Third Duke lacrosse player indicted

[Marie26]

DURHAM, N.C. (AP) -- A grand jury indicted a third member of Duke University's lacrosse team Monday on charges stemming from a woman's allegations she was raped and beaten at a team party earlier this year.

David Evans, a 23-year-old senior and team captain from Bethesda, Md., was indicted on charges of first-degree forcible rape, sexual offense and kidnapping. Two other players were indicted on the same charges last month.

Evans' attorney, Joseph Cheshire, didn't immediately comment on the indictment but told reporters to gather outside the Durham County magistrate's office at 2 p.m. That's where sophomores Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., and Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y., turned themselves in last month following their indictments.

The charges followed a March 13 party at an off-campus house, where a 27-year-old black student at nearby North Carolina Central University told police she was raped and beaten by three white men after she and another woman were hired as strippers.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/05/15/duke.lacrosse.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

[idgiehkt]

1. wow.

not looking good.

I wonder what else has happened with the one that sent that horrid e-mail.

[Marie26]

3. Probably not much

I know they searched his dorm room, but he wasn't one of the players that the woman identified as her assailants. But, if he wasn't an assailant, that email suggests that the other lacrosse players did know something about what had happened that night.

[timber84]

5. He was expelled from school.

[Marie26]

9. Good. nt

[pnwmom]

253. That's funny. On TV tonight they said he just graduated.

[zann725]

507. Graduiated first. NOW is starting to learn his "lesson."

Life's schooling is often slower and post-degree learned.

[IndianaGreen]

261. pnwmom is right, Evans was not expelled from school!

Evans, who graduated Sunday, was joined at the press conference by his parents and several of his teammates.

http://www.nbc17.com/news/9218519/detail.html

[Marie26]

273. We're not talking about Evans

The email was written by McFadyen, who was suspended (but not apparantly expelled) from Duke.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/425493.html

[bettyellen]

276. darling, you need ot read before jumping to the wrong conclusions...

spare us the guesswork and half truths.

[IndianaGreen]

277. You are projecting again

Dahling!

[bettyellen]

281. just try and post about those being discussed next time. instead of going

off half cocked about what you wish they were discussing. reading the posts twice might help you.
:hi:

[jberryhill]

292. Now kids....

You're both right.

Someone asked about the email author. Who was expelled.

pnwmom posted that she heard on TV that "he" graduated.

pnwmom's "he" was not the email author, and indiana clarified that "pnwmom was right Evans graduated".

indiana was straightening out the errant "he" about which pnwmom posted.

Yes, the OT was about the email author. But another guy, maybe wearing a fake mustache, slipped in there.

[jberryhill]

34. Dorm room?

Wasn't he one of the ones that lived in the house?

[timber84]

35. No he's the one that went back to his dorm room after the party

and shot off that stupid email signed with his jersey number.

[Psephos]

98. The email was intended to be a parody of American Psycho

Those who argue popular culture (video games, movies, tv shows) don't compromise judgment in the minds of those who consume them are in denial.

I am not justifying the idiot email or the idiot who sent it, but I've noticed an awful lot of people don't understand that American Psycho is a cult movie on campuses, and that the emailer was trying to ape it for subversive humor. I remember when parodies of some of the extreme scenes in Pulp Fiction were all the rage, too.

Peace.

[timber84]

103. Thanks for the info.

[wicket]

17. Welcome to DU!

:hi: :toast:

[pnwmom]

252. What isn't looking good? The prosecution's case?

Here's another article:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14586648.htm

"He said he asked police to administer a polygraph test, but they didn't. He said he passed a test ordered by Cheshire and administered by a former FBI polygraph examiner. "I passed that polygraph for the same reason that I will be acquitted of all these charges - I have done nothing wrong and I am telling the truth and I have told the truth from day one."

Cheshire said his office sent Nifong a copy of the polygraph analysis, but as of Monday Nifong had not responded.

During a photo ID line-up with police, the woman said she was 90 percent certain that Evans was one of the three men who attacked her. "He looks just like him without the mustache," a transcript of the line-up shows the woman saying.

Monday, Cheshire said Evans has never worn a mustache, and that photos of him shot a day before and a day after the party show him without one. Cheshire said "scores and scores" of people told him they've never seen Evans with a mustache."

The guy's never had a mustache, her attacker had a mustache, yet they indicted him anyway. Does this make any sense at all?

[TorchTheWitch]

318. the polygraph is inadmissable

Nifong isn't going to waste the time and the state's money to do a polygraph on Evans that isn't admissable. Polygraphs are only admissable in a court of law (in jurisdictions where polygraphs are admissable) if both the prosecution and defense agree beforehand that the results will be admissable BEFORE the polygraph is done. According to the defense, Evans already took a polygraph, so any polygraph results done in this case regarding Evans are already inadmissable.

Cheshire KNOWS the prosecutor would turn him down on a polygraph for Evans since it's not admissable, so it behooves him to air it in the media that his client is "willing" to take a polygraph administered by the prosecution.

Incidently, a polygraph is explained, tested, administered and interpreted by an expert. The expert that took Evans' polygraph was paid by Evans' attorney, and this expert would have coached Evans and interpreted the data favorably to Evans since that is what he was paid to do. A polygraph not taken by an INDEPENDENT expert is worthless and why they aren't admissable in court. The only polygraphs admissable in court are ones that both the prosecution and defense agree to before the polygraph is done and would obviously have to be done by an INDEPENDENT expert or both sides wouldn't agree to it being done at all.

Once again, this is a court of public opinion circus put on by the defense.

[djg21]

378. Maybe not admissible?

But it is something a prosecutor would consider in determining whether to pursue criminal charges. My sense, is that there will never be any conviction in this case.

[TorchTheWitch]

462. could very well be

I rather doubt there will be a conviction either simply because of the odds. Without some very strong evidence like conclusive DNA or testimony from one or more of the players I just doubt they'll be a conviction for anyone.

That said, if this rape occurred as the accuser said, Evans would probably pass a polygraph simply because according to her discription of who did what, he didn't put any of his parts inside any of her parts... Seligmann raped her orally, Finnerty raped her vaginally and anally, and Evans tried to strangle her (he was sort of the "hold her down and keep her still" guy). Technically, I'm not sure if his participation in a gang rape is a rape if he didn't put his parts into her parts... don't know of the legal distinctions there. According to Evans (mind you, if a rape happened as she described) he would probably honestly believe he didn't rape her, thus believing total innocence, and therefore, be able to pass a polygraph.

One can be guilty and pass a polygraph easily if one honestly believes they aren't guilty. He could hypothetically even have raped her in every orfice but still easily pass a polygraph if he honestly believed that a stripper or hooker can't be raped. I could see that... plenty of people truly believe that a stripper or hooker has by nature of her job title offered up her orfices to all and sundry to do with as they see fit. Believe it it not, I run into people like that when I work all the time, particularly the younger generation. If I only had a nickel for every time some schmuck tried to poke something into my "pink parts" only to be honestly taken aback that such behavior without my consent is unacceptable... "bu... but... but... you're a STRIPPER!" (like that makes me the community sperm bank or something). I don't understand it, but there it is.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Weak case that makes headlines for Nifong

I hardly call DNA from a trash can stuck to a an adheasive "stick on" fingernail evidence. Not ot mention only 1 out of 4 fingernails had any DNA on them

[Marie26]

4. That's for the jury to decide

I'm just posting the info. DNA is not conclusive, and a positive ID is not conclusive. The fact that the DNA matches the player that the woman had previously identified is pretty strong evidence, IMO.

[FreakinDJ]

10. Granted - the jury will toss it out

Like I said it is no mystery how only 1 adheasive backed finger nail would gather DNA evidence in the bathroom trash can

[TorchTheWitch]

12. Of course it's no mystery

Press-on nails haven't been adhesive backed for well over a decade. I can see you aren't in the habit of wearing them yourself.

[FreakinDJ]

28. Tough dealing with facts

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

1. A partial profile essentially proves that one is operating outside of well-characterized and recommended limits.

2. Contaminating DNA usually presents as a partial profile, although not always. For this reason, the risk that the result is a contaminant is greater than for samples that present as full profiles.

3. A partial profile is at risk of being incomplete and misleading. The partial nature of it proves that DNA molecules have been missed. There is no way of firmly determining what the complete profile would have been, except by seeking other samples that may present a full profile.

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

Sad but true - a lot of very sound evidence exist that these forms of DNA evidence are flawed from the onset

Sorry

[TorchTheWitch]

33. That's not what I was talking about

I was talking about your assumption that these nails are adhesive backed when they aren't.

And the fact that no DNA was found on 3 of the 4 nails would tend to refute how easy they would be to become contaminated in the trashcan. If it was easy they ALL would have had DNA on them whether any of it was identifiable or not. Couple that with the fact that the partial belongs to that of one of the 46 players the accuser ID'd and it certainly helps the prosecution's case. By itself, it more than likely wouldn't be enough. But I'd be interested to see if that pubic hair that was found on the accuser matches the same person in a microscopic comparison of that hair and a sample from him.

[Spike from MN]

86. Here's some more info on partial DNA matching.

It seems that a partial DNA test is often as an exculpatory tool. This appears to be true in the Duke case as well.

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

At the same time, scientists ruled out a possible match with any of the other 45 students, according to the sources.
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-733481.html

Thus while a match may or may not be significant a MISMATCH certainly is and thus from the info we have so far, it would appear that 45 of the players came up as mismatches. One did not.

As for a partial match, we don't have the particulars yet on exactly what they found but I'll throw this out there for some background info:

Typically alignment models try to maximize the number of matches, and minimize the number of mutations (e.g. edit distance). There is generally the tacit assumption that the sequences themselves are random (i.e. incompressible).

The compressibility of non-random sequences should be taken into account when obtaining their alignment. As an example, consider sequences in which runs or repeated letters are common. The figure below shows a low information region (AAA) and a high information region (AGT) and partial matches that might occur in alignments:

...AAA... ...AGT...
...AAA... ...AGT...

The second partial match is more significant because AGT is more surprising and therefore less likely to have occurred by chance in both sequences. Thus, the alignment incorporating this partial alignment should be given a better `score' than the first.

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~powell/papers/cats98/lowInfoAlignment.html

So, from that it would appear that the actual sequence that matched (and the probability of finding that same sequence in, say, a random portion of the population) is an important determining factor with regard to just how good of a "match" it is.

Partial DNA matches are often used to determine whether or not two people are related. These types of matches sometimes come up in cases where they have a person's DNA on file from a previous offense. If that person isn't the guilty party, the partial match may point to a relative of that person, mainly because they share genetic material and thus have some DNA sequences in common. An example of such a case can be found here:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002108.html

I couldn't find any information regarding the odds of others in the general population sharing the same partial sequences but since partial DNA tests were used to identify the 9/11 victims, I would venture to guess that they are fairly confident that a partial match in the case of relatives is a good indication they that have correctly identified the person in question. Partial matches are also used in geneology to determine whether or not two people are related so again, it would appear that they have at least some degree of confidence in the test.

Now, depending on the specifics involved, it may be that a partial DNA match in and of itself may not be enough to convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe a partial match is more commonly used ALONG WITH other evidence rather than as a standalone mechanism to implicate someone.
Here is one example:

A semen stain found on the sleeve of a green tartan shirt also taken from the van provided another partial DNA match to Mr Whiting.

Mr Chapman said only one in 6,800 men could possibly have the same DNA profile.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1680856.stm

The last line is significant. Given a large population, "1 in 6,800" could match thousands. But used in conjunction with other evidence, that number can be greatly narrowed down such that other "matches" are excluded and the partial match, along with other evidence, can be used to implicate the suspect.

Also, I'm not sure where the "1 in 6" number regarding the odds of a match in this case is coming from but I believe jberryhill stated that the defense was throwing that number out there. I don't know where they got that number from as from what little time I have had to look into the issue of odds on a partial DNA match, the numbers I have found have been much higher. Here's an example:

It is necessary to consider only the DNA evidence. Valerie Tomlinson, a forensic expert, gave evidence for the Crown. She had analyzed the cigarette ends found at the scene of the five burglaries and undertaken STR profiling. Seven different regions of DNA were tested, including the one that indicates the sex of the person from whom the sample originated. A similar STR profile was produced relating to the appellant and was found to correspond with those taken from the cigarette ends. In relation to the first four burglaries, all seven regions of DNA matched. In her opinion the probability of a false DNA match in these circumstances based on the assumption that the appellant had no close relatives was 1 in 86 million. In relation to the cigarette end found at the fifth burglary, only a partial profile could be produced and so only five regions of DNA matched. In her opinion, the probability of a false DNA match in these circumstances, based on the assumption that the applicant had no close relatives, was 1 in 79,000.

Under cross-examination she conceded that if the appellant had two brothers the probabilities involved would reduce to 1 in 267 and 1 in 32 respectively. She agreed that the results do not mean that the cellular material actually did come from the appellant. She said that it was not, from the prosecution's point of view, as good as that. She also confirmed that DNA evidence should not be used in isolation and without other supporting evidence, however tenuous. DNA evidence in itself was not proof.

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/DNA_Watters.html

With only 5 regions of DNA matching, the odds in that case were still 1 in 79,000. It drops down to as low as 1 in 32 if you include the two siblings. However, since no one has stated that any of the Lacrosse players are related nor that anybody's brothers, dads, etc. attended the party, we can perhaps assume that no one at the party was a close relative of any of the other attendees. That would bump the probability back up to something that's probably closer to the 1 in 79,000 range.

Also, please note that as stated above, the sequence itself is an important factor in determining the probability of a match. Since we don't know any of the particulars about the actual DNA match yet, we have no idea where the probability falls for this particular case. Given that, unless they have more information they're not giving out, I find it a bit irresponsible for the defense to throw out the "1 in 6" number without stating how they arrived at that number.

[jberryhill]

135. From the article which threw around numbers...

...it isn't clear where the "as low as" figures were coming from, but I also mentioned that if they were suggesting THIS test was as low as 1 in 6, then you'd get more than one match out of 46 people, so it couldn't be that low.

If it is as high as 1 in 79,000, why, then that nails it for me - there is no way that Evans can credibly deny that the nail did indeed come out of his trashcan.

[pnwmom]

255. Actually, I heard on TV (for whatever that's worth) that the

DNA was found on the outside part of the nail , not underneath as you might expect

[timber84]

6. I'm curious to the defenses' accusations about the way the

photo line up was handled. I have not seen much talk here about that.

[TorchTheWitch]

8. I've seen dueling attorneys on that

The general consensus between both defense attorneys and former prosecutors seem to think the photo ID will probably get a pass. There may be transcripts available from various shows on that.

Personally, I don't know what to think. Seemed like a damn stupid way to do a photo ID.

[Marie26]

11. I sort of agree

It'll probably stand, but the defense could attack the line-up as a violation of the defendants' due process rights. And it seems like a mistake to do anything that could possibly exclude the victim's identification, especially when it's so easy to avoid that problem.

[TorchTheWitch]

25. Unless

They already have enough evidence that her ID won't matter or won't matter very much and her ID was more or less a formality. That's the only reason I can think of.

[timber84]

26. I would think that an ID in this kinda case would be very

important given the lack of conclusive DNA matches.

[FreakinDJ]

29. Good argument to toss out the photo line up

Nifong convienently said it was not supposed to be a photo line up "of course" but the method is so flawed it is being challenged

[TorchTheWitch]

30. so would I

Unless they have testimony or something from someone at the party. I don't know... seemed like a really unnecessary stupid risk.

[BrownOak]

67. But how risky is it really?

There's no way this evidence, which is likely to be key to the prosecution gets tossed in something this visible. Nifong had to have known that when he instructed the police to abandon their policy of including fillers in the lineup.

Still, he has to know that the flawed lineup will cast some doubt into the alleged victim's ID of the suspects. As Torchie said earlier, it could be because he's so confident in everything else around the case. But I think it's equally plausible that he's not confident and that the thing he really couldn't afford was for the AV to identify a person that wasn't on the team and therefore not at the party. In fact, there are several things that would lead to that conclusion:

-If he had strong evidence outside of the ID, why the need to wait for the second round of the DNA tests? Why the need for those tests at all? Why not indict all three guys at the same time.

-On the Friday before the first grand jury, the police visited several players to interview them without their attorneys present. The questions they asked were if the players would tell them who was at the party. This would indicate to me that there was some doubt in Nifong's mind in that regard.

-Two weeks ago Nifong announced that they were going to be reopening the deferred prosecution arrangements against all lacrosse players unless they could prove they weren't at the party. Again, this shows he had some doubts about who was at the party. The first guy they went after on those deferred prosecution deals.... Dave Evans.

[jberryhill]

119. But remember

Nifong sold some big woof tickets before the first round of DNA tests. In his filing at the time, he was pretty confident.

He might have believed those results would be so conclusive that he wouldn't need the ID - and which would involve putting the victim on the stand.

Since then, he's had to do a lot of patch & fill.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Actually the photo line up is cited

in the defense motion to remove Nifong from the case

In what may very well become a landmark case.

The photo line up went against published Durham City Police Dept's own recomendations and normally accepted proceedures

[TorchTheWitch]

21. that motion is dead in the water

You can file a motion to dismiss for procedural misconduct, but not to get a prosecutor removed from a case. That motion was just stupid and won't go anywhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12594911/from/RL.2/
YALE GALANTER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. I mean, the shot of this motion being granted is somewhere between slim and none.

I disagree with Mark. I don't like the motion. In part, frankly, the reason I don't like the motion is because it's couched improperly. This should have been couched as a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct. The remedy for prosecutorial misconduct is not throwing a D.A. off the case. The remedy in a court of law is dismissal of a charges or and collusion of evidence.

And that's why I don't like it. I mean, legally it's just not well founded. It's not based on a real conflict. It's based—you know, it's articulate and it's creative. But it's just not well couched in law. It should be a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct, because the facts are laid out as if it's a misconduct motion.

<snip>

ABRAMS: All right. It's clearly, so everyone agrees — let's go around and make sure that everyone agrees. Yale, the D.A. is not getting dismissed based on this motion, right?

GALANTER: Not a prayer or a shot.

ABRAMS: Mark Edwards?

EDWARDS: Not dismissed.

ABRAMS: John?

BURRIS: No chance.

ABRAMS: Susan?

FILAN: No way.

[BrownOak]

68. It's no accident that

the defense filed that motion on the day before the election.

[Marie26]

54. Silly

Even if the line-up violated due process, the remedy is to overturn the conviction, not remove the prosecutor. If they want to allege prosecutorial misconduct, the remedy is a dismissal of the charges, not a removal of the prosecutor. This just seems like a defense attempt to draw media attention to the line-up process w/o actually making a real legal challenge to how it was done.

[jukes]

14. trying a bit hard there, freak...

hardly worth a naysay, either. unless you have an agenda...

[pnwmom]

254. Not only that, it was on the outside (convex) part of the nail

which was pulled out of a waste basket full of . . . waste.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

7. Interesting angles are the backgrounds & previous legal problems...

of the accuser & accusees. None of them were great citizens and they all have some criminal background. What is interesting is how they will spin this. If you go after the women then the activities of the Duke players should be in play as well & vice versa. Some of the players have committed assaults against gay men, but served no prison time - light slapped on the writs probation. Guess it helps if you can afford good lawyers. This may be more of a privilege vs. non-privileged issue, than of race.

[pnwmom]

299. Are you talking about offenses of the 3 accused, or of other

players?

[pnwmom]

302. Anyone catch Tucker (ugh) Carlson on TV tonight?

I was switching channels when I heard him talking to some woman about this case. She was saying (in other words) that perhaps the prosecution has more than they're showing, because otherwise why would they have prosecuted such a seemingly weak case.

Then he said something like: but that's what we all thought about Iraq -- that they knew more than they were telling us -- but we were wrong, they didn't!

[Brotherjohn]

15. Saw the most disgusting thing for sale yesterday. A Duke Lacrosse t-shirt!

I can't imagine what kind of excuse for a human being would make and sell such a thing. Whether these guys are innocent or guilty, what do you think the message of this shirt was?

This was in a MALL store, in Florida, no less. It's not like it was at a Duke University athletic shop or anything (and I'm sure they don't have much demand for lacrosse shirts anyway).

[Marie26]

16. Obnoxious jocks, unite! nt

[Kingshakabobo]

22. Then you will really LOVE the fact that students wore jersey numbers

on their mortar boards during graduation. It was mentioned in an article posted in the sister thread in GD.

[0007]

18. What a fiasco!

[timber84]

19. agreed, n/t

[Marie26]

20. In what way? nt

[timber84]

23. That its a fiasco

[Marie26]

24. Thanks for the explanation.

I can clearly understand now why someone would feel this indictment is a fiasco. The detailed evidence, eloquent arguments, and logical conclusions were very persuasive. I don't mean to be sarcastic (maybe a little), but I'm curious as why anyone would feel that way. To me, it seems like the evidence against this player is the strongest of the three:

- Player's DNA matches the DNA found under the woman's fingernail.
- Player was identified w/90% certainty by the woman before the DNA match was even found.
- Player was the team captain of the lacrosse team, lived in the house where the assault allegedly occured, and made the reservation for the two dancers.
- Player made the reservations under a false name, and, according to the dancers, the reservation was made for a bachelor party of 5 men, not a lacrosse party of 40+ drunk college students.
- Player lived in the home, planned the party & was presumably present at the lacrosse party.
- After police came to the home 10 minutes after the dancers left, the lights were turned off & the house was abandoned. This player lived at the house & planned the party. So where was he?

Other odd things:
- Player's attorney (Cheshire) has been extremely vocal since the beginning of this case & has often spoken to the media about the cell phone photos, the defense timeline, Seligmann's alibi, and the "lack" of DNA evidence linking player to the crime. The attorney's aggressive involvement suggests that they thought an indictment was pending against this player. Why would they think that?
- Player's attorney gave a press conference last week implying that the DNA evidence exculpated the lacrosse players. He did admit that there was "some" DNA evidence matching other players, but seemed to forget that his own client was the player matched.

[timber84]

27. Do you not agree?

[Marie26]

31. Depends what you mean

I agree that the media circus has become a fiasco, but I think that these are very serious charges, and I'm glad to see that the DA is pursuing this case. I don't know whether he can prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but to me, there is more than enough evidence here to justify this indictment.

[timber84]

32. When I read people here arguing about the correct make up

of press on fake nails, it makes me just shake my head.

[jberryhill]

37. Relax, it's a discussion board...

I, for one, know more now about artificial nails than I think I would ever know.

But these kinds of discussions based on partial data and spin tend to be like that. Any legal controversy turns on absurd and bizarre minutiae.

[timber84]

38. I'm comlepety relaxed just amazed at what people are

arguing over, and yes I am a better person now for knowing how press on nails really work.

[jberryhill]

44. Oh well..

After intensive discussion of how long it takes a pint of Haagen Dasz to melt during the OJ trial...

[timber84]

46. lol

[TorchTheWitch]

45. there's an obvious reason for the explanation

Seeing as some people are still assuming that contamination DNA from the trashcan would have so easily stuck onto those nails because of the sticky backing they don't actually have. Seeing as they aren't sticky-backed, and 3 of the 4 nails had no DNA of any kind (contamination or otherwise) it seems clear that such rampant contamination from the trashcan ain't happinin'.

[timber84]

47. Yeah but getting DNA from a place where someone lived

on a daily basis doesn't seem inconceivable.

[TorchTheWitch]

52. but fairly unlikely

considering that 3 of the 4 nails had no DNA of any kind either contamination or otherwise on them.

Couple that with the fact that the DNA found happens to belong to the resident of the house that she identified and not that of the other two residents.

[BrownOak]

70. But the inverse of that position is

that all 4 nails breaking off in a struggle would lead you to believe that the results would be more than just a partial match on 1 out of 4 nails?

Or, to put it a different way, which appears more likely:

That in a violent struggle that breaks off 4 fake nails, only 1 out of 4 of them will have any DNA and that would only be a partial match to someone

or

That when placed in the same environment only 1 out of 4 nails would pick up contaminated DNA.

[Kingshakabobo]

156. Could it be that she is biased, in her I.D., to..............

........the people she dealt with?

In other words, if she is lying, wouldn't she pick out a more familiar face? It wouldn't make sense to pick random faces. One would pick the person that met her at the door, paid her, etc.

That's if she IS lying.

[TorchTheWitch]

463. Well now, hypothetically

If she is lying (which I don't happen to agree with, but whatever) I don't know if she'd pick out anyone more familiar to her or just random people. Since even in this hypothetical we can't know her motivation for lying, it would be impossible to judge what would move her to pick any particular person. There just doesn't seem to be any way to figure that out one way or the other. Besides, it's kind of pointless to speculate since we don't know which of the guys would be more familiar to her anyway... we don't know who she talked to, or who met her at the door, or who paid her or any of that.

[pnwmom]

297. The DNA came from the outside of the nail, according to

something on MSNBC tonight.

Wouldn't it have been very easy for a nail to have rubbed up against something like a used tissue, and acquired some DNA?

No stickies involved.

[TorchTheWitch]

464. And where did MSNBC get this info?

The defense maybe? I can see the defense making a claim like that since it would tend to lead one to think just what you're thinking... which would be exactly what the defense would want people to think by saying it.

If they aren't willing to show the DNA report, I'm not going to trust a single thing they say about it.

Incidently, press-on nails don't have a "sticky" side that remains so once they come off... they haven't been made that way in well over a decade, maybe two.

[Kingshakabobo]

158. Apparently, the nails were placed in the trash by one of the players..

....after the party. Could it be possible for the owner of the house to transfer PARTIAL DNA when cleaning the mess in his OWN bathroom after the party?

[jberryhill]

159. He also claims

...and he should win an award for this one...

...that when the police came to search, he helped out and retrieved the nails from the trash. Presumably so they could then put it in a little baggy to protect it from contamination.

Doh.

[Kingshakabobo]

165. The kid sounds credible to me.

His willingness to take a lie detector test goes a long way with me. Also, his "alleged" cooperation with the prosecutor.

MSNBC had a former prosecutor on who was amazed that the DA refused to talk to the suspect.

[bettyellen]

173. lie detectors are incredibly unreliable... he offered to show results he

had obtained by hiring his own expert... that's a joke. and now that he's had an expert coach, a lie detector would be a waste of time.

the expert i saw- also on MSNBC, said it was likely this lawyer was not telling the whole story- had put conditions on the meeting, etc. he did not think the lawyer was being completely forthcoming about it.

[Kingshakabobo]

178. He says he asked the DA to give him a polygraph.

It was only AFTER the DA refused that he used his own.

[bettyellen]

180. i didn't hear that chonology at all. but no one would be stupid enough

to test someone who's worked with a coach.

but the expert i saw said his lawyer was leaving out lots of details about this "evidence" and the meeting they requested.
that wouldn't be a big surprise, would it?

[Kingshakabobo]

182. The expert was speculating as to why the DA wouldn't meet.

The other "expert" was astonished that the DA -DIDN'T- allow a meet. According to her, any meeting is better than no meeting because the prosecutor can lock someone in to a story and bludgeon them with it at trial. Lawyer or no lawyer, condition or no condition, the fact that they wanted to meet says a lot....IMHO.

As for the "coaching" stuff...Where do you get that? We all know the CIA and other agencies rely on polygraphs when dealing with "experts."

I know I would never take a polygraph, especially if I was guilty. I would claim privilege. Of course, I took one once. The examiner and my boss had a good laugh about how I was able to be read like a book. I wasn't a suspect. Rather, I was a "filler" as they had a suspect. I did fail a portion of the test because I started dwelling on something I did in college. It was scary how it worked. As an attorney, I would never allow a "guilty" client anywhere near one of those things.

[bettyellen]

184. the kid himself said they hired an FBI expert and wanted to show the

results to the DA! i thought that was so cute, up there with helping the cop search the room.

and if they set conditions that the DA couldn't agree to, then they could easily claim they wanted to meet, but were denied the opportunity.
i wouldn't discount that they'd use that as a ploy. they are trying it in the press big time.

i wonder what the hell they think is going to clear this guy and why they wouldn;t just share it with the press, like they've done with anything else that could possibly help them. that stinks to high heaven.

[Kingshakabobo]

185. AFTER he was denied a DA hosted polygraph. n/t

[bettyellen]

187. he said hosted? i don't think so. so why are they hiding this evidence

that will set this kid free? what's your take on that?

[Kingshakabobo]

193. I don't know what evidence you are talking about?

Perhaps we will see more in the days to come, re: this suspect, now that the cards/indictments are on the table.

Because this case is, arguably weak, I find the attempt to fully cooperate interesting. In other words, it would make more sense to dummy-up and see them in court. That's what a guilty person would DEFINITELY do.

As for the speculation that these guys planned the gang rape in a house full of 40-46 people by using fake names, doctored photos, crooked cabbies, impartial next-door neighbors, fixed ATM machines and a mustache: Occam is rolling in his grave. I know I wouldn't give an escort service my real name. Especially if I was on Dean Wormer's "double secret probation" like these guys were. These guys were on the bubble with the school and coach and they knew it.

He said he only did a private test AFTER the DA refused to administer the test. He didn't use the word "hosted" if that's what you mean. That was me trying to type fast and cut a corner. It is DEFINITELY their contention that they offered up a DA administered test.

[bettyellen]

197. the lawyer said he has info that will 100% clear this guy

and the DA refuses to look at it. sorry, but that is seriously suspect.
if it was remotely airtight, they leak it to the press like everything else.

the boys admitted to admitted to hiring a sex worker, lying about the party, and lying about their names to the business and the strippers in order to confuse the ID....and the defense lawyer was the one to cast doubt on the time stamps and therefore the timeline... so that makes the ATM less significant now....

so what's so strange here? the mustache? okay, i'll give you that.
;(o

[Kingshakabobo]

201. I'm glad you brought that up.

Everybody here was in a tizzy over the attorney's dispute over the time-stamped photos. I never heard an attorney call in to question the validity of THEIR OWN exculpatory photo evidence. What I DID hear was one attorney beefing about the premature release because it tipped their hand vis-a-vi THEIR time-line. It WAS a "strategery" mistake to release those because, magically, the prosecution's time-line would suddenly shrink, twist and stretch to get around those photos. The impartial next-door neighbor's time-line shows the victim re-entering the house @ 12:30 to get raped. At least that WAS their time-line. I have a feeling that time will get more fuzzy before trial now that one of the suspects is getting cash at 12:24.

Suspects lie. Victims lie. Defense attorneys lie........none of those will change the past and change the fact that someone, maybe, was raped..........but a prosecutor lying CAN put an innocent kid away for 40 years. I know too many cops that BRAG about perjury.........when they "know" the suspect is guilty, that is.

[Marie26]

223. No, it was a mistake

because the photos contradicted the defense's own timeline. D'oh! Releasing those photos was a big mistake on the defense's part, and they know it.

[Kingshakabobo]

235. I don't know what you are talking about? The photos match the ...

....neighbor's eyewitness, the cabbie, phone records, and the ATM. Unless I'm missing something?? Tell me where I'm wrong. I'm referring mostly to Seligmann and the fact that I think her story stinks when it comes to him. I think it is quite clear he is not guilty. I think the mis-identification of him casts doubt on the whole ball of wax. In other words,thank god she fingered someone who had proof he was across town when the crime was to have been committed.



>>>>>>>>>>>>



12:03:57 a.m., (photo time stamp) Photo of both strippers leaving room. The photo clearly shows that the accuser left behind one of her shoes.

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 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.


Between 12:10 a.m. and 12:30 a.m.: No photos were taken between 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.

And when I came out, this entire alley was full of men kind of yelling, and I overheard a lot of talk about getting money back and the money they'd spent or whatever. And the young women were back in the car in front, and one of the young men was leaning into the driver's side door, speaking with her. But at that point, the situation seemed to calm down a little bit, and they were able, I guess, to convince one of the girls to go back inside.

And that's at the point where I overheard her talking about going back and getting her shoe. So the young ladies went back into the house, and at that point, nobody was out in the alley. The situation seemed pretty calm. And I was back in the house

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

The accuser said later that both women re-entered the house after one player apologized for the behavior during their dance. She said two men then pulled her into a bathroom, locked the door and said, "Sweetheart, you can't leave."

It was then, she told the police, that Mr. Seligmann forced her to perform oral sex, and Mr. Finnerty raped and sodomized her and the third suspect strangled her, according to a transcript of a photo identification session with police on April 4. The transcript was obtained by WTVD in Raleigh, N.C. She told the police that the attack lasted for about 30 minutes.

Defense lawyers say the rape could only have happened in an improbably short period, between 12:04 and 12:30 a.m.

The accuser identified the first names of three men who attacked her at the lacrosse party, but said the players were using different names at different times. From original Probable Cause Affidavit dated March 27, 2006:

Shortly after going back into the dwelling the two women were separated. Two males, Adam and Matt pulled the victim into the bathroom. Someone closed the door to the bathroom where she was, and said "sweet heart you can't leave." The victim stated that she tried to leave, but the three males (Adam, Bret, and Matt) forcefully held her legs arms and raped and sexually assaulted her anally, vaginally and orally. The victim stated she was hit, kicked, and strangled during the assault. As she attempted to defend herself, she was overpowered. The victim reported she was sexually assaulted for an approximately 30 minute time period by the three males.

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.)

12:25:00 a.m., (cell phone record?) Reade Seligmann calls girlfriend from cell phone.

12:26 a.m., Cab driver, Moez Mostafa, drove Seligmann and his friend, Robert Wellington, to the Cook Out fast food restaurant. From Mr. Mostafa's affidavit:

I drove into the left drive-thru lane of the Cookout Restaurant. The young men ordered a lot of food. As I remember it was around eighteen or nineteen dollars worth of food....We were there for about five minutes or more.

12:30:12 a.m., (photo time stamp) The accuser is on the back porch, carrying what appears to be her purse and a makeup bag. Her clothes are intact.

12:30:34 a.m., (photo time stamp) The accuser is still on the back steps of the house.

12:30:47 a.m., (photo time stamp) Photo of accuser on back porch apparently smiling.

12:31:26 a.m., (photo time stamp) But 30 seconds after the last photo, next photo shows the alleged victim stumbling down the back steps of the house.

12:37:58 a.m., A series of photos beginning at this time shows the woman lying on her left side on the back porch, seemingly passed out or asleep. Pink splotches are on a wrought-iron railing beside her. She had visible cuts on her legs and buttocks that did not appear in the previous photos.

The cuts may be from falling. The cuts on her buttocks line up with the edge of a screen door she may have hit on the way down.

12:38:07 a.m., (photo time stamp) The accuser is lying on the back steps. A tan object can be seen in the background.

12:38:18 a.m., (photo time stamp) The accuser is still on the ground.

Many of the photos taken on the back porch show pink splotches, which the defense says is undried nail polish. They claim the accuser was polishing her nails in the bathroom between 12:10 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. - - not being raped.

12:41:32 a.m., (photo time stamp) The accuser is seen getting into a black Honda Accord helped by a partygoer. The accuser is in the passenger seat.

[Marie26]

360. It's a long story

- The defense's timeline doesn't match the neighbor's account, or the defense's own photos. This was gone into on a different thread, but basically, the defense said the dancers danced for a few minutes, then ran & shut themselves in the bathroom for 20+ minutes, then left the house. The players locked the house door so the dancer couldn't get back in, she stood on the stoop awhile, "fell", & then drove away. But according to the dancers & the neighbor, the dancer did go back in after being persuaded by a player. In the 12:30 shot of her leaving, she has both a purse & a make-up bag, but the make-up bag was later found inside the house - along w/her cell phone, money & ID. She must have gone back in after that photo, as the neighbor & dancer stated. The defense's timeline is contradicted by their own photos, and the neighbor's testimony.

- The defense (through Cheshire, again) intially said that she was intoxicated upon arrival, however, the photos show her acting normally & performing w/o problems when she arrived (which corraborates the 2nd dancer's statements about her appearance, and the neighbor's statement that she didn't seem drunk when she arrived.) Then, the photos show her collapsed & blacked out on the stoop after spending an hour at the house. Instead of bolstering the defense's initial claim she was impaired at arrival, the photos suggest that she became impaired (to the point of black-out) while at the house.

- In addition, the DA is apparantly going to claim that the defense doctored some of the time-stamps; and that the 12:41 shot of her allegedly leaving is actually her arriving. This would be easy to prove at trial & if it's true, the photo time-stamps would have no value at all.

[Kingshakabobo]

365. I agree the photos will show if they have been altered....

....but some of the photos match a watch on someone's arm. I guess the players changed their watches when they were pasting funny mustaches on their faces??

That's a ridiculous theory and easy to disprove. As a matter of fact it HAS BEEN disproved.

>>>>>>>>>>11:02 p.m., (photo time stamp from student camera) Students are hanging out in a living room (at 610 N. Buchanan), apparently waiting for the dancer to arrive. Most have drinking cups in their hands.
The photos are believed to be authentic and taken by one of the students at the March 13 party. The time stamps on the photos appear to be accurate. Pictures of a wristwatch magnified for clarity correspond with the time on the photos.<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The 12:30 photo matches the impartial eyewitness assertion that she re-entered the house @ 12:30. How did RS rape her when he was at an ATM @ 12:24???????

The claim that she was arriving in that last photo is ridiculous and tells me the DA is grasping at straws and not being completely honest. To believe that, you have to believe a person exits a car backwards......with help(she wasn't drunk, why does she need help?)........with the help of a player/party-goer that, according to the impartial witness, wasn't in front of the house.

Where does he say they were greeted "at the curb/driveway"?????????? HE DOESN'T"T

>>>>>>>>>>>>11:50 p.m., Bissey, on his porch, notices two women walk to the back of the house, where a man greets them.
Two young women, one of them dressed in a short skirt and high heels, and the other woman was dressed a little more conservatively spoke with the gentleman outside of this door here briefly, and then at this point, all of the young men were inside. They spoke amongst themselves for about five minutes or so and then entered the house.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Edit to add: Also, I would like to know why and how she "arrived" MINUS THE SAME SHOE THAT WAS LEFT BEHIND at the scene????

[Marie26]

374. Not really

You're ignoring my essential point: The defense said she never re-entered the house at all after the 12:30 photo. This is clearly contradicted by Bissey's report that she went back inside, and the photos that show her carrying a bag in that photo that was later found inside the house. The photos, & the independent neighbor's statements, both contradict the defense's version of events. They're lying - it's pretty clear she did go back inside at some point. Why would the defense lie about that? By saying that you believe that the woman re-entered the house, you are saying that you don't believe the defense's timeline. And it makes sense not to believe that timeline given the contradicting evidence.

- There's apparently one photo w/a confirmed time - at 11:02, way before the dancers even arrived. That doesn't prove that any of the other time-stamps are valid. If the defense manipulated the other photos to try to support their version of events, their creditability quickly falls to zero.

- To claim that she's arriving in that last photo is either completely ridiculous, or completely obvious. And this does seem to be the DA's contention, according to published reports. It would be ridiculous to claim that, unless the black car in the photo actually matches the car that dropped her off (instead of the second dancer's car.) This would be easy for the DA to find out - compare both cars & see which one matches the photo. Based on the oxidation in the pictured car, it's easy to figure out which vehicle it matches. So, the DA is either crazy here, or he knows something that we do not. And I don't think he's crazy.

- Bissey simply says that he saw the 2 women greet a man at the entrance, but he didn't see the women arriving. So there's no contradiction between his story & the photo. Some players could have been outside when the woman arrived, & then the women met another player at the door. That doesn't have much effect one way or the other.

[BrownOak]

390. Bissey never said she went back INSIDE the house n/t

[Marie26]

395. Yes, he did

He's repeatedly said that he saw the dancer going back inside the house:

"And when I came out, this entire alley was full of men kind of yelling, and I overheard a lot of talk about getting money back and the money they'd spent or whatever. And the young women were back in the car in front, and one of the young men was leaning into the driver's side door, speaking with her. But at that point, the situation seemed to calm down a little bit, and they were able, I guess, to convince one of the girls to go back inside.

And that's at the point where I overheard her talking about going back and getting her shoe. So the young ladies went back into the house, and at that point, nobody was out in the alley.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12096835/from/RL.3/

"Jason Bissey: Bissey, who lives next door, was on his porch as the party began. He saw an argument outside as the woman was leaving, then watched her go back into the house as she said she forgot some of her belongings. He saw the two women leave later, speeding away in a car.

http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/430110.html

[BrownOak]

407. Interesting, Bissey has been inconsistent

In your examples he has both women going back into the house in the first and then just one woman in the second.

Here, http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/421799.html, it says that he watched one woman had back into the house.


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

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

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

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

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


Here, http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/424229.html, it's one woman walking to the back door of the house, but not going in.

12:20 TO 12:30 a.m.: Tuesday, March 14, Bissey hears voices in the alley beside the house. At least two men are discussing money, one saying, "It's only $100." Bissey sees a man leaning into the window of a car parked outside the house. One of the women he saw earlier gets out of the car and says she needs to get her shoe. She walks to the back door of the house.

So the key questions here are what exactly did he see and when did he see it. If you're suggesting that the assault took place once the AV went back in the house then aren't you eliminating Silegmann as a suspect since he had left prior to that time?

[TorchTheWitch]

465. I've wondered a lot about Bissey

Seems like there's been a few things he's been inconsistant about. Like how he says he saw the two women arrive together in the same car but they didn't... Kim came first in one car and the accuser came later in another car and was dropped off by someone. The two women came from two different agencies and didn't know each other. There was something else he seemed inconsistant about, but off the top of my head I can't remember what it was. It may be that his statements are just being mistakenly reported or reported out of context or something... I'd feel a lot better about him if I could read the actual statement he gave the police.

Still, it always just seemed a bit odd to me that he's such a busybody nosy neighbor watching the house from 2:00 in the afternoon on and noting the time of certain events just seems odd to me. He's very close in age to the players he lives next door too, and I can't help but think they have a more than cordial relationship.

Oh, I don't know... there's just something about him that never sat quite right with me for some reason. I probably have a tinfoil hat on too tight when it comes to him sometimes.

[BrownOak]

468. That's funny about Bissey

I was thinking that he's the kind of guy who doesn't like his neighbors mainly because I can see where they would pretty much be pricks to him.

[jberryhill]

394. Asked and answered

Marie26, please at least acknowledge this recurring theme:

The defense said she never re-entered the house at all after the 12:30 photo.

"The defense" is not a single organism. Not everyone at a party is in the same spot, seeing the same thing, or even paying attention to what others are doing. If one guy said he didn't notice her come back in, because he was off watching Letterman, that doesn't mean another guy, actually in the relevant part of the house, can't see her come in. Whenever you say "the defense", specify about whom you are talking. There are 46 different perspectives on the sequence of events that night, and to believe that everyone saw everything that everyone else did at any given time is arrant nonsense.

If by "the defense" you mean Seligman, then HE hasn't said, and WON'T say doodley about whether she came or went at 12:30. He was off using an ATM at 12:24. It is of ZERO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to his defense whether the AV turned water into wine and recited the rosary while tap dancing on the roof of the house at 12:30 - he wasn't even there at the time.

If by "the defense" you mean Finnerty, then presumably we are going to hear about his visit to a Mexican restaurant.

If by "the defense" you mean Evans, then we're going to hear a lot about a mustache.

I would very much like to see a link to Nifong saying that is not a departure photograph.

When someone is getting out of a car, you get out of the way, you don't reach behind their head - someone you've never met, and you are reaching into their car and touching them? To do what?

Furthermore, if the camera belonged to Ed NotInThisCaseYet, then remember that Nifong said nobody else is a suspect.

Your allegation that the photographs or the time in the camera was manipulated REQUIRES that camera to belong to, have been operated by, and the photos manipulated by, Finnerty, Evans or Seligman.

Anyone who manipulates evidence, which you believe Nifong will assert, is immediately indictable as an accessory to the crime and faces the exact same potential liability as one of the defendants.

Nifong has said none of the other players are criminals. And, believe me, if Nifong found a member of the bar screwing with the evidence, then this rape trial would be the last item on his list of prosecutions - that would be an immediate priority number one.

Or are you saying that Nifong is going to run this case, but he's going to protect an attorney who Nifong knows, according to you, is an accessory to rape?

So you need to tell us, as it is a given none of the OTHER players are criminals, which person manipulated the photographs - Seligman, Finnerty, or Evans. That is the complete range available to you, courtesy of Nifong.

[Marie26]

408. Whew

I'm talking about the official approved defense timeline that was released to the media by the attorneys representing the lacrosse team. This timeline was publicized before the indictments came down. Presumably, it was released w/the approval of all the attorneys involved. They can try to back off it now that it's contradicted by the neighbor & the photos, but it does show that the defense attorneys' original version of events was not truthful. Take that for what it's worth.

Here's a link: Duke Lacrosse timeline -

"Attorneys for members of the Duke University lacrosse team are presenting their fullest accounting yet of what happened the night a stripper says three players raped her... A photo at 12:30 shows the alleged victim standing outside the back door of the house looking down into two bags with what appears to be a smile. She's wearing only her scant red-and-white outfit and one shoe. By the time she realizes she's missing a shoe—a few minutes later—the guys have locked the door to keep her out, say the attorneys."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335371/site/newsweek/

[jberryhill]

419. Can't you see the difference?

Between what is written and how you are interpreting it?

You wrote about an "official approved defense timeline" with "approval of all the attorneys involved".

The story you quote says "Attorneys for members of the Duke University lacrosse team".

Not "the team", not all of the team - "members of the team". Which members?

The only timeline that any one of THESE THREE DEFENDANTS is going to be the timeline testified to by witnesses for THESE THREE DEFENDANTS. If Bob Unindicted's lawyer said something to the paper two weeks ago, its relevance to Seligman, Finnerty, or Evans is well below nil.

I can't believe you've never been mistaken or held a hypothesis based on partial data. Yesterday, my wife was looking for the car keys. I said they were probably on the dresser, since I had them before I went to bed last night. She went upstairs. When she came back down, she said they weren't on the dresser, because I had left them in my pants.

Ohmigod, I was "untruthful" to her.

I don't know how some people get through the day, with all of the lies they must believe they are being told.

The "official approved Bissey timeline" has both women arriving in one car, and leaving in one car. Is he a liar too?

Something else about Bissey, and it's a matter of geography... he can't see the front door and the back door of a house from the same spot. Not unless its a non-Euclidean house.

You see that carpet hangning on the back rail? If someone is laying on that back stoop, you think Bissey can see through carpet, or do you think Bissey's going to simply fill in that someone who went up the steps necessarily went inside the house. How bright is Durham after midnight, usually?

A lot of what we remember is a combination of what we perceive, and what we fill in by inferences. That's why magic shows are so entertaining. Magic tricks "work" in that area between seeing things, and the work done by our minds with concepts like object persistence. But your mind is constantly filling in perceptual gaps based on physics and a bundle of assumptions.

If absolutely nothing happened that night and they were all drinking orange juice and hanging around the house, you could later take all 46, ask them to describe the sequence of events of that night, and you are going to get one big fat hairball of contradictory stories.

[Marie26]

441. Jeez

OF COURSE I can see the difference. OF COURSE I realize this time-line will never see the inside of a courtroom. I'm simply saying that this shows one area in which the original time-line was incorrect. This time-line was released before any indictments went down, & was discussed by Cheshire specifically, along w/other attorneys, including one who represented 33 other players. So this is Cheshire's own statements about a defense timeline - not some other random attorney. I can't believe some att. would release a time-line w/o any involvement or notification of the other ones, especially considering the degree of coordination they've shown in other areas. And I'm saying that timeline, released by some or all attorneys representing the players, is incorrect. That's it. That's all. You can think they're lying, or that the players lied to them, or that they made a mistake, etc. Whatever, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency for whatever value you wish to assign to it.

What are you talking about carpets? We don't even know where Bissey was sitting or what he could see. Bissey's story has some inconsistencies too, but there's one big difference here: he has no interest in trying to mislead people. It looks like he was seeing things in the backyard - the article says he saw player congregating there earlier, & saw the women walk to the back & enter the back door originally, and later when the dancer re-entered. That proves my point - he said that he saw the women walk to the back of the house & enter through the back door. (not when they were in front). He later says he saw a woman re-enter through the back door. He's in a perfect position (based on his earlier description of events in the backyard) to see her enter through the back door. And it's sloppy to say that he could think a woman lying on a stoop is the same thing as a woman going inside. He says clearly that he saw her go inside, as does the dancer, as corraborated by the photos. Why argue it? Memories are notoriously unreliable, but combining the fact that the dancer, neighbor & photos all suggest she did, it's the most logical explanation. I don't know why you'd first say that the timeline was mistaken but it doesn't matter, and then claim that Bissey was distracted by a carpet & the timeline's right. It doesn't much matter to me who's right, I'm just saying that it is a contradiction. And it may or may not be an important one.

[BrownOak]

446. Why is it the timeline that's incorrect?

First, which Bissey version are you going with.
Option 1 - Two ladies go to the back of the house and enter http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12096835/from/RL.3 /
Option 2 - One lady goes to the back of the house and enters http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/430110.html
Option 3 - One lady goes to the back of the house and Bissey doesn't see her enter http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/424229.html

It's still very much open to debate if the dancer entered the house when Bissey saw her go back there around 12:20-12:30.

Bissey says she did... but then he says he just saw her go to the door.... and he says she's alone... and he says she's with the other dancer.

The other AV says that she went back in the house and was separated from Kim Roberts shortly after reentering the dwelling. But this happened after going in at midnight, dancing "a few minutes," leaving, and then getting talked back into going inside. Does this seem like enough activity to fill the 20-30 minutes in to get you to the time Bissey said he observed whatever it is he says he observed?

Why is it that when you have all these inconsistencies with the Bissey observation as it relates not to the photos, but to the story from the AV herself, why is it that you're looking at the timeline as incorrect and not the reporting of Bissey's story?

[Marie26]

448. You're forgetting the photo

AV w/make-up bag on the back stoop at 12:30; make-up bag later found in the house. The photo independently corraborates Bissey's story (and the AV's story) that the dancer first went outside, then re-entered the house after talking to a player. Nothing independently corraborates the team's story that the dancers only went to the bathroom, and never re-entered the house. Therefore, the timeline must be incorrect - unless the woman's make-up bag somehow magically reappeared in the house after the two dancers were locked out.

[BrownOak]

450. How do you explain these points/questions?

AV w/make-up bag on the back stoop at 12:30; make-up bag later found in the house. The photo independently corraborates Bissey's story (and the AV's story) that the dancer first went outside, then re-entered the house after talking to a player. Nothing independently corraborates the team's story that the dancers only went to the bathroom, and never re-entered the house. Therefore, the timeline must be incorrect - unless the woman's make-up bag somehow magically reappeared in the house after the two dancers were locked out.

1. There is not independent corroboration that the bag in the photo is in fact the dancer's makeup bag.
2. You have not ruled out that if it is the makeup bag that it couldn't have been taken into the house by one of the players after the fact. (Someone could have easily picked it up and thrown it in the trash inside the house.)
3. Bissey's story is hard to coordinate because he has three different versions of it (two dancers going back in the house at ~12:25, one dancer going back in the house at ~12:25, and one dancer just going to the back door at ~12:25). Which version are you using and how do you explain that choice over the other two versions?
4. The timing of Bissey's observation differs with the realistic timing of the AV's story. In order for Bissey to be observing the AV reentering the house prior to the assault the dancer's would have had to have taken 20-30 minutes to perform a routine that took "a few minutes," leave the house, and then be talked into returning. How does that possibly translate into 20-30 minutes?
5. The pictures of the AV show her alone on the back porch yet her statements in the search warrant say that she returned to the house with the other dancer and once inside the dwelling they were separated.
6. If the dancer went back inside the house at ~12:25, are you willing to declare Seligmann not guilty since he is established to be away from the scene at that time?

[jberryhill]

454. Where does it say...

That HER make-up bag was recovered in the house two days later.

The report says that *a* make-up bag was recovered.

[Marie26]

458. You're stretching.

It doesn't say *a* bag was taken, it just says "make-up bag with ID" was retrieved. The list of items takens is just a hand-scrawled list by the officer & it doesn't tell us what the importance is of the items. The most important thing is the formal "description of items to be seized" that appears in the warrant. And this warrant tells officers to seize "Property belonging to the alleged victim, to include... purse, wallet, make-up and make-up bag, shoe, etc." http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke1.html

So, he's not supposed to take any old bag he comes across, but a bag belonging to the alleged victim. This make-up bag contained an ID, so the officer could immediately tell who it belonged to. He seized the bag because the ID was the alleged victim's, & this was her property. Plus, ALL the published articles have stated that the victim's bag was found at the scene. The police officers' own statement is that they found the woman's makeup bag there.

"Officers who searched the house also recovered the woman's makeup bag, cell phone and a stack of $20 bills consistent with the woman's statement that $400 in cash was taken from her purse after the attack, the police statement said."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189635,00.html

It's no fun debating this unless we can concede basic facts here. According to the search warrant, the news reports, and the police's own statement, the officers seized the victim's makeup bag & ID within the lacross house.

[jberryhill]

473. Ah good.

It's no fun debating this unless we can concede basic facts here.

Oh, I agree with that. It's just that sometimes there are gap-bridging assumptions that can sneak in.

I had missed the quote tying the recovered make-up bag to "her" make-up bag.

[BrownOak]

444. Several Contradictions... but not with the timeline

I'm talking about the official approved defense timeline that was released to the media by the attorneys representing the lacrosse team. This timeline was publicized before the indictments came down. Presumably, it was released w/the approval of all the attorneys involved. They can try to back off it now that it's contradicted by the neighbor & the photos, but it does show that the defense attorneys' original version of events was not truthful. Take that for what it's worth.

The photos are only contradicted by the neighbor who in this regard has contradicted himself (or has been reported as contradicting himself) several times. We've linked stories where he's attributed to have said (in reference to the dancers returning):

-that two women went back to the house and entered;
-one woman went back to the house and entered;
-one woman went back to the house and went to the door (no mention of entering).

I'll give you that the MSNBC description of the two bags does present questions that need to be answered, but the AV is not the only one who could have brought that second bag into the house. There's also no indication that the second bag she's looking into is the makeup bag that was found in the house. Could she have had three bags? You don't know at this point.

What you do know is that the AV herself told police that they entered the dwelling, danced for a few minutes, and then left. She also said that shortly after going back in the dwelling that she and the other dancer were separated. Now, depending upon which one of the Bissey versions you want to run with you have the following problems:

-If you're saying that the 12:30 photo was the dancer going back into the house, then where is the second dancer? Again, they were separated shortly after going back into the dwelling. If it is your contention that this photo is the AV going back in the house before she was raped, than doesn't that imply that the two women should be together at this point? They are not separated until shortly after going in the dwelling.

-If you're saying that the 12:30 photo was the dancer going back in the house shortly before she was raped, how is Reade Seligmann guilty? The neighbor says that the AV went back into the house (or to the back door of the house) alone (or with the other dancer) sometime between 12:20 to 12:30, when Seligmann was miles away getting his picture taken at an ATM.

-The AV's report in the search warrant said she and the other dancer were returning to continue to dance and once inside she was assaulted. Yet in every one of the links to the story from Bissey, he said that she was going back to the house to get her shoe.

So the contradictions between the defense timeline and those photos are

-The neighbor... You have multiple versions of what he says, which one is the official version?
-The makeup bag... You have nothing to show that any of the bags the AV was looking into on that porch was the makeup bag nor have you eliminated any other means for the makeup bag to get into the house if that's indeed what she's carrying in the photo.

[Kingshakabobo]

405. It's IRRELEVANT what the defense said. I care what....

....the photographs say. I think everyone agrees she was at/in the house @12:230.

IIRC, the defense's "timeline" was established prior to release of ATM and camera-phone photos.

How does RS rape her when he is at an ATM getting cash @ 12:24. I can't get past that. Not to mention the cell calls(girlfriend, cabbie and ??), the pick-up, and the travel time to the ATM. Unless you think the bank is in on it???? or Wrong???

Answer me that.

Everything else lines up. The cab calls, the wrist-watch shown in one of the photos and the dorm key-swipe.

Re: Bissey's view. I guess that will be established at trial.....assuming he didn't witness the drop-off..... According to your theory, someone greeted her at the curb/driveway, helped her(right-shoe-less) out of the car(stripper curb-service?) in a contorted-backward exit......AND THEN DISAPPEARED to let her walk back by herself.

I don't buy it.....

[Marie26]

410. So, it's irrelevant

what the defendant's own attorney says happened that night? Is it irrelevant because you don't believe the attorney's statements? If the attorney (or players) are lying about that - don't you have to wonder why they would make that up? Why pretend that the dancer never re-entered the house? What are they trying to cover up? I consider that (apparantly false) claim to be highly relevant.

Now, we're moving on to a different issue. Seligmann's whereabouts that night is a totally different issue than whether the dancer went back inside. It sounds like you're acknowledging she did re-enter (despite the attorney's original claim). OK then. If she re-entered around 12:30 & the assault occured then, Seligmann's receipt would help establish an alibi. If the time-stamp on the photo was wrong, & she re-entered before that time and was then assaulted, it does not provide an alibi. And if the timestamps are right, & the assault occured during the missing 20 minutes w/o photos from 12:03-12:20, a 12:25 ATM receipt doesn't provide an alibi for Seligmann. It's value will mostly depend on the DA's own timeline for when the assault occured (which we don't yet know).

[jberryhill]

422. Which "defendant's own attorney says"? /nt

[Marie26]

476. Cheshire - Evan's att.

He was pushing the defense timeline & photos publically before Evans was ever indicted. I do see your point about different att. w/diff. agendas, & I'd agree if Cheshire wasn't so involved in pushing this evidence from the beginning.

[Kingshakabobo]

427. You are missing time-stamps AND neighbor's corroboration of the 12:30

....time stamp. 12:30 is the number.

I believe Half of what I see and NONE of what I hear.

Like I said, the defense time-line came out prior to photos and eyewitness reports. The photos and eyewitness reports "tighten-up" the time-line AND help exonerate RS.

Even if she WAs raped between 12:03 and 12:20, I find it hard to believe RS was raping her while making six phone-calls and getting picked up by the cab.

[jberryhill]

453. You understand Seligman's phone calls, yes?

Five short phone calls with his girlfriend, while strippers are in the house... and then he calls a cab.

Uhmmmm... I'm pretty sure I know what THAT was about.

[Kingshakabobo]

456. And when she didn't pickup/answer.......

he did the next best thing while drunk..........drunk-food

[TorchTheWitch]

469. His girlfriend is out-of-state

If you're saying what I think you're saying, that would be one mighty long and frustrating cab drive.

[jberryhill]

471. Sounds more like

"No, Reade, and this is the last time I'm saying it. If there are strippers there, then I want you to leave now."

So he calls a cab.

[TorchTheWitch]

480. You really think so?

Hell no. First off, he wouldn't tell her he was at a party with strippers, and if she ever found out and she told him to leave, he'd just say "Sure, honey, I'm out the door right now" hang up and stay right where he is.

[BrownOak]

385. It's a long story, with some twists

But according to the dancers & the neighbor, the dancer did go back in after being persuaded by a player.

No, you're merging two different stories together, hence the contradictions.

*According to the AV's statements to the police detailed in the search warrant, she met the other dancer at the residence and went inside to perform.
According to the neighbor Jason Bissey, he saw the two go inside around midnight.
*According to the AV, she and the other dancer danced for a few minutes, felt intimidated by the whole "broomstick" stuff and other behavior, and they left the house, and then returned after a few minutes. You can put your own time estimate on how long this sequence of events took to unfold, but at the most we're talking 5-10 minutes, placing their return to the house at 12:05-12:10.
*What Bissey said is that he saw one dancer return to the house to get her shoe. He estimates that this occurred between 12:20 and 12:30.
*Clearly we're talking about two different events here. Two dancers returning to the house around 12:05 to 12:10 according to the AV and one dancer (the AV) returning to the house at 12:20 to 12:30 according to Bissey. It's also important to note here that Bissey only said he saw her walk to the back of the house, not go in the house.
*The defense's photos are in line with these events up to the 12:04 picture of the dancers. After that there is the gap in pictures.

In the 12:30 shot of her leaving, she has both a purse & a make-up bag, but the make-up bag was later found inside the house - along w/her cell phone, money & ID. She must have gone back in after that photo, as the neighbor & dancer stated. The defense's time line is contradicted by their own photos, and the neighbor's testimony.
Unless we're looking at different photos here, I'm not sure you can state exactly what she has in her hands.



The second image is a blow-up of the first and frankly, it looks like it's been touched up to block out whatever is in that area. That of course raises the question of just why it would be blocked out and what it is, but in that photo, I only see the purse and a blob.

Again, the critical issue here is that by just the AV's and Bissey's reports, this all had to have been happening after any assault took place, unless you want to say that the assault took place after 12:30 which I would bet would make Reade Silegmann look pretty innocent right now.


The stuff about the impairment will be answered when the tox screen comes back and the stuff about the second car I addressed in the my other post earlier.

[Kingshakabobo]

406. Re: second car. I hope they have convenience-store videos.

[BrownOak]

386. It's a long story, with some twists

Edit - double post

[BrownOak]

354. No, the photos didn't contradict the timeline...

The whole basis for the photos contradicting the time line is because the cabbie said that he saw Kim Roberts getting into a white car when he arrived at the scene the second time. That resulted in a Time magazine website story that the prosecution was going to attack those photos and that time line.

Realistically you have several choices to deal with the discrepancy in the cabbie's identification of the car color-

-You can believe that the cabbie didn't remember the color of the car correctly.
-You can believe that the cabbie made up his entire testimony and was never there the second time.
-You can believe that the cabbie was correct about seeing a white car that second time and that the photo shown is in fact the alleged victim's arrival and that the time stamp has been altered.

Those are the options that come to mind immediately. But in the end it's going to be very, very easy to come to a conclusion about this because the car in the photo is very easily identified due to the oxidation and fading on the roof. Plus, it looks like the photo shown on TV was cropped to hide the face of the player to the right of the car and the back of the car with the license plate. The full photo will leave no doubt whose car that is.



Given the fact that in the Kroger 911 call the car driven by Kim Roberts was described as dark blue that looks black at night I'm inclined to go with the last one. I'm also inclined to go in that direction for the simple fact that the two lead attorneys are not stupid men. Wade Smith and Joe Cheshire have over 70 years of trial experience between them and are generally regarded as two of the top trial lawyers in the state. Smith was voted by his peers as the top trial attorney in the state a couple of years ago. I'm saying this not to claim they are above reproach, but to say that they are above stupid. And stupid is what it would be to try and pass off that very distinct car in the photo as another vehicle. We don't really know what the car was that dropped off the AV that night, but the odds of it being the same make, model, year, and most importantly, having the same fading and oxidation as the car that Kim Roberts drives are infinitesimally small.

A chimp with a head wound could look at that photo and know that the vehicle in it is unique in many regards. So the idea that you can pass it off for another is really stupid. You can question the ethics and honesty of the defense lawyers all you want, but their intellect has been well established.

The argument between the defense lawyers regarding the photos is that the attorney who released them to the press was not the attorney representing one of the indicted players. It was not his place to put this evidence in the press and the reasons for not doing it would be so that you wouldn't have this evidence out there being questioned in public before the trial. Nothing illustrates those concerns better than this very subthread. There's nothing out there other than the aforementioned conflict with the cabbie's identification of the color of Kim Roberts car that would lead anyone to say that the photos contradict the defense's time line. And upon closer examination of that conflict between the cabbie and the photos it seems pretty easy to clear up. Yet many people will believe it as fact that there's a contradiction before really looking at all the options.

[Kingshakabobo]

373. Exactly! Also, this photo is cropped at her foot....

She is missing her RIGHT shoe. The same shoe that was left at the scene. I guess she could have "arrived" barefoot??? But I doubt she "arrived" barefoot and exited the car in a backward-contorted manner with the help of a person that, according to the impartial eyewitness, wasn't there. The DA is definitely grasping and this piece TOTALLY blows his credibility for me.

A kid is looking @ 40 years and the DA is looking to throw shit against the wall to see if it sticks.

It was pretty funny when Dan Abrams quizzed the TIME reporter who wrote the article about the missing shoe. When he pointed out the missing shoe, the reporter seemed surprised and said: er, ah,,, that's a good point. It was clear he hadn't considered it.

[TorchTheWitch]

470. Barefoot?

She is missing her RIGHT shoe. The same shoe that was left at the scene. I guess she could have "arrived" barefoot??? But I doubt she "arrived" barefoot and exited the car in a backward-contorted manner with the help of a person that, according to the impartial eyewitness, wasn't there. The DA is definitely grasping and this piece TOTALLY blows his credibility for me.

Since the photo is cropped so you can't see her foot, how do you know whether she has a shoe on or is barefoot??? Might it not stand to reason that the photo is cropped so that you can't see her foot because she IS wearing her shoe? I'm not seeing how you can come to any conclusion about her foot either shod or shoeless when you can't see any of it.

A kid is looking @ 40 years and the DA is looking to throw shit against the wall to see if it sticks.

Please... These are not "kids" or "boys". They are MEN. Please don't follow the media's lead in making these men out to be children when they are not.

[jberryhill]

474. Because it wasn't cropped in one of the broadcasts

Someone should put together an image bank of these things, since it gets tiresome to keep re-finding them.

[TorchTheWitch]

481. So who was the guy then?

The one reaching into the car? What did he look like?

And what about the other side? Was the driver not cropped either?

[jberryhill]

482. All I can remember is...

...that I'm pretty sure the guy didn't have a mustache.

Seriously, though, we need a better still of that image of a video of an image.

Driver?

Even in the cropped version, with the window glare and from that angle, it looks like the back of a headrest to me, and some sort of fabric, maybe a t-shirt, over the bottom part of the seat. If you think you see a driver, then where's the headrest?

[not_nameless]

248. how come cops demand them

when it suit their interests?

[bettyellen]

269. they use them to intimidate people. but the science is not solid......

read up on them if you wish, you'll see. there was an article in the sunday nytimes in the last month or so. you get more accurate results from watching a person than using the machine.

and they are worthless in court. to give a test to someone who has been coached is foolish too.
so, there's lots of good reasons.

[not_nameless]

280. "to give a test to someone who has been coached is foolish too"

You seem to have inside information. Please share it all with us--unless you equate taking a privately administered polygraph with coaching.

[bettyellen]

282. the family hired their own "expert" . google yourself what expert services

are available. it;s not exactly an impartial setup. how naive of you to assume it would be.

[IndianaGreen]

290. Why did Nifong refuse to give Evans a polygraph after he requested one?

Your precious prosecutor has conducted himself in a rather questionable fashion.

[bettyellen]

295. 1) polygraphs are completely useless to the prosecuter

2) they are not admissable in court, and for good reason
3) they are easy to beat, especially if you have been coached, which this kid was.

why aren't all three kids offering to take polygraphs? they're probably not as good at beating them. not evryone can, but if you can, you get on a rooftop and beg people to give you one.
did you know researchers can consistantly get more accurate results looking at someone than they do by administering a polygraph. yep.

[IndianaGreen]

301. If polygraphs are easy to beat, why does the CIA rely on them?

According to you, Dave Evans is a master of disguise who can look like Tom Selleck or Osama bin Laden at a moment's notice, and he can also beat a polygraph given by a former FBI polygrapher. Yeah, right!

[bettyellen]

304. the "former FBI" is their hired coach.... if you want to put stock in

those results the family paid to obtain after coaching, go right ahead. they are worthless except they might fool some people.

researchers have proven that polygraphs are less accurate than methods that do not involve machines at all. from what i recall they postulated the govt has not completely phased out use of polygraphs (as has been advised by experts) because they prefer not to have to admit there not all their cracked up to be, and there's not a great machine to replace them. apparently the military is not interested in training people to spot lies through observation - even though it is a much more accurate method than polygraphs. they don't like the concept- they want a machine.

if the cia relies on them, it's to scare people, like you, who believe in them.... they are strictly an "investigative tool"- to intimidate people.
sorry you were taken in by the hype.

[Baconfoot]

332. The CIA does a lot of things which even from its own POV it shouldn't NT

[BrownOak]

356. Minor point

But as I understand it, all three captains who lived in that house offered to take polygraph tests at the onset of the investigation. It may have actually have happened in their first interview. I'm not sure about that, but since we're going to accept as fact the supposition that the kid was coached in how to beat the polygraph then I'm going to run with this as well.

[bettyellen]

370. i have no idea. i don't "run with things" because i feel like guessing....

the kid himself hired an expert. i have read alot about polygraphs and know what experts do for defendants that hire them.
all experts these guys hire- including lawyers are coaching them to help get a result of innocent. this is not somehting i've looked up= it's a know thing if you know people who've worked in criminal justice.

the info is out there if you care to get it straight. also the info IF the other two offered to take tests.
why you wouldn;t care to be accurate, even "somwhat accurate", like a polygraph, is troublesome.
i'll not put much stock in your posts if, like, many others you've decided to start making up things.

[BrownOak]

398. By making things up

do you mean like assuming that the person conducting the polygraph test also coached the subject in how to beat the test. The fact that others may do that does not automatically mean that it's the case in this instance.

Here's a link showing at least one of the other two residents of the house also offered a polygraph.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14242380.htm

[bettyellen]

421. you need to read up on what criminal defense lawyers do....

there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that people are not aware of.

a good lawyer will recommend any and all experts needed that they know of and have "worked well with" before. they have a relationship with people, and expectations. there is pressure to do well for the lawyers.

their aim was to get a good result on a polygraph. they hired an expert referred by the lawyer. they got a good result.
why so surprised? if they couldn't get a good result, we'd never know any of this testing occurred. that's also how it works.

legal teams don't get such great reps by leaving this stuff to chance. or releasing results that hurt their clients.
and they did all this testing knowing full well it wouldn't be admitted, or questioned about it. it's nothing more than a PR game.

[Kingshakabobo]

359. Do you have any links for these assertions?

You are saying body language is easier to manipulate than heart-rate, respiration and sweat?

The "expert" on MSNBC was commenting on how they can be very effective when administered by a highly trained technician with the proper equipment. Besides saying he knew the technician and vouched for his expertise/credibility, he also commented how the FBI is known to have the best polygraphers with the best training. Favorable interpretation of results by a hired "expert" is one thing and we both know it happens ALL THE TIME but saying a 28 year FBI veteran is going to jeopardize his reputation by perjuring, "coaching" and flat-out fabricating results is a stretch(I doubt this kid will be his last/only client) as a reputation is at stake. Is it possible? Absolutely. What is more likely: The kid fails the test and they shit-can the results...or.. The kid passes the test and they fork the results over to the DA, which is what they did. Those results are open to review and quality control, per the MSNBC "expert." Also, the DA can have him take THEIR test and match-up the results. If they are interested in the truth, that is.

I'm not saying polygraphs are the end-all. They are a tool. You are going a little over-board in your assertions that they are a cinch to beat. Saying body language is easier to manipulate than involuntary bodily functions doesn't help your perceived objectivity on this matter.

[bettyellen]

375. years and years hearing about the criminal court system

and i've read about the polygraph over the years and just recently there was a study and people who are trained in studying visual cues get better results. there was an article within the last 10 weeks in the sunday NY Times if you care to look for it.
polygraph experts are what they are and experts can and are bought all the time.
for that matter, did you ever see it reported that a defendants lawyer find forensics people who claim on the stand the evidence makes them guilty?
no, people tend to hire people that will help them, if they can't help them, you'd never know they were consulted. That is how it works.
It's part another of the reason wealthier clients put on a better defense. It's not just the lawyer, it's the experts the lawyer steers you toward because they "work well" with them. That's part of a good lawyers suite of services.

[Kingshakabobo]

383. The polygraph will be reviewed. There is a record.

Interpretation of that record may be open to interpretation. Fine. If the test showed "liar" I think it would be more likely to shit-can it rather than open themselves up for getting caught in a lie.

Visual cues versus involuntary responses. Not sticking your hands in your pocket and looking away is probably easier to control than your sweat response and heartbeat.

[bettyellen]

391. by who? reporters? that's why they had it done. good PR to fool people

who think that polygraphs mean anything.
you actually think the lawyer would go on national TV talking about results that were bad or even mixed for his client? seriously?
and obviously the PR working.
but the results won;t end up in court, never could have.
but you go form your own theories and don;t bother reading about it! i see you believe you know ALL about visual clues now. LOL.

[Kingshakabobo]

396. I have read about it.

You are telling me it's easier to manipulate heartbeat and sweat response than manipulate "visual cues." Ok. That's your position and we'll leave it at that.

Visual cues, BTW. Talk about easy to "interpret." Talk about junk science.

"you know all about visual cues".......nice strawman.

Strawmen and snarky "LOL's"....the last refuge of someone losing an argument.

edit to add: reviewed by the DA and independent reviewer as the MSNBC 'expert' suggested they will.

[bettyellen]

412. i said studies show: people who are trained to observe witnesses

get more accurate results detecting lies than a polygraph machine does. that's what i said, not what you claim i said.

obviously you didn't read up if you think learning lie detection techniques ares junk science- lie detectors are much less accurate, according to the experts.

the problem is, if they switch to a different system of lie detection- they'll still be experts for defendants to hire to beat the system. that's going to happen, obviously, as long as people with money are charged with crimes. that has absolutely nothing to do with the science involved.

you want to know when i think it's easier to manipulate results? when you have an expert to help you do so. that should be obvious.

your added edit is not a complete sentence, are you claiming that the lawyer yesterday is lying and nifong will look at the polygraph?
i'm not sure why any lawyer would claim that, seeing as they would never be allowed to take it into account, even if they wanted to. according to law, it;s tainted, and useless. you can't go back in a time machine and un-taint the polygraph. the defense attorney made sure they screwed that pooch by hiring their own people. he KNEW what he was doing- and has prevented any legally admissible polygraph from happening.

[Kingshakabobo]

433. I'm saying Nifong has the polygraph.

(yes, that sentence was f--ked-up)....oops

[bettyellen]

435. the defense lawyer can send a candygram too. insignificant + inadmissable

remains just that. tainted is tainted.
the lawyer is doing a hell of a job giving people the idea it matters because it was sent to his office.
you and i could send nifong things and call a press conference saying his office has them. and it would be true.
it'a all PR right now. :shrug: they are pushing hard to get the case dropped. i wouldn't be surprised at all if it works.

[Kingshakabobo]

457. Now, see here young lady.....

Candygram for Mongo!

[TorchTheWitch]

321. a polygraph isn't admissable in court

So why would Nifong spend the time and the state's money to do a polygraph that isn't admissable? Polygraphs are only admissable in a court of law (in jurisdictions where polygraphs are admissable) if both the prosecution and defense agree beforehand that the results will be admissable BEFORE the polygraph is done. According to the defense, Evans already took a polygraph, and by doing so made a polygraph inadmissable in this case as it was taken before both sides agreed to it and it was not taken by an independent expert.

EVERY prosecutor would turn down a request by a suspect to take a polygraph where the results would be inadmissable just as every defense attorney would turn down a request by the prosecution for a polygraph to be administered to their client where the results would be inadmissable. Cheshire KNOWS the prosecutor would turn him down, so it behooves him to air it in the media that his client is "willing" to take a polygraph administered by the prosecution.

Incidently, an expert was hired and paid for by the Evans team whose job it would be to explain, test, administer and interpret the polygraph favorably to Evans... that's what he's paid for. The reason why polygraphs are not admissable unless both sides agree that the results will be admissable in court BEFORE a polygraph is done is to ensure that an INDEPENDENT expert does the polygraph. Without an independent expert being the one to do the polygraph, both sides would never agree to it being done at all. Obviously, since the results of a polygraph are going to favor either one side or the other it's extremely rare that both sides in a case would agree to one being done seeing as they have to agree that whatever the results turn out to be it will be admissable in court.

Once again, this is a court of public opinion circus put on by the defense.

[AngryAmish]

345. The state does polygraphs all the time in Chicago

Why?

1. They are somewhat reliable and sometimes the cops really are interested in finding the truth.
and
2. It is used as an investigative tool. Although if someone is detected as telling the truth is not admissable, the actual questions and answers are admissible. You can use any inconsistencies against the accused.

[TorchTheWitch]

350. Well there you go

The results of the polygraph (whether or not the suspect was lying or telling the truth) aren't admissable in court and just the questions and corresponding answers are, which is more or less like a yes or no answered interview.

That just doesn't have anything to do with the Duke case.

[bettyellen]

366. somewhat reliable? SOMEWHAT? LOL... thanks for proving my point.

and ANY Q+A might be used in court. what's so smart about using a fairly unreliable made more so by the fact that the testee has been practicing with an expert?

[AngryAmish]

376. For the answers themselves

This guy is unlikely to be intimidated (since he lawyered up so long ago). But any bite at the apple would be nice for a prosecutor. The actual findings don't mean anything.

Cops are allowed to lie to suspects. You also have to realize that most criminals are completely stupid. Utter morons. So they hook these dimwits to a lie detector, tell the suspect they failed and tell them the sentence will be lighter if they confess. Then they do.

Although I am commenting here a lot of the details of this case escape me. For example if the only way the lie detector with the state would go forward is if the state says the questions and answers can't be used in court then the state is quite right to tell the defense to go touch themselves. However if there were no strings attached it makes no sense not to get a statement from the suspect.

[bettyellen]

388. the defense is using the test as PR spin and would continue to do so.

if they are offering to do the test, they KNOW this kid can beat it.
and they'd love to flood the news with it, bring pressure for charges to be dropped or taint the jury pool.
from what i understand some people can beat the test all the time, easily. many can be taught to do very well (if you know what's coming it helps immensely- that is how they are coached-a lawyer will help prep the likely questions).
so at this point is a no win for the prosecution- it doesn;t really have ANY more value than just questioing the suspect again. maybe they didn;t need more than they had. who knows. the defense claim to have info the prosecution won;t accept. makes you wonder why they aren;t going to the press with it? this is looking like a bunch of head games designed to give them good PR.

[jberryhill]

274. They are used as an investigative tool

...not to generate evidence.

[Marie26]

275. They can't

Police can't make someone take a polygraph test, and prosecutors can't use the results at trial.

[not_nameless]

278. I know they can't

but in a high profile case they can come out and make the person look guilty by saying "he refused to take the polygraph."
Most people will assume that he is guilty upon hearing that, puting pressure on the accused. The cops have nothing to lose by making him take the test.

[bettyellen]

284. if his coach has him beating the machine- which is not that hard to do

then a lot of people (who don;t know better) might think it means something.

[Marie26]

238. How helpful he is!

What a nice guy, helping the police collect evidence as they execute a search warrant to implicate his friends & teammates in a rape. Or maybe, to help argue that his DNA was placed there later, should any be found on the collected evidence.

[jberryhill]

298. How about with fresh polish on them?

How long is nail polish sticky?

[bettyellen]

303. depends on the brand, how heavy you apply it.... anywhere from 2 -4 min

to not be surface tacky anymore. but 5-20 to be totally dried hard.
this id getting to be more than you ever wanted to know, isn;t it?

i am shocked so many people think polygraphs are meaningful. go figure. :shrug:

[TorchTheWitch]

483. depends

Depends on the nail polish, how many coats, drying time between coats and whether or not a quick dry/instant dry formula (spray on or paint on) is used. One coat would dry almost instantly or about 30 seconds.

I realize the defense is trying to make it appear that the time gap between photos is when the strippers are supposedly in the bathroom polishing nails so they can let people think that the nails in the trash easily collected DNA because they were sticky with nail polish. Except there's a few things wrong with that...

One doesn't polish press-on nails. That's the point to them - they are ALREADY colored. In fact, the solid colored ones (ones that aren't airbrushed with designs on them) are not painted at all as whatever the substance is that is used to make them is colored before they are formed into nails, so the underside is the same color as the top side.

There is a photo that has been described by the media but not shown (probably because of nudity) where the accuser is seen dancing with her nails painted and a thumb nail broken off. If they are already painted, why did she then go hide in the bathroom to paint her nails?

Why would she hide in the bathroom, paint her nails and then break off half of them? Oh, I know that some people would like to say she broke them off on purpose as a clever way of trying to stage a rape scene, but why would she polish them first? That's just stupid. It also takes a steady hand and some skill to paint fingernails, so how was she able to accomplish this task when she is so stumbling falling down drunk? As skilled as I am at painting my own designs on my nails, I still can't paint one basic coat of polish on all ten without screwing up at least one when I'm stone cold sober.

The defense is also saying that they believe her nails were sticky or damp with polish as marks were left on the porch/stoop at the back of the house that looks like the same color as her nails. But, if her nails were damp or sticky with polish how were they broken off without getting polish on herself or on something she broke them against in the bathroom? Press-on nails will leave a mark the color of the nails if they are scraped against a rough surface, so if there were marks left the same color as her nails on the porch/stoop, since she passed out or fell there it's likely she scraped her nails or a nail in the act of falling or passing out.

There is also a ridiculous rumor that the tissue sample tested was taken from the top side of the nails. What lab would scrape the top side of the nails for a sample when it's obviously the underside where the highest concentration of DNA would be obtained from? Besides, when the story first came out, it was stated that DNA was found in a tissue sample taken from the underside of her nail... what a surpise, just exactly where any sober tech with their eyes open would take the sample from.

This whole polishing her nails in the bathroom crap is just that.

[BrownOak]

489. Polishing her nails

Yeah, I've never really understood the logic of the whole "polishing her nails" stuff. Let's see, according to the defense, a massively drunk dancer has just holed up in the bathroom because she's upset that someone is threatening to use a broomstick on her as a sex toy. Clearly the logical response here would be to paint her nails.

[bettyellen]

36. wow, the players had a history of lying about the party before it started?

what's that old adage, "you begin as you intend to go".

i had heard about the phony names and wondered why in the world they would do that. it's kinda amazing to hear everyone attacking the accusers credibility when these fellas lied coming out of the gate.

[timber84]

40. The palyers used a fake name, how is that so astonishing?

[bettyellen]

74. they made up secret code names to hide their names from the

stripper.
not just the service.
that's normal?? why do you think they;d do it?

[jberryhill]

41. Because they were planning to do illegal things....

That's a given.

Some were underage, and they aren't allowed to have drinking parties and adult entertainment there.

What they were doing, even in the absence of what this has become, was wrong and they knew it.

They would have been breaking all sorts of school rules, team rules, local ordinances and state laws, even without the rape allegation. So it only stands to reason they planned it with deceptive secrecy.

I will say, BettyEllen, it is an admirable tribute to an obviously well-spent youth, that their behavior in planning the party seems strange to you. And I do mean that as a sincere compliment.

[Marie26]

48. Consider that

in light of the dancers' statements that the players referred to each other by jersey numbers and fake names the whole time the dancers were there. If that is true, it suggests the players were trying to conceal their identities from the dancers, not just from the authorities.

David Evans was cited in the past for alcohol & noise violations at that house. Maybe I'm missing something, but how does booking dancers under a false name prevent authorities from knowing about the party? Normally, when a house party is cited for noise & alcohol violations, it's because the neighbors complained, or the police spotted unruly behavior. How would making (perfectly legal) reservations tip off authorities to the party? Would the agency go & tell the police who booked the dancers or something? It's the party that created a violation - and the players didn't seem particularly interested in being discreet about that party. A neighbor saw them gathered outside & drinking for hours, and later saw many players gathered outside as one yelled racial slurs at the dancers. Not very discreet. They weren't very secretive about having a party, but they were very secretive about their identities during that party. To me, that suggests that they were worried about something different than a noise & alcohol violation here.

[jberryhill]

53. Couple of things...

...and then I really need to get to work.

Fake names and jersey numbers - Are you saying that they weren't saying, "Ahoy there, Colin Finnerty, this is David Evans shouting for you to bring me another beer." "Fake names" or "nicknames". Wasn't on a team in college, so I'll pass on whether calling each other by jersey number might be a thing they did normally.

David Evans was cited in the past for alcohol & noise violations at that house.

Then why do you think he might have cleared out after people spilled outside of the house shouting at each other?

As far as the "perfectly legal" reservation goes - nude dancing is illegal in North Carolina even in licensed establishments (I posted the relevant NC law in another thread). Lots of things are pefectly legal, and people still don't want their names taken down by who-knows-who in connection with a cash transaction. I lie about my telephone number when they ask me at the Radio Shack checkout counter.

I mean, crikey almighty, am I the only person who posts on DU over my own actual real-life name? Did your parents name you Marie26? What illegal stuff did you come here to do?

[Marie26]

61. Not really the same thing

No, I don't mean that they used "nicknames", I mean they used fake names - like calling Robert "Dan", and John "Adam", like that. They also used jersey numbers - which they could identify, but the dancers could not. Why go through all that trouble? My basic point is that there was no reason to do this if all they were worried about was the school & alcohol violations. Why would they need to conceal their identities from the dancers? The dancers & agency woudn't be reporting this to the police - unless, that is, an actual crime took place against a dancer.

I'm not saying let's convict them for using fake names, I'm saying it's suggestive. If you bought a object at RadioShack using a fake name, and then were later accused of committing a crime w/that object, it suggests that you were intending to use it illegally at the time you bought it. The fact that the party reservations were made under a fake name, and a crime later occured at that party, suggests the person might have been intending to commit that crime at the the time the reservations were made. It's just one piece of evidence. You're really diverting the issue when talking about fake phone numbers or posting on DU - none of these things involve a crime (yet!). In this case, when a serious crime has occured, you have to wonder why the players took such steps to first conceal their identity from the alleged victim.

[TorchTheWitch]

91. STOP BEING FUNNY!

Really... I have a small bladder. :D

Apparently, using jersey numbers may have been something they did normally as Ryan signed his gross email as "41", but he may have done that just because jersey numbers were used to identify players at the party. They did use actually fake NAMES as Colin, Dave and Reide used the names of Matt, Adam and Brett according to the accuser. Apparently, other team members also used fake names because the accuser noticed that people were calling each other occasionally by different names which she found odd and caused her to suspect they weren't using their real names.

Nobody said the strippers were dancing nude, and it is assumed when one books a stripper that she will abide by whatever nudity laws and contact laws that area defines... so the booking of the stripper is perfectly legal - what the stripper does during her show is on her. Even the agency is in the clear if the stripper does anything illegal as they have to sign independent contractor contracts that will state that it is the stripper's responsibility to abide by the area's laws regarding whatever she does during her bookings and the agency isn't responsible if she breaks any laws.

In any case, lying about who you are to an agency is certainly suspect because you have to PAY them under that false name. Most agencies will have the entire amount paid to them and then issue the stripper her cut once she completes the booking, but other agencies only have their cut paid to them by the customer and make it the stripper's responsibility to get her cut from the customer. No agency is going to allow the customer to pay the stripper both the agency cut and the stripper's cut and make it the stripper's responsibility to give the agency their cut after the booking is completed (fat chance of that - agencies would never get paid that way!). No agency will accept cash from the customer as their cut because that's a huge red flag that it's the feds... agencies are VERY careful about the feds.

Also, when booking the strippers it's not just the false name that was the lie... they also lied about how many people were going to be at the party and what team the players were on (they said there would only be about 5 people at the party and those people were part of the baseball and track teams).

[jberryhill]

164. Meanwhile, on the other side of town....

...the baseball team was hanging out saying, "Hey, where ARE those strippers we booked?"

[TorchTheWitch]

322. *giggle* *snort*

And the track team already passed out drunk forgetting all about those strippers they booked!

:rofl:

[Tunkamerica]

69. strippers don't do college parties around here for precisely this

reason. The fake name and the fake bachelor party with 5 guys are just so the strippers would show up at the house. The players knew they wouldn't show up if they said forty guys at a frat house.

Nothing more sinister than that.

[TorchTheWitch]

146. One can ALWAYS find a stripper for a frat party

There's no question of that. They may have to do some shopping around, but they WILL find strippers willing to do it. I know strippers that give $5 blow jobs to feed their drug habits. I also know plenty of strippers that are young and stupid and would be willing to do it for the chance to shop for a boyfriend at the party. There's just no question there's strippers out there to be had for damn near anything at rock bottom prices and even for free. It's only the experienced and/or savy strippers that may be inclined to bypass the big frat parties.

And the reason for saying those 5 partiers were on the baseball and track teams would be what? Strippers won't do parties for certain team members? Baseball and track team members are ok but lacrosse team members are not?

No, I'd tend to believe that the biggest reason they lied about the size of the party was to be reasonably certain the strippers wouldn't bring security with them. If the agency doesn't provide security for a dancer, it's her responsibility to get someone and pay that someone herself. A stripper not provided with security from the agency may feel reasonably safe at a small gathering and decide not to get and pay their own security, but they definitely wouldn't feel reasonably safe without security at a large party. It may be that the reason the players lied about the size of the party was to be reasonably certain the strippers would arrive without security. It's my guess this isn't the first time they booked strippers and already knew when calling this specific agency that that agency didn't provide security for the dancers. It may also be that part of the reason they specifically requested two strippers instead of one is that two strippers would feel more safe without security whereas one may not.

[TorchTheWitch]

51. that isn't what the police determined

In interviewing the players about the use of the fake names at the party the police found that the purpose was to cause confusion as to who was who should there be a time in the future where it would be beneficial for the players to not be identified so easily. I hardly think the strippers would give a crap and turn them in for underage drinking and witnessing them doing their job, so the purpose of causing confusion among the strippers is what it is... they planned on doing something involving the strippers that they didn't want to be so easily identified for after the party.

[BrownOak]

71. Premeditation

But if you're planning on doing something illegal like raping a dancer, why would you do it in your own home. How effective is that fake name going to be if the police can drive to your living room?

[timber84]

80. nailed it brownoak!

[Marie26]

92. Pretty effective

As you can see. The police can drive to the home, but they have no way of knowing who the assailants actually are among the many people at the party. Hypothetically here, if the victim was under the influence of alcohol or slipped drugs, it would be very difficult for her to make an ID based on looks alone. The fake names & numbers confuse her about the assailant's identity - making it hopefully impossible for her to prove which players assaulted her. It's sort of weak to say that a rape couldn't happen in the assailant's own house. In this case, it's not like this player was alone at the house w/the dancer. There's a crowd of 40+ potential suspects, & there's no way to know if the assailant lived at the house or not. The dancers probably didn't know who actually lived there & who didn't. The assailant could be just as anonymous here as he could be at a frat party anywhere else.

[timber84]

94. Where are the indictments for this "conspiracy" amogst the

team?

[Marie26]

96. Can't prove it

Contrary to popular opinion, Nifong can't walk in & indict anyone he chooses. He's having enough trouble proving the sexual assault crime. To get conspiracy charges, he'd have to establish w/probable cause that the teammates agreed to commit a sexual assault. If no one's talking to the police, or breaking ranks, he doesn't have any evidence of a agreement (if any). I'm not saying any of these facts prove that all the teammates participated in a consipiracy, I'm just saying it suggests that this crime was pre-meditated. How many teammates knew beforehand, we don't know.

[BrownOak]

99. Exactly how effective is it

since three guys are indicted? Seriously, if you're going to commit a crime which leaves a witness and I give you the choice of doing it in your house or somewhere that won't be traced to you, which one would you take (assuming you have the criminal mind that jberryhill has shown you to have... and me to have)?

Regardless of all the other stuff they could do to lower the odds of getting caught, wouldn't it make sense not to do it in your house? I mean, if you go the level to plan have everyone use a fake name and then to slip someone a date rape drug then clearly you've put a lot of thought into this thing. Why wouldn't they take the biggest precaution and change the venue.

BTW - since one of the guys indicted is a resident of the house, it's pretty safe to say the hypothetical we're discussing is one regarding a guy who lived there. But even it wasn't you're then tossing out a scenario where player X would have to get everyone to use fake names so that he could rape someone in another guy's bathroom. Now, I personally try to be a good host, but if someone's coming up to me with the "say BrownOak old boy, nice work out there today on the old lacrosse pitch. By the way, do you mind calling me Adam for the rest of the day and would you answer to Biff. I'm planning to rape the stripper in your bathroom, don't worry about the police who are likely to come around, this fake name stuff will do the job" I'm likely to pass on that proposal.

[TorchTheWitch]

153. We've discussed this before

It's unlikely that ALL of the team members would have been in on planning a rape or knowing one would be happening. Had it happened this way, it would have more than likely been arranged by a handful of the players and the rest of the team would either not know anything about it or go along with it.

Many of the team members who hypothetically didn't know about any plan for a rape may have just gone along with the fake names and jersey numbers because others were and they thought it was funny. As you may recall, the accuser said she was suspicious that they were using fake names because some people were calling players she recognized as having certain names by different ones, which would explain not everyone was in on the "joke" or weren't interested in playing the "game" of "put one over on the stripper just for laughs".

[BrownOak]

362. Right, but that then opens up the question of

if you were going to commit a premeditated rape, which route to you take:

Option 1 - throw a party and invite 40+ people, only some of whom would be in on the whole plan. Try to convince everybody, some or many of whom are not in on the pending rape, to call each other by fake names. Slap on a fake mustache. Don't worry about your roommate who is the type of guy who doesn't even want to be around a stripper. Order up escorts using a fake name but your real address.

Option 2 - get together with your two sicko buddies and find some sleazy, out-of-the-way hotel and rent it with cash and a phony ID. Invite strippers. Rape them.

Option 1 leaves you with multiple people who could possibly present evidence against you should the plan go awry. "Yes, I recall David walking around with a fake mustache." "Yes, it was weird, everyone was calling each other by fake names." "Wow, I saw this dancer emerge from the bathroom screaming RAPE with David, Colin, and Reade right behind her zipping up their pants."

Option 2 leaves you with nothing but the word of some dancer and these three mystery guys without names or an address.

I'm not saying that a rape did not occur at that house, but the idea that it was premeditated seems well outside the realm of logical possibilities. Even if you were tight with everybody on that team, why would you take that risk that someone would turn on you? The only way this is premeditated is if all the players were involved and that doesn't seem too likely.

I think if a rape occurred in that house it happened as a spur of the moment thing.

[jberryhill]

371. Any conspiracy wider than the three accused is off the table..

...since Nifong expressly cleared anyone who is not already indicted.

But, yes, I suppose the remaining notion is that three guys were in on the plan to rape someone they had not even seen, bought the condoms, had everyone screw around with the time and date in their cameras, distributed the code names, bought the fake mustache, and so forth while, the whole while, nobody but those three was in on the plan.

And then after the plan - i.e. now - these three have recruited the other 43 in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to commit perjury and obstruction of justice, and all of the other players, to a man, have steadfastly avoided leaking a word to anyone. Not having been rapists, they must feel they are missing out on an opportunity to become felons, so at least now they have a second chance, and uniform compliance with the plan to go from being exonerated yesterday by Nifong, to becoming criminals in the future.

I don't know where the well of rape statistics resides, but this could really be a one-of-a-kind type of thing. How common is it for this sort of premeditated rape conspiracy to be conceived and executed over the course of several hours.

The amazing thing is, after all of the careful planning and lying, they ALMOST didn't get to do it, since she left the house and had to be coaxed back in. The part of the plan labelled "Appendix D - Contingencies for Keeping Her In the House" had to be found in the briefing book fairly quickly there.

[TorchTheWitch]

485. I don't for mostly one reason

The very strong possibility of the strippers being given a date rape drug in the drinks they were given that only the accused drank. I also think that was the reason that only the accused was allegedly raped because Kim didn't drink the drink they gave her and had no symptoms of being under the influence. I have a very strong feeling that had rape been their intention they meant it to happen to both of them but only chose to do it to the accused simply because Kim didn't drink her drink... I imagine she's reflected a lot on that.

If this was planned, I really don't believe that these guys were imagining that anyone else at the party would know. They party a lot and would know that at a big loud gathering some pretty crazy things can go on behind a closed door that no one else would know about. Besides, afterward they could have been seen leaving the bathroom with the stripper and it would be thought of as them "paying for a lil somethin' extra" since it's hardly any news to them that that sort of thing goes on very often when strippers come to do a show. I also believe that the main reason she was choked was to keep her from making any loud protest that would have alerted anyone able to hear that she wasn't just in the bathroom conducting an extra service.

I also don't think that they would have felt safer to have it anywhere but at the house only among the ones that may have planned it for several reasons. First, whoever rented the room would have to have some pretty authentic looking fake ID that would show their face, so if there was ever a chance that police would get involved there would be a record of their face and the impartial witness that registered the room for them. I also doubt that they'd be anxious to flip a coin as to who got to be the one placed in the most danger of getting caught. Motel walls are also thin and you can practically hear someone pissing in the bathroom next door, so it would be too big a risk of an impartial witness as a next door neighbor in a motel who may even have seen their faces hearing something suspicious. There would be too many strangers around a motel and too big a risk of any of those strangers running into either any of them or the accused that may remember their faces and remember a distraught or very inebriated stripper. Also, with only the planners in attendance there wouldn't be any opportunity to point the finger in a lot of different directions as cover... there would be no large potential "eye witness" pool to use.

Personally, if I were planning on committing a serious crime like that I'd plan on doing it in my own house where I feel comfortable, where I know my neighbors and their patterns of behavior, where if someone leaves my house in the dark they aren't likely to be seen by anyone or anyone close enough to notice anything is wrong with them, where I know where I can stash anything I don't want found quickly, where I know I'd have plenty of time to clean up the place and don't have to let anyone in when in the process because it's my house and if you don't have a warrant you aren't coming in... a LOT of reasons. There are too many variables, too many strangers and too many unknowns at some place like a motel.

Also, I think the reason that the party was planned for ONLY team members because they have a very strong sense of community and a friendship bond as a group where they would have a high amount of trust that no one would squeal on them even if they thought that what allegedly happened was a shitty thing to do.

But there is also the general feeling among college men of that age (and maybe that station) that strippers are all having sex for money and really can't be raped since they screw strangers anyway. Other than a handful of college guys of that age they generally do believe that anyone that has sex for money can't be raped because those people have no revulsion toward anyone having sex with them. One of their patent jokes is "what's the only reason a hooker would think she was raped? - if you didn't pay her... har har har". I kid you not... they really think like that. I have no doubt that if this was some college girl that stopped by the house and the same thing happened to her, there would probably be a few guys on the team that would have no problem telling what they knew because in their minds a college girl would be "different". Recall that the cabbie heard one of the guys say outside the house "She's only a stripper." That's how guys like that really think. Hell, we have or had people right on this board that have not been shy about saying much the same thing.

[LostinVA]

488. The first two paragraphs of your post?

OMG. I'm thinking you may be dead on. THis actually makes sense. I just found out about the drinks yesterday, and that Kim Roberts didn't drink anything... it also makes other sense, too -- how the hell could 46 sociopaths be on the same team? Odds are big... but not for three to be...

You should be on Catherine Crier, Torchie. I'm serious.

[BrownOak]

490. The toxicology tests will be important

Yeah, the idea that they were both going to be given a roofie and that the one dancer ended up getting 1.5X the dosage is something I had thought about also.

But I still get back to the belief that if you're going to commit a crime, you want as few witness as possible. Even though the other guys are your teammates you would have to think that you can't be sure that 43 other people will universally support you. But we're also looking at this retrospectively when you say that you think the guys who may have planned it were comfortable with the knowledge that nobody else would know.

What happens when the victim comes out of that bathroom with her clothes missing, bruises on her, and yelling "RAPE?" It's hard to hide what may have happened then.

As for the "she's only a stripper" mentality, I would hope that someone would have the human decency to be above that level of characterization. I would hope that at the very least, the guys who would be planning this premeditated assault would have some level of doubt about at least one of their teammates.

And as for those on the board with that attitude... I think you know my position there.

[jberryhill]

126. "Keeping a Bawdy House"

Book 'em Danno...


§ 14‑188. Certain evidence relative to keeping disorderly houses admissible; keepers of such houses defined; punishment.

(a) On a prosecution in any court for keeping a disorderly house or bawdy house, or permitting a house to be used as a bawdy house, or used in such a way as to make it disorderly, or a common nuisance, evidence of the general reputation or character of the house shall be admissible and competent; and evidence of the lewd, dissolute and boisterous conversation of the inmates and frequenters, while in and around such house, shall be prima facie evidence of the bad character of the inmates and frequenters, and of the disorderly character of the house. The manager or person having the care, superintendency or government of a disorderly house or bawdy house is the "keeper" thereof, and one who employs another to manage and conduct a disorderly house or bawdy house is also "keeper" thereof.

(b) On a prosecution in any court for keeping a disorderly house or a bawdy house, or permitting a house to be used as a bawdy house or used in such a way to make it disorderly or a common nuisance, the offense shall constitute a Class 2 misdemeanor. (1907, c. 779; C.S., s. 4347; 1969, c. 1224, s. 22; 1993, c. 539, s. 121; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

[Marie26]

128. Is that law from 1675?

A "bawdy house," lol. I'd agree, but that probably covers almost every fraternity house in the country. But Evans should have some responsibility here for permitting this party, after all the violations in the past.

[jberryhill]

130. No, that's from the NC code

...there's like a gazillion things they can cite here, based on the circus of admissions alone.

[Marie26]

131. Yeah,

I know, I just thought it was funny. There's so many archaic-sounding laws still lying around. I hadn't heard of that statute before, but it sounds like a good charge in this case. I'm sure the house residents could be charged under this law, or nuisance, or lots of other violations. It seems like Nifong's going to try to bring some of these code violations to pressure the teammates into talking to prosecutors.

[TorchTheWitch]

148. Simple

Out of all those players how would the stripper know who lived there? When the police show up and ask if a "Tom" "Dick" and "Harry" live there who the stripper says raped her at the house, they'll find that it's Dan, Dave and Matt that live there, so "Tom" "Dick" and "Harry" must be other people who may or may not have been at the party at all.

I also don't imagine they ever thought they'd actually end up having to talk to police at all. Fake names were a "just in case" as the police determined in their interviews of the players. If a rape occurred at this party and it was planned to happen there's no doubt in my mind that those responsible ever imagined there would be an accuser scoping out their faces in a line-up.

[bettyellen]

58. well it's more than that: lying to the agency about the size of the party.

and also making up names is pretty weird- more elaborate than other things i have heard supposed here, what's that about? .
perhaps if they had been honest about the size of the party they would have had to pay more- for a bodyguard? is that why they might have lied? i'm just saying in light of all this there are credibilty issues.

do you think these boys were unsophisticated enough to think that all dancers are also willing to whore? i've known men to hire both because here in NY, generally strippers don;t whore, and whores don;t strip, they go down on you for cash in the bathroom. and it's very clear and upfront when you hire em what's what.

wrong again, my youth was horribly spent! but by the time i was 21, i had been on the scene too many years and was bored. that's what happens when you start at 14. :shrug: it;s nice to know i don;t seem too jaded.

[jberryhill]

60. I'm convinced they were pretty stupid and unsophisticated

To be doing what they admit they were doing.

I wonder if the "invite list" to the party grew after word got around that strippers were booked.

The thing that strikes me as the most odd fact about the party, actually, is that lacrosse players claim they were the only people there. Were these guys so socially isolated that nobody on the team, and I mean nobody, had a friend off the team that wouldn't have tagged along?

That's one of the several reasons I think the suspect pool is unduly constricted here - and it is the ONE piece of information that is entirely of "defense origin" which everyone takes as well-established fact.

[Marie26]

65. Honestly,

I think that's suspicious also. I have never heard of a faternity party w/o girls there. To a college guy, what's the point? And, these guys had to have other guy friends outside of the lacrosse team, who would be interested in coming. Yet, it's only & exclusively the 40-odd players who are invited. This, also, suggests that there was something planned that they wanted to keep "inside" the loyal circle of lacrosse players & something that they wanted to stop "outsiders" (non-lacrosse players) from knowing about. Combine that w/the fake reservations, fake names, etc., & starts to look even more like they were very interested in keeping this party a secret. Why? Finally, combine that w/the one lacrosse player's sociopathic email hours after the party - he said that he was planning another lacrosse party the next week; that there'd be no sex "this time", but that he would kill the strippers. Perhaps this party was planned in advance, and a crime was planned in advance. That would explain the secrecy, the lack of "non-lacrosse" guests, and the effort to conceal their identities.

[bettyellen]

72. and their lies probably helped prevent a bodyguard from coming too.

by saying there were 4-5 grown ups- a wedding party, and not close to fifty students they misrepresented the kind of security risjk it was for the two gals.
one player stayed in his room the whole time, doesn't approve of strippers enough to just be in the same room as one? that's odd too.

[BrownOak]

73. Now there's a suspect...

one player stayed in his room the whole time, doesn't approve of strippers enough to just be in the same room as one? that's odd too.

This is the guy I would worry about ;)

[Raster]

200. Really? Maybe that's the guy that actually had some morales and values.

And it could be that's the guy that didn't want to take part in what he knew would be illegal unlawful activity. Worry about him? Not hardly.

[timber84]

83. anytime a stripper does a private show outside a public place

is a security risk and no matter how many are in attendance she should have a bodygurad.

[bettyellen]

88. doesn;t change the fact that the lied 1000% about the nature of the risk..

10 times as many attendees as they told the agency. they stacked the decks. by lying. tha's a fact.
your "should" is merely an opinion.

[timber84]

89. and a good opinion if I must say so myself.

[bettyellen]

104. no opinion as to why they'd tell such a big lie though?

or why they'd intentionally try to confuse the strippers by using fake names?

[timber84]

105. Were you at the party? How do you know for sure everyones

actions, everything is speculation until a jury proves otherwise.

[bettyellen]

120. but YOU yourself said it wasn't unusual, so i thought you could splain it!

i hadn;t seen this as disputed. and i have seen you do a big share of speculating yourself. all of a sudden you don;t feel like it, huh?

[jberryhill]

122. How long was it before they made the booking and the party?

Perhaps the attendee list grew some, to become more gruesome.

[TorchTheWitch]

171. Dan Flannery admitted to police that he lied

when booking the strippers. So case closed on that.

[jberryhill]

228. Ah good.

Okay, thanks.

Consider that loose end snipped.

[TorchTheWitch]

323. with cuticle scissors?

I mean, since we've had all the nail paraphernalia out and all.

:rofl:

[timber84]

123. I am speculating about everything....

I can't believe that anyone would make up a charge like this however the more info that comes out from both sides has me wondering and not willing to belive either party at this point, however I am leaning to the side of the accused until I see something more than a he said she said story. That's my opinion flame me if you will but I'm not budging till something more concreste arises.

[jberryhill]

129. Okay then... but you won't like it....

[bettyellen]

132. did you love Marie's post that NO ONE at the party could have had a stache

if it was just the players there. so why would the dancer make up a mustache???
the stache is the new fingernail.

[jberryhill]

134. Could be...

....but we're going to have know what kind of glue holds on a fake mustache.

Oh Torchy... we have another wardrobe failure in the works...

[bettyellen]

139. ohmigod, i knew this was going somewhere familiar.

good one.
:rofl:

[TorchTheWitch]

174. She never did

She said one of the photos in the line-up would look like one of the attackers if it wasn't for the mustache. In other words, she was shown a photo of said suspect wherein he had a mustache. It's right in the transcript.

[Moosepoop]

183. No, Torchie... she saw a photo without a mustache.

From the transcript of the photo I.D. session:

Image 5

Victim: He looks like one of the guys who assaulted me sort.

Sgt: Ok. How um, how sure of it are you on this image?

Victim: He looks just like him without the mustache.

Sgt: Ok. So the person had a mustache?

Victim: Yes.

Sgt: Percentage wise, what is the likelihood this is one of the gentleman who assaulted you?

Victim: About 90%.

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

*******

The guy who assaulted her had a mustache, the photo she I.D.'d didn't.
I think a fake mustache being worn that night is a real possibility.

[TorchTheWitch]

208. oh for crying out loud!

Every damn place I see that has this transcript info snips and cuts and pastes bits and pieces from here to there all over the place. UGH! So agravating!

So, ok, the mustache was at the party. Gotcha.

Actually, he could have grown his own in a few days... wouldn't have been a brushie pushbroom thing, but if he's got dark hair a few days growth would look like a mustache.

[IndianaGreen]

214. Maybe she thought it was Saddam Hussein who raped her

or some Martian wearing a mustache. Really, it stretches credulity when one speculates on wild conspiracy theories except the obvious truth: the accuser identified a man with a mustache and the Mr. Evans has never had a mustache, nor are there any pictures taken in the party in which it shows anyone with a mustache.

This case is no case!

[Marie26]

236. Why would she do that?

It strains credibility to me to think that she would make up a moustache that isn't in team photo line-up, & wasn't consistent w/anyone from the party. If no players had a moustache, why not just select a photo w/o adding more info that would debunk her own identification? She's not crazy, here. The most likely explanation is that she did see someone that night w/a moustache & was working off of her own memory of that night.

[jberryhill]

279. You mean it might not have been EVANS?

Marie, there is a dude facing 40 years in jail right now, who didn't have a mustache the day before, and didn't have a mustache the day after, because "The most likely explanation is that she did see someone that night w/a moustache".

Someone?

She said she saw Evans with a mustache. Not "someone" with a mustache.

Evans is facing the full force of the government right now because his DNA is in his bathroom trashcan and because he looked like "someone with a mustache?"

Why doesn't anyone treat the cabbie with such remarkably accurate memory:

He said the dancer left in a white car. The women arrived at the Kroger in a dark car, according to the security guards and cops there.

Maybe she saw the guy with the mustache when the two women changed cars on the way to the Kroger.

Or maybe memory isn't very accurate. That's why you need corroborating physical evidence in addition to that.

You put in front of a jury that she said he had a mustache, and you put in front of a jury that he has no freakin' mustache, and that jury is not going to knit him a fake mustache. They are going to say the ID was mistaken.

Mistakes - has anyone here ever heard of them? When someone gets a fact wrong it doesn't mean they are lying - they could be mistaken.

[pnwmom]

258. A fake mustache is a possibility. A blurry memory is another.

[Marie26]

209. Couldn't be

If she was shown the same team photos that appeared in the "wanted poster", none of those players have a moustache. So, she had to be working off her own memories of the party. There's no earthly reason why she would make that up - if this is a false allegation, she would've confirmed to the photos, not added more elements that contradict the player's photos & appearance that night. It seems pretty clear that she really saw someone w/a moustache that night. If none of the players had a real one (easy to find out), and only players were invited, then the moustache must be fake. And if they're wearing disguises, in addition to using fake names, it's a pretty safe bet that the player wearing the disguise was planning something pretty bad that night.

[IndianaGreen]

225. The moment one has to invent scenarios to explain a case

it shows how weak the case is. The OJ defense used all kinds of scenarios to explain who had a motive to kill Nicole Brown, including angry Colombian drug lords. The problem is that the obvious explanation was the most reasonable: OJ killed Nicole in a jealous rage.

Now we find the same mental gymnastics by people that want very much to believe the accuser's account, even if they have to invent fake mustaches that leave no fibers as evidence!

[Marie26]

259. Logical reasoning

Isn't it inventing a scenario to say that the AV was making up a moustached alien who wasn't really there? That's some mental gymnastics as well. Yes, I agree that defense attorneys will often make up wild scenarios to help their guilty clients, but w/o reference to the OJ case, drug lords, etc., I'm curious as to your logical explanation for this. She was actually there at the party, so she knows if she saw someone w/a moustache or not. Assuming no one in the photo line-up, or the party, had one - why would she add in a moustache that would disprove her own identification of the assailant? That doesn't make sense. Assuming someone at the party had a real moustache, how is that possible if the players weren't allowed to have them & they say only players were at the party? That doesn't make sense. Assuming she really saw a player w/a mustache, but the moustache was fake - that explains how a lacrosse player could have a moustache, and also explains why that player would use one to hide his identity as he assaulted her. That makes sense. If there's another logical explanation here, w/o reference to aliens, OJ, Saddam, etc., I'd like to hear it.

[IndianaGreen]

262. It makes sense if the accuser just picked three faces out of the photo

since it was not a standard lineup, I think this entire photo ID is seriously flawed, particularly in the absence of any other concrete evidence.

[jberryhill]

286. She wasn't the ONLY person at the party...

She was actually there at the party, so she knows if she saw someone w/a moustache or not.

This was a photo line-up, not Mr. Potato Head.

The cop at the Kroger described her as "passed out". Pictures show her stumbling on the back porch. How clear do you think her memory was?

Maybe long after the event, when looking at the photos, she thought she remembered seeing a mustache, and didn't see one.

It's one thing to say you "believe the victim". It is another thing to say you believe the victim is infallible in every detail.

[pnwmom]

260. Another possibility is that she was having an alcoholic or

drug induced blackout during at least part of that night and that someone with a mustache attacked her before she even went to that particular party. So she might not be lying, but might not even know the truth.

[Marie26]

267. Looking at that possibility

OK, it's clear that she was in a state of blackout after leaving the party that night. But the 2nd dancer said she was acting normally when she arrived, and was photographed performing, etc. w/o problems. So, she was attacked by a moustached man, then went to the lacrosse party & acted normally & left after a normal gig, then she suddenly blacked out on the stoop & in the other dancer's car as she left the house. Then, she misremembered being raped by the moustached man earlier & thought she was raped by 3 lacrosse players in the house's bathroom, yet included the moustache from the real assailant along w/her false memory of being assaulted by the players? That seems pretty complicated & unlikely to me. It seems more likely that she actually saw someone at the party w/a moustache, instead of imagining or making it up.

[IndianaGreen]

271. None of the photos taken at the party shows anyone with a mustache

Unless one were to argue that the man with the mustache purposely avoided having his picture taken, and that's a stretch.

[Marie26]

283. Sort of missing the point

There's no photos of Evans (who the dancer says had the moustache), so there's no way of knowing whether he had one or not that night. Since most of the photos were of the dancers, there's really no reason why the all the players should appear in the photos. We have her testimony, and there's no reason for her to make up a non-existent moustache, and there's no way for a player to have a real moustache. A fake moustache is a reasonable, logical, conclusion. Though other possibilities have been mentioned (which I don't find very persuasive, though it's just IMO). People can reach their own conclusions on what explanation they believe.

[TorchTheWitch]

324. or he had his picture taken and

they didn't submit that photo to their own attorneys or they did submit it and the attorneys are pretending it doesn't exist.

Which is NOT a stretch.

[LostinVA]

337. That's what I was thinking n/t

[Marie26]

364. Exactly. nt

[pnwmom]

285. I understood that the second dancer said she was NOT

acting normally when she arrived. At least, that's what she said in her initial statement, then changed her story later.

I tended to believe the 2nd dancer initially, until she went to the publicist and decided to change her story.

[TorchTheWitch]

326. Kim was always consistant on the sobriety of the accuser

upon arrival at the party. Kim Roberts has been consistant in saying that the accuser arrived in a sober condition and then rapidly became "drunk" or "out of it" after drinking the drinks they were both given. She has always said they were both given drinks but Kim didn't drink hers, the accuser drank half of the one she was given, spilled the rest and then drank the drink that Kim was given.

She has also been consistant in that at first she was mad at the accuser for her behavior and didn't know or think she had been raped or drugged. It wasn't until later that she thought she might have been. She STILL maintains that she did not see a rape and does not know if one occurred or not.

[LostinVA]

338. That's why I think Kim Roberts is a great witness for the AV

She has stuck by her story, and what she says does backup what the AV has stated... and possible toxicology results re: date rape drugs, etc. She also had never meant the victim before, so these people crying "conspiracy of strippers" are way off base. She also acted with integrity that night -- she could have just bailed, but didn't want to leave the other woman -- A COMPLETE STRANGER -- behind with a bunch of racist drunks. Her story has never changed. She has never, ever said, "Oh, I KNOW this ir this or this happened." She has only stated her observations.

[BrownOak]

451. Kim Roberts, bastion of integrity

She has stuck by her story, and what she says does backup what the AV has stated... and possible toxicology results re: date rape drugs, etc. She also had never meant the victim before, so these people crying "conspiracy of strippers" are way off base. She also acted with integrity that night -- she could have just bailed, but didn't want to leave the other woman -- A COMPLETE STRANGER -- behind with a bunch of racist drunks. Her story has never changed. She has never, ever said, "Oh, I KNOW this ir this or this happened." She has only stated her observations.

First, she has not stuck by her story or at least it's a pretty good indication that she hasn't since she's said she's changed her mind about what she thinks happened. Oddly enough, that was after being arrested and then shortly after changing her observations her bond is changed by the DA.

Secondly, she lied to the police twice about the circumstances surrounding the 911 calls.

Thirdly, she's contacted a PR firm to try and profit from this.

She gets points for not leaving someone behind in a bad situation. But that's where the train ends. It will be interesting to see what her first statement to the police was.

[jberryhill]

455. Not at the party, but she wanted the AV out of her car...

That's why Roberts stopped at the Kroger. To get someone to help get the AV out of her car.

Roberts wanted to dump the AV at the Kroger parking lot, and lied about how the AV got into the car in the first place.

[TorchTheWitch]

325. except for Bissey's testimony

Bissey says he saw the accuser arrive, walk from the car to the house, speak with a few players outside the house and then enter the house all without noticing any inebriation. Bissey would have noticed how falling down drunk the players claim she was when she arrived at the party.

Kind of interesting when the players made this claim they didn't know Bissey was watching it all.

[not_nameless]

215. why would the dancer make up a mustache???

is this the best argument you have? Why would one lie?
one of the many (no, it's not Tawana) : http://www.innocenceproject.org/case/display_profile.php?id=163
"After this identification, Doswell was arrested and charged. At trial, both the victim and the co-worker who had initially come to her aid made in-court identifications of Doswell. Testing was performed on samples from the rape kit. The serologist found A, B, and H antigens on the samples. Because the victim was a type AB secretor, no conclusions could be made about what blood type the rapist was because the victim's type masked the perpetrator....
...Thomas Doswell was released on August 1, 2005, and welcomed home by his family. He was 25 years old when he was arrested for this crime in 1986."

[TorchTheWitch]

231. Yes, why would she?

Why would she mention a mustache that no one at the party apparently had? Why would she lie about something like that? If someone lies they do it to help themselves in some way. Why would mentioning a mustache that apparantly did not exist on anyone's face at the party be of any help to her if she was fabricating the whole story? What would be the point? If no one apparantly had a mustache at the party why would she say someone did? If no one apparantly had a mustache at the party it would hurt her credibility a lot to mention that someone did, so why would she say that?

Yes, why indeed would she mention an apparantly non-existant mustache? Why would she mention this mustache that apparantly did not exist happened to be on the face of someone she identified as an attacker? Bad enough to her credibility if she mentioned an apparant non-existant mustache on someone's face who she DIDN'T ID as one of her attackers, so why mention an apparant non-existant mustache on the face of someone she ID'd as one of her attackers when that would be even worse for her credibility?

Well, if someone DID have a mustache at the party and that someone was a person she ID'd as one of her attackers, then there would be a logical reason for mentioning a mustache.

If you have some OTHER logical reason, we'd love to hear it.

[not_nameless]

256. here it is:

people do not always do rational things.

Let's assume that she lied about the rape for a moment (which I believe she did). She said one thing, and then another to cover what she said before and so on. Eventually she loses track of the lies. It happens enough times, and not just in rape cases. One lie leads to another till the cops have had enough.

Just now from Google news on "recant rape" keyword:
"Police: Girl Recants Rape Claim Against 7 Boys"
http://www.nbc5.com/news/9177473/detail.html

Accused abuser recants much of videotaped confession
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-bk-cramer050506,0,1525469.story?coll=orl-news-headlines

Tulsa student recants rape claim
http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=4906092

Woman recants rape claim against former Brattleboro-based trooper
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060510/NEWS/605100393/1003/NEWS02

The fact that she does not recall if the guy who forced her to perform oral had a condom on or not is telling to me. If you're raped from behind, or from the top, I could see, but not this.

[Marie26]

288. Irrelevant

We're not talking about other cases, or other allegations in this case. We're talking about why the allegation that an assailant had a moustache. She was at the party, so she could see if no one had one. So why would she lie & say the assailant had a moustache when no one at the party did, & no one in the line-up did? It's unnecessary & illogical to lie about that - the more logical explanation is that she really saw someone there w/one. That's all I'm saying.

[TorchTheWitch]

327. the cops believe her

You're saying "until the cops have had enough" isn't relevant. The more they investigate the more they believe she was indeed raped at this party.

The business about the condoms NEVER had anything to do with the alleged oral rape. The only reason for the discussion of condoms at all would be because of the lack of DNA found on her. DNA will not survive in the mouth as saliva and spitting/swallowing breaks it down too quickly to be discovered particularly if the person who allegedly raped her orally did not ejaculate. She was also allegedly raped in a bathroom with running water, and I would defy any person to be orally raped in a bathroom and NOT rinse out their mouth.

As for your handful of recanting of rape stories, how many of these got passed the SANE, and how many were recanted because the person felt threatened or simply couldn't emotionally handle going forward with prosecution?

[jberryhill]

311. Some hypothetical answers...

...but you aren't going to like them. But you answered one question yourself:


If no one apparantly had a mustache at the party it would hurt her credibility a lot to mention that someone did


Read what you wrote there. Because that "if/then" appears to reflect the present reality. What follows is entirely hypothetical.

--------Begin hypothetical on par with inventing mustaches--------------

But IF (note the word "IF" there) she were lying about being raped at the party, which does not mean lying about being raped. If, for example, she were raped before or after the party by someone she knows, fears, and is still a threat to her, then after falling apart, attracting official attention and having the SANE nurse find injuries consistent with rape, then she HAS a big problem if she is afraid to say who really did it.

So, now she has a bunch of strangers asking "who did it", and she goes to a photo lineup. SHE doesn't know that the photo lineup only consists of people at the party. So to avoid ID'ing one of the "ringers" that is NORMALLY in a photo lineup, she throws in some details that are simply red herrings, but save her from making a positive ID of one of the photo lineup "fillers".

That would be more likely if, for example, she or someone she knew had previous exposure to a crime investigation.

But maybe if we stopped calling her a "stripper" and started calling her "a student", we MIGHT be curious what she has been studying.


Why would mentioning a mustache that apparantly did not exist on anyone's face at the party be of any help to her if she was fabricating the whole story?

Because, in this hypothetical where she is fabricating the whole story to protect a rapist whom she fears, the point is not to make a positive ID of ANYONE, but to make enough of a pass at an ID so that the investigation eventually peters out or has enough loose ends to keep knitting more socks.

But, the whole time, she has to make a good enough show of it, so that this rapist, who is someone close to her, doesn't start to suspect that she's going to turn him in.

[TorchTheWitch]

328. problem with the hypothetical

Even if she was raped immediately before the party (the same day), her demeaner and behavior would have been noted by the people who came into contact with her. The person who gave her a ride to the party would be able to testify as to her demeaner and behavior and for all we know did so right at the beginning. Kim Roberts would have noticed something not right with her when she arrived at the party and at the beginning of the party. The fact that she had such a complete breakdown after the party would tend to refute her being raped some time earlier that day as there would be some sign that she was not well or behaving normally. There are people who would have come into contact with her that we don't even know about who would be able to testify as to her demeaner and behavior earlier that day.

And then there's the obvious... a woman recently raped would not go to a party of strange men, take off her clothes for them, act sexy and appear normal and unaffected. The very idea is just ridiculous. For most women who have been raped it takes a long time just to feel comfortable with their own husbands or fathers or boyfriends or brothers.

Emotionally, stripping is not an easy job. There have been MANY times that I just cannot deal with acting sexy and appealing for strange men and just suffer my shift till it's over or just not go to work. There have been many times over the years where a customer has tried to touch me inappropriately in a way that disgusts me and afterward I either just can't get through the rest of my shift trying to put on a happy face and go home or suffer the rest of the shift in the dressing room. This happens to ALL strippers. The very idea of being raped and going off to do my job is just ABSURD. It's simply an impossibility. And where I work there are bouncers and managers and dozens of other dancers. There is just no possible way one could go off to do an outcall gig in a strange place full of nothing but strange faces with no security after being raped.

Maybe you have to be a woman or a woman who works as a stripper to understand this. The very THOUGHT alone is making me nauseated right now.

[jberryhill]

343. That's the Same "Everyone Reacts Like Me" Fallacy

...in trying to understand other people's reactions to situations.

People are different in the way they respond to things.

Not only do some people exhibit a delayed reaction to trauma, but this thing about acting sexy, normal, and unaffected does not fit with the fact that some controversy is said to have erupted at the party because she wasn't performing well. The pictures and the neighbor, even if you sort them in any chronology you want, have her smiling, angry, passed out... exhibiting moods changing from minute to minute - i.e. some sort of emotional instability. Gee, what could cause that?

For example, some people, when you have a photo ID mentioning a non-existent mustache react with, "Must be a faulty ID".
Other people react with, "Must have been a fake mustache", and we have Mr. Potato Head as the prime suspect.
Faulty ID's happen all of the time.

The problem with working backwards from a conclusion is that instead of letting a probable reality emerge from any number of alternative possible realities, the error is in patching and filling probable reality to fit the presumed conclusion.

But...

The person who gave her a ride to the party would be able to testify as to her demeaner and behavior and for all we know did so right at the beginning.

Unless that person is the rapist. There's been quite a cast of characters, props and costumes in this drama, but we still haven't met this person have we?

[Moosepoop]

348. No, we haven't met him.

Unless that person is the rapist. There's been quite a cast of characters, props and costumes in this drama, but we still haven't met this person have we?

But you can bet that if there were any chance of the driver being the rapist, we'd have been introduced to him by the defense. One of the defense attorneys even stated that he wasn't going to identify the driver, because the driver didn't deserve to have his name dragged through the mud. If the defense isn't calling this guy the possible rapist, I don't know why anyone else is.

[jberryhill]

352. I don't understand that...

If the defense isn't calling this guy the possible rapist, I don't know why anyone else is.

Because the defense is not investigating a rape. The defense is going to deny she was raped - period. So they are not going to identify ANY possible rapist.

She had injuries consistent with rape. Any man with whom she was in contact that evening is a potential suspect. "The players" are routinely called rapists, even though she said only three, or possibly four, attacked her. All of their names are mud.


One of the defense attorneys even stated that he wasn't going to identify the driver, because the driver didn't deserve to have his name dragged through the mud.

The driver who dropped her off is a witness. The neighbor, Bissey, has been identified, and not dragged through any mud. The cabbie has been identified, and not dragged through the mud.

Why is it "dragging him through the mud" to simply identify another witness as to the demeanor of the players when he dropped her off and/or her condition at that time?

What is so special about this unidentified witness that he can't be identified?

If the defense isn't calling this guy the possible rapist, I don't know why anyone else is.

Is the defense running this show?

There's another witness to the events of that evening, and nobody cares who?

Hey, maybe this guy saw the fake mustache too!

(aside: I thought it was the boyfriend that nobody wanted to run through the mud. I never saw anything suggesting the driver who dropped her off was the boyfriend.)

[TorchTheWitch]

372. Oh geez

No woman do not all react the same when they've been raped but they don't act NORMAL either. There's a reason why a SANE is able to recognize emotional signs and symptoms associated with a person being raped because there ARE signs and symptoms. Someone who has recently gone through a severe trauma displays signs and symptoms of it that are noticable to a lay person. They may not know the reason for the behavior but they recognize it as abnormal.

Kim Roberts had no inkling that there was anything wrong with the accuser whatsoever until the she downed those drinks and the party progressed.

Yes she is said to have smiled, gotten angry, fallen down, etc. but if those reactions aren't consistant with normal reactions according to what was going on at the time, then it's all irrelevant. She may have smiled when she first got there and first started dancing, she may have gotten angry when the men got obnoxious and gave them cause to be angry, she may have been falling down or passing out because there was definitely something in her system that was causing this. If all her different behavior matches appropriate responses to what's going on around her or how a drug may be affecting her system, that's NORMAL behavior.

Now, if she got angry when she first arrived when the players were being polite, smiled when she had cause to be angry with their obnoxious behavior and started falling down or passing out for no reason that could be associated with something affecting her system then you might have something. However, Kim Roberts' statements about what happened at the party and how both her and the accuser reacted were similar and normal and appropriate to the conditions except for when she began falling down or passing out which is obviously already attributed to some chemical in her system. That is NOT the behavior and demeaner of someone who has recently been raped.

I think we all already know that the person who dropped her off at the party was her boyfriend. If the rape is being attributed to him, she would not have the same reactions as someone who was brutally gang raped by strangers. Her boyfriend is someone she cares for and has had consensual sex with. Many women have been raped by their boyfriends or husbands but unless it is physically brutal the reaction is different then a brutal gang rape by strangers that would cause a reaction as violent as what she experienced after the party. And if she was raped by him she would not have calmly driven with him in the car and behaved normally when arriving at the party smiling and greeting the guests with her rapist right there in the car.

And of course we haven't met this person. The defense would like nothing more than to pretend he doesn't exist because of all people he could be the one to testify as to her physical condition, behavior, emotional state, etc. both before the party started when he dropped her off and when he saw her afterward AND testify as to what belongings she took with her to the party and what she was wore to the party... many of which the defense is desparately trying to find a plausible reason for the fact that she no longer has them. That is one witness the defense would love for the ground to open up and swallow, so it's hardly surprising we haven't heard word one about him.

There's something you need to understand about being a stripper. Technically, we're all sexually assaulted almost every time we work. We just have different standards as to what most women would determine sexual assault to be. Someone groping my breasts or my butt doesn't phase me whereas if the average woman was groped that way by a stranger underneath her clothing she'd be devistated and calling the cops. However, we all have our personal limits. My personal limits are more extreme then some and more puritan than others. But for almost all of us, any non-consensual groping of the "pink parts" is way out of bounds. Even someone getting uncomfortably close to the pink parts is out of bounds, and it is those times when our reactions are not so different as the average woman being sexually assaulted. ALL strippers have at one time or another not been fast enough or clever enough to avoid this contact, so we ALL know how it throws us right off our game sometimes for days or even weeks. I can tell you, there is no possible way any stripper who was recently raped could then go out and strip at a gig full of strangers as she knows she is going to be facing the possibility of sexual assault again by doing so. We ALL face that possibility every single time we go to work and to imagine it doesn't affect us on some level is ridiculous.

[jberryhill]

377. Need a link for that, sorry

I think we all already know that the person who dropped her off at the party was her boyfriend.

That would be a new fact. I'm sorry, Ma'am, but I'll need to see your link (only because you sent me off in answer to the question "Then how did DNA get on the broom?" recently).

Remember, there is still a white person's pubic hair running around at large, and we haven't even figured out whether her boyfriend is white.

I have no idea what the big deal is about the allegedly missing clothes. They weren't in the house two days later, so? Did they put them in the back of Robert's car, throw them out, whatever. Why does it matter? Seligman left before she did, are you saying he took them with?

I do not pretend to understand the mindset or attitudes of everyone in my profession. You were saying elsewhere on the thread that there are strippers who perform oral sex for $5 to support drug habits. I gathered from your recitation of "it takes all kinds" that it, indeed, takes all kinds.

We've been asked, and I'm certainly willing, to consider this woman as "student", "mother", and lots of other things than something she did part time, and you have no idea how much experience she had, or indeed anything else about her personality or emotional make up.

If your point is that the defense doesn't want to bring up the drop-off driver, then doesn't that make you MORE curious about what this driver has to say? I mean, damn, another witness to corroborate the hypothesis that she arrived sober and in tip-top condition... I'd think you'd be really itching to hear what this person had to say.

But the lack of curiousity about this witness continues unabated.

Did you notice that her prior report of rape involved a boyfriend? Taking that as true, then tell me, is it more likely or is it less likely that she would be involved in an abusive relationship if she had been a rape victim as a teenager? You KNOW the answer to that.

And one thing an abused woman gets REAL good at, is keeping up a false appearance to protect her abuser.


That is NOT the behavior and demeaner of someone who has recently been raped.

People are individuals, and can differ wildly. How "someone" is supposed to react is irrelevant to how "this person" is likely to react - which would depend upon knowing something about that person as an individual - and not as some sort of mythic symbol.

[Kingshakabobo]

351. Is it as absurd as being raped and then photographed SMILING? nt

[TorchTheWitch]

387. was she photographed smiling before or after a rape?

And was it a smile or a grimace? None of us have seen any smile or grimace because none of us have been allowed to see her face. Only the defense has reported she was smiling. Other people who have seen the actual untouched photo of her face have said it could be a smile and could be a grimace.

[pnwmom]

257. Maybe her whole evening was a blur. Where was she before

this party? Maybe someone earlier did have a mustache.

[IndianaGreen]

266. Maybe one of the 3 men that raped her when she was 14 had a mustache

and that she is still suffering from PTSD. Who knows? What we do know is that no fake mustache fibers were found, and no photos of the party shows anyone wearing false mustaches or beards, and that Mr. Evans never had a mustache.

[Marie26]

270. The previous

assailants were juveniles - so it's unlikely that they'd have moustaches. Why should fake moustache fibers be found on the victim? Like their hair, if it didn't touch her, so there's no reason to find fibers on her. We don't know if Evans had a moustache during the party or not, since he doesn't apparantly appear in any of the photos. So it's an unknown. Assuming it's not a PTSD flashback (unlikely) or something, there's no reason for her to make that up. I'm sure the DA has investigated this already, though, as has the defense. If there's anything to prove or disprove this, we'll hear it at trial.

[IndianaGreen]

272. The previous assailants were men, not juveniles as you portrayed them

The mother also told ESSENCE that when her daughter was 17 or 18, she was raped by several men, one of whom was someone she knew. The attack took place in the town of Creedmoor, about 15 miles northeast of Durham, and was a “set up,” according to the accuser’s mother. Although other family members confirmed that the alleged victim reported the incident to police in that jurisdiction, the young woman declined to pursue the case, relatives say out of fear for her safety.

http://www.essence.com/essence/lifestyle/takeastand/0,16109,1188001,00.html

[TorchTheWitch]

329. Essense got that story wrong

She was not raped when she was 17 or 18. She was raped at 14 and didn't report it until she was 17 or 18. And her mother may have been referring to them as men according the the ages they would be now and not back at that time. One of the "men" was her boyfriend at the time and the other two were his friends. I find it highly unlikely that at the age of 14 she was dating a "man" who had "men" friends.

Many of the Duke lacrosse players are in their early 20's yet they are constantly referred to as "boys".

[IndianaGreen]

467. See post 466, statutory rape in Creedmore Police Dept report

she was a minor, the suspects were adults.

[Marie26]

368. Do we know their ages?

The assailants were her boyfriend at the time, his friend & his brother. She was 14, & it's reasonable to think that the boyfriend was a young man as well. I have to be careful, cause I'm working off of what was posted here, & in another thread, someone said that one of the reasons the charges were dropped was because all involved were juveniles. I can't find the ages of the assailants, though, and they could have been older as well. (He couldn't be much over 18, though). The previous assailants were also all black. It's just hard to see how this could be a flashback. In my limited experience w/PTSD, I thought "flashbacks" were of the actual previous attack, not a completely different hallucinated encounter in a completely different context. So she had a flashback, and remembered the mustache, but not the race of the assailants, & created a memory that it involved lacrosse players, imagined it took place at the house, etc.? And also somehow sustained similar injuries to a sexual assault that same night? I don't buy it. I guess it's a possibility, but I believe it's a highly unlikely one.

[IndianaGreen]

466. The Creedmore police report says it was statutory rape

Statutory rape means that the suspects were adults and the victim was a minor.

[pnwmom]

287. I hadn't heard that about the photos at the party. This

whole case seems so lame.

If she actually was raped, the prosecutor made a huge mistake by indicting so quickly. He's not helping his case.

[TorchTheWitch]

331. Why would we be seeing any photos of a man

with a mustache? Obviously, if such a photo exists, the players either didn't give it to their own counsel or more likely the defense isn't letting anyone see it. Just because we haven't seen a photo with a man with a mustache doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. There are plenty of photos that we haven't seen that articles describe exist. We've only seen a sampling of them.

Geez, why does it even need to be said?

[timber84]

150. lol

[bettyellen]

161. :(O

[TorchTheWitch]

172. STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!

My bladder just can't take more funny stuff!

:rofl:

[bettyellen]

176. sorry sweetie. i have adhesive burnout......

it looked cute, right?

[LostinVA]

339. giggle

[TorchTheWitch]

170. The players said so themselves

Dan Flannery admitted to police he lied to the agency. In interviews with the players the police found the reason for the fake names was to purposely cause confusion as to who was who at the party. They admitted this themselves.

[TorchTheWitch]

169. No question about it

I won't even do outcall stripping with the biggest, scariest, head crushing, heat packing bouncer there is... you STILL just never know.

[TorchTheWitch]

167. and I don't believe it for a minute

That's just what the attorney for Matt Zash is saying his alibi is... he knows nothing about anything because he barricaded himself in his room during the party.

[BrownOak]

76. Nothing Odd About the Guest List

According to their academic calendar, Spring Break for Duke started on Friday, March 10 and continued for 10 days. The LAX team had a game in San Diego on Saturday, March 11 and then returned to the campus, presumably sometime either late Sunday or Monday. My guess is that most students had left campus by the time they had their party that Monday night.

[bettyellen]

79. so you're saying they didn't want other people there....

and scheduled it accordingly.
interesting.

[BrownOak]

93. Just curious

are you interested in actual discussion or do you just get a kick out of intentionally misrepresenting what people are saying?

I looked very closely at my words and don't see anywhere that I pontificated on the possible motivations for why the party was scheduled when it was. If you want, I can think of

-they didn't want other people there
-they knew that they would have to be around campus during the week when everyone else was gone, including any of the female students, so they schedule a party with some dancers

I recall reading somewhere that because the team usually didn't have as long a spring break as the rest of the school they would usually go to Myrtle Beach and hit a strip club. This year they decided to go with an in-house party. Can't say as I can remember where I read or heard that.

[timber84]

95. Although the school was on Spring Break the team still had games

to play.

[bettyellen]

100. you responded why the guest list was small- it was spring break

and it makes sense too.
no misrepresentation there buddy, i'm agreeing with you.

[BrownOak]

136. The misrepresentation

was when you extrapolated that into the comment that I was saying it was scheduled during break to keep others away. I made no such claim, nor would I state so unequivocally. There are other possibilities that are just as plausible.

You can put together a interesting theory about why they scheduled it when they did, but it's all speculation. I'm fine with speculation... heck, I enjoy speculation to an extent as it makes for fine conversation. I just prefer speculative statements attributed to me to be my own words and thoughts.

[bettyellen]

145. you brought up both points,sorry if i thought you were making a connection

because you did show cause and effect.
now i'm supposed to think you were just rambling unconnected thoughts. okay......

[BrownOak]

152. Cause and effect, but not intent.

The cause I stated was that the party was held during spring break.
The effect I stated was that the guests at the party were only LAX players (although I doubt that's the case).

Nowhere in there did I ever address the issue of intent you're trying to attribute to me - that the party was planned when it was to achieve the effect of limiting the attendance to just players. It could just as easily be that the cause was that there were few of their friends left on campus over spring break leaving them without any of their normal party options and the effect was that they held a stripper party.

[bettyellen]

157. so they chose a stripper party because there were less people around...

not decided to have a stripper party WHEN there were less people around.
:shrug:
okay then.

[jberryhill]

162. I think he is saying...

They decided to have a stripper party AND there were less people around, in answer to my thinking it was odd that there weren't any other students there who were non-players. I didn't know it was spring break.

It wasn't part of the discussion of planning of a gang rape as if they were planning to rob a bank.

[BrownOak]

300. Is this really that difficult?

There are a couple of options that readily come to mind about why the party was scheduled when it was.

One is that they didn't want other people around so scheduled it accordingly.

Another is that they had few other options for partying because their friends were out of town and had a stripper party as an alternative.

The first implies the possible intent of committing a crime while the second does not.

[Marie26]

84. Interesting

According to this Duke University report, almost all of the Duke lacrosse team's violations have occurred during Spring Break, when there is less supervision by University authorities or coaches, and less athletic obligations for the players:

"Paradoxically, the committee said, “a large number of the members of the team have been socially irresponsible when under the influence of alcohol. They have repeatedly violated the law against underage drinking. They have drunk alcohol excessively. They have disturbed their neighbors with loud music and noise, both on-campus and off-campus.”

Coleman described this repetitive conduct as “deplorable but pretty typical of what you see with other Duke students who abuse alcohol.”

Such misconduct was most common in the fall and at times such as Spring Break, when students have no academic or athletic obligations. The unusually high level of social cohesion among lacrosse players, which the report describes as a “clannish” or “pack” culture, makes their conduct stand out more, since several players are likely to be involved simultaneously. For instance, lacrosse players have been prominent among those drinking heavily at tailgate parties before football games, although they generally have not misbehaved more than other students in such settings.

The committee found that “administrators responsible for the discipline of students were generally aware of the irresponsible conduct of lacrosse players associated with drinking. With the exception of the Office of Judicial Affairs, none of these administrators was especially alarmed by the conduct. Although some administrators claim that they communicated their concerns to Coach Pressler, there is no evidence that they adequately did so.”

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/05/twocommittees.html

In a big college like Duke, it's not uncommon for people to stay during some or all of Spring Break, especially other athletic teams. It's not uncommon to have Spring Break parties. What is uncommon is having a party that consists exclusively of 40+ male teammates - and no one else. If they had this lacrosse party the day after returning from San Diego, that tells me that the party was planned amongst themseleves while they were in San Diego. I don't think no one else could come; I just think no one else was invited. Lacrosse-team only.

[timber84]

87. A stag party?

"What is uncommon is having a party that consists exclusively of 40+ male teammates -"
There is nothing out of ordinary about that.

[Marie26]

97. So where's the groom? nt

[timber84]

102. No groom but a party of guys with a stripper doesn't sound

fishy to me plus I believe there were guys not on the team at that party too.

[Marie26]

106. I don't think so

The only guests defense & prosecution lawyers have mentioned are the 40+ lacrosse players. If there were many non-lacrosse team guests there, wouldn't the lacrosse team defense attorneys have mentioned that fact to help exculpate their clients? This seems to have been organized exclusively for lacrosse team members. As Brownoak posted, they had returned just a day or two before from a game in San Diego, and were now on Spring Break. The party was probably discussed by the team while they were away. It looks like the party was planned by lacrosse players, for lacrosse players.

[timber84]

108. If true and I cannot find where I read about the attendees of

the party, why is it strange to you that they had an inclusive party?

[jberryhill]

109. Oddly, This Is Still the Fact I Am Least Likely To Buy

IMHO, a good explanation for the "lacrosse players only" thing, which makes a tad more sense in terms of the calendar now, is that IF the stripper was raped by non-player attendees, then saying "it was only team members" is the best way to hide that.

That still leaves me with the quandary of non-rape-participants obstructing justice instead of saving their own necks, but it remains the one piece of the defense story that is universally believed.

[TorchTheWitch]

179. they have

The defense has said that there were other people (3 of them) that were at the party and didn't have DNA samples taken. However, the prosecution only collected DNA samples from lacrosse players because they were told by the lacrosse players that no other people were at the party who were not on the team.

[Kingshakabobo]

181. I read, somewhere, there were 8 additional people at the party.

It was mentioned when the attorney was complaining about the line-up and the fact that it only included players.

[Marie26]

211. Do you have a link for that?

It's very important for the developing moustache theory. :) I can't find anything that shows other people were there, but I could be missing something.

[Kingshakabobo]

241. Here is a start.... I heard "8" additional .....

...on one of the talking head shows.

See below. Last paragraph:

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=060512&cat=frontpage&st=frontpageduke_rape_tears_060511&src=abc

>>>>>>They have also complained that while Nifong has acknowledged that there were people at the party who were not on the lacrosse team, the lineup contained only images of team members.<<<<<<

[TorchTheWitch]

333. here's one

http://www.nbc17.com/news/8694922/detail.html
But attorneys also noted that three people at the party aren't on the lacrosse team, and none of them have submitted DNA samples to authorities for testing.

[jberryhill]

358. Three "People"

Were these male people, or female people?

[timber84]

212. No I think he meant in order to have a proper line up other people other

than the players should have been included in the line up

[Kingshakabobo]

244. See: #241. There were additional people at the party. n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

177. Then the players lied yet again

They told the police that only lacrosse players were at the party.

The defense has been claiming there were a few people at the party that weren't on the team and thus didn't have their DNA collected. However, the reason that the prosecution only collected DNA samples from the lacrosse players is that those players had told police there were no other people other than lacrosse players at the party.

[jberryhill]

226. So?

She ID'd Seligman as an attacker.

She ID'd Finnerty as an attacker.

She ID'd Evans as an attacker, and said it was him, but he had a mustache. Also, his damning DNA was recovered on the sample taken from his own bathroom trashcan.

That's three indicted players, all on their first step to a potential 40 year prison term.

What does it matter to you if there were other people at the party - all of the attackers have been indicted.

RIGHT?

When I asked about "who dropped her off" or stuff like that - it was just delusional "made up shit" - because the attackers HAD to be players - it COULDN'T be anyone else.

There are three indictments now. So, no more delusional made up potential attackers are permitted.

Aside from which, you can, if you want, collect DNA from every man within a 500 mile radius of Durham. The only DNA found in this case is her boyfriend's, and the partial from the fingernail in the trashcan.

[timber84]

229. Exactly how many people did she say attacked her the police report said 20

I've also hear 4 and 3

[jberryhill]

233. She ID's 4 in the photo session

You have to discount the "20" as hearsay. Although nobody questions whether whether Day accurately reported what he overheard, it is still hearsay as written by him.

[timber84]

234. so are they going to indict 4?

[not_nameless]

246. she's 80% sure about the 4th

but he looked like this in the party:

[TorchTheWitch]

334. that's Duke police

It was a report from Duke Univ. that says she first said she was raped by 20 men and that the Durham police apparently didn't find her to be credible. However, whoever wrote the report never spoke to any Durham police officers.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12692072/
The report — commissioned by Duke's president and prepared by two former heads of universities — does not say who at the Durham Police Department cast doubt on the accuser's complaint.

One of the report's authors, Julius Chambers, said the committee that prepared the report made no independent effort to speak with Durham police, and relied on material provided by campus officers.

"It would seem to me if the state of mind of the Durham Police Department was going to be articulated in a report, you would probably want to speak with the Durham Police Department," Baker said.

So here we have Duke who is being flogged for being slow to respond to the rape allegations commissioning a report where bogus information is cited claiming it was obtained from the Durham police in order to have an excuse as to the slowness of their response when whoever wrote the report never bothered to speak to anyone from the Durham police. Such brilliance. :eyes:

[Moosepoop]

336. Yep. A lot of people don't get that distinction.

There is the City of Durham Police Department, and there is the Duke University Police Department (their insignia reads "Duke University Campus Police"). Two separate and distinct entities. The campus police officers are employees of Duke University.

The alleged rape was reported to, and handled by, the City of Durham police. The only "assistance" rendered by the campus cops was that one of them stayed at the ER to "gather information from the victim with Durham Police" (whether this campus officer actually spoke with the victim is not said), and three others were sent to the party house to see if they could make contact with the occupants. These were the cops who found nobody home, so they ran the license plates of the black pickup truck and the green Honda that were parked there.

Keep in mind, the guy who wrote this report (not THE official Police Report as in the City of Durham Police, but rather the "Operations Report" for the Duke University PD), was NOWHERE NEAR THE ALLEGED VICTIM.
He was dispatched to the empty house. This is from his own accounting of the incident.

[timber84]

347. The original police report was posted here earlier it said 20.

[jberryhill]

355. You're talking about this document...

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/OperationsReportFileDUPD3.14.06.pdf

Print it if you can't turn it sideways.

Read it.

It is not a Durham Police report, it is a Duke Police report.

It was written at 3AM, so everyone in the Duke Administration was up and just abuzz over this incident.

Note that the report contains certain first-hand observations, and some unattributed hearsay.

Everyone jumps on the hearsay part as "made up" or whatever... the hearsay parts can't come in as evidence, but as far as the discussino here goes, there has been no serious question about whether Day accurately recorded what he heard. Because it presents a "bad fact", then the conclusion is that Day just made up what he heard, had an agenda, etc.

Of course, it is absolutely clear that Day must have spoken to someone in the Durham PD, because he went over to the house and looked up information in the student directory at their behest.

For s-ts and giggles, I suggest you measure the text pitch of "the victim" and the blackout space indicating the owner of the green Honda. And then I suggest you look at the search warrant report from smoking gun, and think about that green Honda for awhile.

[timber84]

361. Ok I did and am stumped whats your take?

[jberryhill]

367. Oh boy...

I posted a treatise on the hearsay rule of evidence elsewhere.

But as far as discussion here goes, where anything is admissible, you'll see such characterizations a "bullshit made-up story" in reference to Day writing down what he claims to have heard Durham officers say that night.

The way the DU rules of evidence work, the neighbor can hear and remember the "cotton shirt" remark, but anything Officer Day heard is fiction.

Now, the problem, again for discussion since hearsay is not evidence, with Officer Day recording what he either heard or was told by an unidentified Durham Police officer is that you don't know how many steps of storytelling were between the victim and the person speaking to or near Officer Day.

So the "20 attackers" thing has to go on the lowest shelf of facts considered reliable. It's easy to suppose that she was recounting an attack and may have estimated the number of people there as 20, or some other such general number, and not specifically said that they all attacked her.

So, cash out another loose end.

[timber84]

369. Yep you are correct, however, what is your take on the green

honda?

[jberryhill]

380. The Search Report Two Days Later

says something to the effect of the dark green Honda was "still there".

If it belonged to someone who lived at the house, it wouldn't be noteworthy that it was "still there".

That wording suggests that one might expect the green Honda to have no longer been there, but instead of being gone, or even being there, it was "still there".

You tell me. Who owns the green Honda?

And then see what you can dig up on this "drop-off driver".

The pieces are all there, but I am not going to endure another round of "you're making stuff up".

[Marie26]

384. I'm game

It seems like the green Honda belongs to a player, right? Are you saying it belongs to the drop-off driver, or the dancer? That's a good catch about how it's "still there", though they might just mean that the car in the initial police report was "still there" 2 days later.

[TorchTheWitch]

392. that was NOT the Durham police report

There is the City of Durham Police Department, and there is the Duke University Police Department. The report that mentions the "20" men raping her is the Duje Univ. Police NOT the City of Durham Police.

See #336 right above your post.

[Marie26]

397. I have a question

Why would Duke police have talked to her at all? It seems like the Durham police would be handling this case, doing interviews, etc. Do we know where this allegation came from?

[jberryhill]

425. Nobody said the Duke police talked to her...

...not even the Duke police report says she talked to her.

The Duke Police report is three paragraphs. It includes "things heard from the Durham police" AND it includes first-hand observations of Officer Day of the Duke Police.

Have you taken a ruler to the words "The victim" and the blacked out section where it gives the results of running the license on the green Honda... which was "still there" two days later?

[Marie26]

430. Well, thanks

That's why I asked. If the Duke police didn't talk to her, I'd wonder where this came from. Maybe the Durham police second-hand, maybe Day's interviews w/other officials. We don't know. Since you obviously have taken a ruler to the report, why not enlighten us?

[Kingshakabobo]

443. Are you saying the victim owns the green Honda?

Pm if you like.

[jberryhill]

423. It doesn't matter, Torch

I'm convinced you haven't read the Duke Police report.

Yeah, it includes the hearsay about "20".

But it HAS OTHER THINGS RECORDED ABOUT OFFICER DAY'S FIRST-HAND VISIT TO THE HOUSE.

Including the green Honda.

Durham Police were dealing with the victim. DUKE Police went to the house that night.

[TorchTheWitch]

493. What are you talking about?

Sure I read the Duke police report. We've discussed this.

I'm talking about which police dept. that report comes from. Period. If I have any desire to talk about what's written in that report beyond clearing up the confusion about who reported about the "20" men, I'll do it in the relevant place in the relevant subthread.

And I really don't care about what it says about the green Honda because anything relevant about it has been redacted, and I'm not going to speculate about what that redacted info says. In any case, we aren't talking about any other info from that report here. If I want to discuss anything else about the contents of the report I'll do it in the relevant place in the relevant subthread, k?

Durham Police were dealing with the victim. DUKE Police went to the house that night.

No shit. I never said otherwise. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

[bettyellen]

66. there's alot about the party planning that seems abnormal.

but if they are trying to close ranks, and it seems that way from the press conference, keeping it within the team would certainly help.

[TorchTheWitch]

160. strippers are responsible for their own security

when working with an agency that doesn't provide one for you. Typically, one security person gets 50% of the stripper's cut (in this case, she would get $200 and if she brought her own security, he would have gotten $200). Which is one of the reasons that strippers may run the risk of not having security at a small party. A large party has much more potential for extra money to be made in selling lap dances to the guests or tips from the guests (or *ahem* other things provided to the guests *cough*) whereas a 5 person party would provide little in extra funds... therefore, many strippers wouldn't find working a small 5 person party worth doing if they'd have to pay 50% for security.

I'd tend to believe that the biggest reason they lied about the size of the party was to be reasonably certain the strippers wouldn't bring security with them. If the agency doesn't provide security for a dancer, it's her responsibility to get someone and pay that someone herself. A stripper not provided with security from the agency may feel reasonably safe at a small gathering and decide not to get and pay their own security, but they most likely wouldn't feel reasonably safe without security at a large party. It may be that the reason the players lied about the size of the party was to be reasonably certain the strippers would arrive without security. It's my guess this isn't the first time they booked strippers and already knew when calling this specific agency that that agency didn't provide security for the dancers. It may also be that part of the reason they specifically requested two strippers instead of one is that two strippers would feel more safe without security whereas one may not.

I'm not saying the reason they wanted them to arrive without security was because they planned on raping one or both of them. However, there is just too much information that points to their planning SOMETHING for the strippers whether that was just to be nasty to them or rob them or whatever.

[TorchTheWitch]

39. Actually it was Dan Flannery that booked the dancers

and it's Dave Evans that's been indicted. But it certainly could have been both of them intending to book them the way they did and it just so happened that it was Dan that made the call to the agency. House parties are normally approved by all the people that live in the house. I'm sure that party details would have been discussed and agreed upon by the people that lived there.

[jberryhill]

42. Can you link

To which of Flannery and Evans or both, resided in the house.

There seems to be a difference of recollection in the thread.

[timber84]

43. here they have a good bit one the case:

http://www.wral.com/index.html

[Marie26]

50. Three residents:

"Seniors Matt Zash, Dan Flannery and David Evans were roommates in the weathered white rental house at 610 N. Buchanan Boulevard, where a team party was held the night of March 13."


http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/428938.html

[onenote]

63. self delete

[TorchTheWitch]

56. The 3 residents in the house

were the captain and co-captains of the team which are Dave Evans (captain), Dan Flannery and Matt Zash. Zash's attorney claims he didn't approve of the party and stayed in his room all night watching David Letterman on tv.

http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_3715480

http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/428938.html

There's confusion among various news outlets as to whether all 3 were co-captains or Evans was captain and the other two were co-captains. Most of the stuff from Duke that I've seen identifies Evans as captain and the other two as co-captains, but I don't suppose it matters much.

[oasis]

57. Good post, thanks. Reliable information is a DUer's best friend. (n/t)

:hi:

[BrownOak]

62. Odds and ends

First, it is not a DNA match. The DNA found under the woman's fingernail had with the same characteristics as that of Dave Evans, the third indicted player, but it is not a match. It does not elaborate to the degree of sharing those characteristics. The example I saw was that there are 13 markers that are examined. How many are a match determines the difference between sharing characteristics and a DNA match.

In what has to be some of the most confusing writing to ever darken a website, the local ABC station reported this:

According to the report, the DNA found under the false fingernail was a mixture, containing more than one person's genetic material. The report suggests that one of the possible people in that genetic mixture was the alleged victim.

The report says that genetic material with the same characteristics of two lacrosse players was found underneath a plastic fingernail in a trash can in the bathroom where the accuser says she was attacked. This may have been the link prosecution sources referred to when they told ABC News that test results could be "helpful" to the prosecution.

Now, it's not clear if we're are talking about one fingernail or two here, but the implication is that a 4th player, not identified as one of the alleged assailants, also had DNA with the same characteristics as his found on that nail (or another nail). The point being that it seems pretty apparent that the possibilities for ways that DNA may have made it onto the nail are numerous. Or, to use the words of the head of the lab that did the actual testing, the results could not be rule out, but also could not be definitively rule in the third suspect.

I think the key here is twofold. How many markers are similar between Evans' DNA and that which was found on the nail and also, how many ways would there be to get that DNA on the nail? If we're talking 11 out of 13 markers and the only way this is going to get on the nail is if there was a scratch, well it seems pretty clear that it would support the prosecution. But if the markers are low and the DNA could have been passed simply by picking up the nails, well then it's worthless.

Secondly, the whole false name stuff really doesn't mean much in my book. I can easily see some guy not wanting his name to show up in the big list of Allure Escort's or Bunnyhole Entertainment's client list for a lot of reasons other than he was planning to commit a crime. I'm sure several guys wished they had used a fake name when calling Heidi Fleiss a few years ago. If you're going to use a fake name, presumably in preparation to commit a crime, does it make a lot of sense to use your home rather than rent some place? If that was the plan it doesn't seem too well thought out since the guy was just indicted.

Thirdly, just as the previous point, there are a bunch of reasons why these guys left the party which could have nothing to do with the alleged crimes. Evans was on a deferred prosecution arrangement for two previous misdemeanors, one of which was a noise ordinance. It's pretty easy to imagine him leaving the scene after hearing Kim Roberts yell out that she just called the cops on the players.

I do however think that Cheshire's actions since Friday indicated that he knew it was going to be his guy indicted today, but I don't see his decision to not name him as anything particularly damning. Nor do I see his high visibility in the case thus far too troubling because he and Wade Smith are clearly the two most powerful lawyers for the various players. Bill Thomas has also been very vocal but none of his clients have been indicted.

If the difference between being indicted or not being brought before the grand jury was something as questionable as the second round of DNA tests then you have to wonder just what the other evidence would indicate.

[NashVegas]

147. The Problem with the Fake Names

And the lie about the nature of the party:

At its most benevolent - that they lied because a stripper might not have come out, otherwise - this shows a mentality of "the rules don't apply to us, we're smart, we can come up with a way to get around the rules."

Even at its most benevolent, it's quite damning.

[not_nameless]

218. haha

>> "the rules don't apply to us, we're smart, we can come up with a way to get around the rules."

what rules??? Everyone here was doing something "illegal," so the rules don't seem to apply to anyone.
They called an escort service. Apparently she doubles as a dancer, in addition to the "one on one" sessions. Do you think most men pay hundreds of dollars to talk to an escort? Do a search on Google for escort, and see what come up. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=&q=escort+service

Granted in this case thy hired her to dance, but everyone had something to hide from the school, parents, and/or police at the time the party was booked. Do you think she planed on declaring that $400 as income come 4/15?

[TorchTheWitch]

240. I get paid $200 per half hour to talk to a customer

I'll probably only be wearing a g-string at the time, but that's what I get paid. Men are paying for exactly that every night, maybe not with me but another dancer like me doing the same thing.

And so what if she fucks people for cash? Does that make her unrapable? She was hired to dance at this party. The players claim she was only hired to dance and that's it. The players claim no sex of any kind took place. Are you saying they're lying because the agency calls themselves an escort agency? You do realize that your interpretation of an escort is a call girl/hooker and that no such agency providing that service can legally exist?

And what does her taxes have to do with anything? Are people who don't pay their taxes unrapable? I know plenty of bartenders that don't declare their income either, so are they unrapable because they aren't paying their income taxes?

What did the agency have to hide from anyone by providing a stripper to do a legal service? What did the stripper hide by going to the party to provide a legal service?

Do you have a point here?

[Name removed]

243. Deleted message

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

[TorchTheWitch]

305. I will break it down for you so you can understand

what rules??? Everyone here was doing something "illegal," so the rules don't seem to apply to anyone.

Who is "everyone"? The agency isn't doing anything illegal by providing a stripper to a party for the purpose of stripping because providing a stripper for a party is a legal service as I previously stated.

The strippers aren't doing anything illegal by providing the service of stripping because stripping is a legal service as I previously stated.

Therefore, the "rules" are still applying to some entities as previously implied.

With me so far? Good.

They called an escort service. Apparently she doubles as a dancer, in addition to the "one on one" sessions.

Who says? She may only work as a dancer since escort services are the most common trendy name for outcall strippers. You have no way of knowing whether or not she also works as an "escort" (your definition) doing any one-on-one sessions, and as I previously stated it's irrelevant if she's a stripper, escort, call-girl, hooker or whatever since all of the people that do these jobs can be raped.

With me so far? Good.

Do you think most men pay hundreds of dollars to talk to an escort?

You bet. Know how I know that? Because that's what I do for a living. I get paid hundreds of dollars to legally sit and talk with a customer. Do it every night I work. So do the other dancers I work with. I even quoted you my price just so you'd know that I know what I'm talking about. Seeing as the REAL term of escort means one who is paid for one's companionship, technically I could be called an escort as well as a dancer.

With me so far? Good.

Do a search on Google for escort, and see what come up.

The term "escort" has been largely taken over by call-girls (i.e.; women who have dates with men for the purpose of having sex which may or may not include a little chat time). There are still legal REAL escorts who are paid for their companionship (and guess how I know that?).

With me so far? Good.

Granted in this case thy hired her to dance, but everyone had something to hide from the school, parents, and/or police at the time the party was booked.

Not everyone as stated above. The strippers have nothing to hide as long as they're not breaking any nudity or contact laws during their show, and the agency isn't hiding from anyone because they provide a legal service. The agency is not responsible for any laws the workers they use may break because they purposely contract the workers that way. Therefore, the only people with anything to hide in this case are any drinking and carousing lacrosse players.

With me so far? Good.

Do you think she planed on declaring that $400 as income come 4/15?

Irrelevant as I stated previously. Whether or not she declares all her earned income with the IRS has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not she can or was raped. No more point in bringing that up then bringing up a point that bartenders may not be declaring their earned income, or cab drivers may not being declaring their earned income or waitresses may not be declaring their earned income or anyone else that works for cash that may not be declaring their earned income.

Got it? I certainly hope I won't have to explain it a third time... which would make someone other than me as having a reading comprehension problem.

:eyes:

[jberryhill]

314. A Common Flaw In Understanding Other People's Perceptions

Is assuming they know what you know.

You have just eloquently educated an apparently ignorant audience that these services are all legal.

Of course, for the players to ACT as if they were doing something perfectly legal would require them to go through the entire recitation by which you just enlightened your audience.

Here's a mind bender fer ya, and an insight into just how dense I am:

I was on Fremont Street in Las Vegas. Again, color me dense, but I'm not used to places where you can legally walk down a public street with a beer in your hand. Lots of folks were, though, and before long, I too was walking down the street with a beer in my hand....

I came up to one corner, and there were a couple of police on bicycles.

The first thing I did was HIDE THAT BEER.

Later on, I asked a cop if public consumption was legal on Fremont Street. He, and his buddy, thought I was joking.

So, yeah, you are intimately familiar with the legalities of what you do for a living. It may come as a shocker that not everyone else is. Just as it is possible for a guy like me to be afraid that he'd be cited for public consumption of alcohol on Fremont Street in Las Vegas. There I was - hiding my perfectly legal beer because I THOUGHT it might not be legal.

But I will defer to your knowledge of whether there is a controlling city ordinance in Durham, North Carolina.

Bottom line - it doesn't matter if WHAT they were doing was legal. It matters whether they THOUGHT what they were doing might not be.

[TorchTheWitch]

335. not really the point

I was being snarky because this poster assumed they knew more about my own business than I do even after I very nicely explained why I knew more than they did (I work in the business), told me to go reread their post and insulted me by saying I had no reading comprehension.

I get a little miffed when someone who clearly has no clue as to what they're talking about claims to know more about my business than I do and has the nerve to insult me when I nicely explain why they are mistaken.

I will hope they learn quickly that it is bad form to come to a forum where they don't know anyone and be rude and insulting to people they know nothing about particularly when it has been nicely explained to them that they are essentially trying to tell a jockey what a horse is.

;)

[NashVegas]

472. Slight Difference

You didn't walk around with a beer in your hand until you saw everyone else doing it, openly. When you encountered authorities, you asked what the ordinance was.

Now, obviously they knew they were doing *something* illegal, in the simple fact of alcohol served to minors. In the matter of hiring the stripper, nothing has changed, whether or not they thought it was legal; whether or not they believed the strippers would come to a frat party if it was known that it was a frat party they were going to: they still purposely lied about their identities, lied about the nature of the party, lied about the number of attendees. This is known.

[jberryhill]

484. And Kim Roberts Lied About It Too...

At the Kroger, when she was trying to get someone to help her get the alleged victim out of her car, Roberts said she was just driving by the house and picked the victim up.

It doesn't make Kim Roberts a rapist, although she is the ONLY one that spent time alone with the victim.

[superconnected]

49. twist turn twist turn

:popcorn:

[jberryhill]

55. Yeah, well, Suvivor Ended Last Night

Aras won.

Deal.

[superconnected]

59. Didn't catch it. Don't know who Aras is...

I only watch tv for disasters - like elections.

As far as this, I don't mind. I'm rooting for the black woman. :popcorn:

You have to admit, this is going to keep getting interesting. I mean how much dirt can come out on a Lacross team. What do they have 40 members...

[BrownOak]

77. You should be here in NC

You could have both - disasters and Survivor. I went to watch the final and the next thing I know I'm getting coverage of the various twisters Auntie Em. Fortunately the local CBS station just delayed the start until after they told everyone to lie in a ditch.

[jberryhill]

111. I thought lying in a ditch...

...was what you did on a big weekend night in NC anyway.

Heh.

[timber84]

114. Only with th NASCAR people!

[BrownOak]

137. Weekend, hell, that's every day n/t

[Marie26]

363. Pretty much

I mean, it's either that, cow tipping or NASCAR.

[onenote]

64. Is there a link to a team photo?

The reason I ask, is that the transcript of the photo id indicates that when the accuser indicated that she was 90% certain that Evans was the one of the persons that assaulted her, she also indicated that at the time he had a moustache. The only photos I've seen of Evans show him clean shaven. Curious whether there are other photos of him and if any of them show him with a moustache. If he had one and shaved it off after the party, that would raise some questions in my mind as to whether he was trying to avoid an identification. On the other hand, if he never had a moustache, then the accused's ID seems somewhat dubious. I would imagine that the prosecution has been trying to find students, etc. that could testify as to whether Evans had a moustache around the time of the party. Its hard to imagine that they would seek to indict the guy if they didn't have such a witness, but at this point, I suppose anything is possible.

onenote

[BrownOak]

78. No, there was a team rule against facial hair

Which, if you think about it, is just perfect. Here are a bunch of guys who have at best had a dozen or so carrying on like drunken boors with what appears to be little to no repercussions. However, no mustaches please.

The lesson is that you can be as big an asshole as you want, just be a clean-shaven asshole.

[bettyellen]

82. just like the yankees. LOL abrams covered the fake stache possibility...

and you know what, after the fake names they gave each other during the party.... i wouldn't be completely shocked.
it's admitted at this point they tried to confuse the dancers so they couldn't be ID'd right?

[timber84]

85. fake moustaches, fake nails, fake names hmmm......

[bettyellen]

90. and only the nails is an everyday occurence though.

i had no idea about the fake names during the party. it;s like "reservoir dogs" or something weird like that.

[Marie26]

101. You've got it

I think that's it. If she believed the third assailant had a moustache, and Evans didn't have a moustache, that would seem to clear him from the beginning. So why was his attorney still so involved in this case after the other 2 players were indicted? :shrug:

[jberryhill]

113. There's no accounting for the love between an attorney...

...and newsprint.

[Marie26]

117. lol. True.

Cheshire might just be a publicity hound. But I couldn't understand why the other attorneys seemed to defer to him (at the press conference, for example) instead of shutting him up. If a random attorney was presenting info to the press about someone else's clients w/o prior approval, that's inappropriate & unlikely. He must have been doing this w/the other attorneys' approval. Why would they let Cheshire take such a lead in a case that he should have no reason to be involved with?

[LostinVA]

141. OMG -- this is getting weirder and weirder

We know they used fake names and lied about booking the party, it certainly appears they used fake names/numbers during the party... and now we have the possibility of DISGUISES??? I am starting to think they had something sick planned for the strippers, and the sick stuff segued into criminal. I have been trying not to say the players did it until we hear all the evidence at trial, although things have been suggestive. However, IF the fake mustache is true... OMG. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax... who the hell uses fake names and disguises???

[TorchTheWitch]

190. I think we're wacking out about the mustache

http://www.wral.com/news/9194011/detail.html
"He looks just like him without the mustache," she says, going on to say that she is only 90 percent certain.

So now we know she's talking about Dave Evans.

Upon refection, this sentence could be interpreted two ways...

He (Evans in photo) looks just like him (Evans at party) without the mustache.

This would mean Evans in the photo had a mustache and Evans at the party didn't.

Or...

He (Evans at party) looks just like him (Evans in photo) without the mustache.

This would mean Evans at the party had a mustache and Evans in the photo didn't.

Since there's no more of the transcript provided, there isn't any context to say which it is.

In any case, there are no photos of Evans at the party in the series the defense have been waiving about, and if he had a mustache in any photo in that series you can bet Cheshire would have burned it, and if he didn't have a mustache in any of those photos you can bet that Cheshire would be waiving it about.

Either Evans broke the facial hair rule at the party or he broke it for the line-up photo as there is no other reason the accuser would have mentioned a mustache at all. It would be interesting to see which player it was that signed the affidavit about the no facial hair rule.

In any case, the defense has been oddly silent on this whole mustache thing. If there was anything significant about it that was favorable to the defense, they'd be crowing about it. I only ever read one small mention about it (and it would be so interesting if it was Cheshire that brought it up).

[bettyellen]

194. evans' lawyer made a big deal about it today...

the transcript has her confirming the perp had a stache.

it was the only real bomb dropped by the lawyer today.

[LostinVA]

198. Hmmmm.... all very good points

[pnwmom]

264. Cheshire had a statement about the mustache.

"Monday, Cheshire said Evans has never worn a mustache, and that photos of him shot a day before and a day after the party show him without one. Cheshire said "scores and scores" of people told him they've never seen Evans with a mustache."

[TorchTheWitch]

306. What took him so long?

He's had weeks and weeks to say anything about it. Rather interesting that it only comes up when his client is indicted.

[not_nameless]

222. "So why was his attorney still so involved in this case"

Nice logic you use: Suppose he knew (he knows the truth, we don't) that two players were indicted for something they didn't do, and that happened in your house, would you fire your attorney or keep him until all is cleared? Now add the fact that a third player was about to be indicted...

[Marie26]

232. There's 46 lacrosse team members

Each probably having their own attorney. Why weren't we hearing from 46 attorneys throughout the course of this case? We weren't - we heard from one, almost exclusively: Cheshire. Coincidentally, Cheshire's client ends up being the one indicted. I find that an odd coincidence. Let's say it's just that the players all know they've been falsely accused & want to be represented. That doesn't explain why Cheshire seemed to have so much power & influence in this case. Cheshire was releasing alibis & photos a while ago on behalf of 2 indicted players who he doesn't even represent, and held the press conference last week crowing about the lack of DNA evidence linking the players (while 5 other defense attorneys stood silently beside him). If he's such a minor player, why was he such a major spokesman throughout? My personal opinion is that they believed the third indictment would be against Evans, which explains why Cheshire was so eager to debunk the other 2 indictments & took the lead in undermining the woman's allegations. And that makes me curious as to why they could be so sure Evans, of the 46 players suspected, would be the one indicted.

[Marie26]

107. So...

if only team members were present, and team members were prohibited from having moustaches, how could the moustache the victim describes be real? Wouldn't that suggest that the alleged moustache was fake - to go w/the other falsified info? It's not like they can say she made a mistaken identification because Evan's doesn't have a moustache - no other ID fits. And, if she's making it all up, why would she include information about a moustache when none of the players in the photos has one?

[timber84]

110. Well these elaborate acts by the team that people are

speculating on sure sound like they had to have their shit together and in order so that they would have been able to pull off this planned rape. Now factor in the alcohol.

[Marie26]

112. Hey, they're smart

They go to Duke & all. Moral, I don't know.

[timber84]

115. The players are there for their athlectic abilities, I'm sure some are

very good students and some not so good students on that team. Such is the term "Athletic Scholarship".

[superconnected]

133. Since when has the team been concerned with breaking the rules

so the rule - allegedly on this thread, says no mustache.

Didn't their coach quit for not enforcing the rules.

[BrownOak]

138. Yeah there's a bunch of irony here

The only rule the coach seemed interested in was the rule regarding image, not behavior.

[Marie26]

207. It's probably pretty easy to prove

Just ask people & friends on campus if any of the lacrosse players had a moustache, if Evans did, etc. I do believe this is a rule that was enforced, cause they had to sign an affidavit & it's a violation that's obvious to the coach at practice & games (as opposed to the drunken parties the coach didn't see.) I looked at the Duke team roster photos & none of the players has a moustache there (although a couple are missing). Evans doesn't have one in the photo. I feel like this is significant, mostly cause it's flown under the radar w/o the defense drawing attention to it till now - it mustn't favor their side. It seems clear that the dancer didn't get the idea of a moustache from the photo line-up, but her own memories of the party. That explains why she told police the third assailant had a moustache then & why she had more trouble ID'ing Evan's photo w/o it - it also explains why she would mention a moustache at all.

Let's assume that none of the players had a moustache at the time (per team rules). It is pretty certain that none of the team photos in the line-up has a moustache. So, where is she getting this from? If she's making it up, why would she disprove her own story by adding a moustache when none of the players had one? If she did see a player w/a real moustache at the party, how is that possible given the fact that moustaches were not allowed? If she did see a player w/a moustache, and no real ones were allowed, the most likely explanation is that the moustache was false. If the moustache was false, that strongly suggests that the player was trying to conceal his identity. If he was wearing a fake moustache to conceal his identity, that suggests that the dancer is telling the truth when she says that that player assaulted her (why else would he wear a disguise?) I know this is a little thing, but really, it strongly suggests that this player concealed his identity, which corraborates & adds support to the dancer's story that the player assaulted her.

[jberryhill]

296. So the bottom line is...

The less resemblance there is in a photo lineup to a victim description, then the MORE likely it is that the person in the lineup is a suspect.

Because suspects who don't look like their pictures, are using disguises, and are therefore more likely to be the real suspects.

Check.

[Marie26]

400. Yep

If she isn't crazy, why would she make up a moustache if no one in the party or the line-up had one?

[jberryhill]

429. Man, you are harsh on people...

"Mistaken" does not mean "lying".

This was a "90% certainty" photo-ID - in her own words.

Even if you believed self-assesments of confidence (and I could show you reams of stuff on that - it is the reason why Bush probably thinks he is competent), "90% certain" means "10% flat-out 180 degrees dead wrong incorrect".

Now, let's do some math.

If I ask you to make 3 picks at a 90% confidence each, then what is the probability that any one pick in that sample is wrong?

Whaddya know... it works out to 1 in 3.

The cumulative probability of getting three correct picks is .9 x .9 x .9 = .72, which means it is about a 30% shot that one or more of the picks is wrong.

You tell me what "90% certain" means if you were on a jury.

And, please, let's not take a trip through a biohazardous bathroom trashcan along the way.

[Marie26]

442. No, I'm not

The people who argue that because someone didn't have a moustache means she's making up the entire assault are being harsh. I tend to think that she really saw someone there, and it's also possible that her memory was fuzzy, especially during a traumatic experience or if drugs were given.

[jberryhill]

452. What I meant was...

You don't allow for people to make mistakes.

Nobody, nobody, said that she's making up an assault over the mustache. If she thinks Dan Evans had a mustache, then she's mistaken about him. It doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but it sure provides a reason to doubt the ID of Dan Evans.

The question is whether you want to throw Dan Evans in jail for 40 years because she's "90% sure" he looks like some guy with a mustache, and he has his DNA in his own bathroom trashcan.

A jury has to reach a moral certainty that Dan Evans raped her. Every reason to doubt has to be eliminated. Not that he's a jerk, not that he gave a fake name to people whom he considered beneath him and didn't want to know his name, not that he got into a fight over money, not that she scratched him, but that in a small house with 43 other people, including another woman who can't say anything happened, he and two other people raped this woman.

Not "was she raped" but "was she raped by Dan Evans and Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty" with the aid of nobody else there, and nobody else but them altering evidence, since if you require accessories before, during, or after the fact, then Nifong is wrong.

NOBODY has to prove their innocence. The state has to prove these three men did what they were alleged to do. And the state has to pull a hat trick here, because if the state is alleging that these three acted together, then if ONE of them is not guilty, then the allegation that the three acted together is wrong.

[LostinVA]

142. And, her ID also comes with a partial DNA match of Evans

The one she said had a fake mustasche....

He is distinctive looking, especially his jawline. I can totally see her IDing him.

Okay... I'm starting to reach the tipping point....

[jberryhill]

154. She didn't say he had a fake mustache

The transcript of the photo ID session is posted at WRAL

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

"He looks like him without the mustache."

"Okay, so the person had a mustache."

"Yes."

The necessity of a "fake mustache" comes up if you assume the ID is correct in the first place. She is telling the truth, but he doesn't have a mustache, therefore he must have had a fake mustache.

In other words, to believe the ID, you need to introduce a fake mustache into the narrative.

But, yes, what depraved person would think of wearing a fake mustache at a party...

[bettyellen]

168. 8-(o

no we did.
but the glasses are your idea.

[Moosepoop]

186. That's the silliest thing I evah hoid!

(twirling cigar while wiggling eyebrows)

Sorry, my Groucho imitation really needs work. :blush:
Just had to do it when I saw the "Specs & Nose", though!

[TorchTheWitch]

191. Where's a photo of Evans?

I've not seen a photo of him anywhere yet.

[Moosepoop]

195. This article has a pic.

I'd post the pic itself, but for some reason I can't get photobucket to come up. Anyway, this CNN.com article has it.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/15/duke.rapecase/index.html

[not_nameless]

210. please don't reach the tipping point--just yet

you have been so objective so far, and it would a shame to lose that.

[TorchTheWitch]

340. interesting about the facial hair rule

It's my understanding that the facial hair rule only applies when the players are representing Duke lacrosse like during lacrosse season or if one of them were to go to a high school and give a speach about how great Duke is and they are on the lacrosse team. I don't see that it would be constitutional to make them remain hairless of face during other times like Christmas break or summer vacation, etc.

I know other schools that have a similar rule about facial hair but it's only when they are representing that school's team. I remember my high school had a similar rule for all the sports teams about facial hair and having to keep their hair no longer than a certain length, but that was only when whatever team a player was on was in season... so a football player could grow out his hair and wear a beard in the spring if he wanted to.

That said, this party was over Spring Break when there is no real supervision by the school or the coach, so it could have been possible that Evans and maybe others decided to "let it all hang out" by growing some normally forbidden facial hair. How long does it take to grow a mustache long enough to be considered a mustache and not five o'clock shadow? I know my brothers can grow a pretty substantial looking mustache in a few days. And I know other people that can grow one in a few hours (haha!). It could have been that Evans had the beginnings of a mustache going on where with his dark hair would have looked more substantial than it was especially if the rest of his face was clean shaven.

It could also be that women have a different idea of what a mustache is then men do... any woman I know would decide a man had a mustache as long as there was some amount of growth that was noticable and that they'd feel if they kissed the guy. But maybe men consider a mustache to be something much more substantial like a flavor-savor or a pushbroom type thing.

As for independent ID of a mustache on Evans, I doubt the prosecution would have much luck finding a student willing to testify to that. For the most part the school is on the side of the players, and I just don't see any of them willing to come forward about that if they saw him wearing a mustache. I think the prosecution would have better luck trying to find a neighbor or someone at the grocery store he goes to or the local bar or where ever these guys tend to go when not on campus. But for someone with dark hair like his, he may have only needed a few days to grow something that could be thought of as a mustache, so how great is the likelihood that anyone who recognizes him and would be willing to come forward would have seen him with some amount of hair above his lip that could be thought of as a mustache?

But then there's the neighbor, Bissey, who may have seen him earlier in the day with something above his lip that could be considered a mustache, and it may be that Bissey did and already has told the prosecution this. Bissey has said that the party was going on all afternoon and at different times he saw various men outside the house that afternoon. Since Evans is his neighbor, I would think they at least had a cordial waving hello in the driveway kind of relationship, Bissey would be able to identify him easily.

I'm just finding it kind of hard to believe that Evans purposely glued on a fake mustache... that just seems a little "out there" to me when there could be a more logical explanation of him having some amount of upper lip growth that could be considered a mustache. He's got dark thick hair and eyebrows, so I could see him being able to grow enough upper lip hair to be considered a mustache in just a few days.

[LostinVA]

346. My father has a "mustache" after only two days of not shaving

It's not a full mustache, however, it is enough to be considered facial hair and not merely stubble. It is entirely possible Evans had a few days facial hair growth.

[jberryhill]

353. Sure, except for the picture of Evans from the day before...

...in which he was clean shaven.

Guy spent the day putting Miracle-Gro on his lip.

[TorchTheWitch]

393. What picture of him the day before?

Is this another defense issued timestamped camera phone wonder?

[jberryhill]

399. Careful there...

You are now limited to three criminals.

Any scenario that involves another criminal - i.e. an accomplice after the fact in manipulating evidence - is now, officially, out of bounds.

[Marie26]

401. Why didn't the defense

show this photo from the day before, as they've shown the others?

[timber84]

402. Because

they are still photoshopping his moustache off:sarcasm:

[Marie26]

404. Now you've got it!

Leaving aside my crazy moustache theory, really, why wouldn't they release that photo when they've released all the other photos that they say exculpate their clients?

[Kingshakabobo]

409. Who released the photos. I don't think it was Evan's atty.

Evans would be in sole possession of THAT photo.

Remember, there is a "strategery" dispute over whether ANY photos should have been released. I think releasing anything at this point is useless because the cards are on the table and the indictments have been made. At this point, it would be best to dummy-up and spring it at trial.

[TorchTheWitch]

494. How so?

Evans would be in sole possession of THAT photo.

One does not own a photo of themselves just because they are portrayed in that photo... it would be in the possession of whoever TOOK the photo and whoever that person decided to give a copy to. Supposedly it is a photo taken from the day before the party, and whoever took it may have thought it was relevant or helpful and turned it over to their attorney. That photo may have been taken by the same person that took the photos at the party and handed over to their attorney along with the party photos simply because it was in the phone, and the photo taker may have found it relevant/helpful. We don't know, but just because it is supposedly a photo of Evans doesn't mean he's the only one that has it unless he somehow managed to take the photo of himself or confiscated the original photo from whoever took it and there are no other copies. The players are his friends, and are probably trying to help him, so it would seem logical that any of them that may have had a photo of him from the day before would think it would help him and turned it over to his own attorney or to Evans or to Evans' attorney.

Whoever the attorney was that was given the photos from the party could be any attorney as we don't know who took those photos, and it would be logical for whoever took them to give them to his own attorney. Apparently, the attorney who released the photos doesn't have a dog in the fight, and THAT is why there is dissension among the ranks of the defense counsel about it. We can't even know if the attorney who released them to the press is the same attorney who was apparently given them by his client as that attorney may have shared copies of them with the other defense counsel.

[jberryhill]

411. Who is "they"?

they've released all the other photos


"They" have released all the other photos?

No, some defense attorneys, knowing their client was not remotely going to be indicted, released some photos that had been shared, because they might miss their 15 minutes of fame if they aren't the big man for the day.

Who has the photos depends on a bunch of things - like, who took the photos, for one thing. There was not a lacrosse official photographer who followed this group around as a herd, and took photos of everything.

Even Nifong has photos, from the things confiscated at the house, that he hasn't released to the press.

This "defense as a single organism" thing is a persisent meme, but it ain't how lawyers work or advise clients. When I'm representing a civil defendant who is a co-defendant with others, we may cooperate where it is mutually beneficial to some degree, but we are always sensitive to potential differences of interest that can arise among joint defendants.

I am pretty durn certain what every single player has been told by his own attorney, if that player has any evidence or testimony which incriminates another and exculpates himself. You'd have to search high and low for an attorney that would tell his innocent client to cooperate in a scheme to engage in obstruction of justice or perjury, just to get some other attorney's client off. If a client came to me with a scheme like that, I'd say "here's the yellow pages, find yourself another lawyer".

What moron attorney is going to let his innocent client become a criminal in the course of someone else's defense?

[Marie26]

413. Yes, right

Some defense att. released photos, and a defense att. is now refusing to release a photo. They're not all the same guy, & they might've changed strategies over time, etc. etc. I'm just saying, in this particular case, Cheshire was the most vocal about the earlier cell phone photos (talking about them to the media, saying they'd show she was drunk at arrival (they don't), she was smiling, etc.) He was the MAIN attorney who spun to the media about these photos, though his client wasn't indicted at the time. Now, he's being quiet about any photos. Maybe he's changed tactics. But it is a change. Also, I'm curious about your opinion as to why Cheshire would be so prominent at all. Why would the other lawyers allow Cheshire to speak to the media about evidence & alibis that relate to their own clients? Doesn't this suggest that there was a degree of coordination here in how the attorneys decided to give stories to the media?

Lawyer (Cheshire): Dancer came to party impaired - http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/427087.html

[timber84]

417. i knew you were a lawyer

[jberryhill]

426. So Did I /nt

[timber84]

415. maybe they play poker better than Nifong

[timber84]

75. Uh ohh the moustache defense?

[_Wayne_]

81. She's lying...

nt

[jberryhill]

116. Oh knock it off, willya?

These threads keep getting locked for flamage because of comments like that, and there are some folks who, while they don't see eye-to-eye on all the bits & pieces here, are trying to have a rational discussion.

If you have a reasoned statement of why you believe "X is more likely than Y" then feel free.

[timber84]

118. actually jberry this is one of the few threads on this topic

that everyone's been behaving themseles and not getting nasty to each other, Kudos to us so far...

[bettyellen]

121. i believe that was said of the other two in lbn

before THEY got locked.

[timber84]

124. One of them got locked due to length, it had over 300 posts.

[Kingshakabobo]

140. And, a new LBN thread had opened. The MOD referred to the new thread.

[Marie26]

125. Go DU

Yes, I think it's conducive to having a real, intelligent discussion on the subject. People can disagree on the facts here w/o needing to insult each other, or the alleged victim in this case. It's good to have all POV represented, as long as that POV is backed up by real facts & conclusions. Just posting a random blanket statement that "she's lying," etc., isn't particularly helpful. (or "they're guilty cause they're lacrosse players," for that matter). There's lots of room here for people to have different opinions, & learn from each other.

[timber84]

127. excellent post Marie

[LostinVA]

144. Thank you n/t

[LostinVA]

143. Why?

[timber84]

149. Why would Nifong decline a polygraph test and a meeting with a suspect?

[bettyellen]

175. possibly unacceptable conditions put on the meeting....

that's what a lawyer said on msnbc. said there was something this lawyer wasn't saying (suprise) and this is a game to make nifong look bad..

and the suspect hired his own polygraph coach. he said he offered to share results, also said he offered to take test. maybe he meant take it with his hired coach ....
polygraphs are notoriously unreliable anyway.

[laureloak]

189. I read through your posts. You seem determined to

convict these boys without a trial. Why?

[bettyellen]

192. he asked a fair question, i posted exactly what i saw on TV....

i'm not making up things about any of these people, like many of the posters here have been.
i have said time and time again, no one know what happened. right now everything is defense spin. that's what's out there for the last three weeks. you have to take it all with a grain of salt.
you think they have an airtight alibi and aren't giving it up? does it make any sense or is a part of the story missing?

[laureloak]

196. These guys should be treated as if they are innocent

until they are proven guilty. You say the defense is spinning, but when I read your posts, it seems that you are trying to refute everything these boys say with nothing to back up what you're saying.

I cannot support conviction by the media or internet. It is WRONG!

[bettyellen]

199. they are suspects. the accused. that's because there's some evidence

that they committed a crime.
in the media, the presumption of innocence was not given the dancer either.
the presumption of innocence is for jurors.

[laureloak]

204. And that's why you shouldn't try a case in the media.

I hope the DA is taken to task for this. IT IS WRONG and it needs to STOP!

[TorchTheWitch]

242. But it's ok for the defense?

Trying a case in the media is not ok for a prosecuter but trying a case in the media is perfectly ok for the defense especially when 90% of the information in the media pertaining to the case comes from the defense.

Okey dokey.

[pnwmom]

291. The prosecutor was the one who began to try it in the

media. Do you think he would have brought the indictments this quickly if he weren't up for relection at the moment?

I don't blame the defense attorneys for doing their job.

[TorchTheWitch]

308. Oh I see

It's shameful for the prosecutor to address the media yet when the defense does it they're just doing their jobs. Well now, isn't that all nice and fair.

:sarcasm:

[jberryhill]

317. It's not supposed to be fair

In principle the playing field is tilted against the state.

We have a government of limited powers, and we put restrictions on that government, and its officials, in order to guard against tyranny.

Yes, you, facing the power of the state and its guns, with which to coerce you into a cage for the rest of your life, can say whatever you'd like in the face of that power, and the state has limited ability to say anything back.

There are additional rules of practice imposed on prosecutors, and what they can say out of court, for this very reason.

No, it's not at all supposed to be fair. And that is by design.

Our entire system is built upon skepticism toward those who wield power - whether it is the President of the United States or your local dog catcher.

[TorchTheWitch]

379. that's the COURT system

We're talking about the court of public opinion... different animal.

[jberryhill]

437. No, that's what I'm talking about

In the absence of a gag order, a defendant has a First Amendment right to say whatever he wants to whomever will listen.

A prosecutor cannot do that, because of a specific rule barring him from making prejudicial public statements.

And yes, it is by design.

[TorchTheWitch]

495. I know what you're talking about

And it ISN'T what I'm talking about. You're talking about the judicial system. I'm NOT.

What is "fair" in the judicial system is not necessarily "fair" in life... that's what I'M talking about.

If you want to talk about fairness only in the judicial system then talk to someone else in this subthread because it isn't what I'M talking about, k?

[BrownOak]

439. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube

After Nifong had been very public in stating that a rape did occur in that house and called the players "hooligans" the defense had little choice but to respond in public which they have done.... and done... and done....

Neither side is without fault in this regard but, "mom, he started it!"

[bettyellen]

263. this was the defense attny today and for the last three weeks.

you ought to check the sources of what you read- literally 85-90% is from the defense attorneys. and that's probably WHY they have your sympathies.

[pnwmom]

289. There's some evidence, yeah. Maybe just enough so the

prosecutor thought he would look good bringing this case before the election.

But I think everybody would have been better off, including the victim, if he had waited till he had some very solid evidence.

More along the lines of Patrick Fitzgerald.

[bettyellen]

309. we don;t know if theres important stuff we are not seeing

literally anything is possible. it's a mess and i can only say i think the defense is doing a great job. but they've been out pushing longer and theres what 5 or 6 of them? they are doing a hell of a PR job. i have to say.

[timber84]

202. i am not a he.

[bettyellen]

203. oops, sorry timber. i had the same questions as you after seeing the

press conference, and so i thought i'd share what i heard the lawyer say in response.
these lawyers are all so slippery, we all need translators.

[jberryhill]

316. It's okay, nobody's perfect

(I think I'll go run and hide now)

[pnwmom]

265. I think the main part that's missing is the election that's

coming up. I bet the charges get dropped, after waiting a suitable length of time, once that's over.

[Marie26]

403. He's already elected

Durham is in a heavily Democratic county, & whoever wins the Democratic primary is basically assured victory in the wider election. The election reason doesn't really work anymore.

[timber84]

420. I thought it was because there were only democrats running in the

primary and no other opposition, since he won the primary that was basically the election

[Marie26]

449. It's over either way

I don't know if the Republicans are bothering to run a candidate this year or not.

[LostinVA]

459. I had read in the N&O they weren't n/t

[IndianaGreen]

151. See you all in court!

No matter what racists from both sides of this case have to say, or what the reasonable advocates of either side say, the fact of the matter is that this case is heading to trial. Nifong will have to present all of his evidence, the defense will do their best to rebut that evidence, and it will be up to a jury to render a verdict.

Meanwhile, our DU discussions about this case will be nothing more than an extension of the stuff we are going to see on cable TV.

Personally, I think if Nifong's case is solely based on the photo ID by the accuser, that he will have a very hard time proving his case to the preponderance of the evidence, much less the reasonable doubt standard required of criminal cases.

Let's try to remain civil with one another! The fact that we disagree on the interpretation of the facts disclosed by MSM, which in themselves are not evidence until and if they are introduced in court, doesn't mean that we are evil wicked people that think that rape is a rite of passage to the children of the elites.

[stepnw1f]

163. That's Right (nt)

[Marie26]

416. Agree w/you there

We've all got a very imperfect & incomplete understanding of this case, cause we don't know all the evidence.

[timber84]

155. Evans' attorney says they will be able to prove his wherabouts during the

alleged rape down to the minute, was there a video taken?

[bettyellen]

166. :(o

of course not.
betcha anything his evidence is other players' testimony.

[Marie26]

221. I called it!

How can they possibly prove his whereabouts down to the minute? Did he have a documentary crew follwing him around like Jessica Simpson? That seriously strains belief. There's no video - the defense only mentioned the cell phone photos (in which Evans does not appear). So where's the proof of Evans whereabouts? Why didn't Cheshire show the proof as he so eagerly offered the evidence of Seligmann's whereabouts? For that matter, why haven't we heard anything more about Finnrerty's alibi? Just because the defense attorney says something, doesn't make it so. If they have proof of his whereabouts that night, I'd like to see it.

[timber84]

224. I'd like to see what else Nifong has on these guys, it's his job to prove

that a rape happened not the players job to prove it didn't.

[Marie26]

250. True.

And it seems like the wisest thing would be for the defense to wait till trial to produce alibis & evidence instead of doing it in public now - especially if the actual evidence ends up being less powerful than advertised.

[IndianaGreen]

245. How about the date stamp on the ATM video cam?

Or is that evidence to be ignored because it might exonerate Reade Seligmann?

[Marie26]

382. Now we're talking about Evans,

not Seligmann. The defense flatly states that they can prove Evans' whereabouts every minute that night, but offers no physical evidence, or witnesses, or an alibi, or anything. That's weak. Seligmann's ATM receipt may or may not end up being exonerating evidence, based mostly on when the assault occured. But don't you think it's odd that Cheshire offered up all this alibi evidence for a player he doesn't even represent, but can't seem to find any evidence to help his own client?

[jberryhill]

431. No, that's not odd....

And it is not odd for the reasons explained elsewhere by Kingshakabobo (again with the "fake names").

You release someone else's alibi. Then the prosecution has to patch & fill its theory to fit that guy's alibi. That patch & fill job by the prosecution just happens to move the prosecution's theory away from your client... that's not odd at all.

That's why I said what I did about joint defendants. It's like the joke about two guys running away from a bear. If you are one of those guys, you don't have to outrun the BEAR.

But it doesn't appear to occur to you that not all "defense attorneys" for various players are, or would even want to, pull in the same direction. Your unexamined assumption is based on this notion of team or race "solidarity".

Each lawyer has one, and only one, concern - his OWN client. That's a lawyer's duty.

If I am Seligman's attorney, it is perfectly fine with me if she goes back in the house and is raped at 12:30 by Finnerty and Evans. Because if I can put her back in the house when Seligman is gone, my job is done.

[TorchTheWitch]

247. no but he has many credible witnesses

All the other lacrosse players at the party... they're credible witnesses doncha know. :crazy:

Then they've got all those photos taken by lacrosse players where they can't seem to prove the timestamps weren't changed. :crazy:

What could possibly be more credible than the lacrosse players who have already established a proven history of lying out their asses? :crazy:

[timber84]

249. I'm sure its real easy to get 40 plus people to agree on one story, yeah

right!

[bettyellen]

268. that might be why they have many more lawyers than people being charged.

what did you assume all those extra lawyers were doing?

[jberryhill]

344. Pimping themselves

Sharks. Blood in the water.

Any criminal defense attorney wants to get his name connected with this case any way that he or she can.

[Kingshakabobo]

349. I'm surprised Jeffery Feiger, Joe Taccopino and .......

.......Gloria What's-her-name(professional victim's atty) haven't showed up yet. I hear they are planning a seance for Jonny Cochoran.

[TorchTheWitch]

310. They've had weeks and weeks to agree

on their story, and since trial probably won't be for months and months from now they'll have all of that time to agree on their story. Piece. Of. Cake. As for credibility... pfffftttttt... pardon me while I laugh so hysterically that my eyeballs shoot out of my head and splat the wall.

[pnwmom]

313. And what's so credible about a dancer who changes her story

after seeking to hire a publicist?

[jberryhill]

357. Trouble is...

if you want to have elaborate criminal conspiracies both before and after the party, then you're going to have to argue with Nifong saying that no other players are implicated in the crime.

So you can't have accessories per Nifong.

The unindicted players don't have to agree on any "story". They've been cleared of any wrongoing and Nifong went out of his way to say that.

So, you are an unindicted player. You are saying that, after this whole thing, you've been expressly cleared of any crime - NOW you are going to go engage in perjury and obstruction of justice, when the whole thing is under a microscope?

And all 43 other team members are going to make that choice?

Jiminy Crickets, sign them up for federal jobs, since they leak less than people with a lot more on the line.

[TorchTheWitch]

497. Not so

You are assuming that the reason Nifong has said he isn't implicating anyone else is because he believes there is no conspiracy? He does in fact believe there has been a conspiracy and has alluded to that. If he has no plans to implicate anyone for conspiring it's because he can't identify who they are. If it ever comes to pass that he can identify anyone as being an accomplice, you bet he's going to go after them.

It is also my understanding that he is saying he has no plans to implicate anyone else for raping, beating or kidnapping the alleged victim, not necessarily anyone who may have helped in planning such a thing to occur, knowing such a thing occurred and not coming forward or helping to cover up such a thing afterward.

And really, just because he said he isn't planning on implicating anyone else hardly means that he's somehow bound to that. He could very well be saying it as a strategy if anyone he thinks is an accomplice to let their guard down. If it was you who was an accomplice would hearing him say this make you believe you were legally in the clear and he really was not looking into identifying any accomplices and would sigh with relief? Do you believe that anyone on the team who isn't Seligmann, Finnerty or Evans is now considering paying off their attorney and telling them thanks but I don't need you to save my ass anymore?

http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/20060515_nifong.pdf
Today, the Durham County Grand Jury indicted David Forker Evans on charges of first degree rape, first degree sex offense, and first degree kidnapping. I do not anticipate that there will be any further indictments in this case.

At the outset of this investigation, I said that it was just as important to remove the cloud of suspicion from the members of the Duke University lacrosse team who were not involved in this assault as it was to identify the actual perpetrators. For that reason, I believe it is important to state publicly today that none of the evidence that we have developed implicates any member of that team other than those three against whom indictments have been returned.

Given that this statement came after the indictment of Evans for the rape/assault/kidnapping charges, it seems clear that what Nifong is referring to in this statement is that he doesn't anticipate bringing any charges of the same type against anyone else, not necessarily any accomplice or conspiring charges. I believe you are reading much more into this statement than what it says or what Nifong was implying.

[jberryhill]

499. I don't think you understand accomplice liability

There is no difference between primary liability and accomplice liability.

If someone is liable for First Degree Murder, and you helped that person, you are liable for First Degree Murder. Accomplice liability is not some sort of separate charge tacked onto a primary criminal offense, it is a general principle of culpability. There is no crime of "Accomplice to First Degree Murder". There is only First Degree Murder. Being an accomplice gets you charged with that crime.

If Nifong says he is going to "remove the cloud of suspicion" and not charge anyone else with rape or sexual assault, that MEANS no accomplices by definition.

Saying that Nifong was mincing words with something as categorical as "members of the Duke University lacrosse team who were not involved in this assault" but who, in some other undefined sense WERE involved, is simply to contradict what Nifong said.

[Moosepoop]

500. How about lying to investigators, giving false statements,

obstructing justice, or perjury (if any of the team were to get caught lying on the stand)?

I think there are a number of different pitfalls that the rest of the team could be affected by, altogether separate from "accomplice" charges. Look at Scooter Libby.

[jberryhill]

508. Those things make them an accessory after the fact...

...and chargeable as defendants with the primary offense.

You see the "obstruction" and "perjury" things when the underlying offense isn't necessarily on deck, as in the Martha Stewart case where the feds did not prosecute the offense they were investigating, but did go after demonstrably false statements she made during the investigation. With Libby, nobody has been charged with the primary offense - leaking Plame's identity - and Fitz seems to be racking up those who have tried to screw with the investigation. That's how things eventually shook out with the Watergate investigation as well - nobody seriously charged that Nixon was involved in the illegal wiretapping, but it did appear that he took illegal steps to derail the subsequent investigation of it.

But it certainly appears that Mr. Nifong must have meant something quite different from removing the "cloud of suspicion", if he intended for the cloud to remain - as it apparently has.

[IndianaGreen]

251. Are you suggesting the bank faked the time stamp on the ATM?

Because the time stamp shows that Reade Seligmann was not at the party at the time the alleged rape took place. Or is the accuser now saying that she was using Central Time?

[TorchTheWitch]

312. Apparantly you haven't read a single thing on this

The ATM receipt's timestamp is perfectly legitimate. It does not, however, mean one damn stinking thing without it being coupled with the timestamps of the photos taken by the players and put out by the defense which are easily changed and where there is even EVIDENCE that at least one of the photo's timestamp was DELIBERATELY changed. There is a REASON why the defense attorneys for the accused are so pissed off that those photos were released.

Go do a search and get back to me when you've learned something about this as I'm getting REALLY tired of repeating it over and over and over and over in multi posts and multi threads.

[jberryhill]

319. Tell me about the changed timestamp

We're not back on the car switcheroo between the cabbie seeing them leave in a white car, and them arriving at the Kroger in a dark car again, are we?

[TorchTheWitch]

381. No

It's what she was wearing in the photo of her in the car. As I recall, we talked about this.

[timber84]

389. Just exactly where is this?

"EVIDENCE that at least one of the photo's timestamp was
DELIBERATELY changed"

[jberryhill]

434. Oh geez...

So now you are going to make me confess that whenever a thread gets locked, we keep going on about it through messages...

If you don't mind, I thought your thing about the clothing was interesting, but it hinged on this:


I'm still trying to find that photo of her wearing her street clothes when she arrived but haven't had much luck with that yet...

So I never saw the photo in question, and wasn't sure whether your clothing hypothesis was correct.

While you can say that she left "without the missing clothing" because of her appearance on the "leaving the porch" and "getting in the car" photos, you don't know that someone didn't toss it into the back of Robert's car.

After all, the AV didn't make it home that night. If someone had put something in Robert's car, it wouldn't have necessarily gone to the hospital with her.

Roberts then presumably drove home.

[pnwmom]

293. They're about as credible as a dancer who changes her story

after looking for a publicist.

[TorchTheWitch]

315. but there is one of her and 40+ of them

How credible Kim Roberts comes off on the stand is all that matters, and she is actually more credible as she still maintains that she doesn't know whether or not a rape occurred and didn't see one occur. She's not the only witness or only evidence for the prosecution. The defense's problem is ALL their evidence and witnesses come from the players themselves. Even their big witness the cab driver has had his credibility shot to hell and he's made statements that actually help the prosecution.

The players are already on the hook for being liars and they've admitted it. They're going to have to explain the mysterious disappearance of the accuser's street clothes, one shoe, purse and wallet none of which have yet been found. They're going to have to explain why they claim the accuser arrived "drunk" when the neighbor, Bissey, says not one word of her appearing in any way innebriated when he saw her arrive at the party and walk from the car to the house, meet and speak with some of the players and go in the house. They're going to have to explain a lot of things... a lot more than we know now and is not going to be flattering toward them.

[jberryhill]

320. You talk about "they" as if one organism is on trial

Three organisms are on trial.... Seligman, Finnerty, and Evans, so let's see who has the 'splainin to do...


The players are already on the hook for being liars and they've admitted it.


Flannery lied to get the strippers there. He's not on trial. Identify the admitted lies of:

Seligman:

Finnerty:

Evans:


They're going to have to explain the mysterious disappearance of the accuser's street clothes, one shoe, purse and wallet none of which have yet been found.


Seligman: "How would I know, I left before she did."

Finnerty: "Beats me, I was at a Mexican restaurant."

Evans: "We tossed that stuff in the black car when they left" or "We threw it out after the party, we didn't have any use for it" or "I don't know where she left her stuff. I cleared out after the noise in the street because I didn't want to get cited again for a noise violation."


They're going to have to explain why they claim the accuser arrived "drunk" when the neighbor, Bissey, says not one word of her appearing in any way innebriated when he saw her arrive at the party and walk from the car to the house, meet and speak with some of the players and go in the house.


Unless you have a specific claim of S, F, or E, claiming the accuser arrived drunk, then they don't have to explain anything at all there.

Witnesses might disagree over her condition. Big deal. Whether she arrived drunk or arrived sober doesn't suggest that S, F, or E raped her in the bathroom.

[TorchTheWitch]

418. Are we certain they're organisms or

is this more defense spin?

The players are already on the hook for being liars and they've admitted it.

Flannery lied to get the strippers there. He's not on trial. Identify the admitted lies of:

Seligman: Lied about his identity in order to purposely cause confusion as to who was who at the party in the event that in the future it would be beneficial to him to not be easily identified. If he doesn't admit it on the stand Evans will fight him on that because Evans DID say that was THEIR reason for lying about THEIR identities.

Finnerty: Lied about his identity in order to purposely cause confusion as to who was who at the party in the event that in the future it would be beneficial to him to not be easily identified. If he doesn't admit it on the stand Evans will fight him on that because Evans DID say that was THEIR reason for lying about THEIR identities.

Evans: Lied about his identity in order to purposely cause confusion as to who was who at the party in the event that in the future it would be beneficial to him to not be easily identified which he already admitted to police. Also lied to the police when they asked him and his housemates to compile a list of the team members that were at the party, and Reide Seligmann was left off the list.

Let the battle of the dueling suspects begin.


They're going to have to explain the mysterious disappearance of the accuser's street clothes, one shoe, purse and wallet none of which have yet been found.

Seligman: "How would I know, I left before she did."

DA: "Prove it."

Seligmann: "Duhhhhh... Well, I got all these scads of documents with timestamps and video and phone records and stuff, but since I was still in the house by my attorney's own timeline in my defense for plenty long enough to have jammed my dick in the accuser's mouth, which is all that's needed to constitute rape, I guess I've got all this shit for nothing."


Finnerty: "Beats me, I was at a Mexican restaurant."

DA: "Prove it."

Finnerty: "Duhhhhh... *belch*."


Evans:
A) "We tossed that stuff in the black car when they left" or
B) "We threw it out after the party, we didn't have any use for it" or
C) "I don't know where she left her stuff. I cleared out after the noise in the street because I didn't want to get cited again for a noise violation."

DA:
A) "I have evidence to the contrary which is why the police specifically listed those items as items to be searched for in your house where they were last seen, and Bissey and Roberts have testified that you did not toss those items into the back of the car as Bissey watched this whole scene unfold, and Roberts was part of that scene and in that black car."
B) "Then why is it that it wasn't in any of your trashcans when the police searched your entire property, and please don't insult me by claiming the garbage men took it away before the police conducted their search because the rest of your trash was still on your property... unless you want to claim that you made a SPECIAL trip to get those SPECIFIC items off your property before the police could conduct their search? HMMMMMMMMM????"
C) "Then why weren't these specific items of her personal belongings still in your house when you went back just as the items of her personal belongings that were still there when the police conducted their search? How did these SPECIFIC items manage to escape an empty and locked house all by themselves?"

Evans:
A) "Duhhhh."
B) "Duhhhh."
C) "Duhhhh.... Mommy! *sniffle*."


They're going to have to explain why they claim the accuser arrived "drunk" when the neighbor, Bissey, says not one word of her appearing in any way innebriated when he saw her arrive at the party and walk from the car to the house, meet and speak with some of the players and go in the house.

Unless you have a specific claim of S, F, or E, claiming the accuser arrived drunk, then they don't have to explain anything at all there.

All of their attorneys have made this claim. Their attorneys represent them. If their attorneys didn't tell the truth on this then they need to be fired at once.


Witnesses might disagree over her condition. Big deal. Whether she arrived drunk or arrived sober doesn't suggest that S, F, or E raped her in the bathroom.

No shit. It all goes to credibility. They will look pretty odd claiming know-nothing when eye witnesses know more about what went on at their own party than they do... just claiming "all I know is that I didn't do it" isn't going to cut it. They have a lot of explaining to do, and it better make more sense then what the prosecution's witnesses are going to be saying.

[jberryhill]

436. None of these guys is going on the stand

I'll bet you ten bucks paypal that Seligman never testifies in this criminal trial.

When you say they used different names to confuse the strippers about who they were, lemme ask you as the resident expert, do you think men ever lie to you about their names?

Flash-forward ten years, and Seligman is getting background-checked for a government job, hey waddya know his name turns up on the books of an escort service that was busted a while back for tax evasion, and there's a stripper that remembers a guy named "Reade". Like it or not, one thing I'm sure that motivates these guys (or motivated anyway) was protecting their 'reputation'.

I mean, hey, my name IS John. You know how depressing it is to read in the paper that "Ten Johns Arrested in Prostitution Sweep". It's like they're out to get me or something.

[TorchTheWitch]

498. TEN dollars?

TEN whole U.S. dollars???

Honey, you're talking to a stripper... I wipe my ass with ten dollars.

Ten dollars... geeezzz, it's an insult.

;)

[jberryhill]

509. Well that's good to know...

Some people can feed their families on ten dollars today.

This, of course, is why I tell my kids, "You don't know where that money has been."

I guess now we know.

I was merely asking you to put your money where your mouth is, but if the shoe fits....

[LostinVA]

341. I agree -- I think Roberts and Bissey will be the most important

and most credible first-hand witnesses. Roberts has never wavered from her story, and has never said something happened -- she's only spoken of her observations. Bissey, too. Whereas the cabbie changed his story after one of the accused fathers visited him, and has waffled some since then. I'm betting he;ll actually help the DA more than the Defense.

Roberts seemed to come off very credible in the interview I saw of her.

[laureloak]

188. Big fear: Vigilante DA who is prosecuting, not because he has

thoroughly investigated the incident, but because he can. Ruining lives.

That's the prospective put forth by the lady lawyer on MSNBC.

[laureloak]

205. Maybe I don't belong here, because

I believe the lacrosse players.

[timber84]

206. you have company

[IndianaGreen]

216. I think there are serious questions about Nifong and his "evidence"

and questions about the accuser's credibility in ID of the suspects.

[timber84]

217. All I can say is he better have one hell of an ace up his sleeve cause

this stuff just isn't cuutin it IMO, Evans seemed very believable to me in his statement today.

[IndianaGreen]

219. I'll like to know why Nifong refused to give Evans a polygraph

A polygraph is a win-win for the prosecution! If Evans had failed, Nifong could have said "look, he failed the polygraph!" If Evans had passed it, Nifong would have just said that polygraphs are not admissible in court. No reputable prosecutor would have turned down a chance to give a polygraph to a suspect that volunteered to take it.

[timber84]

220. Are you watchin Greta tonite?

[IndianaGreen]

227. Yep, I watched her tonight

and there are problems with the mustache identification. Even a fake mustache would leave fibers behind!

BTW, Tucker Carlson accidentally mentioned the accuser's first name tonight when he was discussing the case with Former Prosecutor Susan Filan. Susan thought there were problems with the mustache identification and with Nifong's conduct and she repeated what others have said in other shows, that Nifong better have a smoking gun that no one knows about if he wants to win this case,

[timber84]

230. yep i watched too i thought it was interesting that the majority of the

former da's are as suspicios as we are.

[IndianaGreen]

239. We also know that Nifong has cleared all the other players

Nifong issued a statement Monday evening saying no other lacrosse players would be indicted in the case.

"At the outset of this investigation, I said that it was just as important to remove the cloud of suspicion from the members of the Duke University lacrosse team who were not involved in this assault as it was to identify the actual perpetrators," the statement said. "For that reason, I believe it is important to state publicly ... that none of the evidence that we have developed implicates any member of that team other than those three against whome indictments were returned."

http://www.nbc17.com/news/9218519/detail.html

I think that Nifong will base his entire case on the accuser's photo identification of the defendants, and perhaps on the ever-changing account of Kim Roberts, the second stripper:

The attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her. They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage.''

http://www.nbc17.com/news/8878776/detail.html

[jberryhill]

237. It's a Rorschach blot test

...just keep it civil.

[pnwmom]

294. Isn't it funny how progressive ideas about civil liberties

and "innocent until proven guilty" seem to go flying out the window at odd times?

[bettyellen]

307. they posted bail, lots of men in their position would be in jail now

guilty or innocent. it's how the system works for everyone charged with a crime.
i bet they'd keep the publicity if it meant keeping their freedom as well. it's a tradeoff.

[not_nameless]

213. she does not remember if they were condoms or not

How come she remembers so many other details, but does not remember if they used a
condom, at least for the guy who supposedly forced her to perform oral sex on him??
Maybe he disguissed the condom too, with help from the Free Masons, and their Skulls & Bones pals?
Oh, and DNA, and even semen is released even before ejaculation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12135342/from/RL.5/
"ABRAMS: But she would have told you, would she have not? I mean you've spoken to her. She would have said either they used condoms or they didn't.

NIFONG: Well, if you are being forced to have sex against your will, you may not necessarily notice whether or not somebody behind you is using a condom. This was not a consensual sex situation. This was a struggle, wherein she was struggling just to be able to breathe. So I'm not sure that she would really have much way of knowing whether a condom was being used."

[threadkillaz]

330. non-story.

Someone called Divertor.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/animatedcartoons/v/divertor.htm

[LostinVA]

342. Absolutely not true n/t

[threadkillaz]

424. Ok, a story in North Carolina.

Not an international story.

People are raped daily. Why arent they in the news?

Here, have a gander.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=raped&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn

DIVERTOR!

[timber84]

428. it did make news in China

[jberryhill]

438. But...

They had breakfast the next day at an INTERNATIONAL House of Pancakes.

[LostinVA]

492. Again, I don't agree

As a woman who was almost raped and who has had several friends raped, I am aware that people (mainly women and children) are raped daily. Hourly. Almost every five minutes in this country. THAT'S exactly why it is a huge story. It's 2006, it's still going on, rapists get way less jail time than some kids with three joints, and people still say the woman asked for it, or is a liar, or whatever. THIS makes it a huge national story. I'm glad it's caught fire like this -- an dit has. My way conservative dad and I agree on this... it's something that we care deeply about -- violence against women. Race. Classim... every time people are forced to think about stuff like this, some of them finally understand things. Good. I hope it does go international.

It's not a diverter. Tom Cruise's nuttiness is, this isn't. WTF does it divert us from? Racism? Sexism? Violence? WE should never eb diverted from these things. WE should always always always be talking about this.

I wish every night on tv and in every newspaper they listed everyone raped that day in the US by their gender and age. Every frigging night. Maybe then something will finally start happening to people's attitudes.

Diversion? Forsooth.

[screenplaya]

445. Agreed

TV is a trillion dollar business that cannot let a story that has all of the elements they are looking for (sex, race, rich vs. poor, law and order, sports, drinking, man vs. female) pass them by.

Especially in a time of sweeps.

Even though we are at war, haven't yet fixed New Orleans, and have gas prices up the wazzu, this story is what the TV barons focus on.

[LostinVA]

460. So, you don't think

Violence against women, classism, sexism, "smearing the rape victim" tactics, etc. aren't important? REALLY?

All of this is at least as important as anything else going on in the world -- it's why it has struck such a nerve. If it didn't, the story would have dropped, no matter what the MSM did with it.

Just the archaic and disgusting attitude shown by some posters on here show the importance of this.

[jberryhill]

487. Yep, you tell him...

Important issues all.

By the way, I hear that a fourth African-American student at Virginia Union University was recently indicted in the rape of that white woman from the University of Richmond.

Not much news gets out about that one. You are in Virginia, is there any further news on that case?

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&%09s=1045855935174&c=MGArticle&cid=1137836062037&path=!news!columnists

All four of the accused are black, two who had ties to the football team. One was a star quarterback as a freshman. All four were considered good kids, attending a historic black university.

The victim is white, an out-of-state student attending the posh University of Richmond, which has Duke-size tuition.

[Blackhatjack]

414. Evans' Atty Joe Cheshire Has Impeccable Reputation ...

I have followed Joe Cheshire's career for over 20 years, and in that time I observed the following: (1) I do not recall that he has EVER retracted any public statement he has made; (2) He has always advised his clients to remain silent prior to disposition of the charges, until this case; (3) I do not recall that he has ever been censured, reprimanded or accused of any kind of wrongdoing or unethical conduct; (4) His honesty and character create instant credibility with the Judge and Jury; and (5) He is generally regarded as a worthy adversary, but also someone who is courteous and genial to everyone he meets.

This Evans case is certainly an aberration. The lack of DNA evidence at this point seems to point in favor of the defendants, and I would be very surprised to find that Nifong is holding back from the public sufficient evidence to support conviction. Why? Nifong is required to turn over to the Defense evidence they intend to present at trial --just like the results of the DNA tests. If he fails to do so, the Judge can bar its admission at trial. And Joe Cheshire would know when the evidence supporting conviction is compelling --and in that case there would not be any public statements like yesterday.

No one knows exactly how this case will end. However, based upon the reputations and actions of the parties I would suspect that either the charges will be dropped, or the verdicts will be not guilty, if not dismissed by the court sooner.

[LostinVA]

440. What reputations and actions? I'm curious what you mean

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Blackhatjack]

447. Reputation

Reputation is your standing or how you are viewed by a community or group of people.

In the law, your reputation for truth and honesty is derived from the opinions held by the group you are addressing. Each member of the group must have had an opportunity to observe the individual and the behavior that bears on the characteristic. Reputations can be "good" or "bad" for a particular characteristic.

Joe Cheshire has tried numerous cases, and as far as anyone can determine he has never been reprimanded, censured or otherwise disciplined for violating any law or ethical rules. For someone who has been involved in cases with the highest profiles, that registers not only with his peers but with the public. There is always the opportunity to "shade" facts or give less than a full explanation of the law in representing your client, but if you do so you will lose the most valuable thing you possess in representing any defendant --your own credibility. And if you have no credibility, the Judge and Jury is not going to give your argument as much weight.

If there were any "chinks" in Cheshire's credibility, you can bet that would be put out there by the prosecution.

[LostinVA]

461. The "reputation" of a person's attorney has nothing to do with that person

innocent or guilt. It's interesting you think it does.

I have friends who are lawyers -- not being reprimanded, etc. doesn't mean you're honorable (or not), it just means you know how to not get censured.

And, I guarantee there are lots of attorneys and court personnel who would disagree with your assessment of Cheshire.

An ex works for an NC's DA office -- and she says the DA on this case has an excellent reputation in NC, among both other prosecutors, public defenders, and private attorneys. So...

[Blackhatjack]

475. You could not be more wrong .....

Whether a person is "innocent" or "guilty" is a fact. Your interpretation of my comment is twisted, and certainly wrong.

You will notice that I did not state any opinion about the DA's reputation for truth. I analyzed the facts and the actions taken by the parties.

The best gauge of a trial attorney's reputation for truthfulness is to look at the very public work they do, which has very public consequences if they are not truthful and honest with the Court.

The importance of a defense attorney's reputation for truthfulness and honesty is paramount. If the Judge and Jury does not believe you are totally honest and truthful, then everything you present in court is questioned, and every argument you make is questionable. In that case, you are unable to present the Judge and/or Jury with logical and persuasive evidence for their consideration which the defendant often could not make on his own. No matter how skilled and knowledgeable an attorney is, they will not be successful if they are suspected of "shading the truth."

In North Carolina, we have had numerous cases of law enforcement officials and DAs withholding evidence that would have proved the defendant innocent, and in several cases that defendant was placed on death row scheduled for execution before they were exonerated. We just had two DAs who were promoted to higher jobs and the bench as a judge who engaged in just that kind of conduct, and until it was disclosed through dogged investigation they enjoyed "excellent reputation in NC, among prosecutors, public defenders, and private attorneys." Today, neither can ever walk in another courtroom and enjoy the credibility needed to represent an individual.

Contrary to your statement ". . .I guarantee there are lots of attorneys and court personnel who would disagree with your assessment of Cheshire", it is still possible to represent an unpopular individual zealously and competently without being discourteous to opposing counsel and court personnel. This is what Joe Cheshire has made a career of doing. I challenge you to find anyone in this jurisdiction to back up your "guarantee." The same could be said of John Edwards when he practiced here. Opposing counsel hated his results, and his work ethic because it made them have to work that much harder, but almost universally every opposing counsel not only found him to be talented but a courteous and genial opponent -- just like he is on the campaign trail. And no one today can point to him ever being reprimanded or censured in his career either.

I do take issue with your assertion that lawyers "know how to not get censured." That implies a lawyer can be unethical or untruthful and not be censured for it. There is no course for learning how to avoid censure except to be truthful and honest. period.

[Blackhatjack]

477. You may be having trouble with this assessment ....

"No one knows exactly how this case will end. However, based upon the reputations and actions of the parties I would suspect that either the charges will be dropped, or the verdicts will be not guilty, if not dismissed by the court sooner."
***********************************************

I made this statement precisely because I believe the DA will be truthful and honorable, and will turn over to the Defense the exculpatory evidence he is required to provide under the NC Rules of Criminal Procedure. If he had the kind of "damning" evidence that usually supports sexual offense charges in cases like this, Joe Cheshire would have already seen it and analyzed it -- and his client would not be making any public statements of "innocence." Cheshire's client would be very quiet, and Cheshire would be working hard on a plea agreement for his client.

The character of the counsel, and their subsequent actions, are good indicators of where this case is going. But anything is possible. New evidence or witnesses could be discovered before trial. However, given the coverage these cases have received, that is not likely.

[LostinVA]

479. I'm not the one who's having trouble seeing stuff clearly

I'm done. Go and play with someone else, I don't have the time to fiddle with you guys today. The sport is gone.

[BrownOak]

486. Maybe yes, maybe no

I'll agree 100% with you on the character of Joe Cheshire. Those people who aren't in NC don't know just what kind of attorney both he and Wade Smith are. Cheshire is the 4th generation of attorneys in his family to practice law in this state (all of whom are/were named Joe Cheshire) and the reputation that he has earned is sterling. I have a hard time seeing him trash not only his own name, but the name of the generations that preceded him by falsify evidence or making unsubstantiated claims.

That said, one of the big problems in determining just where this case is going is the fact that Nifong has yet to turn over any of the evidence other than the two DNA test reports. So nobody really knows what's out there.

[Blackhatjack]

491. Given all the recent prosecutorial misconduct lately, I cannot imagine

Nifong would withhold not only exculpatory evidence, but all evidence required by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, from the Defense.

I think Nifong is playing for time, hoping to turn up some new evidence or witnesses. Otherwise his actions do not match the quality of evidence he has disclosed so far.

I agree with your assessment of the Cheshire legacy. I know he would not throw away that kind of credibility in a case like this if he were not sure of what he is doing. Do you ever recall him retracting any public statement he has ever made? I do not.

One key issue here getting very little attention is that none of the defendants have alleged a defense of "consent", which could have been very difficult for the Prosecution to counter. Instead, the defendants have all raised the same defense that no sexual assault occurred. If there had been a match of DNA with the complainant, they would have been dead in the water with that story. So who is going to take that chance if they know they had sex with the complainant?

I see nothing to support the charges so far except the bare allegation of the complaining witness, who has changed her story numerous times. Should be interesting to see Nifong show his hand ....

[FredScuttle]

501. "Changed her story numerous times"?

When and how? Please don't tell you've been taking in by that report of the Durham cop who was eavesdropping on another cop's conversation and proclaimed that the victim first claimed she'd been attacked by 20 guys. Cause it's bullshit.

[whododayis]

432. yeah, but where do elvis and oswald fit in to this conspiracy?

[onenote]

478. hasn't this thread hit 500 posts yet?

You guys are slowing down. When you've got the case solved, it'll be easier on the rest of us if you make that announcement in a new thread.

thanks

onenote

[Moosepoop]

502. Um, who is "you guys"

and who is "the rest of us"?

I'd say that by posting on these threads, you have become one of "us guys". Wouldn't you say? :shrug:

And yeah, we're over 500 posts now.

[iconoclastNYC]

496. We should picket the TV Networks

For covering this non-story compulsively.

It's time we get out in the streets to demand real news products.

[RCinBrooklyn]

503. Why is this story important to the nation?

[Moosepoop]

504. Because

it embodies and highlights many different social problems all at once.

Racial division, gender division, class and wealth division, the perceptions involved in all these things and the differing perceptions of "what is justice"? Oh yes, and that little thing of sexual violence, which is a daily occurence in this country. The more important question to ask, IMO, is "why is that?"

Welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[LostinVA]

506. What Moosie said n/t

[LostinVA]

505. That's been answered many times on these threads, including this one

Please tell me why you think it isn't?

[Moderator]

510. Lock

Circular arguments, flames, etc.
Not breaking anymore