Duke Lacrosse Accuser Made Previous Report

[superconnected]

DURHAM, N.C. - The woman who says she was raped by three members of Duke's lacrosse team also told police 10 years ago she was raped by three men, filing a 1996 complaint claiming she had been assaulted three years earlier when she was 14.

Authorities in nearby Creedmoor said Thursday that none of the men named in the decade-old report was ever charged but they didn't have details why.

A phone number for the accuser has been disconnected and her family declined to comment to The Associated Press. But relatives told Essence magazine in an online story this week that the woman declined to pursue the case out of fear for her safety.

The existence of the report surprised defense attorneys, one of whom has sought information about the accuser's past for use in attacking her credibility.

more

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/Sports/Duke_Lacrosse_Scandal

:popcorn:

had to add the popcorn.

[AllieB]

1. Here we go again

:popcorn:

[qanda]

3. Great minds think alike

I think we posted at the exact same time.

[LostinVA]

10. Was she not a minor then? I thought this would be sealed

[AllieB]

12. That's a good point

I wonder if the defense is leaking all this information in a move to discredit her testimony.

[FreakinDJ]

16. Her mother told News Reports about the prior case

But family members immediately went on the offensive about the young woman’s history. The mother of the alleged victim told ESSENCE magazine that her daughter did go away to a hospital in Raleigh, North Carolina, for about a week last year, where she was treated for a “nervous breakdown.” While the accuser’s parents did not say they knew what brought on the breakdown, they did say that their daughter was upset about mounting bills. The mother also told ESSENCE that when her daughter was 17 or 18, she was raped by several men, one of whom was someone she knew. The attack took place in the town of Creedmoor, about 15 miles northeast of Durham, and was a “set up,” according to the accuser’s mother.

Family members said that after the first alleged assault, the young woman underwent about a year of professional therapy and received a course of prescription medication. Her parents said that they were not aware of any other drug use in their daughter’s past, as defense attorneys have suggested. The woman’s mother told ESSENCE that her daughter, who had lived in the same home with her parents and her two children prior to the March 13 incident, appeared to have recovered after the therapy she had following the incident.
http://www.essence.com/essence/lifestyle/takeastand/0,16109,1188001,00.html

Her Family told reporters

Not the defense team

[Heddi]

19. Surely you jest

What POSSIBLE motive would the defense attorney have in leaking this information to the public?

Surely you are not suggesting that :gasp: the potential jury could :gasp: be tainted by this "alleged" information, ARE YOU?

Because in case you haven't been paying attention (read the other Duke Rape threads for further clarification):

Defense attorneys never lie, or spin information to make their clients appear in a better light
Defense attorneys never lie, or spin information to make the accused appear in a worse light

and, most importantly

That lying, drunk, mentally-deficient, drug using whorebag slut is a liar and you can't prove she isn't.

:sarcasm:

[FreakinDJ]

20. THE MOTHER TOLD NEWS REPORTERS

Sorry you can't blame the defense for this one

[Marie26]

36. They did this in response

to the defense team's motion to receive all of the victim's past medical, legal, & mental health records. Since they knew this would be leaked anyway, they wanted to be pre-emptive & state it themselves, rather than letting the defense selectively leak & spin it. I think that's pretty smart: "Yesterday the pending case against the two Duke University students accused of raping a 27-year-old North Carolina Central student took a new, and some say vicious, turn as defense lawyers for indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, 20, and Collin Finnerty, 20, filed a motion seeking the young woman’s past medical and mental-health records. Lawyers for the two young men charged maintain their clients’ innocence. But family members immediately went on the offensive about the young woman’s history."

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

[Tigress DEM]

Hard to say if she told in response to knowing they would bring it up.

Not that I know how it went down, but does anyone know for sure that her talking to the reporters wasn't to clear the air in response to threats to throw it out there?

[Marie26]

41. That's what the article's implying

The Essence article leads off w/the defense team's recent motion to get the victim's entire life history, & says that the family "immediately went on the offensive" about the woman's history. From the article, it does seem like the family is talking about this now in order to clear the air before the defense has a chance to twist it their own way. I don't know if a threat was made (I doubt it), but it does seem like the family themselves believe the defense will leak this info once they get her records, & I'd sort of agree w/that.

[FreakinDJ]

83. Rape Shield laws prohibit that

As if Rape shield laws would ever allow the admission of her psychological back ground.

There is no way in hell any attorney can mention her past sexual history, including having sex just hours prior to the incident or her psychological history.

To say the family preempted the defense is grossly uninformed or perpetuating vindictive lies

The motion defense attorney submitted requesting her psychological history contained State and Federal Statutes because they knew it would be summarily denied by the judge in this case yet would serve as a means of appeals. The motion was merely the defense attorneys “hedging their bets” so to speak

[Marie26]

114. Well, that's not true

Rape Shield laws protect the victim's identity & usually prevent her past sexual history from being used against her at trial. In NC, however, past sexual history is admissible in court if the defense is using it as evidence that the victim has invented this crime. (And I think that's where the defense is going here). And, psychological or medical history is admissible at trial, & that isn't covered by the Rape Shield law. In addition, there's nothing to prevent the defense team from simply leaking this information to the media, & they have in the past. Defense att. will often make arguments in the media about the victim's past history that they could never make in a courtroom, & influence the jury pool anyway. Rape shield laws only exclude this info at trial; there's nothing to stop the defense from talking about this to the media. Whether this motion is sucessful or not, it was clearly an intimidation tactic. They're trying to get her to drop the case. And I'm not sure I agree that it won't be approved - I believe there is a very good chance that the defense will obtain most of these documents.

[djg21]

128. Rape shields are also discretionary.

In essence, they allow a court to determine if evidence of sexual history is UNDULY prejudicial, or if the probabtive value of the evidence outweighs the risk of distracting a jury. Here, evidence of the accuser's recent sexual history is clearly probative in that it appears to afford an alternative explanation of the forensic evidence of sexual contact that was recovered from the accuser's person. Moreover, given the latitude afforded to criminal defendants to present their case, I think it unlikely that any court would find this evidence unduly prejudicial.

[Marie26]

130. Not exactly

The NC rape shield rules are very different from the federal rules. Under the federal rule, a judge can admit sexual history if she determines, in a seperate hearing, that the probative value outweighes the danger of unfair prejudice. However, the NC statute is much more categorical & states flatly that past history is "irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution," unless it falls within one of four exceptions. A seperate hearing can be held, only to determine if the evidence falls within an exception. If it does not, it is not relevant or admissible, regardless of any probative value. However, I do believe that this history will be admitted here, under the exception I mentioned above: because the defense can argue that it forms the basis for an "expert psychological opinion" that she is inventing the charges. That'll be their way of getting this evidence into the trial.

[djg21]

133. Has the constitutionality of the NC rule ever been challenged?

I could see how an argument can be made that such a broad exclusionary rule precludes a defendant from mounting a defense, and hence violates due process. As you note, neither he Federal Rape Shield nor the Rape Shield in my state -- NY -- are as stringent as NC's appears to be.

[Marie26]

136. Not that I know of

The four exceptions are quite broad & cover most legitimate uses of the evidence, IMO.

[Neil Lisst]

182. the rape shield law in NC will NOT keep this evidence OUT

This isn't past sexual history, it's past crime reporting history. It shows a pattern, and it will come into evidence if properly introduced as evidence of that pattern. It will be up to the jury whether to believe she's a serial victim, or a serial liar.

[Marie26]

216. Please cite

the Rule of Evidence that you believe would allow this evidence to be admitted. Thanks.

[Neil Lisst]

222. you can look it up yourself

try google

[Marie26]

224. Uh-huh

Well, I would've thought, being a multi-million dollar winning, 30+ years of trial experience litigator, you might know the Rules of Evidence w/o resorting to google. Guess I was wrong about that. How do you make objections at trial if you aren't able to cite the relevant rule of evidence?

[Name removed]

225. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Neil Lisst]

181. that's correct

Clearly the information gets discovered, gets leaked, and gets used in the court of public opinion. More importantly, it's used to develop leads on other evidence that will be admissible. For example, you find 10 people who met her at treatment, and she confessed she made up the rape report in 1996.

Saying evidence doesn't come in is much easier that actually making sure it doesn't come in during a real trial. Any slip by the other side in questioning or testimony can open the door for much of this information to then be admitted. One witness screw up and it may all come in.

[Tigress DEM]

38. Hard to say if she told in response to knowing they would bring it up.

Not that I know how it went down, but does anyone know for sure that her talking to the reporters wasn't to clear the air in response to threats to throw it out there?

[AllieB]

23. The behavior of the defense team has been despicable

I completely agree. I have been trying to avoid these threads because of the people that are so willing to swallow the defense's so-called evidence. They're frightening.

[Egalitariat]

40. I'd say their behavior has been very effective...

their job is to have their clients acquitted, and they've created alot of doubt in the court of public opinion (which, like it or not, makes it into the jury box).

[Marie26]

42. Is that fair? nt

[Egalitariat]

54. No, but what is? If someone accused me of rape, I'd try to make the fight

as unfair in my advantage as possible.

[Tigress DEM]

58. I'm assuming you mean "FALSELY" accused you.

The problem is that rape isn't considered a real crime because a dick is involved and those who have dicks have been in charge for a long time.

If I and 2 of my friends threw you to the ground and beat on you for 20-30 minutes with my hands or feet, God forbid bite you, then it would definately be considered assault and battery and prosecutable regardless of what kind of asshole you were.

However, add dicks and it becomes all about the woman's reputation.

Even a woman who is killed in the process is still not simply a murder victim. She's a rape victim and her reputation is part of the dick's defense case.

[Egalitariat]

59. Is that how you usually start a meaningful debate?*****

nm

[Tigress DEM]

64. Well, it wouldn't be civil to assume you would rape someone.

And if you look closely, I am specifically not lambasting YOU, but the repressive system.

[LostinVA]

105. Your post is right on target

Even though some posters will not like what you say, or will refuse to accept it. But... you are unfortunately completely right... and, it is 2006, right?

[NaturalHigh]

56. Why wouldn't it be fair?

The defense attorney's job is to get his client acquitted. Getting all the information he can about the accuser is part of it.

[LostinVA]

26. I just called my ex who works in an NC DA's office

She is kinda bemused by this -- she doesn't think this info should be available.

[DelawareValleyDem]

14. She was eighteen at the time she made the report but fourteen when

she alleges it happened. Click on the link again; they've added some details since the story was first posted.

On edit: Not really sure what the policy would be for sealing the report in circumstances like those I just described.

[LostinVA]

27. Hmmm.... I'm not sure, either

Since she was 18, it's probably unsealed.

[peacetalksforall]

15. This piece of news should become a big deal. Do you see how the

law is being destroyed right on the screen in front of our eyes. There are no Bill of Rights values that the right wing considers worth saving.

[FreakinDJ]

17. How is the law being Destroyed

[peacetalksforall]

32. Did you hear what went on today? Susan Collins and leiberman giving

speeches demanding that FEMA be disbanded. There is talk of building another. Are they serious?

The other part of this is that Republicans do not want to hand out money to U.S. citizens in any form. Welfare, bankruptcy, diasters, preventive construction, health support, social security.

GIVE is not in their plans. TAKE is.

So, they change it all around to put it in the hands of corporations.

They're going to be doing it soon with roads and water. They've already announced the plans for the federal lands and the national parks.

I think 'corporation/privatization' and everything fits in to place for me to understand them.

[Tigress DEM]

35. You know why Bush is selling off the forests?

Robin Hood is these guys boogey man. :yoiks:

We are heading back to MedEVIL times when the rich and powerful had everything of value and the peasants did all the work and were taxed out of their minds on anything they might accidentally eke out.

In those times, the forests were filled with bandits who had had it with the rich and powerful stepping all over them. At that time of course, the water wasn't toxic and there were animals to hunt so enough survived that way to be a bother to the insanely rich. This administration is INSANE, but not entirely stupid. At least they have the covering their asses part down pat.

:hide:

[peacetalksforall]

60. I just realized that I posted to the wrong thread. Anyway, I agree with

you.

About Duke - the records of a 14 year old are supposed to be sealed. By exposing them on worldwide tv, we have done an injustice.

To add insult, when bringing it up on TV - they are saying this 'woman' accused someone else of rape 10years ago. You start out thinking that she did this the first time as an adult.

Then they berate her for dropping the first. A fourteen year old and they are attacking her?

I hope there is something here that the ACLU can go after and someday I hope that all those witch burning, posse hanging tv lawyers mouths go to jail.

Our laws and decency is being destroyed in front of us.

Just remember - if they can expose the records of a 14 year old on tv - they can do it to a white wealthy woman as well. Whoever they don't like.

[NaturalHigh]

186. You want defense attorneys to go to jail...

for zealously defending their clients? Uh, that's how our legal system is supposed to work. Do you really think they should just hang back and let their clients go to jail in order to be politically correct?

[Tigress DEM]

33. Only OFFENDERS records are sealed.

In the hopes that they will learn from their mistakes and make a decent life.

In a bizarre way it makes sense. Why should the "victim" be protected? She didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG. Except that threat of the smear tactic is usually enough to keep girls from coming forward.

At 14 when all you want to do is blend in and have friends, how do you find the strength to face three guys who will lie their faces off AND their attorneys. With the background of having had it happen not once but twice how do you keep your sanity without finally standing up for yourself?

[qanda]

2. Oh boy...

:popcorn:

[Kingshakabobo]

4. Oh Jeeze!!

:popcorn:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

5. Oh Great, Another One of These Stories

Here's a novel concept: before we continue calling the accused rapists or the accuser a liar, how about we just let the prosecutors and defense attorneys do their jobs and then wait and see what happens?

DTH

[superconnected]

6. Deal!

[AllieB]

9. Thank you

These posts have brought out the worst in everyone.

[Heddi]

7. well that settles it

You know that saying in Tennessee....

Rape me once...uh..won't get..uh...won't get raped again

--
more serious note:

not understanding the relevance of this.

I was molested when I was a child. I filed a complaint and the "alleged molestor" was not only never charged, but was allowed to continue "allegedly" molesting "alleged" children throughout our neighborhood until he was caught "allegedly" buggering an "allegedly" mentally handicapped boy in my mother's "alleged" bedroom.

As an adult, I was raped. That crime...I mean, "Alleged" crime was never prosecuted either.

Suppose I should hold my breath for the DU'ers to come and say "Well, she was a stupid lying whore to get "allegedly" raped the first time. Obviously she didn't learn her lesson because NO ONE gets "allegedly" raped two times in their life! Get real!"

:finally remembering why i've avoided these threads like the alleged plague:

[LostinVA]

11. Everything you said is RIGHT on target

[superconnected]

21. Exactly. Thanks.

:)

I was going to check on the cred of bishop. Is he the cop from the original news release who got a few things wrong...

I don't know. Just thought some back checking may be in order.

I have to leave so can't check till tomorrow.

[MaraJade]

65. Thanks for posting this--perfect!

I am so sick and tired of the thinking that a woman who is victimized more than once must be guilty of something--
the patriarchial notion that women and girls are such temptresses that they must "bring this on themselves"
somehow.

We have a case locally here where two young girls (oldest is 12) had been repeatedly raped by a series of
"male friends," "babysitters" and "boyfriends" that their grandmother allowed into the home. Can these girls
be blamed for what happened to them when their own grandmother sanctioned the admission of predators into the home?

Following the thinking out there, if these young girls are ever victimized again, they can be held culpable because
they filed the same charges while children.

This thinking is just plain wrong.

[ComerPerro]

125. Yeah, I thought it odd that the pundits on TV last night

were using this, without even knowing any details of her 1996 claim, to somehow prove that she was not only lying, but had a history of lying.

I keep waiting for someone to say:

"Oh, well, sure, she says she was raped now, and she might have been, who knows. But she reported being raped ten years ago too. So I have my doubts. Rape is like lightning: It never strikes twice in the same place"

[xchrom]

8. i'm just passing through -- excuse me, pardon me

excuse me, pardon me -- oh -- i'm sorry did drop pocorn in your lap?



:popcorn:

[timber84]

29. your killin me!!!

[FreakinDJ]

13. I feel sorry for her

but I'm affraid it might be like my Ex.

Left to her own devices, she was always met with big trouble

[roguevalley]

18. then again, she could have been assaulted at 14. honestly, I

hate trying victims in the press anymore than trying the idiot boys in the press. I remember when the jury had that job. I loathe press conferences and tv speculation. Unless its about indicted repugs. Sex crimes should be treated like this in public.

[Tigress DEM]

43. Bush Country - All Hat, no cows, no heros.... except Fitz

I doubt at this time and place any woman would come forward with this kind of accusation knowing how stacked the entire rule of law is skewed unless it were true.

Some people abuse the system, but they do it when they can fly under the radar.

Then too, a person has to unlearn being a victim and learn to be assertive or they can wind up back in the same situation with anyone they pick.

[pnwmom]

48. So what you're saying is that any man who is accused of rape is guilty.

Why bother even having a trial?

[Tigress DEM]

61. No, I said that in this particular instance at this time in our country...

it would be unlikely that a woman would stand up in this way if it were false. The deck has always been stacked against women in these situations and unless somehow she is getting a benefit from this, I don't see why she would bother.

I did not say that it is impossible that her accusations are false - just unlikely - and I didn't state that every person accused of rape is guilty.

I even specifically said in this thread that some people abuse the system. So I don't know where your reaction is coming from.

What bothers me is that WOMEN who are raped - even unto death - are ALWAYS put on trial BEFORE and DURING the trial whether there is credible doubt about their compliance or not. It is a standard defense tactic.

[pnwmom]

67. I initially assumed the students were guilty. But when the other stripper

sent the email to the publicist, asking for someone who could "spin" her story . . . well, it reminded me that there could be a benefit.

If there is a conviction in a criminal trial (the cost of which will be borne by the state), then there would be plenty of attorneys willing to foot the bill for a civil action against the students.

The other factor is that we don't know what else the woman was doing that day. Could she have been raped before she got there? Or even after? If she was drunk or on drugs that day, is she really clear on what happened?

It just seemed to me that so many people here are taking her side, in a kind of knee-jerk reaction -- as I did, at first. But I've come to the conclusion that we're all jumping the gun.

And unfortunately, we're probably never going to know what really happened.

On edit: as to your other point, I don't know how we could have any trial -- in a she said/he said situation -- and not have the credibility of BOTH accuser and accused at issue. But no, I agree that it shouldn't be tried in the media.

[Tigress DEM]

68. The thing is I hate when Victims are the ones put on trial.

Even a stripper or hooker can be raped. I'm just about keeping an open mind to the facts and in the culture the administration has cultivated this type of behavior is on the rise because the elite are sensing they can get away with anything if they pick on the right person as their victim.

Our own female soldiers in Iraq were gang raped by our own male soldiers. It was in the Abu Graib area with the same commanding officer who let that stuff happen. 83 calls to a "rape hotline" that was an answering machine in Washington DC went unanswered and several woman accidentally killed themselves via dehydration because they stopped taking in fluids after a certain time of day so they wouldn't have to go to the area where the rapes were happening. The unlighted women's latrines. If women with guns can be gang raped, then so can college girls.

[pnwmom]

69. The Iraq cases were horrifying, to be sure. But I can't equate those

women, with or without guns, to college girl strippers.

On edit: For one thing, the soldiers wouldn't have had the possibility of a monetary benefit.

[Tigress DEM]

70. Equal in the eyes of the law, whether you see it or not.

Whatever happened, happened; and at this point in my life a DUKE College Boy can be as suspect as (formerly in my eyes - Army Soldiers - who I thought had more honor than to do this kind of crap.)

I don't see ANY proof even in this report that this girl has ANY possiblity of monetary benefit.

[pnwmom]

72. As I said before, the first step to having a successful civil action is to

have a successful criminal action. And if it turns out that the students are guilty, she will deserve any monetary compensation she is awarded. The reason you don't hear of this happening more frequently is because 1) most criminal defendants don't have any assets to go after, and 2) most criminal accusers don't have the money to hire an attorney. But in this case, if there is a criminal conviction, that won't be any problem.

[Tigress DEM]

73. Other than getting court costs and lawyers fees paid.....

most of a rape trial is about preventing this kind of thing from happening to someone else.

When I grew up in California there were "gang bangs" floating around looking for someone to pass around among the crew. If I ever saw certain groups of boys coming toward me even 2 or 3, I had to get out of the vicinity immediately, before they saw me.

I've never met these boys from Duke and maybe this is all another type of distraction put out by people who don't want to address real issues. I don't know, but I do know that there would have to be major money involved other than just compensation to get most women to come forward and face this kind of shit storm.

Even if you were a sweet little virgin raped after some guy got you so drunk that you may have said yes or no, but passed out before the deed and could have died from alcohol poisoning if you hadn't puked in your stupor.... someone will still say, well, she didn't say, "No" clearly enough according to him. Happened in my town. They guy got off because he was under age and somehow people thought he was too stupid to think with more than his hormones.

[pnwmom]

76. There's no excuse for someone sober to have sex with someone who's about

to pass out.

But what do you think, for example, about a hypothetical case involving two college kids both equally drunk; but the next day, the girl regrets it and doesn't remember saying yes? Is the girl always a victim, because she's a girl? Or if they're both inebriated, is he off the hook? (Assuming there wasn't force involved.)

I'm just wondering. As a mother of a college student son, I have told him to never ever get himself in this kind of situation -- but it is worrisome -- how does he know where to draw the line? (Believe me, I worried just as much when my daughter was in college.)

[TorchTheWitch]

95. It won't be a problem?

I see your point about sueing someone in civil court for monetary damages if a criminal conviction is won only being feasable if the person(s) being sued have money. What I don't understand is why it would be assumed that two students of 19 and 20 years old have any money. They come from wealthy backgrounds, but they themselves probably don't have a dime to their names... and you better believe that if they did, they'd turn every cent over into their families' names to make sure they go into a civil trial without a penny to call their own.

Guys like this have mommy and daddy take care of them. Their parents would never trust them not to deplete a large bank account because they know how quickly and irresponsibly they'd go through a hefty sum of money they didn't make on their own. I think it's a big part of what makes these kinds of people grow up with no responsibility, no understanding of the value of a dollar and keeps them immature... they've always known that mommy and daddy will always be there to get them whatever they want, and to bail them out of trouble if it's needed.

[pnwmom]

97. My son's high school provided some parent education when some of

the parents were allowing parties with alcohol. According to what they told us, if a civil judgment is made here against a young person with no money, it can remain in place for 20 years . . . in case he gets money down the road. So it's not as easy to avoid this as it might seem.

[pnwmom]

98. I meant that hiring an attorney for a civil case shouldn't be a problem,

assuming conviction in the criminal case. She has already had people like Jesse Jackson offering to help her. I'm sure she'll have all the backing she might need, if the case is strong. And it shouldn't be difficult to find a lawyer willing to take this on a contingency fee, which doesn't require money upfront.

[jberryhill]

120. Sure...

...as long as they forfeit any shot at ever getting a home loan, a car loan, or receiving any income or owning property in the US for the next couple of decades.

[Neil Lisst]

96. yes, if she wins the criminal case, the civil case is an automatic

If they don't have anything, the day will come when they will, and the judgment will be following them around, waiting to eat their money.

They'll sue a bunch of people like the school, and try to trigger the negligence coverages to threaten those entities.

Bottom line is if she wins the criminal case, she gets paid in the civil case, which she can file after the criminal trial.

[TorchTheWitch]

104. Well, good

If she wins the criminal case there would have to be some pretty damn compelling evidence that she was indeed raped by the accused, in which case, I hope she gets every damn penny that can be had out of them and/or any other entity proven to be at fault.

However, given the amount of jail sentence the accused players would get if they were found guilty and how difficult it would be for them to get any kind of a decent job if they get out of jail before twenty years is up, I'm not seeing any kind of pot of gold here.

I'm also not seeing any pot of gold being won from the school since it would have to be proven that the school condoned the party, condoned the strippers, and condoned the players abusing the strippers... good luck with that.

Somehow I just don't think the possibility of garnishing the paychecks of what two prisoners earn making license plates or whatever two convicted rapists are able to earn once they finally get out of jail and the slimest of slim possibility that Duke would be found to be at fault is a real big compelling reason to make up a rape story for money.

Let's not forget if you're going to argue that she made up the story for whatever money could be won in a civil suit she would have to have been targeting Duke to begin with before she told anyone she was raped... and in order to believe that, you'd also have to believe that she came up with the idea from the time whatever happened at the party to piss her off to the time she said she was raped while in a seriously impaired state (which would make her even smarter than any of us since she would have come up with that idea in about an hour while seriously impaired when none of us did in weeks while sober). Now if you seriously believe she's that much of a brilliant genius of a stripper who already knew she'd have Johnnie Cochran's plaintiff attorney-clone to represent her in a civil suit, I've got some of George W. Bush's bellybutton lint to sell you for 3.5 million dollars... cashier's check only please.

[marions ghost]

116. excellent answer

to those who would argue that there is big money in rape convictions. Juries are not that sympathetic IMO.

[jberryhill]

119. Most civil cases never get anywhere near a jury

Most civil cases settle, once it becomes clear how much the defendant is going to have to pay simply to defend the case.

The plaintiff's attorney is working on contingency, so it is simply a matter of offering a settlement price less than the cost of defending the suit.

"Big money" is a relative term. If you think $100K is "big money", you haven't defended a run-of-the-mill civil suit.

[Neil Lisst]

183. ding ding ding

Let's talk turkey on this case. The accuser is going to drop the criminal case and pursue a civil case, and she'll do that because that's how she gets paid. If she pursues the criminal case - which is falling apart badly already - and loses, it will foreclose any recovery of money for a civil case. By ditching the criminal case, she can pursue the civil case. She won't have trouble getting a top notch plaintiff's lawyer.

I'd sue Duke and every one of the players who was there, and I'd trigger every insurance policy I could with my pleadings. I'd tell them they could settle it for a million today, or wait and pay more after I had a bunch of money invested in experts. Duke would come up with a half mil and the players would do likewise, and it would get settled. She gets paid, and it's over.

Were they guilty of anything? Probably being assholes and some being racists.

[NaturalHigh]

187. I've read that she already has an attorney.

I don't know if she's put down a retainer, but the attorney she visited was describer in an article as a "civil rights attorney."

Yes, you can bet that a civil suit will be filed no matter what happens with the criminal case. More than likely, the players and their families will drop a load of money just to get this behind them. Of course, I still think it would be pleasantly ironic if the players filed a civil suit against the stripper for slander and the DA for malicious prosecution. Then everyone would be on even grounds. The stripper who has anonymously (except for a few web sites and a radio show) accused these guys would have her name publicized just as these guys have, and she would actually have to present her side instead of just saying "it was this guy" and changing her story whenever the mood strikes her.

[Neil Lisst]

193. the accuser is likely judgment proof

so suing her won't get you much as a recovery, but it will produce the ability to introduce evidence which relates to those causes of action. As a strategem, I've sued plaintiffs before when defending cases that can produce nasty adverse results.

If I were representing one of the players who isn't named, I'd be filing a civil suit in his hometown for libel and slander, which normally has a venue basis in the plaintiff's county of residence. That would tie MY case down to a favorable jurisdiction before she gets a chance to establish it in Durham.

If a dozen players sued her in a dozen cities, her lawyers would have to go to each one and seek that they be transferred to her civil case filing. I would use that situation to get my guy dismissed with prejudice and released from any claim she might make in Durham in civil court. Or, I'd try to get the whole case sent to the county of my client's residence on the basis of first filing and the venue statute for slander and libel.

[jberryhill]

117. The More Likely Progression of Events

First, a criminal conviction is not needed to win a civil suit. Criminal cases require a higher standard of evidence than civil cases. That is why, for example, OJ was acquitted in the criminal case and still found liable in the wrongful death civil suit. It's easier with a criminal conviction, but by no means necessary.

The more typical scenario would be for the prosecutor to eventually decide not to take this to trial if he determines that the probability of getting a conviction is too low to justify the expense and time (or if he doesn't win re-election and the next DA drops it).

She can still proceed with a civil suit. Then, the defendants do the calculation of spending $100,000+ to prevail in a civil suit, or spending, say, $50,000 to settle. Rationally, one picks the $50,000, the plaintiff's attorney gets a third of that, and it's over. Defending a civil suit is purely an exercise in spending money, even if you win. The only relevant question to a civil defendant is how much they are willing to spend to get it over with. If they win, they pay. If they lose, they pay. If they settle, they pay. Period.

Armchair quarterbacks always say "But if it was me, I would spend ANYTHING to clear my name instead of settling". Yeah, right. I do civil litigation, and once you get past the battling egos, virtually all civil suits boil down to "how much?" Once in a long while, you do run into people who are willing to bankrupt themselves to "clear their name" or vindicate some "principle". They might even win. Woo-hoo, they have a favorable defense judgment and are living in a cardboard box with their good name intact. Congrats.

From there on, for those in the peanut gallery, the case is never resolved. The $50K (or whatever confidential settlement is reached) is called "hush money", and everyone is safe to carry on with their prejudices.

[Neil Lisst]

142. Once again

You're using your "logic," not knowledge, to address the issues.

You clearly know absolutely nothing about putting together a good plaintiff's case for damages against multiple defendants, including pursuing the university.

I'm not going to attempt to educate you about the various causes of actions, the ways one triggers insurance coverage by pleading the case properly, or how one divides and conquers among many civil defendants.

You may have insights about what you've seen as a dancer, but that's a very limited universe, with little applicability here.

[TorchTheWitch]

189. ANY claim is a good claim to a plaintiff attorney

when they know it will settle and settle quickly because they'd make at least SOME money on it without doing much work. The paralegal does most of the work and pretty much all of the work that's time consuming. A plaintiff's attorney isn't going to waste much more time on a shit money case like this other then some posturing/negotiating phone calls and maybe some depositions. As a paralegal for 12 years I dealt with cases with 3rd party negligence claims all the time in both plaintiff and defense civil litigation. There will always be plenty of plaintiff attorneys willing to take any ridiculous case because even a few grand is certainly worth a few hours of their time.

As Marie26 explained, there just is no real case against Duke here. Sure Duke would settle and quickly just to avoid publicity, but since there's no real case against them, the settlement will be chickenfeed that wouldn't even cover what the woman has ALREADY lost.

Plaintiff counsel will settle for damn near anything since they'd know there just is no case against Duke here, and since defense counsel isn't stupid they KNOW plaintiff counsel will settle for chickenfeed, so that's all they'll offer and then sit on it while sucking up client fees until the plaintiff attorney doesn't want to waste anymore time/money and caves. Plaintiff attorneys work on a contingency basis, so they aren't going to waste time and money on a case they know they wouldn't win. Everything about civil litigation is a game of which attorney makes the most money in a settlement.

Defense attorneys get paid by the hour and bill the client for expenses, so it behooves them to try to drag their feet while their client beats them over the head to make them settle... a few more screeching phone calls, some head scratching meetings with the client, and hopefully a deposition or two just so they can get out of the office and eat some bagels and danish someone else paid for.

Everything about civil litigation is a game of which attorney makes the most money in a settlement, and they all know what the deal is here... the attorneys will yell at each other some on the phone, throw some paper at each other, strut and swagger a bit and settle on some dinky little amount when they reach a point where THEY make decent money. Duke is happy because they settle for a dinky amount and the case goes bye-bye, the attorneys are happy because they made some money without doing much of anything, and the one who ISN'T happy is the plaintiff because she gets less then what she's already lost, and that's only what she lost monetarily nevermind the emotional cost.

Oh, this is just rich...
From your post #179... This case will produce a civil case, Duke will have a claim asserted against them, and they will pay some money.

Your whole arguement is that this woman made up this claim of rape and is willing to be drug through the mud with every private aspect of her personal life exposed to the public for a feeding frenzy in order to win some big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And here you are now saying "SOME" money. NOBODY does something like that to themselves for "SOME" money. Nobody has their life destroyed like that for "SOME" money. This woman makes $400 for two hours of idiot work and you think she'd subject herself to all this vile crap for "SOME" money??? Holy freakin' shmoo in a canoe.
:crazy:

The simple fact that you didn't see the Duke non-deep pocket for what it is, and the reason that you needed all this explained to you is perfectly clear... at least when my ass is hanging out in the spotlight it isn't figuratively, and I get paid a lot for it.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[Marie26]

223. Misogyny much?

"You can't learn about law by doing dances for some lawyer who stops by for a few drinks to look at your breasts while you talk about whatever pops out of your head."

Did you miss the part where the poster said she was a paralegal for 12 years, or did you just ignore it? Paralegals do most of the legal pleadings in many offices & are usually very knowledgeable about the law & the legal games attorneys play. I don't see what that poster said to justify such a vicious attack, other than having the nerve to disagree with you.

[Neil Lisst]

226. no wonder she thinks legal assistants do all the work

There are many legal factories out there that do use a lot of legal assistants, mainly all these ambulance chasers who sign up little cases. I'm not going to defend the legal profession, but handling big cases against Fortune 500 companies, cases that are wars that go on for 2-8 years, is a whole different thing than that bottom feeding.

When you hold a huge company responsible for screwing a bunch of citizens, when you make them pay millions, you force them to change, moreso than any piece of legislation, that may or may not be enforced.

If she is a former legal assistant, then she knows something about the office she worked in. They're great at rote work, but they don't know law. A first year law student knows more law than a legal assistant.

And NO, it's not misogyny. I'd think the same thing about some male dancer who was a former legal assistant.

[BrownOak]

162. Deep Pockets

I'm also not seeing any pot of gold being won from the school since it would have to be proven that the school condoned the party, condoned the strippers, and condoned the players abusing the strippers... good luck with that.

I would bet a good litigator would take a flyer on something like that. Duke owned the house the players were renting. Duke had these guys on scholarship. Duke knew that they had several previous brushes with the law.

Duke knew the coffee was scalding hot and didn't put a warning label on it.

[Marie26]

178. It's a good thing

the woman made sure to research the laws on vicarious liability & 3rd party negligence before filing her accusation. IMO, this is not a particularly good claim, because to claim Duke was negligent, you'd have to show that the same crime had occurred before on the same property, & that the owner was negligent in not improving the conditions on the property. There haven't been previous sexual assaults at that location & it's difficult to see how more improvements (security lamps, etc.) would have solved the problem here. I don't see any successful negligence claim at all here against Duke.

[Neil Lisst]

179. You'd see a good claim ...

If you'd ever been a plaintiff's attorney. But you're not.

This case will produce a civil case, Duke will have a claim asserted against them, and they will pay some money.

[marions ghost]

188. There may be a civil case

but I don't believe that Duke will be held liable. Duke had issued a formal warning to the coach about the team's extracurricular behavior is what I undertand. The coach failed miserably in his promises to Duke, and did well to resign.

There was little that Duke or any other University could have done to prevent this, short of putting beepers on their bad boys' collars. Duke is now using this event to further send the message that this behavior will not be tolerated from students. So I don't see how Duke is at fault.

[Neil Lisst]

190. There WILL be a civil claim. And Duke will pay to settle it.

Duke has duties far beyond those you envision, and the warning to the coach doesn't make it better for Duke, but worse.

Your concept of "fault" is not the one that is used in civil causes of action. Duke had a duty to supervise these players, and it appears they didn't do a good job of that. That's called NEGLIGENCE.

[marions ghost]

194. these players

are not in kindergarden. Why should they need to be "supervised?" It was after hours, a non-official function. From what I've seen, arguments about "negligence" don't impress people in a society where it's everyone out for themselves. I don't always agree with it, but people are usually presumed to be responsible for themselves, even when they aren't.

To put it another way...

Duke is supposed to put these animals in a cage? People should be indignant because potential perpetrators of violent crimes (otherwise known as students) were allowed to be running around loose, unsupervised by Duke?

Maybe after this Duke could become a leader in creative ideas to deal with the problem of sexual assault on campuses, but I don't think any university is expected to control sadistic urges and deviant aggressions among its students. Unless you think we should treat students like prisoners under constant surveillance?

We need to see this as a societal problem.

[Neil Lisst]

195. there's a whole cottage industry in law around college campus law

It all began 20 years ago, when a national fraternity was involved in one of those tragic cases where a pledge is required to take a bunch of shots. This kid drank 4 times the legal limit, aspirated, and died in his room.

They ended up paying over 2 mil to settle, and by "they," I mean all the defendants, which included the large, public university and the fraternity. That case helped change the presumptions regarding duties of universities to better supervise college students, even though they're adults.

The university will want to put this behind them. They're a business, and a business is hurt financially by these kind of unresolved cases drawing TV time. Duke would cut a check for a million today to see this case disappear entirely, and there would be alums lined up to cover it.

[marions ghost]

196. and if Duke did that

(paid to see the case disappear)...I would not feel that justice had been done. It is the responsibility of the defendants to pay for this, if found guilty.

In the case of the fraternity, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the parents capitalized on the death of their son. (If the money went to a scholarship fund in the name of the student, that might make some sense). If it were my son, and it was established that he accidentally drank himself to death with friends on a college campus, I would not sue the university or fraternity. I would consider that
very dishonest, unless the money could be directly applied to student alcohol abuse prevention programs.

Students are going to drink to excess. They expect to do this in college. Universities have cracked down as best they can. You'd have to change some very deeply entrenched culturally-accepted practices to deal with it. You'd have to go to the root causes. Universities should not be expected to correct problems of such magnitude in young adults. I see this kind of scapegoating as abuse of the legal system.

[Neil Lisst]

197. Duke will pay because Duke has exposure to liability

It's a simple concept: Universities take money to be surrogate parents, and when they don't take care of their duties, they have to pay.

As for the players, some may pay and some may not. But Duke will definitely pay.

[marions ghost]

198. yeah I suppose so

I realize I'm in the minority that tends to look at what is morally right in addition to what is legally right. But that's OK, I'm used to being different in an ethically-challenged society. People with any intelligence or education are always kicked off juries. That's a HUGE flaw in the legal system. You can just pack juries with people who only think in black and white.

Your simple concept is seriously flawed. It is an insult to the student-university relationship to consider the university a "surrogate parent." This has come about in a society that coddles children
and a legal system that thrives on exploitation.

If my son drank himself to death in college I would consider it a tragic error of judgement on HIS part, despite all the warnings and efforts I know are out there to prevent it. If he had done that in high school, while under my care, it would be the same--I would not hold myself responsible if I knew that I had done my best to prevent it. By the same token, I would not hold a college responsible later on. Peer pressure outweighs anything the colleges can do without infringing on students' legal rights.

[Neil Lisst]

199. some Democrats make good civil defense jurors, but not usually

Your POV is very much the Republican platform position. Every election, they, as mouthpiece for insurance and big business, lambaste the Democratic party for "trial lawyers!"

The insurance industry and big oil would love you, and would want to have you on any jury. The victims of toxic dumping would not care to have you on the jury. The business people who were swindled by big oil wouldn't care for you, either.

I think you're kidding yourself about smart people being bounced from a jury. When you try to complicated case, you need smart jurors.

The jurors who get bounced are the ones who think their personal opinion and "morals" are more important than following the law. Some come in the door thinking as you do, and some come in the door convinced plaintiffs are always right. Both get bounced in voir dire.

The point of the trial is to use jurors who don't have believe their personal beliefs should be the guideposts of all, jurors who will do as instructed and simply follow their instructions.

[marions ghost]

200. I have seen it happen again and again

smart people go OFF the jury first. Depending on where you live, this may be more or less a problem. Where I live there are a lot of university and highly educated people. They are immediately removed from juries. Though I fit in that category, one time I got to stay on only because I described myself as unemployed, true at the time. I've been called 3 times. You see cases where the jury cannot begin to understand the complexities of the case. It takes smart jurors to sort out the half truths and twisted logic used by many lawyers to win a case. They can easily be duped. Fear of this bias against intelligent jurors even stops people from prosecuting. It's a mess. You sound like you are in or close to the legal system, so I'm SURE you know what I mean.

Yes I believe that in a truly civilized society, there are higher values than those established by arbitrary laws. That does not mean I don't abide by laws. It just means that I see the legal system as a dynamic thing, not to be blindly followed. Ours is antiquated, byzantine, exploitative, and lacking in anything resembling common sense. It's pure madness. I have lawyers and judges in my family--one was a state supreme court justice. I'm not uninformed.

"Democrats don't usually make good civil defense jurors" you say (I guess not--they tend to think).
Maybe if they did get to serve on juries it would help our society quite a bit. As for my POV being Republican, well that's interesting as I usually don't have much in common with Repugs, but I'm open to it being an overlap.

LOL --I really had to laugh when you said the ideal is to "to use jurors who don't believe their personal beliefs should be the guideposts of all" SHOW ME those jurors. ?!? As a student of psychology and courtroom observer, I say they don't exist.

Anyway, thanks for your discussion on the legal system. Yours is a classic perspective and it seems by your response that you think mine is too. And never the twain shall meet.

[Neil Lisst]

201. well, since you're being so reasonable ...

I'm a trial lawyer, an advocate, and to do that you have to have a certain attitude about your abilities, your client, the duties of the big to the small in society, and a desire to mix it up for years at a time with monied pricks who will do anything to stop you.

Cases that reach a jury mean someone is being unreasonable. It is usually not the attorneys, but the clients, who become unreasonable and won't settle for the right number. Sometimes it means that the primary insurer is using one tactic, while the actual named defendant and excess insurer actually want the primary insurer to settle the case. There's so much the jury doesn't see. They see a carefully orchestrated play, with the judge deciding which script lines get to be talked about.

Juries aren't supposed to decide cases. They're supposed to answer fact question, some of which include elements for a judge to impose liability. Verdicts usually get reported as if they're conclusive. A judge can set aside a monetary award before the jury gets out of the courtroom.

As for your observation about jurors, it is the independent jurors who act as if they might have a problem following court instructions if they feel the higher law is called upon. Such jurors are usually civil defense jurors. If you give a jury a psychological profile, they will spread out from one end of the emotive spectrum to the other. Some will want absolute proof, drawn in straight connecting lines, on every key element. Some will make up their minds because they think the plaintiff deserves a bunch of money, and it might as well be these defendants who pay it.

[marions ghost]

202. OK well

I've seen enough to make me feel that it might be a good idea to eliminate juries altogether anyway. They cost money that might as well be saved. Since they are chosen to be ignorant, they really don't do a good job. These days I think there is a real problem with jurors resenting being on juries. Nobody wants to do their civic duty and all that. Why have hostages trying to figure out cases as fast as they can to get out of there? A good system?

Just have cases tried by a judge, or maybe in some criminal cases a panel of 3 judges. And then try to find some honest judges (at local level, not easy).

[jberryhill]

203. At the end of the day, civil cases are not about justice

...they are about who pays whom how much.

Take two possible outcomes:

1. Duke pays $100K to settle.

2. Duke is found liable for $100K.

Which outcome accomplishes more "justice"?

Pick any two numbers to fill in slots 1 and 2. Is there a combination of two numbers that makes one outcome more "justicey" (to borrow from Colbert) than the other outcome?

[Neil Lisst]

204. exactly. at the end of the day, people pay because they have exposure

OR, they can pay a nuisance value to settle, which term all depends on how well monied the plaintiff's side is. When defendants know you'll put $150,000 of your money into experts, when they know you will take them to trial, then they get reasonable - often because there is an insurer involved who wants it to be over.

[marions ghost]

205. and there it is

"justice" is only for those who can pay for it

[Neil Lisst]

206. No, because trial lawyers are willing to invest their time and money...

...people who would never see justice otherwise get some.

[marions ghost]

207. right of course

sorry to use the word "justice"...I agree there's not really any such thing, but people still believe in it, to their detriment IMO.

OK let's just say it ain't right for Duke to have to pay to settle the crimes of young adult students who should be taking responsibility for themselves. That's letting them completely off the hook. ("Wah wah, it's the SCHOOL's fault, Mommy...they didn't control me"--(?!?) I think the students and their families should pay, whatever penalties are applied. To me there would be no 'justice' if Duke were forced to pay anything. Morally speaking, Duke should address these issues quickly and forcefully, and not stop working on it until they have rearranged a few students heads about what behavior is not going to be tolerated. They need to come up with new policies. From what I have seen, they are trying to do that.

[Neil Lisst]

208. your entire premise is faulty, because you attempt to substitute your

judgment regarding the duties of a school for those the school clearly has. Because you are a juror who refuses to follow the law, you'd surely be stricken, which you wrongly interpret as "being too smart."

If you'd said smart ass or smart aleck, you'd be right. Those clowns do get sent home.

[marions ghost]

211. Like I said

let's eliminate juries altogether. They don't work because they are packed with people who can be easily programmed by smart lawyers (or ones who are glib if they aren't smart)--lawyers who have a vested interest in promoting their version of what duties a school has, for example.

Like I said, let judges who specialize in certain types of cases do the judging and forget the jury thing. It's antiquated, a pathetic joke. I've been on 3 of them (never stricken, as I don't come off as smart in person (LOL).

Just let one judge decide in lesser cases and 3 in bigger cases. It would work much better.

[Neil Lisst]

212. your faith in judges is misplaced, & jury trials are constitutional rights

Businesses can always choose to arbitrate, and often do, which accomplishes the end you wish. It means you have either an arbiter or an arbitration panel. You take the disputes private, before judges who know the business.

But monied interests do better in judge or bench trials than little guys. Juries are the way the monied interests are kept remotely honest. It's not by judges, who are far too close to the monied interests of the right.

[jberryhill]

213. No, the students are not "off the hook"

Everyone will be writing checks. It's not as if Duke is the only prospective civil defendant. In all probability, they have the best insurance coverage.

[Neil Lisst]

218. some will pay more than others

I suggest that there will be some who cut a check for the first number offered, to make it go away. I wouldn't be surprised to see 5-10 cut checks for 50K each to walk and have it over. Get that kind of money up front, and you can hold out on Duke and the others.

I don't know what happened there, but something did, and I think there's some liability. Not rape, not sexual assault, just plain assault, accompanied with really bad language.

There will be parents who will pay a chunk to get their son out of every submitting for a deposition. The last thing a player wants is his deposition videotaped for all time. That's why a number will settle before.

If she bails on the criminal case and focuses on the civil case, she could get paid well and probably get a book deal. And probably pretty soon. If she gets a good lawyer, this case will settle for a total of 1-2 million.

[Marie26]

209. Not a successful verdict

See, I've shown my knowledge of the law here - you have not & your immature style of arguing does not seem like a trained attorney to me. If you are, it makes me a little sad for the profession. I'd prefer to think that a true attorney wouldn't start yelling lies about how a victim is a "serious druggie!" w/o any evidence, or treat people w/as much disrespect as you've shown. You've been following me around on various threads & insulting me. I know in your little worldview, it doesn't fit that I am both a woman & an attorney, but you're going to have to deal with it. This case may or may not produce a civil case & may or may not settle. That is something we do not know. My point was that a civil case against Duke would have very little chance of success at trial.

In order to hold Duke civilly liable, the plaintiff would have to prove that they were "negligent" under a theory of premises liability for the third-party criminal conduct of another person. In general, a landowner has to take reasonable precautions to protect renters & visitors to the property - and this includes protecting them from "forseeable" criminal actions by a third party. If the landowner had a duty of care to the Plaintiff, & breached that duty by negligently allowing criminal conduct to occur, the LL can be found civilly liable for negligence. But first, the landowner must owe some sort of duty to the Plaintiff. And second, it must be found that the crime that occured was "reasonably foreseeable" such that the LL should have known to take precautions. The "duty of care" the LL has varies from state to state; some change the duty based on the Plaintiff's status (as invitee or licensee) while others simply require the same duty of reasonable care to all people visiting the premises. NC has abolished distinctions on status & simply requires reas. care by the owner (except for trespassers).

And finally, this case is different because there are two different "owners" in this case - the players renting the house & the landowner (Duke). Duke is the lessor (leasing the land), & the player is the lessee/tenant (controlling & using the land). So who has the duty of care here? NC has held that lessors who are not "operating & controlling" the land are not liable for the actions of third party criminals against invitees of the tenant. Hear, Duke is not operating or controlling the house - the renters of the house are. Therefore, the lessor (Duke) doesn't owe a duty of care to the guests of the tenant. The plaintiff is an invitee of the tenant, not the far-removed landowner themselves, therefore Duke doesn't have a duty of care toward her & cannot be held liable.

Even if Duke could somehow have a duty of care, this case fails on the second element. The second question is whether this particular crime (sexual assault) was forseeable to the owner - and in order for it to be forseeable, there must have been prior similar crimes at the same location. Here, there's no evidence of prior sexual assaults (AFAIK), & no prior felonies at that location. There is underage drinking, but not prior similar crimes of assault. Courts have generally required the prior crimes to be of the same type as what happened to the Plaintiff (a repeating pattern would make future crimes both forseeable & preventable). Here, there is no such repeating pattern of past similar crimes. Therefore, IMO, it is difficult to make the argument that a sexual assault was "forseeable" in a legal sense. This case flunks two of the required elements (duty & breach) for a negligence claim here & is a loser at trial. IMO, it would be dismissed at summary judgment based on the NC standard. Now, this is not to say that a case couldn't settle regardless of its legal merit. Sometimes big institutions prefer to settle for a small amount rather than pay big legal fees. And there are some shady lawyers that will take a case in spite of its lack of legal merit. I am simply saying that there isn't grounds for a negligence verdict against Duke University here.

Here iare some good links on the topic, since I know you won't believe my analysis: http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/1233.pdf - LL liability for acts of third party

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/copyright/reporter/sc/98/216-98-1.htm - NC Supreme Court decision abolishing distinctions based on Plaintiff status on the premises.

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/1998/970394-1.htm - Vera v. Five Crow Promotions, Inc. - NC Supreme Court decision holding that a lessor without possession or control of leased premises had no duty to protect the tenant's invitees from the criminal acts of third parties.

[Neil Lisst]

214. Sure it will be.

I've won enough big jury cases that I know. But I love listening to pretentious rookie lawyers, so please continue. Tell me about the cases you've won, the expert witnesses you've cross examined, and the multimillion dollar verdicts you've reduced to judgment, protected on appeal, and collected.

If you think I'm going to waste even ten minutes arguing law with you, you're even crazier than you've presented yourself. There are many causes of action one can use to pursue Duke, and premises liability is NOT the primary cause of action.

I doubt you're even a litigator, muchless a trial lawyer. Given your lack of understanding of court matters, I'd guess you're some office practitioner, some associate who writes wills and researches law points about trusts.

[Marie26]

217. OK big-shot ,

multi-million dollar verdict-winning, 30+ years of trial experience lawyer, what would be the primary cause of action against Duke? Enlighten us.

[Neil Lisst]

220. Negligence, always negligence

I'd have someone write a memo on NC law causes of action, outlining any we might use. Then I'd affiliate local counsel there to help handle the case and to advise on the causes of action which would fly the best. THEN, I'd plead the case.

I don't yet know all the causes of action I'd use, but it would be everything and the kitchen sink, as long as I had some plausible basis for pleading it.

My primary objectives would be to (1) force the school to put its insurers on notice, and to get an insured defense (making case resolution easier, and forcing an outside voice onto Duke's decisionmaking vis-a-vis the case), (2) threaten the school with damages which would NOT be covered by their insurance (this forces them to force their insurer to settle), and (3) divide and conquer by making all the players help me hang Duke for violating whatever duties I can convince a jury the school has violated.

I'd slap a 50 page pleading on Duke that would have good quotes for media spread throughout it.

I know the law will not let Duke escape liability, and no judge is going to kill a civil case about this on a law point. That means it has to go to a jury, and that means Duke will pay long before then. The sooner they pay up and bail, the better for Duke. Get a confidentiality and get on down the road.

[Marie26]

227. Oh, I see.

I posted about a negligence cause of action, but I was all wrong, because the correct cause of action here is negligence. :eyes: Thanks for the legal insight. It's clear that your major concern here isn't what the actual liability is, or the actual fault, but how much money you can drag out of somebody. All you're talking about is how to force the insurance company to pay up, how to threaten people, & how to peddle the case to the media. I'm getting now why you like the defense lawyers in this case so much. I believe the law does let Duke escape liability, however, w/all the bottom-feeder lawyers out there who are willing to take a bad case, they could feel pressured to pay "some money" regardless.

[Neil Lisst]

228. you merely talked about it as best you understand it

which isn't much

I'm immune to the catcalls of low rollers, rookies, and pretenders in the business. Every case involves a half dozen big firm lawyers and their butt kissers, all of whom are certain, CERTAIN, that I'm wrong and they're right.

[BrownOak]

185. I wasn't commenting on the possible motivations

of the AV, only on the potential merits of the case. Would the plaintiffs have to show the same crime, or only that given the environment that Duke had allowed to develop this type of an assault was likely to happen?

[Neil Lisst]

191. the last item you mention is one element of a sexual harassment case

The environment regarding treatment of women would be an issue in a sexual harassment case, but this case is not one of those. This is not a sexual harassment case.

[Marie26]

210. They'd have to show

the same (or similar) crimes had happened in the past on the premises, & that it was forseeable to Duke that this particular crime would happen; they'd also have to show that Duke owed a duty of care toward the Plaintiff here. I posted a full explanation in my post above - I don't believe there is a meritorious negligence case hear at all against Duke.

[Neil Lisst]

219. which would be great

if you had any experience evaluating and signing up plaintiff's cases

The case is meritorious because there are many ways to skin a cat when pleading a case, and the bottom line is, as soon as the negligence case pleading is served on the school, they put their insurance carrier on notice, who then issues a reservation letter to the school, but takes over the cost and management of the case for the school.

Your legal points cannot assure a successful motion for summary judgment, and therefore will not dispose of the case. Negligence vel non is a fact question, determined by the trier of fact.

[LostinVA]

107. She didn't ask anyone to spin her story

That is not what the email said, nor what her interview said.

I, and most others, are not trying to "railroad" the players -- I want whomever are the rapists imprisoned. We are trying g to protect nasty, unfounded smears AGAINST A RAPE VICTIM.

I've read all your posts -- you are very much on the players' sides.

[Spike from MN]

90. So what you're saying is that

any man who is accused of rape is innocent.

Why bother even having a trial?

I'm just sayin...

[pnwmom]

100. I said nothing remotely like that. But I have read many posters here say

that the woman must be telling the truth, because to go through a rape trial is such an ordeal that no woman would press charges unless it were true.

And all I know for certain about this case is that none of us knows what really happened; and sadly, we probably never will.

[Marie26]

63. Repeat victimization

I know that people who have been victimized once are much more likely to be victimized again in the future. This is especially true of sexual assaults. Many studies have shown that women who are sexually assaulted as a child or teenager will have a much higher risk of becoming a victim of sexual assault again as an adult. Predators will know how to spot someone who is vulnerable & will often target women who have been victims before.

Repeat Sexual Assault

Research findings are remarkably consistent that women who suffer childhood sexual abuse and women who are sexually assaulted as teenagers or adults are at greatly elevated risk for sexual victimization compared with other women. Christine Gidycz and her colleagues have done some of the most rigorous research in this area. In a short-term prospective study of female college students, they found that 18 percent experienced some form of sexual coercion within only nine weeks of entering the study. They also found that a history of sexual abuse in childhood predicted sexual abuse in adolescence and adulthood and that women who experienced rape or attempted rape in adolescence were twice as likely as women without sexual assault histories to be sexually assaulted within the nine-week period.

In a subsequent study in which Gidycz followed college women for a nine-month period, the results were even more dramatic: adult women who had a history of childhood or adolescent sexual abuse reported twice the rate of sexual abuse that other women did at the first three-month interview. Data from the next two interviews illustrated the immediate impact of a recent assault and the multiplying effects of repeat victimization: women who had experienced severe abuse prior to the study were twice as likely as women who had not been assaulted to report sexual abuse during the first three months of the study, and those who suffered severe abuse during the first three months were three times as likely as women who had not been abused to report abuse at the final follow-up interview.

http://www.vera.org/project/project1_23.asp?section_id=1&project_id=54&sub_section_id=35

Violent and Nonviolent Revictimization of Women Abused in Childhood- http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/10/1095

"Sexual Assault Revictimization," Research & Advocacy Digest (pdf) - highly informative collection of articles on this subject.
http://www.wcsap.org/pdf/RAD%206-3.pdf

[regnaD kciN]

22. I've been trying desperately to avoid this story...

My feeling is that a) I don't know all the facts and b) it doesn't impact my life directly (i.e. there's no chance I'm going to be called as a potential juror or asked to do work for either legal team).

If the woman was actually raped, what happened to her is awful and the perpetrators should be punished.

If this is a false accusation, what happened to the accused is awful and every effort should be made to clear their names.

Once the trial is held, I'm sure we'll know more. And, if I find I disagree vehemently with the eventual verdict either way, I'll be able to base that on established information that came out at the trial.

But, for the moment, I find that "digging in" on a position concerning guilt or innocence as pointless as all those people who were heatedly either calling for O.J. to get the death penalty or cheering him on before the Bronco had even been pulled over by the cops -- it says more about the onlookers' own pre-conceived notions than anything really related to the case.

[LostinVA]

30. The woman was raped, as per the SANE's rape kit examination

at Duke Hospital. That of course doesn't ste who the rapists are, but it does prove she was raped.

Okay, ready for all of the, "No it doesn't'. It just says she had injuries consistent with rape" posts. Ready? Here's some preemptive posting: Since the SANE wasn't present when the rape occurred, she can't legally say the woman was raped, but "injuries consistent with rape" means the same basic thing. SANEs are considered expert witnesses in NC rape trials.

[Neil Lisst]

49. they may or may not be "expert witnesses" in NC rape trials

But assuming the person is properly qualified as an expert and accepted as such by the judge, the SANE will be able to testify what she saw, what she was told, and whether the injuries were consistent with rape.

The JURY is the only one who gets to decided whether a rape occurred. The SANE will likely give her testimony, which will be subject to cross examination. If she's a poor witness, if she's got problems in HER reliability as a witness, then that affects the weight her testimony is given. The jury can choose to believe the SANE, or they can ignore her entirely.

[Marie26]

66. SANE's are considered expert witnesses in NC. nt

[Neil Lisst]

74. You must not have read my post, because it explains the process.

Do you think simply being the SANE makes the person automatically an expert in a trial? ANY expert can be stricken, upon proper showing of bias or lack of expertise, and that includes the SANE.

[Marie26]

78. Duh - my post is offering more info on the status of SANE witnesses

You posted that a SANE nure "may or may not be considered an expert witness in NC," & then talked about how cross-exam works. Since I am actually an attorney in NC, I posted to state definitively that SANE nurses are considered expert witnesses in NC to testify in a rape trial. Yes, always, because they are specially trained in the area or sexual assault, & meet the requirements in NC law to be considered an "expert witness." The whole point of having SANE's is to have a highly-qualified specialist who can testify about rape injuries at trial. Even if someone does qualify as an expert witness, however, the witness can still be struck if they are biased or the defense impeaches the credentials. But that does not change the essential fact that SANE nurses are considered expert witnesses under NC law.

[Neil Lisst]

81. There's never been an expert who can't be stricken.

Not for cause, not on a showing of lack of expertise or IMPAIRMENT.

Surely you know that if you've ever tried a case. Surely you know that just because one is in a category acceptable as experts, that does not make one acceptable as an expert in spite of other issues, such as bias, incompetence, or impairment.

The SANE may or may not testify as an expert. The DA might not even try to use the SANE, although they will probably attempt to do so. If the defense has proper cause to challenge the SANE, they will use it, and if the judge agrees, the SANE is gone as an expert. She becomes only a fact witness.

[Marie26]

115. Again,

I don't know how to explain this any other way. Are you a lawyer? If not, maybe you should take my word on this. SANE nurses, collectively, are considered expert witnesses at trial. Period. In fact, they are specially trained so that they can act as expert witnesses to testify about the victim's injuries. Now, a SANE nurse, individually, could still be struck if that person has a conflict or has lied about the certification. That does not change the general rule that a properly certified SANE is an expert witness. I guess you can speculate that this particular SANE nurse is somehow lying about her certification, or has some big conflict, but that's a pretty big stretch & a pretty big leap. This SANE nurse was at the hospital emergency room, & was authorized by the hospital to perform the (highly-specialized) medical exam. Obviously, she's a qualified person to speak about the injuries. Instead of speculating wildly about random hypotheticals, why not simply accept that this SANE nurse will be called as an expert witness in this trial & go from there.

[onenote]

123. what we know and don't know

I agree that the SANE nurse is presumptively qualified as an expert witness and that it would be rank speculation to presume that there might be some basis for disqualifying her. However, it also is rank speculation as to what her testimony is going to reveal, particularly when subjected to the rigors of cross-examination. All we know at this point is that the examination found that the woman examined had injuries "consistent with rape." It is well-settled that some injuries that are consistent with rape may also be consistent with consensual sex. (It would be bizarre and unreasonable if anytime a medical examiner saw injuries that might be consistent with consensual sex they were required to conclude that the injuries were "inconsistent" with rape, given that a wide range of force can be applied in a forcible rape situation. In this case, we don't yet know what injuries the SANE nurse found and based her conclusion on. (If there has been a detailed description of them I've missed it). Conswuently, anyone that insists that the woman definitively was raped based solely on the SANE report's statement that the injuries were consistent with rape is jumping the gun. That may very well turn out to be the case, but right now no one can be certain based on the limited information that, as far as I know, is available.

onenote

[Neil Lisst]

143. Many people who are "qualified" get stricken as experts

I've been trying cases 30 years, and there is no expert who can't be stricken. Just because the SANE is QUALIFIED by statute to be an expert doesn't mean this SANE will be qualified in this case.

Don't trust me. Ask a senior trial lawyer in North Carolina.

Now let me ask you. Have you ever stricken any expert witnesses upon hearing, for cause? I've done it lots of times, with doctors, accountants, lawyers, engineers - and they all thought they were "qualified" to be experts, and were until I got them stricken. Like I have said, any expert can be stricken upon showing of bias, impairment, or incompetence.

Being a lawyer qualifies you to be an expert witness on legal matters, but I can get you stricken in 5 minutes by showing on voir dire that you lack the expertise needed, or by showing you have a drinking problem or drug problem that may have affected your work, or by showing you have bias, as evidenced by your membership in some group that is known as an advocacy group.

The SANE is qualified to act an an expert, but that is a threshold issue. It doesn't mean she can testify as an expert if she can be challenged for bias, incompetence or impairment.

[Marie26]

180. And what I am explaining,

without apparant success, is that it is misleading to say that SANE's are not expert witnesses. Of course they are. And of course an individual nurse can be stricken for cause (as can any witness, expert or otherwise). I am glad that you clarified that to say that "the SANE is qualified to act as an expert" as a threshold issue. That was exactly my point. And you're a lawyer? Please excuse me while I faint. Why haven't you ever mentioned your 30+ years experience as a trial attorney before? A lawyer/cartoonist, what a Renaissance man. If you're really an lawyer, then I'm sure you'll have no problem explaining the "Rule Against Perpetuities." Go!

[Neil Lisst]

184. that's funny

You must be a law student if you're interested in the Rule Against Perpetuities. Why don't you tell us about the Rule of Dumpor's Case? Or maybe Hadley v. Baxendale? International Shoe?

Oh, the hubris of just learned knowledge!

There's a reason we call yall "baby lawyers" when you first start practicing.

[Marie26]

215. Not quite

I'm sorry, the correct answer is: no one can explain the Rule Against Perpituities. Any real lawyer should know that! No, I'm not a law student, but an actual attorney. You may find this difficult to believe, but I don't lie about things to suit me. If I say I'm an attorney, it's cause I'm an attorney - if I say I believe an assault occured, it's because I believe an assault occured. I'm funny like that. I've been astounded by the amount of vitriol & hate you've been spewing over this case & just unable to come up w/an explanation for it. But I think I'm starting to understand the reason for the anger & fear in your posts. If you are a middle-aged white male attorney, you've already benefited from the way the legal system is structured now. God forbid anyone should try to change things. Have you really stopped & asked yourself why it's so important to you to drag this woman through the mud? Why you've even resorted to making up allegations against the accuser when the facts aren't bad enough? Why it's so important to you to insult & demean other posters? Do you like what you see?

[regnaD kciN]

102. You demonstrate all-too-clearly a certain DU mentality about this case...

I post that I'm waiting to hear the evidence brought forth at trial before coming to my own conclusion, and you immediately start in with the arguments as to why your view of the case must be recognized as The Truth, right now.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

108. I think you need to take a class on reading comprehension

And keep the damned eye rolling smiley to yourself. It;'s arrogant and condescending.

I'm also waiting for evidence at trial to see who the rapists are. But I don't have to wait to see if she was raped. She was raped. That is a fact, per the SANE's rape exam. Maybe if you educated yourself on what a SANE is, via some other posts or a Google search, then you wouldn't have to skip over debate and discussion and use eye rollies instead.

It is the truth she was raped. She is a rape victim. Period. Regardless of anything else that is swirling around about the case. Someone raped her anally, orally and vaginally. Period.

You demonstrate all-too-clearly a certain DU mentality about this case: the victim isn't a victim, so who cares. My mind is only made up in that the woman was raped, and we need to recognize that. Your mind is so made up you refuse to even accept the SANE evidence. Who's the narrow-minded one here? Yup, not me.

As I keep on stating, I don't read posts from people who believe in smear the vitim tactics. You're on Ignore, so post to your heart's content. I won't be reading it.

Oh, and:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

on edit: why are 95% of the posters who refuse to accept the SANE's evidence, or to believe the woman was raped, male? All of the men I know are appalled by this and believe the woman is a victim. Even my REALLY repub Dad. So, why heer on DU?

[Tigress DEM]

24. Thing is it's not uncommon. Predators know how to spot a victim.

Guys who gang rape are looking for someone they think they can keep quiet. In rape recovery programs you learn to change your body language. Because you are taught that these predators are looking for someone who is submissive and frightened.

If I'm walking alone in a dark parking lot for instance, I run these scripts in my head about breaking any guy stupid enough to attack me into little pieces and it changes my posture, my walk. I imagine my facial expression would make someone back away from me.

And a person who had backed down as a child would have lived with that every day of her life and probably said to herself, "Never Again." I was 6 1/2 but my folks knew that at even at that young age it would have been me on trial because of how society processes this kind of stuff.

Lawyers tell a young woman that she will be put on trial and that the defense will try to paint her as a whore. At 14 when all you want to do is blend in and be accepted, standing up to 3 boys who traumatized you AND their lawyers it might seem to be the less brutal solution.

[Lindacooks]

25. So? That has nothing to do with whether or not she consented

to any alleged sexual act. THAT'S the issue here.

[LostinVA]

My SO just said: all this proves is that she's been victimized before

[Southsideirish]

37. Its not impossible that both events could have happened to one person.

In some areas many bad things happen all the time. Perhaps the first incident set her up for the kind of lifestyle that things like the second incident would occur. There may be a lot of self hatred there.

[LostinVA]

39. That'a almost exactly what my SO said

[wicket]

51. Well said

n/t

[femmedem]

55. Fairly likely, actually. I thought when I first read her story

that she was probably sexually assaulted as a girl. Almost posted it, but I didn't want to add to the speculation.

I had a dancer friend who was raped 5 times, the first when she was in her early teens. I had another dancer friend who was raped three times. (The first time, when she was thirteen, they left her tied to a tree.) And so many, so many incest survivors...We dancers used to joke about hiring an in-house therapist for all the survivors of sexual assault. We used to say that if we ever unionized, it would be one of our demands.

I wish I still had my copy of Trauma and Recovery. I'd go looking for some quotes about how common it is for people to revisit their trauma in a more controlled way: a rape victim becoming a prostitute or dancer, for example.

Rape smashes your normal boundaries. It's a long, strange individualistic road to get them back. No one should judge this woman for her choices.

[BrownOak]

166. I'm not sure it "proves" anything

No offense intended to your SO or those who are on the complete other side and feel this shows the current charges are groundless.

It doesn't prove that she was victimized before.

- the previous allegations could be false and the current ones true
- the previous allegations could be true and the current ones true
- the previous allegations could be false and the current ones false
- the previous allegations could be true and the current ones false

That's about all you know from this report.

Of course, the problem is how will it play in front of a jury. Maybe I'm wrong about this, and I hope I am. I've been pretty vocal about pointing out things in this case where I see things worth questioning. I personally have a hard time seeing how anyting conclusive could be drawn from this earlier incident. I would bet that 1 out of 12 people would hear about that first reported assault and think she's a serial rape accuser.

If this case goes to trial I hope it's decided on the merits of what can be shown to have happened and not decided on the inferences someone may draw from this report.

[Egalitariat]

28. This is as relevant as the fact that one of the accused has been accused..

before.

[LostinVA]

31. One of the accused has been accused of rape before?

I actually hadn't heard that. Or is this a "what if"?

[timber84]

34. This whole story is really starting to smell now

[Beelzebud]

44. Why so much focus on this media created event?

This is a story to distract people from shit that matters!

There are probably a few hundred rape cases in America right now, so why focus on this one?

Let the judicial system take care of it.

[Tigress DEM]

45. Exactly. How is Andrea Clark's thing going?

Anybody hear about that? A woman is in St Luke's Hospital in Houston TX and her family is trying to keep them from pulling the plug.

Unlike Teri Schiavo this woman has said herself that she wants to live when she isn't drugged up and all her family is in agreement that she is lucid when not drugged and are fighting a literal "deadline" of 5 days now.

[LostinVA]

47. There have been several threads on DU about that

I was Reading one a little while ago.

[Tigress DEM]

57. Right, but WHERE is the Media Coverage for an IMPORTANT -

LIFE OR DEATH story like this?

[LostinVA]

110. TALk to the media about that... seriously

I'm not being bitchy.

[LostinVA]

46. THis is a rapist-created event

And, there are considerably more than a few hundred rapes in America right now.

The focus here is on how it's 2006, and we still have the same old attacks on rape victims -- by the Defense, in the media, and here on DU. That's pissing us off, as is the mix of violence against women, race, athletes unaccountability, and classism that's in this case.

[Neil Lisst]

52. Or it might not be at all.

You don't know. You like to say that, as if saying emphatically makes it so. You know that the SANE said something that caused the DA to believe a rape had occurred.

As this accuser's story becomes more and more unbelievable, the desperation here among her supporters is palpable.

[FreakinDJ]

86. little bit of dis-information in there

Just got to get that little bit of dis-information in there don’t ya

I love it when they purposefully over look 35% of all accused in rape cases are proven totally innocent and that 25% of all rape cases are proven to be a hoax.

Probably working for some kind of crisis center that receives funding too

[Neil Lisst]

89. you do realize, don't you ...

... that they're now putting on their war paint and spreading the word that you must be attacked for speaking the truth that cannot be spoken!

[FreakinDJ]

91. That is SOoo Pre 911

Lets just take them out and HANG them now

That way no one can smear the victim

Sounds perfectly logical to many people here doesn't it.

Just like Bush. Torturing all the darn Iraqi prisoners because some one ACCUSED them of some thing. I mean the whole Innocent Until Proven Guilty thing is SOOOooo pre 911

Ya know what I mean

[Neil Lisst]

94. that is a mode of thinking that has become vogue in some circles

It's abhorrent to our constitutional rights, but in the minds of some, anyone who outcries is telling the truth, women never use sex or violence allegations to gain advantage, and all men accused deserve to be treated as guilty.

[Marie26]

144. Um, link?

Or are you trying to get a bit of disinformation in? ;)

[Spike from MN]

229. Speaking of disinformation...

No one is ever "proven totally innocent." They are proven not guilty. There IS a difference.

Please post a link to the stats you cite.

Here are some stats I have come across:

72% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Those rapists, of course, never serve a day in prison. <1999 NCVS>

If the rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.

If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.

If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.

If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.

So, even in those 28% of rapes that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.

Factoring in unreported rapes, about 5%—one out of twenty— of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. 19 out of 20 will walk free.

Link:
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~casv/stats.htm

[0007]

50. Money talks real loud.

[NaturalHigh]

53. Interesting, but I can't say that I'm surprised.

I've felt all along that she was lying in this case, so I'm not surprised to hear that she's made other accusations.

[Sparkle]

62. What makes you think she is lying?

[NaturalHigh]

172. Well, let's see...

No DNA matching any of the lacrosse players was found. At least one of the guys she accused wasn't even there when she says she was attacked. Her story has changed, and now she (through her father) claims she was sodomized with a broomstick. She has a history of making rape claims that can't be substantiated. Her friend initially did not claim that there was a rape and now says that she doesn't know. The same friend contacted a PR firm about how to best spin the story to her advantage.

[Neil Lisst]

174. I'm writing a poem about it

Why do I doubt thee? Let me count the ways.

^^ that's all I have so far.

[NaturalHigh]

175. Be careful...

You're liable to be accused of blaming the victim. x(

[Neil Lisst]

176. I'll be glad when we find out who the victim is in this case.

I mean the accused, or those she accused.

[1932]

71. It's like Chris Rock says,

(paraphrasing): if you have a screwed up chilhood, you're going to end up being a stripper.

[FreakinDJ]

75. She is looking for a way out of this case

that is why they told the media

[Neil Lisst]

77. Exactly! She is letting people down easy. First the reports of threats.

Then the traumas of the past.

After the election, the DA will mainly care about making sure it doesn't look like HE caved in or failed to champion her cause. She wants to bail, and will, and that gives him his out.

She'll get paid somehow, by someone, and there may be a civil suit which gets resolved quickly.

[FreakinDJ]

79. Don’t get me wrong I feel sorry for this girl

But by all the maneuvering on her part I am highly suspicious of her story. Which by the way has already changed 3 times.

So how some one, some agency should get her the type of medical attention she needs so as she will no longer place her self in these situations

[Neil Lisst]

80. I think she is likely to get the kind of help she needs.

The Essence writer is inside, and I suspect her insights that are eventually made clear will shed a lot of light on the accuser.

Is it possible she shot up in the bathroom? That would explain taking some of her nails off, and it would explain her rapidly changed, almost euphoric, state.

[FreakinDJ]

85. highly speculative

<< Is it possible she shot up in the bathroom? >>

highly speculative and in no way I want to slander this girl, but Freud did quite a bit of research on the hysteria surrounding sexual abuse.

Of course it is not very PC with all the groups currently seeking funding wanting to persecute the falsely accused.

[TorchTheWitch]

103. Absolutely

Certainly having her entire life dragged through the mud in the national media would never be a compelling reason to drop the case... when has THAT ever happened?

And that combined with death threats and losing her job and not being able to go to school and having to hide where you're living and move around a lot to stay one step ahead of those sickos out to harm her... well, shoot, the general public would NEVER believe that was a compelling reason to drop the case.

No, surely she'd have to get her parents to make up a story about a previous rape to lie about all over the national media and any and all records about a previous rape and the therapy and medication required to deal with the fake previous rape would just have to be located and burned... and something would surely have to be done about the therapists or other counselors that saw her to keep them silent (So THAT's what the Black Panthers were called in for!)...

And DAMN that prosecutor is brilliant because it was HIM that convinced all these people to go along with all these lies and stories and distortions because he couldn't possibly win an election without doing SOMETHING to shake up the town with Black Panthers and threats of drive by shooters (I mean, really... how can anyone get elected for so much as dog catcher without creating a stew pot that makes the voters feel unsafe?). Who wouldn't jump at the chance to elect him after spending all those voters' tax dollars on a faux investigation and trial... I know I'd definately pull the lever for him if I knew that the paycheck he gets of my tax money was for all that time he wasted on a trumped up criminal investigation and trial... he obviously orchestrated the whole thing to get votes! Even better is using extra campaign dollars donated to him for bribe money for all the people that lied for him or better yet, if he just steals that bribe money from the government which the government got from the tax paying voters! It's so OBVIOUS, and voters just LOVE him for it!

:crazy:

You know, I'm really starting to wonder why the accused didn't higher you... you're far more devoted to representing them, and you do it for free.

[LostinVA]

111. I love you, Torchie:

"You know, I'm really starting to wonder why the accused didn't higher you... you're far more devoted to representing them, and you do it for free."

That gave me a great early AM giggle -- you go, girl!

[NaturalHigh]

177. Of course, you're also concerned that the accused players...

are also being dragged through the mud even though they're presumed innocent. Right?

Are you equally appalled that death threats have been made not only to the accused players but to their teammates? Are you outraged that their names are plastered across the television while the accuser remains (except for a few websites) anonymous?

Surely there's no double standard here.

:eyes:

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. SHE'S BEEN RAPED TWICE

By six different caucasian males. Those dirty, perverted, self-important, uppity, white, mother-FUCKERS!

Who are we to question her? She says she's been raped, well then by fucking God, she's been raped. 'Nuff said?

I know how we can catch the three goddamn white mother-FUCKERS who did it this time too, even if there ISN'T DNA evidence that they did it...

So they used a broom huh? No problem: I've seen the cop shows. Last I heard, EVERY LIVING THING has a DNA helix that can be traced back to the source. SO. WE find the broom with HER DNA on it. Then, we trace the DNA encapsulated in the wood that the broom is composed of and find out where it was grown. THEN we find out where that wood went after it was harvested and find which handle manufacturer made the wooden handle for the broom. THEN we find out which broom/mop/rake/hoe (no pun intended)/ retailer might have used the handle for their particular implement. THEN we find out which chain of stores might have sold said implements. THEN we find out which of the defendants lives closest to said store. DONE DEAL. Hang the white mother-FUCKER. Hang his brothers, sisters, parents, and anyone who might have played tiddlywinks with him as a chile and fucked up his mind.

ARE WE GOING TO STOP THIS SHIT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN? YES.

Unless she's lying. And then, we've fucked up a whole family, school, and anyone even remotely connected with the alleged perpetrator.

Wait. Isn't this all moot considering that under our "current" set of laws? I thought that a person had to be CONVICTED before being called the PERPETRATOR?

[FreakinDJ]

84. You really should learn to read

The first time she accused 3 black men

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. Damn me! I've always wanted to learn to read... well, maybe someday huh?

I got hung up on the three thing...

Like I said though, if she SAID she was raped, she WAS raped. No? Is perception NOT reality?

[FreakinDJ]

88. Hang them before the trial

That way no one can smear the victim

Sounds perfectly logical to many people here doesn't it.

Just like Bush. Torturing all the darn Iraqi prisoners because some one ACCUSED them of some thing. I mean the whole Innocent Until Proven Guilty thing is SOOOooo pre 911

Ya know what i mean

[cherokeeprogressive]

93. Quick Question... then I'm off to bed

Didn't we feel like we were the victims on 9/11? And isn't perception reality? Where does perception end and reality begin? Why would it be different for an individual than it would be for the collective?

My GrandPop (may the Great Spirit rest his soul) was born in the RES in Oklahoma.

His reality? Get the Fuck Out Before You Die Here.

Worked for HIM.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean when you day SOOO pre-9/11 in reference to the innocent until proven guilty thing...

God (or the Great Spirit) or Mr/Mrs Atheism or whomever you consider to be greater or more knowledgeable than you aside, do you consider the accuser to be correct and the accused to be guilty?

You can't say in cases of rape yes, and other cases no.

At least not in my neighborhood.

But then you'll have to forgive me for this whole notion, as I'm just learning how to read. Someday I might get it right. It's my goal.

[LostinVA]

112. The SANE's rape exam says she was raped, so yes -- she was raped

[onenote]

124. see post #123

[FreakinDJ]

92. You can almost smell Durham burning

You can almost smell Durham burning in the distance already

An official with the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense said the black nationalist organization is providing security for the woman who has accused Duke lacrosse players of raping her.
And the organization is distributing recruitment brochures with information about a rally planned near the Duke campus for Monday. The brochures ask, "Had enough of disrespect and racism from Duke University?" The materials contain photographs of Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, the two white lacrosse players indicted and charged with raping a black exotic dancer at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. the night of March 13-14.
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-728827.html

When this whole thing falls apart and rioting breaks out in Durham. When Reginal Denny style attacks are perpetrated in the streets. When shops, stores, and businesses are left burning and looted. When "SHOTS FIRED" rings out across police ban radios. When the first bodies lay down

All of this will be 1 person's fault

[Marie26]

122. Oh, man. nt

[treestar]

99. Irrelevant.

[Neil Lisst]

101. sure it's relevant

the only question is whether it comes into evidence

[Thtwudbeme]

106. Thank you for posting this in GD, because we all know it's a trivial local

issue...and that those precious little darling lacrosse players must be innocent; this bad girl is just smearing their good names!

Thank you so much!

[dsc]

109. One can think this is a local issue

and not have any opinion on the case. Sorry but this case won't affect anyone's life in any non trivial way unless they are a direct participant in the case. This isn't Enron.

[LostinVA]

113. Good post, Thtwudbeme

[bloom]

118. If anyone thinks that this means anything

other than that she was raped twice (and that rapes aren't always prosecuted) needs to get their head examined.

[LostinVA]

121. Yet another good post from Bloom

[NaturalHigh]

173. Actually, it means that she has twice made rape claims...

which can't be substantiated. Even though there are many people (some right here on this thread) who seem to think that the mere claim of rape, no matter how wild and ridiculous, should be enough to put a man in jail, that's not the way our legal system works.

[SaveElmer]

126. Great...it is now a character flaw to have been raped...

:banghead:

[LostinVA]

127. Yup... means you're a skanky, con artist, prostitute mental case

who's also a pathological liar... even IF a medical exam shows you've been raped. All that means is you did it to yourself at home with a dildo, or else your pimp raped you before hand so you could set up the rich college boys.

I think I hit most of the talking points there.....

Oh, wait! I forgot to mention Tawna Brawley!

[FreakinDJ]

129. Proving Freud’s “Hysteria” theories with amazing results

Gives the term “Nut-job” a whole new relevance

Legal Consequences Of Public Outrage

Since media had so gravely misled the public about the amount and quality of evidence against the two doctors, it is no wonder that the acquittal brought about a very angry reaction from many quarters. The prosecutor was also strongly criticized for not having invited testimony by the several prostitutes who claimed that they had known Hansson as a customer, that they knew he was a customer of da Costa, or even seen him together with da Costa <8>. The way the trial was conducted was therefore seen as an example of male oppression of women, and the fact that the two doctors were acquitted was said to be a denial of justice to da Costa.
http://truth.boisestate.edu/jcaawp/2003_37-62/2003_37-62.htm

[Marie26]

132. Cause Freud was so right w/his theories

about how autism is caused by bad mothers, & how schizophrenia & depression are not a brain disorders, etc. Yeah.

[jberryhill]

131. Nobody here said those things about this article...

...except you.

Look up "reaction formation". Do you get a kick out of calling someone a "skanky, con artist, prostitute mental case" and pretending that someone else did?

My fear is that if this case is incompetently investigated and prosecuted, while being made a "poster child" case for rape, then there is the potential for more harm than good to be done here.

You are absolutely correct, as you repeatedly post, that the SANE examiner found evidence of rape.

The question in this proceeding is whether Finnerty and/or Seligman did.

This report does not impugn the victim's character, and I don't understand why you say it does.

[FreakinDJ]

134. Merely seeks to fuel mass hysteria

Don’t worry, you won’t find much factual basis for most of her post.

Textual Analysis: An Approach for Assessing the Truth Value of Allegations of Sexual Abuse

The Physical Possibility of Performing the Alleged Act

One of the very first questions I ask when confronted with a case of sexual abuse is, "Is the alleged act physically possible at all?" This question is far from trivial. People have been sent to prison because of acts which no human being is capable of performing.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume8/j8_1_1.htm

[Marie26]

135. And the post

about how this case will cause Durham to burn down after mass riots, attacks against white people, looting and burning of stores, shots fired & bodies falling, and it will all be the victim's fault - was just a calm, rational assessment of this case?

[FreakinDJ]

137. A likely scenario

I was there when the Rodney King riots broke out.

It wasn’t pretty. Not attempting to asses right or wrong, I’ll leave that to my more scholarly friends, but it was very disturbing.

I was on the roof of a shopping mall performing an energy audit. I didn’t realize what was going on until a couple of cars passed by and fired shots at the mall. Before we knew it we were rushing to get out of town. Smoke was already beginning to rise from South Central.

Perpetuating “Mass Hysteria” of the case benefits the prosecution. But at what point do folks take responsibility for creating sparks around dry tinder.

[Marie26]

138. See, in my opinion that's a hysterical scenario,

so you can see how opinions differ on what is & is not a reasonable position. The Rodney Kind case was very different, because it involved issues of police brutality in the tinder box of LAPD bad relations w/the community. I'm in NC, & haven't seen any indication that anything like that this is anywhere near possible. The local media has been very fair & impartial & the opinions of most people (black & white), has tended to be "wait & see." The only person I've seen floating the idea that people would "burn Durham" to the ground is you. So who's the one spreading "mass hysteria" here?

[LostinVA]

139. My parents have said that about the NC media, too

She says that, when she watches MSM, it's like it's not even the same case they're talking about, there's so much spin and so many rumors and speculations and partisan opinions.

[BrownOak]

140. Yeah, Cosby, Abrams, and Grace

are obviously covering a different story than the rest of the world.

[Neil Lisst]

147. Maybe Nancy Grace & Wendy Murphy can start the HE'S GUILTY! channel

Nothing but cases where men are guilty of something, from the first breath of a case.

There is a serious departure from reality going on among those who cannot accept that this case, as a case, will never fly.

[Marie26]

141. I finally tuned into

a cable news show a couple days ago, & I was astounded by the amount of speculation, spin & flat-out lies that were being tossed around. The legal "experts" screamed at each other w/o either one knowing anything about the actual laws here & the host would try to make the most outrageous statements possible to get ratings. I think it's possible you could watch one of those shows & actually end up less informed about the case.

[FreakinDJ]

146. The Mass Hysteria effect is well documented

and it won't be the first time either

Evidence for the allegations was based on "repressed memories" of adults or evidence gathered from children using "suggestive" psychological techniques that have been discredited overseas, Guilliatt argues.

"Many people, predominantly women, but also men and children, now claim to remember childhood events which are clearly impossible and have no basis in reality," he writes.
"These people are recovering memories of extreme and bizarre incidents perpetrated by parents who, it is claimed, belonged to satanic cults which participated in murder child sacrifice, torture, pornography and other serious crimes on a major scale.

"Such stories have given rise to a new term in the child abuse field - ritual abuse. Yet, despite hundreds of massive police investigations in Europe, the United States and Australia over the past decade, virtually no material evidence has ever emerged to support the existence of ritual or satanic cult abuse."

Guilliatt readily admits there is a "kernel of truth" to the ritual abuse phenomenon. But he says it has been blown out of proportion by the unlikely combination of Christian fundamentalists keen to find evidence of devil worship, and radical feminists who feel such abuse validates their view of a patriarchal society.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/satanism/satanism7.html

Perhaps this will be the first example of where the mass hysteria of sexual abuse has led to wide spread civil unrest. Already on another board some are reporting receiving KKK and Neo Nazi hate Email concerning the Duke case. Their comments were the KKK and Neo Nazis are salivating at the recruitment potential

[Marie26]

149. What does that have to do w/this case?

People are odd sometimes. You keep posting this thing about "repressed memories" & "satanic child abuse" that has absolutely zero to do w/this case. At the same time, you post very inflammatory (IMO hysterical) opinions on how this case will cause MASS RIOTS!1!!
"Perhaps this will be the first example of where the mass hysteria of sexual abuse has led to wide spread civil unrest." Yeaaahhh, or maybe this is just a sexual assault case that will proceed through the local legal process like the thousands before it.

[FreakinDJ]

151. Prosecutors know full well Mass Hysteria play in their favor

Why do you think the DA keeps running to the press with "News Stories"

Alibi photos for lacrosse players questioned
Prosecutors reportedly claim prints were doctored, don't show correct time
Updated: 10:24 a.m. ET April 28, 2006

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12521096/

Just now we have a case with racial implications both side are seeking to capitalize upon and a "long hot summer" ahead. The DA is acting irresponsibly.

If he wants to protect is client then he should not be taking this case to the media like he is

[Marie26]

152. As do defense attorneys

And the defense isn't running to the press w/"news stories"? That article you cited was about the "alibi photos" the defense released to the press & the cabbie story "alibi" that the defense has also been publicizing to the media. So, you cite this as supposedly proving that the DA is running to the press, but you'll note that there's not one quote there from the DA's office. (He isn't speaking to the media anymore.) However, this article does include numerous quotes from defense team lawyers about how great this evidence will be at trial. And, you think this proves the prosecutor is running to the press? :crazy:

[LostinVA]

155. The DA rightly stopped talked to the press quite a while ago

Except to say (again today) that he's not dropping the case.

[BrownOak]

169. But the DA wrongly started talking to the press to begin with

Talking and talking and talking

It was only after he came under fire for so many interviews that he stopped.

[FreakinDJ]

156. Your version of events doesn’t hold up to logic very well

Prosecution ran to the media first

Heck the students didn’t even have attorneys at the time. The students made statements with out attorneys, they offered to submit to lie detector test.

But NO the prosecution sought to exploit this case to the fullest through the media.

Now you have a racially divided and charged city with a long hot summer ahead. If worst comes to worst the guilt lies directly upon the DA’s shoulders

[Marie26]

157. Point me to one quote from

the DA in that article & I'll happily change my statement. But as is, you are pointing to a new article that does not contain any statements from the DA as proof that the DA is talking to the media. Now that's illogical. The DA did give interviews earlier, but he stopped giving any interviews to the media after the indictments were brought down, & I think that's appropriate. Any comments on the evidence at this point are coming from the defense. And comment they have, repeatedly, throughout this case - releasing alibis, photos, timelines, etc. And that's their right, but I'm not sure how you can believe that the DA is the only person responsible for talking to the media in this case. So, OK, you're saying there'll be MASS RIOTS!!11!! this summer & the DA and victim are totally guilty (defense blameless). Got it. I don't believe your version of events holds up to logic very well, but I got it.

[LostinVA]

164. Mass riots in Durham? Are you series, Marie!!!111

What a laugh riot this thread has become, huh?

[Marie26]

167. I'm SERIES!!11!

This is HUGH! :rofl: It's sure taken a left turn for the weird (if it wasn't there already).

[LostinVA]

168. OMG!!111 THAT IS HUGH!!!111??///

God... I wish this case could be prosecuted TOMORROW!

[Neil Lisst]

158. This prosecutor is the person who made the case a media case.

He was all over the TV before anyone else was. He's a politician who got appointed over a woman who deserved the job, and she was winning the Dem primary before he latched onto this convenient excuse to be on TV.

[FreakinDJ]

159. EXACTLY

and if riots break out in Durham he will be solely at fault

[Neil Lisst]

161. I don't think there will be any riots. Her prior rape claim wiped it out.

In 1996, at age 18, she claimed 3 black guys raped her in 1993. Her father has already said she wasn't raped, and the accuseds in that matter say they didn't do anything to her. The case was not pursued by authorities.

That whole incident is going to cost her all that unified black community support she was getting. Now, much of that will be eroded, since those 3 guys all live there and have family and friends.

[FreakinDJ]

165. Turning into a hotbed of civil unrest

Well I certainly hope your analogy plays out but some how I don't think it well. Those 3 boys were never brought to court on those charges. Which if the think about it certainly well fuel resentment on the other side.

An official with the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense said the black nationalist organization is providing security for the woman who has accused Duke lacrosse players of raping her.
And the organization is distributing recruitment brochures with information about a rally planned near the Duke campus for Monday. The brochures ask, "Had enough of disrespect and racism from Duke University?" The materials contain photographs of Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, the two white lacrosse players indicted and charged with raping a black exotic dancer at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. the night of March 13-14.
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-728827.html

With the KKK strong hold of the deep south this thing could easily explode.

[Neil Lisst]

170. I still think it will fade quickly once she bails on the criminal case.

It is important to note that the men she accused were boys at the time of the alleged event, like 13 years old. I heard one of them. Of course, he's about 26 now, and was speaking of his upcoming marriage. I'm sure the bride's family is busy spreading his position on it.

[FreakinDJ]

171. No way lightening strikes 3 times in the same place

No way lightening strikes 3 times in the same place without being some sort of a lightening rod.

I truthfully feel very badly for this women but the DA and even some feminist, ethnic groups are exploiting this woman and this case for their own personal gain. I have yet to see them propose any thing meaningful for the betterment of the victim. Just lets hang the accused to further their own agenda

The judge should place a gag order on the DA, Defense, victim, accused, and their families. They should get this woman into some sort of meaningful counseling that will prevent this type of thing from happening a 4th time.

Recess the case until such time as she has over come obvious obstacles to her emotional well being and her ability to be truthful, AND then ask her if she wishes to continue. Some how I doubt she would.

[LostinVA]

154. I'm trying to imagine "wide spread civil unrest" in Durham

Nope... can't imagine it. Unless maybe Coach K publicly says The 'Heels are a superior ball club to the Devils.

[FreakinDJ]

160. Selective Memory Syndrome

Isn't that like Cheery picking the inteligence

[Neil Lisst]

148. I think you'll find that the MSNBC experts know what they're talking about

There are two good experts they use, one male with dark black hair, and one female with dark black or brown hair.

It also depends on the show. Abrams is good about letting each person say what they need to, and minimizing overtalk.

I've found the news coverage to be salacious and exploitive, but what else is new? They have covered the matter well.

[BrownOak]

163. Careful

I'm pretty sure you're going to have to resit for the bar exam after watching that. Every time Nancy Grace opens her mouth I feel my IQ dropping a few points.

[Marie26]

221. I couldn't resist

Rita Cosby had a story on about how the cabbie's story was falling apart & included the time discrepancies & errors I'd noted earlier. I felt all vindicated & liked Rita Cosby for a total of 3 minutes. (By the way, they showed a video clip of the cabbie displaying the actual computer log of the second call at 1:07 - so it couldn't just be the cabbie's bad memory). After being horrified by the rest of the show, I swore off the cable news coverage. You can learn so much more by just reading the local newspaper.

[BrownOak]

230. Computer Logs & Bad Memories

Actually, if you look at that log again, you'll see a call at 12:29 from the 856 area code which is Southern Jersey and would be from the cell phone of Tony McDevitt, the player who called for the second ride. That's identified in this story from the N&O:

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/430963.html

[Marie26]

231. Then how come

he originally said he received the second call around 1:07 & displayed the actual computer log of the 1:01 call on the Rita Cosby show?

"Mostafa said he got another call to pick up people at the North Buchanan address later in the morning of March 14, about 1:07 a.m."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/duke.cabbie/index.html

"Durham cabbie changes story" - video clip from the Rita Cosby show
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=60a95b81-c16d-466a-ac9a-4c46ace99231&f=00&fg=copy

Transcript of second interview w/cabbie Mostafa:

"Now that same cab driver who vouched for Seligmann with such precision is being called into question about his second pick up at the house that same night. Was his error an honest mistake or something else?

Joining me now is Mustafa who goes by the name Mustafa, he‘s the driver for On Time Transportation in Durham, North Carolina. He joins me now live in his first live television interview.

Now, I have to play for you, this is what you said to me when I interviewed you last week, not Reade Seligmann but the second pickup. You said it was at 1:01 a.m. And I‘ll get to you respond.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

You got a second call that night to 610 North Buchanan House. What time was that?

MOEZ MUSTAFA, CAB DRIVER: I got the second call, according to my records, 1:01 a.m.

COSBY: And where was that?

MUSTAFA: 610 North Buchanan.

COSBY: What did you see when you arrived?

MUSTAFA: A bunch of kids outside of the house.

COSBY: How many?

MUSTAFA: Around 20.

COSBY: Around 20?

MUSTAFA: Some of them on the left side of the road. And some of them on the right side of the road. I mean, all of them, like, outside of the house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSBY: Now, when we look at that, that could not have happened. That‘s why I thought it was important to get you back on my show. At 12:53, the second dancer, Kim Roberts calls 911 at the time she left the house or was in the process of leaving. At 12:55, according to the police logs, they responded to a call and find the house is quiet, lots are off. And they said nobody answers the door and nobody is in the yard. Again, you said that you arrived there, got the call at 1:01 and arrived after that. Mustafa, what do you say tonight?

MUSTAFA: Yes, thank you, Rita, for having me here. My pleasure. As I said before, I am working on this and distracting at the same time. So, maybe why there‘s some confusion. I remember for sure, I have a call at 12:39 while I was at the Cookout Restaurant. And I tried to drop Reade and his friend outside of the house. So I jump on the highway, and I remember Reade‘s friend and he asked me, why did you take this highway. And I said, I‘m in a rush and I want to get to the other call.

COSBY: So, now, let me repeat this. You are saying that the call actually came while you were still with Reade Seligmann, came a half hour earlier. You seemed like you remembered a lot things with precision. That‘s a big difference. You are sure it happened when you came back, when talked to me before.

MUSTAFA: Well, my many calls, when I work at night, many calls come through the phones. I remember the call at 1:01 is an unknown number. Maybe I got two calls or three calls that night before I went to sleep. But I‘m sure that there‘s a call, to make that confusion, while I was at the Cookout restaurant at 12:29. And the reason I jumped on the highway running south, so I can get to the other call.

COSBY: So, you are saying the call came a half hour earlier, when you were still with Reade and you were mistaken when you spoke the first time.

MUSTAFA: What I am sure about, when I got to the house at 610 North Buchanan, there was no police. No lights at all. I see just a bunch of students from college on the right side of the road and on the left side of the road. And there‘s no police at all. Another thing I‘m very sure.

COSBY: Tell us about the woman, too, Mustafa that you saw.

MUSTAFA: I saw a woman coming in on my right side, my view on my right side, I saw a woman going toward her going toward her car, going to the driver door.

COSBY: Why do you think you confused it before? A lot of people are saying, well, can we trust what else he said.

MUSTAFA: Rita, I‘m a dispatcher, I‘m a cab driver, it is the end of my day. If I know I‘m going to be questioning this, I‘m going to write it down, everything in minutes, even every fraction of a minute.

COSBY: But you showed me the log and you were sure that it was 1:01. I have to ask you, Mostafa, were you offered any money from the defense team or also from Reade Seligmann‘s father, who you told me, those are the two people who approached you first.

MOSTAFA: Nobody offered me any money, I‘m not going to take it. I‘m just asking, why‘d they offer me money? I‘m not going to hide anything, either with them or against them.

[BrownOak]

232. I'm not sure I can tell you why, but

the phone records are pretty hard to argue against. I mean, if the guy thought it was a 1:07 pickup and then looked for the call that would lead him to something at 1:07 and picks the 1:01 call, how much does it really matter? All it means is that he's somewhat confused about the time he made the second pickup, but the call that led to that can be clearly established by his records. If his phone shows a record of a call from the other player at 12:29 for the later pickup, it's a reasonable assumption that he returned to the area if that's what he says he did.

Let's look at it this way - are you saying that because he didn't get the color of the car right and the time of the second call correct that his overall testimony is questionable? Unless you believe that someone has tampered with the phone records on this case it seems pretty apparent that he was called to come to the house.

[Neil Lisst]

145. Shhh! Don't disturb them when they're fighting their imaginary straw men

[Jersey Devil]

150. Is this the Court Watchers' string?

You can always tell which is the most interesting case in the court house by following the 'court watchers' down the hallways in the morning to see what court rooms they park themselves in. It's always the same group, mostly retired men and women who prefer live drama to anything offered up on TV and they seem to zero in on the most controversial cases as though they have radar to detect them. It seems like DU has more than its share of potential future Court Watchers.

It seems this case has the potential to be a real humdinger with Court Watchers. You have all the key ingredients: strippers, nudity, booze, drugs, spoiled rich kids, a fraternity party atmosphere, time lines (the taxi ride), sports, DNA, broomsticks (a la' Abner Louima) of course those devious, nasty lawyers (of which yours truly is proud to be one). This little tidbit about a prior rape accusation is just another juicy morsel of red meat for Court Watchers. Who can blame them? Where else can you match the drama?

Cries of "He's a liar" or "She's a liar" fill the air, something you can't do when you're in an actual court room, which probably makes it more interesting than being a regular Court Watcher because you can openly root for your side here without getting tossed out like you would in Court for jumping up and saying, "Hooha! Liar!!"

I'm not going to take sides because I know how badly the media can botch reporting of court cases and in this particular case no one has been been to court once yet except for an arraignment, so I'll wait for the actual testimony. But I do enjoy a good food fight.

[Marie26]

153. Pretty much! nt