NC - Two Duke Lacrosse Players Indicted

[Paladin]

Hahaha, excuse me for laughing.

From what I have read and heard there is evidence as plain as day to get these young men off the hook but it appears they've already been tried and sentenced. This is horrible.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Hahaha, excuse me for laughing.

From what I have read and heard there is evidence as plain as day to get these young men off the hook but it appears they've already been tried and sentenced. This is horrible.

You're right about that. She's also already profiting from all of this. :doh:

 

[mister happy]

Fox News has video of David Evan's press conference. FWIW, he presented himself very well... seemed very believable. Of course, I'm biased. I think the DA's case is a sham.

http://www.foxnews.com

 

[Sherlockmom]

>The third guy was indicated by a grand jury, so they must know a hell of a lot that we don't yet.<



Well not necessarily. I guess we now know where the saying that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich came from.

>I was thinking the same thing until I read that the police had taken a DNA swab from her boyfriend's cheek.<

And they took this swab from what I can now gather AFTER the first two boys were arrested. We never heard from the get-go that DNA had been found inside the AV. Why? Surely this would be one of the first places the nurse would look? She apparantly found some. Nifong knew that but did NOT share it with the defense. It also seems that either this DNA was only recently tested or the information that it did not belong to either of the two arrested players was also withheld. Two other men who were not players had DNA taken as well. Why? Who were they? Clients? More "boyfriends"?

I believe that Nifong had these boys arrested before he knew the results of that DNA test. Seems he is doing is investigating after the fact instead of before. Interesting way for a prosecutor to handle a case. I am so irritated with the not wanting to drag the boyfriend's name through the mud quote. What idiot said that? There seems to have been no problem with dragging these boy's names through the mud on very slim evidence indeed. If this boyfriend has a criminal record and was hanging around with this woman what reputation does he have to protect? On the contrary, I think her boyfriend may be the first place I would look for signs of a violent episode. Curious how he is protected instead of a person of interest.

Someone on another board made a good point. Why, if these boys had raped her and were concerned in anyway about a hair, fibre or DNA being found on her would they not have just simply said that yes, they had sex with her but it was consensual and that is part of what they paid her for? Yet it has been said that the boys handed over evidence willingly, submitted to DNA testing and lie detector tests. Additionally, their stories have never waivered from day one unlike the AV and her dancing friend.

If the AV or her friend have plans to publish books or sell movie rights to their stories these boys would be wise to have their attorneys file civil suits against them. That way they won't be whooping it up at the expense of 3 innocent lives. It would give me great pleasure to see those big $$$$ in their eyes disappear.

Sherlockmom

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Well if they're convicted of this, a civil suit won't matter much. I agree with what you said though about them just saying it was consensual. That's an excellent point.

I don't know about the criminal justice system up there. Here, I know the district attorney in charge of the "major" crimes and he's got more integrity than almost anyone I know. Hard for me to see it the way some of you do who know the area in which this case sits. I guess the system could be as racially divided as some claim. Nifong didn't meet with the defense and obviously doesn't care about exculpatory evidence. The grand jury only needs to hear one side, so they obviously are not hearing what the defense has.

 

[Sherlockmom]

"Mary and Travis, who asked that their last names not be revealed, spoke to CBS' "48 Hours." They said their daughter has been portrayed unfairly. Defense attorneys are questioning the accuser's credibility. The alleged victim's parents said that is one reason they are coming forward to speak on her behalf.



"She is a beautiful young lady and that she is a good girl. She is not bad," Mary said."

Not bad? She got kicked out of the navy for having two kids out of wedlock and is now stripping for a living. She has a police record for drug and alcohol arrests and stole a car and almost ran over a cop. She has told at least one lie in the past that could have landed someone in jail unfairly. A good girl? That's not what my parents would have said about me. No sirreeeeee.

This just goes to show you how this type of thing happens and she can lie so easily. She learned it at home. These people live in some kind of alternate reality.

"They also said they had no idea their daughter returned to exotic dancing just a couple of months before the incident to make money for college""

RETURNED to dancing? So this isn't something new for her. I guess as long as she is doing it to make money to better herself it's okay then. Good grief.

http://www.wral.com/news/9217648/detail.html

Sherlockmom

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Thanks for the article. I guess they don't realize that the questions regarding her "credibility" began in the first two seconds after the police arrived. :doh:

 

[Wudge]

Well if they're convicted of this, a civil suit won't matter much. I agree with what you said though about them just saying it was consensual. That's an excellent point.

I don't know about the criminal justice system up there. Here, I know the district attorney in charge of the "major" crimes and he's got more integrity than almost anyone I know. Hard for me to see it the way some of you do who know the area in which this case sits. I guess the system could be as racially divided as some claim. Nifong didn't meet with the defense and obviously doesn't care about exculpatory evidence. The grand jury only needs to hear one side, so they obviously are not hearing what the defense has.

(cutting slack)

The D.A. has the responsibility (good faith effort) to present to a Grand Jury both the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence of which they have knowledge. Therefore, a Grand Jury is supposed to, and does need to, hear both inculpatory and exculpatory/exonerating evidence but only as told by and through the prosecutor.

Of course, if the prosecutor purposefully seals themself off, so as not to have any knowledge of exonerating evidence, they can't present evidence of which they have no knowledge (so much for "good faith" by a prosecutor).

I only make this point, because I believe it is important for people to know how the Grand Jury process is "supposed" to work.

(I tried to be nice)

 

[Jeana (DP)]

(cutting slack)

The D.A. has the responsibility (good faith effort) to present to a Grand Jury both the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence of which they have knowledge. Therefore, a Grand Jury is supposed to, and does need to, hear both inculpatory and exculpatory/exonerating evidence but only as told by and through the prosecutor.

Of course, if the prosecutor purposefully seals themself off, so as not to have any knowledge of exonerating evidence, they can't present evidence of which they have no knowledge (so much for "good faith" by a prosecutor).

I only make this point, because I believe it is important for people to know how the Grand Jury process is "supposed" to work.

(I tried to be nice)

Thanks. :blowkiss:

I'm still hoping that a judge throws this D.A. out the door on his rear, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Sherlockmom]

This may answer a previous question about evidence that a Grand Jury sees.


"When considering indictments, grand juries meet in secret and hear only prosecution evidence. Criminal suspects and their lawyers are not allowed to be present. In addition, the required burden of proof for grand juries is much lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used at trial. "

So Nifong presented his dog and pony show with no one to refute the evidence and presents exactly what he wants. He doesn't have to show it all.

This is from a link I found at another site discussing this case. Also from the article:

"Meanwhile, several defense lawyers had a telephone conference Saturday to further discuss the new DNA results.
Afterward, attorney Bill Thomas of Durham -- who represents an un-indicted lacrosse player -- said semen found in the dancer's body was "of recent origin" and had been deposited there "immediately prior to her being examined" in connection with the alleged rape. "

I thought that they couldn't really tell when semen was deposited and there was about a 5 day window. But where did the defense attorney get this information? From the medical report?

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-734516.html

Sherlockmom

 

[LaMer]

I thought that they couldn't really tell when semen was deposited and there was about a 5 day window. But where did the defense attorney get this information? From the medical report?

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-734516.html

Sherlockmom

When doing the rape kit test, the report could have come from a urine analysis test---I dunno--only guessing. Maybe more possible tho, a wet mount slide from the vaginal area would show if sperm were present.

A microscopic examination of the urine could denote if the sperms were still motile vs non-motility, also the characteristics of the sperm might be an indication of their age, noting dissinigration. They do break down. I should add, as not to confuse, some men have problems with their sperm not being very motile. I would wager the characteristics would be more important.

A previous article stated, a 6 to 7 day window.

I guess, we could all google about 'sperms'!

 

[BrendaStar]

Good grief.

Yes, Good Grief. That says it all about this case. If the DA goes forward, I am wondering what he is trying to prove at this point in time.

 

[Wudge]

Yes, Good Grief. That says it all about this case. If the DA goes forward, I am wondering what he is trying to prove at this point in time.

Foremost. the D.A., Michael Nifong, is pandering to his constituency. He is also honoring an ancient tradition amongst North Carolina's prosecutors, which is to never let go until all of your playing cards are gone, never.

 

[Sherlockmom]

>Yes, Good Grief. That says it all about this case. If the DA goes forward, I am wondering what he is trying to prove at this point in time.<



He is trying to prove to his constituency that he will always stand up for the black man over the white man. This will get him elected and it is probably why the trial has been postponed. What does he have to lose? He is probably personally protected pretty much from lawsuits. If he manages to keep the trial in this county and the defense loses a change of venue he is assured a black jury who will convict no matter the lack of evidence or the poor performance of the AV. I do think he will have trouble getting her to testify and will most likely have to offer her some kind of immunity or guarantee her that he will not let her be prosecuted for perjury. But I don't think that will be a problem IF he keeps the trial close to home.

If the defense wins a change of venue all bets may be off depending on where the trial is and whether they are able to get a fair panel of jurists. Even if he loses the case he still has a cozy job for most likely the rest of his working days. And this is really what the whole thing is all about. It's political. Nothing more nothing less. If politics and the justice system in NC are as corrupt as Wudge thinks this will be a no brainer for him. You can already see how blatantly he ignores the facts in this case. He fears nothing.

When something like this seems to be so illogical and so out of hand or makes no sense to you there is most likely more to it than we can see on the surface. Corruption comes first to mind. This prosecutor seems to be laughing in the face of everything that we think we know about how a reputable prosecutor would operate. He seems pretty secure in his being able to get away with it and that no one is going to make much of a fuss or try to stop him. He must have friends in very high places.

Sherlockmom

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I'm going to stick to my guns and say there's no way they'll get a conviction. I guess I still have faith in the justice system and my fellow man. This woman has got MAJOR and I do mean MAJOR credibility issues (which you all know, so I won't list). Unless there is an eye witness from amongst the guests at that party who will get on the stand and corroborate her allegations, this will come down to pure credibility and she's seriously lacking in that department. With her claiming to have been assaulted for 30 minutes and him only having 90 or so seconds in between telephone calls, I don't see how he can be found guilty, especially in combination with the other timed stamped evidence he can present. If the photo line up is thrown out, that will go against her as well. With her saying specifically that the third man had a mustache and the man arrested NEVER having had one, that's huge! Certainly, every person who saw him in the days leading up to the night of the party can testify that he didn't have one. I seriously doubt if he'd put on some sort of disguise in order to assault a stripper.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Some interesting info on the third man indicted:

His mother is a Washington lobbyist, so we know she's no shrinking violet.

and:

He said that he and his roommates helped police find evidence at the house, and that he gave investigators access to his e-mail and instant messenger accounts. He said that his offer to take a lie-detector test was rejected by authorities, and that he later took one on his own and passed.

"You have all been told some fantastic lies," he said at the news conference.


http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/0515/dukelacrosse_ap.html

 

[Sherlockmom]

"DURHAM -- Lawyers for accused Duke lacrosse player Reade Seligmann want a judge to hold hearings Thursday on whether to compel police and prosecutors to turn over the evidence they've compiled while investigating the alleged gang rape. "http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-735122.html

Sherlockmom

 

[BrendaStar]

I'm going to stick to my guns and say there's no way they'll get a conviction.

I wish I could believe that. However, Nifong only wants to hear what he wants to hear and wants to railroad this thing thru so that all three guys get convicted, guilty or not. Depending on the jury that is seated, they could all get convicted. The accuser might not go thru with it because she didn't the other two times she brought charges against the first alleged rape and then again against her husband.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I wish I could believe that. However, Nifong only wants to hear what he wants to hear and wants to railroad this thing thru so that all three guys get convicted, guilty or not. Depending on the jury that is seated, they could all get convicted. The accuser might not go thru with it because she didn't the other two times she brought charges against the first alleged rape and then again against her husband.

Well, luckily for these defendants, Nifong isn't the jury. I think that there will be enough reasonable doubt for a jury to acquit them, if it even gets that far. I'm anxious to hear what a judge has to say about the exculpatory evidence and whether they're even going forward with all three defendants.

 

[Wudge]

I'm going to stick to my guns and say there's no way they'll get a conviction. I guess I still have faith in the justice system and my fellow man. This woman has got MAJOR and I do mean MAJOR credibility issues (which you all know, so I won't list). Unless there is an eye witness from amongst the guests at that party who will get on the stand and corroborate her allegations, this will come down to pure credibility and she's seriously lacking in that department. With her claiming to have been assaulted for 30 minutes and him only having 90 or so seconds in between telephone calls, I don't see how he can be found guilty, especially in combination with the other timed stamped evidence he can present. If the photo line up is thrown out, that will go against her as well. With her saying specifically that the third man had a mustache and the man arrested NEVER having had one, that's huge! Certainly, every person who saw him in the days leading up to the night of the party can testify that he didn't have one. I seriously doubt if he'd put on some sort of disguise in order to assault a stripper.

Forget about a conviction for the moment. Where is the outrage for this high-profile case even continuing -- much less having yet another indictment from a prosecutor who arranged for his willful blindness to exonerating/exculpatory evidence?

Where is the local media's damnation of Nifong? Where is the outrage from Durham's citizens? Where is the en masse outrage from our national media?

I'll tell you why there is no en masse outrage, because they basically are happy to turn a deaf ear to LE and prosecutorial misconduct or malicious prosecution. The excuse is that such is not highly newsworthy. Though, the rape of a black woman by three young white men is big news; i.e., unless the prosecutor's office is clearly stinking the countryside up.

The real reason that the media is not all over Nifong is that the media (reporters) know that both LE and prosecutors offices will not feed them leaks in future cases (must not bite the hand that feeds you) if they were to do so.

The real reason that the citizens of Durham are not rioting in the streets, is that they just relected this prosecutor based on his pandering to their racial bias.

This case really stinks in many more ways than one.

In analogous terms, I am very reminded of an old saw that goes: "Treason never prospers. What is the reason? Why when it prospers, none dare call it treason".

Similarly, when we have a crooked prosecutor (who has absolute immunity) corrupting the judicial process in a race case... none dare call ...

(I will be nice)