Monday, June 19: This post is close to comments. Discuss the latest news at Duke Rape Case: You Talking About Me?
Thursday, June 15 @ 12:20 p.m.: A black Duke alum and former lacrosse player chastises Duke president Richard Broadhead. It’s a must-read.
Thursday, June 15: “In the early days of the Duke lacrosse rape case, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s public statements appear to have contradicted certain facts in his own files.”
That’s the lead to DA’s statements, record at odds. Read the whole thing. It’s good to see journalists practicing journalism instead of ham-handed sensationalism for a change.
Also see The DA and the documents.
Don’t forget to read Wendy McElroy’s latest. She writes: “A fundamental principle of civil society is that people are equal under the law without regard to race, gender or other status. The content of law is a mitigating factor; an unjust law that is evenly applied is still unjust and reasonable people applaud anyone who escapes its application. But that caveat doesn’t apply to McKinney or the Duke case; prohibitions against assault and rape are just and should be applied equally.”
Wednesday, June 14: Check out The Most Absurd Rape Story of the Year.
Later…Almost got on Hannity today to discuss this case, almost got on FOX last week to discuss “gay marriage.” 
Listen to this interview. Point, totally missed…
Mary Katharine Ham, Durham native, writes: “As the holes in this case become more obvious, the city of Durham and the national press needs to do some soul-searching about just what it was that made them so enamored of the narrative they chose. It seems more and more likely that narrative will prove false, and that three young men will pay the price for it as the case remains in limbo.”
Tuesday, June 13: As many following the case already know, a Duke law professor named James E. Coleman Jr., called for a special prosecutor. Actually, the case should be dropped, but sometimes you have to take what you can get. 
Why is this national news???
First-time visitors, please see the Duke Rape Case category. If you don’t see the “Next Page” link at the bottom of the first page, link here.
———————————————————————————————————————-
If you’re following the Duke rape case and haven’t read the latest defense motion, you’re missing out. It’s filled with all sorts of interesting tidbits. One wonders why in the world Mike Nifong would risk his reputation and disciplinary action on so flimsy a case.
Please read Amendment to Motion to Suppress Non-Testimonial Photographs (PDF), no matter how much it hurts. It’s worth it.
The question is, does Nifong believe his re-election (and blatant race pandering) was worth the ridicule this case is bringing on him? Naysayers keep saying, “Just wait, he probably has a smoking gun up his sleeve.” Pull that thing out, Nifong! I can’t wait to see it.
The defense motion is spawning the latest cycle of news articles with headlines like Prosecutor’s Silence on Duke Rape Case Leaves Public With Plenty of Questions and The Duke Accuser—New Credibility Questions and Duke Case Collapse.
The defense claims that Durham Police Investigator Benjamin Himan omitted material facts in his probable cause affidavit to Judge Ronald L. Stephens, who issued a Non-Testimonial Identification Order (compelling the lacrosse players to turn over photos of themselves and other items for purposes of identification, etc.). Material contained in the 1,300-page document dump reveals “that the lead investigator possessed relevant impeaching information regarding the veracity” of the stripper-accuser’s story.
Himan’s affidavit provided the legal basis for the judge’s order. Defense believes that had the affidavit contained the impeaching information, the judge would not have had probable cause to believe a felony had been committed, and therefore, would not have ordered the players to turn over photos.
The defense requests that the court suppress and exclude any evidence seized through the order. If the judge grants the motion, that means the stripper-accuser’s line-up identification is out. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), the line-up ID appears to be Nifong’s strongest piece of evidence. The motion goes into much more detail, but that’s the gist. The motion includes handwritten statements from:
- Sgt. J.C. Shelton, who responded to Kim Roberts’s 911 call;
- Investigator Himan, who the defense claims “intentionally, deliberately and/or recklessly omitted” Roberts’s statements doubting the stripper-accuser’s story and the stripper-accuser’s own conflicting stories;
- Kim Pittman, aka Kim Roberts (I suspect she used Pittman, her maiden name, because she knew there was a warrant out for her arrest), who told Himan that the rape allegations were a “crock,†and that she was with the stripper-accuser the whole time except for a five-minute period. The Johnsville News has typed out her statement;
- Jarriel Johnson, who claimed to be the stripper-accuser’s driver. He said he had sex with her a week before and drove her to several “appointments†days before the incident.
I believe the defense can and will successfully argue that this sexual information is not protected under the rape shield law.
The stripper-accuser’s previous sexual encounters and the fact that her “boyfriend’s” semen was found inside her are relevant. An accuser’s sexual history is admissible, for example, if it tends to prove that a third party (someone other than the defendant) is the source of semen. I wrote about this in Rape Shield Law and the Duke Rape Case.
The medical reports aren’t attached (for privacy reasons), but the information contained therein is damning, in my opinion. The accuser-stripper couldn’t get her story straight. She said she was raped, then changed her mind, then decided she’d been raped. Although she claimed to have been raped, sodomized, choked and beaten, she told a nurse that she hadn’t been choked, and that no foreign objects (the broom!) had been used. The nurse noted that her legs, arms, neck, throat, etc., looked normal.
The stripper-accuser may have been faking drunkenness that night, too. According to the defense, none of this information was included in Himan’s affidavit. At this point I believe the defense’s motions will be granted, unless the judge and Nifong are golf buddies.
That’s all the editorializing I’ll do on this case today. I’ve written a couple of op-eds that may be published this week, and I say a lot more about the motion, the stripper-accuser, and history.
Bloggers: California Conservative, Cold Fury, Ann Althouse, Betsy’s Page, American Conservative Politics, John in Carolina…
I was surprised to learn that Justice 4 Two Sisters blogrolled me. They support the stripper-accuser, and I believe she made up the rape story. Interesting…
Boring. I’m surprised it made national news…
