Update (1:44 p.m.): Durham Investigator Linwood Wilson criticized the defense for asserting that the accuser’s story was inconsistent, and he asked for proof. In response, Joseph Cheshire, Dave Evans’s attorney, sent Wilson a letter (PDF) with the proof attached.
Now that Nifong has muzzled himself, he’d be wise to muzzle his people, too. 
I don’t have time today to look for others blogging about the case, so if you are, let me know. See Robert KC Johnson’s latest post, Turning on Nifong.
Independent Conservative: “536 Pages. 5 Rapists. 4 Dancers. No Toxicology Report. No Payoff From Defense and No Plea Deal Requested.”
Commenter Beth Taylor writes:
LaShawn - You probably need to be careful! You’re going to end up getting called as an expert witness in this case for one side or the other…
“Ms. Barber, On March 26th did Attorney Nifong say that this is an act of rape made with racial epithets?â€
“No. He did not. He said that on March 27th.â€
Thanks for the Friday afternoon laugh, Beth. 
Rest easy, everybody. See you Monday.
———————————————————————————————————
Scottsboro Boys
Click over to Townhall.com and read my column, Scottsboro Revisited, which discusses a few similarities between the “Scottsboro Boys” case from 1931 and the Duke case. A wonderful site called Famous Trials was one of the sources.
Lessons from the New York Times
[Update @ 10:22 a.m.: The misspelled name has been corrected, but this section contains good advice for writers and would-be writers, including my enemies. I wouldn’t wish a published typo on anyone. 
… And the term “radioed ahead” is anachronistic, but hey, whatever.]
As one whose name is often misspelled, I should know better. But, alas, things happen. For the record, the researcher’s name is Douglas O. Linder, not David, as I wrote in the column. (Sorry, Douglas!) A correction is pending. Knowing how tense I get about typos, you’d think I’d have learned to be extremely careful about proofreading. But I can be as careless as the next person. Strangely enough, though, whoever edited the piece didn’t catch that but removed several commas. If you notice places where there should be a comma, there probably was one in my version.
The reason I’m so hard on myself is that it’s good practice to be hard on myself. I anticipate bigger things in my career, and the vultures will be circling, waiting for a fall. A small typo is a small typo, but one day, if I’m not careful, I’ll commit an egregious error…perhaps even a career-ending one.
Dramatic, yes, but who wants to be like the New York Times, with its typically long Corrections page? Fortunately, Townhall is online, so corrections can be made fairly quickly, or sometime today. Blogging is different, of course. You have the tools to correct typos in seconds.
Advice: Always, without exception, proofread your work very carefully. Triple-check facts. Do this even if you’re submitting an article to a publication with the world’s best fact-checkers and copy editors. Assume that you are the final editor. Your nerves will thank you.
Hauntings
If you followed the Duke case early on, you may remember some of Mike Nifong’s pre-media moratorium statements. LBC reader Nancy Kidder fact-checked his recent e-mail (PDF) to Newsweek and compiled and sent a list of contradictory statements. First, the relevant portion of the e-mail. Nifong wrote:
All of my public comments in this case were made prior to any specific defendant being identified, and were essentially restricted to 1) my belief that the victim had in fact been sexually assaulted at the 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. address, and 2) my hope that one or more of the persons who were present but not involved with that assault would cooperate with the investigation. Once specific defendants were identified, I considered myself to be ethically bound to avoid any further comments on the case or the evidence.
Nancy writes:
Both of these claims are demonstrably false. First, Nifong’s statements were in no way restricted to his belief a rape occurred and calls for witnesses to come forward. As shown below in his public statements, among other things, Nifong emphasized the racial component of the case, accused Duke students of hiding behind their “daddies,†suggested the players were guilty because they obtained counsel, characterized the findings of the medical report, and demonstrated how he believed the alleged victim was choked. Second, Nifong’s statement that “all of my public comments in this case were made prior to any specific defendant being identified†is clearly incorrect. Nifong made at least 20 statements after the April 4 identification. Even if you accept a reinterpretation of his statement to mean “after the first players were indicted, rather than identified,†he still continued to make public statements, including suggestions that the Defense attorneys are lying and are afraid to face him in court. Nifong has not shown himself to be bound by ethics at all, only opportunity and convenience.
1) The following is a sampling of Nifong’s contradictory and often race-baiting pre-identification statements that were not restricted to a “belief that the victim had in fact been sexually assaulted at the 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. address” or his “hope that one or more of the persons who were present but not involved with that assault would cooperate with the investigation.” It is my hope all these statements come back to haunt him, especially the hate crime charge hints:
March 27: “In this case, where you have the act of rape - - essentially a gang rape - - is bad enough in and of itself, but when it’s made with racial with racial epithets against the victim, I mean, it’s just absolutely unconscionable.” (Source)
March 29: “The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done. It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so.” (Source)
March 30: “The racial slurs involved are relevant to show the mindset involved in this particular attack. And, obviously, it made what is already an extremely reprehensible act even more reprehensible.” (Source)
March 30: “There’s been a feeling in the past that Duke students are treated differently by the court system. There was a feeling that Duke students’ daddies could buy them expensive lawyers and that they knew the right people. It’s discouraging when people feel that way, and we try not to make that the case.” (Source)
Most egregious is the following statement (March 31). A prosecutor ready to charge people with rape, says: “If it’s not the way it’s been reported, then why are they so unwilling to tell us what, in their words, did take place that night? And one would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong.” (Source)
By now we know that the accuser’s medical exam showed no signs of rape (PDF defense motion), but Nifong held tight to his theory. Dismissing the idea of a hoax, he said (April 1):
“If this is all a hoax that was … designed to get the lacrosse team … what other major lacrosse program is behind that hoax? The presumed motivation would be to end the season of the Duke lacrosse team, and that’s obviously been accomplished. Seriously, when you think about it, who would be motivated to do a hoax like that? What possible reason would somebody have to do that?” (Source)
He’s been trying cases and dealing with self-serving defendants and witnesses for how long? And how does he presume a hoaxer would want to end the lacrosse team’s season? What sort of motive is that? How about a CYA, don’t-send-me-back-to-jail motive? Is such a concept foreign to a man who tries to put people in jail for a living? Anyway, let’s continue:
2) Regarding Nifong’s statement that all of his “public comments in this case were made prior to any specific defendant being identified,” I think he mis-wrote (if that’s a word). Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were identified as the rapists on April 4, and Nifong made public statements after that, as noted in stories dated April 10, April 11, April 12, and April 13.
A statement Nifong made at a candidate’s forum no doubt attended by black potential voters (April 13): “The reason that I took this case is because this case says something about Durham that I’m not going to let be said. I’m not going to allow Durham’s view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke raping a black girl from Durham.”
Here’s another revealing quote from April 18: “It had been my hope to charge all three of the assailants at the same time, but the evidence available to me at this moment does not permit that. Investigation into the identity of the third assailant will continue in the hope that he can also be identified with certainty.”
What’s revealing? The evidence available to Nifong at the time was the accuser’s uncertain identification of the third rapist. At this point, we don’t know if she first identified a player other than the indicted three. But based on her weak and contradictory recollections, Dave Evans was indicted.
Conclusion
Some may wonder why I’m blogging and writing so often about this case. I think the whole thing is shameful, and the accuser should bear the consequences of this false and racially motivated rape accusation. Not only does it hurt the cause of women who are actual rape victims, but it set in motion a cascade of racially tense arguments and pseudo-feminist “discussions,” giving credence to conspiracy theories, victim-wallowing, and men like Jesse Jackson and the “New Black Panthers,” for crying out loud. I don’t want the woman only to be embarrassed; I want her learn and to never, ever do such a thing again (as she also did in 1996).
She needs psychological help in dealing with gang-rape fantasies, and more than anything else, she needs a Savior.
And a new line of work.
Related posts:
- Duke Rape Case: $2 million Hush Money Offer?
- Talk Left writes: “Fox News is reporting Nifong said no toxicology tests were conducted. So why did Nifong put out the date rape drug theory?”
Related stories:
- Friend and fellow conservative Joseph C. Phillips: Cosmic Justice in Durham
- Sports Illustrated: The Damage Done
- Lawyer says investigator ignored evidence
—————————————————————————————————————————
Message to commenters: The Duke case discussion is veering off into bawdiness. Ideally, commenters focus on the facts at hand and civilly discuss differences of opinion. I don’t like negative remarks about people’s physical appearance, and I’m beginning to wonder if there’s any value in talking about the stripping and “escort” professions in general. As long as commenters aren’t calling me or each other names, I usually stay out of it. But now I must ask commenters to refrain from general discussions about stripping and what turns on drunk college men.
Some commenters are lawyers; many others are not. But try to discuss the legal and social aspects of the case without being gratuitous.
Very impressive analysis of the actual facts & timeline of the case as it regards Nifong’s inflammatory and baseless statements! As I commented earlier, the shocking disregard for truth displayed by the District Attorney should underscore the notion that the defense lawyers must play it straight and true. As tempting as it must be to go tit-for-tat when faced with opposing counsel who will say whatever sounds best in the moment, rather than what is true, let us hope that the defense lawyers recognize the inherent strength of their side of the case & hew to truth and candor instead.
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 10:36 am
La Shawn,
I thought the good Reverend was going to pay for the accuser’s tuition so she won’t have to strip anymore. I bet if she took him up on the offer, she would continue to strip because she likes it. So is good ol’ Jesse going to pay the tuition of the guy who claims he sells drugs to pay for tuition?
The conspiracy theories are already out. I am hearing people (liberal Blacks) say that Duke “messed” with the DNA! How does one “mess” with DNA? Is there a DNA fairy who sneeks into the lab and switches samples? Or is there a way they you can alter the DNA? My God, they actaully believe that crap! My people are so blind to see that this tramp is lying. When I ask people if they ever thought that some women actually do file false rape charges, I usually get blank stares. I remind them of how they get frustrated when Whites can have a hard time believing that some law enforcement officials do racially profile. There are some bad cops out there but for the most part they uphold the law. Just like there are some women who lie and cry rape to bring attention to themselves to get back at a man.
I wonder has Crystal Gail Magnum aka Janette Rivers has spoken to Tawana Brawley now known as Maryam Muhammad? I’m sure that would be some interesting dialogue.
Comment by Tracey — 06.23.06 @ 10:41 am
Powerful column. I enjoyed it.
I’ll be the first to admit I view the world through a race tinged brush and I’m trying to work on that but reality is reality and I’m not optimistic.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 06.23.06 @ 10:41 am
Tracey (ref #2), the same Wilmington Journal article by Cash Micheals, tells us that, according to cousin Jakki:
“The Wilomigton Journal has confirmed that an NCCU student organization that collected thousands of dollars to donate to the woman could not get her to take it, and is still holding on to the money. The Rev. Jesse Jackson publicly offered to pay her college tuition through his Rainbow/PUSH organization, and the NC NAACP has had several discussions with the family about setting up a fund. All efforts got a polite “Thanks, but no thanks,” but apparently many of the alleged vicitm’s most vocal critics are unaware of her unflinching stand.”
Which makes me wonder? Are there any legal defense funds set up for the Duke defendants, who are the only participants in the criminal case who actually must incur legal costs from their own pockets? I have no idea what they are or were billed, but given the public nature & complexity of the case, I would feel fairly safe in speculating that the fee for each defendant would run at least somewhere between $100,000 and $500,000. After all, remember that the alleged victim’s rights in a criminal case are represented by the office of the district attorney at no expense to the alleged vicitm, only to the local taxpayers (although given the caliber of representation AV has been receiving from Nifong’s shop I could see her wanting some backup), and any future civil case on her behalf would probably be handled for free, given the value of the publicity to the lawyer(s) or at a deeply discounted contingency fee for a percentage of any recovery, with no out of pocket cost to the AV. I wonder if any group, association, church or individual, including any of their fellow Duke students, has offered to pay the defendants’ college tuition? And, no, I am not blind to the likely differing financial wherewithal of the AV, who is a single mother working as an exotic dancer, and the defendants, but please don’t try to tell me that 1/2 or a 1/4 million dollars plus a potentially permanently ruined reputation wouldn’t put a dent in ANYONE’s budget. Perhaps there have been financial contributions to the accused, but I have not seen such reported as yet.
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 11:09 am
sorry, Tracey, I forgot to include the link to that Cash Micheals’ article - here goes:
http://wilmingtonjournal.blackpressusa.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=70514&sID=4
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 11:10 am
There is a defense fund for the players at the Friends of Duke University site.
Costs for unindicted players are said to have run to about $12,000 each (and rising).
Costs for the indicted players are probably going to be astronomical before this thing finishes (in 2007?)
Costs to the innocent (since this is going to be with them for the rest of their lives) are going to be incalcuable.
Funny that the best outcome of all–discovering that there really was no rape in Durham–will be considered by some as a devastating blow to women’s rights, or a defeat for black civil rights, or a triumph for white privileged power–instead of simply relief that no crime was committed.
(Shows how skewed the thinking has become.)
Comment by Seahawk — 06.23.06 @ 11:15 am
LaShawn - reference your column comparing the Scottsboro travety and the ongoing Duke case, I must confess that I have wondered whether some of the references to the accused Duke students as “boys” by many who discuss the case here and elsewhere is a conscious or unconscious evocation of the “Scottsboro Boys.” In any event, you are right - there are many startling similarities. Let us hope that the one distinguishing factor between then and now will prove to be the outcome - a sham trial followed by the travesty of unjust imprisonment, requiring years of effort to unravel…
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 11:19 am
thank you Seahawk (re #6)
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 11:21 am
link
Article from the NY Times tells how Cheshire’s press conference was interrupted by one of Nifong’s investigators challenging him to show where it said the accuser changed her story.
This is too weird to explain. Did these “investigators” see the same attachments and exhibits to the motions as we did?
Comment by Peter — 06.23.06 @ 11:24 am
Peter - I haven’t looked at the attachments to defense motions other than the June 7 pleadings -have we actually seen, in the original source documents, a recordation of differing statements by the AV where she varies her account about the number of attackers? I know I have read that contention here and elsewhere, but I just wonder if anyone here can verify that they have personally seen and read the actual source documents showing such wild shifts from 1 to 3 to 5 to 20 assailants. It is hard for me to imagine a DA investigator publicly making that claim if the police reports or notes (or hospital reports or notes) in fact bear out the defense accounts of these variances in AV’s story.
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 11:34 am
I was wondering if anyone has heard about the analysis of the accuser’s cell phone?
Comment by Mark — 06.23.06 @ 11:57 am
Karl,
I went back and looked at the documents I have read and also couldn’t find that anything specific in the exhibits. My misstatement, thank you for pointing it out.
I agree with your assertion that it’s hard to believe an investigator would make a statement like that if he knew it to be false.
Perhaps it could be my bias, but I’m less reluctant to believe the defense attorney. That is a hefty claim to make especially within earshot of a potential juror.
This is all too crazy. Perhaps the wall of silence that Nifong said existed is not being used by the defense, but rather by the investigators and prosecutors.
Comment by Peter — 06.23.06 @ 12:02 pm
Lashawn,
Thank you again for keeping the fire on Nifungu. I think we have just about beaten this horse to death. I would still like to know what happened to the motions to suppress the id’s. Other than that, I think I’ll give it a break, until July. I’ll be in China on the 17th, but you can be sure I’ll tune in to see what happened. God Bless for all your support. Kemp
Comment by kemperman — 06.23.06 @ 12:03 pm
Question: Can a kidnapping conviction stick in the absence of a rape conviction? The accuser claims she was forced into the bathroom, which I presume is the basis for the kidnapping charge. Can a person be found guilty of kidnapping merely for forcibily moving a person from one place to another within the same dwelling even if no other crime was committed and no weapon was used? I’d be interested in a legal opinion.
Comment by dianne — 06.23.06 @ 12:59 pm
LaShawn, you note - “Talk Left writes: “Fox News is reporting Nifong said no toxicology tests were conducted. So why did Nifong put out the date rape drug theory?â€
Because no toxicology tests were conducted, no one can disprove Nifong’s “theory” that AV may have been given a “date rape” type drug - it is the perfect rhetorical proposition. This is the very reason why, in many instances, police do not make a verbatim record (video, audio) of witness and suspect statements - if there is no verbatim record of something said to have transpired, than one person’s version or theory of events is just as good as another’s, and better (to a juror) is you are an officer of the law (police, DA) versus a criminally-accused defendant. This is also why I suggested in an earlier post that the Duke dfendants should be thankful (oy!!!) that they were accused of something (rape) that is demonstrably untrue by reference to the facts of the case, rather than something they could potentially have a much more difficult time disproving, like Tiffany’s assault theory.
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 1:00 pm
Dianne - reference your post #in a word “yes.” While some criminal offenses must be “coupled” with the intent or actual commission of another crime, such is not the case for kidnapping. You can be guilty of kidnapping without actually committing any other separate crime, using force, or intending to commit another separate crime or use force. Some contrary examples would be burglary, which in most states is defined as an entry onto premises with the intent to commit another felony crime on those premises, or money laundering, which typically requires the movement or a change in the character of funds derived from the commission of another separate crime. Good question - particularly since it points out the possibility that a jury could completely disbelieve the rape charge, acquit the defendants of rape, yet still convict on serious felony charges.
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 1:09 pm
Peter - on your post #12 in reply to my #10 - here’s the answer to the question we were discussing:
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/453817.html
Evidently page 1304 of the Nifong discovery productions is a police report detailing the variances in question.
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 1:14 pm
Peter- here is a link to the actual document (pg. 1304 of the discovery production)
http://www.wral.com/slideshow/news/9417089/detail.html?qs=;s=3;w=800
You probably discerned by now that I’m a stickler for actually seeing docs with my own 2 eyes rather than relying on other’s accounts of them. I note that this particualr police report does not contain an account by AV of being raped by 20 men, but rather relates that she placed the number of men present at the party at twenty (20). HOWEVER - it does clearly report:
-1- her account of being penetrated by five (5) men, then later denying any rape whatsoever;
-2- her account of having “performed” with three (3) other “dancers” at the lacrosse party (with first names all included); and
-3- two alternative stories of what happened to the $$$ she “earned” at the party - version 1 was that “Nikki” (Kim Roberts) stole it, along with her mobile phone, version 2 was that she might have deposited the money.
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 2:01 pm
As to the police report linked to above, which was evidently part of the SUPPLEMENTAL discovery disclosure that just took place yesterday, I wonder how Nifong justifies holding back that document from the first, supposedly comprehensive discovery production. I’m dying to know what else was in the extra several hundred pages produced. On this particular report, the only thing I can think of which would not represent misconduct on Nifong’s part in withholding the report from the defense until yesterday would be if the police officer did not contemporaneously prepare the narrative in question, and re-created his account of events since the original discovery production took place. whew…
Comment by Karl — 06.23.06 @ 2:10 pm
LaShawn - You probably need to be careful! You’re going to end up getting called as an expert witness in this case for one side or the other…
“Ms. Barber, On March 26th did Attorney Nifong say that this is an act of rape made with racial epithets?”
“No. He did not. He said that on March 27th.”
One of the “sides” is going to wish they had your analytical “eye.”
… so we still don’t know what was on the “AV’s” cell phone - Fox made reference to it - do not remember who / what show - that the information will be coming any day, now.
… do we know if the $2,000,000 hush money IS actually being looked into?
… and if this case gets dropped, if the “AV” decided not to go forward with it, she can still go forward with a civil suit. Does anyone really think, that the Duke players will end up with a jury of “their peers” and a fair trial in Durham?
I am of the opinion, having worked down the street from the Durham County Courthouse and participating in several civil trials - in the capacity of paralegal, not attorney - with all that has taken place in the press, that a jury, would, at this point, end up being favorable toward to the “AV” as plaintiff in any CIVIL or CRIMINAL trial! The defendants would have to file a motion for a change of venue…
Comment by Beth T. — 06.23.06 @ 2:39 pm
“Can a person be found guilty of kidnapping merely for forcibily moving a person from one place to another within the same dwelling even if no other crime was committed and no weapon was used?”
This refers to the asportation requirement. One must be asported - carried away - to be kidnapped. If the asportation is minimal but increases the risk materially (from a public hallway to a basement broom closet), there is a proper asportation.
If one gets moved from a living room to a dining room, there is not sufficient asportation, ordinarily. From 610 Buch LR to bathroom? Judge could say not sufficient asportation - no significant increase in risk from minimal movement.
OTOH, a judge helping the DA might say locking the AV in a bathroom did increase risk enough to constitute asportation. Did AV say the bathroom door was ever locked?
Comment by cfw — 06.23.06 @ 2:54 pm
Are there any stupidity laws on the books in NC? Can we have Linwood Wilson arrested for the Bonehead of the Day?
Comment by Renee — 06.23.06 @ 4:00 pm
You know when someone mentioned a civil case potentially brought forward by the AV, something funny clicked in my brain. I’ve had my const. law classes and I know the standard for conviction/responsibility is higher in criminal cases, but I started to laugh about the idea of a civil case. I thought “There’s no way she can proof with 50.1% likelyhood that she was raped.” Then it occurred to me, the crim trial is going forward and that requires a much higher standard…then I started to cry.
Comment by John — 06.23.06 @ 4:06 pm
La Shawn:
“[A]nd more than anything else, she needs a Savior.”
So true. Did you happen to see the Sports Illustrated article?
http://si.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=SI.com+-+Magazine+-+Special+Report:+The+Damage+Done+-+Thursday+June+22,+2006+1:59PM&expire=-1&urlID=18647862&fb=Y&url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/06/22/duke0626/&partnerID=2356
“We told her we were just trying to help her,” the [accuser’s] mother said. “I asked my minister to pray with [her], but she won’t come to church.”
Sounds to me like she knows what she has done is horribly wrong. It sounds like she’s not ready to confess and repent yet, either.
Comment by SLee — 06.23.06 @ 4:25 pm
“The conspiracy theories are already out. I am hearing people (liberal Blacks) say that Duke “messed†with the DNA! How does one “mess†with DNA? Is there a DNA fairy who sneeks into the lab and switches samples? Or is there a way they you can alter the DNA?”
Apparently you don’t watch soap operas! On General Hospital ONE baby has had something like 6 DNA tests and every one has been tampered with! And the kid’s only 3 months old!
All y’all - have a great weekend!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 06.23.06 @ 4:28 pm
Mark (#11):
“I was wondering if anyone has heard about the analysis of the accuser’s cell phone?”
The judge said he reviewed the information in camera and ruled none of the information was priviledged. He turned the information over to Nifong and told him to make copies for the defense attorneys.
Comment by SLee — 06.23.06 @ 4:28 pm
“Because no toxicology tests were conducted, no one can disprove Nifong’s “theory†that AV may have been given a “date rape†type drug - it is the perfect rhetorical proposition.”
Cases are tried on EVIDENCE, not theories! Nifong may espouse any theory that pleases him - but in a criminal prosecution in particular, ONLY FACTS are admissible. That’s why I very much doubt that a conviction will ever be possible! In the absence of veracity, how can he possibly have facts?
Comment by Gayle Miller — 06.23.06 @ 4:35 pm
Regarding the typos:
Remember all of Barbra Streisand’s misspelled words?
And she called that “elegant variation”.
Streisand doesn’t make errors, apparently.
Even Michelle had the nerve to publish an “errata” sheet. I love that word….errata.
That was brave!
Comment by Glamchild — 06.23.06 @ 5:01 pm
Thankfully, in our justice system, the labs are assumed to be safe, unless it’s proven otherwise. So they con believe it all they want, unless they can show that it was tampered with, it’s legit. “It’s not about what you know, it’s about what you can prove. The truth is only of concern to the courts so far as the evidence supports it.” -Can’t remember where I got that, but it is so often the case.
Comment by John — 06.23.06 @ 5:02 pm
I totally agree on the typos and even find that I make a lot more typos myself online when one does not take the time to print and proffread. On the other hand, aside from lazyness, if one uses a word processor and prints text to proofread, the number of people taking the time to comment will go down.
In Scottsborro, I thought Kim played the part of the white teenager on the train who did not see or report any rape or any after afects of gang rape such as a nude or upset woman.
Comment by UNK — 06.23.06 @ 6:42 pm
ouch, speaking to typos, I hit the post it instead of spell check, so I guess it’s good I am not using my real name, aside from not wanting the Black Panthers to visit me.
Hey, can we bring back black-face comedy since the N word came back. Just joking. Adding the falling down pants to black-face would be entertaining.
Comment by UNK — 06.23.06 @ 6:45 pm
I’ll be the first to admit I view the world through a race tinged brush and I’m trying to work on that but reality is reality and I’m not optimistic.
Comment by Tiffany at 3
Tiff, you took a pretty good beating from all of us last night, but came back with a winner comment this morning… dang near rejoicing in the Corner’s activity since you signed off!
Don’t give up on optimism. Remember the Sesame Street sage, Grover, when he said “Where there’s life, there’s hope!”
Comment by TaterCon — 06.23.06 @ 9:03 pm
ditto, tatercon. any word on the defense motions to suppress, were they take under advisement, etc.? kemp
Comment by kemperman — 06.23.06 @ 9:30 pm
cfw in #21: “Did AV say the bathroom door was ever locked?”
She said that the bathroom door was locked, and that it was not locked. I’m not kidding. But at this point, is anyone surprised by that answer?
Comment by jc — 06.23.06 @ 9:40 pm
Karl mentioned it first, but another huge whopper in the Accusers allegations emerges in the PDF. That there were 4 strippers. Her, Nikki (Roberts), and “Angel” and “Tammy”.
Also, page 1304 is more detailed about Crystal’s allegations of Kim being the “True Whore”, out to get shy “Precious” out to betray her Navy Vet, Honor student, caring mother of two ….virtues with……….tawdry bathroom prostitution..and how Kim was in there with the (5!!) rapists when pure “Precious” wasn’t interested in making money…
Then more talk about Kim being a thief.
Now Kim may be a thief - but Roberts - if her parole wasn’t dangling in Nifong’s hands - might be willing to express her “that’s a total crock of _______!!” opinion about the 2 Phantom dancers and her forcing “Precious” into a prostitution situation or assisting in the rape of her.
==============================
And Linwood Smith. Another moron surfaces..
Comment by Chris Ford — 06.23.06 @ 10:56 pm
Tatercon,
I talked to an old friend, unfortuately he too is marginally employed, he is an attorney, former judge. He knows the Stephen brothers, twins he says, one was DA in Durham in 80’s. Probably the one sitting in Durham. Says they are straight up guys. My US Attny friend up for the judgeship was comfirmed last night.
It has been suggested that a Federal Grand Jury could indict Nifungu and all the cops involded for civil rights violations for false statements on a warrant. Indict them all, call the cops first and let them rat out Nifungu. Oh the joy of seeing Nifungu take a frog walk to the Federal pokey. A federal indictment, humm, that sure would change the tone in Durham. Going to talk to former US Attny tommorrow about the probably of this, which I think is not great, but Nifungu if you are reading these posts, you and your hired help should know that we are not sitting still out here. We’ve got cards to play,too. Get a haircut before the frog walk! Kemp
Comment by kemperman — 06.23.06 @ 11:11 pm
One note, that would be false statements on the ARREST warrant.
Comment by kemperman — 06.23.06 @ 11:20 pm
She said that the bathroom door was locked, and that it was not locked. I’m not kidding. But at this point, is anyone surprised by that answer? jc at 34
Did she say that? Or did John Kerry say that in 2004? He said something like that.
Maybe he said, “I voted for locking the bathroom door, before voting against it.”
Yeah, that was it.
Comment by TaterCon — 06.23.06 @ 11:41 pm
Kemp, I haven’t seen or heard anything re: the motion to suppress photo id. When I speculated on it last night, it was after reading just the first N&O story. Twenty-four hours later, and I haven’t seen any story mention it. Maybe my speculation was correct — that is, that this particular motion wasn’t heard?
As for your hope to see a state district atty frog march from the state courthouse down to the Federal Bldg. while an alleged rape case is still pending on a state indictment, I think pork BBQ sandwiches will sprout wings and fly before that happens!!
Picked up the Watford’s today from my former office — think I’ll use the same box to ship your Carolina Treet!!
Comment by TaterCon — 06.23.06 @ 11:59 pm
Durham DA Investigator Linwood Wilson explains his outburst during the Duke defense lawyer’s press conference:
“Wilson said in an interview Friday, however, that Cheshire was “trying to twist what I asked him.” He said he was questioning the lawyer’s reference to 20 alleged rapists, not the reference to five.
“I was upset about the 20,” Wilson acknowledged. “There ain’t nothing about 20 in anything I’ve read. I wanted him to show it to me. One of the police officers did say there were 20 people present, but he didn’t say 20 people raped this woman.
“We all know she said three,” Wilson added. “We all know that because three people are charged. I wasn’t questioning the three or the five. I was only questioning the 20.”
However, a reference to 20 assailants was made in a Duke police report on March 14. It said that “a female was brought into the Emergency Department by Durham Police in reference to possible rape. The female was picked up at the Kroger on Hillsborough Rd., and she was claiming that she was raped by approximately 20 white males.”
This lame excuse by Investigator Wilson was excerpted from the following article:
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-747034.html
So, according to the DA investigator, if the AV has not in fact changed her story from being raped by 20, to 5, to 0, to 3 men, but in fact only changed it from 5 rapists, to no rapists, to 3 rapists, then this somehow enhances or salvages her credibility? Investigator Wilson says “I wasn’t questioning the three or the five. I was only questioning the 20.” And there, dear friends, is the crux of the massive failure of justice with the DA’s office summed up in one neat little quote - THEY AREN’T QUESTIONING THE PATENTLY QUESTIONABLE nature of the AV’s many widely varied stories. You know, every night I tell my preschool aged daughters a made-up fairy tale. Because its made-up, and sometimes to make it more interesting, I change some parts of the story around, and add or take away other facts. This fairy tale recitation is precisely what the AV has done, except that her ever-changing stories aren’t helping anyone sleep better at night …
Comment by Karl — 06.24.06 @ 1:37 am
What;s in those extra 536 pages of discovery produced yesterday by Nifong to the defense?
“Cheshire said half or three-quarters of the pages are copies of information already provided. But the new pages refer to a previously unknown police lineup — the second in which the accuser could not identify a team captain charged in the case as one of her attackers, Cheshire said.”
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/453751.html
This part of the article, detailing the events of Thursday’s hearing,was also particularly enjoyable:
“The rancor that has simmered between Nifong and defense lawyers, particularly Cheshire, seeped out in court again. When responding to a request from Evans’ lawyers, Nifong said that the legal team had asked for something that didn’t exist.
“People who don’t do a lot of rape cases probably don’t know that,” Nifong said.
“It made me feel really good that he would help me along in that way and try to give me some pointers,” Cheshire said after the hearing.”
hmmmm…let’s see, which is more troubling:
(a) Nifong’s experience as a DA hardly permits him to pontificate on what is customary in rape cases & he’s once again speaking of whence he knows not; or
(b) those who have reported to us that Nifong’s previous prosecutorial experience has predominantly encompassed lower level infractions like traffic matters are in error, and in fact Nifong prosecutes a lot of rape cases, and this one is just like all the others he handles…
Comment by Karl — 06.24.06 @ 2:03 am
OK, Karl. Except when Linwood Wilson showed even more ignorance as “Nifong’s Investigator” when he got in the hole he dug for himself on THursday and proceeded to dig deeper on Friday. Apparantly, he has also failed to ever read the initial police report which documents “Precious” saying she was gang-banged by 20.
I can see an emerging Niforg defense….“Well, I’m a level-headed guy, but as you can see from my investigators Benjamin Himan and Linwood Wilson, I was surrounded by ignorant morons who misled me into indicting.”
Worth repeating Linwood’s shoveling techniques in front of the press, and here’s hoping he’s back to digging on Monday make his hole deeper by either introducing a leather glove Durham’s Finest found in an alley behind 610 Buchanan St, or discussing “the gist” of what Nifong had him say to the Grand Jury:
Wilson said in an interview Friday, however, that Cheshire was “trying to twist what I asked him.” He said he was questioning the lawyer’s reference to 20 alleged rapists, not the reference to five.
“I was upset about the 20,” Wilson acknowledged. “There ain’t nothing about 20 in anything I’ve read. I wanted him to show it to me. One of the police officers did say there were 20 people present, but he didn’t say 20 people raped this woman.
“We all know she said three,” Wilson added. “We all know that because three people are charged. I wasn’t questioning the three or the five. I was only questioning the 20.”
However, a reference to 20 assailants was made in a Duke police report on March 14.
Linwood smacks hand to forehead and says “Du-Oooh!”
Nifong smacks hand to forehead and goes “Du-Oooh, dummy Linwood!”
Duke President Brodhead suddenly realizes he threw the wrong people to the wolves as expedient to the greater good and glory of William Brodhead - About the time he sees Duke alumni piling kindling wood around the desk they have tied him to; smacks head on desk and sighs “Du-Ooh” about the time the first whiff of fragrant NC hickory smoke hits his nose.
Comment by Chris Ford — 06.24.06 @ 2:24 am
I agree that ” the accuser should bear the consequences of this false […] rape accusation”
but the “racially motivated” part belongs to Nifong, Jesse Jackson, and all others who are using this to fan the flames of racial hatred
Comment by Ding — 06.24.06 @ 4:03 am
….. and hickory is the wood of choice for pit-cooked pork BBQ down these ways. Oak works for some of the skilled easterners, too.
Comment by TaterCon — 06.24.06 @ 6:53 am
Chris, post #35 -
Re: Linwood Smith… Did you mean Linwood Wilson?
Comment by Tate — 06.24.06 @ 7:39 am
I expected some sort of counterattack from Nifong in court papers last week. Since I don’t believe a crime occurred, I didn’t expect evidence, just some sort of sideshow smear or spin. The fact that he couldn’t come up with anything is heartening.
On the other hand, the defense strategy of revealing the AV’s inconsistent statements is not all gold. A few inconsistencies suggest a woman trying to squirm out of detox and looking for a story. Inconsistencies that are too many and too wild (four dancers) suggest a woman who is incoherent and babbling.
Nifong is going to say that once she calmed down and sobered up, she told one consistent story: the three boys did it. He’ll also hint that her wild statements are evidence of a date rape drug. Without a toxicology report, all the defense can do is offer the alternative of alcohol and flexeril.
Yesterday, after the Sutton police report was released, the AP ran an absolutely shameful story on it — one-sided, factually misleading, biased. An excerpt:
“Victims rights advocates say it’s not uncommon for an assault victim to have trouble answering questions in the hours immediately after an attack, when they are often emotional and unable to focus on describing what has happened.
“A Duke police office described the accuser in the lacrosse case as ”crying uncontrollably and visibly shaken” when speaking with her at a hospital hours after the party.
“The one-page report, dated March 14, was included in 536 pages of additional evidence prosecutor Mike Nifong handed over to defense attorneys Thursday. It was released by Joseph Cheshire, who represents defendant David Evans.”
The AP report does not even mention that the release of the report was provoked by the behavior of Nifong’s investigator the previous day.
Moreover, the quote that the woman was “crying uncontrollably and visibly shaken” is not in the Sutton report released by Cheshire. It is from a completely different report, but you wouldn’t know that from the story.
Comment by Midwest — 06.24.06 @ 8:17 am
Yesterday, after the Sutton police report was released, the AP ran an absolutely shameful story on it — one-sided, factually misleading, biased. — midwest, at 46
The AP story made our Wilmington, NC NYT owned Star-News today … crack reporting for our local.
One thing that really struck me was the assertion that the AP had made requests of the defense attorneys to release the full 1300 pages of initial discovery, and that the attorneys haven’t done so — just have released bits & pieces through their motions….
Somebody help support my recollection — haven’t some news sources already reported on having gone through the 1300 pages? Was it Fox? La Shawn, you’re the best on doc’s and timelines — is the AP being disingenuous here, implying the 1300 pages haven’t really been released ’cause they weren’t released to the AP when it first asked?
Comment by TaterCon — 06.24.06 @ 9:11 am
dan abrams of msnbc has seen all of the 1300 pages
Comment by shari — 06.24.06 @ 10:43 am
At least with Scottsboro, the statements were consistent. Consistent because the alleged victims got their stories straight, in fact too straight, both raped by exactly 6 blacks. Also, with Scottsboro, the false accusers did not have impaired mental ability.
Disclaimer- Inconsistent statements alone are not enough to prove that a crime did not happen, they only cast severe doubts on relying on the statement. The defense is obviously trying to spin the inconsistent statements into “she lied and changed story,†while the state is trying to spin the statements into “she was not sure about the details.†Trying to impeach a witness on minor inconsistencies is a classic legal tactic.
But with no supporting evidence, it’s not a weak case. It’s no case.
But being unable and unwilling to identify a suspect is classic for someone who made up a crime. If one ID’s the wrong suspect or a cop in the lineup….
It might be an interesting social study comparing the reasons whites thought the Scottsboro boys guilty (watching Birth of a Nation too many times, perceived victimization by black rapists) to why some blacks think the Duke Boys are guilty (too much radical African American studies – perceived victimization) if any grad student needs a project.
Comment by UNK — 06.24.06 @ 11:04 am
A couple things. I certainly believe that a victim of a trauma might get some details confused in the immediate aftermath. However, it’s asking too much of me to believe that not only could Precious have blurred a few facts, such as number of “rapists” (3, 4, 5… 20?), but that she also could confuse ONE other dancer for THREE other dancers, and give them each NAMES. This level of detail tells me that this is not an excuseable blurring of minor details…it tells me that Precious is either creating pure fiction, or she is confusing this night with a night where she actually was dancing with Nikki, Angel, and Tammy. Maybe something bad happened that other night.
I’m sure Nifong and “Barney F.” Wilson are scouring the streets of Durham looking for Tammy and Angel. They could use some fresh witnesses, since Precious and Nikki/Kim are worthless in this regard.
Sutton’s report lends strong credence to Duke U’s earlier statement/excuse that the University had been slow to formally respond to this charge because the cops had told lower level Duke reps that the accuser’s story kept changing and it was not a credible accusation.
So Precious accused Nikki/Kim of stealing not only Precious’s money, but her cell phone. Didn’t the cops find that cell phone (as well as $160 in 20-dollar bills) at 610 N. Buchanon? Another nail in the credibility coffin. This girl was WASTED.
Comment by jc — 06.24.06 @ 2:23 pm
I think the defense should use the quote from Jakki in The Wilmington Journal article dated, June 22- June 28, as another example of the lies being perpetrated in this case. Where’s the proof? Jakki could be called as a defense witness to corroborate testimony to the following:
I’m privy to more information than people on the other side of [this are]. They haven’t released the pictures of her…the bruises, the black eye. Where did she get that?” Jakki rhetorically asked.
As most of you already know, the SAN nurse and Doctor that examined her on the night of the alleged rape did not report any bruising…
Quote from several major news sources: In their court filing, defense lawyers say the examination showed only “a small scratch on the accuser’s knee, a cut on her heel and vaginal swelling,” hardly the injuries sustained in a beating and rape.
It’s sad Crystal told such outrageous lies, but when the close-minded folks surrounding her start coming up with whoppers in her defense, it’s pitiful.
I think we could all conjure reasons why Crystal had bruises “after” she left the party. (Her pimp slapped her, she fell again, etc.) Bruises typically take hours to appear…
If Crystal had only taken her “Lithium,” (if she ever did) there’s a good chance we wouldn’t be posting about this case today on La Shawn’s blog.
Manic depression tends to run in families. Perhaps delusion runs in the family, too (Jakki)…
An excerpt taken from: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/103_dep.html
Earley’s son has bipolar disorder–also called manic-depressive illness–a form of mental illness different from Velilla’s that can cause extreme shifts in mood, energy and functioning. Earley says his son is frequently delusional, paranoid, and psychotic. If he discontinues his medications, he exhibits bizarre, irrational behavior.
Bipolar disorder cycles between episodes of major depression, similar to those seen in major depressive disorder, and highs known as mania. In a manic phase, a person might act on delusional grand schemes that could range from unwise business decisions to romantic sprees. Mania left untreated may deteriorate into a psychotic state.
For Earley, one of his son’s recent psychotic episodes played out in a burglary charge. The pair was headed home from a local hospital where doctors had refused to treat him involuntarily. Earley’s son suddenly leapt from their moving car, ran away, and broke into a stranger’s house. After throwing a potted plant through a glass door and smashing some furniture, he then ran upstairs and drew himself a bubble bath. Earley says his son has never been in trouble with the law before and that he did not take anything from the house.
And this:
Research conducted in the fields of psychiatry, behavioral science, neuroscience, biology, and genetics, including studies of twins, lead scientists to believe that the risk of developing mental illness increases if another family member is similarly affected, suggesting a hereditary component.
This was the case for 34-year-old Susan Poage of Thornton, Colo. She recently was diagnosed with clinical depression, like her mother before her. Poage recalls a dismal childhood.
“There was a lot of silent crying, promiscuity, alcohol and drugs,” she says, “and I don’t remember having any good times.” With the help of her doctor and a five-year struggle with drug therapy, Poage today is managing her symptoms of depression, including thoughts of suicide.
Comment by Tate — 06.24.06 @ 3:57 pm
What about a letter writing campaign (or faxes or emails) to Duke saying the suspensions of S & F and injudicious emailer have gone on long enough? The purpose of suspension is to protect, not punish, I assume (at least for S & F). If there is no factual basis for the Nifong cases, seems like Duke’s risk manager should green light a lifting of suspension. Particularly since AV is saying she may not be ready to testify for a long time and N says no trial until Spring 07, seems like Pres. Brodhead should be able to lift the suspension (conditioned on no drinking, no breach of peace, no violations of rules, etc.).
Alternatively, let them do a semester abroad or at some other equivalent University and build up credits to graduate on time (or only one semester late). Might also let them take tests from Spring 2006, to avoid losing the $22,000 they each invested in that semester. Maybe Pres. B has already worked out that sort of arrangement for F&S and InjudEMer. If not, let’s get hopping, before they forget what they learned in Spring 06 classes.
Comment by cfw — 06.24.06 @ 9:03 pm
I think Duke has already recognized that they basically threw the team under the bus. I think it was at the news conference where Brodhead reinstated the team for next year where he said that McFayden (the email writer) was suspended for his own “safety,” and he was welcome to return to campus. I don’t know if that also meant he was allowed to finish the spring semester.
I think that Seligmann and Finnerty have a more difficult row to hoe. As long as they are indicted on felony charges that have not been dismissed or adjudicated, they will remain suspended from school as per the University’s regulations. I don’t know how they will be able to make an exception for these two. For what it’s worth, Seligmann is apparently on a 90% scholarship. He has also applied to Duke to be allowed to finish the coursework for the spring semester. Here’s the link:
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/451986.html
As for Finnerty, I think he has a pretty full plate at the moment. His trial in DC is scheduled for July 10. That’s only two weeks away. He may wait to see how that turns out before he, too, tries to complete the spring coursework.
Comment by SLee — 06.24.06 @ 9:19 pm
Seligmann is being allowed to finish his Spring 2006 coursework at Duke. He will only get credit for it if the charges are dropped or he is acquitted. The story is here (2nd page):
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/national/main1740936.shtml
Comment by Midwest — 06.24.06 @ 9:32 pm
I heard this on C-Span BookTV simulcast from a right-wing author of the book Muzzled so it may not be the full story, but on the subject of posting “wanted” posters, it’s apparently not permissible to post “wanted” posters of black men even if there are warrants out for their arrest.
The famous Philadelphia Daily News’ August 22, 2002 cover. editor Ellen Foley issued an apology: “The cover of our paper last Thursday carried mugshots of 15 of 41 suspects. They were African-American, Hispanic or Asian. These 41 were identified by the Police Department’s Homicide Unit as suspects for whom murder warrants have been issued. There were no white people who were being sought for murder.” … “The front page photos from last Thursday sent the message to some readers that only black men commit murder. That was a mistake”.
http://www.mugshots.com/Print/Philadelphia+Daily.htm
Comment by UNK — 06.24.06 @ 11:20 pm
JC writes (post #51) - “I’m sure Nifong and “Barney F.†Wilson are scouring the streets of Durham looking for Tammy and Angel. They could use some fresh witnesses, since Precious and Nikki/Kim are worthless in this regard.”
JC - for what it’s worth (that would be just about squat, in my estimation), AV told one of the Durham police officers on the night/morning she reported the “attack” that she worked for “Angels Escort Service” - there’s your “Anmgel”. The driver (erstwhile pimp) Jarriel Johnson said he got a call around 1:00 a.m. to find out if he had been AV’s driver that night. The call came from someone at the escort agency named Tammy.
Maybe AV picks the critical details of her story the way I pick my logon passwords - she tries to make them easy for herself to remember by basing them on people she knows, so she can recall what she made up later when she needs to. Alas, no such luck for her …
Comment by Karl — 06.25.06 @ 12:53 am
LaShawn - this is lifted verbatim from another blog, and I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these facts, but I found it fascinating and thought you might as well …
“Posted by ding7777
June 24, 2006 02:16 AM
Interesting:
The AV’s father:
From age seven, after his family’s house was lost in a fire, he was raised by a white family.
Segilmann’s father:
Phil was raised by a black woman after his mother died when he was a small child”
Comment by Karl — 06.25.06 @ 12:59 am
The “raised by a black woman” was in CBS news, but could mean anything from black nanny to…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/national/main1740936_page2.shtml
Phil Seligmann said waking up in the morning and seeing his son’s picture on the cover of “USA Today” accused of raping a black exotic dancer was one of the worst things he could imagine. He says the racial tensions that erupted as a result of this case have made things even more difficult for him. Phil was raised by a black woman after his mother died when he was a small child. He said: “That’s one reason these accusations of prejudice are so hurtful.”
Comment by UNK — 06.25.06 @ 1:43 am
Great academic article I blundered into while Googling explores the whole “Only 2% of rape accusations” as a myth. The author, from Yale, traces how feminists have made it widely accepted and then traces back those feminist authors and their references and footnotes - which amazingly have no research or studies to back them - but trace to a single source - Susan Brownmiller.
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:HGxv5S6YLGEJ:llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf+%22rape+trauma%22+credibility+feminists&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
Mr Greer’s analysis shows even Brownmiller had no study to back her work. She cited the number from a law professor’s speech, and inquiries into that professor through his clerks indicate that it appears to be based on the “informed word” of a single female cop in NYC describing how increased use of female cops in sex crimes had “reduced false complaints to only 2%” by her experience.
In short, what has driven rape shield laws and presumption of male predator penises as automatically guilty 98% of the time - is a myth.
It’s a dry but definative article. Bookmark it if you have any acquaintances or Blog opponents that still accept the “only 2% of rape reports are false” as gospel.
Greer thinks it is imperative to have true research on this. He thinks it is probably around 25%, given that is the number of females that will lie in making child abuse accusations.
He also goes on to say how the laws have been warped and that many of the other feminist “facts” on date rape, consent issues - appear to be thinly or non-existently sourced.
===============================
It appears from the AP article that the fallback position to “rehabilitate” the Accuser is the new feminist myth of the Rape Trauma Syndrome - which like PTSD, the Satanic Sexual Abuse Sydrome and DayCare facilities, and the Recovered Memories Syndrome presumes to say that witnesses hallucinate wildly or forget all from “trauma”
- and only coaxing and proper psychologists can “recover their proper memories”.
Much of this 70s dreck is pure pop psychobabble from untrained “victims advocates” ultimately out to advance a political or social agenda –and already in much dispute in the courts and academia. But before it joins spirit seances, healing power of crystals, happiness from lobotomies, and phrenology on the ashpiles of discredited social science - it has wrecked many lives of daycare providers, college men, and parents along the way - as well as the real or imagined “trauma” cases who are steered into believing in false memories inserted in their heads by others make them even greater victims of greater emotional suffering (another type of rape, if you ask me).
The education many in the public have gotten on the wisdom of rape shield laws and many other matters from the Duke Rape Case may continue. The bogus “only 2% of women lie” claims. Current condition of only light or no penalties for false accusations. The perversion of the grand jury system into simply a prosecutors tool. The idea that male athletes are not automatically evil predators, but for the most part exceptional, praiseworthy young men to emulate. Awareness of the excess PC at leading universities, the DNA testing, media rush to judgement, the reverse racism.
I suspect the next step in education will be around the extent that a “Rape Trauma Syndrome” will be given some or any credence in accounting for the innumerable misstatements or apparant lies of the Accuser. I don’t know about women, but my memories of some extremely traumatic events in the military and a fatal car accident are crystal clear. I can see some people losing a few details in a violent situation, even shutting down and not remembering what happened, but not creating a new story of what happened with details diverging enough to indicate wild hallucination.
Yes, delusional people (from a variety of causes like drugs or mental psychosis) can be raped, but I don’t buy they can tell 10 stories and settle on a final story with no backing evidence and society is compelled to believe and act on their accusations.
The feminists may be heading for another train wreck if they convince Nifong to push their agenda by advancing the Rape Trauma Syndrome as the reason all women eventually tell the truth about a supposed rape, and the basis of why all statements appearing to be lies should be discounted.
*Sigh*. Another area where little or no academic study and research exists - only the imagination of advocates cooking up yet another ideologically driven “psychology syndrome”. No wonder that liberal arts discipline is in such ill-repute.
Comment by Chris Ford — 06.25.06 @ 1:51 am
crystal’s mom thinks duke tampered with the dna results, and the cousin still is talking about crystals bruised face even though themedical report didnt show any physical abuse
Comment by shari — 06.25.06 @ 8:54 am
Any commentator who suggests that the rape shield laws will keep out evidence is wrong in this situation. Rape shield laws exist to protect “nuts” and “sluts”
One of the large exceptions to rape shield laws is evidence of sexual conduct that tends to prove any injuries were not inflicted by the accused.
Here, the 48 hours leading up to fateful night in question and the sexual conduct of the accuser during that time will be extremely relevant in proving or disproving the exact causation of the limited “tenderness”.
So everytime someone on TV regurgitates “rape shield law” be informed and know that it won’t keep out the evidence in this case.
Comment by Peter — 06.25.06 @ 3:10 pm
Peter said:
“So everytime someone on TV regurgitates “rape shield law†be informed and know that it won’t keep out the evidence in this case.”
SteveDinMD: Peter, I tend in general to disagree with your assessment. By preventing public disclosure of rape accusers’ identities, “Rape Shield Laws” also make it difficult to impossible for the accused to obtain certains kinds of evidence/witnesses on their behalf. What if an accuser has a history of extorting money by leveling false accusations of rape or other crimes? How would anyone so accused be able to discover other extortion victims and bring that evidence to bear? Also, if a rape accuser has engaged in various other criminal activities (e.g. other kinds of extortion, assault/battery, larceny, substance abuse, vandalism, prostitution, etc.) for which she has been neither arrested nor charged, it would likewise be difficult for a defendant to identify witnesses favorable to his cause if the accuser’s identity and image remain confidential. By contrast, each of the accused is laid completely bare to attacks on his character that could damage his defense at trial. An accuser should enjoy no preferential treatment in this regard.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 06.25.06 @ 5:20 pm
Lashawn, another excellent article there regarding the similarties between the Scottsboro case and this current Duke case..history just repeats itself.
I wonder how many of these cases there are where race is not a factor?
Comment by lukeNC — 06.25.06 @ 5:36 pm
SteveDinMD: Peter, I tend in general to disagree with your assessment. By preventing public disclosure of rape accusers’ identities, “Rape Shield Laws†also make it difficult to impossible for the accused to obtain certains kinds of evidence/witnesses on their behalf.
Um, Steve up in Crab Cake Land: The so called “Rape Shield Law” in NC is in the evidence code (NCGS 8C-1, Rule 412), and doesn’t have anything to do with keeping the accuser’s name from the public. The accused are always able to know the identity of their accuser — it’s a Bill of Rights, confront your accuser and other witnesses against you sort of thing that can’t be denied.
The “public disclosure prohibition” is not in this statute, which prohibits introduction of past sexual conduct except in specifically enumerated circumstances. You may be confusing the policies of mainstream media — not publishing the names of alleged victims in sex crime cases in newspapers or on TV or radio — with a statutory prohibition of the accuser’s identity, and I know of no such law.
Comment by TaterCon — 06.25.06 @ 8:24 pm
FLASH,
Fox news just had a reporter from WPTF (Raleigh) on and he said that there was going to be a hearing on July 3rd on the photo ID admissiblity.. They also had a NYC dective on who said this case would have never been brought to a DA in NYC, with this photo id. AND, they had a Black woman lawyer on who somehow still thinks this is a real case, and that Crystal was so traumatized that she just couldn’t remember how many boys raped her or wheither she got raped, but this women “knows” she was and need “Justtice”.
Lashawn, I’ll bet you’d have put it to her, we need you on Fox! Hearing on the 3rd is GREAT NEWS. Maybe the 4th will have some freedom in it for the boys! Kemp
Comment by kemperman — 06.25.06 @ 9:10 pm
SteveDinMD: Peter, I tend in general to disagree with your assessment. By preventing public disclosure of rape accusers’ identities, “Rape Shield Laws†also make it difficult to impossible for the accused to obtain certains kinds of evidence/witnesses on their behalf.
Steve,
All of your fears about rape shield laws are unfounded. All of the things you address, such as past criminal history, are admissible insofar as they relate to honesty of character. That is a general principle of the rules of evidence and has nothing to do with the rape shield laws. However, I’m not sure the exact rules of evidence in NC, but under the federal rules, the fact that she stole a car and is therefore guilty of theft, is not admissible as a crime of dishonesty.
The important thing to the accused is the fact that the defense will be able to introduce evidence of all sexual acts she engaged in a reasonable time prior to the time in question. Therefore it is safe to assume a reasonable doubt about the vaginal trauma will be raised simply by the fact she performed for a couple prior to arriving at the party.
As tatercon pointed out, the omission of the accuser’s name by the media is self-imposed. Your reply to my comment showed its usefulness. The media needs to have two opposing views debate the issue. Because it is so one sided, people such as Wendy Murphy latch on to key phrases that mislead the public.
Rape shield laws will not hurt the accused in this case. It’s not a case about promiscuity. It’s a case of who is responsible for what tenderness. Therefore, the evidence comes in.
Comment by Peter — 06.25.06 @ 10:07 pm
“They also had a NYC detective on who said this case would have never been brought to a DA ”
Mark Furhman, alleged racist, also said this on Fox a few weeks ago. I heard a few others say this.
This is true even if one thinks the boys are guilty. Working on the theory that they are guilty, they should have waited for more evidence (wait for a disgruntled girlfriend to come forward, wait for one of the rapists to be caught for something else and make a deal)than to have rapists totally escape justice.
Comment by UNK — 06.25.06 @ 10:09 pm
Steve,
Also, forgot to put this in. Anything bad about her reputation for truthfulness is inadmissible unless the prosecutor calls a witness to establish that she has a reputation for telling the truth.
They would never do that, so even if she was a pathological liar, it would be completely inadmissible for the defense to bring up at trial.
Comment by Peter — 06.25.06 @ 10:13 pm
Peter said:
“They would never do that, so even if she was a pathological liar, it would be completely inadmissible for the defense to bring up at trial.”
SteveDinMD: The accuser’s testimony at trial, however, figures to be crucial in the prosecution’s case. Her character and reputation for truthfulness (or otherwise) will therefore be important elements in establishing (or refuting) her credibility as a witness.
As relating to so-called rape shield laws, I’ve generally been less concerned about the admissibility of prospective evidence than about the ability of the defense to discover same when an accuser’s identity is kept secret from the public. Though perhaps not the case in NC (as per Tatercon), numerous reports in the press have implied that certain jurisdictions have enacted laws to prohibit publication of rape accusers’ identities or likenesses.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 06.25.06 @ 11:14 pm
UNK said:
“This is true even if one thinks the boys are guilty. Working on the theory that they are guilty, they should have waited for more evidence (wait for a disgruntled girlfriend to come forward, wait for one of the rapists to be caught for something else and make a deal)than to have rapists totally escape justice.”
SteveDinMD: UNK, you forget the fundamental rule governing the administration of justice in Durham — An election deadline trumps ALL, especially something as inconsequential as sound police work.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 06.25.06 @ 11:22 pm
Peter said:
“Also, forgot to put this in. Anything bad about her reputation for truthfulness is inadmissible unless the prosecutor calls a witness to establish that she has a reputation for telling the truth.”
This is exactly backwards. If she testifies, the defense can put in evidence to impeach her character for truthfulness. The prosecution can then put in evidence supporting her character for truthfulness. An attempt to put in supporting evidence before her character is attacked is impermissible bolstering (at least under the Federal Rules of Evidence).
Comment by Jake — 06.25.06 @ 11:55 pm
One think I’ve noticed is - reading between the lines of released reports, is the considerable skepticism of the doctors, nurses, and cops who noticed the disconnect between her statements and the physical condition she presented with, her constantly changing stories, and nervous demeanor. The Duke liaison cop querying the cops and health care staff reported back to Duke police (probably accurately) that the consensus was –”nothin’ happened”.
Yet after the people directly interfacing with her seemed to have noted it didn’t look like a rape really happened…some True Believer in the Rape emerged.
At the Police Station? A nurse or doctor that disagreed vehemently with colleagues and pushed this? Or did a higher up with the clout to make all subordinates True Believers impose their beliefs on the underlings before the evidence was in?
I have training in something called root cause analysis. Which is always done in nasty accidents, but has become a useful tool in the military and business organizational foul-ups. How things happened, what factors contributed to the thinking or performance that resulted in failure. Similar to legal case study in some methodology, but beyond that - is interested in learning and fixing through lessons learned and actions to prevent recurrence as well as pinning blame. I think the North Carolina legal system just had it’s version of the Exxon Valdez accident, and it would be fascinating if McKinsey Consultants or some other independent group outside the grip of the “Lawyers Club” went in and did a full root cause study.
The legal and medical systems, organized as self-contained “clubs” of professionals, almost always resist “outsiders” - people who are not hospital or med facility owners, doctors, cops and lawyers - from scrutinizing their foul-ups and suggesting fixes. But when the Wall of resistence crumbles, the savings can be remarkable. Teams of failure analysis people were finally let into hospitals to work on a project to reduce lethal hospital peactices and errors. The result in 18 months was 120,000 lives saved from premature death…
We could learn if the:
1. Political system in Durham unduely influences the Police Dept criminal case selection and misallocates police resources.
2. Grand Jury system, originally designed as a check on the absolute power of the Crown to prosecute, has evolved into the DA’s lapdog and failed it’s original intent in Common Law to check the absolute power of the state by letting prosecutions only proceed with The People’s Assent.
3. To see who in the State used malfeasance or deceit, if any..no matter how minor, to see if deceit contributed to the legal system failure - even if other lawyers decide not to nail fellow lawyers or cops for fibs they thought were needed to get the job done.
4. What laws, procedures, and standards in place that safeguard other criminal investigations and prosecutions - were not followed that contributed to the failure.
5. What cultural, feminist, race, and electoral pressures contributed to the Duke Failure.
6. What actions by the University, NCCU, NAACP, media contributed to the failure.
And finally, what lessons learned will be worked on what and changes to prevent recurrence will be implemented?
================================================
Peter - Also, forgot to put this in. Anything bad about her reputation for truthfulness is inadmissible unless the prosecutor calls a witness to establish that she has a reputation for telling the truth.
That’s not true. Unless by witness you mean including the Accuser herself. Once she takes the stand and testifies, any witnesses or evidence that works to impeach her veracity or mental condition may be introduced.
Of course, Nifong the Clever Fox may try to with hold her from testifying and just try the case on circumstantial evidence to spare her testimony from impeachment.
Oh, evidence……Haahhaaaa!
Comment by Chris Ford — 06.26.06 @ 3:35 am
BTW, let’s suppose the AV decides to change her story again, and accuse George Bush, Condi Rice, and Dick Cheney of the rape.
We’d all think that was ridiculous and dismiss it immediately, because they have alibis and witnesses and even video tape to prove they were elsewhere.
But the accusation by itself is enough, right? Even when there is absolutely no physical evidence (not even a strand of DNA, let alone a strand of hair). And we can’t disbelieve women who say they are victims of rape.
So the DA has the duty to prosecute, and the case must go to trial.
Ridiculous? Not at all. Because it seems that is exactly the same position the lacrosse players are in.
Comment by Seahawk — 06.26.06 @ 10:01 am
“Fox news just had a reporter from WPTF (Raleigh) on and he said that there was going to be a hearing on July 3rd on the photo ID admissiblity..”
I heard that too, but it probably is a mistake by FOX, and the hearing is only going to be on Nifong’s attempt to get the home addresses and dorm entry card data of all the players.
(I would have liked for it to be about the photo IDs, but that would mean the Durham courts would really be acting like a justice system. Too much to expect, I guess.)
Comment by Seahawk — 06.26.06 @ 10:04 am
Chris,
I’d be surprised to see the fact that she stole a car comes in at trial.
But you’re not correct to say:
“Once she takes the stand and testifies, any witnesses or evidence that works to impeach her veracity or mental condition may be introduced.”
That is the general rule that you start with. It’s either going to be found to be too prejudicial or too close to propensity evidence. But it’s all moot anyway, very little chance she makes it to trial anyway.
That might explain why Nifong continues the charade. If he were to drop it now, he’d subject himself to further negative inquiry, by the press and the bar. However, if he acts like he’s ready to go and she backs out at the last minute, he has an excuse. Could just be one giant bluff to save his own skin and throw the accuser under the bus, though it’s not like she doesn’t deserve it.
Comment by Peter — 06.26.06 @ 10:18 am
I see very little similarities to the Scottsboro Boys. It’s like comparing a punch to a gun shot because both are assaults. The Scottsboro Boys were prosecuted by white racists. The Duke players are being prosecuted by a white prosecutor who received a higher percentage of the white vote in his re-election. The majority of black people either believe that the accuser is lying or have no opinion one way or the other. I was just scanning a hip hop message board whereas the vast majority of posts involve much vile directed at the accuser for being a lier and making black women look bad. I would post a link but the site tends to be obscene. Despite what people are trying their best to promote here, the Duke rapist is NOT getting support from the black community and as more evidence comes out, what little support she had is dwindling.
The accusers in the case of the Scottsboro Boys were supported by white community.
Comment by Shade — 06.26.06 @ 11:10 am
One correction. “Duke rapist” should have been “Duke rape accuser”.
Comment by Shade — 06.26.06 @ 12:02 pm
Despite what people are trying their best to promote here, the Duke rapist is NOT getting support from the black community and as more evidence comes out, what little support she had is dwindling.
REPLY To Shade: The majority of the Black community IS SUPPORTING THE FALSE ACCUSER. All we hear is the NAACP saying that the black community needs to stick together and support the alledged victim regardless of all the evidence against her claims. I wish you were right about your claims but clearly you are wrong. I believe that many people in the black community realize this case is bogus but they support her anyways simply because she is black and the accused are white. It is the “Us VS THEM” mentality and actual justice takes a back seat. I mean take a look at the news every night on FOX and MSNBC. You still have people like Georgia Goslee (black prosecutor) saying that she believes this woman was raped. Now ask yourself if you think she would be singing the same tune if roles were reversed and the accuser was white and accused black?? Absolutley amazing!!! I know that alot of white people felt that Kobe’s accuser was full of shit and openly said so (I was one of them). Most white people make their decision of a cases veracity based on the evidence (or lack there of) while most blacks let the skin color of the parties involved in a given case make their decision for them even if it contradicts the evidence available to them. Fortunatley there are some people in the black community who can think independently from the mob (Lashawn is one of them). Its too bad there weren’t more people out there like them.
Comment by Brian Murphy — 06.26.06 @ 12:02 pm
Shade- if you are correct that the accuser is not receiving knee-jerk support from the black community (in terms of the acceptance of her account & overlooking of conflicts in the story) that is both interesting & somewhat reassuring. Interesting because I had gotten the impression otherwise from press & posts elsewhere. Do you think this skepticism in the black community is true for the local Durham area as well as nationally? Your opinion is also reassuring because I think - in terms of black-white issues - that one of the circumstances both races fear most is that the other group will disregard facts and logic in favor of protecting their own. Ideally, one would hope that the race, and indeed the gender, of the accuser & defendants would not enter the equation, or at least that such facts - insofar as they may prove relevant because of, for example, cultural differences - would take a back seat in the decision-making process to other, more objective, facts.
Comment by Karl — 06.26.06 @ 12:11 pm
Challenger criticizes handling of case - Jun 26, 2006 11:59 AM
Excerpt: Both lawyers have uphill battles to get on the ballot. They each have to collect 6,303 valid signatures of Durham County voters by noon Friday to have their names added as unaffiliated candidates in the November election. Nifong won the Democratic primary in May. No Republicans ran in the primary.
Good luck Lewis Cheek!
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/454757.html
Comment by Tate — 06.26.06 @ 12:23 pm
Brian (#78) - BUT… one aspect to remember is that the media is rarely an accurate predictor of reality. Media news thrives on conflict. You can’t have conflict unless you have an us & a them. And there’s always someone willing to carry the flag for any point of view, so long as they get some “face time” on the news. So in a case as “juicy” as this one, you KNOW Fox,or MSNBC, or whomever, will want to get someone to do both the “pro” and “con” sides, thereby (a) creating conflict, which makes people tune in and (b) maintaining a semblance of PC “balance” in their presentation of an issue. I don’t think the fact that news outlets can find some wacko or another to present a point of view does not reflect the popularity of that view. Hopefully Georgia Goslee does not speak for “the black community” any more than Nifong speaks for “the white community” - then again, maybe that’s just naivete on my part …
Comment by Karl — 06.26.06 @ 12:41 pm
correction - “I don’t think the fact that news outlets can find some wacko or another to present a point of view NECESSARILY REFLECTS the popularity of that view.
Comment by Karl — 06.26.06 @ 12:43 pm
All we hear is the NAACP saying that the black community needs to stick together and support the alledged victim regardless of all the evidence against her claims.
And the NAACP requesting this means that it is happening (if they actually said this)? See, this is the problem here. If Sharpton, Jackson and the NAACP have an opinion, that automatically is the opinion of most of the 36 million black Americans. I’m am very correct in that as the evidence is being broad casted, the majority of blacks who are at all keeping up with the case are acknowledging that the prosecution’s case is looking bad and that it is beginning to seem more and more like she is lying.
Karl, I don’t know much about what is happening in Durham lately. I think that much of what went on in terms of vigils occurred early in the case before the evidence really came out. From what I see now, much of that activity has come to a near halt.
Comment by Shade — 06.26.06 @ 12:55 pm
Hopefully Georgia Goslee does not speak for “the black community†any more than Nifong speaks for “the white community†- then again, maybe that’s just naivete on my part …
REPLY: Sorry I still think you are wrong about your opinion. For example, what do you think the results would show if you had a poll of the black community only as to whether they believe that this woman is telling the truth??? If your theory about the media skewing the reality is true then most blacks would say she was lying but the reality of the situation is that they will openly declare that they believe that the accuser is telling the truth (I honestly believe that they know she made this whole thing up but they will not admit it openly in public). Tell me I’m wrong.
Comment by Brian Murphy — 06.26.06 @ 1:02 pm
You’re wrong.
Comment by Frank Smith — 06.26.06 @ 1:51 pm
You’re wrong.
REPLY TO FRANK SMITH: OK, what do YOU think the results would show if a poll of the black community was conducted? 90% that she is lying?? 75% that she is lying?? 50/50 that she is lying???
None of the above. I’m guessing it would indicate that about 15% or less would vote that she made this whole story up compared to the rest of the population that would vote 95%+ that this case is the Tawanna Brawley Redux Hoax.
Comment by Brian Murphy — 06.26.06 @ 2:32 pm
“OK, what do YOU think the results would show if a poll of the black community was conducted? ”
People will answer differently in private vs. public polls. Frankly, even many white people including I would not state to a stranger that an unqualified “she is a liar.”
O.J. polls were a bit surprising to me.
Comment by UNK — 06.26.06 @ 2:46 pm
People will answer differently in private vs. public polls. Frankly, even many white people including I would not state to a stranger that an unqualified “she is a liar.â€
REPLY: I would simply pose the following question:
Did a rape occur in that house in Durham on the night in question??
We are not calling anyone a liar in the question above but it is clear that SOMEBODY IS LYING IN THIS CASE. Who is telling the truth?? My position is simply that the overwhelming majority of black people support the accuser in this case while “Shade” seems to think the black community does not support her and that the media is trying to paint a picture of racial division. Whether you want to admit it or not there is a “we have to stick together” mentality in the black community and you do not find that same blind loyalty in the white community.
Comment by Brian Murphy — 06.26.06 @ 3:08 pm
Whether you want to admit it or not there is a “we have to stick together†mentality in the black community and you do not find that same blind loyalty in the white community.
I think that the responses to the topic on this blog sort of disproves this. If the alleged victim was white, there would not be such an adamant declaration of the players’ innocence and so much discussion to prove it.
Also, in your poll, you must include an option for those who simply have no opinion. Many would prefer to reserve judgment until they know that all evidence has been presented and many would prefer to leave all judgment up to the courts and not public opinion. It has been noted that this is a common opinion among blacks.
Also, one poster here stated that while she believed that no rape occurred, something ugly happened. She took a lot of flack for that but opinions that I hear and read have a similar sound to this. For instance, many blacks feel that the Duke players specifically requested black strippers so that they could yell racial insults at them during the performance (for whatever gratification they received from that) and that anger over this prompted the false allegation. Thus you have a false allegation motivated by ugly behavior.
Comment by Shade — 06.26.06 @ 3:55 pm
For instance, many blacks feel that the Duke players specifically requested black strippers so that they could yell racial insults at them during the performance (for whatever gratification they received from that) and that anger over this prompted the false allegation. Thus you have a false allegation motivated by ugly behavior.
REPLY: Yes and this is another lie spread by the so called black leadership in this country. Je$$e Jack$on started this theory as a fact during his speech when he stated that the players specifically requested black strippers but we know this is untrue because Kim Roberts (Pittman) made it known in her statement to the police that the players at the party were angry because they had requested one Latina stripper one Asian and instead had two black women. Why did Je$$e make this accusation that black strippers were requested and that they wanted to humiliate them?? Was it simply an error on his part or was he stirring the pot of racial divison on purpose? Any idea what possible motivation he had?? Could it be increased media exposure which would lead to more $$$ in his filth