The post title is somewhat gratuitous, but it gets to the point concisely, no?
The Independent Conservative pointed me to a recent article about the Duke case. Apparently, semen found in the “rape” house matches Dave Evans, one of three indicted Duke lacrosse player, and an unindicted player.
That semen was found on a towel in the hallway (and inside the “rape” bathroom, but that DNA belonged to the unindicted player) of a house shared by young lacrosse players is not a revelation. It proves the men ejaculated; it doesn’t prove rape or even sexual intercourse. In Duke Rape Case Report and the Twisted Sister, I wrote:
Consider this: The DNA was found on one of the stripper’s fake nails, which was found in the bathroom trashcan. With a bunch of young, unattached, partying, testosterone-filled men sharing a bathroom, I won’t even try to guess what else was in the garbage. So male DNA “possibly” matching one of the 46 players was found on the discarded nail, and this is why Nifong is going forward with the case? My seven-year-old nephew could figure this out.
But that’s not the point. I’m more interested in why this news wasn’t splashed all over newspapers and web sites. It’s somewhat favorable to the prosecution. Why are the media suddenly reticent? Are they gun-shy? Skeptical? If so, why?
Addendum: Some people have implied that I’m a hypocrite for criticizing the media’s earlier blanket coverage of the Duke case. See Salaciousness Sells. I truly believe that American mainstream media lean leftward, and this bias was evident in their coverage of this case.
Since that is the case, I am compelled to bring some balance to the coverage by providing a different point of view, even if it means I’m blogging “too much” about this case. I do the same with race. I hate how journalists tend to write about race. My blog may not have as many readers as MSM, but at least the few thousand people who read it daily get another side of the story.
Update (4:04 p.m.): A commenter calls me out:
La Shawn,
For a long time you provided excellent coverage of the Duke rape hoax. Lately, however, it appears that you are not following very closely and simply repeating what other blogs are saying. As discussed extensively here http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/08/duke-lacrosse-fake-herald-sun-story.html and here http://www.liestoppers.blogspot.com, the semen on the towel and the floor HAD ALREADY BEEN REPORTED back in April. This not new information. The real story is that the Durham press revived an old story and made it look new. That is why no one else is talking about it. This was a desperate attempt by sympathetic reporters to prop up the prosecution’s case.
She’s right. I haven’t been following as closely as I was in the beginning. She says the semen-on-the-towel is old news that MSM tried to pass off as new info.
Independent Conservative adds:
I don’t think the issue one of not following the case closely now. Obviously we were not following it closely THEN. Like back in April. In fact I don’t think this aspect of the case was discussed much at all then. It was missed in the flurry. Missed by plenty of “experts†even, who I never heard say a word about it.
The story is now news because this is the first time the names of the players matched with the semen samples has been disclosed.
Please show me an older article that mentions WHO the semen belongs to. That’s what is news.
Now would be a good time to sign off and get ready for the weekend. Rest easy, everybody.
Evans’ semen was found on a towel in hallway outside the SECOND bathroom of the house (not the bathroom where the infamous 30-minute rape/struggle was supposed to have been made–along with some cell phone calls, too).
Zash’s DNA was found on the floor (or the rug) in THE infamous bathroom. But of course, he wasn’t chargeed in the rape.
No DNA from Seligman or Finnerty was found in either bathroom.
And no DNA from any of them was found inside the alleged victim; only her boyfriend’s DNA was found there.
Such evidence is commonly used to EXONERATE defendants–no DNA inside the victim means no rape.
In this case, there is even no DNA from two of the defendants at the “scene” of the “crime” at all.
‘Nough said. (or it should be–except in Durham).
When are the feds going to get involved and look at the violations of civil rights of these three accused?
Comment by Seahawk — 08.04.06 @ 2:47 pm
I’ll even add that the detection of Zash’s DNA
shows that the bathroom wasn’t “sanitized” after the fact (if such a thing is even possible–highly doubtful);
and the presence of the boyfriend’s DNA inside the alleged victim shows that the DNA tests were indeed working (and not giving a false negative).
Add to that the alibi evidence of two of the defendants, the 6 messed-up photo IDs, the cell-phone records and time-stamped photos, the attempts at intimidation of defense witnesses,
the false info given by the prosecution to secure the original warrants, the false statements given by the DA to the press (”strangulation”, broom stick, use of condoms, wearing of jackets to avoid scratches, etc.)–the list goes on and on–and this case takes on the quality of an episode in the Twilight Zone–entertaining, but a nightmare if it is occuring in real life–which it is.
And nobody seems able to wake up. . .
Comment by Seahawk — 08.04.06 @ 3:06 pm
Thanks for the comment, “Wandette.” Let me know if your boss at Fleishman Hillard shares your view. - Admin
Comment by Wandette — 08.04.06 @ 3:19 pm
As Woody Allen said, It’s sex with somebody you love. I am “shocked” to discover that college students might be “practicing” in their own home.
What has this world come to?
Why would this information even be released? It does show that even brain dead journalist have figured this out to a no story story. The Raleigh N & O, of course, did run a story, because they all are brain dead. Kemp
Comment by kemperman — 08.04.06 @ 3:35 pm
Sorry, LaShawn, but I must:
The media shot early….now they are sleeping.
Comment by bucktowndusty — 08.04.06 @ 3:40 pm
La Shawn,
For a long time you provided excellent coverage of the Duke rape hoax. Lately, however, it appears that you are not following very closely and simply repeating what other blogs are saying. As discussed extensively here http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/08/duke-lacrosse-fake-herald-sun-story.html and here http://www.liestoppers.blogspot.com/ , the semen on the towel and the floor HAD ALREADY BEEN REPORTED back in April. This not new information. The real story is that the Durham press revived an old story and made it look new. That is why no one else is talking about it. This was a desperate attempt by sympathetic reporters to prop up the prosecution’s case.
Comment by Sarah Stewart — 08.04.06 @ 3:55 pm
Duke Lacrosse Rape Case Update: Semen Found in House/Bathroom Matches 2 Players (*Updated*)
I guess with all the other events going on, this piece of information that kind of favors the prosecution is not getting much media coverage.
Lawyers haggle over DNA matches
DURHAM — Semen found in the house where three Duke lacrosse pl…
Trackback by Independent Conservative — 08.04.06 @ 4:18 pm
La Shawn,
Re: the previous article on Nifong’s presser and the info I saw on his website, please let us know what you find out from the FOP.
Thanks,
Greg
Comment by Greg — 08.04.06 @ 4:26 pm
I don’t think the issue one of not following the case closely now. Obviously we were not following it closely THEN. Like back in April. In fact I don’t think this aspect of the case was discussed much at all then. It was missed in the flurry. Missed by plenty of “experts” even, who I never heard say a word about it.
The story is now news because this is the first time the names of the players matched with the semen samples has been disclosed.
Please show me an older article that mentions WHO the semen belongs to. That’s what is news.
Comment by Independent Conservative — 08.04.06 @ 5:08 pm
“Answering questions from reporters, defense attorney Joe Cheshire did say that DNA of two of the men was found on a towel and on the floor of the bathroom, but that it was not in any way related to the DNA found on the alleged victim.”
“The bathroom where this DNA was found happened to be the bathroom of the two boys,” Cheshire said. “And any expert and any person in the world will tell you that your DNA is in your bathroom.”
http://www.wral.com/news/8600601/detail.html
We’ve known since the fingernail DNA story that Evans shared the bathroom with another player in the house. You are correct that we didn’t have the towel matched to Evans and the floor matched to Zash. However, that is hardly what the Herald-Sun meant by “previously undisclosed” matches and hardly what you originally intended in the article on your website.
Comment by Sarah Stewart — 08.04.06 @ 5:22 pm
Also, in response to your claim that no expert said a word about the towel, I will reluctanty quote Wendy Murphy who has blabbered about “towel DNA” for quite some time. She is a piece of work.
MURPHY: “At some point you have to stop making ridiculous excuses. You have to stop with the crazy masochism. She ripped her own vagina. She strangled her own neck. Oh, she just had to lay atop the poor guy`s pubic hair. Oh, they happened to EJACULATE ON THE SAME TOWEL IN THE SAME BATHROOM. Oh, SHE JUST HAPPENED TO IDENTIFY THE TWO GUYS WHO HAPPENED TO HAVE SEMEN ON THE TOWEL.”
“You know, common sense seems to take a vacation when we have rape cases in this country. Let`s just assume, for a minute, that the D.A. and the police know what they`re doing, understand the way the game works and they`re probably sitting back in their seats laughing right now at the defense spin, because they know what they have. And they`re going to tell us, at some point, how ridiculous it is for the defense to suggest that the absence of DNA means this woman wasn`t raped.”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/10/ng.01.html
Comment by Sarah Stewart — 08.04.06 @ 5:34 pm
The Herald-Sun article says in the 2nd sentence “The previously undisclosed matches…” so I’m not sure what other intent you are seeing.
I’ve already mentioned I did not know anything about this back in April.
DNA of a sexual nature was found and matched a player accused of rape. That is a news story. It does not make for a “closer” in this particular rape case, but it is news. It is something worth discussing. It shows the only semen found can’t be connected with the accuser’s story.
I think Nifong should have already dropped this case, but he would not have been doing his job if he did not take those samples back when there appeared to be a case.
The Herald-Sun gave views from both sides and put the defense’s words first. They broke MOST of the stories I’ve found that support the defense.
So I’m sorry that I really don’t see this as some effort to support the prosecution. It is a fact related to the case worth reporting.
Comment by Independent Conservative — 08.04.06 @ 5:38 pm
Sarah I’m really not sure why you’re so bent out of shape over this. I said “Missed by plenty of “experts†even…” and in response you bring up a single one that mentioned it. I said most, not all. Now that means you would have to find talk about the DNA on the towel and bathroom floor from the majority of “experts” speaking about the case to disprove my statement.
It was not talked about much and that’s probably because nobody knew who the DNA on the towel and floor was a match to. Now that we know it’s worth mentioning. Regardless of who that information favors.
I have no problem with all the facts being reported.
Comment by Independent Conservative — 08.04.06 @ 5:45 pm
Hezbollah Launches Deep Rocket Strike on Israel
this looks not great for people in the center of Israel
Comment by fqwr — 08.04.06 @ 6:07 pm
The reason I’m bent out of shape about the use of “previously undisclosed” is that it suggests the defense attorneys were being misleading when they discussed the contents of the DNA reports. The district attorney has suggested this in his public comments, stating “the fact that they’re making statements about what the reports are saying, and not actually showing the reports, should in and of itself raise some red flags” to WRAL on May 3rd, and complaining to Susannah Meadows at Newsweek that, “when those attorneys held press conferences to announce that the first round of DNA testing “completely exonerated” the players (a claim that, on its face, is rather preposterous), I saw not a single report that any reporter had actually seen the test results (none of them had), or had asked to see them and had that request denied (which is what happened to those who bothered to ask).”
The matches in and of themselves are news. They were news on April 10th when the defense attorneys described them. If the press wants to rerun that story in the context of the other things we know now, that’s fine. You are correct, it’s clearly part of the story. And you are also correct that the specific names are noteworthy, particuarly in light of the fact that one of the players was indicted. But don’t run the story as “previously undisclosed” information without noting that the defense attorneys specifically disclosed it as soon as it was available.
On the expert point, the fact that one expert has cited it is proof that it was not “previously undisclosed.”
Don’t get me wrong, it’s fair to talk about. But the context surrounding who disclosed what and when is important in terms of credibility.
Comment by Sarah Stewart — 08.04.06 @ 6:23 pm
Personally, I think you’re awesome, Sarah. As for that Murphy character you quote:
“She ripped her own vagina.” Whoever said her vagina was ripped. A little swelling consistent with consensual sex or the little sex-toy she used earlier, but ripped?
“She strangled her own neck.” No evidence of any strangling either. She denied it to the medical folks and they didn’t find evidence of it either.
“Oh, she just had to lay atop the poor guy`s pubic hair.” What pubic hair? They didn’t find anything matching the lacrosse guys on her or in her or around her.
“Oh, they happened to EJACULATE ON THE SAME TOWEL IN THE SAME BATHROOM.” Well, no, actually they didn’t. Semen on a towel doesn’t mean someone ejaculated on the towel. And there weren’t two semen sources on that towel per the news reports. The towel was found in a hallway, not the bathroom. The other semen source found in the bathroom came from someone who has never been charged.
“Oh, SHE JUST HAPPENED TO IDENTIFY THE TWO GUYS WHO HAPPENED TO HAVE SEMEN ON THE TOWEL.” Well, no to both parts of that statement. She really didn’t identify either guy. Evans only resembles one of her supposed attackers if he had a mustache (which he doesn’t). The other guy wasn’t identified at all. And, again, there aren’t two semen sources on that towel.
I understand what this Murphy woman is trying to do. All these things would be pretty far-fetched to try to explain them all away. Except none of her statements reflect the actual facts and so no one is going to have to explain them away. But she does illustrate her next point, which is that “common sense seems to take a vacation when we have rape cases in this country.” Specifically, Ms. Murphy’s common sense.
Comment by Greg — 08.04.06 @ 6:32 pm
Wendy Murphy is smart but like Nifong has an agenda that facts won’t stick to. She is a person willing to throw away integrity and common sense to have her way. Why anyone would give her credence is beyond me. There are plenty of people with as good as knowledge of the area of law she covers. She is basically there is incite for one side and bully over logic and reason. Not a very useful person in my view.
Comment by Jd — 08.05.06 @ 6:03 am
OFF TOPIC:
Story on the GAO agents entering U.S. borders with fake documents.
http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2006/08/us-homeland-security-still-not-ready.html
This is somewhat of a followup to the other Border story.
———————-
As for the Duke Case… It’s a mess… I have not even touched this subject. I think the Prosecutor painted himself into a corner by building the case up in the beginning. He put himself into a situation where he could not back down…
All the while… the credibility of the complainant began to fall apart…
I don’t think that anything will come from this case, unless the Prosecutor has some kind of secret evidence or secret witness(s).
Later
Comment by The Angry Independent — 08.05.06 @ 8:21 am
“Wendy Murphy is smart but like Nifong has an agenda that facts won’t stick to. ”
There are people who believe conspiracy theories, there are trolls, there are many more people who don’t let facts get in the way of their long-held theories, and there are people who are just not that smart (I believe nifong is the new word in the dictionary for this, as he is a nifong)
Comment by UNK — 08.05.06 @ 11:04 am
Dear La Shawn,
There has been a lot of topographical confusion (deliberate confusion) by the prosecution in the Duke case. I believe I was the first to point this out yesterday (August 4th) on the Talk Left site (There are a lot of conservatives over there right now and Talk Left is being a very good sport about this as, I believe, you and she were the first bloggers to come the defense of the embattled boys.)
Anyway here’s the deal. The Dukie house is very small,only fourteen hundred square feet,built around the turn of the twentieth century with a comparatively remote small bedroom and adjoining small bathroom that,at most, holds two average size people comfortably. This is the bathroom where the accuser eventually settled as the site on which the non-rape allegedly occurred.
There is further a very large living room which can accommodate over forty and still allow space for the now infamous four minute dance which the False Accuser claims led immediately to a thirty minute assault by twenty, five (two separate groups of), three, two or no athletes as the spirit moves her.
Off the living room is what may very loosely be termed the Master bedroom and another small bathroom. It sleeps two of the three other captains,Dave Evans and, presumably, Dan Flaherty.
The Master bedroom holds twenty,if you want to cram twenty two hundred pounders into a telephone booth. On the night in question ten or more of the boys were watching a perfectly unobjectionable television show in that bedroom.Further the photographs taken between midnight and 12:07 clearly show the False Accuser
in the living room with well over twenty team members.The second dancer also states the dance occurred in the living room,the only physically possible spot in the house.
Now here’s the rub.The search warrant on which the “incriminating” towel and rug were seized states that the dance was held in the Master bedroom(which was fully occupied).If the dance was held in the Master bedroom,the “rapists” would immediately have carried her into the adjacent bathroom rather than back through the (empty??) living room,across the entire length of the house,and into the minuscule bathroom on the far side.
This entire case is,of course,on the far side;but there is no doubt about what the false accuser was claiming.She was not misquoted by the cops on the search warrant.On April 4th when she finally(after five previous identification parades) identified Collin and Reade and no less than fifteen more kids,she repeatedly identified them as all being in the Master bedroom,not the living room.Again from the Master bedroom one proceeds to Dave’s bathroom not Matt’s. No major newspaper or tv service has caught on to the fact that she and the Nifong controlled cops have her dancing in two different places with two different bathrooms.
So they found Matt’s semen on his bathroom rug and Dave’s semen,at the other end of the house, on a towel outside his bathroom.No one else’s semen is anywhere. Could it be that these kids lead much less fascinating lives than Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers imagine?
Sydney Carton
Comment by Sydney Carton — 08.05.06 @ 11:55 am
Great posts by Sarah and Sydney!
All this “previously undisclosed DNA” nonsense is really just a distraction from the fact that no DNA from any lacrosse player (indicted or not) was found on or in the only undeniable location where the “crime” allegedly occurred: Precious’s body.
All I get from the fact that semen and other lacrosse player DNA was found around the house is that 1) the residents did not think it necessary to clean up after the “heinous crime”, and 2) the DNA testing was pretty thorough and DNA was found that matches suspects, so we know that the lab was truly capable of matching DNA to the suspects. How exactly is this supposed to be helpful to the prosecution?
Personally, I think the Raleigh N&O and the Durham Herald re-ran this “news” about DNA just to keep things cloudy and interesting for a while longer. More hits on their websites, a few more papers sold. Either that, or they’re idiots that can’t remember that their own papers ran stories including this info back in April. Or, they have an agenda to prop up Nifong. So what is it, N&O and Herald? Are you: a) greedy and unethical; b) stupid; c) unethically slanting your coverage; or d) some combo of some or all of the above? I see no other possible answers. Again, I’m guessing (a), but who knows.
Comment by jc — 08.05.06 @ 1:32 pm
I am just glad you all are still keeping the fires lit and the outrage alive, 2 boys won’t be coming back to Duke in two weeks because of this worthless WHORE. How sad and how disgusting. May Nifungu rot in hell, and Cheek beat his ass in NOV. I predict a very large student voter registation drive this fall. Watch and wait. Kemp
Comment by kemperman — 08.05.06 @ 2:17 pm
2 boys won’t be coming back to Duke in two weeks
It would be nice if the President of Duke, Brodhead, cared; but in fact he doesn’t. . .
Comment by Seahawk — 08.05.06 @ 2:53 pm
Seems like the claim that there was a $2 million bribe offer was a hoax, too :
http://wilmingtonjournal.blackpressusa.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=71544&sID=4
Comment by Seahawk — 08.05.06 @ 3:01 pm
These boys haven’t been convicted of any crime, but they’re denied returning to school. The President of Duke, Brodhead, is too scared to take a real stand for these boys.
The only people who took the $2 million dollar hoax are the people who still believe Nifong isn’t an idiot.
Comment by Betty Friedan — 08.05.06 @ 5:59 pm
Sarah Stewart -
Wendy Murphy.
Uhgh!
Raving psychotic man-hating bitch. The difference between her (or Nancy Grace for that matter) - is that Coulter appears to understand her hystrionics are for the most part a shared joke between her and the crowd portion that has an IQ above 80 that amps up the entertainment value.
Watch Grace rant and see her face distort with hate and nostrils flare. Watching Wendy Murphy, her eyes glow and she gets a self- satisfied sadistic smirk as she smears the character of the accused, presumes and advocates others presume the guilt of the person(s) accused by Murphy’s pet new victims.
Another disgusting swamp-sow of primping, overweening self-importance is Gloria Allred.
Instant nausea.
I can stand brief doses of Coulter. The other Harpies just disgust and make me reach for the remote.
Comment by Chris Ford — 08.05.06 @ 6:58 pm
Re: the upcoming Nifong-slap election
Is there usually a polling station or two on the Duke campus? Will there be in November?
Comment by Greg — 08.05.06 @ 9:09 pm
“Seems like the claim that there was a $2 million bribe offer was a hoax”
It’s not a “hoax” unless someone intentionally made it up with intent to deceive.
It does meet the standards of being a rumor.
Rumor, probably started with speculation that the rich white boys will hire good lawyers, like OJ, and buy their way out, speculation about other cases (Kobe) where a settlement was reached
- but just offhand, I can’t think of any cases where an unrelated third party coughed up the settlement in a rape or even sexual abuse (Michael Jackson) case.
Comment by UNK — 08.06.06 @ 2:55 am
At long last (months late) the News and Observor
prints some of the facts :
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/468272.html
In examining the files Nifong has produced in the case, The News & Observer found that the accuser gave at least five different versions of the alleged assault to different police and medical interviewers and made shaky identifications of suspects. To get warrants, police made statements that weren’t supported by information in their files.
(snip)
The police had organized 24 photos into four sets of six photos each. The sets were labeled A, B, C and D. The police had put one named suspect in each group: Matt in A, Adam in B, Bret in C and a second Matt in D.
After each photo, the police asked: Is this the person who sexually assaulted you?
She did not identify any assailants.
Comment by Seahawk — 08.06.06 @ 7:14 am
Was the idea of rape planted in the accuser’s addled mind by someone at the hospital? From this morning’s N&O story:
“During the check-in process, the victim was asked if something had happened to her and she said yes,” Officer Joseph Stewart wrote in his report. “She was then asked if she had been raped and she stated yes.”
Comment by Midwest — 08.06.06 @ 10:34 am
Well, there’s evidently a new Greg posting on here. Welcome, other Greg at #27. I’m the Greg who has regularly posted on the Duke case (and authored the other two earlier posts at 8 and 16). Any chance you’d adopt a last initial so that we can be distinguished? I’m presuming that I was here first but maybe I shouldn’t just presume that. Anyway, love your first name and welcome to the discussion.
Sincerely,
The other (original?) Greg
Comment by Greg — 08.06.06 @ 1:38 pm
Seahawk, thanks for the link. Good grief, finally someone at the N&O is reporting not just parroting. Of course, this is stuff we’ve all known for months but it’s like the MSM in Durham wanted to continue to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the living room.
This has got to signal some kind of turning tide. Next thing, the N&O might actually wonder why the police never arrested the bald cop in the restaurant employee assault case in Raleigh.
I just look at that reporting and on the one hand wonder why it’s been so long in coming but on the other thank goodness that it finally has. Could this be the beginning of the end of this travesty?
(The original?) Greg
Comment by Greg — 08.06.06 @ 1:48 pm
Seahawk,
I can assure you that Brodhead know how much he screwed up, he only has to look at Alumni donations to see his handy work. Friends of Duke, the blog, are not going to let him off. I predict a short tenure for him.
Perhaps he could return to Yale, or isn’t Havard still looking for a President? Brodhead should take his Yankee PC *ss back up North.
You know why Yankees are like hemmoroids? The good ones come down and go back up, the bad one stay down. Kemp
Comment by kemperman — 08.06.06 @ 1:54 pm
To the original Greg:
Done! Glad to be here. I hadn’t picked up on your previous posts (& name) until after I posted. You *are* the original (on this board.)
I am interested in learning if the student body is willing to vote for ABN in November.
Any student comments?
Comment by Greg T — 08.07.06 @ 8:42 am
Message to Brodhead :
1) When you do something wrong, apologize. (People are very forgiving.)
2) If your actions have caused anyone any harm, then do all in your power to make it right. (If this means giving another speech at NCCU, then do it.)
3) Don’t let your life’s decisions be governed by fear of lawsuits. This hardly ever leads to making the right moral choices.
4) Recall Pressler and double his salary.
Simple. (There really are simple answers when
you let morality be your guide. The results may be difficult to live with, but you’ll have the inner consolation that what you did was right, not expedient. And as you grow older, that will be a welcome comfort.)
Comment by Seahawk — 08.07.06 @ 9:36 am
Greg T, I haven’t seen a lot of Duke students posting on here. Kemperman might have some insight on that as I think his kid attends Duke. I’m not sure that the student population of Duke (what, maybe 4-5,000?) can swing an election in Durham, though.
This will basically be a referendum on Nifong (kind of like a recall election) and there’ll either be a groundswell of support by the permanent residents of Durham to get someone else or Nifong will be elected.
P.S. Thanks for adding the last initial. You don’t want to be confused with rabble like me. I’m the Greg who recently got banned from Court TV’s message board for referencing possibly the most famous line from Ghostbusters, where Bill Murray’s character says, “Yes, it’s true — this man has no (rhymes with kick).”
Comment by Greg — 08.07.06 @ 10:37 am
Oh come on Greg, we both know there’s a better line
“I’m a little fuzzy on the good/bad thing”
“Every molecule in your body would explode at the speed of light”
“Right, so…important safety tip, don’t cross the streams”
Comment by John — 08.07.06 @ 12:37 pm
Seahawk,
62,000 folks voted in 2002 in Durham Co. in the US House race. The Democrat won 46K to 16K. Since Nifungu will be running against another Democrat listed as an Independant, the stright ticket Black vote will go for Nifungu. Cheek has an uphill climb and he is not even campaigning.
I would expect at the most perhaps 2,000 to 3,000 students registering. There are about 6,000 undergrads and about the same number of graduate school students. How much excitement can be generated in the fall, FOOTBALL season, is hard to judge. As Tatercon knows, Duke’s powerhouse football team is slated to win at least one game again this year, hopefully it will be against the Tarpoots, after they shamefully stole the game last year with blind refs. It’s at Duke this year.
So 5% of the vote could come from the students. Unless something stirs up the voters, I see little chance of beating Nifungu. Maybe after the election, he will amazingly see that he has no case and drop the whole thing. He’s such a slim ball, nothing would surprize me. Kemp
Comment by kemperman — 08.07.06 @ 2:35 pm
Nifong may get out of this if he wins the election.
As DA he’ll have the weight of his elected office to slime his way out of any charges brought against him for helping to create this false rape accusation.
I would have to disagree with kempermen. Yes Nifong is a slime ball, but I believe he’d send these boys to prison for the next 20 years and have them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Nifong doesn’t lack integrity, justice, or honesty, he never heard of it.
They’re innocent!
Comment by Betty Friedan — 08.07.06 @ 2:54 pm
These people welcome your cards and letters if you think there is something amiss somewhere in a judicial system somewhere in the USA (write them your thoughts) :
Department of Justice
Criminal Division
Chief, Public Integrity Section
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Comment by Seahawk — 08.07.06 @ 2:55 pm
Well John, OK, I’ll concede that one was good, too. But mine fit the context of the discussion. Personally, if there was a movie about this case, I would think the guy who played the EPA inspector in Ghostbusters could do a very good Nifong. In fact, I think Nifong has molded his public persona on that character from Ghostbusters. Anyway, not to take this discussion too far adrift …
But speaking of whether or not Nifong would let these guys rot in jail over these charges, there’s a small part of me that thinks he actually believes his own hype. I think he was basically convinced off the bat based on his personal biases (against athletes? against people from privileged backgrounds? against folks from Duke?) that these players must be guilty From there it was just a matter of figuring out how to prove their obvious guilt.
Note, he didn’t want to know (and this was in one of the articles that I think was linked) what the AV was doing prior to the party that evening in order to know whether she was being truthful. Instead, he wanted to know it in order to win the case.
It’s kind of a situation of tunnel vision. He made up his mind and now evidence falls into one of 3 categories: it either supports his view; it is ambiguous; or it doesn’t support his case. Anything ambiguous, he’ll construe as being consistent with his view and anything inconsistent he’ll construe as unimportant — the DNA testing for example.
My guess is he makes snap judgments about things based on his predispositions and then rigidly holds onto those views even in the face of staggering evidence to the contrary. Where I come from, we call such folks idiots.
Comment by Greg — 08.07.06 @ 6:00 pm
Back! Back! Back in the USA
Oh yeah… Gotta stay on topic.
With reference to your earlier post, La Shawn, I don’t like Nifong either. I’m just wondering why is it that he looks like a stand-in for Slick Willy? He must have read that yeller “Dress To Succeed For Dummies” book by Bubba
Ciao…
Comment by Andy — 08.07.06 @ 9:24 pm
Hi La Shawn,
I love your blog…it is one of my new favorites.
Anyway…I believe that Cash Michaels is answering questions about the $ 2 miiiiiillion hush money claim on the WTVD11 Forum.
http://forums.go.com/abclocal/WTVD/thread?threadID=126073
Thought you might be interested!
~krddurham
Comment by krddurham — 08.08.06 @ 1:22 am
Whoops…wrong link.
Try this one…
link
Comment by krddurham — 08.08.06 @ 1:25 am
Re: #44/43
Krddurham, thanks for the link. I’ve been reading this thread since 8:00 a.m. this morning…
I eagerly await Cash Michaels reply, as he was the originator of the post. The replies he’s received thus far are respectful, factual, LOGICAL, and well written.
I look forward to reading more. Thanks again for the link…
Comment by Tate — 08.08.06 @ 9:23 am
Meanwhile, it seems a woman in Durham has made a false rape claim :
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-759259.html
DURHAM — A Durham woman was arrested for falsely accusing a man of rape, according to arrest warrants.
This claim was made April 24th, which is about the same time as the lacrosse charges were made.
Who were the detectives who first questioned her?
Was she taken to Duke Hospital?
Was news about this charge held up until now because it might have reflected badly on the lacrosse prosecution?
A comparison with the way the lacrosse case was handled might be interesting.
His bond was set at $100,000, warrants said.
That’s $300,000 less than the players’ bail.
Marshall was charged with one count of making a false police report, a Class 2 misdemeanor punishable by 30 days of community service up to a $1,000 fine.
Is this only a misdemeanor in N.Carolina? Is this all the AV is facing?
And the MAX sentence is a fine and community service? Finnerty got more than that in DC and all he did was yell at someone. This woman threatened to put a man in prison and ruin his life. (Ain’t justice wonderful?)
Comment by Seahawk — 08.08.06 @ 11:35 am
“Finnerty got more than that in DC and all he did was yell at someone.”
And throw fake punches (which is good enough to meet the legal requirements for assault) and shove someone.
He was guilty.
Comment by tvd — 08.08.06 @ 11:54 am
And throw fake punches (which is good enough to meet the legal requirements for assault) and shove someone.
We don’t actually know, because others testified that he didn’t throw any fake punches; that he was punched in the back of the head and knocked down, and then the two yelled at each other.
The only indepedent witness (the bartender/bouncer) started to testify and then the judge called both counsel to the bench, and after that the witness was dismissed. (Was he threatened with losing his lisence for selling alcohol to minors, if he continued?) At any rate, with his testimony excluded–and since he was a defense witness, his story probably wouldn’t have helped the prosecution–there was only a “he-said she-said” account.
The judge accepted the version which said that the “victims” never yelled or did anything in the least provacative. (That in itself sounds suspicious.) He also in effect accused the defense counsel of being a liar when he told the judge that Finnerty hadn’t even been in DC at the time of the wonkette incident. (bias?)
Then Finnerty got his sentence. In 2002, a drunken student killed another with a punch, and got off with writing a ten-page paper. On the day of Finnerty’s trial, a man had his throat slashed in the area and his wife was raped, and a Crime Emergency was declared in DC.
Yet three US attorneys (2 and one supervisor), and an enormous array of support personal and investigators (see the US attorney’s press release about this) conducted a two-day trial for a student misdemeanor. (Everybody but the US Marine Corps seems to have been involved in the investigation.)
Does that pass the smell test? Equal justice? Fair and unbiased court? Or railroad job?
Comment by Seahawk — 08.08.06 @ 1:10 pm
“We don’t actually know, because others testified that he didn’t throw any fake punches; that he was punched in the back of the head and knocked down, and then the two yelled at each other.”
Ugh. No, we don’t actually *know* because we weren’t eyewitnesses.
You haven’t provided any evidence of bias. The judge is entitled to believe the most credible evidence, but is not required to hold out for perfect evidence before convicting. That’s never been what “reasonable doubt” means (although the standard for misdemeanors may be different).
“The judge accepted the version which said that the “victims†never yelled or did anything in the least provacative. (That in itself sounds suspicious.) ”
In a he-said, she-said case, you have to pick a side in order to adjudicate the debate.
“He also in effect accused the defense counsel of being a liar when he told the judge that Finnerty hadn’t even been in DC at the time of the wonkette incident. (bias?)”
If Finnerty wasn’t in DC at the time, isn’t that just a fact?
“Then Finnerty got his sentence. In 2002, a drunken student killed another with a punch, and got off with writing a ten-page paper. On the day of Finnerty’s trial, a man had his throat slashed in the area and his wife was raped, and a Crime Emergency was declared in DC.”
Two red herrings.
“Yet three US attorneys (2 and one supervisor), and an enormous array of support personal and investigators (see the US attorney’s press release about this) conducted a two-day trial for a student misdemeanor. (Everybody but the US Marine Corps seems to have been involved in the investigation.)
Does that pass the smell test?”
It smells like a highly publicized case, not a biased court. What’s a preferable result? A court, when faced with conflicting evidence, should just decline to convict? I mean, really.
I don’t have a dictionary handy, but I don’t think “biased” means “didn’t reach the result you wanted.”
Comment by tvd — 08.08.06 @ 2:09 pm
#49
There is a pattern of intimidation in the Durham case–the conviction secured for Evans for noise violation (on the exact same evidence which acquitted another student charged)–after Nifong went judge shopping.
The arrest of nearly all of the AV’s circle –her boyfriend, her girlfriend, the taxi driver (whose immigrant status could then be called into question),the daughter of the chief of police, etc. These arrests keep witnesses “in line”; most of them have arrest records already and the disposition of their cases rests with the DA.
(Durham admits to more than 10,000 unserved warrants; but suddenly the cabbie gets arrested on an expired warrant, by the two lead detectives in the rape case?)
A conviction secured for Finnerty fits the pattern, so that now another player has a conviction.
Then there is the extraordinary attention paid to this case–
(from the US attorney’s press release) :
(US Attorney Wainstein) also commended (for their work in the Finnerty case)… specifically Investigator Melissa Matthews and Special Agent Alan McDonald of the United States Secret Service. Mr. Wainstein also acknowledged Ray McCallister, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Intelligence Unit, Jennifer Clark and Dr. Lorraine Chase of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Victim/Witness Assistance Unit, Assistant United States Attorneys Elizabeth Trosman, David Goodhand, Tom Tourish, Roy McCleese and Valinda Jones of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Appellate Division, Litigation Support Technician Ronald Royal, Support Staff members Shirrell Jackson and Agnes Heard, and Legal Intern Anna Scanlon, for their invaluable work and support on this case. Finally, Mr. Wainstein praised the work of Special Assistant United States Attorney O. Benton Curtis, who investigated the case, and Assistant United States Attorneys George Varghese and Rhonda Redwood who prosecuted the case.
All of this for a student misdemeanor?
And this came after the DNA results were in; which means that the rape charge against the players was absolutely disproven (none of the three had sex with the AV). Yet Finnerty’s diversion agreement was revoked by DC over that false charge. And instead of reinstating it, DC still insisted upon a trial.
So DC cooperated with Duram. And they did this when they knew that the players were innocent. That makes them accomplices to Nifong.
Intimidation–even if done by a judge–is a felony. Pre-judging a case before it is heard
is judicial misconduct. Spending an immense amount of resources over a scuffle in which even the prosecution admits that the defendant never actually struck anyone, is a waste of taxpayer money.
Anyone upset with how their federal tax dollars are spent or how the DC attorney’s office is using (misuing) its resources; or disatisfied with the entire judicial procedure in Washington, can express their misgivings to their appropriate representatives, or to the DOJ, which has a special section devoted to “Public Integrity”–that is, the misconduct of public officials, whose actions cause the public to lose faith in the workings of the system.
Comment by Seahawk — 08.08.06 @ 3:15 pm
“A conviction secured for Finnerty fits the pattern, so that now another player has a conviction.”
It’s not a “pattern” to be fit. Even if there was a pattern, Finnerty was found guilty in a court of law on perfectly reasonable evidence. What possible reason is there for exonerating a guilty defendant who may or may not have been intimidated pursuant to an unrelated matter?
“All of this for a student misdemeanor?”
Probably better to have more people than less for a highly publicized case, just for general CYA purposes, and so that any biases would balance themselves out. The question is whether this is excessive for what is basically a celebrity case–is it unusual for a highly publicized matter? I suspect not, but I’m willing to listen to a fact-based argument.
“And this came after the DNA results were in; which means that the rape charge against the players was absolutely disproven (none of the three had sex with the AV).”
It’s not absolutely disproven. There’s some evidence going the other way, quite a bit, but testimonial evidence standing alone is sufficient to convict in a rape case. Until the trial, nothing has been proven or disproven, because the most crucial piece of evidence–AV’s testimony–has not been presented to the finder of fact yet.
“So DC cooperated with Duram. And they did this when they knew that the players were innocent.”
Again, no one *knows* that the players are innocent, and for the DC to proceed on that assumption would be an ethical violation and judicial misconduct.
“Spending an immense amount of resources over a scuffle in which even the prosecution admits that the defendant never actually struck anyone, is a waste of taxpayer money.”
Do you even know what assault is? It may or may not be a waste of money (again, let’s look at comparable high-profile cases), but Finnerty is guilty of assault here. Even conceding the other stuff, the legitimate prosecution and conviction of an assault case is hardly a pattern of intimidation. Is there somehow an “intimidation” exception for defendants convicted when they have a highly publicized trial pending?
Comment by tvd — 08.08.06 @ 3:33 pm
#51
Even if there was a pattern, Finnerty was found guilty in a court of law on perfectly reasonable evidence.
Only after the only independent testimony was barred by the judge.
Probably better to have more people than less for a highly publicized case, just for general CYA purposes
Does Congressman Kennedy get this kind of attention when he runs his car into a post?
Is it common to have the Secret Service called in when there is a student brawl? (Police report there are ten to twelve of these each night in Georgetown.) Are there any other examples of this kind of attention going to a student misdemeanor brawl?
It’s not absolutely disproven.
The lack of any of the accused’s DNA inside the AV proves beyond doubt that none of the three had sex with her. End of story.
There’s some evidence going the other way, quite a bit,
There is no evidence other than the AV’s accusation, and her photo ID (which was run 6 times before she finally got it right).
Until the trial, nothing has been proven or disproven, because the most crucial piece of evidence–AV’s testimony–has not been presented to the finder of fact yet.
Which version of the five versions she has given
is going to be presented?
Again, no one *knows* that the players are innocent, and for the DC to proceed on that assumption would be an ethical violation and judicial misconduct.
As it would be for DC to proceed on the assumption that Finnerty was guilty. He is presumed under our system to be innocent until proven otherwise; and it is that concept upon which DC should have acted (and at least deferred revoking his diversion agreement until the Durham charge was resolved).
Do you even know what assault is?
Is it like, when 6 off-duty drunken cops knock down a black guy and kick him in the head, and hurl racial epithets at him?
but Finnerty is guilty of assault here.
Not if he was struck first, and harasssed first first inside the eatery, and left to avoid further hassle. But that testimony wasn’t allowed to be entered into evidence.
Comment by Seahawk — 08.08.06 @ 3:52 pm
Great debate, fellas…
And the winna? Seahawk, by a mile!
Comment by Tate — 08.08.06 @ 5:24 pm
Oh, tvd, c’mon. No one *knows* that the players are innocent? Maybe that’s literally true but it’s also irrelevant.
While I suppose it’s remotely possible that SF&E did what they’ve been accused of, it’s very unlikely and that’s a far cry from the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has to prove.
And I’m not relying on defense “spin” for that. Follow the links under “That Motion” that La Shawn has filed under the Duke Lacrosse Case. Documentation obtained from the prosecution and police show that these allegations are almost certainly a fabrication of the AV.
Go ahead. Follow the links. Look at the statement from the driver. Look at the statement from the second dancer. Look at the statements from the various officers. Look at how dubious the lineups were. Contrast that with the fact that an allegedly violent sexual assault of 30 minutes duration left absolutely no DNA from the attackers on the AV’s person (notwithstanding semen from her boyfriend was present) and you cannot seriously tell me that we don’t *know* these lacrosse players are innocent.
Comment by Greg — 08.08.06 @ 5:25 pm
“Only after the only independent testimony was barred by the judge.”
For what reason? There’s a difference between independent and reliable.
“Does Congressman Kennedy get this kind of attention when he runs his car into a post?”
That’s not a violent crime, is it? I’d be willing to bet that Cynthia McKinney’s assault case got as much or more attention, and that’s probably a more accurate comparison.
“Is it common to have the Secret Service called in when there is a student brawl? (Police report there are ten to twelve of these each night in Georgetown.) Are there any other examples of this kind of attention going to a student misdemeanor brawl?”
Key’s whether it’s a high-profile case or not, not whether it is more or less publicized than a typical student brawl. You’re evading that point, which is central to my argument. Any athlete’s behavior will receive more attention. People we know–through athletics or any sort of general notoriety–get more ink than people we don’t.
“The lack of any of the accused’s DNA inside the AV proves beyond doubt that none of the three had sex with her. End of story.”
That’s just not true. You can prove intercourse without DNA through eyewitness testimony. The evidence presented so far should at least get the prosecution to trial, and the defense knows it.
“There is no evidence other than the AV’s accusation, and her photo ID (which was run 6 times before she finally got it right).”
Which is, for better or worse, enough to convict, if the jury is convinced, and if the AV’s story is more credible than those of the accused/other witnesses. That isn’t a question for you or me: I don’t think they *will* be convicted, but a weak case is not *no* case, and we should let the system take its course. Rule of law and all that.
“As it would be for DC to proceed on the assumption that Finnerty was guilty. He is presumed under our system to be innocent until proven otherwise; and it is that concept upon which DC should have acted”
The court did act on that assumption: the state proved its case, and Finnerty was convicted.
“Is it like, when 6 off-duty drunken cops knock down a black guy and kick him in the head, and hurl racial epithets at him?”
That’s a fun comment.
Even one fake-punch is enough for assault, given the right circumstances.
“Not if he was struck first, and harasssed first first inside the eatery, and left to avoid further hassle.”
Sure. But that’s not what the judge, applying the rule of law, found.
“But that testimony wasn’t allowed to be entered into evidence.”
Nope. But why was the judge wrong for excluding it?
Comment by tvd — 08.08.06 @ 5:32 pm
“Go ahead. Follow the links. Look at the statement from the driver. Look at the statement from the second dancer. Look at the statements from the various officers. Look at how dubious the lineups were. Contrast that with the fact that an allegedly violent sexual assault of 30 minutes duration left absolutely no DNA from the attackers on the AV’s person (notwithstanding semen from her boyfriend was present) and you cannot seriously tell me that we don’t *know* these lacrosse players are innocent.”
Look, I’m convinced that this is a weak case. However, the proper forum for this sort of thing is at a trial. If the state can’t prove its case, then that’s that.
My position on the case as a whole is that we need impartial findings of fact of the sort that only trial can provide. Too much partisanship, and too many people with dogs in the fight are deliberately muddying the waters.
No one should get to short-circuit the process if the prosecution has presented enough evidence to get to trial. I would prefer the boys not be convicted, in strict point of fact, but the law is what it is, and they haven’t presented enough evidence to keep them from trial. I’m not arguing for the boys’ guilt, I’m arguing that they don’t get to ignore a key piece of evidence (AV’s testimony) and go scot-free. There are all sorts of flaws to the evidence, but a jury of people just as smart as you or I can figure out those flaws. To pretend otherwise displays paranoia and distrust for the common man.
Comment by tvd — 08.08.06 @ 5:43 pm
It occurs to me that the people who argue that the lacrosse players might very well have done “something bad in that house” have completely overlooked the prosecution’s burden of proof. The prosecution’s burden is not to prove guilt beyond any doubt but to prove it beyond any *reasonable* doubt. That is to say there could be some minute doubt of guilt but if if it’s nothing reasonably plausible in support of a non-guilty verdict, you still convict.
It’s funny how those who support the prosecution can only muster talking in terms of the “possible” or “plausible” rather than the probable. I would venture to state that the evidence is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the players are innocent, not guilty. In other words, I don’t think that anyone can reasonably doubt the innocence of these guys.
Is it theoretically possible that there was a sexual assault at that house? Maybe remotely. But it’s simply not reasonably plausible given the lack of DNA left behind by any of 3 (or 5 or 20) alleged attackers. And even less reasonably plausible that these particular three guys would have been the perpetrators — even if you indulge the fantasy that an assault took place.
There’s more evidence of innocence than I’ve detailed above, but that makes it clear enough. There’s no reasonable doubt in this case. No reason to doubt these guys are innocent, that is.
Comment by Greg — 08.08.06 @ 5:52 pm
TVD, I’m not sure the prosecution has presented enough evidence to get to trial. Getting an indictment isn’t the same thing as getting a case before a jury. The standard to indict is obviously very much less than the standard to convict.
Isn’t there some mechanism in No. Carolina by which the defense can move for the criminal equivalent of a summary judgment? Short-circuit the process to avert needless expenditures of time and money in defending a frivolous prosecution? Submit your affidavits, make the prosecutor produce his evidence and let a judge decide whether any reasonable jury could find the defendants guilty. Anyone know whether such a procedural mechanism exists?
Comment by Greg — 08.08.06 @ 6:06 pm
#55
For what reason? There’s a difference between independent and reliable.
And on what basis does the judge decide that a man who witnessed an event is unreliable? And is that why his testimony was barred? (He could at least have heard the testimony; he was not obliged to accept it.)
That’s not a violent crime, is it?
It’s a “notorious” crime, i.e., high profile and one by a celebrity. And Kennedy’s driving endangered the public far more than Finnerty’s supposed shadow punches.
I’d be willing to bet that Cynthia McKinney’s assault case got as much or more attention, and that’s probably a more accurate comparison.
Cynthia McKinney was not prosecuted.
Key’s whether it’s a high-profile case or not, not whether it is more or less publicized than a typical student brawl. You’re evading that point, which is central to my argument. Any athlete’s behavior will receive more attention. People we know–through athletics or any sort of general notoriety–get more ink than people we don’t.
So why should they have less justice? Justice should be blind, not aware that someone is an athlete and someone isn’t. And besides, this has to do with the Durham connection, not athletics.
And if Bayly didn’t know, with his years of experience, that Durham was a hoax, then he is less wise than we have a right to expect from a judge.
That’s just not true. You can prove intercourse without DNA through eyewitness testimony.
But you cannot have intercourse without there being DNA inside the victim. No DNA=no intercourse. (Otherwise, all those persons who are now being released from prison because their DNA was not found inside the victim, but someone else’s DNA was, should be sent right back to prison.)
a weak case is not *no* case, and we should let the system take its course. Rule of law and all that.
The “system” should have had the DA examine the exculpatory evidence before he made charges. The “system” should have had Judge Stephens dismiss the warrants he signed, because they were based on false information. The “system” should quash the flawed IDs. But in Durham, the “system” isn’t working.
The court did act on that assumption: the state proved its case, and Finnerty was convicted.
The state should never have revoked Finnerty’s diversion agreement until it knew whether or not he was in violation of it. Therefore it was the state which broke the agreement it had with Finnerty–not to revoke the agreement unless there had actually been a violation.
The state acted without proper cause, and its actions thereafter (in demanding a trial) are therefore in error.
Even one fake-punch is enough for assault, given the right circumstances.
What were the circumstances here? We weren’t allowed to find out. The judge was not acting as a neutral referee, but as a partisan on behalf of the prosecution.
But that’s not what the judge, applying the rule of law, found.
The judge did not listen to the evidence. He found what he wanted to find. His use of the Wonkette item and his disparaging remark questioning the veracity of the defense lawyer (an insult in or out of court) shows his state of mind.
Nope. But why was the judge wrong for excluding it?
Why should he exclude any evidence which might help him find out the truth? Unless he knows how he is going to decide already.
Comment by Seahawk — 08.08.06 @ 6:19 pm
#56
Look, I’m convinced that this is a weak case. However, the proper forum for this sort of thing is at a trial. If the state can’t prove its case, then that’s that.
Sorry, but making an accusation is not sufficient to require a trial. And that’s all we have in this case. No one has the right to demand a trial merely because he/she makes a charge.
My position on the case as a whole is that we need impartial findings of fact of the sort that only trial can provide.
We already have impartial scientific evidence in the DNA results. People are being released from prison or cleared of charges all the time now because of this neutral, scientific evidence.
No one should get to short-circuit the process if the prosecution has presented enough evidence to get to trial.
Nifong short-circuited it when he refused to look at exculpatory evidence. That was the first deviation from normal procedure, the first contamination of the process.
and they haven’t presented enough evidence to keep them from trial.
They don’t have to present ANY evidence; the state has to present enough to convict them beyond reasonable doubt. And the accusation of the accuser is not enough to even go to trial. Beyond that, there is simply no other evidence.
I’m not arguing for the boys’ guilt, I’m arguing that they don’t get to ignore a key piece of evidence (AV’s testimony) and go scot-free.
It’s the only evidence; and there are five versions of it (at least).
There are all sorts of flaws to the evidence, but a jury of people just as smart as you or I can figure out those flaws. To pretend otherwise displays paranoia and distrust for the common man.
Fine. Let them have a jury of their peers–their social and ethnic equals. That is the last defense against a runaway state/prosecutor. So hold this trial in a racially neutral area where the whiteness of the defendants is not a drawback, and let the jury be composed of people with at least a high-school education so that they can grasp the DNA and technical issues (and not merely be swamped by a bunch of hired experts from the prosecution).
A jury pre-disposed to convict “because of all that has gone on before”, and which hates Duke,
or which wants to “send a message”, is a corruption of the jury principle, the object of which is to provide the defendant with the best chance of saving his life, not the state with the best chance of conviction.
Comment by Seahawk — 08.08.06 @ 6:32 pm
This just in…….
She lied.
Comment by brian murphy — 08.08.06 @ 7:33 pm
Wow, Seahawk, I’m impressed. And I’m not easily impressed. Nice job. I wish I was that smart.
Comment by Greg — 08.09.06 @ 12:10 am
The evidence or lack of evidence supports point A. Many people are making fools of themselves by overstating the case, arguing point B, C, and D, and advancing conspiracy theories since they want to believe, fall for all or nothing, and the halo effect (person A is bad/wrong so everything they do is bad/wrong).
Comment by UNK — 08.09.06 @ 11:51 am
RE: #56 The problem with tvd’s arguments about needing a trial is that to wait for a trial, these boys must sit on pins and needles for nearly a full year until they know their fate–simply based on one apparently non-credible accuser’s word. As I understand it, two of the three defendants are suspended from Duke until they are cleared either through dropped charges or the trial. In addition, this less-than-credible accusation cost one defendant his civil rights in another D.C. case. Is it possible that a judge cannot believe this D.A. could be somewhat corrupt in using this case to assure his election victory? If Congressmen, Senators, and even President’s violate ethics and the law to get re-elected, might it be remotely possible that a local a D.A. could pull this also? In my state a local DA just got sent away for 4 years for doing less than this. I think people like to believe that DA’s are honest, justice-seeking folks that protect us from criminals…but in fact DA’s are first politicians…yes, politicians…enough said.
One more point: At this party there were 40 young men drinking copious quantities of beer for number of hours. Trust me–if one of the two bathrooms was tied up for 30+ minutes…someone would certainly have remembered that!!
Comment by Cheesehead — 08.09.06 @ 12:39 pm
“The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim.â€
–DA Mike Nifong
The State Bureau of Investigation delivered the long-awaited DNA results to Nifong Monday afternoon. Less than two hours later, Raleigh defense attorney Wade Smith, after reviewing the results, said he hoped Nifong would consider dropping the case.“No DNA material from any young man tested was present on the body of this complaining woman, not present within her body, not present on the surface of her body and not present on any of her belongings,” Smith said in a prepared statement.
Comment by Seahawk — 08.09.06 @ 1:26 pm
“Is it possible that a judge cannot believe this D.A. could be somewhat corrupt in using this case to assure his election victory?”
Yes.
Since there is NO money or NO conspirators in Nifong’s alleged corruption, it’s bloody impossible to prove corruption instead of just bad judgment.
Comment by UNK — 08.09.06 @ 2:07 pm
Since there is NO money or NO conspirators in Nifong’s alleged corruption, it’s bloody impossible to prove corruption instead of just bad judgment.
Since the wealthiest of the players were the ones charged, and since Matt Zash, whose family IIRC are firefighters (with no money) was not charged, even though perhaps a better case might have been made against him, I think it is pardonable if I think that perhaps money was indeed a factor in this.
Comment by Seahawk — 08.09.06 @ 2:27 pm
One more point: At this party there were 40 young men drinking copious quantities of beer for number of hours. Trust me–if one of the two bathrooms was tied up for 30+ minutes…someone would certainly have remembered that!!
Comment by Cheesehead
Cheese, you’re the first I’ve seen to make that point. It would be a valid one, too, if there were females waiting on the bathroom. But 40 males would just go outside to the backyard to sprinkle all the bushes. And not a one of ‘em would think twice about why they’d done it that way…. it’s a guy thing, I reckon.
Comment by TaterCon — 08.09.06 @ 9:01 pm
RE: #68…I did consider that TaterCon…but then I have not been aware of any reports by the neighbor-witnesses commenting about lots of these guys using the back yard as a bathroom.
But my point was given the urgent need for two bathrooms, that at least one of the guys would have recalled, during the investigation, that the bathroom was locked for over 30 minutes…unless we subscribe to the theory that the entire team is covering this up….which I do not believe is the case.
Comment by Cheesehead — 08.10.06 @ 10:09 am
Hi La Shawn!
Tension? Between you and Cash? Who’d a thunk it?From this link:
http://forums.go.com/abclocal/WTVD/thread?start=30&threadID=126115
you’ll find this:
As for Sowell, LaShawn Barber and other Black conservatives, there has always been a palpable tension there, and will continue to be. I could write a multi-volume book why, but i don’t want to get into that here for the sake of brevity. They’re free to speak, and we’re free to tell them to shut up. Simple. Posted: 8/08/06 4:02 PM
See, also, my blog, for my take.
You rule.
Comment by NDLax84 — 08.10.06 @ 3:33 pm
Cheesehead,
It was close to midnight. Everyone in Durham, not hiring ‘ho’s, was asleep. They wouldn’t be looking out their windows to see if college kids were taking a leak on a street with mostly rental houses filled with COLLEGE KIDS! This is not rocket science here, guys pee outside.
Comment by kemperman — 08.10.06 @ 3:39 pm
Kemp at #71, don’t forget the neighbor was out and about and evidently paying close attention to all the goings on next door. His affidavit is linked somewhere. He knew what time the dancers arrived. Heard them getting their “show” figured out before they went in to dance. He heard the guys bargaining with them. He heard the racial slurs. He knew they were drinking all afternoon. And the one detail that evidently completely escaped his attention was that 30 guys were evacuating their bladders in the neighboring lawn while the dancers were inside. I think cheesehead has a point.
Comment by Greg — 08.10.06 @ 6:15 pm
Greg,
This is Durham, one of two possiblities, the first, this guy is a loser trying to get a little fame, when you read his account I think this is a good possiblity or second, more likely, no one in durham notices guys peeing outside at midnight or would think to say anything about that, he was probably outside peeing when he heard the ‘hos talking. Durham, arm pit of the state. Without Duke this town would be declared a disaster area
Comment by kemperman — 08.10.06 @ 6:35 pm
RE; #71. My point Kemperman, was not that these guys weren’t using the back yard to relieve themselves–although there is no report of that–but that at least some of the 40 boys…most with full bladders…would have certainly recalled if one of the bathrooms had been cut off for over 30 minutes. You make it sound like men pee outside almost exclusively! Most of these guys came from well-to-do families and my guess is that most had bathrooms in the house growing up…and their first choice for relieving themselves would have been a bathroom…one of which was allegedly locked for over 30 minutes. In fact, that’s the kind of stuff that starts fights among young men full of alcohol and testosterone!
Comment by Cheesehead — 08.11.06 @ 11:53 am
It’s been my experience drunk jocks, rich or not, pee where they want to. You’re right they did notice the bathroom locked, and that is why they were pissed, Cyrstal was in there and not out there dancing. That is why they cussed her, she was so screwed up she couldn’t dance, remember the flexitrol she took?
Comment by kemperman — 08.11.06 @ 12:26 pm
RE: #75. I was a college athlete for 4 years–which I guess makes me a “hooligan”. I had attended lots of parties with athletes (football and track)….I do not ever recall either myself or others going everywhere and anywhere as you suggest…other than a bathroom….
As for the accuser’s condition, I have not seen any info on any of the boys admitting to giving her any drugs nor have I read anything on the toxicology test results, so I can’t speak to that.
What evidence can you share about these toxicology test results indicating she had taken/been given any kind of drug?
Comment by Cheesehead — 08.11.06 @ 2:53 pm
Cheesehead, the accuser told some of her medical providers that she had taken Flexeril in addition to drinking. I believe she left out the admission re: Flexeril when speaking with other medical providers, and frequently changed her story about just how much she had been drinking. Basically, her story was different every time she told it, and in at least some of the versions, she said she had taken both Flexeril and alcohol.
Comment by jc — 08.11.06 @ 3:22 pm
But no toxicology tests were performed on the accuser, apparently.
Comment by jc — 08.11.06 @ 3:24 pm
Kemp, I think you are absolutely right in terms of your assessment of the overly dramatic next-door neighbor (probably a writer wannabe). But he was very precise in his details of what had gone on. I rather expect if he’d seen the lacrosse guys picking their noses, he’d have written it into his account. I reckon that if the players would have gone out to relieve themselves, he’d have observed it and documented it in his affidavit. The fact it isn’t mentioned tells me the boys were never locked out of the bathroom for any length of time. Certainly not half an hour.
Cheers,
Greg
P.S. La Shawn doesn’t like the word “p!$$ed”. Just FYI.
Comment by Greg — 08.11.06 @ 3:34 pm
tvd said: “Do you even know what assault is? It may or may not be a waste of money (again, let’s look at comparable high-profile cases), but Finnerty is guilty of assault here. Even conceding the other stuff, the legitimate prosecution and conviction of an assault case is hardly a pattern of intimidation. Is there somehow an “intimidation†exception for defendants convicted when they have a highly publicized trial pending”
SteveDinMD: Legally defined, “assault” is the placing of another in immediate apprehension for his or her physical safety. It includes the expectation that one is about to be physically injured. According to the least favorable testimony against Mr. Finnerty, it was alleged that he was throwing “fake punches” toward his accuser, and that he was being verbally abusive. Verbal abuse is generally considered “free speech,” protected in accordance with the First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. If the alleged punches were known to the accuser to be fake, then they fail to rise to the standard of causing “apprehension.” Finnerty should therefore have been acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.
Was the prosecution legitimate? In a technical sense it probably was because revocation of a diversion agreement is at the sole discretion of the prosecutor. From a public policy standpoint, however, it was ill advised since its effect was to punish Mr. Finnerty for having been the victim of a false criminal accusation and malicious prosecution in Durham, NC. The D.C. prosecutors should be ashamed of themselves. Seeing this travesty, if I were the President I would wait a few months then dismiss the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Unjust prosecutors should never be tolerated.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 08.12.06 @ 1:56 pm
tvd said: “Look, I’m convinced that this is a weak case. However, the proper forum for this sort of thing is at a trial. If the state can’t prove its case, then that’s that.”
SteveDinMD: I take it, then, that you endorse both the process and findings of “fact” in the Scottsboro case. Is that correct?
Comment by SteveDinMD — 08.12.06 @ 2:03 pm
Greg said: “Isn’t there some mechanism in No. Carolina by which the defense can move for the criminal equivalent of a summary judgment? Short-circuit the process to avert needless expenditures of time and money in defending a frivolous prosecution? Submit your affidavits, make the prosecutor produce his evidence and let a judge decide whether any reasonable jury could find the defendants guilty. Anyone know whether such a procedural mechanism exists?”
SteveDinMD: The procedural mechanism would be a hearing or hearings on admissability of evidence. At some point I expect the defense to file a motion to hold the photo array identification of the accused to be inadmissable. I would suggest they also move to hold in-court identification by the accuser to be inadmissable, as well, since she has demonstrated absolutely NO independent ability to identify anyone in this case. Assuming these two motions are granted, the judge could be expected to grant a third motion by the defense to dismiss all charges, since there would then be ZERO evidence (dubious or otherwise) against the accused.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 08.12.06 @ 2:15 pm
Seahawk said: “Since the wealthiest of the players were the ones charged, and since Matt Zash, whose family IIRC are firefighters (with no money) was not charged, even though perhaps a better case might have been made against him, I think it is pardonable if I think that perhaps money was indeed a factor in this.”
SteveDinMD: Actually, it would have made better strategic sense to rather have accused the player from the LEAST wealthy families. They would have been the easiest to have convicted since they would have been extremely limited in mounting their legal defense. It would have better served the interests of the False Accuser, as well. Her best chance for a payday would be in filing suit against Duke Universtity, since none of the players — even those from wealthy families — likely owns much himself, and criminal convictions would be the surest route to proving civil liability.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 08.12.06 @ 2:28 pm
#80
From a public policy standpoint, however, it was ill advised since its effect was to punish Mr. Finnerty for having been the victim of a false criminal accusation and malicious prosecution in Durham, NC.
Since the Durham prosecutors seem to have done their utmost to get arrest, jail, or get convictions for everyone possible (the taxi driver, the AV’s ex-husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, Evans, the police chief’s daughter); one might be pardoned for assuming cooperation here between DC and Durham to achieve the same result for Finnerty.
And that would appear to rise to the level of something else :
“(Conspiracy) is generally established by a number of indefinite acts, each of which, standing alone, might have little weight. But taken collectively, they point unerringly to the existence of a conspiracy.”
If the Durham prosecution is malicious and part of a shakedown (of Duke, the players, or anyone else), then DC is now an accomplice to that.
if I were the President I would wait a few months then dismiss the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
There is a quicker remedy than that. DC is a federal jurisdiction. The President can simply commute or pardon the offense, wiping the conviction off the books as unjust.
Comment by Seahawk — 08.12.06 @ 2:59 pm
when you look at the statistics for the number of personnel engaged in prosecuting a case for the DC US attorney for July, 2006, you find the great majority of cases utilized the services of from 3-6 attorneys and staff.
This number does not include police officers involved in arrests, etc., but only those actually involved in the prosecution.
There are some cases which used more personnel; but the great majority fits into the 3-6 number.
These cases involve such crimes as carjacking, murder, rape, violent physical assault, theft, etc.
The OJ Simpson trial, by way of making another comparison, used a prosecution staff of three attorneys plus 10 more staff support and attorneys, for a total of 13. That case involved a lengthy jury trial and mountains of complex evidence, and they went up against the “dream team” for the defense.
The Finnerty trial was for a misdemeanor, and involved only, at most, an allegation of shadowboxing. For this, the DC attorney’s office felt it necessary for the prosecution to use a staff of 17 attorneys and support staff.
Congratulations therefore are due to the DC attorney’s office for setting a record in the allocation of resources for the prosecution of a misdemeanor, one which will be hard for any US attorney’s office in the future to excel. (Perhaps we ought to send them a Guinness World Record plaque. . .)
Comment by Seahawk — 08.14.06 @ 10:00 am
Seahawk, just for further illustration, I know someone who prosecutes misdemeanors in a Durham-sized community in the midwest. Some staffer will send out subpoenas but the volume of cases dictates that not a lot of staff is dedicated nor is there much time spent preparing. The attorney just walks in and tries the case with whatever witnesses respond to the subpoenas.
The Finnerty assault charge certainly didn’t warrant the resources that were expended on it and it definitely makes one wonder why Finnerty’s case was given all the extra attention and effort. Hmmmmmm. Conspiracy theorists might actually have something with this one.
Comment by Greg — 08.14.06 @ 12:47 pm
The Finnerty assault charge certainly didn’t warrant the resources that were expended
I’d like to know what Nifong and the DC attorneys said to each other in their telephone calls,
and what was said to Judge Bayly by the DC attorneys before the case (judicial misconduct?)
Comment by Seahawk — 08.14.06 @ 12:55 pm
Exactly so, Seahawk, exactly so. If there’s ever a civil case between the players and the city of Durham, I suppose phone records from Nifong’s office might be subpoenaed to see if the two offices ever had phone contact. Otherwise, we might never know. That’s one of the questions I’d love to have an answer to.
Comment by Greg — 08.14.06 @ 2:08 pm
Congratulations Seahawk on your incisive defense of Collin Finnerty. Collin is the youngest of the three accused and he is reported to be very hardly hit by his vicious treatment in Washington.Yours is only one of two detailed defenses that has been published.
Collin had his 20th birthday on August 10th and this is a bit of a present for him. I took the liberty of posting a cross-reference to your work on Collin’s page over at The Friends of Duke Lacrosse. The people there will certainly want to read your letters.
Sydney Carton
Comment by Sydney Carton — 08.14.06 @ 6:41 pm
greg,
Your right about the time, and Cheesehead, I suspect you were a jock a long time ago, times, unfortuately have changed. But these are nice kids and if they went outside, they would be discret, remember they already had a ticket at the house for loud parties. Check the old posts, my son told me the boys said Crystal showed up screwed up and the whole story is about her not working and the boys not paying. They assumed she would just go away,it never occurred to them she was CRAZY. The lesson here, why do you pay a hooker? Not for the sex, but for her to LEAVE.
Comment by kemperman — 08.14.06 @ 10:11 pm
More on the shakedown of defense witness ElMostafa:
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/471043.html
This is just ridiculous. Does Nifong not realize, that even if he intimidates ElMostafa into silence, there is still plenty of evidence to support Seligmann? Nifong can’t intimidate the ATM photos (showing Seligmann AND ElMostafa’s taxi) or dorm cards, can he?
Comment by jc — 08.15.06 @ 12:13 pm
From rape to armed robbery
Quis custodiet ipso custodies According to the criminal complaint, Dunsavage around 6 a.m. on July 15 was on duty in uniform and driving a marked unit when he conducted two traffic stops, Avello said. Dunsavage allegedly took both drivers’ wallets…
Trackback by Code Monkey Ramblings — 08.16.06 @ 4:24 pm
#91
shakedown of defense witness ElMostafa
Not only that, but the woman shoplifter, Lisa Hawkins, was arrested on July 9, after police conducted a warrantless search of her home (she was on probation), turned it upside down, and declared they had found “stolen goods”.
She has 127 prior arrests. She will now be dependent upon DA Nifong for the disposition of her case(s).
She will be under tremendous pressure to reach a deal and implicate Elmostafa. If Elmostafa has only a bench trial (no jury), from what we have seen of the relationships between the DA and the judiciary, his conviction may be considered a near-certainty.
Then in turn he will be pressured to change his testimony about Seligman.
Thus the blatant Durham witness intimidation continues unchecked.
Durham cannot reform itself. Only the immediate and highly visible presence of the FBI may work some changes.
FBI field office in N. Carolina :
charlotte.public@ic.fbi.gov
Submit a crime tip to the FBI :
https://tips.fbi.gov/
From the Dept. of Justice site :
“E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov.
Comment by Seahawk — 08.16.06 @ 6:20 pm