http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/10/16/duke-rape-case/

I agree not much new in 60 Minutes, aside from video and pics of AV.

This is just a theory, and since it’s usually impossible to determine motives inside someone’s head –

But the more I think about it, I wonder if Nifong and even a third rate police department would think that forcing the AV to identify, after she was unable to do previously, mug shots with no absolutely innocent pics such as students not at the party – would in any way be acceptable.

Perhaps Nifong and the Police Deptment knew the line up was BS but did it 1) believing that a rape accured and 2) even if the AV did not/could not identify the right attackers – the boys would turn on each other and turn in the “real” rapist.

Then Nifong could be the hero for cracking the hate crime of the century.

Coleman actually said this right at the very start. He is the ONLY Duke law professor to speak up.

And so to all of the law faculty’s impressive list of awards, magna cum laude degrees, order of the coif, etc., I think there should now be added one more : the Order of the Towel–given for washing your hands of an innocent defendant when he is being threatened by a mob and when speaking out on his behalf would prove unpopular and career-threatening.
This award comes framed and can be proudly displayed in the Law School’s lobby or in the criminal law class, with suitable plaque.

I agree — about the only new thing to come out was the video of Sweet Precious dancing again two weeks after the Lacrosse House gig. One would think if she’s been so brutally traumatized at one dance gig, she wouldn’t be back at it two weeks later.

By the way, going by Watford’s anytime soon? I found the place a few weeks ago, but it was on a Sunday, and it wasn’t open. We’ve gone through the bottle you sent — best Q’d chicken we’ve grilled in a while!!

Tat

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140.shtml

Nifungu gets off more than he should, but he still looks like the ***hole he is, two weeks before the election. I wonder where is the outrage in the story? If this was a reverse, whites ganging up on blacks, do you think we’d see a little more outrage. Da Hu

We owe him (and 60 Minutes) a debt of gratitude for burnishing the stains off the shield of US justice (how’s that for a phrase?)

….on another note, I just finished reading an article by Susan Filan, a ’senior’ legal analyst for MSNBC, titled, “Defense in Duke Rape Case keeps on swinging.” I sit here absolutely stunned that a ’senior’ legal anaylyst…or senior anything, for that matter, could be so naive. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15238654/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140.shtml

I am pleasantly surprised that Bradley seems to have found the truth here, and shows courage to state the REAL facts plainly and directly. I can’t wait to see 60 Minutes (which I haven’t watched in a few years, btw).

I just wish someone in the MSM would add what to me is the most telling and outrageous aspect of the bogus ID lineup process used in this case: Not only is it unforgiveable to included no “filler” persons among the suspects, which means there can be no “wrong” answers, but how incredible is it that the investigator/lineup clown (Officer Gottlieb) actually TOLD the false accuser that he was only showing her suspects and so she KNEW there could be no wrong answer! (of course, the false accuser did still manage to mess up, identifying 4 guys instead of 3, but Gottlieb helped her move on from the 1 that he apparently knew was not a good defendant.) Bradley mentions the disgracefully wrong procedure used, but like everyone else seems to do, leaves out the most damning part of all…that the cops TOLD the false accuser that there were no fillers. To me, this additional fact points directly and clearly to a CONSCIOUS and INTENTIONAL frame job.

Not a lawyer, but I think Nifong is definitely a likely witness for several reasons, except that
but from the rules (http://www.ncbar.com/rules/rules.asp)it looks like a lawyer involved in a case usually doesn’t take the stand.
I assume that would likewise apply to a prosecutor; however, the judge may have some discretion in this matter and allow it for extraordinary circumstances.

Nifong may try to claim that since Gottlieb conducted the photo ID, Gottlieb is the one who ought to testify. Nifong and Gottlieb may then each try and blame each other for how the ID was conducted.

Q5

The judge may still allow an in-court ID by the alleged victim. IMHO he ought to rule that out also, as being by now impossibly tainted by publicity and the earlier bad photo ID. Whether he will or not depends upon (IMHO) his courage, integrity, and committment to a fair process for the accused.

Q1: If Nifong actually put himself in the place of the police personnel to conduct the ID session where the AV identified the alleged suspects, would that clearly make Nifong the ‘expert witness’ here on the ID issue?
Q2: If yes…that being the case, can the defense cross-examine Nifong during trial?
Q3: In my state, legal counsel or prosecutor cannot act in both capacities (witness and counsel), and would therefore need to recuse himself or not provide witness testimony. Is this true in NC as well?
Q4: So perhaps Nifong does not plan to put himself on the stand to testify. But then how does the defense get to cross examine the conductor of the process by which the ID was made? In NC, can the prosecutor say “here’s this evidence created by me, but you don’t get to examine where it came from in front of the jury, because I’m the prosecutor?
Q5: Based on my knowledge of this case, the ID seems to be the only ‘quasi-evidence’ that Nifong has. And if the ‘expert’ who conducted the line-up process cannot/will not testify, then would it not be required to be thrown out?

And if there is no ID at the trial….??

Thanks for any answers you can provide.

Seemed rather fair to me.

Unrelated – but yesterday, there were not one but TWO women in legal trouble for falsely reporting rape. Not that unusual – all you people including that one law professor, who think that women never lie about rape (or their age, lol) but it threw me off reading the news summary, since one was Ohio and the other in England – but Google combined them into one news summary – turned out they had the same last name. Davis.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/12/america/NA_GEN_US_Rape_Lie.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/6037701.stm

In addition to lying, I am open to the possibility that the AV in the Duke case was so out of it, unable to give here address or get herself home, that she was not lying, in intentionally telling a know falsehood, but has not grip on reality that night. – It was the psych ward admissions person who first brought up the subject of rape – put it in her mind.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15238767/

Kim Roberts, the second stripper in the Duke University rape case, told “60 Minutes” that the accuser is lying about being sexually assault during the off-campus party in March, ESPN reported Thursday.