Monday, July 17: Post closed to commenting. Please continue discussing the Duke case at Salaciousness Sells.
————————————————————————
Have you noticed that each bit of information that leaks out about the Duke “rape” case is favorable to the defense?
There are many possible explanations. For example, if the defense is leaking info, they’ll leak only that which is favorable to their clients.
Or the DA’s office may have a strong case but is duty-bound not to leak information harmful or helpful to the defense.
Another explanation occurred to me: David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann didn’t rape the stripper.
Apparently, this possibility never occurred to DA Mike Nifong. That DNA tests failed to conclusively link any of the 46 players to the stripper-accuser meant little to the crack DA. Before the results, he was confident there would be a match. Upon learning there was no match, he backtracked from his earlier statements and said that “75 percent to 80 percent” of rape prosecutions lack DNA evidence. That DNA evidence recovered from the stripper-accuser’s rape kit exam belonged to her “boyfriend” and not to any of the three indicted men didn’t shake Nifong’s faith, either. That the stripper-accuser told the investigators, police, nurse, and doctor different versions of the story (which Nifong had access to) didn’t trouble his peaceful mind.
Today we learn that the stripper-accuser or someone else used her cell phone to call her escort service at 12:26 a.m., around the time she was being “raped.”
Robert KC Johnson asks: “The rape allegedly lasted 30 minutes (12.05-12.35). And yet Precious is on the phone during that period? And Nifong never bothered to check this before making arrests?”
My guess? No one in the house raped the stripper that night. She was probably locked in the bathroom alone or with the second stripper between 12:05 a.m. and 12:35 a.m., as the lacrosse players said. While in the bathroom, the stripper called her escort service for whatever reason, then stumbled out of the house.
Of course, Nifong will continue with his case. Even if a videotape surfaced showing the stripper-accuser sitting in the bathroom alone during the supposed attack, Nifong would still go forward with this case.
It’s now a crusade, of sorts. He’s determined to use the power of his office to show the world he’s not a shameless, bumbling, race-pandering fool (by trying and winning the case — God help the defendants if Nifong gets a jury like O.J. Simpson’s), and he’s willing to expend as many tax dollars and reputations as necessary to achieve his foul goal.
Previous posts:
Addendum: A reader notes that the stripper-accuser worked for Bunnyhole Entertainment but called Centerfold Escorts at 12:26 a.m., which may suggest she was looking for another gig for the night/morning. The reader also said that according to a police statement attached to a June 8 Motion to Suppress (PDF), the police contacted Angel’s Escort Service to check out the stripper-accuser’s story.
Now, I don’t know anything about the escort “industry,” but I suspect one business may operate under different names. True? If not, that means the stripper worked for several escort services. And let’s dispense with the “escort” euphemism. The stripper worked for prostitution “businesses” in a prostitute capacity. There, I said it.
[sarcasm]But Miss LaShawn, I heard Jesse, Al and Louis along with Cynthia and the New Black Panthers say that they messed with the DNA. There’s a new way they can make DNA change or disappear! [/sarcasm]
I’m quite sure this case will be dropped as soon as the good intelligent people of Durham re-elect Nifong in a landslide.
Comment by Tracey — 07.12.06 @ 10:49 am
It’s now a crusade, of sorts. He’s determined to use the power of his office to show the world he’s not a shameless, bumbling, race-pandering fool, ……La Shawn
Hmmm…. seems to me if he tries his case and it goes down in flames (as all attorneys do from time to time), he’ll have confirmed to the world he’s a shameless, bumbling, race-pandering fool.
How does the old, sage advice go? Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt?
Comment by TaterCon — 07.12.06 @ 10:55 am
Cheek unsure about race for DA
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-751780.html
I hope that Cheek does decide to become a voice for Durham and the cities that surround Durham. Sigh…
Comment by Tate — 07.12.06 @ 11:38 am
“Another explanation occurred to me: David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann didn’t rape the stripper.”
I choose ‘C’. They didn’t do it.
Are people really this deaf, dumb, and blind that they cannot see the truth for what it is? This man (Nifong) ought to be fired/impeached/removed immediately.
I wonder, has he broken any laws by proceeding with this case as it is? If so, will he be brought up on charges?
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 07.12.06 @ 11:53 am
Niwrong CAN’T back off now. If he does he must explain why he went forward in the first place given the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever and TONs of exculpatory evidence.
He is planning to run out the clock on this. The fact that two of the accused had their bail reduced probably gives his conscience some ease.
NO TRIAL:
This will never go to trial. The accuser will refuse to testify due to extreme emotional distress and ‘threats’ she has received. Nifong will then throw up his hands and proclaim how unfair it is that the guilty should go free but what can he do - the accuser will not testify.
Hopefully, by this time, Nifong will have been soundly defeated in the General Election and well on his way to disbarrment.
Actually, I am waiting on someone inside Nifong’s inner circle to “give-him-up”, maybe writing a “tell-all” book about the whole scam.
Nifong will not escape this with his career intact, but not for lack of bobbing and weaving.
Comment by Bill Mitchell — 07.12.06 @ 12:10 pm
I wonder, what exactly is the accuser doing for a living right now?
My guess is she has moved to another state and is continuing to strip and hook there. Apparently her parents have not seen or heard from her in weeks. Good family there.
Comment by Bill Mitchell — 07.12.06 @ 12:12 pm
This farce should be stopped now. All this has done is harm a community, and caused three to be labeled as rapist for the rest of their lives.
Comment by Ian MacD. — 07.12.06 @ 12:21 pm
You know, it weird that this case has this MOUNTAIN of exculpatory evidence, yet it goes on, and on, and on…
I another recent case, an accused child rapist was let go by the judge simply becuase the prosecutor was late getting to court the day of the trial - wow.
Folks, we live in a nutty damn world.
Comment by Bill Mitchell — 07.12.06 @ 12:29 pm
Perhaps the NCCU administrators and the Mayor of Durham should distance themselves from Nifong, by suggesting at least a preliminary hearing (since the gj seems to have had less than a complete picture), or a mediation followed by a dismissal in the interest of justice (AV not willing to testify). The leaders of the black community can give N the “cover” he needs to get this all put to bed. Obviously imperfect justice, for FS&E, but perhaps better than delay and trial.
Comment by cfw — 07.12.06 @ 12:55 pm
House of cards?
Comment by tarheelcon — 07.12.06 @ 12:57 pm
Well, the call made on the Accuser’s cell phone proves why Nifong was so reluctant to let defense experts examine the phone or it’s call records. More of that darn inconvenient exculpatory evidence!!! And hurtful to the defense case because memory of whoever was on the receiving end of the call from the stripper had two more months to “forget” the details of what the stripper told them.
Bill Mitchell - I wonder, what exactly is the accuser doing for a living right now?
In the Kaitlyn Faber case (Kobe’s Accuser), the state of Colorado taxpayers found they had a 50,000 bill because the ambitious prosecutor in that case had bought her a “court testimony wardrobe”, sent her to a detox treatment facility for 2 weeks, and paid for hotel room, meals and incidentals for almost a month to keep her “away from prying eyes and give her some peace”. Even after she was discredited by discovery she had private lawyers angling for a big lawsuit and inconveniently showing up wearing fresh semen from 3 men at her rape exam, the shysters still squeezed a million out of Kobe.
My guess is “The Accuser” is being sequestered. By Niphong so she doesn’t open her mouth and damage his case further, or by trial lawyers angling for a big “we can end this for the right price” payday from the accused families or Duke. In the former hypothesis, her hideaway expenses (plus Kaitlyn Faber-like detox, wardrobe, psychological counseling, plus college tutoring to keep her “honor student” image up, plus whatever incidentals her kid’s care and day to day needs amount to) are paid for by the taxpayers of North Carolina who will be snortin’ mad when the total bill is made known. In the latter case, she is being kept under wraps by big contingency fee trial lawyers so the civil lawsuits they hope for aren’t ruined before they get the big racial reparations check from Duke to “make it all go away” - then they can toss “The Accuser” away like garbage.
My guess is she has moved to another state and is continuing to strip and hook there. Apparently her parents have not seen or heard from her in weeks. Good family there.
Well, I see her career as an adult sex worker is likely interrupted. Being nabbed for giving oral sex favors at a drug dealers party or caught stripping in New York by the media would not be a smart move - so her State of North Carolina or attorney handlers are keeping her away from that. And her parents are obviously lying on advice from Nifong or lawyers about knowing her wereabouts. She still has two underaged kids, still has legal custody of them, and has to be able to be available to be reached by and in regular contact with the Mangum grandparents caring for them - to sign over her welfare checks, WIC payments, and doctor or dentist Medicaid releases - and any additional papers the kids need or if any emergency involving them happens.
Comment by Chris Ford — 07.12.06 @ 12:58 pm
Nifong’s zealousness is having an effect elsewhere.
Seligman was found guilty yesterday on a separate charge in Washington, DC. He had previously been on one of those agreements where if you do not do anything wrong the charges will get dropped.
Nifong charging Seligman had the DC police bring the charge back to court and the Judge agreed that he had voided the previous agreement.
Comment by davod — 07.12.06 @ 1:07 pm
Davod, post #12…
Did you mean Finnerty was found guilty yesterday in DC?
Comment by Tate — 07.12.06 @ 1:15 pm
Davod,
You mean Finnerty got arrested in DC, not Seligmann
Comment by Peter — 07.12.06 @ 1:17 pm
Actually, that was Finnerty in the DC case.
Comment by jc — 07.12.06 @ 1:22 pm
I’ve just emailed my senator asking him to get a written response from the DC attorney’s office
about their conduct in the Finnerty case.
As someone else put it :
“Why on earth would the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C., in the face of what the police chief has just described as a crime emergency in the city, assign not one, but two, AUSAs to handle one misdemeanor?”
There is the possibility that the DC Attorneys office was working with the DA in Durham to engineer a conviction for Finnerty, which would thus give both him and Evans convictions
(and remember how the Evans’ noise-violation case
was judge-shopped).
These can serve to prejudice a jury against them and even taint or restrict their testimony (according to NC law) prior to any trial.
I thought it proper to ask about the unusual treatment the Finnerty case seemed to get,
how many other misdemeanor student fights were handled this way, and how much this all cost.
And whether their office had any contact with Nifong, and if so, exactly what was discussed.
If anyone else has similar questions about how their public officials act and spend their tax dollars, well, the emails are still functioning. . .
Comment by Seahawk — 07.12.06 @ 1:45 pm
In the latter case, she is being kept under wraps by big contingency fee trial lawyers so the civil lawsuits they hope for aren’t ruined before they get the big racial reparations check from Duke to “make it all go away†- then they can toss “The Accuser†away like garbage. by Chris Ford, above at 11
Hmmmm….. this could mean Precious is biding her time as a flight attendant on Willie Gary’s jet, “The Wings of Justice”?
Comment by TaterCon — 07.12.06 @ 1:50 pm
This entire case, from its inception, has been one gigantic case of prosecutorial misconduct and it sickens me that the lives of three innocent young men are being tarnished in perpetuity by the amibition of Nifong and the lies of “Precious”! If justice truly existed, Nifong would lose his big for re-election big time and whoever takes his office away from him should investigate Nifong’s conduct and the statements made by the alleged “victim” and then usse the full weight of the law to slap them upside the head!
It is high time that the courts (who really DO have other things to do) stopped having their time wasted by this kind of nonsense!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 07.12.06 @ 2:15 pm
There are many possible explanations. For example, if the defense is leaking info, they’ll leak only that which is favorable to their clients.
Dan Abrams of MSNBC has seen every page of the first discovery (about 1300 pages) and he says that there is no incriminating evidence that the defense is witholding.
Comment by Locomotive Breath — 07.12.06 @ 2:30 pm
“Why on earth would the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C., in the face of what the police chief has just described as a crime emergency in the city, assign not one, but two, AUSAs to handle one misdemeanor?
There is the possibility that the DC Attorneys office was working with the DA in Durham to engineer a conviction for Finnerty,”
Most likely, Finnerty turned down or did not try to negotiate a no-jail time plea agreement because he did not want any conviction.
If not for the publicity, the DA could have decided it was not worth the time of the court or witnesses, since Finnerty did not even land his pulled punch, but this is the DA’s call.
It’s gives an impression of lawlessness if high profile cases are not prosecuted, even if most low-profile minor crimes are not prosecuted.
But a conspiracy with Durham seems unlikely to me.
Comment by UNK — 07.12.06 @ 2:38 pm
There may be a typo here, but I can’t complain with all the typos I made:
“Now, I don’t know anything about the escort “industry,†but I suspect one business may operate under different names. True? If not, that means the stripper worked for several escort services.â€
I am not an expert in the field, but “escort†agencies sometimes often use two, three or more names for two reasons.
With two or three names, an escort agency can buy two or three advertisements in the yellow pages and double their business.
With two or three names, you can segment your business into different market segments such as girl next door, Asians, blacks, Fetishes. You can be Hot Asians and Hot Girl Next Doors and Hot BD Freaks and get more customers.
Comment by UNK — 07.12.06 @ 2:47 pm
Sharp critique of Nifong, La Shawn. It looks like he was trying to get re-elected. Are polititians more dangerous every four/six years?
Let me say something I haven’t heard in a while. Though they probably aren’t guilty of rape, shame on the Lacrosse team for hiring strippers for a party.
Comment by Doug — 07.12.06 @ 3:03 pm
Hmmmm….. this could mean Precious is biding her time as a flight attendant on Willie Gary’s jet, “The Wings of Justice�
Comment by TaterCon
Hmmmm, if she is, she is probably serving more than drinks to the Noted Esquire of Racial Justice and his Posse.
My bet though is they no more want that squalid trainwreck of a ‘ho on their nice jet than Mrs. Nifong wants her to babysit at their house.
Comment by Chris Ford — 07.12.06 @ 3:14 pm
#20
Most likely, Finnerty turned down or did not try to negotiate a no-jail time plea agreement because he did not want any conviction.
I doubt that one was offered; but if it was, why take it if you don’t believe you are guilty?
What Finnerty has learned from his previous “plea deal” was that you get screwed by the judicial system even if you don’t do anything.
He was arrested because of a false charge. Technically that put him in violation of his agreement; but it is nonsense to say that anyone can make a charge against someone and thus get their agreement revoked.
The DC attorneys have full discretion in this matter and could have waited until the truthfulness of the charge was determined (as fairness requires). They chose otherwise.
Further, according to the new probation the judge gave him, he must now either be in school or at work full time. How can he be in school? Or work?
It’s gives an impression of lawlessness if high profile cases are not prosecuted, even if most low-profile minor crimes are not prosecuted.
So how are the Kennedys treated when they violate the law?
But a conspiracy with Durham seems unlikely to me.
Everyone else in this case from the cabbie to the AV’s ex to her boyfriend is being pressured in this case. Why not Finnerty and Evans also?
Comment by Seahawk — 07.12.06 @ 3:15 pm
What bothers me about this case is the reps of those young men are ruined. It’s the media headlines and the pictures that people remember, not the final result. Just think back to Hurricane Katrina–how many people realize that much of the bad news was exaggeration?
Yes, I know they shouldn’t have hired a stripper in the first place. But young people often have serious lapses in judgment. Fortunately, for most of them, these lapses are not spread across the national media.
Comment by March Hare — 07.12.06 @ 3:42 pm
Seems to me, if she loses this case, even if they elect to immunize her SOMEHOW from civil suits, the least that she deserves is to have her real name, stripper name, picture, phone number, address and personal information ought to be posted on the internet. Do the math, these reletively innocent (at least of breaking the law) young men have had much worse then that, and she’s the one who broke the law. Seems to me only fair.
Comment by John — 07.12.06 @ 4:10 pm
I am surprised about the DNA .
Usually if prosecutors don’t hit pay-dirt with DNA, their finished.
Or at the very least, a lesser charge of ’sexual battery’ is brought out.
It’s going to be hard for the prosecutors to discount the DNA precisely because OJ and other cases placed such importance on it.
Comment by glamchild — 07.12.06 @ 6:28 pm
Seahawk says: “There is the possibility that the DC Attorneys office was working with the DA in Durham to engineer a conviction for Finnerty, which would thus give both him and Evans convictions
(and remember how the Evans’ noise-violation case
was judge-shopped).
These can serve to prejudice a jury against them and even taint or restrict their testimony (according to NC law) prior to any trial.”
I don’t think that’s true. At least I’d be surprised if it is. Generally, a witness can only be impeached by past felony convictions or crimes involving dishonesty or fraud. You can’t just smear a defendant by offering evidence of any past wrongful conduct in order to make him look like just a bad guy.
Oftentimes, criminal defendants won’t testify on their own behalves (see OJ). I have to imagine these guys, though, will. I’d think they’d be chomping at the bit to categorically deny, in court, under oath, these “fantastic lies” (I love that description by Evans) that were told about them.
Comment by Greg — 07.12.06 @ 6:42 pm
“I doubt that one (deal) was offered; but if it was, why take it if you don’t believe you are guilty?”
Because it does not matter if you think you are guilty or not, it matters if the court thinks you are guilty.
I would suggest not getting oneself into legally fuzzy situations where one has to say:
“I was just playing around and never would have hurt them, but my idiot friend landed a punchâ€
“I was just offering her my sexual services, and did not think brandishing a weapon would terrorize herâ€
“She seemed sober enough to consent to meâ€
“I never intended to knife him, but he stepped forward towards me as I was swinging.â€
Comment by UNK — 07.12.06 @ 6:55 pm
“I’d think they’d be chomping at the bit to categorically deny, in court, under oath, these “fantastic lies†”
One, more?, requested a speedy trial.
Comment by UNK — 07.12.06 @ 6:56 pm
“prejudice a jury against them and even taint or restrict their testimony (according to NC law) prior to any trial.â€
They rolled the die and lost, but also taking a plea deal would have saved them some bad publicity.
Comment by UNK — 07.12.06 @ 6:58 pm
Well, I have hoped in the past that court apperances won’t end this. I PRAY now that on the 17th the new judge will end this travesty. For justice and the state of North Carolina, we need to end this NOW. Kemp
Comment by kemperman — 07.12.06 @ 8:56 pm
LaShawn,
This has nothing to do with this post…but why isn’t Shelby Steele one of your favorite writers/thinkers?
Comment by Frank — 07.12.06 @ 9:34 pm
Another “essay” by Susan Estrich:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20060712/cm_uc_crsesx/susan_estrich20060712
“According to the lawyer, the boys said “she was tall and had some development. … They all said she ‘looked like she was 18 or 19 to me.’”
Maybe so. But as the lawyer told them, it’s no defense to child molestation that you don’t know it’s a child — and no defense to oral copulation with a child under 18 that you don’t know her age.
…..
In that respect, it is like Duke, only these boys will pay and pay.
Will conservatives defend them, too? ”
______________________________________-
I am not a conservative, but I would not defend them. True it’s sad they will have to spend some time in jail, but maybe next time, men might think twice about putting their cock in a complete stranger who looks 18. Duh.
Comment by UNK — 07.12.06 @ 9:59 pm
Note that F plans to appeal in DC. With the case on appeal, it will be less likely to be usable against him.
It looks like the error was running from the scene of the “assault” - made F look guilty. Better to hang around and act like the victim, or walk away like nothing happened. F needs to avoid a life of crime - lacks the instincts.
The DC court and prosecutors have not wowed me with their sense of justice (or lack of sense of injustice). They look petty, mean-spirited and myopic.
Maybe we should give DC to the Indians (or the UN) and pick a new capitol by lottery. Then we can rotate the capitol to a new city every 4 years or so, just to make life more challenging for bureaucrats, weak-minded judges and lobbyists.
Comment by cfw — 07.12.06 @ 10:02 pm
Fullest versions yet of the defense account :
http://www.newsday.com/sports/lacrosse/ny-usduke0712,0,4246055.story?coll=ny-main-bigpix
Bonnano (testifying for Finnerty) said he first encountered (accusers) Bloxsom and Herdon after sneaking into Third Edition, a Georgetown bar. He said he bumped into one of the men while dancing by himself on the dance floor. He said he apologized, but they responded with “something derogatory.” . . .
After trying unsuccessfully to engage Bloxsom and Herdon in a fistfight, Bonanno said, he and D’Agnes turned to walk away, leaving Finnerty behind. When he looked back, Bonnano said, he saw one of the men hit Finnerty in the back of the head. After rushing to his defense and landing a few blows, he said, they decided to leave.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-751786.html
A Duke classmate, Nicole Cobble, and co-defendants Daniel D’Agnes, 20, and Patrick Bonanno, 20, testified that Finnerty never threw any fake punches and that he and Bloxsom were equally involved in the incident. . .
“(Collin) was nose to nose and chest to chest with another guy,” she said. “They were shouting and insulting each other. Both were using profanity and both were insulting each other equally.” . .
According to Bonanno, the incident started when he bumped into Bloxsom and Herndon while dancing at a bar. Bonanno admitted he was the one who actually struck Bloxsom.
(Certainly worthy of the attention of two US attorneys and two court days, plus hundreds of hours of surveillence, six months probation, and the threat of 6 months in the DC jail. Meanwhile first time cocaine sellers can get out on bail, murder someone, be out on bail again and resume selling.)
Comment by Seahawk — 07.12.06 @ 10:30 pm
UNK: I read the article you linked to, and all I can say is that Susan Estrich is a complete idiot. She attempts to draw parallels between the Duke case and this new case in Fresno, but there’s NO comparison.
The Fresno case at this point is about an alleged 10 on 1 gang rape of an 11-year-old girl by members of some community college football team. Period. The Duke case, as we have come to realize over a period of months, is about a 27-year-old hopped-up pyschopathic prostitute whose provably false and contradictory accusations of rape against 3 (or 4, or 5, or 20) elite student athletes are being exploited by a corrupt DA to further his petty political ambitions, and in the process are inflaming racial tensions nationwide.
Are the Fresno players guilty? I personally don’t know, but Ms. Estrich implied in her article that several of them made damaging admissions. When she can confidently point to the players’ innocence and point also to monumental prosecutorial misconduct threatening to ruin their lives, only then should she consider drawing parallels to the Duke case. Until that time, she should observe a self-imposed silence on the subject.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 07.12.06 @ 11:02 pm
Another “essay†by Susan Estrich
Serious Errors of fact by Susan Estrich. The Duke Captains Did give voluntary Statements, in addition to helping Durham Police with the search warrant. They have maintained Innocence from the start, and acted accordingly.
Also, the entire (white) Team voluntarily took the DNA swaps, after Nifong said (promised) that the DNA would convict the Guilty and Clear the Innocent. LIE!
Another difference from Susan’s football team Gang Rape; It appears there was NO Rape in Durham.
Susan normally shows common sense; here sh is acting like and Unhinged Feminist.
Comment by Ronald Sutton — 07.12.06 @ 11:11 pm
Accuser in Duke Lacrosse Rape Case Made Call During Timeline and Worked with Several “Services”
An article with the details is here. And La Shawn Barber says all that really needs to be said here. I’m glad to see she’s finally saying this:
…
If not, that means the stripper worked for several escort services. And let’s dis…
Trackback by Independent Conservative — 07.12.06 @ 11:15 pm
Newport - Whether there was a first reentry (to get a purse) prior to the second unsuccessful attempt at 12:30 am as documented by photos does not matter because the FA made a phone call at 12:26 am to Centerfold moments before the 12:30 reentry attempt. She could not have been raped before this time (12:26-12:30) for two reasons: 1) no reasonable person would attempt to reenter a house where they had just been violently raped and beaten just minutes before, and 2) no reasonable person would call an escort agency after a rape rather than calling 911.
Finally, there is no possibility of a rape after 12:31 am because the FA was documented passing out on the porch and was carried back to the car.
What he is saying is Precious went out with the 2nd stripper after the two were in the bathroom doing_______________. Then at around 12:20 they go out to Roberts car, where Precious does not call 9/11 about a rape (or Kim if Precious was upset about a rape - using Precious’s cell instead of her phone -) but instead calls an escort agency for what likely is “hey were done with this gig, got any other tricks waiting??.” conversation. Then Precious goes into the house to retieve a handbag between 12:26 and 12:29, whereupon the guys lock the door on her as she leaves, tries getting back in (while smiling) then passes out intoxicated and falls down the stairs.
She is helped back to the car and leaves at 12:34.
The cellphone time makes the timeline even more impossible to accomodate a rape. Nothing was in the discovery about any interview with the 2 strippers as to who called Centerfold Escorts, what was said…or what the person taking the call at the agency heard or who had placed the call to them.
Meaning the prosecution never checked on a call placed right in the middle of or right after the “rape incident”, or did, and have lied in Discovery.
Absolutely amazing!!
Comment by Chris Ford — 07.12.06 @ 11:27 pm
On second thought, if the Duke team did what the Fresno team allegedly did, both would be equally guilty under the law, but I would argue for the maximum sentence for the Duke or any upper middle class team since they should have known better.
Ignorance of the law of course is no defense, but a possible argument for a lessor sentence. I am stereotyping, but a dumb football player from the ghetto with pregnant fourteen year olds might not know what statutory rape is or what consent is.
Comment by UNK — 07.12.06 @ 11:29 pm
The defense attorneys in the Fresno case are looking to the DNA evidence to clear their clients–when the test results come back, a couple of them (at least) expect to be set free (as well they should be, if that’s what the results show.)
So WHAT IS NIFONG DOING IN DURHAM, and why is he allowed to get away with it?
Comment by Seahawk — 07.12.06 @ 11:56 pm
Chris Ford said: “The cellphone time makes the timeline even more impossible to accomodate a rape. Nothing was in the discovery about any interview with the 2 strippers as to who called Centerfold Escorts, what was said…or what the person taking the call at the agency heard or who had placed the call to them.
Meaning the prosecution never checked on a call placed right in the middle of or right after the “rape incidentâ€, or did, and have lied in Discovery.
Absolutely amazing!!”
SteveDinMD: If I were defending this case, I’d be certain to establish any positive connection that might have existed between the accuser and Centerfold Escorts, the company called on the accuser’s cell phone at 12:26. If no connection is made, the prosecutor could proffer the theory that the accuser’s cell phone was not in her possession at the time the call was being placed. Rather than the accuser making the call, he could suggest that it could just as easily have been one of the players using the accuser’s phone to call another escort agency in search of “talent” with which to replace the two strippers whose show had just ended so prematurely. The prosecutor could use this argument to open up the time line in order to claim that the rape actually occurred later than has been assumed according to the conventional wisdom. If I were defending the case, I’d want concrete answers to two questions right now: 1) Who had the accuser’s phone at what points during the night in question? and 2) What is the relationship (if any) between the accuser and Centerfold Escorts? It’s best to be prepared to counter any forseeable argument.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 07.13.06 @ 12:24 am
I apologize for incorrectly listing Silegman instead of Finnerty in my earlier post. Thanks to all those who caught my mistake.
Comment by davod — 07.13.06 @ 7:00 am
Finnerty went to the wrong school. . .
December 12, 2002
http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/12/12/3df81ece380fd
David Shick died on Feb. 22, 2000 following an altercation four days earlier on Georgetown’s campus. Shick allegedly fell to the ground and hit his head on the pavement after being punched in the face by another student. D.C. medical examiners ultimately ruled Shick’s death a HOMICIDE. . .
In Aug. 2000, Georgetown’s hearing board sentenced the student to a one-semester suspension and asked him to write a 10-page reflection paper and attend alcohol counseling.
After the student appealed this decision in Nov. 2000, the sanctions were reduced after the board concluded that the original punishment was “disproportionate to prior cases,” Debbie Shick said.
Ultimately, he remained a full-time student at the university, eventually graduating. Other students involved received 10 to 12 hours of community service.
According to a statement by Georgetown spokeswoman Julie Green Bataille, “the U.S. Attorney concluded that there were insufficient grounds for criminal charges to be brought” against the student.
Comment by Seahawk — 07.13.06 @ 8:29 am
CURIOUS IDEA:
Nifong is quoted as saying “I have seen NOTHING in the evidence to change my mind that these young men are guilty…”
Well we know that he refused to look at the Defense’s exculpatory evidence. It seems he has refused to look into this cell phone evidence.
Could it be that he is just refusing to look at any evidence which might exhonerate?
Maybe someone should have asked him when he made that statement if he had actually personally reviewed ALL the evidence.
Comment by Bill Mitchell — 07.13.06 @ 9:09 am
“Well we know that he refused to look at the Defense’s exculpatory evidence. ”
But we know that he HAS seen the DNA evidence.
That proves innocence.
If these players were already in prison for rape, and this kind of DNA evidence came back, they would be released immediately (there are several such cases).
Where is there the judge in NC to dismiss immediately?
Comment by Seahawk — 07.13.06 @ 10:51 am
On second thought, if the Duke team did what the Fresno team allegedly did, both would be equally guilty under the law, but I would argue for the maximum sentence for the Duke or any upper middle class team since they should have known better.
Well, I agree that first, the accuser’s words might be suspect here, since she is a runaway. Second, if the guys really believed she was 18, then I wouldn’t hold them guilty for statutory rape, since they had no deliberate intention of having sex with someone underage.
And third, if she consented (which is also possible) then the whole rape charge goes out the window.
But, I draw the line at saying the rich kids should have known better about this than the poor kids. The Ten Commandments weren’t only for one class; and I think its wrong to hold the lower classes to a lesser standard; that only condemns them to perpetuating that standard.
And that’s one of the problems with race relations today–the “lower expectations” of the underclass.
Comment by Seahawk — 07.13.06 @ 1:00 pm
More drama in Durham…
Lawsuit: Former NCCU Police Chief Paid Officer To Drop Claim
http://www.wral.com/news/9511764/detail.html
Comment by Tate — 07.13.06 @ 1:19 pm
Hey, but possible GOOD news in Durham!!!
Monks eyes run if Cheeks doesn’t
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-752170.html
Comment by Tate — 07.13.06 @ 1:24 pm
Ironically, I wonder how the Fresno case accused aren’t actually beneficiaries of the Durham circus.
We all want to be sure that we don’t have another travesity of justice.
But without the Duke example, how many of us would be rushing to judgment and assumging the accused are guilty, ignoring any DNA results, and demanding swift and severe punishments?
Comment by Seahawk — 07.13.06 @ 1:42 pm
“Well, I agree that first, the accusers words might be suspect here, since she is a runaway. Second, if the guys really believed she was 18,”
.
Sorry but just “believing” she is 18 is not enough to get one out of raping a 11 year old. A person smart enough to go to Duke would know that you have to use some reasonable judgment to determine her age - and in the time it takes to walk across to a different apartment and have oral sex is not enough to make any reasonable judgment about either age or ability to consent. She could have been a mental patient for all they knew.
And as you noted, everyone knows runaways often lie, often about their age.
My guess is they may have thought she was 15 or 16, but take your chances and lose.
Comment by UNK — 07.13.06 @ 3:47 pm
I think most statutory rape laws are “strict liability”, in that it doesn’t matter what you THOUGHT and doesn’t matter if he/she consented … if the person with whom you have sex is under legal age, you are guilty of statutory rape, period. It definitely demands that people be careful about having sex with anyone that COULD be a minor.
Comment by jc — 07.13.06 @ 4:19 pm
Considering the difference between the Shick case and the Finnerty case; the fact that the bartender/bouncer was not allowed to testify by the judge, etc.; I have become more suspicious that the Finnerty verdict was a done-deal even before the trial began.
Nearly all the AV’s associates have been arrested (her ex, her boyfriend, girlfriend, the cabbie, etc.)
That’s called “pressure”.
Now Finnerty has a six month probation (which is another way of saying, ‘We can still arrest you any time we want and put you in jail.’) That, too, is pressure. (And considering Judge Wonkette, it would seem a real possibility.)
So were Durham and DC in contact over this? Collusion?
Is there much more than we are seeing?
Comment by Seahawk — 07.13.06 @ 4:28 pm
Seahawk - Well, I agree that first, the accuser’s words might be suspect here, since she is a runaway. Second, if the guys really believed she was 18, then I wouldn’t hold them guilty for statutory rape, since they had no deliberate intention of having sex with someone underage.
And third, if she consented (which is also possible) then the whole rape charge goes out the window.
I can see mistaking a well-developed 16 or 17 year old for someone older, but no way does a 11-year old “pass for 18″. And from unfortunate personal experience that luckily never got to a criminal complaint, I went with a Navy buddy to his hometown when I was 20 and hooked up at a party with a gorgeous babe built like a brick ____house for a night of wild fun who told me after the 3rd go around she was a high school freshman. 15. And had to go to “freshen up” for school…I was smart enough to be super nice, drop a gold chain gift and a letter off with her friend the next day saying she was fabulous and I really regretted not being able to see her again as I was “being assigned to a year or so of Guam island duty, leaving next week”. I threw up later. But nothing happened, being a worrier, I discovered I was technically liable for statutory rape even if she had lied and said she was older, even if she wasn’t as considerably sexually experienced and skilled as she was…Oh, I was BAD!! But after that, never again! I made darn sure every partner after that was over 18. Checking Driver’s licenses!
UNK - Sorry but just “believing†she is 18 is not enough to get one out of raping a 11 year old. A person smart enough to go to Duke would know that you have to use some reasonable judgment to determine her age.
UNK, you do realize that these were not Duke players? Right? But even Fresno State players of…mmmm…lower intellectual wattage are expected by law to have an obligation to verify. This was an 11-year old. Not only is it unlikely that any jury or judge seeing her would say “well she looks at least 18″, but if they see videotape of her speaking and her general immature behavior, they will conclude NO person could ID her as over 18.
Comment by Chris Ford — 07.13.06 @ 4:41 pm
My goodness, is it too much to ask that you know somebody well enough to know their actual age BEFORE you have sex with them?
Is it REALLY such a burden to get to know somebody before you lay down with them?
Comment by john harland — 07.13.06 @ 6:29 pm
#50
As a former elected official in NC the GOP candidate in Durham county will get elected when Teddy Kenndey get charged for murder in mass. Not going to happen. In the last 30 years Durham co has not sent one GOP representative to Raleigh, Get the picture? Don’t waste you time talking about it. Durham is like Harlem of the South. Do I make myself clear? kemp
Comment by kemperman — 07.13.06 @ 8:25 pm
#57 - Mr. Kemp…
I get the picture and you CERTAINLY made yourself clear…
That’s too bad.
Comment by Tate — 07.13.06 @ 9:17 pm
What’s interesting to me is that the same people who support impeachment of President Bush, proclaiming he lied to the American public about Iraq, are the same people supporting a sham DA who’s proceeding in a case built on a lie.
That further shows me that libs have no integrity (for the most part anyway).
Comment by tyendor — 07.13.06 @ 9:44 pm
“Mistake of Fact
Although statutory rape was historically a strict-liability crime, California now recognizes a defense where the perpetrator “participates in a mutual act of sexual intercourse, believing his partner to be beyond the age of consent (18), with reasonable grounds for such belief.†People v. Hernandez, 39 Cal. Rptr. 361, 364 (1964). This acceptance coincided with the raising of the age of consent. Accordingly, the crime of committing lewd or lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14, Cal. Pen. Code § 288(a), remains a strict-liability offense.”
from:
http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_statutory_rape_california.htm
Comment by UNK — 07.13.06 @ 11:34 pm
“My goodness, is it too much to ask that you know somebody well enough to know their actual age BEFORE you have sex with them?”
You don’t even need to know their actual age. You only need to know that they are 18 or older.
Comment by UNK — 07.13.06 @ 11:37 pm
“I think most statutory rape laws are “strict liabilityâ€, in that it doesn’t matter what you THOUGHT and doesn’t matter if he/she consented … if the person with whom you have sex is under legal age, you are guilty of statutory rape, period. It definitely demands that people be careful about having sex with anyone that COULD be a minor. ”
Even where it’s not a strict liability crime, “I am too stupid to know she was not 18″ is not the position one wants to be in.
Comment by UNK — 07.13.06 @ 11:43 pm
“And that’s one of the problems with race relations today–the “lower expectations†of the underclass. ”
I have lower expectations of the stupid. If one of the Fresno rapists was a smart prelaw student and knew the law, throw the book at him also.
Comment by UNK — 07.13.06 @ 11:49 pm
And I thought you had to be a black criminal to be compared to Martin Luther King:
The Reverend Dr. Bill Lawson compared Lay with civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus Christ, and said his name would eventually be cleared.
“He was taken out of the world right at the right time,” he said. “History has a way of vindicating people who have been wronged.”
Comment by UNK — 07.13.06 @ 11:55 pm
UNK, as far as I’m concerned, stupidity is no excuse and we shouldn’t lower the bar for stupid people. Not in the criminal context. That’s a slippery slope — “I didn’t know you weren’t supposed to rob convenience stores at gunpoint”, etc. I just think that’s an untenable standard to punish some people less harshly than others because you think they were too stupid to know better.
Comment by Greg — 07.14.06 @ 3:11 pm
Greg,
One would have to be pretty stupid, legally insane, not to know that robbing a liquor store at gunpoint is illegal.
I would never give anyone a free pass on account of stupidity, but there are a lot of crimes where people are uncertain. Even on this blog, people have incorrectly argued that “they started the fight†is a legal defense. “They started the fight†rarely meets the legal standard of self-defense.
In my opinion, the off duty cop or smart student who knows that you can’t legally assault someone because they started it deserves more punishment than the person who does not.
Comment by UNK — 07.14.06 @ 4:54 pm
What is the collective knowledge of the group on e-mails that the police evidently sent to LAX team members intimating that one of their mates was going to spill the beans? This evidently happened early on and was apparently a police attempt to get people to cave in. And it didn’t work.
I saw this posted somewhere else — with no link or further discussion — but hadn’t seen anything published that I could recall. And I’ve tried to follow this whole thing pretty closely so I’m not sure where I missed it. Thanks for any help.
Comment by Greg — 07.14.06 @ 5:24 pm
The email was sent on the computer of a student who was in class at the time (and so did not send it).
I think it is legal for the police to use such methods–i.e., they can talk to two criminals separately, telling each that the other has confessed (in order to get a confession from the one they are interviewing), even if this is not true.
IOW, they are permitted to use this kind of ruse.
So, I suppose that an email saying that someone has confessed would also fall into the same category–unless, by pretending to be another student, they crossed the line. (I don’t know, I’m not an attorney.)
Comment by Seahawk — 07.14.06 @ 6:38 pm
It certainly smells improper, to use somebody’s email account without their permission to send a known-to-be-a-lie email to possible suspects. I wonder if any of the recipients picked up their email out of NC, in which case it’s an interstate transmission and possibly could fall under some federal rules?
Wishful thinking, I’m sure. Sometimes people do things that stink, but there’s nothing that can be done law-wise.
Comment by jc — 07.15.06 @ 9:09 am
Email seems like an Internet rumor to me?
Most likely not illegal, but interrogations are done in person, not by email or phone, for a reason.
Comment by UNK — 07.15.06 @ 11:53 am
“Email seems like an Internet rumor to me?”
Hey, an Internet rumor was enough to get Judge Bayly’s knockers into a twist in DC.
Comment by Seahawk — 07.15.06 @ 12:57 pm
The bogus email was more than just an internet rumor. It was reported pretty widely back before any indictments came down. I don’t think we ever got any confirmation about whether or not it was the police that had sent the email from the lacrosse player’s account though, it was just an accusation by the defense team.
See, for instance: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1184007,00.html
It’s interesting to look at old stories like that, and notice things like that they were still reporting the police warrant application’s statement that the medical exam showed signs “consistent with sexual assault, both anally and vaginally” - reporting it basically as a true fact. The story goes on to note that such medical report will be difficult for the press to overcome. Yeah, that’s not exactly how it’s gonna play out, in hindsight.
Comment by jc — 07.15.06 @ 3:48 pm
(Atticus Finch delivers his Closing Argument at the Trial of Tom Robinson)
“To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. The State has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place. It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses whose evidence has not only been called into serious question on cross examination, but has been flatly contradicted by the defendant. . .
I have nothing but pity in my heart for the Chief Witness for the State. She is the victim of cruel poverty and ignorance. But, my pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man’s life at stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt. . .
The witnesses for the State, with the exception of the sheriff of Lincoln County, have presented themselves to you gentlemen — to this Court — in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted. . .
Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this man to his family.
In the name of God, do your duty. In the name of God, believe Tom Robinson.”
(kudos to Friends of DU for posting this originally)
Comment by Seahawk — 07.15.06 @ 4:16 pm
For your Sunday morning reading, from the Raleigh News & Observer:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/461187.html
Titled: “Lacrosse Defense Sways Media”
Not many new insights, but in trying to have a “balanced story” the writer does all she can to make the defense evidence look like “defense spin” that’s “playing the world like a violin…”
Lotsa quotes from law professors and media types who are more than pleased to offer lotsa quotes.
Kinda shows their stripes … as folks who don’t want to worry about the potential veracity of emerging information, so long as they get to keep offering lotsa quotes.
Comment by TaterCon — 07.16.06 @ 9:14 am
I found this on the homepage of MSNBC most recommended stories:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13890428/from/RS.5/
“Attorneys for the uncharged players want to prevent District Attorney Mike Nifong from gaining access to Duke records of the home addresses of uncharged team members and records of their use of student identity cards. The lawyers argue the information is protected by federal privacy laws. ”
I don’t know if it’s protected by federal privacy laws, but it’s really third-rate police work at this stage in the game and close to trying to frame the usual suspects - the ones with records.
Comment by UNK — 07.16.06 @ 5:11 pm
Re: the quote from “To Kill a Mockingbird” - how incredible to see a current event so perfectly described.
Some courts are basically just theaters with the best performance determining the winner and some judges just follow the path of least resisistance and allow cases to proceed to trial rather than risk standing up and judging whether a case has merit. Looks like the Durham system fits the above…..
Nifong’s smoking gun(s) will be the jurors he can whip into an emotional frenzy…the ones he can count on to make decisions with their “gut”, their race, their emotions rather than their intellect. He is confident in his ability to maximize the theatrics and confident a Durham jury will contain the sort of intellectually lightweight patsies he needs for this trial strategy…evidence, or lack of it is irrrelevant and he knows it. He has already demonized the boys and cast doubts on the defense news items by sneering about “spin”, now all he has to do is arrest and isolate all of the people who could damage his “Precious” by opening up about the sordid and pathetic reality of her life. He must keep that jury pool amenable to his portrait of her as a devoted single mother and college student victimized by “wolves in blazers”. A few months of detox, some serious scouring and a wardrobe change and she just might pass for a lamb. Or at least a sheep.
Comment by Lisa M. — 07.16.06 @ 6:28 pm
UNK says at #75: “I don’t know if it’s protected by federal privacy laws, but it’s really third-rate police work at this stage in the game and close to trying to frame the usual suspects - the ones with records.”
Of course, UNK, that’s a gigantic leap from the 10th rate police work we’ve seen to date.
Comment by Greg — 07.16.06 @ 11:22 pm
DNA clears another one
link
It’s been one stop after another for freed inmate Alan Newton, who was released from prison last week after 22 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.
After a week of parties, picnics and public appearances, Newton, a former bank teller from the Bronx, is adjusting to life on the outside after DNA testing cleared him in the vicious rape and beating of a Bronx woman whose shaky identification sent him away for nearly half his life.
(snip)
It didn’t matter that his alibi was tight: Newton had seen a movie with his fiancee and spent the night. Newton was convicted and sentenced to up to 40 years on the charges.
Wonder if we’ll have to wait 22 years to clear the Duke players–wait! They’ve already had their DNA
testing–that means they can be cleared now, right? (sarc/off)
Comment by Seahawk — 07.17.06 @ 8:08 am