Defense Sources: Duke Accuser Gave Conflicting Stories About Alleged Rape

yeah, I know its fox

"DURHAM, N.C. — The woman who has accused three members of the Duke University lacrosse team of raping her at an off-campus party told investigators several different stories about the night of the alleged incident, sources close to the defense team representing the players have told FOX News.

The differing accounts are included in the 1,300 pages of evidence delivered to defense lawyers last week by Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, the sources said.

Nifong had no immediate comment on the information said to be included in the documents. The information also has not been verified by police sources.

Meanwhile, the Durham Herald Sun reported Tuesday that medical records of the 27-year-old accuser suggest she might not have been tested for drugs or alcohol, according to a defense filing Monday. Defense lawyers for suspect Reade Seligmann say they were not given any toxicology reports by Nifong."

read the whole thing.

She wasn't arrested for a DUI. :wtf:

given the circumstances. Testing for Roofies would be very wise.

I would imagine if Nifong had anything and it proved that the lady was slipped something he would already have released it in one of his many dozens of press conferences.

I am beginning to really wonder just how good a prosecutor Nyfong is.

Either Nifong did not run a tox test and he's got nothing, or he did run a tox test and the results are not in the prosecution's favor. In which case the defense will be scrambling to get at them.

She has a history of drug abuse and she had been on probation. According to the documents released during discovery, she told the hospital attendants that she had sex with 3 men a week before the alleged rape. Funny about her and the number 3. She claimed to have been raped by 3 men when she was 14. She said she had consentual sex with 3 men within a week of the alleged rape. She alleges that 3 Duke students raped her.

"She has a history of drug abuse..."
I'd like a link for that.

"According to the documents released during discovery..."
No, that should be "According to 'unnamed sources who say they're close to the defense', the documents released during discovery show..."

Those points aside (though I still would like your link), are you saying that anyone who is found apparently inebriated should be summarily alcohol-tested and drug-tested? Even if they're not driving or suspected of committing a crime while under the influence?

The AV was not currently on probation. So what if she had been on probation in the past? Are you saying that anyone who has ever been on probation at any point in their past should be subject to on-demand drug and alcohol testing after their probation has been completed? Forever??

Does the number of sexual partners a person have dictate whether they should be summarily drug and alcohol tested whenever they have contact with the police?

My, what strange criteria for determining when a drug & alcohol test is warranted. Most attorneys would say otherwise.

Several people described the accuser as being severely impaired the night of the alleged attack, with one of the first police officers to see her describing her a "passed out drunk."

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-737491.html

DWI LEVEL 3 (PRINCIPAL) 06/21/2002

The above is from the North Carolina Department of Corrections Public Access Information System. I will PM you the link upon request, but be aware that in going to that link you will know the accuser's name and her criminal record.

Lawyers question dancer's plea deal in '02

DURHAM -- Defense lawyers suggested Wednesday that the District Attorney's Office may have shown favoritism as early as 2002 to an exotic dancer who claimed she was gang raped during a Duke University lacrosse party in March.

In a written motion filed in Durham County Superior Court, attorneys for indicted rape suspect Reade Seligmann asked why the dancer received "such a favorable plea bargain" for criminal charges arising out of a drunken, stolen-car, high-speed police chase in June 2002.

Court records show that even though the woman was charged with four felonies and numerous other traffic violations, the offenses were plea-bargained down to misdemeanors and she received only probation.

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-735912.html

One summer night in 2002, excessive drinking led to charges that the woman stole a car and led officers on a reckless car chase.

The episode started at the Diamond Girls club on Angier Avenue in Durham. According to Larry W. Jones, the owner of Diamond Girls, the woman appeared at the club that night and "tried out," giving lap dances to a few men.

Jones said the manager at the time did not offer the woman a job because she was "acting funny."

She started dancing for a taxi driver, whom she asked for a ride, according to a report from the Durham County Sheriff's Office. While dancing, she took the keys from the driver's pocket without his knowledge and, minutes later, drove off in his taxi.

The cab driver called 911 and a sheriff's deputy responded and saw the blue 1992 Chevrolet Caprice heading east on Angier Avenue near Page Road. The headlights were off and the woman was driving on the wrong side of the road, according to the deputy's report.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/429338.html

You said the AV has a history of drug abuse. I asked for a link to that.

You have supplied links detailing alcohol use, not drugs. Unless you're stretching "alcohol abuse" into "drug abuse" on the grounds that "alcohol is a drug", then you have no apparent basis for your claim that the AV has a history of drug abuse.

So, are you saying that a DWI equals drug abuse, or are you going to provide a link to actual DRUG abuse?

BTW, not worried about learning the AV's name. I already know it.

She could have been passed out drunk, passed out from roofies, or passed out after being strangled & raped by three lacrosse players. How this somehow proves your allegation that she has a "long history of drug use" is beyond me.

Drunk after the rape? Kim Roberts, the other stripper, said nothing about the accuser drinking after she left the party. It was Roberts who asked for help to get the accuser out of her car.

you so glibly claim exists in your prior post? There is none, and you knew that. That certainly didn't stop you. It seems like there isn't a toxicology report, which was a huge mistake, because we'll never know now whether she was under the influence of alcohol, slipped drugs, or nothing at all that night. So, all of these remain as possibilities. What we DO know is there this woman doesn't have a history of drug use. Her entire life history has been tossed up & scrutinized w/o any such drug use showing up. That certainly doesn't stop people like you from making it up.

It is a must if one is to establish the presence of a date rape drug.

Either Nifong never got her tested, or he did and is withholding the results from the defense.

He didn't get the police report across his desk until later.
It wasn't "up to him" to "get her tested".

Post #1 asked "Since when is it SOP to test a victim's blood-alcohol level? She wasn't arrested for a DUI."

Your response (post #17) to that question was that the AV was passed out in the car, has a history of drug abuse, had been on probation, and supposedly according to documents had told hospital staff that she had sex with 3 different men that week.

Those were the reasons you listed to answer the question in post #1.

So no, this is not suddenly about it being "a must to establish the presence of a date rape drug".

You made those statements in your post. I asked if that's what you really believe. You dodged.

OK, since I know you're both dying for my opinion on this:

She has a history of drug abuse and she had been on probation.
The AV does not have a documented history of drug abuse. She has a history of having been drunk one night and getting arrested on a number of charges. This does not mean that there have been any reports made public which would indicate that this (alcohol or drug abuse) is reoccurring problem.

According to the documents released during discovery, she told the hospital attendants that she had sex with 3 men a week before the alleged rape. Funny about her and the number 3. She claimed to have been raped by 3 men when she was 14. She said she had consentual sex with 3 men within a week of the alleged rape. She alleges that 3 Duke students raped her.
As has been pointed out by now, none of these things would be cause for a mandatory tox screen.

He didn't get the police report across his desk until later.
It wasn't "up to him" to "get her tested".
True, he wasn't in the ER that night. However, the state can run a tox screen at any time they wish since they have the samples needed in their possession right now. They still would need the consent from the AV, but it is up to Nifong to try and get that consent and get the results. Or, it's up to Nifong not to infer to the media that such tests are being performed.

There might have been blood or urine samples taken that night (in fact, I would almost certainly think there would have been), but as of now we don't know for sure that there were.

As for Nifong, I have not seen anywhere any remarks by him in reference to any such tests, other than saying that the state doesn't have a tox report.

The press has speculated on the idea that there may have been a date-rape drug involved, as have we. We have speculated on the idea that there's a tox report out there, as has the press. There has been a vague second-hand reference to Nifong's supposed "hinting" at the possibility of the AV's drink having been spiked, but again nothing about toxicology testing, even in that less-than-hearsay reference.

I think the media has been inferring the notion of testing being done, rather than Nifong having stated anything, or even implying it. If anyone can show otherwise, I'd like to see it.

let's instead look at this from a logical standpoint.

True, we don't know for certain if Nifong has inferred anything about toxicology tests, although the Newsweek "hinting" article would certainly lead one in that direction. But there's just no way that you can realistically believe that a tox report wasn't requested or that the results of that kind of test wouldn't be back at this point.

Do you think at some point blood and urine samples would have been taken?
I think everyone would have to expect that would be the case. The SANE handbook specifically directs for blood samples to be taken and urine samples to be taken in the event that a date rape drug is suspected.

Do you think that at some point, a tox screen was requested of the AV?
If there wasn't, then the DA, the ED, the SANE, and the PD should all be censured for negligence. This was a woman who that night, was described as "passed out drunk" by a police officer and also described in a similar fashion by the security guard at the Kroger. She was taken to a substance abuse center before the hospital. Clearly the police felt she was under the influence of some substance. In that situation, what are the odds that a trained SANE will not request consent for a tox screen?

Later, when Kim Roberts stated to the press her story about the drinks and the radical change in the AV's behavior, what are the odds that a DA would hear that and not request a consent for a tox screen?

There is simply no way that this situation could have been ignored and none of these professionals have thought to get the testing done if the AV consented. Furthermore, given the litigious nature of our society, I would bet that it would be standard procedure to require those who do not consent to a tox screen to do so in writing. I'm purely speculating here, but I would think that there would have to be either a form of consent or non-consent regarding the tox screen and that would have to be considered evidence.

Logically it's hard to imagine that a tox screen wasn't requested and that such a requested didn't happen very early in the investigation. How long does a tox screen take to run? It's been over two months since the incident was reported.

No history of drug use, of course. But you already knew that.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but she was originally taken to de-tox, as police believed she was a drunk woman who was refusing to get out of someone else's car.

That's how the police got involved in this story - because Kim Roberts stopped at the Kroger to get help removing the victim from her car.

Since the4 defence attorney feels the need to defend his client(s) in the press.

If were accused of something and it was this high profile I would want to defend myself in the media. The court of public opinion can F up your life almost much as prison could.

Evans just graduated, so he should walk into every job interview until the prosecution gets around to trying it (prosecutor estimates next year) with a neon sign over his head that says "Accused Rapist".

The judge denied a request by the defense to have the trial as soon as possible.

What would you do?

What PROOF do you have that he did anything wrong?

the defendants should have the word "rapist" stuck to them in big headlines for as long as possible.

You see, because their families have a lot of money, then they won't be found guilty anyway. So it is important to say they are guilty for as long as possible, without having an actual trial.

They are white and rich. Therefore, their lives must be made a living hell.

.....and drag your name through the mud.

...keep silent, and accept being made a scapegoat for slavery and racism and oppressive patriarchy. It would seem that the masses are crying out for a blood sacrifice. Some of us -- pretty lonely these days -- are still sentimental about due process.

My neighbors believe in due process, and your jabber to the contrary, nobody here is "crying out for a blood sacrifice."

If you wandered down to the local HBCU, North Carolina Central and asked questions, students would tell you the accused should pay if guilty, and otherwise should be freed, and most would say they haven't made up their minds, having other matters to occupy their time.

There seem to be only two sources for current noise on this case: (1) the defense, and (2) a handful of crackpots hoping to stir up other crackpots by resurrecting the mythical old Southern spectre of crazed black mobs gone wild in the streets.

By "the defense", in this instance I'm referring to Reade Seligmann's attorney, Kirk Osborn. He made an ass of himself, and the judge was getting irritated with him. It showed. People should watch the complete video of Seligmann's hearing... it's a hoot.

This article has some of the highlights...

http://www.nbc17.com/news/9239758/detail.html

Judge Bristles At Defense Requests In Duke Rape Case



... but I recommend actually watching the video of the whole hearing.


http://www.wral.com/dukelacrosse/index.html (scroll down to the link to the video)

Osborn looked like a damn fool, when he wasn't appearing to be a whining, petulant child. The judge was clearly getting ticked. If I were Seligmann (innocent or guilty), I'd be shopping for a new attorney -- fast.

Anyway, this round of media crap is just to counter the beating Osborn took in court last week. They had to do something to offset it.

...by not slapping BOTH sides in this case with a gag order. He should've done so weeks ago.

whats-it-called, GHB. Some are claiming she was fed a spiked drink

and it can also show if the accuser was under the influence of other drugs, and the approximate time in which other drugs were taken.

... and this bugs me very much -- maybe the tox tests were not performed that night. There are two scenarios:1) the ED (who sees the claimant first to assess injuries requiring immediate attention) has the discretion to order tests if the claimant presents with symptoms of significant intoxication (not for legal evidence) -- for some reason he/she did not order these tests. 2) The claimant declined tox tests. Why is a matter of conjecture.... The SANE does not assess whether tox tests are called for -- this is the sole responsibility of the ED, or dependent on the consent of the claimant.

Nifong has long claimed that tox test results would provide significant evidence against the accusers -- but in recent days he is now claiming that no tox test results are available. Go figure....

It's a pity tox test results are not available -- they would have been important findings in this case, and corroborated, or not, the statements of the accuser/accused. They certainly could have indicated not only if "date rape" drugs had been used, as the victim, the DA, and more recently Kim Roberts, now allege they may have been used. Alcohol/drug levels of the accuser would also have been important evidence, because, as you say, they could have provided an approximate timeline and quantity of injestion -- as it is, the accuser, and Kim Roberts, both claim that the accuser imbibed only two alcoholic beverages after arriving at the Lacrosse house -- forensic drug/acohol tests would have quantified this, or suggested that the accuser must have imbibed alcohol before the two drinks she had at the Lacrosse house.

And the media acts like it's the prosecution's job to respond to these allegations on their shows. Bullshit.

Why, the defense requested that a trial be held in court as soon as possible, and was denied:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/18/sports/s131631D04.DTL
One of three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape wants the case resolved in time for the next school year, his attorney said in court Thursday. But the judge warned he will not fast-track the proceedings.

The case "is not going to jump ahead of the line and be handled any differently," Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Stephens said at a hearing for sophomore Reade Seligmann.

After the brief hearing, District Attorney Mike Nifong said that he intends to try all three players together and that he does not expect any trial to begin before next year.

So they should just shut up and take it, until some time next spring.


Seligmann was stoic as he entered the courthouse for his first court appearance, passing in front of TV cameras and photographers. He endured taunts from members of the New Black Panther Party, one of whom yelled, "Justice will be served, rapist!"

You think that the defendants in this case should get preferential treatment and have other scheduled cases bumped down the docket? Why are these three more special than any other defendants?

One of the reasons the trial is not apt to be until next year is the constant blizzard of motions the defense keeps filing. They want to file endless motions? OK, but it takes time to respond to each of those many motions. They want more and more and more documentation? It takes time to gather it. They want to make more and more complaints about the prosecution? They want to make more and more and more demands of the prosecution and the judge? It takes court time, and court dates, to answer them.

Yet at the same time the defense attorneys (whether acting as a group or as lone agents for each of their clients) are filing, filing, and filing motions some more, they're crying to the judge and the press because their clients aren't sped through the court's docket and scheduled for trial next week.

Sheesh.

And some people fall for it.

It would seem Seligmann and Finnerty still have a couple of years to go to earn their degrees at Duke, a most prestigious university -- which has presumably been their goal for several years.

It is not unreasonable that they should wish to have the trial as soon as possible, because they wish to continue their program at Duke, cleared of the stigma of the hideous accusation of rape (if they are innocent). What seems to await the accused, should they choose to continue their education at Duke, is harassment or even violence, as they have been convicted by at least part of the public, not to mention the threat of vigilante "justice" by extremist elements like the New Black Panther Party, who have stated that they aim to try the accused according to their own methods and punish them according to their own manner of justice. I assess that their presence at Duke before the trial might invite vigilante violence.

The accuser has asserted that she has been the target of threats of violence, which is deplorable -- I assert that the threat of violence against the accused is also deplorable. This whole situation has been handled poorly by all parties and is highly volatile for both the accuser and the accused.

So their safety while attending during the trial is not an issue.
They can't attend again until the case is over with one way or another.

But I agree with you -- threats of violence against either the accuser or the accused is deplorable.

He is trying for the Alumni of the Year Award?

He needs to start off each segment by saying , "I AM AN ALUMNI OF DUKE UNIVERSITY AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE."

did you post an article and link to fucking FOX news on DEMOCRATIC site?

I thought it had been decided by the Admins that FOX is not a news worthy site for LBN.

Couldn't find a better news site that would trash the defendent?

:mad:

as is the Washington Times and even Drudge. If it is breaking news with no editorial content, then it is allowed.

I am sick and tired of these defense attorneys leaking so called evidence to the media on this rape case. these lawyers have taken this case and turned it on the alleged victim as if she's the alleged criminal instead of those three guys. and the media is going right along with it

>>>The differing accounts are included in the 1,300 pages of evidence delivered to defense lawyers <<<<

We don't have any idea what any of the documents produced by the prosecution entail, and you can bet your sweet bippy that if there is anything at all in them that looks bad for their clients they won't mention it and will spin anything else. That's what they get paid for. Unless we can look at those documents ourselves, this is no different then any other ongoing defense blather.

Asked to be eaten. Why, they had a history of leaving their henhouse unlocked... and look how they tempted the poor Fox with their luscious breasts and shapely legs...

Agreed -- partisan, unsubstantiated blather.

.....raped by 20 people and now it's 3 or 4. She changed her story. That's a fact.

For the millionth time, that "report" was found to have come from a Durham cop who was eavesdropping on another cop's phone call and decided to announce, absent any firsthand knowledge or proof, that the victim claimed to have been attacked by 20 guys.

But go ahead and peddle lies as "fact"...

....for the RNC. Now an official incident report is "eavesdropping."

I guess the Downing Street Memos were "eavesdropped" too?


That's rich.

:rofl: :rofl:

You may wish to wear a cup for this.

The official incident report which you reference was a report filed by the Duke University Police Department, not the Durham Police Department. The comments in that report about the AV changing her story and about at one point saying that she was assaulted by 20 men have been acknowledged to have been overheard by the officer who filed the report when he was listening to a Durham PD sergeant talking on the phone to his supervisor.

When this was released in Duke's private study regarding their response to the situation it caused an uproar at the Durham PD who now had the public relations problem of not appearing to take the case as serious as they should have. They were quick to respond with the following statements from the City Manager:

"Any assertion that the Durham Police Department didn't take this case seriously or indicated that it would blow over is completely contradicted by the facts and our actions," Baker said.

"I have no idea where that came from," Baker said. "I've had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case and with officials at Duke, and at no time did anyone indicate the accuser changed her story. If that were true, I'm sure someone would have mentioned it to me."


But, lost in all of this is that for whatever reason, that Durham PD officer who was overheard on his phone must have had some basis for his comments. Perhaps they were accurate, perhaps they were not. Not coincidentally, one of the things the defense leaked upon receiving the discovery from the prosecution was that the defendant did change her story several times and at one point alleged that she was assaulted by 17 men. Take those last statements with the usual disclaimer about the defense's comments.

ALSO, I understand the dynamic of a campus police officer acting as a liaison/support after an incident such as this where the city cops have jurisdiction(major crime).

Also, I have no reason NOT to believe the campus police officer. "Evesdropping"...LOL. I guess he was sneaking around in the bushes. Maybe disguised as a bush?:shrug:

http://www.wral.com/news/9189103/detail.html



Yup. Eavesdropping. Better tell WRAL they should work for the RNC!

Sure is rich when people don't read the headlines they're talking about.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

.....description of an official report, that's fine by me, though nobody quoted in the article is describing it as "eavesdropping." Maybe you should read the actual incident report instead of basing your opinion on the one headline. After you do that, maybe you can make a judgment about who is more credible.......The officer taking a report/notes at 3am, during the investigation and before stories start to "gel"?? Or a city manager trying to cover his ass because their report caused a shit-storm and goes against the government's case?


Just in case you aren't being intellectually dishonest and you really DON"T understand the definition of eavesdropping:

>>>>Main Entry: eaves·drop
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Forms: eaves·dropped; eaves·drop·ping
: to listen secretly to what is being said in private without the consent of the speaker —compare BUG, WIRETAP —eaves·drop·per noun

without the consent of the speaker."

Your own dictionary definition proves that is was eavesdropping.

A telephone conversation between two people is considered private (unless you're bushit* or part of the NSA). Listening in uninvited on one party's end of the conversation is considered eavesdropping.

It does not appear that the Duke officer who wrote this report was invited to listen in on what the Durham officer was saying to his colleague on the phone. He did not speak with the officer at all, apparently. He eavesdropped, and then wrote his report citing "facts" that weren't facts at all. They were his own impressions based on what he overheard from one end of someone else's private conversation, and that he may or may not have heard correctly to begin with.

Maybe you should stop making assumptions about what I have read and what I haven't. I have read the "report" that Campus Officer Day filed. And I find him and his "report" the less credible of the parties involved.

Your reference to intellectual dishonesty is directed toward the wrong person. The mirror is over there. >>>

I will point out that a defense filing on the missing toxicology report is part of the public record, and the media has a duty to report it.

A toxicology exam is crucial to determine if the alleged victim was given a date rape drug, or was under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Defense seeks toxicology reports

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun

May 22, 2006 : 10:25 pm ET

DURHAM -- Medical records of the alleged victim in the Duke lacrosse rape case suggest she might not have been tested for drugs or alcohol, according to a defense filing Monday.

Several people described the accuser as being severely impaired the night of the alleged attack, with one of the first police officers to see her describing her a "passed out drunk." But some have suggested that she may have been given a so-called "date rape drug," and Newsweek magazine said District Attorney Mike Nifong had hinted at such a possibility.

Authorities have said a doctor and a specially trained nurse performed a physical exam on the accuser that found her condition to be consistent with having been sexually assaulted. But the nurse who filled out a report on that exam indicated no toxicology tests were performed, according to a defense motion filed Monday.

Several attorneys not connected with the case said Monday they were surprised by the apparent lack of a toxicology report.

If such data showed the exotic dancer was intoxicated on the night in question, it could be highly beneficial to the defense, lawyer Mark Edwards said.

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-737491.html

you should fucking be ashamed of yourself by now.

on edit:

you're a self-proclaimed Green. Why are you here?

Is that the best you can do -- an ad hominem attack on IG ?

Is it "progressive" to unquestioningly accept one side, and totally discount the other side, before the actual trial? So left wing vigilantes are better than right wing vigilantes? Viva la revolution. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Sorry, bub -- if you can't do a better job of persuading others using facts or reasonable argument -- maybe it's YOU that should get lost.

If you feel her posts are against DU rules -- report her to the monitors. If you can't deal with the fact that anyone dares to have an opinion different from yours, you should put her on ignore. "Thought Crimes" are not illegal on DU -- so you need to deal with this by taking personal action.

Is it "progressive" to unquestioningly accept one side, and totally discount the other side, before the actual trial?

Maybe you should be asking that question of IG and others here that have shown themselves to have already concluded that the accuser is lying without benefit of trial or even knowing what all the evidence is.

We don't know if a toxicology report is missing or not. It very well could be that the defense has it and is grandstanding about it, which would be nothing new. Could be that the prosecution didn't give it to them on purpose... nothing new there either. Could be that the prosecution doesn't have a copy of it yet themselves, which is also nothing new and is more likely. Could also be that a toxicology test was never given, which is a slim possibility, but a possibility nonetheless. What difference does it make? There's never been a case anywhere where discovery went smoothly. This is what happens in the discovery phase. It's normal and expected. You're making an issue out of nothing.

A toxicology exam is crucial to determine if the alleged victim was given a date rape drug, or was under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

You must be really fond of it. Let's do it a third time...(with the relevant parts highlighted)...



Kinda puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

as part of the discovery process. He didn't! It was Nifong, and not the defense, that had said earlier that the alleged victim may had been slipped a date rape drug. The fact that there was no toxicology report in the 1,300 pages that Nifong turned over Friday can mean one of two things: one, the accuser was never tested for drugs/alcohol, or two, there is a toxicology report and Nifong is withholding it.

This is why the defense file a motion to get the court to order full disclosure from Nifong.

"Kinda puts it in perspective, doesn't it?"

Here is another perspective, the poster I was replying to was complaining that the OP had used Faux News as a source. I posted a different source for the same story.

Nope. You posted that same article twice, two minutes apart, in response to two different posts by two different people, neither of which was the one complaining about Fox news as a source. Come on, admit it, you just really really like that article. ;-)

BTW, got a link for "Nifong was required to release a toxicology report this past Friday"?? Not a link saying he was required to comply with rules of discovery in general -- a link addressing his obligation to produce a toxicology report by this past Friday. Thanks.

Also, got a link with Nifong saying anything about a date rape drug? Not a link about how he may have "hinted" something to a reporter -- a link to a quote of his regarding a date rape drug in this case. Thanks again.

Oh, and you forgot possibility #3: There is a toxicology report, and Nifong doesn't have it.

when you have Faux News (and Falafel O'Really) on your side, you can't lose!

I gather you haven't caught up with the thread.

You are neglecting the operative hypothesis that the defense did, in fact, obtain a tox report, and that they filed a motion compelling its production as some sort of PR maneuver.

What happens to the attorney in that situation is left as an exercise for the reader.

fox's latest obsession is not news. imo.

The Duke Case's Cruel Truth
Hateful Stereotypes of Black Women Resurface

By Lynne Duke
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; Page C01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052302022.html

We are never really going to know the truth-there is going to be plenty of reasonable doubt, it will be difficult to get a jury to convict these guys. I just don't think there's going to be enough evidence to convict anyone of rape.

What it's looking like to me is that the victim has mental health issues. I don't know if she was raped or not, but women with mental health problems can act in ways that men, especially young and drunk men, wouldn't recognize as a symptom of a greater problem. If that is the case, I have sympathy on both sides-I always have sympathy for the mentally ill, it's so difficult for them to understand basic appropriate social behavior sometimes. I also feel for the boys if they didn't rape her, but she thinks they did because of her illness. They had their names and reputations dragged through the mud.

It seems to me you have your mind made up due to the Defense spin, huh? And, it appears you're also slyly implying the victim was responsible for her rape in some way... tsk tsk. Very disappointing.

The only thing I'm sure of is that the woman was, indeed, raped. I trust the medical diagnosis of the SANE and ER doctor. I also think some of the players engaged in some very, very suspicious behavior. I also think both Roberts and Bissey have some interesting witness statements. Beyond that, I'll wait for the trial... and I certainly won't believe Defense spin. That's like believing Fox News on anything involving Clinton...

on edit: yup, those poor, poor "boys" ... never mind the single mother, college student who was vaginally and anally raped by someone that night -- that suggestive nutcase... thanks so very, very much for introducing the infamous "sluts and nuts" defense tactic against rape victims. It would make Cheshire as proud as Punch...

and there is enough information out to lead a reasonable person to doubt the accuser's version of events, including her identification of Reade Seligmann as one of her attackers.

leading a person to believe one side or the other and believing she's a liar and made the whole thing up. Everybody here has opinions that lead to one side or the other, but some people have already made up their minds when they don't know anything much more than what the defense says.

We know that she was determined by the SANE examiner to have suffered injuries consistent with rape. Whether those injuries are consistent ONLY with rape or are could also be consistent with non-forcible intercourse is something we do not and cannot know until the full report is available and the examiner is questioned.

I never thought I'd see the day when this board would have the gall to question a rape victim. I guessed wrong.

One poster here continues to assert over and over that the SANE exam establishes as an irrefutable, unequivocal matter of fact that the accused in this case was the victim of a rape. That simply is untrue. It may well turn out after the evidence is examined and the SANE examiner questioned, that she the evidence leaves room for no other conclusion that she was the victim of a rape, but we don't know that yet. However, if someone wants to express the opinion that she was the victim of a rape based on the SANE exam or their own intuition, or anything else, I have absolutely no problem with that. But factually untrue statements can and should be rebutted and, to put it back to you, I never thought I'd see the day when someon on this board would have the gall to characterize a rebuttal of a factually inaccurate statement as "an attack".

By the way, as I have said many times, I have not formed my own opinion as to whether she was raped or not or whether the accused perpetrated the rape if it occurred. If others want to form opinions either way, it doesn't bother me. But its important to distinguish between what is a known fact (which is next to nothing thus far) and what is opinion and conjecture (pretty much everything)

she clearly did NOT know what she was PRECISELY saying immediately after. And the shock of being raped repeatedly: Rape experts testified that victim's almost incoherent, non-speaking behavior afterward was MORE "typical post-rape/trauma" behavior...THAN a sign of Alcohol or Drug abuse behavior.

Who was with the victim in the hospital. Guess the Duke cop that wrote that report didn't eavesdrop on HER phone conversations, eh?

...the AV may not have consented to the tox screen.

Has it occur to you that there is a psychological linkage between the 3 men that raped he when she was 14, the 3 men she said she had consensual sex with before the party, and the 3 men she claimed that raped her at the party? Doesn't this raise the possibility that, in the absence of any other physical evidence of rape, that she is suffering from PTSD?