Nifong bails on Duke rape case.

[aikoaiko]

Nifong really screwed the pooch on this one. Its difficult to see how the accuser will ever get any justice if anything criminal actually happened to her.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/13/duke.lacrosse.ap/index.html

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- The state attorney general's office agreed Saturday to take over the sexual assault case against three Duke University lacrosse players at the request of the embattled district attorney.

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, hamstrung by a flip-flopping witness and dogged by allegations that he made inflammatory statements to the media, asked Attorney General Roy Cooper's office Friday to appoint a special prosecutor.

//snip//

Nifong's comments to reporters in the early days of the case led the state bar to charge him last month with several ethics violations. Nifong's attorney said Friday the conflict of interest those charges created led the veteran prosecutor to ask the state to take over.

[CTyankee]

1. This whole thing is very disturbing.

I don't know the facts in the case but if the truth is seeping out bit by bit (as it appears to be), it will be a very bad day for feminists. We will get beaten with this stick and it may be used as a "told you so" to people who want to see rapists brought to justice.

If the woman is not telling the truth I truly think she must have mental problems. To put herself and her family through that is just horrifying. And if this was a cynical ploy by Nifong just to get reelected, he is a total bastard.

[sam sarrha]

3. the story goes she was talked into charging them..

[Lex]

11. Never heard that before. Link?

:shrug:

_______________-

[jcrew2001]

4. gang

I think that rape cases are always complicated because there are few witnesses. But in the Duke case, there were many witnesses who said nothing happened, including the other female stripper! That is why the Duke case is unique among other cases. Also, the gang rape accusation was so disgusting and evil, it automatically drew the wrath of everyone in the nation - and it never occurred, or so now the victim claims.

[mzteris]

18. and IF this was just a cynical ploy

by rich families and their defense attornies who would stop at nothing including destroying the prosecutor (and the alleged victim) - then they are the total bastards, n'est pas?

[Kingshakabobo]

30. Huh?

Am I misreading you? A cynical ploy by the family? To do what? Have their kid's picture splattered all over the news, papers and Internets in handcuffs - for gang-rape? -accused of rape? Suspended from school and their team? No matter what happens, their reputations are ruined and they will always have that stigma of 'maybe' being a rapist.

[mzteris]

32. and "maybe" they are.

$$, race, sex, and power speaks volumes -

and tends to drown out everything else, doesn't it?

I don't "know" the truth. And neither do you. You only "know" what the defense has leaked.

[Kingshakabobo]

35. Oh, Ok.

There's a real sure fire money-making scheme. Lots of "rich" families get their kids arrested for crimes that could get them 40 years to life. Just so they can file a lawsuit, that has almost zero chance of being successful, against the state due to a higher burden of proof.

As for this :

"You only "know" what the defense has leaked."


That's SO 6 months ago. I suppose the official misconduct charges against the prosecutor are a "defense" ploy?

[mzteris]

37. You're not really

that obtuse are you?

The "official misconduct charges" - are just that, charges, brought about by other lawyers in NC, who - surprise - are also white, rich, and powerful.

[Kingshakabobo]

39. You are way behind the curve on this one, honey.

That rich white and powerful crap went out the window with the accuser recanting some of her accusations and the prosecutor stepping aside. Face it... the lynch-mob was wrong on this one. It happens sometimes.

[mzteris]

40. what, exactly, did she "recant".....

That she doesn't know for "certain" that a penis was used - or some other object? That two - or three - people actually "did her"?

Wow. She should've paid more attention, huh?

[pnwmom]

61. Are you actually going to pretend that she couldn't tell whether

a penis or an object was inside her? This is not an inexperienced 12 year old.

And yes, she should know who actually "did her." That is critical to her case -- she's supposed to be able to identify her attackers. And, according to her sworn testimony, she was able to see who did what and when. Why don't you believe her?

[mzteris]

88. if you read the testimony

she said it "felt" like a penis - except she also felt a "sharp pain" - but that she didn't actually SEE the penis - so no, according to NC State Law - because she cannot unequivocally state that it WAS a penis, then charges of "rape" cannot be brought.

Don't you think - if she were "lying about everything" - she'd just go ahead a lie about *that*, too?

**And yes, she should know who actually "did her." That is critical to her case -- she's supposed to be able to identify her attackers. And, according to her sworn testimony, she was able to see who did what and when. Why don't you believe her?**

You need to read the account.

And IF the following *is true* (and I don't know anymore than you WHAT the real truth is here):

she was drugged.

she was being gang raped.

she was terrified.

she was bent over and "taken" from behind while some others knelt in front of her.

Well - IF the above were true, I think she can be forgiven being a tad bit shaky on all the exact "details", don't you?

Have you ever felt in fear of your life? Have you ever been in a situation at least somewhat similar to "that"? Do you really think you would be able to coherently follow and relate every single detail?

The answer is no. And if your answer is anything else other than 'no' - then I suspect you have NEVER been in a situation similar to that.



And she

[pnwmom]

128. This is why a lot of real rape cases fail, unfortunately.

If the real victim is too stressed out to make a positive identification, then the case doesn't reach the indictment stage. A positive identification is essential, as even Nifong has acknowleged in court.

As far as this accuser is concerned, her statements cannot be relied on for truth. Why? Because her statement now and her earlier statements contradict themselves in many respects. Her statements can't all be true. Many must be untruths. She is not a credible accuser.

And get over this idea that she was drugged. There is no evidence of drugs in her system, except for the alcohol she admitted to drinking and the flexeril she admitted to taking.

[mzteris]

149. did she?

"The Durham Herald-Sun has reported based on defense motion exhibits that the accuser told the sexual-assault nurse-in-training who examined her at Duke Hospital the evening of the alleged assault that she had consumed one drink of alcohol that evening and had also taken the medication Flexeril, which is a prescription muscle relaxant."


note: based on defense motion exhibits that the accuser told . . .


Now, if you read all the media reports, it suddenly becomes a "police report" and her "statement". I'm just wondering if you have any more definitive source of her admitting to taking it - because maybe she did.

[Robson]

81. If Nifong Abused His Office He Needs Criminally Charged.

If Nifong and the accuser are determined to be involved in conspiracy, wrongful doing, and false charges, they should be made serious examples (as in facing criminal charges) that could be as serious as what those accused had to face.

And those public institutions such as CNN-Nancy Grace, Duke, NAACP, etc that jumped on the lynchwagon with public accusations should face civil charges also.

We should all have zero tolerance towards prosecutors that abuse the office of the court. All said, I'm willing to wait until the evidence comes out against Nifong before agreeing that he should be sent to jail.

[mzteris]

89. If Nifong Abused His Office He Needs Criminally Charged.

Yes. IF he did. And maybe he did. (I think he was just a bit over his head. He's just a small town DA for god's sake.)

**I'm willing to wait until the evidence comes out against Nifong before agreeing that he should be sent to jail. **

Finally - someone with the voice of reason who doesn't want to hang, tar, and feather the man due to what the MEDIA tells them.

[dsc]

113. Durham has 200,000 people

that is no small town DA.

[mzteris]

123. 200,000 people

is a small town.

ok - *maybe* a small city... :) but it's not like it's NY or LA or Chicago or Atlanta or anything. How many "highprofile" cases occur there on a regular basis? It's mostly small time crime.

[geek tragedy]

117. He withheld exculpatory information

from the defense.

That is a horrendous violation. End of story.

[mzteris]

127. did he? You're absolutely sure about that?

You might want to read up on what ACTUALLY took place - instead of the just the spin.

[pnwmom]

130. I'm absolutely sure about that.

He acknowledged it in open court. He stated that he withheld the exculpatory DNA evidence to protect people's "privacy rights."

And Dr. Brian Meehan's testimony -- also in open court -- was that he and Nifong decided together to withhold the exculpatory DNA evidence from the final report. Dr. Meehan, by the way, is going to be on 60 minutes tonight. He might destroy some of your pet theories, however, so maybe you won't want to watch him.

[mzteris]

139. I've read it.

He didn't withhold anything, actually.


". . . The delay getting the information to the defense probably won't have much impact on the charges, said Richard Myers, a former federal prosector and assistant professor of law at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Law. A judge would have to consider whether the delay was harmful to the defense; the likely remedy would be to give the lawyers more time to prepare for trial.

. . . Meehan hired a lawyer to defend the actions of his lab. In an interview, the lawyer, Fred Antoun, said the defense lawyers were wrong to demand a report with all results included. The results could be found in the roughly 1,800 pages of technical documents that a judge ordered them in September to produce; the defense received them in late October.

"That is a childlike complaint," said Antoun, who practices in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. "The DA did hand it over; it just wasn't written in moron talk."

Antoun defended Meehan's partial report on several grounds: Reporting all the tests would result in a massive report that no one could understand. It would violate the privacy of the players, . . . And listing all the test results would sully the reputation of the accuser, he said.


http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/525091.html

[oblivious]

148. Well, that's pretty interesting. Thank you for that tidbit.

[pnwmom]

154. Dr. Meehan disagrees with you. He purposely left the info out of the report.

You can watch him on 60 minutes tonight.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/11/60minutes/main2352512.shtml


(CBS) The forensic expert hired by the prosecutor in the Duke rape case says he made a "big error" in judgment by not stating in his report that the only DNA he found on the accuser was from several men who were not on the Duke lacrosse team.

SNIP

"Meehan acknowledged that he has never omitted potentially exculpatory evidence before. "We haven't done that before," he tells Stahl. "In retrospect, I should have done a better job of conveying that information."

"Meehan has stated that he told the prosecutor, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, about the other DNA for the first time in mid-April. Later that same month, Nifong indicted three Duke lacrosse players. Meehan has also said in court proceedings that he and Nifong agreed before the evidence tests were completed that his report should be limited to positive matches between the accuser and the players at the team party where she says she was sexually assaulted last March.

Meehan says writing an incomplete report violates his own firm's standards. "It was an error in judgment on my part. … It certainly was a big error," says Meehan. He says his firm wasn't trying to hide the information and that it released it when it was asked. But his client's behavior irks him, he says. "

[mzteris]

175. Meehan is now playing

CYA.

It makes perfect sense that they agreed to the original set of parameters. AND the info was in the documents released to the attorney's - it wasn't being 'hidden'.

"Meehan hired a lawyer to defend the actions of his lab. In an interview, the lawyer, Fred Antoun, said the defense lawyers were wrong to demand a report with all results included. The results could be found in the roughly 1,800 pages of technical documents that a judge ordered them in September to produce; the defense received them in late October.

"That is a childlike complaint," said Antoun, who practices in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. "The DA did hand it over; it just wasn't written in moron talk."

Antoun defended Meehan's partial report on several grounds: Reporting all the tests would result in a massive report that no one could understand. It would violate the privacy of the players, . . . And listing all the test results would sully the reputation of the accuser, he said."
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/525091.html

[geek tragedy]

135. I know what happened. I suggest you find out. eom

[mzteris]

140. were you there?

It's the ONLY way you can "know".

Please do tell.

[Robson]

161. The Only Thing Worse...

The only thing worse than a politician playing politics is a DA prosecutor playing politics.

I really dislike politicians playing politics for the most part as they'll sell their soul for another vote (they are in both parties btw). But that's not nearly as bad as sending innocent individuals to prison for another vote. Let's hope Nifong isn't guilty of that.

[pnwmom]

181. We can hope -- but it looks awfully suspicious, doesn't it?

Welcome to DU, Robson!

[mzteris]

183. Let's hope.

But if he is guilty, I'll be the first to say he should be prosecuted.

However, I just think he was in over his head with this one. And not prepared for the "big guns", ya know?

That - and a preponderance of errors from just about every party involved, it seems.

[Robson]

221. Nightmare of Injustice For Duke Players and All Rape Victims

After watching 60 Minutes, I now feel very sorry for the family and the Duke victims. I know these aren't yet facts in a court but the evidence of an overzealous DA using a black rape victim for political reasons is overwhelming. This case has been a nightmare for everyone and most especially all women who will ever have a legitimate charge of rape....all because of a prosecutor without ethics.

I believe now that three things should happen. BOTH the DA and the alleged victim should be charged criminally and the DA should be disbarred. Duke University should be sued along with the NAACP and other institutional groups that went on the attack against these kids for defamation that will live with these boys forever. The kids should find another school to attend.

But most of all I don't consider this a liberal or conservative case as some have insinuated. It's a matter of justice and that should never be political.

[mzteris]

223. You believe this based on a TV SHOW??????

Without sworn testimony nor cross-examination?

[pnwmom]

229. At this point almost anyone has more credibility than Nifong

or the accuser in this case.

Sad, but true.

[Robson]

233. Yes

Prior to this TV show I was partially open minded on this. But the video of the lab owner who said it all in words and body language was a clincher. Too many "contrived facts" in this case have gotten in the way of justice.

This was a conspiracy by the DA to send these boys to jail to advance his job security and political agenda. There were other extenuating factors such as the victim's obvious lying about what happened, which was substantiated by her friend.

[mzteris]

236. good thing

we have trials, then.

Maybe we should just have "Judge Judy" decide, eh?

[mondo joe]

239. I'm delighted to let you know you have mistaken a message board with a court of law.

Message boards are for sharing opinion and do not bear the obligation of presumed innocence.

Of course, there may well not be a trial anyway.

[mzteris]

241. glad I could cheer SOMEONE up today.

:P

[pnwmom]

228. 60 Minutes isn't on here yet. I'm going to be watching.

[pnwmom]

58. They are based on evidence that is undisputed: Nifong's own public words.

Just one of dozens of examples: Nifong telling a reporter in an interview that the students were "hooligans" and that "the guilty" would be brought to trial.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[pnwmom]

56. What the defense has "leaked" -- meaning, what it has written and

attached in the motions it needed to file in court -- is plenty, in and of itself, to create a mountain of reasonable doubt.

The woman's most recent account, besides being in direct contradiction to her varying accounts last spring, is also contradicted by her own cell phone records and by the time and date stamped videotape of her dancing. For example, during the time she NOW says she was dancing (before Seligmann left the party), her cell phone records show that she was on the phone for several minutes talking to someone at her father's house. During the time she points to now for the assault, cell phone records show Seligmann was on the phone with his girlfriend.

And now she says that the supposed attack was over at midnight. Unfortunately for her, the next door neighbor (who dislikes the lacrosse players) already has testified that that is when he first saw her and the other dancer about to enter the house. And the videotape shows the dancers beginning their dance shortly after this. It also doesn't explain, if the attack was over at midnight, what happened the rest of the hour. In her statement, she indicates that she left right after the attack. But witnesses and the other dancer say that they didn't leave until almost an hour later.

The prosecutor has a duty not to bring a case to indictment unless he has some reasonable chance of winning a guilty verdict, based on the facts (not the prejudices of a jury). We now know that when he brought the case to indictment, he already knew that no DNA from any player was found on her body or clothes. (This was the testimony of Dr. Brian Meehan in open court -- not something "leaked"). He also knew that the DNA of seven other men was found on her -- and he colluded with the lab director to withhold that information from the report. Nifong also knew that she had told him she hadn't had sex with anyone for a week, so that either (1) she was blatantly lying to him or (2) that the other DNA may have come from REAL attackers, if she were really attacked. So why did he continue to indict the students?

[geek tragedy]

116. We know that the prosecution has violated the

civil rights of the defendants, that there is no physical evidence placing them at the crime scene, and that the accuser has tons of credibilty problems, including a tendency to change her story every lunar cycle.

[pnwmom]

54. The chances of that being the case are vanishingly small.

As I'm sure you must realize by now.

[mzteris]

55. why do you say that? n/t

[citizen snips]

36. I agree

Nifong has been charged with ethics violations and the rape charges were dropped. I just don's see how this case can go on.

[pnwmom]

53. She actually does have a history of mental illness, even

a hospitalization, I believe.

Nifong was lagging in the polls by 20 points before he started championing this woman in the press. His stronger opponent, who was well known in the African American community (he wasn't), had 4 times as much money to spend, but he got a mountain of free and favorable publicity. He ended up beating her by 2 or 3 points.

[citizen snips]

237. true

I heard on 60 minutes tonight that she is on some heave medication.

[SoCalDem]

2. And now the lawsuits against NC will commence

The parents of those guys will be suing for megabucks.

[LiberalinNC]

5. I don't think you can sue a D.A. over a "criminal case".

I am sick to death of this case, I honestly don't think she was raped by those boys...I think she may have some mental issues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. You Can Sue For False Arrest, False Imprisonment, And Malicious Prosecution

The DA and the state would the defendants...

[dsc]

7. not personally

DA's are nearly always personally immune from such suits.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Understand That

But the state can be named as the defendant...

[Lex]

10. Well anyone can sue anyone for anything.

But a successful case is another thing altogether.

The DA didn't make up from whole cloth what the victim said happened to her that night. She signed a sworn statement. If anyone is in trouble, it is she.


__________________

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. She Doesn't Have Any Money

The state of North Carolina presumably has plenty...

I doubt anybody is going to get sued but the state definitely has some exposure...

[Lex]

17. The state has sovereign immunity from these kinds of suits

otherwise, the state would be in court constantly defending against people who are found not guilty in court, or when charges are dropped against them.


___________________

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. Sovereign Immunity Can Be Pierced

I was falsely arrested and prevailed in court against the jurisdiction that arrested me for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.


The question is whether there was just grounds for arrest or probable cause...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. No, but if sufficient evidence that she was lying comes to light she'd be facing criminal charges.

Which have nothing to do with whether she was rich or not. I don't know what the exact charges would be - "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" would be my guess, but I'm not a lawyer. But there's a hell of a difference in standard of proof between "reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty" and "no reasonable doubt that the accuser was lying" so that may well never happen.

[fishnfla]

14. I think you should read "the innocent man" by Grisham

that DA got sued as well he should have
civil rights violations
if he withheld exculpatory evidence, and proceeded without even interveiwing the alleged victim, and made all those defamatory statements early on? Lawsuit

[Lex]

21. Nifong didn't interview the victim, but law enforcement did and

she signed a sworn statement that she was raped that night.

Nifong is awful and I think he will be in trouble with the State Bar, but I don't think there are grounds for a successful suit against NC, despite whatever Grisham put in one of his novels.



_____________________

[fishnfla]

ummm,"the innocent man" is a true story

you really should read it

[Lex]

25. Thanks.

I've heard about it, but haven't read it. I understand it to be about someone who was found guilty and spent time on death row, correct?




_________________

[fishnfla]

27. several people. 2 are still in jail

bogus investigations, junk science, horrible trials

bad, bad DA

2 kids still on death row: wardandfontenot.com

[Lex]

29. I'm glad Nifong has stepped aside in this LAX case

and that the NC Attorney General's office will be taking over the case. The AG has already assigned 2 lawyers to review everything and determine whether or not to go forward.


_____________

[pnwmom]

133. I'm not sure about the sworn statement.

I read recently somewhere that her first actual sworn statement wasn't until December's. If that were the case, does that change your view about Nifong's liability? Should he have brought a case to the grand jury without a sworn statement? (I also read that the accuser doesn't have to go to the grand jury -- that in NC hearsay testimony is adequate.)

On edit. Here's a link:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20061031_spilbor.html

Oct. 31, 2006

SNIP

Nifong has said that, even in innocuous conversations, the accuser couldn't look him in the eye, and appeared on the verge of tears. And he's said that in a meeting on April 11 -- - about a week before he gave the case to the grand jury -- he and an investigator avoided discussing details of the case with the accuser because she was "too traumatized." (Attorneys bring investigators along to such meetings in part so that, if disputes arise as to what was said, the investigator - not the attorney - can become a witness in the case.)

(This raises the issue of whether the unprepared accuser appeared before the grand jury. If she didn't, and it turns out she's fabricating, it may be hard to punish her, since she hasn't yet testified under oath. And it is possible she didn't: In North Carolina, as in the federal system, a grand jury can indict on hearsay.)

[geek tragedy]

119. Not if it's a willful violation of rights like this.

There is qualified, but not absolute immunity.

[Lex]

9. If the charges were filed because a victim claimed she was raped

(and she did) then the DA's office isn't going to have anything to worry about as far as lawsuits by the LAX parents.

The day after the victim changed her story about the rape, the DA dropped the charges of rape.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I'm Not So Sure About That...

A compaint isn't tantamount to probable cause or we're all in trouble.

[Lex]

15. There was a complaint and an examination at the hospital that showed

injuries consistent with a sexual assault.

____________________

[pnwmom]

63. That is what Nifong claimed, but it's never been shown that

she had any "injuries," other than a couple of small and old scabs on her legs.

She did have some swelling of her tissues, which would be consistent with her performance with a "sex toy" in a "dance" that she gave in a man's hotel room earlier in the day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. Good Point

eom

[mondo joe]

100. So said Nifong.

You're very eager to believe the prosecution.

[Lex]

106. LOL. I've been following the case locally. Don't be so obtuse.

The local news has been all over this and has seen the medical records in the court documents filed and has reported on them.

At Duke Hospital, a nurse trained in sexual assault forensics and a doctor examined the woman, court documents say. "Medical records and interviews showed that the woman had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally," according to the order a judge signed that required the team to submit DNA.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/423471.html

How about reading a little about the case? You seem very eager to show you don't know even the basics.



______________________

[pnwmom]

152. That old story has long since been discredited.

The judge signed the order based on a statement Nifong's office made. But Nifong made the claim before the medical records had even been sent to his office!

For more info about the SANE exam, you might also be interested in this link.

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/search?q=SANE+

Recently the defense filed notice that it planned to call as expert witnesses all of Mike Nifong’s expert witnesses save one—SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy. A recent post by Kathleen Eckelt explains why.

According to Eckelt, Levicy belongs nowhere near a courtroom as an expert witness. As of March 14, she had almost no experience as a nurse, and was listed as only a SANE nurse-in-training. “It takes time,” Eckelt notes, “to develop the ability to make snap decisions needed in emergency situations. It takes time to learn about things like the bio-mechanics of trauma and patterns of injury. It takes time and skill to recognize personality disorders and manipulative and attention seeking behaviors that some patients will exhibit.” Only experience can provide the learning for such matters.

The role of a legal nurse consultant—experts who can testify in court—usually requires 10 years of experience, “because the primary job of an LNC is to be able to review medical records to determine if there has been any deviation from the standard of care (SOC) provided to a patient.” A nurse who can testify as an expert witness requires “a strong clinical background which can only be obtained through years of hands on practice.”

Those who train as forensic nurses have similar need for experience. “Forensic nurses,” in short, “are registered nurses with advanced, specialized training in forensic sciences and the law.” They’re not people just beginning their careers as regular nurses, like Levicy was on March 14. In Eckelt’s mind, “there is no way I would have even considered becoming a SANE nurse with only a few months nursing experience, much less walk into court to testify as an ‘expert.’” Indeed, she wonders, “How does one maintain they have ‘specialized knowledge’ when they haven't even finished their training yet?” A SANE-in-training “means you have almost zilch experience,” and that “you should still be supervised by an experienced SANE nurse during any exam” (which appears not to have occurred in this case).

[Lex]

164. That blogspot is not as credible as the N & O. Sorry

it has a definite bias to it that is easy to see.

Seems like that blog author thinks everyone involved, including the SANE nurse, the DA, the law enforcement officers, has conspired against these LAX players?

That is just not believable to me.

Nifong has screwed up and probably irreparably harmed the case, but everyone involved isn't out to 'get' these guys.


______________________

[pnwmom]

184. No, that writer doesn't espouse ANY conspiracy theories.

I don't know where you're getting that.

The blogger identifies himself as a progressive Democrat, by the way, who came to his interest in the case from the point of civil liberties.

And the point I was making wasn't about the reliability of the N & O, but that the article was "outdated." Newer information has shown that Nifong was making representations about the content of the results of the SANE exam and medical report BEFORE he had even read them.

[mzteris]

166. you might want to

research Mr. Johnson a tad.

Ms. Eckelt's a "professional witness".... and has never actually met the parties, nor examined any evidence first hand. Her "opinion" is conjecture based on the information to which she is "privvy" (all?? I think not) Nothing more. Nothing less.

Again - sources sources sources.... who are they and why do they say what they do?

BTW - congrats on quoting the exact same article that people on that "site which shall remain nameless" posts on. :thumbsup:

[pnwmom]

185. I have absolutely no idea what your last sentence means.

And why don't you tell me what you're implying about Mr. Johnson. He's a progressive Democrat, and he teaches history. Is there some reason you're being deliberately obscure?

[mzteris]

188. He's a progressive Democrat?

Really? I certainly didn't get that impression from the articles of his that I read. :shrug: Not that really matters - as he certainly seems to have an agenda and preconceived opinion in this case, doesn't he?

You don't know what that last sentence means?

Google Kathleen Eckelt and Duke and see the websites that come up quoting her.

[pnwmom]

196. Yes, he identified himself as a progressive Democrat in one of his posts.

I don't know how to find that now, but here is a sample of his political writing:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/6557.html

(Re: the 2004 Democratic convention)

Best Speeches:

1.) Barack Obama--Much like Mario Cuomo's address at the 1984 SF Convention, 10 years from now Obama's talk will be the only thing most people recall about this convention.

2.) Bill Clinton--A reminder of why the Dems would be better off with him as their nominee.

3.) Hillary Clinton--One of the best speeches I've heard her give, and she made a point--that the 9/11 Commission never would have occurred without the efforts of the 9/11 families overcoming the opposition of the administration--that deserves much more emphasis.

[mzteris]

206. I've seen his writing -

he appears to be anti-affirmative action, and anti-diversity. He doesn't seem all that "progressive" to me. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

216. Link please.

He also is a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but of course many people around here want to claim that she isn't progressive, either.

[mzteris]

218. It's at his website...

read his op-eds.

[pnwmom]

227. I don't know what website or op-eds you're referring to,

but I agree with him on this:

3. Groupthink has its effects. Any orthodoxy — even the race/class/gender approach currently in vogue — can go too far, especially in an atmosphere when it passes unchallenged, blinding its adherents to injustice in their midst. Academic debates can sometimes seem trivial, and it’s easy to understand the overwhelming temptation that some Duke professors felt last April to do the politically correct thing and denounce the lacrosse players....

Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 at 1:09 PM



http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/33436.htm

[mzteris]

232. here....

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/

[pnwmom]

240. Where? I did look through that page, but I still don't know

what you're referring to.

[tammywammy]

16. Wouldn't malicious prosecution still go forward?

Nifong admitted that he conspired with the DNA lab to withhold from the defense the results.

[Lex]

19. For malicious prosecution to stick, they'd have to show

that Nifong essentially made up the charges against the defendants without probable cause.

In this case there is a victim who signed a sworn statement that she was raped and there was some medical evidence that was "consistent with" a sexual assault.

So Nifong didn't make that up--there's a paper trail of that.

Plus, the day after the victim changed her story about the rape, Nifong dropped the charges of rape.

I do think Nifong will be in trouble with the State Bar for not disclosing the DNA results to the defendant's attorneys.


________________

[tammywammy]

24. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :)

[Kingshakabobo]

38. I agree with 98% of what you are saying.

Although, the defendants MIGHT be able to hang their hat on the withholding evidence, illegal line-up and the bar association's charges of false claims. Also, once this case turns to complete shit, the media will probably go in the defendant's favor.

Still, like you say, it's a huge uphill battle. Sometimes I think we would be better off with a system more like the Brits have....IIRC, it's a lot less adversarial??? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't they take the "officer of the court" piece a little more seriously?

For instance, after the DNA evidence fell apart, the prosecutor was able to toss the rape charges - This was a blatant strategy to keep his initial bogus evidence/claims out from the jury's eyes.....turning the potential trial in to a he said she said. Everyone knows the game.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. These Are All Jury Questions

Was there malicious prosecution?


Did they violate Brady v Maryland by not sharing exculpatory evidence with the defense?


Did they violate procedure when they showed the alleged victim photos of only lacrosse team members as opposed to photos of lacrosse team members and ringers (random people) on the theory that if she said people who weren't even in the room assaulted her would undermine her recollection.


As I said before I'd be surprised if the three defendants sue but these are all jury questions if they sue and the state doesn't get a summary judgement in their favor...

[Disturbed]

20. Why are so many RWingers rabidly negative on the Prosecution

in this case? They have been slamming the Prosecution since this began.

[Lex]

22. The Prosecutor is a Democrat. The alleged victim is black.

Fox News has been slamming him since the beginning.

Nifong's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I've been wondering about the personal anger toward him coming from the news media too.


_______________

[mzteris]

33. I've been wondering about

"the personal anger toward him coming from " HERE at DU.

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

67. Here's why I feel personal anger.

Because if his behavior is typical of DA's, then any one of us could end up being wrongly accused and subject to these kinds of tactics.

Because these students deserved from the very beginning to be treated as "innocent until proven guilty" -- as any of us would if we were brought to trial.

Because if someone like Nifong is allowed to run rampant, that is a message to all the other DA's across the country. Go ahead -- do whatever it takes to win -- there will be no repercussions.

That so many otherwise thoughtful Democrats came down heavily on the side of the state horrifies me. Haven't we learned anything about corruption and power? What made us such blind followers of a demagogue like Nifong?

[mzteris]

87. Here's why I feel personal anger.

**Because if his behavior is typical of DA's, then any one of us could end up being wrongly accused and subject to these kinds of tactics.**

It doesn't appear as if he's been stellar in his duty. But I don't think he was being deliberately so. He's a small town DA (yeah, Durham's really just a small town). Maybe - hopefully we'll find out the truth during the investigation of HIM.

**Because these students deserved from the very beginning to be treated as "innocent until proven guilty" -- as any of us would if we were brought to trial.**

Because the girl deserved from the very beginning to be treated as a "believable victim" and not dismissed because she was female, black, poor, and just a "stripper" - which everyone knows is just a "whore anyway".

**Because if someone like Nifong is allowed to run rampant, that is a message to all the other DA's across the country. Go ahead -- do whatever it takes to win -- there will be no repercussions.**

Because if the wealthy are able to buy their way out of anything, and are believed only because they are rich white boys then that is a message to all the rest across theh country. Go ahead -- do whatever it takes to win -- you can buy and PR your way out of anything.

***That so many otherwise thoughtful Democrats came down heavily on the side of the state horrifies me. Haven't we learned anything about corruption and power? What made us such blind followers of a demagogue like Nifong?***

That so many otherwise thoughtful Democrats came down heavily on the side of the rich white boys and dismissed the poor black stripper TRULY HORRIFIES me. Haven't we learned anything about corruption and power (and money and power??) What made us such blind followers of the rich and powerful like the families/attorney's of the accused?

[mondo joe]

98. Thoughtful democrats consider the case and don't decide it based only on race and class.

In fact many on DU who initially came in on the side of the alleged victim only turned around AFTER so much misconduct on Nifong's case was revealed.

[mzteris]

108. I consider myself to be

a "thoughtful democrat" - your opinion notwithstanding.

I'm not on a "side" here. I'm trying very hard to NOT maintain a "side". But the fact remains that most of those in here ARE on a side, and - of necessity - I needs must argue the "other side".

BTW - even IF there was "misconduct on Nifong's" part - does that necessarily mean that the crime did NOT occur?

[mondo joe]

111. You've made your side abundantly clear.

There may have been a crime.

There may not.

But the alleged victim's story has changed so much she can't be considered credible, and Nifong has cast doubt on the whole thing.

I don't know why you think her race and his political party are the outstanding factors.

[mzteris]

134. nice attempt at a hatchet job

putting your words in my mouth like that.

I could give a rat's patootie about political party or race. Race enters into it only in the sense that she's a poor black female and they're rich white males.... I don't "believe her" or "side with her" because of it.

And as stated - I don't have a "side" except the truth.

Go back and look at those "alleged changes" in the story.

You might want to consider the circumstances. AND your sources.

[pnwmom]

155. I was one who initially felt sympathy for the woman

and who believed Nifong that she had been the victim of a horrible attack. I also had somewhat of a prejudice against Duke students, for whatever reason. But I couldn't keep reading about the details of the case and not change my mind. This has been quite a learning experience. A scary one.

[Pastiche423]

165. What utter crap

You have been campaigning against the accuser from the git-go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1092167#1092287

Your obsession w/this case makes me ill.

After a trauma, such as rape, the brain will try to protect the victim, causing memory to be distorted.

I know. I was there. Twenty years later, I still do not remember anything close to everything.

When I questioned the detective on my case why I couldn't remember, he said it was normal.


Every time you beat on this woman, you are beating on rape victims everywhere.

[pnwmom]

170. By May, I was having concerns that so many DU'ers were presuming

guilt. I had been guilty of that myself, but I was revising my judgment. The case began six weeks earlier, when Nifong suddenly started spewing forth his allegations. I believed him initially, but I began to have doubts when I learned that the students had passed lie detector tests AND that the first DNA results had been negative. At that point I became concerned that too many people were prejudging the guilt of the students. (Also, because so many DUers seemed to think that the color of the students' skin or the amount in their parent's bank accounts pointed to their guilt.)

And nowhere in the thread was I campaigning against the accuser. I was asking a simple question: didn't the accused in this case deserve the presumption of innocence? Or doesn't that apply when there is an accusation of rape? And then, in response to other people's comments, I also engaged in some hypothetical discussions that had nothing to do with this actual case.

Show me any post of mine, in any thread, where I "beat on this woman."

When a woman makes a false accusation of rape, SHE is the one who hurts real rape victims everywhere. I'm very sorry about what happened to you, but it has nothing to do with the accuser in this case. She's a separate person, with her own problems that have nothing to do with yours.

[Pastiche423]

182. No

YOU are hurting rape victims w/your sick obsession in this case. YOU can't let it go.

YOU are hurting me. YOUR "I'm very sorry about what happened to you, but it has nothing to do with the accuser in this case" is hurting me.

WHY? Why must you post ad nauseum about this case? You were not involved in this case in any way, shape or form.

You have never been raped. YOU have no fucking idea the pain it causes. YOU have no fucking idea the fear it causes.

Yet, over and over and over again, you post your uneducated crap.

[pnwmom]

187. If I'm hurting YOU so much personally, I think you should ignore me then.

Go ahead. It won't hurt my feelings.

:hi:

[Pastiche423]

192. No thank you

When you continue to persist w/your sick obsession, I will be there to point out how your are hurting rape victims everywhere. Moreover, I will point out your lies.

[pnwmom]

199. Go ahead. Please. Point out any of my "lies."

That should be good for a laugh.

[Pastiche423]

202. Any and every thing you have posted about what happened that night

You know jack shit. You were not there.

I do hope there is Karma.

[pnwmom]

207. You are conflating your own situation with that of the accuser here.

It isn't healthy.

I have posted no lies. That's why you can't point to any.

I'm sorry about what happened to you, but if it pains you so much to participate in this discussion, then you shouldn't. It isn't a reason for me to stop posting, however. You're an adult, and you're the one who is deciding to subject yourself to this.

[Pastiche423]

213. I just did

You refuse to admit it.

It must be sad to live a life absent of empathy or sympathy. Or do you think you are better than that? It sure seems that way.

Keep on twisting the knife. One day it will be turned on you.

[pnwmom]

219. Do I think I am better than . . .

a person who lives "a life absent of empathy or sympathy?"

Better in what way? An autistic person lacks empathy, but I don't think I am "better" than an autistic person.

[mondo joe]

230. I hope there's karma too. It would be nice to think false accusers will have it

come back on them.

[mondo joe]

195. B U L L S H I T

Noting that this woman is full of shit is not beating up on rape victims ANYWHERE.

She lied about what happened that WEEK - who the hell knows what happened that night?

[pnwmom]

145. I didn't dismiss the accuser's claims in the beginning.

I believed Nifong that there was a good basis for the claims. I knew that most women don't bring false rape charges. And I wasn't any fan of Duke University, Duke students, or the South in general. (Sorry, Southern DUers, I don't mean you.) :grin:

But sometime in May my mother asked me about the case. So I started actually paying attention -- digging deeper. And the scales fell off my eyes. The more I read, the more obvious it was that the charges were spurious and that the prosecutor brought this case for his own ends.

Sorry, but "victim's rights" aren't in the constitution. The rights of the accused are. The prosecution brings a case, not an accuser. The accuser has the right to a fair trial. Not the accuser.

I didn't disbelieve her because she was poor or black or a stripper. I read her contradictory claims -- they didn't hold together. I read about the tainted photo lineup -- it didn't convince me. I read about the lack of injuries, despite her claim of a severe beating. That didn't make sense either. I read about the lack of DNA evidence, and the presence of other DNA evidence.

All of this, and more, is why I don't believe her story. It has nothing to do with her background.

And, though as I said, I'm not fond of rich, carousing Duke students, I'm not going to say they're guilty because I don't like them. Unlike you, apparently.

[mzteris]

186. what is your attachment to this?

I didn't say I didn't "like the Duke students". I'm a HUGE DUKE basketball fan! (Unless they play Kentucky, of course! :) )

I did state elsewhere that I knew some Duke frat boys. And I do. I also happen to know a couple of other people involved in this - on BOTH SIDES. Although - I've NEVER talked with any of them about THIS case as I moved from Durham some time ago.

The fact that you don't interpret the same information in the same way as I do doesn't mean that you're "right" or that I'm "wrong". In fact, I haven't claimed her guilt or their guilt. I've stated that I think there is a case that needs to be pursued. I've stated that there have been errors made on just about every damn person's part that touched the investigation. I've stated that I have tried to keep an OPEN mind as to the guilt or innocence of either party.

Does it sometimes sound like I'm on a "side". Sure - in here - as it seems I'm consistently trying to point out interpretations based on innuendo and 'media stories' are shaky points upon which to base a decision.

I haven't "made up MY mind". Unlike you, apparently.

[pnwmom]

190. What is my attachment? A little concern called "civil liberties."

Another one called "innocent until proven guilty." Another called "accused's right to a fair trial."

Every accusation is NOT pursued. Only the cases that have a reasonable chance of being proven to an unbiased jury.

This is a case that had too many holes from the very beginning. Negative DNA evidence. A photo lineup NOT carried out according to North Carolina procedure. An accuser with hugely inconsistent stories. At least one defendant with solid alibi evidence.

Nifong has stated in court that, as N.C. law requires, he has provided the defense with all the evidence he has against them. This is a case that shouldn't have been brought to a grand jury, much less to trial.

[mzteris]

194. wow. Well I guess

the judge must be "in on it, too", eh?

Or just maybe he knows something *you* don't?

Civil liberties. All sides are entitled to them. In case you forgot.

[pnwmom]

197. Actually, the accuser has no constitutional right to a trial.

If that's what you're implying. The State brings decides to bring charges to a trial, not an accuser.

Apparently you didn't realize this.

[mzteris]

209. No constitutional right ? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight . . .

that wasn't what *I* was talking about - but hey - you make up your own mind what you think I'm implying. You seem to be pretty good at that. :)

[pnwmom]

212. How can anyone know what you were talking about

when you are being so obscure?

[mzteris]

225. you got one thing right -

someone's certainly being "ob-" something.

[pnwmom]

65. As it happened, Fox news had his number. The NYTImes didn't.

And still doesn't.

Too many Democrats were blinded by the fact that he was another Democrat and that the accuser was poor and black.

[mondo joe]

101. Lieberman was a democrat too.

Being a democrat does not excuse one from being an asshole or incompetent or even exploitive.

[geek tragedy]

120. A broken clock is right twice a day. eom

[tammywammy]

23. I don't think this is a conservative vs liberal thing at all

There are many on DU, including me, that are disgusted with the actions of this DA.

And I didn't "slam" him until it became more and more apparent that the men accused, didn't do it. And with him admitting to conspire to withhold vital DNA evidence, everyone should be disgusted with his actions.

[Lex]

26. Nifong has mishandled this and I'm glad he's stepping aside.

I don't think any of the people that night, LAX players or the alleged victim, is telling the absolute truth of what happened that night.

The NC Attorney General's office will now review the case and decide whether or not to go forward.


________________

[pnwmom]

68. The students have all passed lie detector tests.

The woman's testimony is filled with impossible contradictions.

We may not have "absolute truth." But we don't need it to know that this whole case has been a travesty of justice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. I Wonder If Anybody Who Was Falsely Arrested Applauded NIfong

I was falsely arrested and it was no fun at all...I was taken to the local police department holding cell but thankfully was bailed out before I was taken to the county jail where I would have been thrown in with the general population. My mom had to call our family friend/neighbor to come up with the $10,000.00 collateral that was bail.


We got a lwayer and eventually the charges were dropped. We sued for false arrest, false imprisonment, and prosecution and won...


I don't know all the facts of this case but I do know the state has awesome power-the power to deprive you of your liberty...

[pnwmom]

126. I don't know anyone who has been falsely arrested

but I do know someone falsely accused in a civil court and that in itself is a nightmare to go through. I have deep sympathy for the families of these boys. No one -- no matter how wealthy they are or how many lawyers they can hire -- should have to go through something like this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

158. The Difference Bewtween A Civil Suit And A Criminal Charge.

In a civil unit they can put their hand in your pocket. In a criminal trial they can throw you in the hooskow..

[pnwmom]

191. I understand that. As I said, the stress of a civil trial is bad enough.

I can't imagine what hell these families have been put through, with the prospect of 3 to 4 decades in prison hanging over their son's heads.

[Egalitariat]

28. Rightfully so I might add. Dem or Pug doesn't matter here

this dirtbag DA used a poor black girl to get the votes of a lot of poor black people so he could collect paychecks for another 4 years.

He deserves worse than they can legally give him. Hopefully he'll get at least what they can legally do.

[Lex]

31. So you think Nifong encouraged the victim to make false charges

against the LAX players just to win the DA slot?

The "poor black people" weren't fooled around here, by the way. Let's give the African Americans a little more credit than that, okay?



____________

[Egalitariat]

41. Either he fooled them or they're morons. He's either incompetent or dishonest

And they elected him anyways. Why give them more credit that that?

[Lex]

42. You do a great job of illustrating why

your viewpoint is garbage.



____________________________

[Egalitariat]

47. My view point is right on the money****

nm

[mzteris]

52. Money, being the operative word.

Who are you again, and where are you from?

[pnwmom]

84. You may be right about money being the operative word.

For the accuser, anyway. With Nifong it was all about his election campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal

"The strip club's security officer said that the accuser told co-workers four days after the alleged incident that she "was going to get money from some boys at a Duke party who hadn't paid her," adding that she essentially said, "I'm going to get paid by the white boys." The security guard did not make a big deal of it "because no one takes her seriously."

[mzteris]

93. critical reading skills

should come into play.

They said. The defense attorney said. Some say. Some have report.

Who are these people and what is their credibility? Have they been cross examined? Do they have a dog in this fight? Why should you believe them out of hand?

You've obviously never worked in an attorney's office. The way they can put things could make you think Jesus himself was guilty.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

105. You want to believe everything coming from one side

but call out someone on their "critical reading skills" (whatever the hell that means) when they point out evidence from the other side.

Why do you continue to defend a rotten DA and a lying stripper who was obviously lying? Is it because the DA was a Democrat and the stripper was African-American?

[mzteris]

110. I never said

I believe everything coming from EITHER side.

I don't have enough information to MAKE an INFORMED DECISION. And neither does anyone else on here.

The fact that YOU'RE on a side necessitates my arguing the "other side"..... capice?

**Why do you continue to defend a rotten DA and a lying stripper who was obviously lying? Is it because the DA was a Democrat and the stripper was African-American? **

Why do you say she's "obviously lying?" Upon what are you basing this?

I think Nifong is a small-town DA who was in over his head. AND he's been outspent. AND the fact that DUKE means $$$ in Durham and NC.

The fact that she's a "stripper" counts against her in my honest opinion. I typically have no respect, and little tolerance, for someone who resorts to this in order to survive.

[mondo joe]

112. So if a poster is on one side you have to argue the other?

Can people make tentative decisions based on what they know?

[mzteris]

136. I don't Have to - but

I have this thing about people making decisions based on fact and not rhetoric and conjecture.

Of course you can make a "tentative decision" - but one shouldn't declaim unequivocally a person's guilt or innocence based on the limited - and probably inaccurate - information that you have. And you should make very very sure, that any prejudices you may harbor doesn't enter into the equation.

[pnwmom]

118. Her most recent statement contradicts her earlier statements

in many points. They can't all be true. Some of her statements are untruths. Therefore, she is an untruth-teller. Therefore, her word alone cannot be relied on.

Does that satisfy you?

[mzteris]

137. nope.

And it shouldn't you, either.

[Buzz Clik]

142. Really? The accuser can change her story multiple times and lose no credibility?

For anyone feeling that she truly was raped, this is all bad. All of it. She will never see justice because of the way she has handled her story and the bungling by the DA.

One year later, the plaintiff's case is in shambles, but the status of the defendants has remained virtually unchanged.

[mzteris]

151. you might want to read this:

**The defense also has argued that the accuser gave different versions of the events of March 13. However, the files show that aside from two brief early conversations with the police, she gave largely consistent accounts of being raped by three men in a bathroom, the Times reported.**

http://www.wraltv.com/news/local/story/1092027/

Some of those "inconsistencies" could understandably be trauma-related . . .

[pnwmom]

156. That NY Times article was in August. "Largely consistent" is in the

eyes of the reader. I disagree with the reporter's view, and I also think he was wrong to discount the "two brief early conversations with the police." Taken together, her statements were rife with contradictions and inconsistencies.

And now the latest version of the accuser's story -- in the December interview -- is also at odds with many statements in any of her other versions.

Whatever the reason for all the inconsistencies, her word cannot be relied on. It is far too shaky a foundation for a criminal trial.

[mzteris]

171. I'd say that her testimony is for a

jury to decide.

[pnwmom]

172. I'd say this case should never have been brought to a grand jury

much less to a full trial.

[mzteris]

179. well - if we'd both

been on the Grand Jury - what do you think would have happened?

Do you think there is evidence to which you're not privvy, btw?

Also, do you think it possible the defense attorneys', and the media, and paid PR publicists might have had a bit of an effect on your opinion?

[pnwmom]

198. There isn't any evidence I'm not privy to that wouldn't be outweighed

by the evidence that is already public.

Reasonable doubt has already been proven, even if Nifong is breaking N.C. law by continuing to withhold significant evidence.

[mzteris]

204. wow. just wow.

you're mind is certainly made up, isn't it?

[pnwmom]

146. You are saying that her word alone CAN be relied on?

Amazing.

[mzteris]

189. nice twist.

Been following those Defense attorney tactics closely, have we?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

159. You didn't have to explicitly state that you were taking a side

It's obvious that you believe some huge conspiracy by rich white men is to blame. I'm not taking sides other than to be against the obvious prosecutorial misconduct by Nifong. If you don't have enough information to make an informed decision, then WHY HAVE YOU?

It doesn't matter if Nifong is a small town DA - it's still his job to prosecute crimes under laws and rules that govern his behavior. You're making excuses for someone who has done terrible things, and should be in jail himself.

As for the stripper: if you don't think she's lying, than you're even blinder than I thought. The published evidence shows that she has been less than truthful in nearly every aspect of this case. I feel badly for her; she has mental problems, and earns money by stripping and having sex with rich white boys who treat her like dirt. But to go to the lengths she has (for whatever motive) indicates mental issues that need to be confronted. In our society, she is unlikely to get adequate help unless she pays for it herself.

[mzteris]

193. I haven't taken a side

It's obvious you seem to believe some huge conspiracy by a poor mental black girl and power hungry DA are to blame.

That you think that I have, is probably because I seem to spend the majority of my time disabusing people of their biases and reliance upon questionable "sources" of which, it seems, the preponderance of posters on that particular side rely.

If you're going to argue the case, then argue the FACTS in evidence. Not what you read in some rag. NOT what the Defense Attorney's filed in "some motion" because I know for a fact that you cannot rely on *those* to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - and they're generally written in such a way as to make the defendent appear innocent (even if he isn't) and to villify the opposition.


You DO NOT have all the facts of this case, sir. You said, "The published evidence. . . "

I rest my case.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

205. Unfortunately, those are the ONLY facts available

The evidence presented by other side is always skewed to their side's advantage. Your earlier posts:

"$$, race, sex, and power speaks volumes - and tends to drown out everything else, doesn't it?"

It was YOU who posted about the conspiracy involving race and money. I doubt you based that on the "FACTS in evidence".

"Because if the wealthy are able to buy their way out of anything, and are believed only because they are rich white boys then that is a message to all the rest across theh country. Go ahead -- do whatever it takes to win -- you can buy and PR your way out of anything."

Again, you're accusing a huge class of people of some conspiracy. There are plenty of wealthy people that are able to buy their way out of trouble, but in this case, that simply isn't true. You treat the men involved as if they're automatically guilty, and that they will be able to get away with anything because of their money. This is a terrible attitude. Awful.

"That so many otherwise thoughtful Democrats came down heavily on the side of the rich white boys and dismissed the poor black stripper TRULY HORRIFIES me. Haven't we learned anything about corruption and power (and money and power??) What made us such blind followers of the rich and powerful like the families/attorney's of the accused?"

It horrifies you that people here at DU come down on the side of justice? God forbid!

"Because the girl deserved from the very beginning to be treated as a "believable victim" and not dismissed because she was female, black, poor, and just a "stripper" - which everyone knows is just a "whore anyway"."

You're saying that the girl wasn't treated as a believable victim? If anything, the DA took it too far the other way, continuing to believe even when the story had become unbelievable. No one here has asked to have the allegations dismissed simply because the woman was a black stripper.

"BTW - even IF there was "misconduct on Nifong's" part - does that necessarily mean that the crime did NOT occur?"

Wonderful logic. Instead of defending a DA that did a piss-poor job (because of the D next to his name?), look at the information we do have. It does not back up the idea that the woman was raped by the Duke men.

Let me ask you:

Did the prosecutor act appropriately in this case?
Who do you think is/are the victim(s) in the case?
Should the DA be given the benefit of the doubt because he's a Democrat?
Should the stripper's allegations be given more credence because she is black and her alleged attackers were rich white men?
When an African-American makes an allegation against a white person, should he/she be assumed guilty until proven innocent? (BTW, this is the message that is coming through loud and clear in your posts - deny it all you want)

You chide me on my use of facts not in evidence, but you are make far larger (and more ridiculous) inferences from evidence that doesn't even exist.

You, madam, do not have all the evidence either; you can rest your case, but it is a sorry and sad case you make. Before accusing me of conspiracy theories, look at your ridiculous posts earlier in this thread.

[mzteris]

208. did you not notice

I was a using a technique of writing? I was rebutting the points by taking the same words and changing them only slightly to show the other side of the coin...

**"BTW - even IF there was "misconduct on Nifong's" part - does that necessarily mean that the crime did NOT occur?"

Wonderful logic. ***

It IS wonderful logic. Even IF NIFONG committed HUGE misconduct, that does NOT mean that a crime did not take place. What about that do you not understand?

**Instead of defending a DA that did a piss-poor job (because of the D next to his name?), look at the information we do have. It does not back up the idea that the woman was raped by the Duke men.**

Again, I don't give a damn that Nifong is a Democrat. I think he might not be a very competent DA, but I don't believe he's a nefarious one. But I could be wrong about that. I dunno.

My case resting had to do with your "sources" - which just proves my point.

And the fact that you don't recognize when one is "making a point" and not taking a defined position.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

214. It's a technique you used poorly.

**"BTW - even IF there was "misconduct on Nifong's" part - does that necessarily mean that the crime did NOT occur?"

Wonderful logic. ***

It IS wonderful logic. Even IF NIFONG committed HUGE misconduct, that does NOT mean that a crime did not take place. What about that do you not understand?

No, it's highly illogical. Nifong's behaviour either way doesn't mean or prove guilt or innocence. You're thinly veiled attempts to defend this woman shows that you have taken a side. You want so BADLY for those rich white dudes to be guilty that you let that emotion cloud your judgement.

My case resting had to do with your "sources" - which just proves my point.

Again, you try to prove a point without actually proving something. Your word doesn't make it so. If I use DU as a source for something does that mean that it's bullshit simply because it came from the internet? You are implying that every word in the media is a lie regarding the case, again getting to this conspiracy you seem so desperate to unearth. I take everything I read with a grain of salt, but when an issue is trending one way, I'm able to begin making a judgement call in my own mind. In this case, the lack of evidence for rape, and the piles of evidence for the boys being innocent didn't make it hard to decide which direction this case was going. Why are you on a witchhunt for these Lacrosse players?

And the fact that you don't recognize when one is "making a point" and not taking a defined position.

I didn't see that at all. What I do see is someone trying to blame a huge "rich white person" conspiracy for a non-rape, and who is now trying to backpeddle from that ridiculous stance.

You didn't answer my questions.

[mzteris]

220. did I?

I think it proved my point quite nicely. Which I gather is what upsets you most.

**No, it's highly illogical.

Nifong's behaviour either way doesn't mean or prove guilt or innocence.**

That's EXACTLY what I just said. d'oh.

I don't WANT those boys to be guilty. I don't WANT for her to be guilty. I don't WANT anyone to BE GUILTY. (What I WANT is a world where such things (either way) couldn't possibly have ever taken place, but that'll never happen in my lifetime.)


**In this case, the lack of evidence for rape, and the piles of evidence for the boys being innocent**

SOURCE? (Legitimate, please. As in HARD evidence. Not what "someone said".)

I'm not the one on a witchhunt. I'm the one trying to get people to THINK and read critically and consider their sources of information (not to mention recognizing their own - possibly unconscious - biases.)

I'm not backpedaling on anything as I've never made a definitive statement as to whether *I* believed either party was guilty or innocent.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

224. So what are your sources of information?

Do you have some inside source that is telling you about the giant white-man conspiracy? The only evidence I have is the court documentation and the information in the press. Unless you have a time machine and can go watch the actual incident, your information is as good as mine.

Until you started trying to defend your ridiculous position with me, you never mentioned that you were simply attempting to get people to "read critically".

I recognize both my conscious and unconscious biases; we all have them. I'm interested in why you would accuse me of being biased.

Your "body of work" in this thread is enough evidence to show which side you're taking. You didn't have to make a definitive statement. Do you know what your own biases are?

[mzteris]

235. The same as yours, I suppose.

However, I discount much of what I read in the press.

I never said it was a "white man conspiracy" - but it certainly **could** be rich men's attempt to protect a number of things (sons, sports, Universities, cities, reputations, etc...) The 'white' part just plays well in the press, doncha know?


**I'm interested in why you would accuse me of being biased.**

From your first post to me: "Why do you continue to defend a rotten DA and a lying stripper who was obviously lying? Is it because the DA was a Democrat and the stripper was African-American? " and you think I'm just some "pro-dem", "anti-whitey" or something from your remarks to me.


I do know what my own biases are.

I'm white.

I'm female.

I'm Southern - bred, born, and raised in the DEEP SOUTH during desegretation. I was raised to believe in "separate but equal". I was raised to believe in "not mixing". I was raised - well - you get the picture.

I've been a victim of assault.

I'm not rich.

I'm not poor.

I'm not black.

I have been a relatively poor single mom for a number of years in my life (due to divorce).

I've never stripped nor prostituted and I generally have a very low opinion of people who do those things.

I've known some rich Duke frat boys. Some were very nice. Some weren't so nice. I knew a LOT of Duke grads and the parents of Duke students.

I've known some NCCU students. Some were nice. Some weren't so nice. I've known some NCCU grads and some parents of NCCU students.

I know some of the parties (on both sides of this) who've been mentioned in various aspects. Not the alleged victim nor the alleged perps. I don't know Nifong, either.


edit to add - I've not discussed the case with any of the people I mentioned as I've not talked with any of them in several years.

[pnwmom]

242. Since all the solid evidence is in the form of documents, which you

lump in the category of something someone "said," then there is obviously no evidence that will mean anything to YOU.

But to many of us, the DNA results, the mishandled photo-lineup, the accuser's conflicting statements, and the alibi evidence, etc., etc. adds up to a huge reasonable doubt.

[mzteris]

222. questions

Sorry - I didn't answer these before. My apologies.

Did the prosecutor act appropriately in this case?

It appears as if he may have made some mistakes.


Who do you think is/are the victim(s) in the case?

I think there are a number of victims here on all sides of this case.


Should the DA be given the benefit of the doubt because he's a Democrat?

HELL NO.


Should the stripper's allegations be given more credence because she is black and her alleged attackers were rich white men?

HELL NO.

When an African-American makes an allegation against a white person, should he/she be assumed guilty until proven innocent? (BTW, this is the message that is coming through loud and clear in your posts - deny it all you want)

HELL NO.

BTW - what race do you think I am? or sex for that matter? age, creed, orientation, religion, etc......

[EvolveOrConvolve]

226. Thanks

Your answers are definite (and correct), but those points are not coming through in your other posts in this thread.

I could be wrong, but I would guess you are a white female.

[mzteris]

231. did you think otherwise

at some point? Yeah, I'm a white female.

I lived in Durham for many years, and the RTP area for about 25 years. I just recently left the area.

I'm serious when I say I don't have an opinion as to guilt or innocence on the part of either party. I'd say it's probably a coin toss as to which side is telling the truth. Both sides are probably telling their share of "lies", imho.

But then again, people can see and participate in the exact same event and see it in two diametrically opposed ways. Doesn't mean one IS lying and the other ISN'T - they just see it 'differently'.

I really do get a bee in my bonnet about people using what the Defense attorney's say as their "source" of evidence. Or anything said by someone NOT under oath and who has NOT been cross-examined.

Because most of the arguments in here are from people who HAVE 'made up their minds' - I must, of necessity, "argue the other POV". Understand?

I do that myself, seriously. (No, I'm not nuts! Ok, maybe a little :P ) I learned a long time ago that if you can "successfully debate" BOTH sides of an issue, you'll have a far better understanding of the issue itself.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

234. No, but when you asked

I realized I'd been assuming it. Not sure why... Hmmmm.

Anyway, I guess I can see why you're arguing the other side, but your earlier posts didn't come across that way at all. Something said under oath isn't necessarily true either, but there has been enough information in the media to make a mostly educated guess.

It's just sad that this poor woman will probably end up in prison instead of a facility where she can get help. It's also sad that these boys (why do we call them boys and the stripper a woman? Another hmmmm.) will have this weight hanging from their necks for the rest of their lives. They may not have been the greatest guys, but did these deserve what they will get?

[mzteris]

238. I don't mean for this to sound argumentative -

but listen to yourself - you "made a mostly educated guess" based on insufficient information garned from the media - yet you've got her going to prison and the boys suffering a false accusation for the rest of their lives......

Don't you see?

Why do we call them boys and her a woman? Interesting. Reminds me of the Iraq rape case where they kept calling that young teen girl a "woman" in the media.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

246. If she made a false accusation, it's very possible she will end up in prison

because of the very things I pointed out earlier. She is poor, her mental stability is questionable, and a public defender isn't going to do much for her. A "mostly educated guess" is the best anyone can do unless they were there during the incident. But the evidence we do have simply isn't there to back up allegations of rape.

As for the boy/woman thing: it's a subjective thing (another guess?), but a "woman" has more power over her situation, and is seen as less innocent than a "girl". A "boy" is "just being a boy" while a "man" should have had some control over the situation. The term "the Duke boys" was probably coined by a defense attorney looking to paint impressions on his possible jury pool.

[pnwmom]

243. Then why weren't you arguing on the OPPOSITE side in the first few months

when the vast majority of DU'ers were strongly supporting the accuser?

[mzteris]

245. here's the first

I can find of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1290634#1299364

And no, I don't think the "vast majority of DU'ers were strongly supporting the accuser" then, either.

If you look, I'm pretty much saying what I've said from the get go. I don't know who's guilty. I don't know who's lying. There were plenty of screwups in the investigation but she shouldn't be penalized for that. And neither should the Dookies.

[pnwmom]

115. And what you don't seem to understand

is that none of this evidence comes by itself -- this case won't be hinging on what one of the accuser's fellow employees said about her.

Or on any single piece of evidence, for that matter. But when you add it all together -- the lack of any students DNA, the existence of several unknown male's DNA, the lack of physical injuries, all the contradictions in the accuser's own statements, the alibi evidence, the flawed photo-lineup, the accuser's lying to the police (about her sexual activity), the accuser's acknowledgment of using alcohol and flexeril, etc., etc.

what you have is a case that should never -- and in normal circumstances, would never -- have been brought to the indictment stage.

[mzteris]

132. and every nearly single word

in your paragraph is based on unsworn/uncross-examined testimony, media reports, or defense attorney statements.

Sorry.

[pnwmom]

147. The media reports are based on court documents.

And many court documents are also available on the internet. You should try actually reading them.

By the way, when the defendants lawyers bring a motion, Nifong has a chance to dispute anything in the motion -- by answering the filing. If the defendants lawyers were making false statements in their motions, Nifong would be disputing them. How do you account for the fact that he isn't?

[mzteris]

150. defense lawyers can

and do - say ANYTHING....... Nifong (if he has half a brain, which I'm beginning to wonder about) wouldn't have to say anything to them. He should wait until trial.

And I have read the court documents.

And just because it's a "court document" doesn't mean it's necessarily "all true", ya know.

[pnwmom]

162. If Nifong had a case, which he doesn't, he'd be replying to the

defense motions and opposing them -- with facts. If the other side was telling lies, he'd be pointing them out. You don't wait for trial to do this, because if you don't answer a defense motion, the judge will rule on it without your input. And he could dismiss the case and there wouldn't be any trial.

[mzteris]

169. so you've worked for an attorney?

You know this is how it's done?

Nifong doesn't have to answer them.

Why hasn't the judge dismissed this already then?

[pnwmom]

174. He might, in February. It will be interesting to see if he does.

And yes, I actually did work for an attorney as a paralegal. Fortunately, that was a long time ago.

[mzteris]

177. he might.

Will your opinion change if he doesn't?

If you worked as a paralegal, then you know the extent to which defense attorney's will go to make their clients "look good" and the accuser to "look bad". They may not actually LIE, but they sure as hell can twist and misconstrue, can't they?

[pnwmom]

200. No, it won't. I don't know enough about this judge or about

N.C. law or precedent for derailing a case at this stage.

But what I do know is that this case has mountains of reasonable doubt, and that no unbiased, intelligent jury would find these students guilty. Therefore, this case should never have been brought.

[mzteris]

203. tried and acquited!

**no unbiased, intelligent jury would find these students guilty.**

How'd you do that?

and if they are found guilty, they of course the jury was biased and unintelligent. And I bet they'd probably be anti-dookies and black, to boot.

[pnwmom]

210. How did I do that? By looking at the evidence that is ALREADY public.

There isn't anything short of a full confession by one of the students that would change my mind. There is ALREADY too much reasonable doubt.

[mzteris]

217. Evidence that's public

or what you know of the evidence that's public and the defense attorney's motions (which, as you should know, aren't really "evidence".)

[pnwmom]

244. The motions contain attachments which will be part of the evidence,

if this case ever comes to trial.

And if Nifong has noted anything that is a lie in the motions, he should be answering them. That's part of his job.

[pnwmom]

69. I think Nifong was thrilled when the case fell into his lap.

And he deliberately avoided interviewing her or having her do a lie detector test so that he could continue to pretend he had a solid case. Which is also why he colluded with Dr. Meehan to have the full DNA results left out of the "final report."

[mzteris]

34. the real question is -

"Why are so many DU-ers rabidly negative on the Prosecution" ?

[laureloak]

44. No, the real question is

"In light of the fact that no crime took place, why aren't those that so rabidly defended the girl's rights not defending the boys rights?"


Do they only support "rights" for some people and not all? Seems hypocritical to me.

[mzteris]

45. do you KNOW something no one else does?

""In light of the fact that no crime took place"

Were you there or something?

You don't KNOW that "no crime took place" - you ONLY KNOW - what the defense has leaked and tweaked.

[Egalitariat]

48. No crime took place. Get your head out of the sand****

nm

[mzteris]

50. How do you know? Were you there?

[Egalitariat]

57. Nope. I'm just smarter than your average bear.

I know a lot of things where I wasn't there and didn't see them with my own eyes.

This is just one of them.

[mzteris]

90. okkkkkaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy -

you KNOW. What are you psychot-- - er - psychic?

:rofl:


edit spelling.

[laureloak]

49. If these guys rights were violated the "rights leaders" had better

come out of the woodwork in support of these boys.

Oh, and you're right, a crime has been committed - but not by those boys.

[mzteris]

51. You don't know that any more than anyone else -

except the people in the room.

Why do you automatically believe that what their defense attorneys claim, is really true?

[Egalitariat]

59. How long will you hang onto this?****

nm

[Lex]

60. You nor any of us know what really happened, despite the number

of asteriks you charmingly use.

The only ones who know for sure what happened are the ones who were there that night.





______________________

[Egalitariat]

66. I'll bet my whole net worth that there is never a conviction of any kind

I know what happened. And it was nothing.

[pnwmom]

86. You're right, we weren't there. But that is completely irrelevant.

This case should never have gone to the indictment stage, much less to trial. When Nifong brought the indictments to the grand jury, he already knew that the DNA of several men were found on her body, but none belonged to any of the defendants. He already knew that she had to see three different lineups, and he had to eliminate any fillers before she finally picked out the three students. He already knew that she said they hadn't used condoms (but he speculated in public that she was wrong, even though he knew that the testing had revealed no traces of condoms) . He already knew that Finnerty's description didn't come close to matching any of the attackers. He already knew that Seligmann had an alibi and a witness, had bank camera records and a taxi driver -- but he refused to consider the alibi. He already knew that she had lied to him -- at least about having had sex with others -- and that the students had passed lie detector tests.

But none of this mattered to him, because he had found the case that would give him the favorable media attention he needed to come up from behind in his election, to overcome the 4/1 advantage in campaign funding of his nearest opponent.

[mzteris]

91. Until we know the truth.

Would you care to switch sides and argue it? I can do that, too.

Unlike you, I'm not "taking sides".

[Egalitariat]

114. There will be no trial. We already "know" as much as we're going to "know"

So no, I don't care to switch sides and argue it. The other side is a sure loser.

[mzteris]

131. only if you're

arguing it, hon.

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

176. Okay, you claim you can argue for the other side. Let's hear it.

[pnwmom]

76. The primary documents -- the accusers own statements, and those

of the other witnesses -- speak for themselves. You don't have to rely on anything the defense attorneys claim. Read the primary documents. There is no case.

[mzteris]

92. I've read them.

I think there is.

Shall we let a jury decide?

[Zynx]

102. No. There is a standard for taking a case to trial. This doesn't meet it.

The DA is not supposed to prosecute cases that he has no chance of meeting the burden of proof i.e. "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's an ethical charge both regarding baseless prosecution and the waste of state resources.

Nifong should be, and probably will be, disbarred for this.

[mzteris]

109. "beyond a reasonable doubt"

I have a reasonable belief that the crime *could* have occurred after having read all the same documents everyone else has.

The difference being - I generally dismiss just about anything written by the "defense attorney's" and anything that "someone" said....

Facts. Not opinions. Not unsworn testimony. Not uncross-examined testimony. Not highly paid attorney's who job it is to make their clients "look good" and to discredit the "victim". Not biased media types. Not sensationalists. Not people peripherally involved who get quoted and I have no idea whether or not they are credible.

See the difference?

[pnwmom]

178. And what evidence do you have that a crime occurred?

Nothing but an incredible accuser's "say so." That's it. Boy, are you gullible.

[pnwmom]

122. Then tell me what evidence is in the primary documents,

the witness statements and other evidence, that makes you believe this case should ever have been brought to the indictment stage, much less a trial?

[AngryAmish]

160. You are persupposing there were people in a room together

[mzteris]

211. actually, I'm not presupposing anything there -

they've all admitted to being at the same party.

It was a figure of speech . . .

[pnwmom]

74. The NAACP's behavior has been really disappointing.

Their website still gives an account of the night that is full of lies.

[marshall]

99. Has Jesse Jackson weighed in on this latest development?

I haven't heard any input from him since he pledged college tuition. He needs to see that she gets her own counsel that protects her interestes apart from that of the DA because this is going to go to civil court.

[Zynx]

104. Why should Jackson pay for counsel for this woman???

She is clearly blatently lying, probably as part of a shakedown attempt gone way wrong due to lack of knowledge of modern forensics.

She is probably not worth suing due to how much lawyers for the Duke families go for just to try, but she may well need an attorney for criminal charges i.e. false statements to the police.

[pnwmom]

124. I read a long time ago that she was in contact with civil attorneys.

Back when the idea was that SHE was going to sue THEM.

But I think she's perhaps more at risk of criminal charges now. Making a false accusation is a crime. So I guess someone needs to help her find a criminal attorney. And it's too bad for her she didn't have one BEFORE she made her December statement. Because now there is a statement from her under oath, saying that she danced around 11:30 pm, and that the attack started around 11:40 and was over by midnight. Which is in direct contradiction to her own cell phone records (which show a call to her father during the dancing time), and to the videotape that shows her dancing AFTER midnight. (The timing of all this is key, by the way, since the earlier time -- the time she just swore to -- would have meant that Seligmann was still at the party.)

[pnwmom]

163. The NAACP of N.C. is still strongly on the side of the accuser.

Based on the creative writing piece about the case that it's still posting on its website.

[pnwmom]

72. Do you understand that the prosecutor has a chance to respond

to the defense motions? And to file the responses in court? If Nifong had a good answer to any of the defense motions over these 10 months, we would have heard it.

[pnwmom]

125. We KNOW that the prosecutor has acknowledged

that he couldn't prove the crime of rape in a court of law, because he said so in his request for dismissal. We KNOW that he said that the only evidence he had for rape was the word of the accuser -- he had no physical or other evidence. Nifong himself said so.

So we know that he was willing to bring a charge for which the only evidence he had was the STATEMENT of a woman whom he KNEW spoke many untruths. (Since two contradictory statements cannot both be true -- basic rule of logic.)

The issue really isn't whether any crime took place (although I happen to believe that the only student crime involved underage drinking); the issue is whether the prosecutor has enough solid evidence to prove the case to an unbiased jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. If he doesn't -- and clearly he doesn't -- then he had the responsibility not to bring the case to a grand jury in the first place. It is not his job to bring to trial any set of accusations any accuser makes, no matter how horrific.

[mzteris]

129. do you know why the rape charge

was withdrawn?

I mean, do you know exactly WHY? You might want to reread that section of the report. It's a "technicality" according to NC law.

Just because someone has told an untruth, doesn't mean every word they say is an untruth, ya know? Is she less credible? It certainly gives one pause, but I think it possible that some of what you're hearing as "she lied" - *could possibly* be more of the "she was drugged and suffering from PTSD" that lying on purpose.

The only student crime involved underage drinking???????

Well, "crime" is a relative term.

Hiring strippers. Acting like animals. Writing filth. Acting in a racist manner. Maybe not a "crime" - but certainly not the actions of upstanding citizens, n'est pas?


** If he doesn't -- and clearly he doesn't -- ***

According to you - and those who've already made up their minds - he "clearly doesn't" - but it's NOT so "clear" to everyone, ya know?

Seriously, I challenge you to go through it all and pretend you're on her side for a minute. Try and "prove the case" the other way - really and truly "suspend your belief in the boys" - and see if you see anything just a wee bit differently.

At the very least, if you can successfully go through the exercise, I think you'll see that it's not as cut and dried as you're making it out to be.

I often do this. It helps me keep an open mind and a different perspective. I've gone through the whole scenario on the "other side" as well, so I know what you're saying. I just disagree that it's a black and white as you're making it out to be.

I think there is probable cause. I think there is a possibility that things could have happened in a way indicated by the victim. So I say let there be a trial.

I guess we'll know if there is "enough evidence" if the State AG decides to pursue or drop the case. (Though if he drops it, it still doesn't necessarily mean that it *didn't* occur. Ya know?)

Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn't. But imho, they are no more credible than she.

[Buzz Clik]

138. I'll play the game. Nifong still loses, as does the victim and the accused.

Seriously, I challenge you to go through it all and pretend you're on her side for a minute. Try and "prove the case" the other way - really and truly "suspend your belief in the boys" - and see if you see anything just a wee bit differently.

Let's assume the very worst happened and that she was raped. Nothing that happened from that moment on did well for her story: she couldn't tell a consistent story, her dance partner was tenuous in support of the victim's story, and then there's Nifong.

So, this woman was raped. She accused three guys, one of whom was absolutely not there at the time of the rape. Period. DNA found in/on her matched none of members of the team who submitted samples, and Nifong suppressed this information. Where does she stand? Nowhere. A raped woman who will never see justice because this self-serving DA blew it.

And the accused? One graduated and left campus. Two others left campus because they were banned from the premises by Duke. The accusations against them -- probably false -- will haunt them their entire lives.

Bottom line: even if her story of being raped were true, she will not get justice. Ever.

What an incredible waste.

[mzteris]

141. I really don't think

you fully immersed yourself in the exercise. :(

**one of whom was absolutely not there at the time of the rape. Period. **

Really? I happen to think the timeline could allow for him to have been there.

[Buzz Clik]

143. Well, I guess that depends on which version of her story you choose.

It seems you're guilty of assuming their guilt. That's dangerous, and it certainly is not part of our justice system. Thank God.

[mzteris]

153. I'm not assuming their guilt

I don't KNOW if they're guilty. Or if they're NOT. And neither do you.

That's my whole point. ANYONE who says they "KNOW" are lying to themselves. No one here KNOWS - unless they were there.

also you might want to read this:

". . . The defense also has argued that the accuser gave different versions of the events of March 13. However, the files show that aside from two brief early conversations with the police, she gave largely consistent accounts of being raped by three men in a bathroom, the Times reported. . . "
http://www.wraltv.com/news/local/story/1092027/



As an aside, why the heck does your screen name seem familiar? "Buzz click" - I seem to remember reading the phrase - in a book, maybe????

[Buzz Clik]

157. We seem to be making arguments toward the same point, but...

... from different directions.

I don't assume that the victim is lying, nor do I assume she is not. I struggle with her story, and we all are shocked by Nifong's incompetence. One year later, none of us can assume that justice will be served for anyone, though Nifong may get his.

As for my screen name, I assumed it waaaay back in the early days of time wasting on the Internet. I frequented a Hearts website that allowed only eight characters for player names. After a few lame nicknames, I settled on BuzzClik. It was part of the broken English spoken by the robot boyfriend of the Jetson's robot maid. He would end most of his phrases with "buzz click", and his mechanical head would bounce up and down. Okay, that's still pretty lame, but there it is.

[mzteris]

173. exactly.....

**I don't assume that the victim is lying, nor do I assume she is not. I struggle with her story, and we all are shocked by Nifong's incompetence.**

I struggle with a lot of things in this story - from everyone. From the cops to the AV to the highpriced lawyers to the families to the media to the nurse to the school - EVERYONE seems to have made an error somewhere along the line.

I, too, fear justice will never be attained here. No matter what, there will always be a taint. Kinda like the OJ trial. We'll never *really know for sure* what happened. (People's protestations that they "KNOW that OJ did it" to the contrary.)



I'm almost positive I've read the phrase "buzz click" somewhere in some of the SF I read. (Which is probably where the Jetson's writer got it from. :shrug: If it comes to me, I'll let you know. :hi:

[pnwmom]

144. Yes, I know exactly why the crime of rape was withdrawn.

She changed her mind about whether she knew that a penis was involved. How convenient. She must have hoped that DNA would no longer be an issue -- but that is not true. Not with the tests that we have today. No attack could have occurred, even in the way she now describes, without some student DNA finding its way to her body or clothing.

Yes, she told many untruths. Many, many contradictory statements. Too many to be a credible witness.

No, crime is not a relative term. Crime is a highly specific term. Underage drinking is a crime. Hiring a stripper is not a crime. Attending a party where OTHER partiers made objectionable, racist statements is NOT a crime. Being on the same team as someone who sends a horrible email is NOT a crime.

I tried to keep an open mind when I read her December statement. I couldn't. It was a total joke -- except that it wasn't on Saturday Night Live. And because it is too scary that a woman like this is able to bring the power of the State down on these students and their families.

[mzteris]

168. not exactly

you said **She changed her mind about whether she knew that a penis was involved.***

What was actually said:

"Question: Are you certain they used a penis to rape you?

Answer: I can't say 100% that it was a penis that was used because I couldn't see it. They had me bent over and my face pushed down to the floor so I couldn't see what they were using but I believe it was their penis. It felt like a penis, but it was a sharp pain. I couldn't say 100% that I saw them use their penis but it was certainly something." http://www.wraltv.com/news/local/flash/1133779

[pnwmom]

71. To me, too. Hugely hypocritical.

[pnwmom]

70. Because the prosecution committed fraud, when it deliberately

withheld exculpatory evidence. Because the prosecutor deliberately trampled on the students rights, when he called the students names and said that the "guilty" would be brought to trial.

[Lex]

73. The DNA evidence was actual duplicative evidence

but you're right, he should not have withheld it. It showed again the same results from an earlier test. So it was important evidence but not crucial, or new.

He called the students "hooligans" which he shouldn't have done, but many of the LAX players had criminal records, or arrest records anyway. One even had essentially gay-bashing charge pending against him at the time of alleged rape. The word "hooligans" wasn't a stretch, but the DA shouldn't have been mouthing off like that.

DAs always say they are going to bring the guilty to trial. That's what they do, bring the guilty to trial.



_____________________________

[pnwmom]

77. Some of the DNA evidence WAS new. The first lab didn't find evidence

of multiple other men's DNA on her. The second lab did.

[Lex]

79. The main exculpatory evidence was that it didn't find the accused's

DNA on her, which the defense knew already (duplicative). Although I see your point about other men's DNA being in the sample. It seems probable she was turning tricks as part of her 'stripping' gig.



__________________________

[pnwmom]

83. It goes directly to her credibility. Was she lying to the police?

She had denied having any sex with anyone for a week, and this was relevant because of the "edema" in her vagina.

But it goes beyond that. Have you read the defence's lastest motion? Scrolling down, you can download the pdf document here:

http://www.durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

From page 16:

Thus, to believe the accuser’s present claim that her vagina was wiped with this towel, that her face was wiped with this towel, that Dave Evans was wiped with this towel, and that the floor was wiped with this towel, would require the belief that this towel could wipe away all DNA from her attackers on the accuser’s body, but leave the DNA of other, unknown males. It further requires the belief that the accuser’s face and vagina could be wiped with this towel, but leave no trace of her DNA on the towel.

[pnwmom]

85. Because liberal Democrats tend to believe in upholding civil rights.

And this prosecution has been trampling all over them.

The real question is why SOME DUers don't seem to care about this.

[pnwmom]

64. Why were so many Democrats defending the prosecution for so long

after his misconduct was abundantly clear? Why were Democrats rabidly defending a prosecutor who, as early as March and April, was calling the students "hooligans" and saying that he would bring "the guilty" to trial? Why were Democrats so willing to trust a prosecutor and forget "innocent until proven guilty"?

[pnwmom]

62. He can't be sued as a DA, but he can be in his other functions.

I understand that by appointing himself "lead investigator," he's opened himself up to some liability.

[Lex]

75. If you have a link to that, I'd love to read it.

I hadn't heard that before.

Thanks.



______________________

[pnwmom]

78. What part?

The fact that he was lead investigator? Or that that opens him to liability?

[Lex]

80. That he named himself lead investigator and that

opened him up to personal liability.



_____________________

[pnwmom]

82. Here's one source:

Especially the 2nd paragraph below. I know that I've read numerous times that he appointed himself lead investigator. I'll see if I can find a link about that specificially.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060630_spilbor.html

"Ordinarily, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability in connection with their pursuit of a criminal case. That makes sense: As the Supreme Court has commented, exposing prosecutors to civil liability would undermine the functioning of the criminal justice system.

"But, not all prosecutorial conduct enjoys absolute immunity. To the contrary, in Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor was not absolutely immune from civil liability for false statements made in a press conference and for other pre-trial investigative conduct; in that case, only "qualified immunity" applies.

"The Court explained that this is because "he conduct of a press conference does not involve the initiation of prosecution, the presentation of the state's case in court, or actions preparatory for these functions." In other words, press conferences aren't an integral part of the prosecutor's job; they are an extra function that he chooses to perform. Prosecutors could opt not to do any press conferences, if they so chose, and still perform all the core duties of prosecution.

"Thus, there may indeed be a way for the defendants, if acquitted, to sue D.A. Nifong for malicious prosecution: They must hinge their claim on his statements at press conferences."

On edit: Here's another link -- answering your question was easy after all.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/CSM/story?id=2749620

"Indeed, criticism of the case has led to some calls for Nifong's disbarment. A North Carolina legislator has asked the US Department of Justice to investigate the case. And legal experts say that while prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity inside the courtroom, Nifong's actions as a lead investigator outside the courtroom for this case may have left him exposed to a potential civil lawsuit from the Duke Three.

"The irony is that although this involved a bunch of white, privileged young defendants, might wind up setting a precedent which will help hundreds of other defendants who are black and lack their financial and other resources, because prosecutors around the country will be a little bit more worried about violating civil rights," says John Banzhaf III, a law professor at George Washington University."

[Lex]

107. That makes sense. It's actually saying

that anything he did outside his role as Prosecutor wouldn't be covered by prosecutorial immunity. It's not the term "lead investigator" that is magical for causing immunity to disappear, but any actions that were outside the usual role for a DA.


________________________________

[pnwmom]

121. Yes, I see what you mean.

Who knows what the chances are of such an action succeeding? But I won't be surprised if the parents lawyers try. There must be an awful lot of built-up anger after almost a year of this.

[bluewave]

43. Not an attorney, but IIRC he can be sued for defamation

He apparently leaked inappropriate info to the media. I spoke about it with an attorney I know, and he though Nifong may be liable for defamation.

[genie_weenie]

167. Hurray. Not being present I can't *know* if the woman

was assaulted so let's have the State throw all it's Power at the 3 men in question, it's only fair that it go to trial.

[pnwmom]

180. I'm glad I've read enough of your posts, genie_weenie,

to know that you're being sarcastic . . .

:hi:

[genie_weenie]

201. I can not believe people are still

using the tired rhetoric (read: attacks) of "You're believing the defense spin and their leaks", "You don't know what happened in that bathroom", "hiring strippers shows bad behavior".

Nifong used the enormous power of the State to make these men's lives hell for the last year. I can unequivocally state, they are innocent and this "case" will injure woman who have been raped.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson165.html

[pnwmom]

215. I agree that this case could have a hugely detrimental effect

on the cases of genuine rape victims. That is the tragedy here. That, and the year this has taken out of the families' lives.

[Robson]

247. Beyond All The Intangible Costs Don't Forget the $$$$$

Forget all the emotional and intangible tolls. Defense of this case has probably cost these families hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, while Nifong, and his gospel singing investigator, Linwood Wilson, were lapping away at the public tax trough charged with a supposed mission to prosecute the law fairly and with justice.

Many will find such blatant miscarriage of justice simply outrageous.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson165.html (from a previous post)