NC - Two Duke Lacrosse Players Indicted

[nanandjim]

...Moreover, in my mind, it is much more likely that the burglars murdered Laci than Scott Peterson.

Oh, please...you have to be kidding... The burglars murdered Laci and then drove 90+ miles to dump her body in the middle of a bay. Yeah, uh-huh, right...

 

[Wudge]

Oh, please...you have to be kidding... The burglars murdered Laci and then drove 90+ miles to dump her body in the middle of a bay. Yeah, uh-huh, right...

Three burglars were seen that morning at 11:40 AM taking a safe from the Medina's the house across the Petersons, which happens to be when Laci was supposed to be out dog wallking. However, only two burglars were arrested, convicted and sent to prison.

Moreover, the bodies was not found until four months later, after LE had repeatedly searched the bay for months and found nothing. Plus, the whole world knew where Scott had been that morning.

But I have no interest in turning this thread into a Peterson case discussion. Believe as you will, I just see and assess the case, facts and evidence much differently than you.

 

[nanandjim]

I kept him on ignore for the longest. Then I thought he might have something to say and I would listen. Oops, this isn't going to happen.Back to reality.

What is the old saying...A leopard doesn't change his spots...or something like that...

You have to wonder if it is just sport for some posters to go against the norm. I just have to shake my head...

 

[Bobbisangel]

And where did you hear that? The media perhaps? Was his Mother interviewed?

No, the good Lord and I had a personal conversation about it :bang: To bad we don't have a icon with a finger

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Three burglars were seen that morning at 11:40 AM taking a safe from the Medina's the house across the Petersons, which happens to be when Laci was supposed to be out dog wallking. However, only two burglars were arrested, convicted and sent to prison.

Moreover, the bodies was not found until four months later, after LE had repeatedly searched the bay for months and found nothing. Plus, the whole world knew where Scott had been that morning.

But I have no interest in turning this thread into a Peterson case discussion. Believe as you will, I just see and assess the case, facts and evidence much differently than you.

Yes, thank you Wudge. This thread cannot turn into a Peterson discussion.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Since the other thread was getting too long and going in the wrong direction, I figured it was a good time to begin a new one. Here's the last post that had anything to do with the case. Let's pick up from here:

06-12-2006, 08:42 AM
nanandjim
Count Your Blessings!! Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,061

This case is absolutely disgusting. It appears that these kids are being railroaded. I hope that they sue, sue, sue. I usually don't advocate lawsuits, but it appears to be totally justified in this case.

I would think that the bogus lineup of showing the woman just the lacrosse players would cause a big red flag to be raised. Geez, I could pick three lacrosse players from a collection of all lacrosse players, too...

I wonder if the woman closed her eyes and said aloud, "Eennie, meanie, miney, mo" before selecting the unfortunate three...

 

[Wudge]

Newsweek article.

Nifong says: "None of the 'facts' I know at this time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13392547/site/newsweek/

 

[MSM]

Newsweek article.

Nifong says: "None of the 'facts' I know at this time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13392547/site/newsweek/

LOL! What a telling quote: form your opinion first, then discount the "facts." Pretty much sums up this case, IMO.

 

[Wudge]

LOL! What a telling quote: form your opinion first, then discount the "facts." Pretty much sums up this case, IMO.

I am happy to see the media is finally making Nifong the news in this case, as he sholuld be. It took them long enough to start doing the real story, which is that Nifong is yet another corrupt NC prosecutor.

But prosecutorial chorts are still trying to put lipstick on this pig. Norm Early, of the National Dictrict Attorneys Association, tried to cover for Nifong by saying: "The defense attorneys are there to muddy the waters. You can't expect anything they say to be said without viewing it through their own prism. They're there to obfuscate the facts. They're not there to educate the public."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/11/ap/national/mainD8I650E80.shtml

Nifong is educating the public alright, but it is in area of how prosecutors corrupt cases, ruin lives and falsify/misrepresent evidence for their personal gain.

 

[caffeinatd]

This whole case makes me sick...these guys do not deserve this crud. I hope Nifong gets what he is due...out in November...JMO

 

[ccoaster]

Newsweek article.

Nifong says: "None of the 'facts' I know at this time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13392547/site/newsweek/

That is because he has not let himself see or hear any of the evidence. He has blinders on & is wearing earplugs. IMO

 

[mssheila]

Nifong just released a statement sticking to his story.. same ole..... was supposed to be "Big News".

 

[Wudge]

Nifong just released a statement sticking to his story.. same ole..... was supposed to be "Big News".

Nifong has no reason to say anything else, for he has absolute immunity. He will continue to pretend to have a case until he browbeats the alleged victim to say that she does not want a criminal court trial. Blaming the alleged victim will be his escape card.

 

[William N]

It looks like there will be a hearing on Thursday, June 22. I expect that it will get heavy coverage.

 

[Wudge]

Nifong will turn over more information at today's bail reduction hearing.

[note: it does not say more evidence]

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5064768

 

[Sherlockmom]

From Wudge's link:


"There's a hearing for the three Thursday afternoon, and Nifong says he'll hand over another 300 pages of information at that time. He declined to describe the contents.
Defense lawyers have suggested that Nifong has failed to give them all the evidence he has, as he's required to do. Last month, Nifong handed over nearly 1,300 pages, saying that was all he had."

Looks like Nifong was caught in a lie. Hmmmmm??? Most likely we'll hear that this "information" was just overlooked and not purposely withheld.

We'll be able to tell the truth of the matter when we find out what is in those 300 pages.

Sherlockmom

 

[jttnewguy]

I am happy to see the media is finally making Nifong the news in this case, as he sholuld be. It took them long enough to start doing the real story, which is that Nifong is yet another corrupt NC prosecutor.

Nifong is educating the public alright, but it is in area of how prosecutors corrupt cases, ruin lives and falsify/misrepresent evidence for their personal gain.

I have a news flash for you...prosecutors don't start cases on their own, they only respond to what witnesses and victims tell them. If a woman tells the police that she was gang-raped, the police and the DA are required by law to open an investigation. If the investigation determines that there is "probable cause" for the charges, they're required to file charges.

Keep in mind that in this case the investigation was severely limited by the fact that the lacrosse players made the strange (and rather immature) decision to refuse as a team to cooperate with the police. If someone on the team had spoken with the police and explained their side of the story, it's entirely possible that the inconsistencies would have come out much sooner, and charges might never have been filed. So a lot of this was self-inflicted, because by banding together and remaining silent, the players essentially forced a grand jury to rely on nothing other than the testimony of the victim. If the victim testifies under oath that it happened, and the only other witnesses to the crime (the team members) all immediately hire lawyers and refuse to cooperate, you tell me what the DA (and the members of the grand jury) are supposed to do?

After everything that's happened in the media, you may or may not believe the victim's story anymore, but most every lawyer and every judge in the country would agree that "probable cause" existed in this case at the time the story first broke, especially since no other witnesses were cooperating. After all, the DA didn't indict the defendants, a grand jury of 18 citizens issued the indictments after listening to the victim and deciding that "probable cause" existed. Maybe if some of the team members had testified, the result would have been different; but they chose not to. Whether there's proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is another question, but hindsight is 20-20.

Remember, the DA is not the judge and he is not the jury. Remember also that there are 2 sides to every story; even serial killers have their excuses and their alibi witnesses and their sleazy defense lawyers who'll try to twist the facts around. If DA's went around refusing to file charges every time some witnesses contradicted each other, then very few cases would ever be filed and a lot of guilty people would go free.

In the end, it's not the DA's job to decide who's telling the truth, especially when none of the eyewitnesses to the crime will cooperate. That's the jury's job at trial. After all, the whole point of a trial is to sort out the truth when people tell different stories. The DA's role is to put the victim on the stand and let her tell her story; the defense lawyer's role is to present witnesses and evidence that point to innocence; and it's the jury's role to decide who to believe.

The other way to think about this is to flip it around. If you expect DA's to start sitting in judgement and determine, before a trial, who is telling the truth and who isn't, then why have trials at all? If DA's are so good at figuring out cases before trial, why would we ever need judges and juries?

So, you need to think twice before attacking someone for being corrupt when they're doing the job that the law requires them to do.

 

[Sherlockmom]

>keep in mind that in this case the investigation was severely limited by the fact that the lacrosse players made the strange (and rather immature) decision to refuse as a team to cooperate with the police.<< I


I don't know what you have been reading but the players fully cooperated with the police. They were questioned and the house was searched without benefit of an attorney and all 40 of the team members, ALL of them except the lone black guy, willingly submitted DNA. Something they did not have to do. The fingernail that was found in the trash can was also voluntarily handed over by one of the players. This is non-cooperation? If anything I find it strange that they did this.

"if someone on the team had spoken with the police and explained their side of the story, it's entirely possible that the inconsistencies would have come out much sooner, and charges might never have been filed. <<

I think I know the problem here. You are not familiar with this case and are parroting something someone else told you. The police were very aware of inconsistencies in the case right from the get-go and it was the AV own statements that cast the biggest doubt. Any police officer worth their salt would have been aware that they had an AV who had a problem with the truth. The AV recanted her rape allegations more than once on the night in question and not just to the police.

>>So a lot of this was self-inflicted, because by banding together and remaining silent, the players essentially forced a grand jury to rely on nothing other than the testimony of the victim.If the victim testifies under oath that it happened, and the only other witnesses to the crime (the team members) all immediately hire lawyers and refuse to cooperate, you tell me what the DA (and the members of the grand jury) are supposed to do?
<<

The grand jury is not allowed to hear any testimony from the defense. They are only hearing what the DA is presenting to them. You need to know how a grand jury operates before forming an opinion. The victim has not testified under oath or not under oath in this case and she was not present for the grand jury. The only side that a grand jury hears is the prosecution's side and they decide if there is enough evidence to proceed. Have you ever heard the saying that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich? If so you know what they mean by that. The grand jury does not hear a balanced case. Most grand juries indict and it is seldom that they do not.

And it is not unusual for anyone finding themselves in this position to hire an attorney. Even the boys not accused have done so. You would be a fool not to. Hiring an attorney is no indication of guilt and is not a sign of non-cooperation.


>After everything that's happened in the media, you may or may not believe the victim's story anymore, but every lawyer and every judge in the country would agree that "probable cause" existed in this case at the time the story first broke<<

Then you have not been reading the news or watching television. There are alot of lawyers and judges who do not think that Nifong has acted properly in this case. Nifong lied to the public in statements made right after this alleged incident occurred. He tried these boys in the media and proclaimed them guilty even citing evidence that he did not have and turned out not to be true. Where have you been?


>>Remember, the DA is not the judge and he is not the jury.<<

You are preaching to the choir here about that. Email Nifong. He doesn't seem to know this.

> Remember also that there are 2 sides to every story; even serial killers have their excuses and their alibi witnesses and their sleazy defense lawyers who'll try to twist the facts around. <<

There may be two sides to a story but both sides cannot be the truth. Only one side is the truth.

>>If DA's went around refusing to file charges every time some witnesses contradicted each other, then very few cases would ever be filed and a lot of guilty people would go free. <<

DA's refuse to file charges many times when there isn't enough evidence or they do not think they can win a case because a witness is unreliable. Nifong absolutely can NOT bring this AV onto the witness stand. The defense will tear her to shreds and make a fool out of him. She has lied so many times and has done this type of thing in the past. She is an unreliable witness and there is absolutely NO evidence that a rape ever occurred. She has admitted having sex with multiple partners before the rape and in fact using a device when stripping for a private client. She is a prostitute with a history of alcohol and drug abuse and a criminal record. She has a past history of accusing men of gang raping her and then recanting or not following through on the charges. Any DA in his right mind would have dropped these charges by now. Nifong clearly used this case to stir up racial devisiveness so that he could win an election in a mostly black district. Of course you would know this if you had been following this case closely by reading the facts and not drinking some kool-aid that someone else fed to you.

>>In the end, it's not the DA's job to decide who's telling the truth, especially when none of the eyewitnesses to the crime will cooperate. <<

Again, you are ill-informed about how much the accused cooperated in this case. They cooperated fully. And the DA does have a responsibility to the taxpayers to make sure that he is only prosecuting cases that he is pretty sure he can win and have merit. So to an extent, yes it IS his job to determine if he thinks that the accuser is telling the truth in a matter. In this case he has to be either the biggest fool walking the face of the earth or completely corrupt to forge ahead with this case.

>>The DA's role is to put the victim on the stand and let her tell her story; the defense lawyer's role is to present witnesses and evidence that point to innocence; and it's the jury's role to decide who to believe.<<

This victim will never see the inside of a court, unless the players sue her in a civil case. The DA's role is to represent the citizens and bring to justice criminals. It is not his job to give every nut job that accuses someone of a crime their "day in court". He is to discriminate which cases he takes and which he does not proceed with. He does NOT have to prosecute each and every case where someone claims a crime is committed. The defense lawyer makes sure that his client's rights are protected. In this country you have the right to be presumed and in fact, you ARE presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The preponderance of proof is on the DA, not the defense. In this case there was NO assumption of innocence and there was a misscarriage of justice from the beginning.

>>The other way to think about this is to flip it around. If you expect DA's to start sitting in judgement and determine, before a trial, who is telling the truth and who isn't, then why have trials at all? If DA's are so good at figuring out cases before trial, why would we ever need judges and juries? <<

Your understanding of the American Justice system is seriously lacking. I can only blame this on the failure of our public school system. The DA are either appointed or elected by the public that they represent. There are NOT limited funds available to prosecute every frivilous case that comes along. It is their job to see that criminals are brought to justice but it is also their job to pick and choose their cases so they are not wasting taxpayer money. If there is doubt in a case (and in this case evidence points to alot of doubt that a crime was committed) they should not bring a case to court. As I said before, the only explanation for Nifong's behaviour in this case is personal gain. This is misconduct and he should be held responsible by the citizens for his misuse of his power and position.

>>So, you need to think twice before attacking someone for being corrupt when they're doing the job that the law requires them to do.<<

I think you should think twice, and three times and more and perhaps do a bit more reading and research before sticking your neck out again about this case. When you have your facts straight then I think we will be very interested in debating them with you. Also read up a bit on the justice system, grand juries and how everything works. It will give you a better idea of how these boys got to be indicted. Read up on the law and then post here the law that requires a DA to bring each and every case to trial. Don't be satisfied to be spoon-fed every bit of moonbat information that you pick up on some chat board somewhere. Go read the news articles yourself starting right at the beginning of this case and obtain all of the facts. Educate yourself and leave all pre-conceived biases about race and gender out of it. Then come back here and defend your position with the facts and with a greater knowledge of how everything works.

Another little thing to think about. If the little neighbor's child down the street suddenly accused you of molesting them and the police came knocking on your door would you not hire an attorney? Would you let them come into your home and take DNA samples from you? Would you let them search your home, take your cellphone, computers etc and not hire an attorney? Would you be dumb enough to speak to law enforcement without benefit of a lawyer just so you could tell your side of the story? If you would not and you chose to call an attorney before speaking with the police I think you probably would be un-cooperative and most likely guilty and deserved whatever happened to you. Think about it. These are rights that are granted and guaranteed under our constitution to ALL citizens. And making use of these rights does not make one guilty or uncooperative.

Sherlockmom

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I have a news flash for you...prosecutors don't start cases on their own, they only respond to what witnesses and victims tell them. If a woman tells the police that she was gang-raped, the police and the DA are required by law to open an investigation. If the investigation determines that there is "probable cause" for the charges, they're required to file charges.

I suggest you go back and read all of the other threads and articles that we've taken the time to gather on this case before you jump to that conclusion. These boys cooperated FULLY! They KNEW the police were going to be coming back to the house during that investigation. Did they remove one thing that they thought could incriminate them? No. The fingernails were still in the bathroom as well as other items that anyone trying to hide things would have removed.

The woman told so many different stories to so many different people that night that they still, by the next morning, were not even sure that a crime took place.

I could go on and on and on and on point by point regarding the misinformation in your post, but I think it would be easier for you to catch up with the rest of us and read what's already been posted by all.

If, after you do so, you still have questions or concerns, by all means, speak up.

 

[JBean]

I have a news flash for you...prosecutors don't start cases on their own, they only respond to what witnesses and victims tell them. If a woman tells the police that she was gang-raped, the police and the DA are required by law to open an investigation. If the investigation determines that there is "probable cause" for the charges, they're required to file charges.

.

Just out of curiousity and I am really asking, have you followed this case?