photographic evidence with time stamps and watch images within the pictures themselves confirming the time, all refuting the prosecution's timeline. Then there was the seemingly ill conceived photo lineup that only included members of the team.

I do think that this matter warrants discussion. If an injustice is being done it is of interest to me and it seems to be of interest to others. And I include the poor women herself in the list of victims of the prosecution. The only person who seems to be getting any benefit from the case, other than the prosecutor, is the second dancer, who has been shopping for ways to turn this all to her advantage with no regard to the truth.

And I don't understand those who join in to say that this matter should not be discussed. What is gained from squelching the free discussion of a public matter that involves issues important to all citizens of a free society? If you don't care for the discussion find another thread to read and contribute to.

[pnwmom]

187. I guess I wasn't prepared for the degree of class anger that I've

experienced in these postings, although I shouldn't be surprised. People have plenty of reason to be very upset with the direction the country has been taking.

But I would still hope no one here would sincerely want any of these defendants to go to jail if they were innocent -- to somehow expiate for the crimes of their parents or well-off white people or male rapists who've eluded punishment. But I'm not sure. Based on some of the postings here, I think some DU'ers are so cynical about the justice system, they wouldn't care if these men WERE put in jail despite being innocent.

[LisaL]

201. Oh please. This woman is "victim" of her own making.

Who exactly made her to allege she was raped in the first place? Of course she might have not expected Nifong to run forward with her "case" so he can win his primary, but if she didn't allege she was raped, she wouldn't be in the situation she is in.

[NaturalHigh]

207. I think she did expect the prosecutor to go with the case.

Expect a civil case to be also filed soon, as she is already talking with a lawyer, some "civil rights" guy. She's hoping to extort big money out of these guys, in my opinion.

The victims in this case are the guys falsely accused of rape. Of course, for posting that, I'll now be accused of "smearing a rape victim".

[LisaL]

214. I don't know if she expected prosecutor to go forward with the case.

She did accuse three other men in 1996, and nothing was ever done. The case was never investigated. Perhaps she expected the same. Of course this time she accused rich white men, and Nifong wanted to win the primary, so it was not the same.
But I agree on the rest. And if somebody is going to accuse of "smearing the rape victim", I don't really care. I don't think this woman is a "rape victim", and I think the accused are victims of a horrible injustice.

[Jade Fox]

225. How do you know any ot this?

By reading what has been released to the press with the intention of manipulating the outcome of this case?

You should let the Justice System know they are no longer needed. Instead of trials, they should just consult you.

[LisaL]

226. Hey, that's not a bad idea.

Thank you for the vote of confidence.
:eyes:
Anyhow, I don't claim I "know" it. I am expressing my opinion about this case, just like you are expressing your opinion about this case, no? And pardon me if I don't blindly trust that our justice system is always doing a good job. Is that what I am supposed to do?

[NaturalHigh]

230. You get my vote too Lizzy.

:)

You've managed to avoid getting flamed too much in this thread. Normally you get more hateful replies than I do. The usual flamethrowers must be taking some time off.

[LisaL]

237. None are more blind that those who refuse to see.