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.
{ 91 comments }
← Previous Comments
#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.
Great debate, fellas…
And the winna? Seahawk, by a mile!
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.
“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?
“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.
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.
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?
#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.
#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.
This just in…….
She lied.
Wow, Seahawk, I’m impressed. And I’m not easily impressed. Nice job. I wish I was that smart.
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).
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!!
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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?
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.
But no toxicology tests were performed on the accuser, apparently.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
#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.
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. . .)
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.
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?)
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.
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
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.
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?
#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.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }