Duke Rape Suspect May Have Alibi

[ECH1969]

One of the two Duke University lacrosse players arrested on charges of raping and kidnapping a 27-year-old woman at an off-campus party had been arrested in the fall for assaulting a man in Washington, D.C., and the other was not present when the alleged crime occurred, sources told ABC News.

Multiple sources told ABC News that Reade Seligmann, 20, was not present in the house at the time the alleged victim says the crime occurred. Sources say this is established through different witness accounts, as well as cell phone and credit-card records.

The other man arrested, Collin Finnerty, 20, was charged with simple assault, along with two others, in November for allegedly punching a man in the face and body because he told them to "stop calling him gay and other derogatory names," according to the police report and court records.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=1855161&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Well, now, here we go

Alibis. Verifiable alibis, with paper trails and witnesses, do you think?

Nice work, Mr. District Attorney.

Oh, what a mess this guy is making of this matter. What a mess.

[MidwestTransplant]

4. You would think the DA should have known about this stuff

if not from their own work, from the guys attorney (assuming he had one).

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. First thing you do is

check the guy's whereabouts the night of the event.

If this is true - if he really was somewhere else - then I'm going to take interest in this tabloid crap that people think is so important, just from an old defense lawyer's vantage point.

And I'm gonna have a good laugh watching this asshole DA run his re-election campaign on this mishap. If, in fact, that's what happened.

Thanks for the heads-up, OP.

[Umbram]

7. First thing I have to do

is rethink my career plans. I'm in law school now and was thinking of going into criminal law, but these threads on this story are quickly changing my mind. If DU is representative of an actual jury, I wouldn't want to work on defense or prosecution. Why bother when reason goes out the window the second the case is rape, child molestation, etc.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. No, no, no!!

If you want to be a defense attorney, first you'll need prosecutorial experience. That's the best road, believe me. You get the experience, you make the connections, and you establish your credentials.

It's so much better to work your own side of the street if you already know how they're working it on the other side of the street.

These people here on DU are anonymous and unaccountable. You'll be surprised at the courage and intelligence you'll find in so many jurors and juries. Don't let this experience - it's not quite real, you know - put you off.

People who don't have to be identified or take an oath can be very "brave and mouthy," but, really, all they're demonstrating is their ignorance and rage.

Study hard. Work hard. Take a good bar review course. Make those connections. And NEVER STOP BELIEVING.

It's all Procedure, by the way - that's the Big Secret - both Civil and Criminal, it's all about Procedure.

Good luck, kid.

[Umbram]

19. Thanks!

I'm going to be working with the DA's office over summer break.
Ultimately though, I do see myself leaning toward criminal defense.

Thanks for the encouragement and advice!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. Good, kid - good.........

and, by the way, welcome to DU. Stick around, and keep your sense of humor close by at all times.

You're gonna be great ..........

[rocktivity]

99. "Multiple sources" are "anonymous and unaccountable", too

If this player has ironclad evidence that can clear him, why keep it a big secret?

:shrug:
rocknation

[BoneDaddy]

95. Hehe

I hear ya. Many in here are as reactionary as the right wingers and simply flip the "who's right and who's wrong".

Oftentimes in here if you are rich, white, privleged, then you must be guilty, not to be confused with the freeper boards where if you are poor, ethnically different and disenfranchised, you must be guilty

People come from their own experiences, but all too often they see the world through those rose colored glasses and apply their experience to EVERYTHING.

If these kids were poor black basketball players and the victim white, you would see a change of heart in here and all kinds of excuses would be made, but because they are white privleged kids they must be guilty.

I am not saying these boys didn't do it. I don't know if they did yet and the information coming out doesn't look good for the prosecution atm. If they did it, I want them to be prosecuted within the fullest extent of the law, but this situation MUST NOT be pre-judged just because some folks have a major chip on their shoulder and jump to conclusions.

[FlaGranny]

123. You said it all.

Agree everything you said 100%. For some people, just the accusation is enough to convict.

[mondo joe]

126. Couldn't agree more.

And it's VERY sad to see people decide guilt based on race or gender of the parties involved, whether it's at free republic or here.

[IndianaGreen]

9. DA is facing reelection and there is public pressure for frontier justice

I will wait until evidence is leak to the press during the discovery phase, but I will withhold judgment until the trial. Let's not rush to judgment like many people did during the missing blonde in Aruba case.

[OKNancy]

10. Very wise opinion

:thumbsup:

[NashVegas]

32. There Couldn't Be a Worse Time for This Case

For the DA. Kinda tough to run a campaign *and* try a high-profile case in the court of public opinion.

[DLnyc]

26. Hmmm. Unless the DA wanted the case to fall apart.

Something strange about this.

[FredScuttle]

50. What's strange is

if this man had evidence clearing him of involvement, why wait until now, after he's turned himself in?

[BrownOak]

52. Here's why

If the guy believed his friends when they told him that nothing happened at the party then he also would feel that the alleged victim was going to have to name someone who was innocent. If he has the evidence that will clear him, he and all the others who weren't at the party and could prove their whereabouts had two choices. They could leave their names in the pool of suspects and perhaps the accuser would choose one of the players who wasn't there and the case would unravel. Or they could leave their friends standing on their own and guarantee the accuser a 100% chance of picking someone who was at the party.

[FredScuttle]

56. So this dumbass picks team loyalty over self-preservation?

Even if I believed this bullshit about the ATM receipts, etc. for a second, that would mean this idiot deserves everything that's coming to him. Watch this "bombshell" disappear like the three or four before it.

[BrownOak]

59. What's disappeared?

Nothing has disappeared. You may wish to dismiss anything the defense says, but eventually this will make it to trial and at that point if it doesn't show up you can say it's disappeared. It's amazing that you determine everything is bullshit without even seeing it.

Is there any difference between the person who buys 100% of what the defense is saying or the person who dismisses 100% of what the defense is saying.

[FredScuttle]

60. When's the last time you heard from the defense about the DNA tests?

What happened to the "time-stamped" photos that they swore would exonerate their clients? They showed them to the newspaper, after all.

What happened to the other dancer, who they claimed would swear no rape occurred? Oh yeah, she called that an "out-and-out lie"

I'm buying exactly zero of what the defense is putting out there becuase they're not trying to provide concrete evidence...they're on a two-path march to discredit the victim and influence the jury pool in Durham.

[LisaL]

76. Why exactly should they be talking about DNA tests?

The tests have already shown there is no DNA match to any of the lacrosse players. WTF do you think they should be repeating that? As for the DA, he run more DNA tests in a private lab, but those tests are not finished yet. Those photos have been shown to and described by numerous reporters.
The other dancer could very well be telling conflicting stories-HF do you know she is not?

[BrownOak]

173. March.... march.... march.... march

Yes, they did show them to the newspapers (actually, one newspaper and one TV station) and the comments back from them were pretty much identical save for the description of the bruising from the TV station. Perhaps if they had called it a "discoloration consistent with bruising" instead of appearing to be bruising you may have endorsed it. As for it not being concrete evidence, they've shared the photos with yet another media outlet and you can read the report here:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4091290

among the highlights for you:

The time stamps on the photos appear to be accurate. Pictures of a wristwatch magnified for clarity correspond with the time on the photos.

12:00:40 a.m.: Another picture taken 40 seconds later shows bruises on the accuser's knees. Her right knee appears to have an open cut.

12:30:12 a.m.: The next photo shows the alleged victim on the back porch, carrying what appears to be her purse and a makeup bag. Her clothes are intact.

12:31:26 a.m.: But 30 seconds after that, a photo shows the alleged victim stumbling down the back steps of the house.

12:37:58 a.m.: A series of photos are taken, all showing the woman lying on her left side on the back porch, seemingly passed out or asleep. 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.

Perhaps these may have exonerated their clients... if the DA had looked at them when the defense offered them to him.

What happened with the other dancer? Well, she has said that she doesn't know if a rape occurred in that house. I can agree that this may be a case where the defense did embellish her response but it's just as possible that the woman changed her statement.



See, the problem is that no matter what the defense puts out, you won't regard it as concrete evidence. Like this story from ABC News that I'm sure you'll discredit:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1

[AngryAmish]

94. Never give the other side any evidence if you don't have to

If the state has all your evidence they can change identifications and timelines to frame you up. It is what they do. One keeps their powder dry until you can spring it at an appropriate time.

[LisaL]

105. Exactly.

It would be idiotic to provide prosecution your evidence before they establish what exactly it is you were supposed to have done.

[LiberalFighter]

8. We don't know the facts...

For all we know the defense may be playing the press.

It seems odd that if they have alibis that the DA doesn't know. Aren't suspects given the opportunity to provide an alibi to their whereabouts?

Do cell phone records really provide an alibi to their location? Unless technology has increased I thought location could only be pinpointed to a general location of the transmission tower.

What exactly do credit card records show? Was the transaction in person by the person at the time? Does a credit card transaction cover from the time of an event to the end? Or could the person show up late and offer to pay the bill?

Just hearing part of the story on tv now and a big gripe I have are these damn grand juries. I consider them to be a waste of time. The DA should have enough evidence to prosecute before a regular jury. This bit about the DA presents only what they want before a grand jury is ludicrous.

[NashVegas]

11. One Would Think

All of the players/partygoers were questioned regarding their whereabouts at the time the alleged attack occurred, right up front. We don't know. At this point, all we know is she says/they say.

All this talk of "this PROVES my client is innocent" was said before when there was no DNA match *on the woman's body.*

Funny, these comments ripping grand juries. We liked the grand juries that Patrick Fitzgerald and Ronnie Earle used, well enough.

[LiberalFighter]

28. I would think even then that DA's should collect all info to try in court

[LisaL]

75. There is a discovery phase

where defense and prosecution share all the evidence they have. So far, prosecution had not released their information with the defense, and doesn't want to hear from the defense.
I am not claiming to know all or even a lot of how courts work. But some of you just seem completely clueless.

[LiberalFighter]

224. They need a grand jury to do that?

The prosecutors are trying the case twice when they use the grand jury and then a regular jury.

[Marie26]

241. They need a grand jury to indict. nt

[Marie26]

237. The DA goes to a grand jury

to obtain the indictment, and goes to a petit jury to obtain the conviction. The grand jury indicts upon a showing of "probable cause", and the petit jury convicts if the charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Some states have replaced grand juries w/indictments by "information", but North Carolina still uses grand juries for criminal indictments. There is nothing unusual in the DA's actions here - this is how criminal trials typically proceed.

[bluestateguy]

2. Not news

This soap opera is not on my hot list.

[cantstandbush]

3. If i have been drugged and alcohol poured down my throat, i may get

the exact time of my assult incorrect.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. Prove it

That kind of spurious statement just betrays a deep and troubling imagination.

Good thing it's not your son who's in this situation, isn't it?

Man, the stuff people come up with ..............

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[saigon68]

319. adios

[democracyindanger]

221. And lucky it's not your daughter, huh?

:eyes:

[Jersey Devil]

12. Well, we know one of them is "absolutely" innocent

That's what his lawyer said. Not just "innocent" mind you, but "absolutely innocent", which, in innocence circles is way beyond even "truly innocent".

[NashVegas]

13. Is That Anything Like Strenuously Objecting?

:)

[Jersey Devil]

16. Why yes, and also related to Vigorously Cross Examined

I used to do criminal work many years ago and somehow I would always manage to work into my summation Portia's speech from the Merchant of Venice about "The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

But I would only use it if the situation was totally hopless.

[Bridget Burke]

115. Jeff Skilling recently called himself "absolutely innocent"

That's at the Enron trial here in Houston.

Wouln't "not guilty" suffice?

[Marie26]

131. The defense's alibi

Raleigh News Observer - "On Tuesday, Kerry Sutton, a lawyer representing another member of the team, said a paper trail of cell phone records, ATM statements and taxicab receipts could show that one or both of the men were not at the party during the time when the woman says she was raped. It is unclear exactly what time the woman says the rape occurred."
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/430254.html

New York Times - "At least one of the two players charged will be able to show an A.T.M. receipt and a record that he called a restaurant to order food and picked it up before the alleged assault, according to a defense lawyer involved in the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because the charged players were not clients."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/sports/sportsspecial/19duke.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1145419200&en=290138b566d0da21&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

- So, the suspects' own attorney isn't the one revealing this "alibi", but a lawyer representing another member of the team. Why is that? Wouldn't his own lawyer be the one to reveal this "bombshell" to the press? Sutton is the lawyer for the team captain who rented the home (and who was obviously there at the party.) So why would Sutton, alone, have the exculpatory evidence (ATMs, receipts) of two teammates who he is not representing? If they have all this evidence, why do they say "one, or both" were not at the party at the time - wouldn't they know?

The NY Times quote is an unsourced leak, from a defense attorney who is not representing the charged players (Sutton, again?) And the story is different - no cabbie mentioned, and he was at the party, but a record shows that he ordered take-out food & picked it up before the assault. So, what does this prove? It mostly depends on the timeline - we don't know exactly when these receipts are dated, and we also don't know exactly when the rape occurred. W/o more info, it's difficult to know if this is truly exculpatory, or not. And if this air-tight alibi is really true, why aren't the players' own attorneys standing loud & proud to proclaim this alibi? Hold a press conference, show the receipts, instead of launching this unsourced whispering campaign. We don't always trust leaks from the White House, maybe we shouldn't trust leaks from the defense team - for the same reason; they have an interest in spinning the news to suit their own agenda.

[tatertop]

159. The defense apologists will selectively ignore your excellent post

[bloom]

167. I'm not assuming

that it means anything.

For one thing - Say he did order something - maybe he ordered it and someone else picked it up. He would have to prove that he was the one who was picking it up at the time, etc.


Sounds like it's comparable to all the other stuff that the defense puts out - IOW - doesn't mean much.


It would be nice to know how much these guys were interrogated and when.

[Marie26]

347. Probably not

It probably doesn't mean much at all. If it was truly an exonerating alibi, Seligmann's own attorney would be the one revealing it to the media. Instead, Seligmann's own attorney is nowhere to be found & it's left to this other lawyer, Kerry Sutton, to push this story to the press. Even though she is not even representing these two players. I was in a restaurant w/a TV yesterday & noticed that Kerry Sutton was appearing, again, on the Dan Abrams show to talk about this new alibi. I find that suspicious - I think his own attorney is distancing himself from this alibi evidence because he knows these allegations cannot be backed up. By leaving it to a third party, he's avoiding potential sanctions by the judge. Just my opinion, though. I'm sure all these guys were interrogated by the police - which makes it even odder. If this is true, you'd have to believe the DA, police & investigators are all morans who never bothered to ask Seligmann if he had an alibi before indicting him. That seems pretty unlikely.

[Beaverhausen]

14. "sources say"

This is just the defense attorney trying to convince the public of his client's innocence. Lets wait for all the evidence to come out.

[wakeme2008]

18. I do not think so... the quote is

"Multiple sources told ABC News ." that is more than one.

[FredScuttle]

21. "This DNA result clears my client"

"These pictures clear my client"

Blah, blah, blah

[High Plains]

25. I'll be interested to hear what you have to say when this is over.

Because you have already convicted these guys.

[FredScuttle]

29. Well, come back this time next year

because that's when this should be wrapping up.

And, to your point, I'm just a guy with an opinion. Just as uninformed as yours. I'm just amused by all these folks crying about how these assholes are being "tried in the press" while their flacks are throwing out everything and the kitchen sink to smear and discredit the victim.

I'm certain that this woman was assaulted. We'll see who's guilty at the trial.

[LisaL]

70. Well, they got a lot to work with, don't you think?

WTF do you want them to do? If somebody accused you of raping them, WTF would you be doing? Saying your accuser is the most honest person that ever lived?

[FredScuttle]

111. If somebody accused me of rape

I'd cooperate with the investigation from the get-go because I'm not a rapist.

[Catrina]

124. If I had been an eyewitness as you apparently were, I too would know

that we do not even need a trial. But I wasn't there, so I will have to wait until the evidence is presented to the jury.

[FredScuttle]

169. Why don't you try reading more attentively

I said I was certain that this woman was raped, based on the medical examination...I never said we didn't need a trial.

[AllieB]

40. "Multiple Sources" = "Some people say"

a typical Fox ploy.

[Marie26]

133. how many attorneys

are involved in this case? There's at least 4 defense lawyers that I know of. This alibi might be sound, but it's almost certainly being leaked to the press by the defense team.

[BrownOak]

174. Well of course it is

it's not like the DA would leak it.

Story on the alibi:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1

[Marie26]

176. Right

The poster was implying this came from unbiased "multiple sources", which simply isn't true. The real sourse is the defense team.

[FreakinDJ]

23. The same way the protestors in front of the house did

Sure

[FredScuttle]

30. And the lacrosse team was a bunch of choirboys prior to this

Sure

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

276. The defense has nothing to prove.

The defense does not have to prove that their client is innocent. Why do they have to prove where they were to you?

The prosecution needs to prove that they did it. Not being there at the time of the alleged assault might take away from their ability to commit the crime.

They don't have to prove they didn't do it.

They don't need indisputable proof that this player was the one picking up the food, just enough to show that any REASONABLE (hence the word used in the term REASONABLE doubt) person would assume that it was him.

A cabbie's affidavit, ATM receipts, and a dorm swipe time-stamp should be enough for any REASONABLE person to have a REASONABLE DOUBT that he was at the party.

[FredScuttle]

286. If the defense has nothing to prove

what's with all the press conferences?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

339. Oh you mean...

The press conferences that answer the DA's accusations in public.

They can have press conferences all they want, freedom of speech and the like. The press doesn't have to cover them if they don't want to.

But since the DA is prosecuting them in the press, why not answer the accusations that he is making. If the DA makes all these accusations and the rest happens behind the scenes, what wil be the assumption in the press? That this guy did it but got away with it. At least this way, he can publicly show there was no way he could have been a part of this.

The point is that people around here are asking for this specific player to prove that he was the one to pick up the food and the one that got in the cab. They don't have to do that. They just have to show that the DA can not absolutely 100% place them at the scene. That there is an explanation that a reasonable person can use to create a doubt that he did it.

What is more reasonable to believe:
That he was identified by a cabbie and went to his bank using his PIN then got into his dorm using his card?
OR
That the cabbie missidentified him, gave someone his ATM card, his PIN, and his dorm card.

I am not saying it didn't happen, only that this guy may not have been the one to do it.

[IndianaGreen]

344. From a legal standpoint, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor

I keep seeing Rita Cosby's interview with the cab driver, and he provides a solid alibi that Reade Seligmann was not at the party at the time the alleged rape took place.

[chookie]

17. Forensic evidence

According to CBS News -- just a few minutes ago -- cell phone records, ATM transactions and a taxi cab log prove that this accused man was elsewhere when the incident occurred. That is compelling evidence that the accused man was not involved and was misidentified.

[FredScuttle]

37. Did he suddenly forget this "mountain" of evidence clearing him

when he gave his DNA sample? Or turned himself in?

[chookie]

47. He might not have expected to be one of the accused

It was unclear which men the woman would identify as the culprits out of a pool of 46. I don't think it bizarre that he would contribute a DNA sample as evidence that he was not guilty given that a rape kit was collected and was being evaluated as evidence of the attack.

Only after this man had been identified as one of the attackers in recent days did it become necessary for him to further prove his innocence -- in addition to the DNA sample he provided, which does not match the evidence of the rape kit collected by the victim -- by providing proof that he was elsewhere at the time of the attacks. As ATM transactions are videotaped and time-stamped, his very image may appear, further corroborating his alibi. I think it is likely that his charge will be dropped before the trial.

It appears as though he cannot be placed at the scene of the crime, based on straightforward physical evidence.

[FredScuttle]

48. My friend, I've seen Olga Korbut and you have her beat

You win the verbal gymnastics title for today...I've seen some wild explanations but that one you just unspooled takes the cake.

So, let me see if I have this straight...an innocent man figured he take his chances being identified by a rape victim out from a party he was nowhere near. He even submitted to a DNA test just to prove his innocence, even though he had the tools to clear his name (the ATM receipts, witneses, video surveillance, etc.) at his disposal to give to the cops at any time. He sweats through the grand jury, even though he's 100% innocent, and when his attorney is contacted by the DA with news of his indictment, they both decide - "let's turn me in and then drop this bombshell"

Yeah, OK.

[AllieB]

51. You're right. It wins today's Circular Logic prize.

:crazy:

[BrownOak]

53. That's almost as plausible as

the idea that 47 guys would know that something happened and none of them would speak up to save his own ass.

[FredScuttle]

57. Right!

Now you're getting the groupthink that was in operation at that house that night.

[LisaL]

65. They were ordered by court order to give up their DNA.

They were indicted and had to turn themselves in. Do you have any freaking idea at all how it all works?

[rfkrfk]

80. is there any DNA evidence from the victim?

I kinda assume the DNA grab from the team
was to scare one of them into falsely
ratting on someone else.

[LisaL]

108. I would think they have something to match it with, considering

how expensive it is to test.

[superconnected]

143. falsely?

Why would they 1. be scared, if they know their dna wasn't going to match if they didn't do it. and 2. decided to falsly accuse someone else - when the idea is a dna match itself would be enough to indite someone.

The dna test may have been a ploy to scare them into talking. But I don't see where one would expect them to "FASLY" rat someone out.

If someone falsly someone rats someone out, then that rat is dishonest - showing his character. Isn't he.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. Why ask for DNA if you have nothing to compare it to? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

171. Perhaps there was DNA to compare it to and

it didn't match.

[rfkrfk]

249. I can think of lots of reasons

telling some or all of the team, their dna was on
the victim, see who 'confesses'.

look for dna match for other cases
etc

I sorta think the case will come down to,
the alleged victim will claim that scratches
on player's arms were done by her,
not from playing lacrosse.

[Catrina]

135. No, since he knew he wasn't there, he had no reason to be concerned

that he would be accused. His lawyer may have advised him not to say anything anyway, which is what lawyers do, until he had a reason to. To go running to the prosecutor before you are accused of anything would not be advisable.

[FreakinDJ]

22. If it was my son

If it was my son and I just paid $400,000.00 to bail him out, and another $25,000.00 for a defence attorney because some DA couldn't get his witness's story straight I would be pretty pissed off.

In fact I would seeking a very large civil litigent firm

That poor kids career and reputation have been destroyed for life. His picture plastered on every publication and news program across the country, and the DA doesn't have the brains to check his alibi

Makes me wonder if the DA is competent enough to take the case in the first place

[Lars39]

24. You're presuming that the evidence checks out.

It might not, or it might clear him.

[LisaL]

72. Have it ever occur to anyone here that maybe this DA can't get

this woman's story straight because her allegations are bogus?

[gatlingforme]

393. No it has not

[mondo joe]

121. If it were my son I'd take counsel's advice, even if that advice went

something like this:

As a matter of course, don't give the prosecution ANY information you don't have to. The worst they can do is mistakenly charge you, at which time you can bail out and present this evidence to exonerate yourself, at the same time badly damaging the credibility of any case against you.

[Lindacooks]

27. LOL!

Gee, I guess the credit cards and cell phone were surgically attached to his body. That's the only way those records could be proof that he wasn't there.

And witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Every time someone is reported missing, there are dozens if not hundreds of reports saying they have been sighted. Reports which turn out to be false.

[Llewlladdwr]

238. And LOL again!

The accused doesn't have to prove anything. It's up to the DA to prove that it WASN'T him who used the cell phone and credit card. All the accused "need" do is create a reasonable doubt.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

277. They don't have to prove he wasn't there

The prosecution has to prove that he was. That's how this whole thing works.

[LostinVA]

31. And the DA didn't know about this? The guy's attorney didn't step

forward earlier to clear his client? I'm not buying this at face value.

[FredScuttle]

33. If this guy wasn't present at the party and had evidence proving it

why did he submit to the DNA test?

[superconnected]

35. Not to mention, turn himself in.

[FredScuttle]

36. Exactamundo!

Seems like an awfully long and inconvenient path to take just to embarass the DA.

Look, kids...another wild defense goose chase goes down...make a wish.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[FredScuttle]

120. Haha....I'm not the one behind a guy who allowed himself to be indicted

even though he's "absolutely" innocent.

The DA has refused to look at the "time-stamped" photos the defense is peddling. This guy didn't have to talk to the DA...he could have told the cops on the first day of the investigation "I wasn't there and here's my proof"

[saigon68]

320. adios

[LostinVA]

38. That's just really, really weird to me

If you know you weren't present at a party like this, wouldn't you be totally telling the cops you weren't there??? ATMs have cameras... although I don't know if they would still have the tape...

I'm not buying this until it comes out in the trial.

[FredScuttle]

39. I would have been screaming it from the hills

of course, this guy will claim he was intimidated into joining his teammates in stonewalling the investigation, or some such bullshit.

[Kingshakabobo]

41. Why call attention to your self?

If I thought i was one of 46 people they were looking at I wouldn't be knocking on their doors. Sure, I would be working on my alibi but I wouldn't be hanging around the cop shop.

But that's my criminal mind working.

[LostinVA]

43. You wouldn't even when you were court ordered to give DNA?

If you were innocent of a rape/kidnapping getting national attention, and you have complete proof you were innocent? You wouldn't say ANYTHING until after you had been arrested on three felony charges??? Seriously? You wouldn't be one of 46 guys -- you'd be able to say you were innocent.

[Kingshakabobo]

45. "Complete proof" is the operative phrase here.

It's doubtful that there is complete proof. Maybe enough to cast doubt but not complete proof. Take a look at this thread and you can see all the explanations why this guy could have been half way across town and still be guilty. I doubt the kid has a two hour video of his audience with the Pope so nothing is "complete."

When dealing with the police, I think it's always best to "dummy up" as my former mobster friends used to say.

[LisaL]

67. Do you understand how this works?

Alibi defense is just this - a defense. Just because you were on Planet Pluto during the alleged rape, doesn't mean the DA can not charge you, that he can not get a court order demanding your DNA, that he can not arrest you and bring you to trial. During the trial, you will get your chance to present your alibi evidence. Until then, you can scream from the rooftops you were on Planet Pluto when this "rape" was supposed to go on-DA doesn't have to care.

:eyes:

[AngryAmish]

96. Gave DNA sample because he had to

Suspects do not have to talk to cops (5th Amendment). However you can be forced to give DNA (it is not testimonial in nature).

So one can voluntarily give DNA or one can be ordered to do so and it is easier just to give it up.

Also, as I stated above even if one has exculpatory information one never gives it to the state until one has to. Cops lie all the time and they can alter their evidence to frame a person. As a matter of general principle one never gives the state evidence until you have to.

[Kingshakabobo]

107. Bingo!

Never play your hand until the police play theirs. Otherwise, the cops can work THEIR time-line around YOURS. Why lock your self in to ANYTHING unless you have to.

Some people on this thread are completely clueless.

There is no point in fighting a court ordered DNA test ESPECIALLY if you are one of 46 and you know you are innocent. You stand in line like a good soldier and give your sample and hope that's the end of it.

[mondo joe]

117. Indeed. Give nothing you don't have to, as a matter of self defense.

And as a strategy, knock the wind out of the prosecution's credibility.

[NashVegas]

112. He Had No Choice

The DA had warrants for the DNA tests for the whole team, IIRC.

A small matter: the team's strategy from the beginning was to refuse to cooperate with the investigation. Even at the party, their strategy was to hide their identities. That strategy may have kept him from bringing forward evidence that would clear himself from being there.

Maybe I've read the story wrong, but the headline was that they had evidence that "may" clear the guy. Important word for everyone to get as excited as they all are.

[jayfish]

114. A:"If somebody accused me of rape...

I'd cooperate with the investigation from the get-go because I'm not a rapist. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2234396&mesg_id=2235564

Talk about circular logic. Looks like you would say anything to prove these guys guilty.

Jay

[FredScuttle]

166. I don't get it

what are you trying to prove? I said I'd cooperate with the investigation meaning I'd disclose my information to the investigators before it even got to the stage of requiring a DNA test. Why not clear your name early?

[jayfish]

213. Up The Thread You Said:...

"If somebody accused me of rape I'd cooperate with the investigation from the get-go because I'm not a rapist."

In the post I responded to you asked:

"If this guy wasn't present at the party and had evidence proving it why did he submit to the DNA test?".

I'm pointing out the tendency for people to say whatever it takes (right or wrong)to prove their point. All in all I say we should just let this thing play-out and can the speculation. But hey, it's a free country .

Jay

[Marie26]

134. He was present at the party

They are just saying that he left too early to be involved in the rape. According to the defense team, Seligmann was already at the party when the two women arrived, and stayed until about 12:24 p.m. They are being noticeably silent about Finnerty's whereabouts.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1

[Catrina]

151. Only a guilty person would refuse the test. You need to make up your

mind. You've been excoriating the accused for NOT showing evidence to the prosecutor, then when he does, you claim he was wrong to do so!! I hope you are never on a jury :eyes:

[FredScuttle]

168. The test was not his to refuse

It was court-ordered...my question was why would this guy let it get to that point? Did his attorney advise him to shelve the evidence that could clear him in the interest of helping the group? I'm puzzled.

[Catrina]

214. Of course he could have refused. You don't seem to know much about

how the judicial system works. He could have invoked his 5th Amend. rights not to incriminate himself. Of course that would have drawn the attention of the Prosecutor to this one person, the one who refused. That's probably what the prosecutor was hoping for.

The entire team was tested. Why didn't others of the team (how many now have NOT been indicted, 40 or so?) refuse this test, obviously they weren't guilty of anything either. Taking the test was a way to prove you had nothing to do with it. It was doing what you claim he should have done, presenting evidence to the prosecution.

As far as talking to the police and showing them your evidence?? Why on earth would he do that if no one was accusing him of anything? Actually, his actions are the actions of someone who is not afraid of being accused. How did he come to be a suspect? Was he not questioned by the police, the prosecutor before being indicted??

Was he indicted only based on being at the party, regardless of whether he left early or not, and on the victim picking him out of a line-up? I'm sure they were all in a line-up. If that's all they have on him, and he has evidence that shows he left before the rape occurred, this is one bad investigation. It is not HIS responsibility to run to the prosecution saying 'don't look at me' especially if no one was looking at him. It is the prosecutions responsibility to question those who were there. Maybe they did. But then, I haven't been following it, only reading here ~

[chookie]

62. He was only charged yesterday

He cooperated with the investigation since the accusation was made a month ago -- as did the majority of the Lacrosse team, by providing DNA samples (probably under advise by counsel, given that a rape kit had been collected from the victim which might have irrefutably identified the culprits) which would have hopefully provided DNA evidence identifying the rapists out of the suspect pool. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, no specific DNA (from the pool of suspects) was clearly identified. He was only fingered as the perpetrator today by the DA by another means of evidence, which I am not aware of.

My understanding of the case is that no one of the 46 suspects knew if they were specifically going to be accused as one of the three brutal attackers and were cooperating with the investigation by providing preliminary DNA evidence, which at the time involved the findings of a rape kit, which might have definitely proved they participated in the incident ( had definitive DNA been found in the rape kit).It is unfortunate for the prosecution that a definite DNA idenitity has not beendefinively established. It was only after the accused individuals had been identified by the victim that they specifically needed to come up with further evidence that they were not involved with this despicable crime. Multiple evidence that they specifically were not involved in this horrible crime corroborates.

Based on the evidence of at least one of the alleged culprits, a satisfactory alibi can be established that refutes the allegation of this terrible crime, at least for this particular individual.

[LostinVA]

78. None of them cooperated with the DA

[FredScuttle]

87. Uh, they were court-ordered to provide the DNA sample

and, if you're in this young man's shoes and you know you were nowhere near the scene of this crime, why would you join your teammates in the stonewall and let it get to the point where you have to provide a DNA sample?

[NaturalHigh]

42. This jackass DA Nifong should have gotten his case in order...

before taking this to the grand jury. Could it be that the stripper picked out the wrong "suspect" after two weeks of being shown pictures?

[FredScuttle]

46. Could it be the lacrosse player

just plum forgot he had an "airtight" alibi when he was giving his DNA sample? Or turning himself in? Is he being represented by My Cousin Vinny?

[NaturalHigh]

90. Could it be that he had no idea...

that he was a target of the investigation and that the question of an alibi never came up? All of the players had to give DNA, so why would he think that he was being singled out? After he was indicted, I'm sure that his lawyer told him to keep his mouth shut and let him do the talking -- good advice for anyone accused of a crime.

[LisaL]

66. No? You think that's possible?

No way.
Seriously, what do you think?

[superconnected]

136. Gee, you KNOW how Nifong has proceeded?

I didn't know he released his process!

You know, you would just think a DA would have some experience in this and follow some integral process.

I guess you went to Law school too, and you are a DA yourself, and you just somehow "know". But I doubt it.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt because he is the DA, and you likely weren't there and don't know.

Now, back to you calling him a "jackass" for how he's proceeded (which you would have no idea of).

[hholli11]

44. As a rape victim myself, I can tell you...

that I have absolutely, positively NO IDEA what time my assault occurred. It was at night because it was dark. I know the date. I know that it was sometime after 9:30 or 10:00 pm. Hell, I even knew my assailant. But if my case depended upon me telling you exactly what time it happened, or how long (it seemed like an eternity) we never would have gotten anywhere.

Same thing with the smile reaction. I was trying to put on a brave face for my friends while I awaited treatment. Imagine if someone had snapped a picture to use my sheepish embarassment as some twisted proof of being jovial.

This. shit. is. unreal.

[stepnw1f]

49. yup...

most people don't realize how surreal such an experience is... even I don't, but I do know a couple rape victims, and can attest to how they described it... very traumatic.

[chookie]

54. Timeline

It is impossible to pinpoint the exact moment of the attack -- nor would anyone expect the victim of a brutal assault to have checked their watch -- this is an absurdity.

But she and the other dancer had an appointment to arrive at a certain time to perform -- and then at some point after that there is a police record of her being discovered in the car. Therefore there is at least some kind of rough timeline in which the attack occurred. If the accused can provide solid evidence that he was elsewhere during this timeframe, it can not be corroborated that he took part in this horrible crime

[BrownOak]

55. It's between 12AM and 12:53

The time when they arrived as witnessed by the neighbor and the time the second dancer filed the false 911 call.

[chookie]

61. Therefore...

...if this specific accused can account for his whereabouts -- corroborated, of course, by evidence that he was elsewhere during the timeline outlined by the accusing party (i.e. a time-stamped ATM transaction and a record of a cab ride and corroboration by witnesses of the transactions he alleges as proof of his innocence) -- it would appear -- in the absence of other incriminating evidence -- that he can account for his presence during the timeline outlined between the arrival of the women to the place in evidence and the timeline in which the brutal attack occurred (between the time that the dancers had an appointment to arrive at the party and the police report of a complaint of her presence at a location after the assault), and it is highly suggestive that he was not present and that he has been misidentified as one of the culprits of this vicious crime.

[Marie26]

156. He cannot account for the entire timeline.

According to "defense lawyers", Segilmann was at the party from before 12:00 until 12:24. This is within the time-frame that the rape allegedly occured. Even if you believe the defense lawyers' statements, this suspect was attending the party, and was at the house during at least 30 minutes while the dancers were present. So, the spin that this proves he was not at the party at all while the dancers were there is simply false. (The lawyers do not mention at all where the other suspect, Finnerty, was during this time-frame. But they'll sure make implications by repeating "One, or both, suspects has an ATM receipt." Pure spin.)

[Hosnon]

215. Just remember where the burden of proof is...SHE has to account for HIM.nt

[Marie26]

230. Sure, but it's not exactly an air-tight "alibi". nt

[FredScuttle]

58. "if the accused can provide solid evidence"

then why the fuck wait until he's fingerprinted and snapped for the state to do so? What lawyer in their right mind would sit on evidence that clears his client, wait for him to get a permanent mark on his criminal record then crow about it?

[LisaL]

64. Have it ever occurred to you that maybe it's because DA

is refusing to look at this evidence?

[chookie]

71. I will not conjecture

I have no clue what happened that terrible night. I conjecture (reluctantly) that grievous allegations -- at least from the solid evidence that has been presented publically, have not yet been definitively substantiated. Evidence indicates that one of the accused can be exonerated. I await solid evidence to the contrary....

The evidence of examining medical professionals during the examination of the alleged accusation evidence is troubling -- they attest to vaginal and anal trauma upon examination of the victim-- but --in my humble opinion -- evidence supporting the accusation of the La Crosse team as the agents of this vicious attack has not yet satisfactorily been corroborated.

[LostinVA]

79. Evidence certainly doesn't show that

WHAT evidence? How does it match up with everything else? All we have is some Defense spin. The Defense has been caught in lies by other witnesses. We'll see what comes out at trial.

[superconnected]

140. So let me get this straight

- the rape victims' account shouldn't be trusted

- the doctors' shouldn't be trusted and their medical degrees should come into question.

- the lax members should be trusted no matter what until proven guilty

- The DA shouldn't be trusted.

Gotcha.

[Catrina]

149. Which is it? You say he should have given evidence he wasn't guilty

before being indicted. He did, he agreed to the DNA test.

The DA was no doubt hoping when he ordered the entire team to submit to that test, the guilty party would refuse. That didn't happen.

This suspect obviously had no concerns about the test. Now that he has been indicted, he supposedly has even more evidence that he is not guilty.

YOU, claim 'I know he did it' or words to that effect. Could you enlighten the rest of us as to how you are so certain? Were you there?

You know what I hope, I hope there was NO RAPE for the woman's sake. Rape is a horrible crime, and I'm astounded that there are people here who actually WANT this woman to have been raped!! Why? For her sake, it would be way better if none of this were true. Surviving rape is way more difficult than surviving making allegations that turn out not to be true.

I am astounded at the passionate desire that a woman be raped in order to satisfy some need to hang someone. Let's hope it didn't happen for everyone's sake, and if it did, that the right person or people are indicted and convicted.

[mondo joe]

157. It's like WMDs. Once you decide someone is guilty,

everything just serves to confirm guilt.

[Marie26]

158. It's fairly certain

that she was sexually assaulted. That was the medical opinion of the forensic nurse and physician who examined her at the emergency room that same night. They're trying now to figure out who was the assailant. That's why, at this time, I don't feel like we need to say "alleged victim" - the medical exam & her injuries show that she was injured by somebody. But it is appropriate to say "alleged assailant," because it hasn't been proven yet that these two suspects are responsible. I don't think it's that people "want her to have been raped," it's just that the medical evidence shows that she more than likely was assaulted by somebody.

[LostinVA]

164. She was raped... and yes, I do want the guilty parties to be convicted

Whomever they may be. But, she was a victim. The ER SANE's exam says that, and I consider that an expert opinion.

No one "wants her to be raped." What a weird thing to say... and so unproven.

[BrownOak]

207. But the problem is

you seem to have limited your idea of suspects to only those people who were at the party.

[FredScuttle]

210. Why is that a problem?

Whom else should she be considering? The butler? Professor Plum in the conservatory with the candlestick?

[BrownOak]

223. You have no idea

when those injuries that were consistent with sexual assault took place. That night? Earlier that night? The night before? The only thing linking the accused to those injuries is her statement at this point.

[FredScuttle]

170. Point me to who wrote in favor of rape

Go ahead...point me to one post that says "Gee, I'm glad this woman was raped" or "I really hope this woman was raped"

While we're at it, enlighten me to where I said "I know he did it". I've said I think they're guilty, but I've never claimed to have first-hand knowledge. I have the same vantage point you do.

A woman was raped. None of us are happy about it, or see an opportunity or advantage in it. We want justice.

[TankLV]

199. But you are convinced of their guilt and her snow white innocence.

You have a trail of words to that effect.

Sorry, but your lame ass denials to the contrary don't cut it.

You're on a crusade to convict these guys by any means possible, inuendo and slime included.

All of the evidence that continues to come out appears to impeach the accuracy of the prosecutions allegations, as well as the changing excuses and claims of the alleged victum.

From what I've learned so far, nobody in this sorry episode is without blame.

The guys for holding a stipping party in the first place, the woman for choosing to strip for a living.

The woman is less than truthful. The frat boys sound no better than bunkerboy in his days at Yale - classless, priveledged punks without any good judgement.

Plenty of blame all around.

But not enough knowledge to know what went down unless one was there.

Hopefully, this will all come to justice, and recede into the background so the CRIMES of this REPUKE regime can be further brought to light.

This is just like the OJ trial - it shouldn't be played out in the media, and even when there is a verdict, there will be people who will still be convinced of their original prejudices. Only the Jury will be the ones to be able to comment validly on this one.

[FredScuttle]

202. Sigh....where to begin

1. Yes, I am on a crusade. I am a one-man band intent on warping the minds of the good citizens of Durham N.C. using only a Sony Vaio and a digital cable line. Amazing how far I've come :sarcasm:

2. "snow white innocence"? what precisely would I be believing her innocent of? Leading those poor boys on with her exotic dancing? You must mean that I believe a rape victim when she says she's been raped.

3. As I've said time and time again...I think they're guilty. I think the three men who raped her were at the party and may or may not be lacrosse players, but I do think that the team closed ranks to protect the guilty. That is their wont, but I don't have to applaud it as any honorable thing to do

4. All of the evidence that appears to damage the prosecution's case is coming from....wait for it...the defense! What a surprise! And when has the victim's story changed?

5. So we should blame the women for stripping in the first place, eh? How rarified is the air where you are?

[pnwmom]

391. But isn't it possible that she was raped before she went to the

party? To what does she attribute the bruise-like marks on her legs that she had when she arrived at the party?

I think it's quite possible she was raped that day, but not necessarily by a student. For example, if she had been drinking heavily , she could have experienced a black-out, and not even known when she was raped or who had raped her. Later that night, or the next day, trying to reconstruct what had happened, the Duke party was the last event she could remember.

Or, worst case scenario, she was angry about the way the students treated the dancers at the party, and she decided to get even.

My initial reaction was I immediately assumed the students were guilty . . . but the more I hear, the murkier it gets. I don't think we'll ever know the truth.

[jazzjunkysue]

220. Sorry you have to live with that. I truly am. Big hug.

:hug:

[progressivebydesign]

340. Welcome to DU...

I can tell you that the rush to attack the victim here has been pretty nauseating for rape survivors. I'm doing my best to not read these threads.. or even respond.

[Jazz2006]

63. People on both sides of this "debate" are wrong ....

for buying into the "trial by media" method of justice.

And that is what the vast majority of people here are doing. (NOTE: not all, but most. Some more blatantly than others, obviously).

DU is just another medium, after all.

I realize, of course, how tempting it is to jump into the fray when someone says something that strikes you as personally offensive and I have occasionally been guilty of doing so myself, but not when it's a pending court case at issue. Determining the guilt or innocence of someone accused of a crime, well, I really think that that's what trials are for, and I dislike the sensationalism that is exhibited on a daily basis, purportedly in the interests of "free speech". It does not advance the cause of free speech to demonize the complainant in the media or to demonize the accused in the media.

In my view, it's "tabloid justice" in both directions and it's just plain wrong.


(edit to move the quotation marks)

[Jazz2006]

68. I have to add this....

I'm not saying that it's wrong for victims of sexual assaults to take grave offence to some of the horrific and outrageous posts that have been made on the numerous threads relating to this case. Not for a second. Some of the stuff that has been posted here is so outrageous that it cannot and should not go without response.

I have personally been involved with several of the multiple facets that can arise and that have arisen in such cases - i.e. victims being wrongly demonized by the defence and the media; innocent accused persons being demonized by the media; rightly accused people being held up as pillars of the community by the media even when it turns out that they were absolutely guilty; disinformation being spread far and wide by the media on both sides; false accusers being taken at face value despite the existence of reason to doubt the accusations; legitimate accusers being portrayed as false accusers despite the non-existence of any reason to doubt what the accuser says; false accusers being found out as false accusers; and, saddest of all, legitimate victims not being believed by juries who still think it all comes down to "what she was wearing" or "what she was drinking" or "what she does for a living" or "whether she was previously virtuous" or "what she might have been up for and what she might have consented to had she actually found the guy more interesting or exciting than she did".

Bottom line, I think that "trial by media" has a bearing on all of the above. And I think that justice would be better served all around if "trial by media" was not an issue in the first place.

[H3Dakota]

77. Excellent! Thank you...

A voice of reason in this horrible mess. I've been reading all the posts in the various threads across DU for the past couple of days. I have actually been so appalled by some posters that I finally used that lovely feature "Ignore". Between postings here at DU and discussions between people at work, in line at the grocery store, on the radio... I'd have to say that I've just about heard every possible opinion out there on this case.

Have I formed my own opinion in this matter? In one respect, no - I do not know all the facts yet, so how can I determine guilt or innocence at this point?

On the other hand, yes, I have formed a few other opinions as a result of this case - here they are:

1. I believe no one can know at this point whether all evidence has been made public or not. We have not seen/heard all of the evidence in this case yet - and rightfully so - we should not until the trial is underway.

2. I believe that no one can possibly know who is guilty and who is innocent at this point except for, perhaps, a sober eye-witness. I don't believe that we have any of those here - and if we do, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be posting messages online at this stage of the case.

3. I believe that this case is bringing to light how judgmental (better known as prejudiced) people can be. I've heard it all, from "she's a stripper, therefore she is a whore" to "they are young rich white college boys who think they are above the law".

4. I also believe that this case is going to make it more difficult for other rape victims to come forward in the future. Who would want to come out and identify his/her attacker after seeing the bashing that is taking place these days in this case? Many rape victims have to fight to be believed anyway and this kind of "trial through the media" only makes that problem worse. We keep hearing people screaming "innocent until proven guilty" - yet many of these same people are also declaring the woman guilty! How about we apply "innocent until proven guilty" to ALL parties in this case?!

5. There are still people that believe a person is "asking for it" by his/her clothing or by his/her vocation. There are still people that believe that being a sex worker automatically means that he/she has no right to complain when he/she is raped because, well - he/she is a SEX worker. It appears that some people still believe that a prostitute could never be raped.

6. There are some people that will never believe in the innocence or guilt of any parties involved - not even if there was a live broadcast of ALL the events that actually transpired during that party. These people believe that their opinion is the only correct one - they "know what they know" and there isn't enough proof in the world that will change their minds.

Can we get an Ignore button in real life, please? I'd love to be able to press that button the next time that right winged fanatic at work corners me in the break room or the next time that a hard-core born-again Christian goes on a rant about how I am going to Hell because I don't believe in Hell...

[Jazz2006]

100. Very well said, H3,

On all points.

And yeah, wouldn't it be nice to have an 'ignore' function in real life to get nutjobs to just (pardon my french) piss off?

:hi:

[H3Dakota]

113. Thank you!

I try really hard to not let people wear me down, but in times like these, it can be really tough. That is when I really, really wish for that Ignore button.

[superconnected]

128. Yes, well said.

[lumberjack_jeff]

152. Well said and rational. I mostly agree, but...

4. I also believe that this case is going to make it more difficult for other rape victims to come forward in the future. Who would want to come out and identify his/her attacker after seeing the bashing that is taking place these days in this case? Many rape victims have to fight to be believed anyway and this kind of "trial through the media" only makes that problem worse. We keep hearing people screaming "innocent until proven guilty" - yet many of these same people are also declaring the woman guilty! How about we apply "innocent until proven guilty" to ALL parties in this case?!


Although no one has been found guilty of any crime, the alleged victim (which is the proper term, btw) has not been paraded in front of the cameras in handcuffs. The comparative magnitude of media "bashing" is not comparable. As a result of this series of events (which we are not privvy to) she has been promised free tuition and has the support of sympathetic peers. The men involved are done with school and the coach's career is finished. If any of these guys are guilty then this is appropriate, but if they are not - no amount of "oops" will make it better.

It hurts my brain to try to figure out why awaiting a fair trial constitutes misogynism.

[H3Dakota]

162. What you say is quite true

No amount of "oops, sorry" will make up for what has happened should the accused be found not guilty - I agree with you 100% on that.

I'm unclear as to everything that resulted in the coach resigning - the media has given the impression that this event was a final straw, but that the discipline problems with the team had nearly reached that point even without this event. However - I do not know why his career should be impacted in this manner. I am not privy to all the information, so I cannot say one way or the other if the coach should be held to blame for any of this or not.

It is a tough call on the "parading in front of cameras in handcuffs". As you say, if they are guilty, then it is appropriate. Unfortunately, at the time they are arrested, it hasn't yet been proven to the public that they are guilty! It's a catch-22 situation and one that most highly public cases include. When people in the majority have decided the accused is (are) guilty, a cheer goes up with that handcuff parade - but when half the people feel the accused is innocent, then you have an uproar. Kind of makes ya think, doesn't it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

177. The thing that bothers me the most about the tone of the discussion

Is; "I sure hope she's telling the truth, because if she isn't, it'll cast doubt on the credibility of future cases".

Personally, I hope she's telling the truth, because if she isn't, a bunch of innocent people have had their lives ruined unnecessarily. The disposition of every future case does not necessarily depend upon the result of this one.

I really dislike the argument that only a small percentage of rape claims are fabricated, therefore this one must be true too. Aside from the viewpoint's accuracy, the obvious logical extension of that argument is that trials are an unnecessary formality that should be skipped in the interest of minimizing trauma to the presumed victim.

But I guess it's just me.

Thank you for posting a reasoned, reasonable and clear viewpoint.

[FredScuttle]

163. Duke University suspended the season and the coach resigned

because the lacrosse team has had a long list of incidents embarassing to the school, culminating in this. The underage drinking alone would have got them suspended. Let's not compare relative victimhoods for a rape victim and a group of college lacrosse players.

BTW, why is "alleged" victim the proper term? Were the trained nurses who examined her in the hospital wrong?

[lumberjack_jeff]

172. You're suggesting that a nurse can 100% determine that a rape has occured?

A medical professional can provide evidence corroborating (or casting doubt upon) a complaintant's accusation, but nothing more.

That's what juries are for.

[FredScuttle]

178. Juries will decide on whether it meets the legal standard

but the sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE's) make the clinical evaluation. Now, I anticipate that the defense will trot out medical experts to rebut this testimony, but the SANE will have been the only clinical professional to examine her post-attack.

[pnwmom]

392. She is alleged, but not proven, to have been the victim

of rape under a particular set of circumstances, involving a particular set of assailants.

The question isn't only whether or not she was raped but, if she was, then when and by whom.

None of us really know anything, at this point. It's all conjecture.

[Jersey Devil]

82. I saw first hand years ago how bad trial by media is

I am a lawyer and my first job was as a judicial clerk in NJ to a Superior Court judge who was assigned to criminal cases. The first case he had while I was clerk was a murder case that I watched very intently every day in the courtroom when I wasn't doing legal research for the judge. Then the next morning I would read about the trial in the papers and was amazed that the descriptions contained in the papers of what had happened in court were so innacurate and distorted that sometimes I questioned whether the reporters were ever actually at the trial they were writing about.

[AngryAmish]

97. You have to remember reporters are not lawyers

When you talk to jurors they often get aspects of the case wrong. Reporters are no different. And one has to remember reporters tend not to be the sharpest people out there.

[Jazz2006]

104. Agreed....

but don't get me started on juries

:)

[Jazz2006]

101. JerseyDevil, yes, it's quite amazing, isn't it?

I'm a lawyer, too, and I know what you mean. It's bad enough when the media gets it dead wrong during trial (which they often do) - it's even worse when they speculate to no end before trial.

[Marie26]

153. It benefits both sides, but not the public

Each side will want to leak information to the press to influence public opinion. (Prosecutors, but IMO, defense more often because they have more ethical leeway to do so). So, they will select a reporter that the perceive as favorable to their side, and leak this "scoop." The reporter is now in a bind - he can choose not to report the info, and lose the "big story" or he can report the leak, get his name on the front page & make a new friend in the trial team. Too often, in today's sensationalistic media, the reporters will simply report the leaks w/o verifying or double-checking the information. Sometimes, they don't care if they're right, as long as they're first. We all learned about the use of the media during the the Plame leak case, with each side leaking info to "their reporter" (Miller, Woodward, etc.) Criminal trials are often no different, & that's why it's important to take media reports from either party w/a grain of salt.

[Inland]

200. And then the public is shocked by the verdict

having had the evidence described and edited incorrectly. Bad for everyone.

[Sivafae]

73. This is just pure strategy.

It is hard for me to be convinced that a DA in the middle of an election would refuse to see evidence of a suspect's alibi while is campaigning for re-election. This case has been investigated for about a month now. I would assume that alibis are scrounged up before the case goes to the Grand Jury. I am no expert, but if there was evidence that I was not at the scene of a crime, that evidence would be the first thing I present to investigators. I would also be damned sure that I presented that evidence to a grand jury investigation. With the kind of money that is flying around in this case, I imagine that there are mean$ to find the evidence.
I believe the idea is to hurt the DA while he trying to be re-elected so that he is not re-elected and perhaps the case will be dropped by the newly elected DA.
I will reserve my judgment about this case until it has been presented to a jury. But to me this is pure strategy because chances are, the case will not go to trial until after the election.

[LisaL]

74. The grand jury only hears the prosecution side of the story.

No alibi evidence of any kind is presented.
And by the way, DA can charge people that have an alibi.
Three is no rule he could not.

[Jersey Devil]

84. That is not completely accurate

A prosecutor has a duty to see that "justice is done", not necessarily just to indict, and if he has knowledge of exculpatory evidence (that would exonerate someone) his duty would be to present it to the Grand Jury along with evidence of guilt. If he does not he is subject to discipline and the indictment could be dismissed.

[NaturalHigh]

85. Of course, we know that a prosecutor...

would never violate the code of ethics, and we also know that innocent people are never indicted.
:sarcasm:

[LisaL]

89. And never convicted either. No way, no how.

:sarcasm:

[FredScuttle]

92. I bet you both were cheering Fitz when he indicted Scooter Libby though

n/t

[AllieB]

93. Maybe not

[LisaL]

106. LOL. I wasn't cheering anyone.

[onenote]

138. I'm afraid you're wrong about exculpatory evidence

From the Supreme Court's decision in US v Williams, 504 US 36 (1992):

"As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify, or to have exculpatory evidence presented. See 2 Hale, supra, at 157; United States ex rel. McCann v. Thompson, 144 F. 2d 604, 605-606 (CA2), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 790 (1944).

Imposing upon the prosecutor a legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence in his possession would be incompatible with this system. If a "balanced" assessment of the entire matter is the objective, surely the first thing to be done--rather than requiring the prosecutor to say what he knows in defense of the target of the investigation--is to entitle the target to tender his own defense. To require the former while denying (as we do) the latter would be quite absurd. It would also be quite pointless, since it would merely invite the target to circumnavigate the system by delivering his exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor, whereupon it would have to be passed on to the grand jury--unless the prosecutor is willing to take the chance that a court will not deem the evidence important enough to qualify for mandatory disclosure. See, e. g., United States v. Law Firm of Zimmerman & Schwartz, P.C., 738 F. Supp. 407, 411 (Colo. 1990) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence held satisfied when prosecution tendered to the grand jury defense provided exhibits, testimony, and explanations of the governing law), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Brown, 943 F. 2d 1246, 1257 (CA10 1991)."

[Jersey Devil]

160. Thanks - interesting

Now I am going to have to check again, but the law in NJ in many instances requires more protection constitutionally than in federal courts in many instances and this is one of them I suppose. I am rather surprised by this decision.

[onenote]

161. don't be surprised -- it was written by Scalia

[Marie26]

231. Not exactly

It is true that the prosecutor does not have to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, but if he has knowledge of evidence that would exonerate the Defendants, he must drop the charges, or he would be subject to discipline & disbarment. I posted the relevant rule in post #229.

[Marie26]

229. The prosecutor does have a duty to see that "justice is done".

North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct impose special requirements on Prosecutors. Prosecutors are supposed to represent the interests of justice, and so are not allowed to bring charges unless those charges are well-supported, and are restricted in what they can say to the media.

From "Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor", "the prosecutor in a criminal case must refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause, ... except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused, and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement, or others assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under this Rule."

First, the rule means that the prosecutor cannot bring a case to trial unless he himself believes that "probable cause" exists to support the charges. If a prosecutor knew, for example, that a suspect is innocent, or that the allegations are false, he is bound to drop the charges against the accused. The prosecutor does not have to present "exculpatory evidence" to a grand jury, however, if the evidence shows that these suspects could not have committed a crime (a proven alibi, etc.), the prosecutor is not allowed to press charges. If this prosecutor is indicting these suspects, it is because he himself believes that there is good cause to believe they committed these crimes.

Second, the rule restricts what the prosecutor can say to the public. What this mean is that the Prosecutor is always at a disadvantage when a case is tried in the media. He can't talk to the press or reveal incriminating evidence unless there is a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The police, prosecutor, and investigators can't make any public comments that "heighten public condemnation" of the accused (so no "bombshell revelations" for the press). Let's say the Pros. finds some highly incriminating evidence in the dorm rooms - he can't tell the media about this evidence, because there's no legitimate law enforcement reason for doing so. The defense is under no such restriction, so they can reveal any new "bombshell" they want to the media - even if it tends to "heighten public condemnation" of the victim. Criminal defense lawyers have more leeway in what they can say to the media, because their only responsibility is to effectively advocate for their client. I think it's important for people to know this when considering the Prosecutor's actions in this case.

[BrownOak]

208. Why is it that

if someone posted some absurd statement like "I imagine the stripper did this to herself in order to set up a big civil suit" it would be met with outrage, but you can feel comfortable speculating that the alibi is the result of bribes?

[rfkrfk]

81. if the alibi is legit, , Nifong --> no credibility

the only thing left is the word of the stripper

[superconnected]

127. You must mean the word or the woman.

Or do you mean the word of the stripper is left, over the word of the low lifes who solicit strippers.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

83. ABC Good Morning America

examined the supposed alibi evidence which includes ATM receipts, a cab driver and even cell phone records, including security card records for one of the guys entering his dorm. This timeline of events makes it seem that this person was not at the party at the time the rape could have occurred.

Now, I can see how someone else may have used an ATM, but cabs are not a popular method of transportation in Durham and the cab driver, according to ABC, recalls one of the indicted parties very well and has logs to show where he took him (to a Wachovia bank, supposedly). Cell phone records are also useful and used everyday.

I don't know where the truth lies, but if this exculpatory evidence is truthful and reliable, then it appears one of the two indicted guys wasn't there.

[FredScuttle]

86. Does it make sense to you that he'd wait until now to do this?

I don't see how it's helping this young man to sit on this evidence for a month, wait until he's booked and has a mark on his criminal record to suddenly unveil this.

[LisaL]

88. Does it make sense to you prosecutor never interviewed him?

Before indicting him?
As for the boy, he obviously never believed he could have been charged, considering he was not even there, why would he present his alibi before this?

[FredScuttle]

91. Not that I was asking you

but since you saw fit to jump in, I'll answer:

You act like this guy was a complete stranger to the situation....we've known for a month that the Duke lacrosse team was under suspicion in this crime. If he's to be believed, this guy picked team loyalty over self-preservation...well congrats to him. Now he has a criminal record and three felony counts hanging over him.

This guy had ample opportunity to clear his name and remove himself from suspicion...the DA doesn't have to interview him for that.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

98. it may be bait

to discredit the entire prosecution's case. For instance, if the alleged victim claims three guys did it, there are 46 possible suspects, it would benefit all of them (including possible guilty parties) if it turned out that one of the indicted persons actually has a provable and verifiable alibi, thus compromising any future identification by the alleged victim because her credibility at that point would be suspect, even if she was indeed raped. So, in a sense, the indicted persons could serve as sacrificial lambs. I'm not saying this is what happened, but I'm saying this could be part of a strategy by the defense.

On another note, someone on another site posted freeze-frames of NBC News report on the story and the photographs showing the alleged victim along with a timeline of one of the indicted parties' cell phone records.

[LisaL]

103. Well, excuse me. If this woman identifies her "attackers", saying

she is 100 % sure, and turns out at least one of them has an alibi, that does not put doubt on prosecution's case?

[FredScuttle]

109. My point is

who is representing this guy? I assume he has his own counsel. Would any criminal defense lawyer willingly let his client enter the system and get slapped with multiple felony counts all for the good of the group? Isn't there a conflict of interest at work here?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

278. Its not his responsibility to clear his name.

Why should I have to come forth and present evidence to a DA that I am innocent? First of all, I'm not talking to a DA without a lawyer on my side (money), second it is not my responibility to prove I am innocent, third any lawyer will tell you to shut up and only answer what is asked of you directly.

Oh wait, if you are innocent, what do you have to worry about? RIGGGHHHTTTTT

[superconnected]

129. Do you know that the prosecutor never interviewed him.

Didn't think so.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

102. From the WTVD website

WTVD website
WTVD, the local ABC affiliate, has reviewed the photos and here is the timeline according to what photos show (what follows is pasted directly from the website)

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 players are sitting on three couches in a semicircle with the dancers in the middle.
11:02 p.m.: The first picture shows at least 10 students hanging out in a living room, apparently waiting for the dancers to arrive. Most of the students appear to be drinking. By the number of people in this photo, it appears only a fraction of the 47 lacrosse team members are there.

12 a.m.: This is the first picture of the strippers. Students are watching the show, but not grabbing or attempting to touch the women. Bruises are clearly visible on the legs and thighs of the alleged victim.

12:00:40 a.m.: Another picture taken 40 seconds later shows bruises on the accuser's knees. Her right knee appears to have an open cut.

12:03:57 p.m.: About four minutes after arriving, a picture shows the strippers leaving the room. The photo clearly shows that the alleged victim left behind one of her shoes.

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

12:30:12 a.m.: The next photo shows the alleged victim on the back porch, carrying what appears to be her purse and a makeup bag. Her clothes are intact.

12:30:47 a.m.: A photo taken 30 seconds later shows the alleged victim on the porch and she appears to smile.

12:31:26 a.m.: But 30 seconds after that, a photo shows the alleged victim stumbling down the back steps of the house.

12:37:58 a.m.: A series of photos are taken, all showing the woman lying on her left side on the back porch, seemingly passed out or asleep. 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.

12:41 a.m.: The final photo shows the accuser and the second dancer in a black car. The accuser is in the passengers seat.

[LostinVA]

132. So... what happened in the 20 minutes from 1210-1230?

What photos were taken? What did they show? Or from 1102-1200? What was deleted? What were they taken with? My Freeper BIL does secret stuff for the government, and he told me some digital cameras and most cell phone cameras can have times manipulated.

However, let's forget that. These photos don't really prove anything. Actually, if there is certain evidence the DA has, it may actually hurt the Defense's case, if the players are guilty.

[Marie26]

180. Well, according

to the defense team's "alibi," Seligmann was at the party when dancers arrived until at least 12:20. That puts him at the party during the same time-frame when the rape allegedly occurred. This is the same time-frame during which no photos were taken. The defense "alibi" actually puts their client at the scene of the crime at the time the crime occurred. Thanks, defense lawyers!

[onenote]

217. actually, it doesn't put him there when the rape allegedly occurred

From the reports I've read, the dancers arrived around midnight, danced for little bit, got upset, left, and were talked into coming back into the house between 12:20 and 12:30, at which point the attack allegedly occurred.

The "alibi" evidence purports to show that Seligman was picked up a block and a half from the house and driven to an ATM around 5 minutes away where he made a transaction timed as occurring at 12:24, which suggests that he had to have left the house before 12:24 in order to be a block and a half away when the cab picked him up.

Obviously, none of the times -- both those given by the defense and those reported as coming from neighbor and from the accuser -- have been proven. But its a bit of a stretch to say that the defense lawyers' contentions put Seligman at the party during the time frame when the rape was alleged to occur. But if the attack lasted 30 minutes as the accuser claimed, then it would be hard for Seligman to have been the one involved. Of course, if it turns out the attack only lasted 20 minutes or that it began around midnight... that's a different story.

The problem the prosecution is going to face is coming up with a credible timeline...not impossible, but the neighbor's testimony that the women arrived around midnight is going to be an issue.

[Marie26]

232. No, that's incorrect.

Not even the defense is saying that. The defense released photos that it says contains "time-stamped" evidence. OK, according to the defense's own timeline, the dancers began dancing at about 12:00, and became upset after the players took photos & tried to make the victim use a broom as a "sex toy". At 12:03, the dancers ran into the bathroom, and remained there, the defense says, for 20 minutes, until finally leaving at about 12:20. (The other dancer, by the way, says this constructed timeline is wrong. If she wasn't in the bathroom with the victim during this time, the defense is going to have a hard time explaining that).

The defense has photos of the women dancing until 12:03, and the next photo shows the victim standing on the back stoop at 12:30. At 12:37, there is another photo of the woman lying on the back stoop, apparantly passed out. Her elbows are scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding (apparantly after an assualt). So, there's photos of the women dancing until 12:03, and then there's a photo of the victim standing outside at 12:30. There is a 30-minute gap in photos that occurs during the time the victim claims the rape occured, and the defense claims the two women were "locked in the bathroom". If a rape occured, it occured during this time period (12:03-12:29). This is also the same period that Seligman was at the party (before 11:50-12:23). The defense's own "alibi" places Seligman at the party during the time-frame during which the rape occured. So, their own timeline puts Seligman at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed. Some alibi. I think the defense is starting to regret publicizing those photos, which is why we're not hearing much about them anymore.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335371/site/newsweek/ - Newsweek: Exclusive - the Duke Lacrosse Timeline

The timeline is very uncertain at this point & varies according to who is talking. The defense timeline varies from the neighbor's timeline, which also varies slightly from the Prosecution's timeline. The victim has estimated that the attack lasted about 30 minutes, but if she really was raped & traumatized, you could expect that to be at most a guess. At this point, the only thing that is certain is that both dancers had arrived by 11:50 and left by 12:55. The alleged rape occured sometime during that period, and Seligman was at the home during a good portion of that period. Even if they do have ATM receipts, etc. (and I doubt anything this defense says at this point) it does not exculpate Seligman & does not give him an alibi for this crime. The defense is trying to spin this to be some air-tight alibi, and it is not. That's all, really, I'm trying to say.

[BrownOak]

240. Not hearing much about the photos?

At the same time you're posting this message people can be viewing some of the photos on the web right now. I don't see anyone on the defense backing away from those photos.

You can doubt all the stuff from the defense and at this point that's a reasonable position. But the defense has allowed ABC to see the material from the alibi so the credibility level has to go up some. Now, I haven't seen this verified anywhere but a friend told me he had seen a report that Seligmann's cell phone records show a call to his girl friend at 12:07 and a call for a cab at 12:14. The ATM record comes up at 12:25 which takes him out of the house at no later than 12:19.

So, based on the photos the dancers stopped performing at 12:04. From there, according to their own story, they have to go out to their car, be convinced to come back into the house, be separated, and then the alleged victim would be assaulted for some period of time. All that has to happen within the span of 15 minutes, during which Seligmann is on the phone once with his girlfriend ("Hi honey, yeah, I'm just raping a woman. Can I put you on hold for a few minutes?") and also making calls to get a cab.

Like I said, almost all of that has been shared with one media outlet or another so you can give it as much credence as you like. But if it is true it may not be an "air tight" alibi, but it's pretty damn close.

[Marie26]

242. Not hearing much from the defense.

A friend told you? What you've stated here is not what the defense is saying. I've read the ABC article, and all that article states is that ABC News was shown a single ATM receipt from 12:25. That's what I'm going on. If you can find an article about when these phone calls, etc., were placed, I'd like to see them; but I'm not going to go by what somebody's friend says they heard. Talk about rumors & innuendo.

[BrownOak]

248. Does it really matter

I'm happy to dig the stuff up for you, but all it means is that rather than doubting my word (or my friend's) it just means you'll have to doubt the word of the reporter or the defense attorney. But, since you asked:

I've read the ABC article, and all that article states is that ABC News was shown a single ATM receipt from 12:25.

We may have read different ABC News articles. I'm going with this one:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&...

Among the highlights:

*By 12:24 a.m., a receipt reviewed by ABC indicates that Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank.
*In a written statement to the defense also reviewed by ABC, a cabdriver confirms picking up Seligmann and a friend a block and a half from the party, and driving them to the bank.
*By 12:25 a.m., he was making a phone call to a girlfriend out of state.
*The taxi driver remembers taking him to a drive-thru fast-food restaurant and then dropping him off at his dorm. Duke University records show that Seligmann's card was used to gain entry at 12:46 a.m.
*Within those same minutes , phone bill records reviewed by ABC show that the defendant's cell phone made at least two outgoing calls.

If you can find an article about when these phone calls, etc., were placed, I'd like to see them; but I'm not going to go by what somebody's friend says they heard.

Well, this article http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4... talks about the call to the taxi company.

*A person close to the case told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the cell phone records show Seligmann called for a taxi at 12:14 a.m., and that according to sworn testimony he left in the taxi at 12:19 a.m.

Now, we all know that the "person close to the case" is someone with the defense team so you can discount that if you like, but it does conform to the information stated in the ABC article where they said they reviewed the phone records.

I don't have the article with the 12:07 call, but I'll see what I can find.

[BrownOak]

265. Update

I found the source for the 12:07 call information. It was apparently in a broadcast on the Abrams Report which you can view at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8004316/ It's the segment with the actual photos from the party.

The high points of the broadcast are that:

1. The defense has an expert that they will trot out to verify that the photos were not taken out of sequence. That, plus the maginified picture of player's watches will, the defense contends, confirm the time stamps in the metafiles for the photos.

2. There are two possible periods where an assault could potentially have occured. The first is the 26-minute gap between 12:04 and 12:30. The second is between 12:30 and 12:37. The defense contends that the first time frame should be eliminated because the picture of the alleged victim standing at the back door of the house shows her with what Abrams calls a "definite smile." One of the guests on the show points out that the smile, which Abrams also calls "demure" could also be considered to be the effects of a date rape drug and that the alleged victim may have already been assaulted. (This is not part of the report, but the defense is likely to point out the condition of her clothing which would not be consistent with a violent assault as described by the woman in her statments to the police.)

3. The broadcast mentions that the phone records show two calls from Seligmann's cell phone, one at 12:07 and the other at 12:14, which would be the only times when he was allegedly assaulting the dancer.

4. Finnerty is not in a single picture.

5. The initial report from the alleged victim described that she lost her nails in a struggle during the alleged assault. When the DNA tests came back negative for anything under her nails the DA dismissed the results saying that the assailants may have been wearing a long sleeve shirt or a jacket. In the pictures, everyone in the house except one or two guys are wearing short sleeved shirts. The guest on the show pointed out that the photos don't mean that someone couldn't have put on a jacket during the attack.

[Marie26]

289. Lies & spin

First, can I say how awful ABC news has been during this case? They've reported every defense propaganda "scoop" verbatim, since the beginning. I'm actually starting to wonder if ABC has a business connection w/Duke.

Yes, it is the same ABC news article. In that article, the only physical "proof" the defense team showed was a single ATM receipt from 12:24, and "phone bill records". They allege he made a call to his girlfriend at 12:25, & 2 other outgoing calls, as he cruises around Durham until finally going to his dorm at 12:45.

ABC saw the "phone records" that supposedly show 2 outgoing calls during "the same period" - what period? After the 12:25 call, or before? It's left vague & ambiguous. Why can they name specifically the time of the girlfriend call, but can't name when the other 2 calls occurred? Isn't that odd? The defense knows that they can't account for the time from 12:03 - 12:30, so if they've got calls from 12:07, or 12:14, you'd think those would be the first phone records they'd release, and they'd ask ABC News to report those times. But no, instead we get a time-stamp of 12:24 on the ATM, & 12:25 on the phone call. Although "sources" tell ABC that there is another phone call at 12:14, that is not revealed, or proven by the phone records ABC reviews. That's also odd. Finally, although he supposedly called for a cab, there's record of that phone call, though there is a time-stamp on the later 12:25 call. There's also no receipt or record of the cab ride - though cabbies keep timed records of each call. Isn't that odd? Why isn't there a phone record of these alleged earlier phone calls? It's important to seperate the evidence from the spin here (& it's at least 90% spin). The only timed evidence shown is an ATM recipt at 12:24, & a phone call at 12:25. That's it - and those times place him at the party from at least 11:50-12:23, during the time-frame that the rape allegedly occured.

I do not trust this defense team for an instant. They've already shown a willingness to lie to protect the team - for example, the defense said that the other dancer doesn't believe a rape had occured, and the other dancer then came public to say she did think a rape might have occured. Lie. The defense stated that phone records would prove the victim came to the party flat drunk & already injured, but the photos actually show a woman acting normally & sober at 12:03, and collapsed on the back stoop at 12:37. The other dancer also states the victim was sober & acting normally at first, & suddenly became incoherant, & a "different woman" after being in the house. So, lie. Defense implies no evidence of sexual activity was found, when the SBI has not revealed yet if other traces were found. Lie. And etc. These "scoops" usually consist of some cherry-picked evidence, w/some spin & BS to fill in the rest of the "story" the defense is trying to promote. Based on the cherry-picked evidence itself, Seligman was apparantly at the party until at least 12:20 - which is the same time period that the rape occured. The defense then adds some spin & unproven allegations to make it seem like this covers the entire night, when it does not.

Just as an aside, I have no idea if the defense's story about Seligman's activities that night are true, but it's sort of interesting anyway. Because if it is true, it suggests that he was smarter than your average drunk lacrosse player. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that he was involved in this crime, OK? He's done a serious crime, & he knows it, & he knows there could be criminal charges. So, the first thing he does is to try to establish an alibi, or proof he had left the house. He goes to a nearby bank to use his ATM card & retrieves his time-stamped receipt. (there's a Wachovia Bank a few blocks away). He then makes sure to call an independent person (out-of-state girlfriend) w/his cell phone at 12:25. Then, he proceeds to make at least 2 other outgoing calls, all after midnight. He's very talkative. At some point, he apparantly gets a cab (though no record of the time exists), or maybe simply drives off. Goes to a fast-food restaurant, gets another time-stamped receipt for the food, cruises around Durham for a while until finally arriving back at the dorm at 12:45. He may have been at the party for a good period of the time, but he's made a pretty good effort at also establishing his later presence far, far away w/timed ATM, phone, & restaurant records.

The cab story is what really raises a red flag to me. Durham is not NYC, and most people don't use cabs to get around. They drive, or take a bus if they don't have a car. These kids are rich, and had their own cars; this house is also adjacent to the Duke campus. If college students are going to a nearby off-campus party, they'll walk or drive there together, why would they take a cab? Doesn't make sense. If Seligman wanted to leave early, he could've driven his car, or walked (the house is near the Duke dorms), or he could have bummed a ride. Why take a cab? And go to an ATM? And toll around Durham for 20 minutes? And a fast-food place? And make 3+ calls very late at night? Why was he suddenly so eager to leave that party? This whole alibi just smells to me.

[LostinVA]

323. I'm curious about what fast food place he went to

Because they are all over the area by campus... or they were two years ago.

[Marie26]

360. I'm curious

about why they won't tell us what fast-food restaurant he went to. With these guys, what they don't say is as important as what they do say. If they're showing the bank receipt, and the cell phone records, but aren't showing any receipt from this fast-food restaurant, I have to wonder why. Maybe the restaurant was actually very close to the house, or maybe the time he went doesn't match the alibi timeline, or maybe he never went at all. We simply don't know, & there's no evidence he went at all beyond the word of the (now-discredited) cabbie.

[BrownOak]

373. It's not the cabbie who's discredited, it's the second dancer.

Is this Groundhog Day? It's not like we haven't been over this ground before. You're stating the cabbie's story is discredited because the original ABC news article didn't mention any calls from the suspect's cell phone at the same time that the cabbie is saying he received the call. But that's completely wrong and I laid it out for you in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I assumed you ignored it because it seems pretty incontrovertible given what we were working with. So I'm stunned to find you still saying that the cabbie's story has been discredited. How do you still support that position?


Now, if you want to really start talking about being discredited, you should look at the second dancer. Remember when everyone was saying her recent statements prove that the defense has been misrepresenting the facts. Seems she changed her story in the last few days. Say like, right after the DA gave her a big break.

[Marie26]

384. Oh my God,

leave me alone already. I didn't respond immediately to your post because it's so long that it took me a while to find the time to work through it. I've posted it below. You don't have to respond, but if you don't respond in one hour I'll just start to nag you about it. And, as I explained many times, the cabbie is not discredited just because of the phone record, but because his story has massive inconsistencies, contradicts other witnesses, & doesn't make sense. You haven't disputed that. I've got no idea what you're talking about w/the big break comment.

[ContraBass Black]

110. Anybody "may have an alabi."

Wait till it goes to the GJ.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

118. Sure, but if you have

incontrovertible evidence that is time-stamped or recorded by unbiased sources (such as video cameras), then the alibi can become quite strong (disclaimer: I am not implying that this 'evidence' of an alibi -see above- is incontrovertible).

Something doesn't pass the smell test in this story and there are too many things that don't quite match up. Hopefully, the truth will emerge, but I am not so sure the DA is doing a thorough job in this case and that may come back to bite him in the butt (disclaimer: I am not saying that this woman was or was not raped).

Is it possible, for conjecture's sake, that perhaps this woman was raped before this party and, due to the trauma, she may believe the attack happened during the party?

[ContraBass Black]

119. Anything is possible, when you don't know anything yet.

I'm not putting stock in any of these "breaking bombshell reports" until something comes out that isn't from the prosecutor, the defense attorneys, or unattributed sources. It bothers me that other people appear to.

[superconnected]

150. why would a woman show up at a party right after she was raped.

....
Highly unlikely.

Why would you consider she was raped but these guys couldn't have done it.

The report says 3 guys in a bathroom did it, not all of them. Plenty of them probably wouldn't know one way or the other.

I don't know one way or another. But you certianly are posting odd things against the viciim, while trying to make it look like you aren't deciding till the evidence is in. paraphrase - "Maybe she was raped before the party and got mixed up".. I have to gag now.:puke:

How transparent can you get.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saigon68]

321. adios

[BiggJawn]

122. Dosen't matter. hang him, castrate him!

Nancy Grace has flared her nostrils at him and Rita "Gasper" Cosby has croaked out his name.
That makes him guilty, the Trial by Ordeal will just be a formality.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[LisaL]

130. That service going out of business might be a good thing, don't

you think?

[Marie26]

175. I just love how you're

trying to drop information about this victim wherever possible. Why is that?

[genie_weenie]

137. la la la la They are guilty I'm not listening la la la la

They Raped Herrrrrrrrrr! I'm not listening to any evidence that disuades my pre-conceived notions!!!!!

The absolute refusal to accept not guilty until proven so by a "court of law" is astounding for a vanguard progressive Forum!

[FredScuttle]

142. So, too, apparently is refusing to respect a rape victim's privacy n/t

[genie_weenie]

144. What is the deal? When have I attacked the victim?

Why are you picking a fight with me and on other threads? How have I "refused to respect a rape victim's privacy"? As you put it.

Please explain. And use all the condenseding terms and tone you wish, I'm fairly ignorant and stupid, and don't understand "the guilty because the victim says so" arguments.

[FredScuttle]

148. Not accusing you personally

Just commenting on your point that, in a "progressive" forum, whereas you find the rush to judge these players guilty astounding, I find equally astounding the complete and utter lack of respect for this rape victim.

[genie_weenie]

154. Please read my other response

I don't want this to turn into some ugly you say, I say thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=955197&mesg_id=966039

[FredScuttle]

179. Agreed

Apologies for the misunderstanding

[aikoaiko]

139. Since no one (iirc) has mentioned this yet, I will.

FWIW:

The initial search warrant listed three men by name (Adam, Bret, and Matt)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0405061duke4.html

The police arrested a Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0418061duke1.html

Of course sometimes men are called nicknames or middle names or just other names for arbitrary reasons.

This case just gets curiouser and curiouser.

I really hope we find out what happened one way or the other and so that people can move on instead of using this case as a projective test for everyones sexual, classist, and racial ideologies.

[Marie26]

145. According to the search warrant,

the team members were using fake names during the party. This was corraborated by the fact that the reservation for the dancers was made under a false name.

From the search warrant - "The victim says that she did not think the names the suspects were providing her were their own. She stated one male identified himself as Adam, but everyone at the party was calling him Dan. In addition, the witness/co-worker stated that they identified themselves as the Duke Baseball and Track Team to hide the true identity of their sports affiliation - The Duke Lacrosse Team. In a non-custodial interview with Mr. Daniel Fannerly... Mr. Fannerly admitted using an alias to make the reservation to have the dancers attend the Lacrosse Team Party... It is the Affiant's belief the suspects used each other's names to disguise their own identities and create an atmosphere where confusion would become a factor in this event, should problems arise in the future where any actions or conduct would be questioned. In addition, further interviews showed that. The players also used numbers when calling for one another across the room, again to hide their identites."

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0405061duke4.html

[aikoaiko]

146. yep, another good reason why the names would be different, thanks.

[SaveElmer]

141. Sounds like a Defense tactic to pollute the jury pool...

And to sway public opinion. I am sure this is selectively leaked, and cherry picked evidence. I would not trust anything that comes out before the trial.

People have a reason for leaking information, and it cannot usually be trusted.

[noonwitch]

155. I hate the media circus covering big criminal trials

It compromises our justice system. I know the public has the right to know and all that, but the media screws everything up. Look at the OJ trial-whatever your opinion on it, the media circus around it compromised the prosecution's case almost as much as the mistrust the LAPD has devervedly earned with LA's black residents.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seriousstan]

181. Key Evidence Supports Alibi in Rape Defense for One Duke Player

#####TRUE HEADLINE FOLLOWS#####

ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE: Key Evidence Supports Alibi in Potential Rape Defense for One Indicted Duke Player


####Headline modified because ABC gets paid by the word####

-----cut----- (cut to post relivent material)
Seligmann's argument is simple: He is innocent and he has an alibi. He attended the party that night, but documents, photos and witness testimony show that he wasn't there long enough or at the right time to attack the alleged victim.


Around midnight the night of March 13, Seligmann was already at the party when two women hired from a local escort agency arrived to dance for the boys — $400 each for a two-hour performance. A series of time-stamped photographs viewed by ABC News show the girls dancing at midnight and at 12:02 a.m.


By 12:24 a.m., a receipt reviewed by ABC indicates that Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank. In a written statement to the defense also reviewed by ABC, a cabdriver confirms picking up Seligmann and a friend a block and a half from the party, and driving them to the bank. By 12:25 a.m., he was making a phone call to a girlfriend out of state.


What did Seligmann do after leaving the bank? The taxi driver remembers taking him to a drive-thru fast-food restaurant and then dropping him off at his dorm. Duke University records show that Seligmann's card was used to gain entry at 12:46 a.m.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1

[SaveElmer]

182. And where do you suppose the "leak" of this info came from?

The defense obviously. They are trying to pollute the jury pool and stimulate public sentiment against the accuser. I would not trust ANY pre-trial information that is released before hand. It is done for a reason and inevitably will not be the whole story!

[wakeme2008]

183. It's not pollute the jury pool... you have a DA running against a

black man and trying to get his brownie points. This case will fail....

[SaveElmer]

184. Not gonna do him any good if he looks foolish....

If this information were as iron clad as the media makes it sound the DA would lose on stupidity grounds. I guarantee there is far more to this information than what is being presented. Just as the story of the DNA was hyped. The vast majority of rape cases have no DNA evidence, but the media played it up like it was definitive.

I agree the boys will probably walk, money almost always wins...and they clearly have the money.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KingFlorez]

185. The DA is not stupid

He obviously has something to support the case otherwise he wouldn't go for indictments.

[Jack from Charlotte]

187. Maybe, But ONE reason a Grand Jury is used.... sometimes.....

is to give polictical cover to a prosecutor. The prosecutor can say, "I didn't bring up the charges. The GJ, did." And if a judge throws the case out he can go to the political forces who wanted charges filed... in this case, The African-American community in Durham and say.... "I brought charges and judge threw them out. Not my fault."

[Lance_Boyle]

191. I believe Nifong is running against a white woman...

in the Dem primary. There is no republican challenger, so the primary winner is gonna be DA.

[wakeme2008]

195. A woman and

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/voters_guide/index.php?title=district_attorney_keith_a_bishop&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[LostinVA]

250. Correct -- she is a Dem

[greyl]

186. Have you ever heard of prosecutors gathering evidence

for the defense?

[DonkeyPunch]

193. timeline of the night

So let me get this straight. Selligman left the party half an hour after the strippers showed up (around 11:55)

During that time the strippers were drugged or made to take some sort of date-rape drug.

According to pictures, the stripper was passed out and face down around 12:07. Thats some pretty strong drugs.

The stripper then decides to leave, and guys start shouting racial obscenities at her.

A man then comes out and convinces her to return to the party.

Selligman and 2 other accomplices in a rage, then force her into the bathroom, strangle her, rape her orally, vaginally and anally, maybe with brooms and other objects, while putting on a condom so that they don't leave DNA traces for the criminal investigation that they know will inevitably follow. They find no DNA from Selligman nor the stripper in the bathroom, only DNA from two guys who live at the house. Must have been some pretty dry sex.

After raping the woman in 15 minutes, they then makes some calls, leave the house. and then walk down the street where they are picked up by a cab.

The guy gets money out of the atm, calls his girlfriend, presumably to tell her about the stripper he just raped after spending 20 minutes at a party. Then goes out and gets mcdonalds, presumably to replenish all the calories he just burned. Then returns to his dorm.

Yup, sounds pretty good to me.

[SaveElmer]

196. And you got this information where?

Are you tight with the prosecutor?

[LostinVA]

252. Read their profile....

[LostinVA]

251. So, you're from Durham, you just registered

And you post a bunch of stuff that no one has EVER said or believes... all in trying to exonerate the accused and blame the accuser. And say it all in a very mocking manner. Gosh... forgive me if I say you are a bit like glass, okay?

Hey, what position do you play? Wing? Forward? Back? Really sucks your season was canceled, dude.

[Inland]

197. Maybe: but that doesn't mean it isn't the case.

If he's trying to pollute the jury pool with an alibi, there had better be an alibi at trial. He shouldn't build the expectation of an alibi and not have anyone show up.

[SaveElmer]

198. I'm sure he will argue an alibi...but

I seriously doubt it is as iron clad as they are trying to make it sound.

[BrownOak]

205. So is ABC News in on it?

Because ABC has seen the bank receipts, they've seen the signed statement from the cab driver, and they've seen the dorm card records.

So this suspect was in the house for 20 minutes with the alleged victim - at the most. In that time, according to the alleged victim's statements from the search warrants, they danced, got scared, left the house, got into their car, were talked into coming back to the party, and then were separated before the incident was supposed to have taken place. Then she was supposed to have been assaulted for about 30 minutes. Now, if you want to assume the times given by the time-stamped photos the window gets even smaller. But even though they've been viewed by three different media outlets I know that many on these boards don't want to accept that as even a remote possibility so we'll stick with the estimated times we can work up from the dancer's own words. Oh, there's also one more thing, the player's cell phone records show two outgoing calls during all that time as well.

Now, in order to believe that the alibi doesn't hold up you either have to believe that the player found a guy who looked enough like him to fool the cabbie, gave that guy his cell phone and his dorm card and told him to run out and get some cash then go to his dorm room. Or they had to find a cabbie they could bribe after the fact which means that they ran the risk of bribing someone who could possibly not play along.

---or----

You have to believe that all those things that the dancer said happened before the assault took place in some sort of time warp and that the alleged victim was confused when she said the attack lasted 30 minutes and instead it only lasted 10 minutes.

---or----

You have to believe that this victim has accused the wrong man.

The bus just stopped so reasonable doubt could take a seat.

[SaveElmer]

206. ABC News has seen what someone has given them...

Someone with a point to push...

I have no idea whether they are guilty or not...whether this leaked evidence is credible,or whether it is being interpreted correctly...but I damn sure do not trust selectively released evidence leaked to a news organization, by an advocate for one of the sides in the trial...

[BrownOak]

209. Fair enough...

But that also means that you don't trust the DA when he says that he knows a crime has been committed, right?

[SaveElmer]

211. I don't trust anything but the evidence...

I wish the judge would just put a gag order on both sides. This shouldn't be played out in the media.

And I don't like pretrial demonizing of either side. I am very disturbed about many of the comments I see about the accuser even on this board. The clear intimation by many is that she was a stripper so she must be trying to scam these guys...not too far removed from just saying she deserved it.

I am in no way implying that you have said this at all...just what I have observed on some of these threads.

[Marie26]

246. I really, really wish

this judge would create a gag order in this case. The use of the media to start rumors & smears (especially by the defense) is out of hand, IMO.

[LostinVA]

253. Me too -- they usually do in cases like this

I'm very surprised it hasn't happened yet.

[bluestateguy]

188. I'm keeping an open mind in this case

I will not jump to the conclusion that these kids are guilty. Nor will I jump to the conclusion that the woman is making the whole thing up.

[greyl]

190. I agree with that.

Although I think it's fair to consider probabilities as alleged facts and evidence are released.
At the moment, I think the prosecution will have an extremely difficult time moving forward.

[NashVegas]

192. I Wish the Presiding Judge Would Place a Gag Order on Everyone

This has gotten beyond silly.

[greyl]

194. Yes, that would help a lot.

Media-hyped trials don't do justice to justice.

[BiggJawn]

201. A LITERAL gag on Grace and Cosby!

Stuff a sock in it, Nancy! You too, Rita!

[FredScuttle]

203. No one can gag the Flaming Nostrils of Justice!

[LisaL]

204. I am just amazed how many people would just assume these

men are guilty, without any evidence to indicate it might be so.
WTF should they prove their innocence? The DA is supposed to prove they are guilty, and so far, I would say, he did a disgusting job of proving anything.
DA is facing an election, and I am pretty sure he thinks this case is going to clinch it for him. Yet his words are accepted here as some sort of gospel.

[genie_weenie]

212. When you are faced by the State

you must remember that the seriousness of this Charge puts your life in peril. Please read this confession and sign it. Once you have accepted your guilt and admit you are against the Righteous Party can you be redeemed. Deny and you must be purified by exile and possible death.

Do you confess?

I swear reading some of the theories about DNA doesn't matter (once it was negative), stonewalling by the players, witnesses and alibis being suspect, falsified photos and ATM time stamps, LaCrosse conspiracies, Durham police showing up and "asking" for cooperation and statements as an end around the players lawyers and shrill quit attacking the victim or else, I expect a Soviet Tribunal to appear and threaten those who do not agree 'She was raped by the 3 White, Privileged Duke Racists' as party gospel, with exile to the gulag, for 10 years hard labor.

I would think progressives would be attempting to curb the abuses by the State and incompetence of Nifong and his obvious pandering to his voters by going after those damn privileged bastards who are not folk (they are from out of town) and thus suspect.

[LisaL]

222. Exactly. Most repukes would be jealous as hell of

some of posters here on DU. There is no evidence that these men are guilty of anything.
Yet they apparently haven't proven it to some people's satisfaction. Well, for one, it's the DA who is supposed to prove guilt, and not the defendants that are supposed to prove their innocence.

[Hosnon]

216. I agree. Has everyone in this liberal democracy forgotten where the burden

of proof lies?

[mike923]

218. People get wrapped up in the story and sterotypes....

you have the classic 80's movie script of the rich white guys versus the poor minority, and one can often be predispositioned to rooting for an outcome like one would when watching a movie. Facts sometimes get in the way.

[Hosnon]

219. Pesky facts...I hear Bush hates 'em too. I say we junk the courts! nt

[LostinVA]

254. No, we just don't like seeing a raped woman mocked and smeared

Because she was raped. The SANE's exam shows that.

Maybe you could put some of your outrage to posters saying sometimes it's okay to rape women, and as long as the rapist gets pleasurable from it, it's sex not rape. Huh? Why not? Is it easy just to post here and call the woman a liar? Because you just did -- "facts get in the way." The woman was RAPED. YOU need to get that fact straight. Now, we need to see if the two players are the rapists, and if they are, they need to be convicted.

[mike923]

264. Yes, i'm calling the woman a liar...

She said was 100% certain one of the boys who was arrested raped her. It took the guy less than a day from being arrested to prove without any doubt that he wasn't there.

So yes, she's without a doubt a liar in my book.

[LostinVA]

266. What evidence? I haven't see any evidence

I'v eheard Defense spin. I'll wait until the trial to see what the alibi evidence says, because all they have is one of the guys away from the house during part of the evening, but part of it overlaps when the dancers were there. We'll see.

But, apparently their PR spin is working, huh? You fell for it hook, line, and sinker. They'd love you on the jury.

And, the woman isn't lying about being raped. Unless you think the SANE is a liar, too.

You are the one with the closed-mind. I'm willing to say that in the confusion and trauma of rape and being in a house with 50 drunken men who were calling one an other jersey numbers and false names, an ID mistake could have happened. But that fucking doesn't make her a LIAR. The players, however, did lie about a lot of stuff that night, even before the dancers arrived. So, they are liars that evening, no matter what else happened.

[mike923]

269. By the same notion...

you haven't seen the SANE report, nor any evidence proving she was raped. Which you concluded happened with certianty.

[Marie26]

292. The DA's warrant

confirms that the SANE nurse & physician found injuries consistent with rape when they examined her in the emergency room. Unless you believe the DA is lying about that, it seems pretty clear that the woman was assaulted by someone.

[zann725]

225. According to MSNBC, LC Players fled house3 minutes after 911 call

Who's to say the cell phone was NOT being used by the one suspect as he "waited" his place in line in the gang rape...or that his phone was used by a friend. (Friends often borrow other's cell phones for a call or two.) Also a friend" could've used his credit card to go buy beer, etc. (Anyone who posts $400,000 bond CASH, is not tightly "glued" to his credit cards.)

Also, if the rape was pre-medidated (which I believe it was), this all could've been planned, knowingingly or UNknowingly by those who used his phone or card. If ALL the Players left the house as quickly (3 min.) after rape as MSNBC reported last evening, the suspect could've placed a call or visited an ATM either moments before OR after the rape.

Re: the suspect who had an altercation last year about accusations of being "gay," what better motivation to prove he was NOT gay...than rape a woman. And NOT just sex...RAPE.

Like a D.A. said last night, Defense does NOT disclose specific "alibi's" this early in the case UNLESS they FEEL guilty...since alibis fall-apart easily, not a good idea to "show one's cards so soon." (Remember, O.J. Simpson "conveniently" planned a trip to Chicago the morning AFTER his wife's murder...where (at the airport) it is strongly suspected he stashed the murder weapons in trash cans there.) Plus his plans (alibi) made him look pre-occupied elsewhere...then the murder of his wife.)

Re: the indicted Duke players....must be nice to have access to $400,000 CASH within hours. Clearly guys with access to "anything" they want...WHEN they want it. Isn't that the definition of "Rape?"

[DonkeyPunch]

226. it all makes sense now

Aaaaaahhhh, it all seems plausible now!

While Seligman waited in line for his turn at the rape train, he placed several calls. He then gave someone his credit card to go out and get beer. Then Seligman's deli number came up, he entered the bathroom and brutally raped the escort in 10 minutes, leaving none of his own DNA. He probably used a broomstick with a condom attached, then buried the condom so that the police wouldn't find it.

He then immediately left, calmly stopped by the ATM, called his girlfriend, presumably to tell her how proud he was of being fourth in line to rape a stripper. Then he got takeout Bojangles and called it a night because he had a public policy seminar at 9:10.

[superconnected]

235. or maybe they took turns raping her and he was first.

who really knows.

I bet the defense will say anything while they are trying to get it thrown out of court - which their lawyer said he is trying to do.

then he doesn't have to prove it, does he.

Betcha all he really has to do is significantly discredit the victim because of her history, or find a technicality where the police broke the law proceederally, or maybe some papers weren't filed correct, or maybe something the da says publiclly that throws the investigation from being fair. So much can happen. When I worked at a court house 3 years ago, we had a case thrown out becaues a witness flew to spain and the city of Seattle couldn't afford to fly her back and her lawyer deemed they had to for her to testify. Judges can choose to throw out any court case. And judges are elected officials. Just like the mayor who resides over the police. Gotta love how the politicians and elected officials are in with the rich. Anyway, too much could happen here to speculate. Whether the kids did it or not, influence goes a long way.

If she was raped, I don't believe she would have a rats chance in hell. If she wasn't, she still doesn't.

[BrownOak]

243. Throwing things out

I bet the defense will say anything while they are trying to get it thrown out of court - which their lawyer said he is trying to do.

then he doesn't have to prove it, does he.

I'm not sure I understand the methodology behind making a claim that would get the case thrown out of court but not having to prove that claim was true. Can they do it by just saying that nobody was at the house that night? Would that be enough?

Betcha all he really has to do is significantly discredit the victim because of her history, or find a technicality where the police broke the law proceederally, or maybe some papers weren't filed correct, or maybe something the da says publiclly that throws the investigation from being fair. So much can happen.

You mean a technicality like interviewing the players without their attorneys after the police knew they were represented?
Or a technicality like using a photo lineup without any fillers?
Or using photos of the suspects without their shirts on so the alleged victim could identify her attackers by looking for those with scratches?
Or the DA saying things publicly like "I feel pretty confident that a rape occurred?"

[superconnected]

283. They can make any public claims they want - ie he wasn't present.

Those claims do not have to be what they hope will get the case thrown out of court. They can save face of the victim by making claims while they are trying to get the case thrown out of court for other reasons.

If they have real proof this guy was not there, then that's a good reason to get the charges dismissed agaisnt the guy. However the lawyer didn't say he was trying to get the charges dismissed, he said he's trying to get it thrown out of court. That leaves it wide open for how he will proceed. Seems like they'd have had the charges dropped it by now, if there was real evidence their client wasn't present.

They will likely settle out of court - pay off the victim, whether or not she is a victim, and not have to back anything they say.

[Marie26]

294. What they should have done

If they really, truly, had records that totally exonerate the suspect, they should have gone to the prosecutor w/the evidence & asked him to drop the charges. The prosecutor has a duty to drop the charges if exonerating evidence is found. But they didn't do that. Instead, they went to the media w/spun, over-hyped claims of an "alibi". Which makes me think that the real audience for this "alibi" is not the prosecutor, but the public. Defense attorneys are under a duty, by the way, not to give misleading evidence or false information to the opposing party. No such duty exists when giving info to the public.

[LostinVA]

255. Dude! I bet Duke will let you out of your letter of intent

I know it would suck for you to be a Tarheel... but I hear Syracuse has a great team. Go ORANGE!

[onenote]

227. being able to post bail is the same as rape? wow!

By the way, who said that they had access to $400,000 in cash. Typically, bail can be made through a bondsman with 10 percent of the stated amount; in some instances you can put up property as a surety.

with respect to the cell phone -- are you suggesting that the suspect gave the phone to a friend and he used it to call the suspect's girlfriend?

And while I don't know whether the alibi evidence is reliable or not, if you are going to try to rebut it at least try to be accurate about it. The way it has been described, there is evidence suggesting that one of the suspects left the house before 12:20 and didn't return. So,I'm not really sure what your point about everyone leaving the house after the 12:53 am 911 call has to do with the suspects.

The fact is that we don't know the details about who claims to have been where, doing what, at any particular time, and won't unless and until the case is brought to trial.

onenote

[northzax]

244. and there's the cabbie

who is saying, publically, that he took this guy to the ATM, and the store, then back to his dorm, during the time frame of the rape? I sure hope, if a rape occured, that this guy did it, and will be convicted, otherwise the real rapist (s) (remember, we're still missing one) is going to get away with it.

[LostinVA]

257. We don't know the timeline of anything yet

Northzax, I know you have told people not to prejudge the evidence yet, and I respect that. But you're doing that here too. The only "evidence," including timeline we have, is from the Defense. That isn't evidence, it's spin and PR. The evidence will come out in the trial.

Right now, the only TRUE evidence we know is when the Wal-Mart guard called 911 and that there is medical evidence the woman was raped. We also have the second woman's interview, which isn't legal evidence either... it just negates most of the Defense's spin.

I wish the judge would gag everyone ASAP.

[northzax]

260. well, the DA has said

that she left the party and was lured back in. And there are time stamped photos that detail that. And there is strong evidence that one of the accused men was not there at that time.

my one fear is not that the wrong person will be convicted, but that the wrong person has been accused, and that therefore the actual rapist may be getting away with it. The DA better have some seious cards he hasn't played yet, or someone got away with Rape. and that pisses me off.

[LostinVA]

261. The photos aren't evidence yet and neither is the alibi

The "alibi" is only a partial one. We do NOT know the timeline yet. We only have what the Defense says is the timeline.

[BrownOak]

263. By that standard,

the SANE exam isn't evidence yet either.

[onenote]

270. exactly --

I haven't seen the medical exam results and I daresay neither has anyone else commenting on this. In fact, as far as I know, the only "official" documentation of any point in the timeline is that, according to the March 16 search warrant application, the police were called to a Kroger parking lot at 1:22 am where they found the accuser. That's it. And, by the way, since none of us has seen the medical examiner's report, the statement that we have "TRUE" evidence that there is medical evidence that the woman was raped is quite an overstatement. Not only haven't we seen the report, but the descriptions of it indicate that it finds injuries consistent with rape, not that a rape occurred. If we're going to hold off on treating the defense statements as credible until the evidence is revealed, so too should we hold off on treating the prosecution's statements as credible.

onenote

[LostinVA]

280. I have two nurses in my family, and what you say isn't true

Both have done rape kits, my mother on probably 500 children over her career. They both said you NEVER say a rape has occurred, you ALWAYS say "consistent with rape." That is medical protocol. Even with little three-year-old girls completely ripped open by their stepfather's rape.

The DA hasn't said this, btw, it's what the SANE's rape exam said, as per Duke Hospital.

[onenote]

288. are you saying that 100% of the time the injuries are consistent with rape

that is "True" evidence that a rape occurred? That its never the case where the medical findings are that the injuries are "consistent with rape" but the jury concludes that no rape occurred?

onenote

[Marie26]

308. Not the same thing

at all. The nurse simply has to determine if the injuries show that a rape, in her opinion, has occured. She can't say that a rape HAS occured (she was not an eye-witness to the crime), she can only say that the injuries are "consistent with a rape" (based on her first-hand medical examination). The jury has to then determine if a specific person is responsible for that rape. One is a medical opinion & one is a legal determination.

[BrownOak]

313. Two points

1. I agree, and can support it, that the SANE nurses are not supposed to use the word "rape" and if they do, their findings cannot be admitted into evidence. Hence the words, "consistent with sexual assault/trauma/etc. However, is it your position that these findings are 100% accurate? Is it possible that the assessment from the SANE nurse is open to interpretation? Speaking hypothetically so as nobody can assume I'm trying to smear the victim, but is it possible that someone can suffer such injuries in a non-rape situation?

2. I also agree with you that the jury has to determine if a specific person is responsible for that rape. But doesn't that essentially say that citing the SANE exam as an indictment of an individual is misleading? Essentially if you accept the findings of the SANE exam on their face - without any review from other sources - then you still have to show that it happened at a specific location and was committed by a specific individual(s). So if the defense can establish that a named defendant did not have opportunity to commit the crime, replying with the findings from the SANE exam is meaningless.

[LostinVA]

324. Exactly right -- per medical and legal protocol, she can't say a rape

occurred. She wasn't a primary witness to the crime. She uses forensics and experience to determine if this has happened. My mom has also down rape kits on older teenagers, whose bodies are basically mature, and she says the tissue injuries and bruising are appalling. And, this would be for a rape that didn't involve more than one person or a beating. She said there is NO WAY you could confuse rape injuries with sex injuries.

Per my mom (I just called her): SANE's are considered expert court witnesses for rape evidence in NC.

[onenote]

337. Apparently there is a way to confuse rape injuries and sex injuries

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_244094915.html

Medical experts testified that a Sandy teenager who said she was raped by Brigham Young University football players a year ago suffered injuries that were consistent with her story but also could have resulted from consensual sex. Dr. Sandra Garrard said she found bruises, scrapes and small lacerations on the girl the day after the alleged rape.

But under cross-examination Garrard conceded the injuries also could have resulted from consensual sex.

``So it's up for grabs isn't it?'' defense attorney Dean Zabriskie asked.
``Absolutely,'' Garrard answered.
(SNIP)
Susan Chasson, a sexual assault expert, supported Garrard's findings, and agreed that the injuries could have come from either rape or consensual sex."

To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying she wasn't raped. And if someone wants to say that they believe she was raped based on the fact that the SANE nurse found that her injuries were consistent with rape, I have no problem with that either.

But it simply is not true that if a medical expert concludes a woman has suffered injuries consistent with rape there is "no way" that it can be anything other than rape.

onenote

On edit: the fact that the BYU students were acquitted may well have been a miscarriage of justice and I'm not defending the verdict. Just pointing out that a medical expert's finding of injuries consistent with rape doesn't preclude that same expert, or other experts, from concluding that the same evidence also is consistent with consensual sex. We simply don't have enough information yet.

[Marie26]

353. But there's no consent defense here

If they were trying a consent defense, that might have some relevance. But in this case, the players are claiming no sex at all occured, so that wouldn't be very relevant here.

[onenote]

354. it could be relevant if someone else had consensual sex with her

Not saying that is the case in this situation. Just making the point that a medical opinion regarding the presence of injuries "consistent with rape" is not positive proof that a rape has occurred, as some have suggested.

onenote

[Marie26]

358. It's as close as you're going to find

Onenote, I know you say that you are trying to simply evaluate the evidence in an unbiased way, but on this point, you're way off. The SANE nurse found that the victim's injuries were consistent w/being sexually assaulted vaginally, anally & orally. That is exactly what the victim is saying happened at the lacrosse house, and it is highly probative evidence.

You've posted a cross-examination from a totally different case, w/totally different evidence, as if it can be applied here. Cross-examination is not medical truth - in that particular case, the lawyer simply got the doctor to say that the injuries in that particular case could have also been evidence of consensual sex. Those injuries are totally different than the injuries in this case, and involve forming a totally different medical opinion. If a SANE nurse admits at trial that these particular injuries could be a result of consensual sex, that's relevant. That has not happened here. The SANE nurse here could just as easily state at trial that there's no way these particular injuries could be consensual. The only medical evidence presented so far indicates that a sexual assault occured - and based on the nature, extent, and brutality of these injuries, it seems unlikely that these injuries could be consensual. Unless the nurse says otherwise at trial, the medical opinion at this point does indicate an assault occured.

SANE evidence is not 100% positive proof that a rape occured - because nothing is 100% positive proof until someone is convicted for the crime. The nurse is restricted from saying that a rape occured because that is a legal opinion, as I've stated above. Even if she is 100% certain a rape occured, she can only say the injuries are "consistent w/rape," because that is her medical observation. W/o a trial, it's as close as you're going to get to positive proof of a sexual assault.

[onenote]

363. so we are in agreement

that to the extent that LostinVA's statement that "there is NO WAY you could confuse rape injuries with sex injuries" was made as a general declaration about SANE evidence, not the specific evidence in this case, it was not an accurate statement.

As you point out, whether there is any way that the injuries in this case could be the result of something other than forcible rape is something that can't be known until expert witnesses are examined and cross-examined.

onenote

[Marie26]

385. Basically

As a general declaration, yes, although in this specific case, I agree w/her comment. Basically, there is no way to know for sure if other possibilities exist until the SANE nurse testifies. In the same fashion, for you to claim right now that the injuries in this case could be consensual is also incorrect.

[onenote]

386. There is a difference between saying consistent with rape means rape

no ifs ands or buts (which is essentially what LostinVA has been saying) and saying that that a finding of consistent with rape in this case doesn't, at this point in time, rule out the possibility that the facts giving rise to that finding also could turn out to be consistent with consensual sex. THe first statement is incorrect since it is established that a finding of consistent with rape and consistent with consensual sex are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The second statement is correct for the same reason.

onenote

[Marie26]

387. That isn't correct

Why do you insist on splitting hairs on this? The medical finding, right now, is that the injuries are consistent w/rape (not consensual sex). It is possible that the nurse could change her mind on that, & state that the injuries could also be consensual (based on these injuries, I find that highly unlikely). But she has not done so. Right now, the medical opinion is that these injuries are consistent w/rape, not consent. The two ARE mutually exclusive, that's my point. The SANE nurse may change that opinion on cross, but that is the medical opinion as it stands now. Therefore, for you to claim that these injuries might be consensual contradicts the official medical opinion. I suppose you could construct some sophistry in which the nurse could hypothetically change that opinion at some hypothetical point based on some hypothetical future cross-examination, but I'm not sure why it is so important for you to do so.

[onenote]

388. I'm afraid you're the one splitting hairs

The findings now are that the injuries are consistent with rape. As far as any of us know, the findings are absolutely silent on whether those same injuries also are or could be consistent with consensual sex. Your statement that "the medical opinion is that these injuries are consistent with rape, not consent" is simply untrue. While I have not seen the report, if that is what it said, I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it. And as the BYU case testimony establishes, medical experts can and sometimes do testify with respect to particular injuries that a determination that those injuries are "consistent with rape" is not mutually exclusive with a determination that those same injuries are consistent with consensual sex. The SANE nurse doesn't have to "change" her opinion on cross, she simply has to say, as did the experts in the BYU case, that the injuries consistent both with rape and with consensual sex. WHether she gives that testimony, or testifies that no, these particular injuries could not have occurred in consensual sex is something that we won't know unless and until there is a trial.

Why is this important? Because some people are insisting that there has been a definitive finding that a rape occurred. That may well turn out to be the case, but we absolutely don't know that as yet since the question of whether the same injuries might also be consistent with consensual sex hasn't been asked or answered. (I should add that if anyone is asserting that the injuries in this case are also consistent with consensual sex, they are equally misguided. We simply don't know whether they are or aren't. If I have ever given the impression that I "know" that they are, I apologize,but I think I've been careful not to say that.

onenote

edited for clarity

[LostinVA]

356. And, if they are indeed the guilty parties, saying this wasn't very smart

I said that as soon as this case broke: this would hurt them at trial if there was medical evidence of rape. Proving it was consensual sex could possibly have been easier for them (even if it wasn't consensual sex in reality).

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

364. Just thinking out loud

I've "heard" that sometimes strippers in performance of their act use devices resembling a male bodypart. Certainly the repeated use of such a device(s) could cause some of the trauma that could incorrectly lead a medical examiner to the conclusion that they have arrived....

Does anyone know if this was the 1st performance of the day/night.

[LostinVA]

367. You have seriously got to be kidding me

I think you're confusing strippers with porn stars,. firstly. Secondly, a dildo doesn't cause "injuries consistent with rape."

A totally distasteful comment.

[BrownOak]

228. It's hard to argue with that, uh... logic

But if the rape was premeditated, why invite two escorts and only assault one? I mean, why have that witness around if you've planned this thing out to the detail of having someone use your ATM card and cell phone while you're waiting in line?

As for proving you're not gay by raping a dancer, uh, you are aware that it was the lacrosse player who was hurling the word "gay" around like it was an insult in that assault case, right?

[Codeine]

239. Cash?

Most people put up collateral, like a house or car, for a bail bond. And even if he did have the money, does that point -- in any way *at all* -- to his likely guilt or innocence?

What an utterly specious posting.

[mountainvue]

273. They posted $800,000

CASH bail.

[mondo joe]

245. Did you just say having access to bail money = rape?

[LostinVA]

256. That's not what Marie said

Her point is that if you have a mindset that you can have/get anything you want anytime you want.... that is also the mindset of a rapist.

[mondo joe]

259. Are we ready to apply that to anyone and everyone who has the

ability to post bail within 24 hours, because that's the context of its usage here.

[LostinVA]

262. No, she mentioned 400k

Which is a big bond, and one that many "ordinary" people couldn't easily afford just by going to a bank.

[mondo joe]

291. That's what Bondsmen are for. And if having that access means

you think like a rapist, then we have a lot of rapist-like people.

Oprah Winfrey?

Ted Kennedy?

Ann Richards?

[BrownOak]

267. Continually amazed at the double standards....

Her point is that if you have a mindset that you can have/get anything you want anytime you want.... that is also the mindset of a rapist.

Does this mean that we can find out something about the alleged victim, twist that to support whatever conclusion we would like, and then open it up to speculate about the mindset of someone who would falsely accuse someone of rape?

For someone who has been very vocal about people "smearing the victim" you have no problem supporting someone when they smear people who have yet to be convicted.

[onenote]

268. it wasn't marie's comment -- and its an ugly thought

It was Zann725. And why is the ability to make bail equivalent to the ability to "have/get anything you want anytime you want"? The bail was set at $400K -- that means it probably was met by putting up cash or property valued at $40K. A lot of money? Sure, but if having access to $40K in cash or property makes one's mindset the equivalent of a rapist's, there are a shitload of folks (including a shitload on DU) that have the mindset of a rapist.

Ugly ugly way of thinking.

onenote

[mountainvue]

274. It was $800,000 in the form of two cashier's

checks according to a televised interivew with a police officer who was present at the time.
They were not bonded out of jail. They posted bail.

[LostinVA]

282. Comparing people sticking up for the victim to rapists?

Ugly, ugly way of thinking.

LIV Note

Your posts are annoying the fuck out of mer. You keep talking about "oh... we have to wait for evidence..." but slam the accuser's case at every corner and act as booster for the accused.

Ignore. Your posts aren't worth my trouble anymore.

[onenote]

296. who did that?

Someone said that having the ability to make a high bail was the equivalent of having a rapist's mindset -- the ability to get whatever they want, whenever they want it.

I merely pointed out that there are loads of people who have the ability to make high bail and suggesting that they have the mindset of a rapist is a very ugly thought.

Sorry if you disagree.

onenote

[Marie26]

295. No, it wasn't

I don't think that the ability to make a $400,000 bond proves anything about whether they are guilty or not. It does show that they are probably wealthy, but we already knew that, & it's not really relevant to the case. But the poster did mention one thing that I've always found highly suspicious. That party cleared out incredibly quickly. The dancers left sometime after 12:45, & the second dancer made a 911 call at 12:53. By the time police arrive at 12:55, 2 minutes after the call, the house is completely empty, the lights are turned off, & no one answers the door. According to the next-door neighbor, he saw the dancers speed off at about 12:45-12:50, while a party-goer yells racial insults at them. He says that the 30+ men inside then started streaming out & he hears one person say "guys, let's go, let's go, let's go," repeatedly. Within minutes, they are all gone. Usually, a party will have stragglers, or people spending the night, or owners cleaning up the mess for awhile. This house goes from 30+ people to abandoned in 10 minutes. That usually only happens when people know police are coming. Why would they think police are coming if they'd done nothing wrong?

[BrownOak]

315. Previous experience...

Well, it's not like these guys are a bunch of great neighbors. The cops have been to that house a bunch... I'm sure everyone read the reports early on when the media was trying to show just how little regard they had for their neighbors. They just had a party that spilled out into the streets with lots of yelling and noise. Why would they think the police are coming? Maybe because they've been there before and handed out citations for alcohol and noise violations.

[Marie26]

352. Why then?

The party was going on w/a lot of yelling & noise since at least 11:00. They didn't seem to care. Suddenly, at 12:50, it becomes some sort of emergency & everyone clears out in 5 minutes. I just think it's odd, that's all.

[LostinVA]

322. ho ho ho -- I haven't heard that until right now

Very interesting... the trial will be very interesting, I think.

[mountainvue]

272. I'd be interested to know who coughed up

$800,000 in bail money for these two defendents.

[BrownOak]

318. Their parents...

You can find it on Smoking Gun or a bunch of other places. Their parents are rich you know... it's one of the reasons these guys must be guilty.

If you didn't know they were rich you must have missed the "let's fan the classism" journalism that followed the arrests when MSM made sure to weave into the story the million dollar homes abutting golf courses.

[mountainvue]

327. $800,000 is a lot of money to have

laying around. I'll reread the Smoking gun story as I missed that the first time around.

[mountainvue]

329. Actually there is no information as to who

posted their bail that I can find on the Smoking Gun. Do you have a link?

[VirginiaDem]

233. another plausible possibility

How can we make everybody here on this progressive forum happy? We have competing progressive themes of supporting rape victims v. innocent until proven guilty. This DU fight is getting ugly. I have no idea what happened--I think that it is perfectly plausible that these guys did it and their defense team is essentially spreading rumors and I think it is also perfectly plausible that these guys didn't do it and the DA has f'ed up royally and everyone is rushing to judgment, etc.

Aren't both arguments in reality possible? The woman was raped but the DA is accusing the wrong guy or even guys? This (or something close to it) seems to me to be the most Okham's Razor-friendly explanation. It allows for the nurse's assessment to be accurate and it allows for the ABC report to be valid.

[superconnected]

234. I think their attorney nailed it when he said he's trying to get it

thrown out of court.

I think the DA is keeping mum because of that. If he lets anything out the defense could cry foul and it could sour the trial.

Most likely - since at least one of these two poor accused rich kids spent all day with his dad planning strategdys in the elite law film representing over a dozen of the lax players, I suspect they will get it thrown out. And we will never really know what the truth is - wether they did or didn't rape her.

[VirginiaDem]

236. Here are the crucial puzzle pieces to me

If these guys didn't do it, then who did and when? The medical reports seem pretty definitive that sexual assault occured.

On the other hand, why the negative DNA tests? Sure, they could have used condoms but where did the DNA sample they're comparing to come from? If the DA's got a DNA sample and no one on the lacrosse team matches it, then whose is it and under what circumstances was it found?

[sendero]

258. Of course...

... you are exactly correct. As opinionated as I am, and that's a lot, I'm not going to form any opinions based on comments from the DA or the defense. It is all a media game, nothing said has to be true at all, or could be as true as the "16 words", i.e. ostensibly based on some fact but mostly unfounded conclusion based on flimsy fact, nobody is under oath.

As fascinating as cases like this might be to some, everyone will have to wait for a trial. Then, there is a potential, but no guarantee, to learn the truth.

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

271. c'mon give us that link for the 40% stat, because it;'s a hilarious one.

why is it all of a sudden okay to use Fox news or discredited RW "Manpower" websites as sources?
what a fucking joke. all of a sudden no oe has standards.

[mountainvue]

275. Only 5-7% of rape accusations

are estimated to be fraudulent.

[DonkeyPunch]

279. cab driver

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1864425&page=1&gma=true&gma=true

So if what the cab driver is true, which it obviously isn't because he's not black, then Seligman is the quickest, cleanest, and most composed rapist in the history of raping.

[LostinVA]

285. Yo! Dude, you keep posting this stuff that makes no sense!

Lots of overlap time there, dude, and no timeline yet known. Get out of your letter of intent yet?

[FredScuttle]

287. ahem

From yesterday's Durham Herald-Sun:

(snip)
"The Herald-Sun could not corroborate the claim that Seligmann summoned a cab on the night in question. All 12 of the taxicab companies serving Durham contacted by The Herald-Sun on Tuesday said they did not dispatch a driver to 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on the night of the alleged incident.

Bell Belahouel is owner and operator of the Safe Ride company, which allows Duke students to pay using an account tied to their student IDs. Belahouel said his records show both the indicted students have used his service before, but not on March 13. Belahouel, who said Mondays are usually pretty quiet, said his phone records show no calls whatsoever were made to his business between 6:04 p.m. March 13 and 8:06 a.m. March 14.

Belahouel also said he called all of his drivers who worked that night and that none of them remembered going to Buchanan Boulevard."

link to article: http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-725876.html

Gee...I wonder if the writer of the article and the interns who made the phone calls weren't black either...

[mountainvue]

297. Wow. So who was the cabbie

that picked this kid up? Who did he work for? the more that comes out about this case the more questions I have.

[FredScuttle]

300. Maybe he's a gypsy cab driver

who knows...this is going to be pivotal when we get to the trial.

[mountainvue]

306. The article that I just linked to says he owns the cab company.

It also says he picked them up at the house. And yet, the Herald-Sun article says no cab companies went to that address that night. Either the journo's have the facts mixed up or someone is lying.

[fishnfla]

299. ?

The cabbie has the kids # on his sprint cell phone record=he did not call dispatch?

The were picked up at the corner of 2 other streets, not Buchanen St

[FredScuttle]

301. That raises a couple questions for me

1)They didn't mention which cab company this guy drives for...maybe he is a gypsy driver, because if he's taking calls on his own (i.e. fares calling him direct on his cell and him not reporting the fare to dispatch), the company would have his ass.

2) I've never heard of a cab company (or cab driver) who picks up a phone fare from a street corner, rather than a legitimate address with a phone number. Mostly for the cabbie's safety.

[mountainvue]

307. It is odd for a cabbie to pick a fare up

on the street. I'm sensing they're going to have credibility problems with this witness.

[FredScuttle]

316. It's odd to pick up a phone fare

I don't think it's unusual for a cab to pick up a random fare who hails a taxi, but whenever I've called for a cab, I've had to give a street address and a phone # for that address.

[mountainvue]

304. Weird.

Mostafa said he picked up Seligmann and a friend at 610 North Buchanan Blvd. at 12:19 a.m. He said he could tell that Seligmann had been drinking, but that he didn't appear drunk.

(snip)

Less than an hour after he says he picked up Seligmann and a friend, Mostafa says he got another call -- at around 1:07 a.m. March 14 -- to pick up people at the same North Buchanan address.

He said he saw about 20 people on the lawn of the home, "yelling, talking back" to each other, including one African-American woman who he said didn't appear to be injured.

Four men got into the taxi, Mostafa said, and they appeared to be drunk.

One of them said, "She's just a stripper," Mostafa quoted.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/duke.rape/index.html

[Marie26]

314. That can't be right

The police came to the home at 12:55 and found the house completely abandoned & empty, w/the lights turned off. No one was there & no one answered the door when police knocked. Yet, this cabbie comes at 1:07 & sees 20 people on the home's lawn, yelling & talking back to each other? (How did the next door neighbor miss this? Bissey said the guys had all left before 1:00.) The cabbie also sees an uninjured African-American woman, even though the two dancers had already left the house by 12:53 (according to photos, neighbor's testimony, & the 911 call). The cabbie then supposedly picks up four drunk partygoers at this same address where no one had been 10 minutes before.

So, let's see, 30+ people are at the house at 12:45, all magically dissappear at 12:55, and then 20+ people magically reappear on the same house lawn 10 minutes later? (w/o the neighbor noticing) So The African-Americans dancers who sped off before 12:50 have also now magically reappeared on the house lawn at 1:07? That makes no sense at all. I think he's lying.

[LostinVA]

326. Curiouser and curiouser

I'm not a big cop lover, but I tend to believe their timeline (and the 911 dispatcher's) over this unknown cabbie.... if he is doing some freelancing in the company's cab, his ass is grass...

[Moosepoop]

334. He does own the company, Any Time Taxi.

The owner and driver that night is named Moez Mostafa. He does have a computerized phone log that shows a call coming in from Seligmann's cell phone number at 12:14, matching Seligmann's story. But there's no written log, nothing to verify what time or where the cab ride began, where it went, distance traveled to calculate the fare... nothing but the statements (written and verbal) of the owner/operator. I smell fish.

[onenote]

338. I agree with you. Cabbie's story has holes.

[Moosepoop]

330. I think he's lying, too.

Maybe the "visit" he got from Seligmann's father (and Seligmann himself) had something to do with it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/20/national/main1517113_page2.shtml

Mostafa said he didn't realize his first customers had anything to do with the case until an attorney telephoned him a week or so ago. He told the Herald-Sun of Durham that he was initially reluctant to talk but changed his mind after a visit from Seligmann's father.

"I didn't want to get involved, but when his father came and said it was a really serious situation, I talked to them," he told the newspaper.

Wonder what that conversation entailed?

[mountainvue]

331. Holy crap! The defendant's father

contacted the witness in order to produce an alibi for his son? I guess he must have drained more than $400,000 out of his bank account for that little excursion.

[Marie26]

341. Whoo!

I wonder if it entailed some money? The funny part is how it seemed to go directly from the father to ABC News (who got the initial "scoop"). ABC News now has an "update" on the cabbie's story. He's now "remembered" more information about the case. According to this "update", the cabbie is now showing ABC News his phone w/an incoming call from Seligmann at 12:14. The thing is, this contradicts the defense's own previous "evidence". They had also shown ABC Seligmann's cell phone records from that night, and it DOES NOT show any call to a cabbie - ABC only confirmed a call to his girlfriend at 12:25, & two other later calls. It doesn't mention this 12:14 call. OK, at the time, that was odd - the cabbie call should be the linchpin of Seligmann's alibi. But you could argue that maybe Seligmann used someone else's phone. But now, this cabbie says he got the 12:14 call from Seligmann's OWN cell phone, yet there is no record of this 12:14 call on Seligmann's cell phone records that ABC reviewed. Somebody's lying. And I'm starting to understand why Seligmann's own attorney wouldn't talk to the press about this "explosive alibi" - they wanted to maintain plausible deniablity if the press/prosecutor learns the cabbie is lying. I do believe tampering with witnesses is a crime.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1864425&page=1

[BrownOak]

342. Not at all accurate and really hypocritical

First, I have to ask again, why is it OK to speculate about the father bribing a witness but not to speculate about the alleged victim? If someone were to post a similar speculation about the woman, wouldn't you consider this smearing her?

Secondly, the original story from ABC in their initial scoop yesterday stated these things:

*By 12:25 a.m., he was making a phone call to a girlfriend out of state.

*By 12:24 a.m., a receipt reviewed by ABC indicates that Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank. In a written statement to the defense also reviewed by ABC, a cabdriver confirms picking up Seligmann and a friend a block and a half from the party, and driving them to the bank. By 12:25 a.m., he was making a phone call to a girlfriend out of state.


*ABC News traced the steps of Seligmann's story, timing how long it took to get from place to place. In repeated trials, the drive between the Wachovia branch and the corner where the cab picked him up took approximately five minutes. This suggests that Seligmann must have left the house by around 12:19 a.m.

*So, Seligmann's alibi suggests, he and the alleged victim were in the house together for less than 20 minutes.

*Within those same minutes, phone bill records reviewed by ABC show that the defendant's cell phone made at least two outgoing calls.

You can find all of that right here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1

So what that article is saying is that the dancer and the suspect were in the house together from 12:19 back to around midnight. And during that time he made two outgoing phone calls. Additionally, I mentioned it to you yesterday that another article had referenced one of those calls at 12:14 going to the cabbie. That story is right here, the same place it was yesterday when I linked it for you: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4098661

Those calls that you're saying took place later are were the ones that are referenced in the original story, one of which is the 12:14 call to the cabbie.

So yesterday you were saying that the alibi was suspect because all anyone had seen was a single ATM receipt. You were incorrect then as I pointed out to you that ABC had seen the phone records, the ATM receipt, the records from the Duke dorm entry system, and the statement from the cabbie.

Today you're saying that the alibi is suspect because the father met with the cabbie and the cabbie suddenly remembered the call. Sorry, I meant to say "remembered." And now, if you bother to read the links before you start tossing out speculations about bribery, you'll see that's not the case at all.

So the next time you decide to pause from complaining about people smearing the "victim" (sorry, was that "smearing?") and take the time to put out some horseshit speculation about tampering with a witness, bribery, and plausible deni ability, you may wish to pause for just a moment to make sure you're at least reflecting upon what was actually printed.

[Marie26]

345. Nope

Have you noticed something in those ABC stories you like so much? There's no time-stamp on any record until the 12:24 ATM receipt & the 12:25 Seligmann cell phone call. If they have proof that Seligmann made a phone call to the cabbie at 12:14, why don't his cell phone records say that? ABC has seen the cell phone records, but they don't mention a record of any call to the cabbie, or show the time of any call at all until 12:25. They mention that cell phone records also show two other outgoing calls during "this period." What period, what time? It doesn't say. You keep mentioning an alleged 12:14 call, but you are forgetting something - the defense SHOWED ABC the 12:24 receipt & the 12:25 cell phone records, & they only SAY that earlier phone calls exist. If they really have cell phone records from 12:14, etc., why didn't they show those records to ABC? ABC has seen the cell phone records - why didn't ABC report the 12:14 call (as they did report a 12:25 call)? Wouldn't that help bolster the defense's claim of an alibi? The ABC "12:19" timing is meaningless - the defense will not state which bank branch the ATM receipt is from, so how is ABC able to track the distance between this "unknown" branch & the house? They can't. This could be from a branch 10 miles away, or it could be from the branch half a mile away. We simply do not know.

If this cab's report is not true (a definite possibility), there is nothing at all to show Seligman left the house until the 12:24 ATM visit. I have been very consistent in saying that this 12:24 ATM receipt, & the 12:25 cell phone call, it the only physical proof the defense has shown to prove this alibi. (dorm swipe at 12:45 is beyond the time-frame of the crime). The cabbie's story is only that, someone's story that may or may not be true. How do you explain the massive inconsistencies in this cabdriver's testimony? Why does the cabbie supposedly have a record of 12:14 call from Seligmann, when Seligmann's own cell phone does not? Why did Seligmann's father visit this cabbie shortly before he came forward to the press? I don't know if these suspects are guilty or not, but I was bothered when the defense started stooping to misleading & deceitful tactics in order to sway public opinion. The fact is that Seligmann's own attorney won't repeat this alibi - as I pointed out in my post yesterday, & instead, an attorney that doesn't even represent these suspects is the one who is pushing this alibi to the media. Why is that? The next time you believe everything the defense team is putting out whole-heartedly, in spite of their clear agenda, past misstatements, and history of twisting the evidence, you might want pause just a moment to make sure you're reflecting upon what is really known, instead of simply what the defense spins.

[BrownOak]

348. Let's look a little closer...

*****You state:
The ABC "12:19" timing is meaningless - the defense will not state which bank branch the ATM receipt is from, so how is ABC able to track the distance between this "unknown" branch & the house? They can't.

Maybe I'm just having trouble reading, but here's what the article states:

By 12:24 a.m., a receipt reviewed by ABC indicates that Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank. In a written statement to the defense also reviewed by ABC, a cabdriver confirms picking up Seligmann and a friend a block and a half from the party, and driving them to the bank.

That's also followed with:

ABC News traced the steps of Seligmann's story, timing how long it took to get from place to place. In repeated trials, the drive between the Wachovia branch and the corner where the cab picked him up took approximately five minutes.

Is it just me, or does it seem pretty clear that ABC news knows exactly where that ATM is since they named the freakin' bank and ran repeated trials between the street corner where the cabbie states he picked up the suspect and that location. Explain to me how you can possibly get out of this that the defense didn't name the location. Is it because ABC referred to it as "nearby" rather than give a street address?


*****You state:
They mention that cell phone records also show two other outgoing calls during "this period." What period, what time? It doesn't say.

Here's the text from the article:

This suggests that Seligmann must have left the house by around 12:19 a.m.

So, Seligmann's alibi suggests, he and the alleged victim were in the house together for less than 20 minutes. According to defense sources, based on the alleged victim's affidavit, all of the following would have transpired within that time period: She and her dance partner performed for several minutes, left after feeling threatened by the boys' growing "excited and aggressive," returned after being persuaded by team members to dance some more, and then she was forced into a bathroom, beaten and raped.

Within those same minutes, phone bill records reviewed by ABC show that the defendant's cell phone made at least two outgoing calls.

OK, now maybe you're not prepared to accept the theory that Seligmann was out of the party by 12:19 since ABC failed to give the street address of the bank and didn't provide a Mapquest route link. But it shouldn't seem unreasonable to assume that when ABC says "within those same minutes" they are referring to the period between 12:00 and 12:19. See, they say that they believe he left the house at 12:19 and earlier state that "around midnight the two women from a local escort agency arrived" and then they say his alibi suggests he was in the house with the alleged victim for less than 20 minutes, one can make the assumption that they're talking about the period from midnight to 12:19. So that means that the phone records they viewed showed two outgoing calls in that time frame, or to state it another way, "within those minutes."

*****You state:
If they have proof that Seligmann made a phone call to the cabbie at 12:14, why don't his cell phone records say that? ABC has seen the cell phone records, but they don't mention a record of any call to the cabbie, or show the time of any call at all until 12:25.

Well, it should be fairly clear by now that the phone records viewed by ABC did show calls that would fit in that time frame. Why ABC didn't list the exact time and to whom those calls were placed is probably the same reason that they didn't give the street address of the bank - they didn't think it was that important to the article. However, if you are still on the conspiracy train here and feel that because they didn't positively identify the call to the cabbie as one of the calls between 12:00 and 12:19, you can always go to the other article I provided and verify it there. Or you can keep your head in the sand and claim it doesn't exist and that the whole alibi is a fraud. Of course, if you do that, then you have to wonder why they didn't just go for the whole deal and give him an alibi that gets him out of there before the dancers arrive.


****You state
If this cab's report is not true (a definite possibility), there is nothing at all to show Seligman left the house until the 12:24 ATM visit.

Nothing except the transit time between the house and the bank, unless you're suggesting some sort of Star Trek transporter device.


****You state
I have been very consistent in saying that this 12:24 ATM receipt, & the 12:25 cell phone call, it the only physical proof the defense has shown to prove this alibi.

And you have been consistently wrong. There are also the cell phone calls between 12:00 and 12:19.


****You state
The cabbie's story is only that, someone's story that may or may not be true. How do you explain the massive inconsistencies in this cabdriver's testimony? Why does the cabbie supposedly have a record of 12:14 call from Seligmann, when Seligmann's own cell phone does not?

By that standard then, the alleged victim's story is only that; someone's story that may or may not be true. The only massive inconsistencies in the cabbie's story is in the minds of people who are so bent on this being a lie that they refuse to read with anything beyond a grade school level of attention. Seligmann's cell phone has two outgoing calls during that time span, the defense is claiming that one of them was a 12:14 call to the cabbie, and the cabbie has that call on his end.

So, in light of the "massive inconsistencies" in your theory, are you still ready to speculate that the father bribed the cabbie?

[Marie26]

382. Looking closer

Responding to your paragraphs in order:

- According to the Herald-Sun article, the defense is not releasing the location of the bank Seligmann used. The ATM receipt may or may not have an address, I don't know, but I suspect it does not. I find it very odd that the defense won't tell the media which branch he used. The general rule when dealing w/propaganda is: look at what they're not saying. The defense is not saying which branch he visited, or which restaurant he visited, & I want to know why.

ABC is NOT tracing the steps to the branch "in the ATM receipt," but instead tracing the "steps of Seligmann's story." OK, what story? Who is telling them where to go? Seligmann, the cabbie, the defense lawyers, ABC's own assumptions? If the ATM receipt shows the bank location, why isn't ABC referring to the receipt itself, instead of "Seligmann's story"? It seems like ABC is simply relying on the cabbie's own statement to figure out what bank branch he took Seligmann to. (They didn't get it from the defense, because the defense itself is not telling reporters which bank branch he used). The cabbie has already been contradicted & has made numerous errors in his statements - and we only have the cabbie's word that he drove Seligman to the bank. In addition, we only have the cabbie's statement that Seligmann visted a fast-food restaurant, & there's no receipt or record of that transaction either. We only have the cabbie's statement that Seligmann called the cab from his cell phone; there is no apparant record of this call in Seligmann's cell phone records. Can you see that there is nothing to back up the cabbie's statements? In your post, you did not answer my question about why the cabbie's statement has so much false information - can you explain those inconsistencies & misstatements? Let's take the cabbie's statement out for a moment & see what's left. A bank receipt, stamped 12:24, from an unspecified Wachovia Branch. Maybe it was the Wachovia Branch across town, & maybe it was the branch a few blocks from the house. W/o the cabbie's testimony, there's no way to be sure, because the defense is being very careful not to state this branch themselves.

- In law school, we're told to be very precise, because ambiguity can create misleading impressions. So I come back to this - why does ABC News say "this period", instead of stating the times of the calls? It's left ambiguous as to which time period they're referring to. You can infer 12-12:19 (as the defense would clearly like you to), but the times of those calls is not specified. ABC does specify the time of the 12:25 call, why not these other two calls? We can't assume anything - the times of the calls are not specified, so we do not know what time they were made. And you'll notice that ABC does not mention any record of a 12:14 call to a cabbie.

- I'm sorry, the time of the calls from 12-12:19 is highly relevant to the importance of this alibi information, & if ABC felt that the call times "weren't important to the story", they're just bad journalists. Those calls are essential to prove where Seligmann was during that time - yet it's left ambigious. If you want to, you can assume that perhaps the two calls were made from 12-12:19, & perhaps one of those calls were to a cabbie, but that isn't stated anywhere. The defense wants people to make assumptions here, that why it's so important to sift out the assumptions & rely only on what we know. We know 1 call was made at 12:25, & 2 calls were made during some unspecified time period - there is no proof of what time those calls were made, or who they were made to.

- You are consistently wrong. There isn't ANY evidence of timed calls from 12:00-12:19, as I've explained above, only vague inferences about 2 calls made during an unspecified "time period". And again, there's no mention of any call to a cabbie, or any call made at 12:14, from Seligmann's cell phone records. Wouldn't ABC notice such an important call? Why is the cabbie reporting a call that doesn't appear on Seligmann's own cell phone records? The ONLY timed, physical evidence we have from Seligmann's own records are the 12:24 ATM receipt, & a 12:25 phone call. I've been consistent in saying that, & you haven't disputed that. Vague "time periods" is not going to cut it here.

- If the cabbie's statement is not true, there is nothing to prove that Seligman went to the bank at the time the cabbie states. And certainly no proof about which bank the cabbie says he visited. We are left w/only the ATM receipt, w/o knowing for sure which branch it belongs to. If it was from the bank a half-mile away, he might have only left by 12:23.

- You're ducking the massive inconsistencies from the cabbie's story - please read the thread. The cabbie has claimed he picked up people at the house at 1:07, 10 minutes after neighbors & police say the house was already abandoned, he saw a crowd on the lawn 10 minutes after police found the house empty, claims he saw the dancer on the lawn 15 minutes after the dancer left, saw the dancer wearing jeans & a sweater when photos show her wearing a different outfit, saw the dancer get in a white car when the dancer's car was black, etc. etc. Since you've passed on explaining these contradictions, I'm going to assume you can't explain them. Since we can't explain the contradictions in this cabbie's story, it is reasonable to mistrust the story. You seem to be very offended that I implied Seligmann's father had something to do w/this cabbie's statements. Sorry, because I don't know (& neither do you) what happened that day. But the fact is that he did visit the cabbie the day before the cabbie went public. The fact is that the defense lawyers themselves won't confirm this story. And the facts are that the defense, in the past, has misinterpreted the evidence when speaking to the press. I don't think we can trust this cabbie's statements, or anything beyond the timed physical evidence. And, according to that evidence, Seligmann was present at the party from 11:50-12:23, during the time-frame the assault occured. I think all the rest is smoke & mirrors, intended to distract.
(Whew - I hope this is exhaustive enough!)

[BrownOak]

389. With apologies for the length

Marie –

Many of your points are based on the completely inaccurate belief that the defense is not going to reveal the location of the bank. You support that with the article from the DHS that you claim states “the defense is not releasing the location of the bank Seligmann used.” However, that is not what that article states. What it actually said was that “They declined to be specific about which cab company or which bank Seligmann purportedly used.”

The point is that this isn’t stating that the defense is not going to reveal the location of the bank, only that they were not going to reveal the location at the time of the interview. Indeed, the perfect example of this is that since they also said they were not going to identify the cab company you can interpret their statements to the DHS in the manner I have explained since I think we can all agree upon the fact that they have revealed the name of that cab company now.

Taking that point further, you can look at the article from ABC which states that “ By 12:24 a.m., a receipt reviewed by ABC indicates that Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank.” It appears that ABC feels that the ATM receipt does identify the bank most likely (conjecture on my part) on the location code that is on most (if not all) ATM receipts.

Furthermore, when you state that “BC is NOT tracing the steps to the branch "in the ATM receipt," but instead tracing the "steps of Seligmann's story" ” and then ask “If the ATM receipt shows the bank location, why isn't ABC referring to the receipt itself, instead of "Seligmann's story"?” you are flat incorrect. They’ve already identified the bank from that receipt and state that it is one of the locations they are targeting when they trace the steps of “Seligmann’s story.” The article states “ In repeated trials, the drive between the Wachovia branch and the corner where the cab picked him up” which is referencing a known location. There is nothing ambiguous about this.

The idea you are trying to sell that “They didn't get it from the defense, because the defense itself is not telling reporters which bank branch he used.” is based on a single article that was referencing that moment in time and not what has happened subsequent to then.

Likewise there is nothing ambiguous when the ABC article when they state “Within those same minutes, phone bill records reviewed by ABC show that the defendant's cell phone made at least two outgoing calls.” They’ve already stated that they are referring to the less than 20 minute period between 12AM and 12:19. What other time period could you infer from that? Why didn’t they state the exact times of those calls? Maybe for stylistic reasons; the article would read better that way. Furthermore, I’ve already given you in another post a reference from the defense that Seligmann made a call to a cabbie at 12:14. Now ABC didn’t identify that call in their article, but they clearly indicate that a call was made in that time from. So you have a story stating that Seligmann’s cell phone records show two outgoing calls between 12 and 12:19, you have a story from saying the defense is claiming a 12:14 call from Seligmann to a cabbie, and you have a story showing the cabbie’s phone records with a 12:14 call from Seligmann. Now I know that in your law school they taught you to be precise, but in my kindergarten class they taught me to read. And when you read those three articles which have already been linked, it seems pretty clear what happened. You have independent verification that there were two outgoing calls on Seligmann’s phone within the 12-12:19 period and you have independent verification that the cabbie received a call from Seligmann at 12:14. Even if you don’t believe the defense attorney when he says Seligmann made the call at 12:14 the other reported items would seem to support it.

So it should be apparent that the cabbie’s statements as they relate to Seligmann are supported – with the exception of the fast food stop, but how critical to the story is that? You know Seligmann was at a particular Wachovia branch at 12:24. You know it takes 5 minutes to get there from the party location. You know that he was back in his dorm room at 12:46. So, if he is to have participated in the 30-minute rape alleged by the victim, he would have had to have done it between approximately 12:07 and 12:18 (making two phone calls in the middle of it) or between 12:29 (the earliest he could have returned to the party from the bank) and whatever time he would have had to have left the party to be back to his dorm at 12:46. Even allowing for the alleged victim to have been understandably confused about the duration of such an attack as she is alleging, it seems most improbable for Seligmann to have been present for the assault.

I’ve addressed your points about the cabbie below. It boils down to this:

-The cabbie claims he picked up the people at about 1:07. This makes him a poor estimator of time, it doesn’t mean he’s lying. The same can be said for Jason Bissey the neighbor who said that the “grandpa” comment came between 12:50 and 1:00.
-The cabbie says that he saw the dancer in jeans and (I’m taking this from your other post) claims he saw her get into the driver’s side of the vehicle. It should be clear that since he did not say he was referring to the alleged victim here, instead he’s referring to the other dancer.
-The only thing that is really questionable with the cabbie’s version of events is that he has misidentified the color of the car. Again, given that the rest of his story is supported by physical items (the phone records, the ATM receipts, and the dorm room records) misidentifying the color of the car several days after the event doesn’t seem too significant.

Finally, I am offended by your speculation regarding Seligmann’s father, but not because it’s Seligmann’s father but because it’s such a hypocrisy. Say I had mentioned that the alleged victim worked for an escort agency and that her previous experience in that capacity had been one that involved one-on-one dates. And then say I inferred that such a profession was usually code words for prostitution, a profession that could very well give someone injuries consistent with sexual assault prior to arriving at the party. How long before someone yelled that I was smearing the victim?

Yet, because these guys are everything that many people on the forum despise – RWA (rich white assholes) - tossing around allegations of bribery and witness tampering is fair game. I’m fine with your questioning the things that surround the alibi because I think that’s healthy. Inferring that the suspects have committed a crime to cover themselves is over the line IMO.

BTW – I’ll post more on it in a little bit, but there are two significant stories out there right now that aren’t getting much run here at the moment. First, the second dancer has gone public and stated that she changed her mind from when she originally stated that she didn’t think a rape occurred. This happened after she was arrested on a probation violation and received a favorable ruling from the DA’s office.

Secondly, and if you’re a lawyer this should make you sick, the photo lineup from which the alleged victim identified the accused consisted entirely of photos of the lacrosse team. There were no “filler” pictures of people who were not suspects. The accuser had a 100% chance of identifying someone on the team.

[mountainvue]

343. It also says in that link that you posted that his only fares

that night were the Duke boys. Again, weird.

[Marie26]

371. A lot of what he's saying is wrong

The defense better worry about this guy. His story is already falling apart.
Mostafa has expanded on his story to the AP:

- When he returned for the 4 players, he says that he saw an "angry woman" wearing jeans & a sweater. The photos show the victim wearing a dancer's outfit.
- He says the "angry woman" got into the driver's side of the car, but the photos show the victim in the passenger's side. He doesn't mention 2 women.
- Mostafa said the woman got into a white car, but the dancers' car was black.
- He says he dropped the 4 players off at a gas station. Why would anyone take a cab to a gas station?
- Mostafa owns the taxi-cab company w/over 13 employees. Yet he's the one driving a cab on a Monday night?

And here's the classic defense "sources say" switch - "Mostafa’s logs show a call for a cab at 12:14 a.m. A person close to the case told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that cell phone records show Seligmann called for a taxi at that time." The defense is using the AP & ABC to construct a misleading impression. It's showing the AP the taxi log & telling AP that there's a cell phone record for 12:14 call, but it does not show AP Seligman's cell phone records. But the defense did show Seligman's cell phone records to ABC, & there is no such call at 12:14 (although later calls exist). To readers who see these two stories, it looks like the defense has shown the press a cell phone record for 12:14, when they have not.

Another example - "The Associated Press was shown four photos by a member of the defense team Wednesday, but none were the pictures that allegedly show the women dancing around midnight." Why wouldn't they show these particular photos to the AP, when they did show them earlier to ABC? Are they worried there is something incriminating in these photos?

http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2006/04/21/sports/sports02.txt

[BrownOak]

378. A lie repeated often enough

But the defense did show Seligman's cell phone records to ABC, & there is no such call at 12:14 (although later calls exist).

This is complete BS. The ABC story did not specifically reference a call at 12:14, but clearly states that Seligmann made 2 calls between 12:00 and 12:19. Again, I quote directly from the article:

This suggests that Seligmann must have left the house by around 12:19 a.m.

So, Seligmann's alibi suggests, he and the alleged victim were in the house together for less than 20 minutes. According to defense sources, based on the alleged victim's affidavit, all of the following would have transpired within that time period: She and her dance partner performed for several minutes, left after feeling threatened by the boys' growing "excited and aggressive," returned after being persuaded by team members to dance some more, and then she was forced into a bathroom, beaten and raped.

Within those same minutes, phone bill records reviewed by ABC show that the defendant's cell phone made at least two outgoing calls.



- When he returned for the 4 players, he says that he saw an "angry woman" wearing jeans & a sweater. The photos show the victim wearing a dancer's outfit.
- He says the "angry woman" got into the driver's side of the car, but the photos show the victim in the passenger's side. He doesn't mention 2 women.

Let's see, the woman he's describing doesn't match the description of the alleged victim and then that woman gets into the car on the other side from where the victim was known to have sat. Ummm, doesn't it seem obvious here that the reason none of this matches up with the alleged victim is because maybe the cabbie is referring to the second (now severely discredited) dancer? That maybe he doesn't mention the other dancer because she's already in the cab when he arrives?


- He says he dropped the 4 players off at a gas station. Why would anyone take a cab to a gas station?

Possibly because that intersection is at the head of one of the more popular sections of the Durham nightlife area and getting out at the station is easier than in the street. Lots of bars and things on 9th Street.


- Mostafa owns the taxi-cab company w/over 13 employees. Yet he's the one driving a cab on a Monday night?

And this is odd because??? Most cabbies operate as independent contractors to their cab company. They pay a flat fee for the vehicle on any given night. Since Monday is a slow night, it would stand to reason that most operators would take that night off rather than pay a fee and not have that many fares to collect. The idea that the owner of the company would be driving that night isn't that unusual.

The only inconsistency in his entire story is the color of the second dancer's car. I'm not sure that would be enough to "discredit" his entire story.

[Marie26]

312. What a shock

Could it be that the defense is manipulating the press w/false stories? Why would they do such a thing? I've thought the cabbie story is suspicious from the beginning. The ABC story never mentioned what cab agency he worked for - why not? If the cab keeps records of tolls, why doesn't the cabbie have any record of this fare? ABC was shown Seligman's phone records, & the report mentions he made a call to a girlfriend at 12:25, but apparantly, there's no record of this phone call to the cabbie (no such call is in the cell phone records.)

Interesting quote from the News-Herald article - "Finally, a security camera at a bank ATM machine showed Seligmann making a withdrawal at 12:24 a.m., the lawyers added. They declined to be specific about which cab company or which bank Seligmann purportedly used." How coy. Why won't the lawyers say what cab company, or bank, Seligmann used? They've certainly been talking about everything else. My opinion? I think this is BS - and I think the only real proof they have is that one Wachovia Bank ATM receipt from 12:24. The attorneys are implying that this receipt was from a bank far away, but there is a Wachovia Bank less than a mile away from the lacrosse home. Maybe that's why the lawyers won't reveal which branch the receipt is from. What if Seligman simply quickly left the party, went to the ATM down the street to withdraw cash (getting the time-stamped receipt & camera shot), & called a girlfriend at 12:25? This would account for the actual physical evidence (verified receipt & call), while cutting through the unsubstantiated defense spin.

[LostinVA]

325. Even more interesting is that the Sun-Herald is a RW rag

per Durham residents who post here. And, their LTTE and OP-ED page tends to affirm that view.

Spin Spin Spin

[BrownOak]

332. Ahem, ahem, blame it on sloppy reporting...

Let's review that quote from the DHS again this time with a different emphasis:

"The Herald-Sun could not corroborate the claim that Seligmann summoned a cab on the night in question. All 12 of the taxicab companies serving Durham contacted by The Herald-Sun on Tuesday said they did not dispatch a driver to 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on the night of the alleged incident.

First, note that the DHS didn't say they disproved the claim, only that they couldn't corroborate it. I must admit, I couldn't corroborate it either and and all 0 of the taxicab companies serving Durham contacted by me said they did not dispatch a driver to 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on the night of the alleged incident. My attempt is almost as meaningful as theirs too. I contacted 0 companies, they contacted 12. I ended up being about 17 cab companies short of a complete list. They ended up being about 5 cab companies shy of a complete list.

See, there's more than 12 cab companies in Durham... Union Cab, On Time Cab, ABC Cab, Central Taxi, Amigo Taxi, Charlene's Safe Ride, Choice Cab, Dart Taxi, Dependable Transportation, Diamond Cab, Durham's Best Cab, Eagle Transportation, Johnny's Taxi, On Time Taxi, REM Taxicabs (presumably there's either some great tunes in that cab or you can sleep), Rite Choice, and White's Taxi (which would seem to be the more logical choice here). I omitted the other 13 or so airport taxis based in Durham.

[Marie26]

346. BrownOak, are you a Duke student? nt

[BrownOak]

349. No nt

[Marie26]

361. Ok...

OK, I phrased that wrong. Are you now, or have you ever been, a student at Duke University? Sorry, just curious.

[BrownOak]

370. No and no nt

[Lars39]

281. Link?

[mountainvue]

298. I'll defer to

LostinVa's FBI link.

[onenote]

302. what link?

I see a statement, but no link to back it up. The FBI number apparently is 8%, which sounds more plausible than 40-50% but is notably higher than 2%.

onenote

[FredScuttle]

303. I see you're not providing a link to back up your 8% figure as well

I know the article you linked to referenced a "standard" of 8%, but that wasn't an officially quoted FBI figure and, besides, that statistic was from over a decade ago...can you find anything more recent to back up the 8% figure?

[mountainvue]

311. Sorry 'bout that. Here you go.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html

[onenote]

335. odd choice to defend the 2 percent figure

Given that it concedes that "no study has ever been published which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the ‘two percent false rape complaint’ thesis."

Look, the fact is,as numerous articles indicate, there is no consensus on the extent of false rape reporting. It is clear that it happens, but there is an enormous range of opinion on how often.

Under the cirumstances, its perfectly reasonable, and indeed, appropriate, that anyone making a specific claim, such as the claim that the FBI statistics indicate a 2 percent rate, back that up. I've not seen such back up. In fact, the only reported statement from the FBI that I can find is at the following link: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf If you scroll down to page 24, under the heading "Nature", the last sentence states that eight percent of forcible rate complaints were unfounded while the average rate of false reports for all indexed crimes was 2 percent.

As has been pointed out, this information is a decade old. Point taken. But its still the only FBI reference I've seen, and thus is entitled to more weight than unsubstantiated claims that the FBI says the rate is 2 percent.

At the end of day, it really doesn't matter, because whether or not the allegations (by either the accuser or the defendants) in the Duke case are true or false can't be determined by statistics about the average number of falser reports or the average number of convictions, acquittals, etc. It can only be determined by the facts, which no one on this board, or any other board, knows.

I personally take no position on whos is telling the truth, who is lying, or what happened. I simply don't know. I have no problem with anyone stating their personal belief (not knowledge) that the accuser was raped and that the rape was committed by the lacrosse players arrested for the crime. Similarly, I don't have any problem with someone stating that their personal belief (again, not knowledge) is that the accuser is not telling the truth or that they believe the wrong guys have been charged.

Where I have a problem is with posts (on either side of the issue) making unequivocal statements that they can't back up and that in some cases are demonstrably untrue. Such as the claim that the FBI has stated that the false report rate for rape is 2 percent. Or the claim that the hospital report finding that the injuries suffered by the accused are "consistent with rape" is "true" (i.e., irrebutable) evidence that she was raped, when in fact, there are reported cases where, under cross examination, a medical expert who opined that injuries in a rape case were "consistent with rape" acknowledged that those same injuries also could be consistent with consensual sex. Until the medical experts in this case are questioned, the statement that the accused suffered injuries "consistent with rape" may be a reason to believe that a rape occurred, but in now way can it be said to be "true" evidence that a rape occurred. SImilarly, the alleged "alibi" evidence publicized by the defense may provide a reason for someone to come to the belief that they are innocent (or guilty) but it doesn't prove a damn thing until its tested in court.

onenote

[mountainvue]

317. More...

http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp

http://www.hopeforhealing.org/myths.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Overreporting_and_false_reporting

http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_rape_false.htm

[LostinVA]

328. Not me -- I've seen the link posted a few times on these

rape threads... it's a real link and real stat.

[onenote]

336. say it over and over again, and it still won't be true

No one has provided a link to any FBI publication stating that the rate of false reporting of rape is 2 percent. I've provdided one, that says that the rate of "unfounded" rape charges is 8 percent (compared to 2 percent for other crimes). THat report is a decade old, but its still the only report anyone has cited. As my previous, longer post states, it really doesn't matter since even if the false reporting rate was 1 percent or 99 percent, we wouldn't "know" whether the report in the Duke case was true or false. That can't be known because not enough information is available to make that determination. But its wrong and offensive to keep parroting false information, whether its in support of the accuser or in support of the accused.


onenote

edited to add link to FBI report: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf If

(go to page 24, last sentence under "Nature")

[LostinVA]

284. The FBI says 2%

They keep national stats, and have an excellent sex crimes division.

[FredScuttle]

290. Want a laugh?

I'm waiting for one of these clowns to post this study, from "Fathers For Life"...they claim 98.1% of all reported cases (520,000 out of 530,000) are false!

http://www.fathersforlife.org/fbirape.htm

And guess what they're basing it on? Pure rational thought::sarcasm:

"BJS report NCJ-151658 notes that there are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. There are 15,000 rape convictions annually. Based on new DNA tests, a third of those convictions are now found to be false. Therefore, there are potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year."

So...not only can DNA testing exonerate an innocent man, it also has the magical powers to reverse a sexual assault! God bless Barry Scheck!

[BrownOak]

333. And on that, we do agree

These are not the folks you would want checking over your taxes or balancing your checkbook.

[onenote]

293. and the fbi stats don't say 2 percent.

As I've said before, I put no stock in the study that purports to show a false reporting rate of 40 or 50 percent -- on its face it seems like an unrealistically high number. The fact is that there is no consensus as to the percentage of rate claims that are false. To the extent the FBI has suggested a number, its 8%,not 2%. This article offers a very good discussion of the issue, pointing out that while the 2% figure is sometimes attributed to the FBI, it isn't what the FBI itself has said. If you have a direct link to an FBI study that is different from what is reported in this article, I'd be interested in seeing it.

http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp

[FredScuttle]

305. 8%.....in 1995

I think the correct phrase would be "it was 8%. As you said, if you have a link to a more recent FBI study...

[DonkeyPunch]

350. this is getting ridiculous.

There are apparently cell phone records and atm records and duke card swipes and eyewitness testimony of cab drivers who have no connection to the accused.

And people are STILL trying to spin conspiracy theories that Seligman's father bribed the cabbie?

unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

[LostinVA]

351. Hey Dude, good to see you again!

See you're still up to your old spinning -- saying stuff that isn't true or isn't known. What a gas! You've always been such a kidder!

Hey! I called up the Athletic Director today -- he said you can get out of your letter of intent to go play somewhere else. Man, this is COOL, huh?

[BrownOak]

355. What's not true?

What's not true? What's not known?

[Name removed]

365. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

369. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

374. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

375. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

377. Deleted message

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

[Marie26]

310. It seems almost

inherently impossible to prove. Just because someone is found "not guilty" doesn't mean they're innocent, or that the charge was false, it just means the pros. couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And just because a convicted assailant is later released because of DNA evidence, that doesn't mean the rape didn't happen, only that the wrong assailant was convicted. And, someone convicted beyond a reasonable doubt might still have been falsely charged. There's just no way to know for sure what percentage of charges are true - but the general rate of false criminal charges is about 4-8% & that seems like a good general rule. What bothers me is that this only seems to come up when discussing rape or abuse charges. If a woman reports a robbery or mugging, it's reported straight. If she reports a rape, the rates of "false allegations" are instantly brought up & debated. That doesn't seem fair, to me.

[Umbram]

357. Erm, no.

What bothers me is that this only seems to come up when discussing rape or abuse charges. If a woman reports a robbery or mugging, it's reported straight. If she reports a rape, the rates of "false allegations" are instantly brought up & debated. That doesn't seem fair, to me.

The idea of false allegations come up in many kinds of crimes.

You think if you called in a robbery of a very expensive item the cops won't be considering whether or not you are making a false allegation for purposes of filing a fraudulent insurance claim? Difference is your robbery wouldn't be in the headlines, being debated in message boards, and have rabid zealots on both sides of the issue. People would go, "oh, a robbery, huh."

If people cared, they would be rational and assess the merits. You wouldn't see people saying "I've been robbed before, and let me tell you, everyone who says they were robbed is telling the truth" or "She's a stripper, I'm sure she wasn't robbed."

People don't have the same "obsession" about robbery or mugging...

[Marie26]

359. I'm talking about the media

Police consider whether a charge is false or not. I'm talking about how the media, and the public, treats a victim of crime. And normally, a robbery is reported as a robbery, but if it's a sexual assault, people immediately begin considering if it's false, is she making it up, etc. And it doesn't seem to depend on media attention, it seems to depend on the crime reported. If the Duke lacrosse team was accused of disorderly conduct, or robbing someone's house, I don't think you'd see the same rush here to consider the statistics on false allegations.

[Umbram]

362. But

Would you see a "rush" for ANYTHING here if they were accused of disorderly conduct?

People simply wouldn't care.

It is only because they do care, and DO get emotional, about it that people are:
constructing timelines, doubting everything and everybody, becoming inflamatory,
and giving up any attempt at reason.

[Marie26]

366. Exactly

These types of crimes inspire people to react emotionally, & post ridiculous figures like a 45% false accusation number, when they would not do that on another issue.

[Umbram]

368. *sigh*

Yes, exactly, that number is ridiculous (I've only seen it thrown out as a strawman argument for people to rally around emotionally however.)

One could choose to be intellectually honest and note that this sort of ridiculous stuff is occurring on all sides of this "debate"...

[Marie26]

372. As could you

In my post, I stated that the figures seem wildly divergent & seem to mostly depend on who's stating them. My only point was that I don't see why these figures should be debated at all. And that's my same point now.

[Umbram]

376. Then I guess we agree?

At least to this:

This issue evokes a lot of emotion and causes *both sides* to make seemingly unreasonable claims of knowledge and throw out highly questionable statistics in order to support their affective biases. Doing this decreases the quality of the overall dialog.

[Marie26]

383. I think that describes

all of DU, or message boards in general.

[Strong Atheist]

309. The more I hear on this, the less I know. Since I was not there, I

am going to wait and see what the trial brings...

[chookie]

379. More info from the cab driver

"Mostafa's logs show a call for a cab at 12:14 a.m. A person close to the case told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity that cell-phone records show Seligmann called for a taxi at that time.
-snip-
After dropping off Seligmann, Mostafa said, he returned to the house to pick up another fare.

While waiting for the four passengers whom he would later drive to a nearby gas station, the driver said, he saw a woman walking through a crowd of men toward a car.

Mostafa said the woman appeared to exchange words with some people in the crowd before getting into the driver's side of a car.

"She looked, like, mad," he said. "In her face, the way she walked, the way she talked, she looked like mad."

-snip

The fourth shows two young men helping a woman into a passenger seat of a car. The car in the photo was black, while Mostafa said the angry woman got into a white car."

more at
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/cs-0604210245apr21,1,1900448.story?coll=cs-college-print

[superconnected]

380. from that article

"When he returned to the off-campus party to pick up a second fare after dropping off Reade Seligmann, cabbie Moez Mostafa said he saw a woman leaving the party in anger and overheard someone say, "She's just a stripper. She's going to call the police."

and then his claim and the guys pictures, show different colored cars for the woman.

Interesting. Course I knew photos could look "happy" when someone is sad or crying, as well as capture someone looking happy when they are mad and vice versa. I deal with actors and have a lot of time behind the camera. There's no comparrison looking at each frame shot to the moving picture. Without the context of movement who knows how someones emotions really are in the frame.

maybe she did get the time wrong. maybe he got the car color wrong. or maybe the guys snapped a pic of some other woman getting into a car.

Who knows.

Getting curiouser and curiouser though.

[BrownOak]

381. Wrong car color

911 tapes from the Kroger store have the security guard calling the car black or dark blue.

[classysassy]

390. Go see Al nead an alibi go see Al.

I work cheap,air tight alibi's two grand,alibi with a few hole in it much cheaper.Heck son you proberly want need an alibi,get your self an all white jury,case dismissed.WAKE UP AMERICA.