Nifong bails on Duke rape case.

Nifong really screwed the pooch on this one. Its difficult to see how the accuser will ever get any justice if anything criminal actually happened to her.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/13/duke.lacrosse.ap/index.html

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- The state attorney general's office agreed Saturday to take over the sexual assault case against three Duke University lacrosse players at the request of the embattled district attorney.

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, hamstrung by a flip-flopping witness and dogged by allegations that he made inflammatory statements to the media, asked Attorney General Roy Cooper's office Friday to appoint a special prosecutor.

//snip//

Nifong's comments to reporters in the early days of the case led the state bar to charge him last month with several ethics violations. Nifong's attorney said Friday the conflict of interest those charges created led the veteran prosecutor to ask the state to take over.

I don't know the facts in the case but if the truth is seeping out bit by bit (as it appears to be), it will be a very bad day for feminists. We will get beaten with this stick and it may be used as a "told you so" to people who want to see rapists brought to justice.

If the woman is not telling the truth I truly think she must have mental problems. To put herself and her family through that is just horrifying. And if this was a cynical ploy by Nifong just to get reelected, he is a total bastard.

:shrug:

_______________-

I think that rape cases are always complicated because there are few witnesses. But in the Duke case, there were many witnesses who said nothing happened, including the other female stripper! That is why the Duke case is unique among other cases. Also, the gang rape accusation was so disgusting and evil, it automatically drew the wrath of everyone in the nation - and it never occurred, or so now the victim claims.

by rich families and their defense attornies who would stop at nothing including destroying the prosecutor (and the alleged victim) - then they are the total bastards, n'est pas?

Am I misreading you? A cynical ploy by the family? To do what? Have their kid's picture splattered all over the news, papers and Internets in handcuffs - for gang-rape? -accused of rape? Suspended from school and their team? No matter what happens, their reputations are ruined and they will always have that stigma of 'maybe' being a rapist.

$$, race, sex, and power speaks volumes -

and tends to drown out everything else, doesn't it?

I don't "know" the truth. And neither do you. You only "know" what the defense has leaked.

There's a real sure fire money-making scheme. Lots of "rich" families get their kids arrested for crimes that could get them 40 years to life. Just so they can file a lawsuit, that has almost zero chance of being successful, against the state due to a higher burden of proof.

As for this :

"You only "know" what the defense has leaked."


That's SO 6 months ago. I suppose the official misconduct charges against the prosecutor are a "defense" ploy?

that obtuse are you?

The "official misconduct charges" - are just that, charges, brought about by other lawyers in NC, who - surprise - are also white, rich, and powerful.

That rich white and powerful crap went out the window with the accuser recanting some of her accusations and the prosecutor stepping aside. Face it... the lynch-mob was wrong on this one. It happens sometimes.

That she doesn't know for "certain" that a penis was used - or some other object? That two - or three - people actually "did her"?

Wow. She should've paid more attention, huh?

a penis or an object was inside her? This is not an inexperienced 12 year old.

And yes, she should know who actually "did her." That is critical to her case -- she's supposed to be able to identify her attackers. And, according to her sworn testimony, she was able to see who did what and when. Why don't you believe her?

she said it "felt" like a penis - except she also felt a "sharp pain" - but that she didn't actually SEE the penis - so no, according to NC State Law - because she cannot unequivocally state that it WAS a penis, then charges of "rape" cannot be brought.

Don't you think - if she were "lying about everything" - she'd just go ahead a lie about *that*, too?

**And yes, she should know who actually "did her." That is critical to her case -- she's supposed to be able to identify her attackers. And, according to her sworn testimony, she was able to see who did what and when. Why don't you believe her?**

You need to read the account.

And IF the following *is true* (and I don't know anymore than you WHAT the real truth is here):

she was drugged.

she was being gang raped.

she was terrified.

she was bent over and "taken" from behind while some others knelt in front of her.

Well - IF the above were true, I think she can be forgiven being a tad bit shaky on all the exact "details", don't you?

Have you ever felt in fear of your life? Have you ever been in a situation at least somewhat similar to "that"? Do you really think you would be able to coherently follow and relate every single detail?

The answer is no. And if your answer is anything else other than 'no' - then I suspect you have NEVER been in a situation similar to that.



And she

If the real victim is too stressed out to make a positive identification, then the case doesn't reach the indictment stage. A positive identification is essential, as even Nifong has acknowleged in court.

As far as this accuser is concerned, her statements cannot be relied on for truth. Why? Because her statement now and her earlier statements contradict themselves in many respects. Her statements can't all be true. Many must be untruths. She is not a credible accuser.

And get over this idea that she was drugged. There is no evidence of drugs in her system, except for the alcohol she admitted to drinking and the flexeril she admitted to taking.

"The Durham Herald-Sun has reported based on defense motion exhibits that the accuser told the sexual-assault nurse-in-training who examined her at Duke Hospital the evening of the alleged assault that she had consumed one drink of alcohol that evening and had also taken the medication Flexeril, which is a prescription muscle relaxant."


note: based on defense motion exhibits that the accuser told . . .


Now, if you read all the media reports, it suddenly becomes a "police report" and her "statement". I'm just wondering if you have any more definitive source of her admitting to taking it - because maybe she did.

If Nifong and the accuser are determined to be involved in conspiracy, wrongful doing, and false charges, they should be made serious examples (as in facing criminal charges) that could be as serious as what those accused had to face.

And those public institutions such as CNN-Nancy Grace, Duke, NAACP, etc that jumped on the lynchwagon with public accusations should face civil charges also.

We should all have zero tolerance towards prosecutors that abuse the office of the court. All said, I'm willing to wait until the evidence comes out against Nifong before agreeing that he should be sent to jail.

Yes. IF he did. And maybe he did. (I think he was just a bit over his head. He's just a small town DA for god's sake.)

**I'm willing to wait until the evidence comes out against Nifong before agreeing that he should be sent to jail. **

Finally - someone with the voice of reason who doesn't want to hang, tar, and feather the man due to what the MEDIA tells them.

that is no small town DA.

is a small town.

ok - *maybe* a small city... :) but it's not like it's NY or LA or Chicago or Atlanta or anything. How many "highprofile" cases occur there on a regular basis? It's mostly small time crime.

from the defense.

That is a horrendous violation. End of story.

You might want to read up on what ACTUALLY took place - instead of the just the spin.

He acknowledged it in open court. He stated that he withheld the exculpatory DNA evidence to protect people's "privacy rights."

And Dr. Brian Meehan's testimony -- also in open court -- was that he and Nifong decided together to withhold the exculpatory DNA evidence from the final report. Dr. Meehan, by the way, is going to be on 60 minutes tonight. He might destroy some of your pet theories, however, so maybe you won't want to watch him.

He didn't withhold anything, actually.


". . . The delay getting the information to the defense probably won't have much impact on the charges, said Richard Myers, a former federal prosector and assistant professor of law at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Law. A judge would have to consider whether the delay was harmful to the defense; the likely remedy would be to give the lawyers more time to prepare for trial.

. . . Meehan hired a lawyer to defend the actions of his lab. In an interview, the lawyer, Fred Antoun, said the defense lawyers were wrong to demand a report with all results included. The results could be found in the roughly 1,800 pages of technical documents that a judge ordered them in September to produce; the defense received them in late October.

"That is a childlike complaint," said Antoun, who practices in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. "The DA did hand it over; it just wasn't written in moron talk."

Antoun defended Meehan's partial report on several grounds: Reporting all the tests would result in a massive report that no one could understand. It would violate the privacy of the players, . . . And listing all the test results would sully the reputation of the accuser, he said.


http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/525091.html

You can watch him on 60 minutes tonight.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/11/60minutes/main2352512.shtml


(CBS) The forensic expert hired by the prosecutor in the Duke rape case says he made a "big error" in judgment by not stating in his report that the only DNA he found on the accuser was from several men who were not on the Duke lacrosse team.

SNIP

"Meehan acknowledged that he has never omitted potentially exculpatory evidence before. "We haven't done that before," he tells Stahl. "In retrospect, I should have done a better job of conveying that information."

"Meehan has stated that he told the prosecutor, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, about the other DNA for the first time in mid-April. Later that same month, Nifong indicted three Duke lacrosse players. Meehan has also said in court proceedings that he and Nifong agreed before the evidence tests were completed that his report should be limited to positive matches between the accuser and the players at the team party where she says she was sexually assaulted last March.

Meehan says writing an incomplete report violates his own firm's standards. "It was an error in judgment on my part. … It certainly was a big error," says Meehan. He says his firm wasn't trying to hide the information and that it released it when it was asked. But his client's behavior irks him, he says. "

CYA.

It makes perfect sense that they agreed to the original set of parameters. AND the info was in the documents released to the attorney's - it wasn't being 'hidden'.

"Meehan hired a lawyer to defend the actions of his lab. In an interview, the lawyer, Fred Antoun, said the defense lawyers were wrong to demand a report with all results included. The results could be found in the roughly 1,800 pages of technical documents that a judge ordered them in September to produce; the defense received them in late October.

"That is a childlike complaint," said Antoun, who practices in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. "The DA did hand it over; it just wasn't written in moron talk."

Antoun defended Meehan's partial report on several grounds: Reporting all the tests would result in a massive report that no one could understand. It would violate the privacy of the players, . . . And listing all the test results would sully the reputation of the accuser, he said."
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/525091.html

It's the ONLY way you can "know".

Please do tell.

The only thing worse than a politician playing politics is a DA prosecutor playing politics.

I really dislike politicians playing politics for the most part as they'll sell their soul for another vote (they are in both parties btw). But that's not nearly as bad as sending innocent individuals to prison for another vote. Let's hope Nifong isn't guilty of that.

Welcome to DU, Robson!

But if he is guilty, I'll be the first to say he should be prosecuted.

However, I just think he was in over his head with this one. And not prepared for the "big guns", ya know?

That - and a preponderance of errors from just about every party involved, it seems.

After watching 60 Minutes, I now feel very sorry for the family and the Duke victims. I know these aren't yet facts in a court but the evidence of an overzealous DA using a black rape victim for political reasons is overwhelming. This case has been a nightmare for everyone and most especially all women who will ever have a legitimate charge of rape....all because of a prosecutor without ethics.

I believe now that three things should happen. BOTH the DA and the alleged victim should be charged criminally and the DA should be disbarred. Duke University should be sued along with the NAACP and other institutional groups that went on the attack against these kids for defamation that will live with these boys forever. The kids should find another school to attend.

But most of all I don't consider this a liberal or conservative case as some have insinuated. It's a matter of justice and that should never be political.

Without sworn testimony nor cross-examination?

or the accuser in this case.

Sad, but true.

Prior to this TV show I was partially open minded on this. But the video of the lab owner who said it all in words and body language was a clincher. Too many "contrived facts" in this case have gotten in the way of justice.

This was a conspiracy by the DA to send these boys to jail to advance his job security and political agenda. There were other extenuating factors such as the victim's obvious lying about what happened, which was substantiated by her friend.

we have trials, then.

Maybe we should just have "Judge Judy" decide, eh?

Message boards are for sharing opinion and do not bear the obligation of presumed innocence.

Of course, there may well not be a trial anyway.

:P

Just one of dozens of examples: Nifong telling a reporter in an interview that the students were "hooligans" and that "the guilty" would be brought to trial.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

attached in the motions it needed to file in court -- is plenty, in and of itself, to create a mountain of reasonable doubt.

The woman's most recent account, besides being in direct contradiction to her varying accounts last spring, is also contradicted by her own cell phone records and by the time and date stamped videotape of her dancing. For example, during the time she NOW says she was dancing (before Seligmann left the party), her cell phone records show that she was on the phone for several minutes talking to someone at her father's house. During the time she points to now for the assault, cell phone records show Seligmann was on the phone with his girlfriend.

And now she says that the supposed attack was over at midnight. Unfortunately for her, the next door neighbor (who dislikes the lacrosse players) already has testified that that is when he first saw her and the other dancer about to enter the house. And the videotape shows the dancers beginning their dance shortly after this. It also doesn't explain, if the attack was over at midnight, what happened the rest of the hour. In her statement, she indicates that she left right after the attack. But witnesses and the other dancer say that they didn't leave until almost an hour later.

The prosecutor has a duty not to bring a case to indictment unless he has some reasonable chance of winning a guilty verdict, based on the facts (not the prejudices of a jury). We now know that when he brought the case to indictment, he already knew that no DNA from any player was found on her body or clothes. (This was the testimony of Dr. Brian Meehan in open court -- not something "leaked"). He also knew that the DNA of seven other men was found on her -- and he colluded with the lab director to withhold that information from the report. Nifong also knew that she had told him she hadn't had sex with anyone for a week, so that either (1) she was blatantly lying to him or (2) that the other DNA may have come from REAL attackers, if she were really attacked. So why did he continue to indict the students?

civil rights of the defendants, that there is no physical evidence placing them at the crime scene, and that the accuser has tons of credibilty problems, including a tendency to change her story every lunar cycle.

As I'm sure you must realize by now.

Nifong has been charged with ethics violations and the rape charges were dropped. I just don's see how this case can go on.

a hospitalization, I believe.

Nifong was lagging in the polls by 20 points before he started championing this woman in the press. His stronger opponent, who was well known in the African American community (he wasn't), had 4 times as much money to spend, but he got a mountain of free and favorable publicity. He ended up beating her by 2 or 3 points.

I heard on 60 minutes tonight that she is on some heave medication.

The parents of those guys will be suing for megabucks.

I am sick to death of this case, I honestly don't think she was raped by those boys...I think she may have some mental issues.

The DA and the state would the defendants...

DA's are nearly always personally immune from such suits.

But the state can be named as the defendant...

But a successful case is another thing altogether.

The DA didn't make up from whole cloth what the victim said happened to her that night. She signed a sworn statement. If anyone is in trouble, it is she.


__________________

The state of North Carolina presumably has plenty...

I doubt anybody is going to get sued but the state definitely has some exposure...

otherwise, the state would be in court constantly defending against people who are found not guilty in court, or when charges are dropped against them.


___________________

I was falsely arrested and prevailed in court against the jurisdiction that arrested me for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.


The question is whether there was just grounds for arrest or probable cause...

Which have nothing to do with whether she was rich or not. I don't know what the exact charges would be - "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" would be my guess, but I'm not a lawyer. But there's a hell of a difference in standard of proof between "reasonable doubt that the accused were guilty" and "no reasonable doubt that the accuser was lying" so that may well never happen.

that DA got sued as well he should have
civil rights violations
if he withheld exculpatory evidence, and proceeded without even interveiwing the alleged victim, and made all those defamatory statements early on? Lawsuit

she signed a sworn statement that she was raped that night.

Nifong is awful and I think he will be in trouble with the State Bar, but I don't think there are grounds for a successful suit against NC, despite whatever Grisham put in one of his novels.



_____________________

you really should read it

I've heard about it, but haven't read it. I understand it to be about someone who was found guilty and spent time on death row, correct?




_________________

bogus investigations, junk science, horrible trials

bad, bad DA

2 kids still on death row: wardandfontenot.com

and that the NC Attorney General's office will be taking over the case. The AG has already assigned 2 lawyers to review everything and determine whether or not to go forward.


_____________

I read recently somewhere that her first actual sworn statement wasn't until December's. If that were the case, does that change your view about Nifong's liability? Should he have brought a case to the grand jury without a sworn statement? (I also read that the accuser doesn't have to go to the grand jury -- that in NC hearsay testimony is adequate.)

On edit. Here's a link:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20061031_spilbor.html

Oct. 31, 2006

SNIP

Nifong has said that, even in innocuous conversations, the accuser couldn't look him in the eye, and appeared on the verge of tears. And he's said that in a meeting on April 11 -- - about a week before he gave the case to the grand jury -- he and an investigator avoided discussing details of the case with the accuser because she was "too traumatized." (Attorneys bring investigators along to such meetings in part so that, if disputes arise as to what was said, the investigator - not the attorney - can become a witness in the case.)

(This raises the issue of whether the unprepared accuser appeared before the grand jury. If she didn't, and it turns out she's fabricating, it may be hard to punish her, since she hasn't yet testified under oath. And it is possible she didn't: In North Carolina, as in the federal system, a grand jury can indict on hearsay.)

There is qualified, but not absolute immunity.

(and she did) then the DA's office isn't going to have anything to worry about as far as lawsuits by the LAX parents.

The day after the victim changed her story about the rape, the DA dropped the charges of rape.

A compaint isn't tantamount to probable cause or we're all in trouble.

injuries consistent with a sexual assault.

____________________

she had any "injuries," other than a couple of small and old scabs on her legs.

She did have some swelling of her tissues, which would be consistent with her performance with a "sex toy" in a "dance" that she gave in a man's hotel room earlier in the day.

eom

You're very eager to believe the prosecution.

The local news has been all over this and has seen the medical records in the court documents filed and has reported on them.




How about reading a little about the case? You seem very eager to show you don't know even the basics.



______________________

The judge signed the order based on a statement Nifong's office made. But Nifong made the claim before the medical records had even been sent to his office!

For more info about the SANE exam, you might also be interested in this link.

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/search?q=SANE+

Recently the defense filed notice that it planned to call as expert witnesses all of Mike Nifong’s expert witnesses save one—SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy. A recent post by Kathleen Eckelt explains why.

According to Eckelt, Levicy belongs nowhere near a courtroom as an expert witness. As of March 14, she had almost no experience as a nurse, and was listed as only a SANE nurse-in-training. “It takes time,” Eckelt notes, “to develop the ability to make snap decisions needed in emergency situations. It takes time to learn about things like the bio-mechanics of trauma and patterns of injury. It takes time and skill to recognize personality disorders and manipulative and attention seeking behaviors that some patients will exhibit.” Only experience can provide the learning for such matters.

The role of a legal nurse consultant—experts who can testify in court—usually requires 10 years of experience, “because the primary job of an LNC is to be able to review medical records to determine if there has been any deviation from the standard of care (SOC) provided to a patient.” A nurse who can testify as an expert witness requires “a strong clinical background which can only be obtained through years of hands on practice.”

Those who train as forensic nurses have similar need for experience. “Forensic nurses,” in short, “are registered nurses with advanced, specialized training in forensic sciences and the law.” They’re not people just beginning their careers as regular nurses, like Levicy was on March 14. In Eckelt’s mind, “there is no way I would have even considered becoming a SANE nurse with only a few months nursing experience, much less walk into court to testify as an ‘expert.’” Indeed, she wonders, “How does one maintain they have ‘specialized knowledge’ when they haven't even finished their training yet?” A SANE-in-training “means you have almost zilch experience,” and that “you should still be supervised by an experienced SANE nurse during any exam” (which appears not to have occurred in this case).

it has a definite bias to it that is easy to see.

Seems like that blog author thinks everyone involved, including the SANE nurse, the DA, the law enforcement officers, has conspired against these LAX players?

That is just not believable to me.

Nifong has screwed up and probably irreparably harmed the case, but everyone involved isn't out to 'get' these guys.


______________________

I don't know where you're getting that.

The blogger identifies himself as a progressive Democrat, by the way, who came to his interest in the case from the point of civil liberties.

And the point I was making wasn't about the reliability of the N & O, but that the article was "outdated." Newer information has shown that Nifong was making representations about the content of the results of the SANE exam and medical report BEFORE he had even read them.

research Mr. Johnson a tad.

Ms. Eckelt's a "professional witness".... and has never actually met the parties, nor examined any evidence first hand. Her "opinion" is conjecture based on the information to which she is "privvy" (all?? I think not) Nothing more. Nothing less.

Again - sources sources sources.... who are they and why do they say what they do?

BTW - congrats on quoting the exact same article that people on that "site which shall remain nameless" posts on. :thumbsup:

And why don't you tell me what you're implying about Mr. Johnson. He's a progressive Democrat, and he teaches history. Is there some reason you're being deliberately obscure?

Really? I certainly didn't get that impression from the articles of his that I read. :shrug: Not that really matters - as he certainly seems to have an agenda and preconceived opinion in this case, doesn't he?

You don't know what that last sentence means?

Google Kathleen Eckelt and Duke and see the websites that come up quoting her.

I don't know how to find that now, but here is a sample of his political writing:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/6557.html

(Re: the 2004 Democratic convention)

Best Speeches:

1.) Barack Obama--Much like Mario Cuomo's address at the 1984 SF Convention, 10 years from now Obama's talk will be the only thing most people recall about this convention.

2.) Bill Clinton--A reminder of why the Dems would be better off with him as their nominee.

3.) Hillary Clinton--One of the best speeches I've heard her give, and she made a point--that the 9/11 Commission never would have occurred without the efforts of the 9/11 families overcoming the opposition of the administration--that deserves much more emphasis.

he appears to be anti-affirmative action, and anti-diversity. He doesn't seem all that "progressive" to me. :shrug:

He also is a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but of course many people around here want to claim that she isn't progressive, either.

read his op-eds.

but I agree with him on this:

3. Groupthink has its effects. Any orthodoxy — even the race/class/gender approach currently in vogue — can go too far, especially in an atmosphere when it passes unchallenged, blinding its adherents to injustice in their midst. Academic debates can sometimes seem trivial, and it’s easy to understand the overwhelming temptation that some Duke professors felt last April to do the politically correct thing and denounce the lacrosse players....

Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 at 1:09 PM



http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/33436.htm

what you're referring to.

Nifong admitted that he conspired with the DNA lab to withhold from the defense the results.

that Nifong essentially made up the charges against the defendants without probable cause.

In this case there is a victim who signed a sworn statement that she was raped and there was some medical evidence that was "consistent with" a sexual assault.

So Nifong didn't make that up--there's a paper trail of that.

Plus, the day after the victim changed her story about the rape, Nifong dropped the charges of rape.

I do think Nifong will be in trouble with the State Bar for not disclosing the DNA results to the defendant's attorneys.


________________

Although, the defendants MIGHT be able to hang their hat on the withholding evidence, illegal line-up and the bar association's charges of false claims. Also, once this case turns to complete shit, the media will probably go in the defendant's favor.

Still, like you say, it's a huge uphill battle. Sometimes I think we would be better off with a system more like the Brits have....IIRC, it's a lot less adversarial??? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't they take the "officer of the court" piece a little more seriously?

For instance, after the DNA evidence fell apart, the prosecutor was able to toss the rape charges - This was a blatant strategy to keep his initial bogus evidence/claims out from the jury's eyes.....turning the potential trial in to a he said she said. Everyone knows the game.

Was there malicious prosecution?


Did they violate Brady v Maryland by not sharing exculpatory evidence with the defense?


Did they violate procedure when they showed the alleged victim photos of only lacrosse team members as opposed to photos of lacrosse team members and ringers (random people) on the theory that if she said people who weren't even in the room assaulted her would undermine her recollection.


As I said before I'd be surprised if the three defendants sue but these are all jury questions if they sue and the state doesn't get a summary judgement in their favor...

in this case? They have been slamming the Prosecution since this began.

Fox News has been slamming him since the beginning.

Nifong's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I've been wondering about the personal anger toward him coming from the news media too.


_______________

"the personal anger toward him coming from " HERE at DU.

:shrug:

Because if his behavior is typical of DA's, then any one of us could end up being wrongly accused and subject to these kinds of tactics.

Because these students deserved from the very beginning to be treated as "innocent until proven guilty" -- as any of us would if we were brought to trial.

Because if someone like Nifong is allowed to run rampant, that is a message to all the other DA's across the country. Go ahead -- do whatever it takes to win -- there will be no repercussions.

That so many otherwise thoughtful Democrats came down heavily on the side of the state horrifies me. Haven't we learned anything about corruption and power? What made us such blind followers of a demagogue like Nifong?

**Because if his behavior is typical of DA's, then any one of us could end up being wrongly accused and subject to these kinds of tactics.**

It doesn't appear as if he's been stellar in his duty. But I don't think he was being deliberately so. He's a small town DA (yeah, Durham's really just a small town). Maybe - hopefully we'll find out the truth during the investigation of HIM.

**Because these students deserved from the very beginning to be treated as "innocent until proven guilty" -- as any of us would if we were brought to trial.**

Because the girl deserved from the very beginning to be treated as a "believable victim" and not dismissed because she was female, black, poor, and just a "stripper" - which everyone knows is just a "whore anyway".

**Because if someone like Nifong is allowed to run rampant, that is a message to all the other DA's across the country. Go ahead -- do whatever it takes to win -- there will be no repercussions.**

Because if the wealthy are able to buy their way out of anything, and are believed only because they are rich white boys then that is a message to all the rest across theh country. Go ahead -- do whatever it takes to win -- you can buy and PR your way out of anything.

***That so many otherwise thoughtful Democrats came down heavily on the side of the state horrifies me. Haven't we learned anything about corruption and power? What made us such blind followers of a demagogue like Nifong?***

That so many otherwise thoughtful Democrats came down heavily on the side of the rich white boys and dismissed the poor black stripper TRULY HORRIFIES me. Haven't we learned anything about corruption and power (and money and power??) What made us such blind followers of the rich and powerful like the families/attorney's of the accused?

In fact many on DU who initially came in on the side of the alleged victim only turned around AFTER so much misconduct on Nifong's case was revealed.

a "thoughtful democrat" - your opinion notwithstanding.

I'm not on a "side" here. I'm trying very hard to NOT maintain a "side". But the fact remains that most of those in here ARE on a side, and - of necessity - I needs must argue the "other side".

BTW - even IF there was "misconduct on Nifong's" part - does that necessarily mean that the crime did NOT occur?

There may have been a crime.

There may not.

But the alleged victim's story has changed so much she can't be considered credible, and Nifong has cast doubt on the whole thing.

I don't know why you think her race and his political party are the outstanding factors.

putting your words in my mouth like that.

I could give a rat's patootie about political party or race. Race enters into it only in the sense that she's a poor black female and they're rich white males.... I don't "believe her" or "side with her" because of it.

And as stated - I don't have a "side" except the truth.

Go back and look at those "alleged changes" in the story.

You might want to consider the circumstances. AND your sources.

and who believed Nifong that she had been the victim of a horrible attack. I also had somewhat of a prejudice against Duke students, for whatever reason. But I couldn't keep reading about the details of the case and not change my mind. This has been quite a learning experience. A scary one.

You have been campaigning against the accuser from the git-go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1092167#1092287

Your obsession w/this case makes me ill.

After a trauma, such as rape, the brain will try to protect the victim, causing memory to be distorted.

I know. I was there. Twenty years later, I still do not remember anything close to everything.

When I questioned the detective on my case why I couldn't remember, he said it was normal.


Every time you beat on this woman, you are beating on rape victims everywhere.

guilt. I had been guilty of that myself, but I was revising my judgment. The case began six weeks earlier, when Nifong suddenly started spewing forth his allegations. I believed him initially, but I began to have doubts when I learned that the students had passed lie detector tests AND that the first DNA results had been negative. At that point I became concerned that too many people were prejudging the guilt of the students. (Also, because so many DUers seemed to think that the color of the students' skin or the amount in their parent's bank accounts pointed to their guilt.)

And nowhere in the thread was I campaigning against the accuser. I was asking a simple question: didn't the accused in this case deserve the presumption of innocence? Or doesn't that apply when there is an accusation of rape? And then, in response to other people's comments, I also engaged in some hypothetical discussions that had nothing to do with this actual case.

Show me any post of mine, in any thread, where I "beat on this woman."

When a woman makes a false accusation of rape, SHE is the one who hurts real rape victims everywhere. I'm very sorry about what happened to you, but it has nothing to do with the accuser in this case. She's a separate person, with her own problems that have nothing to do with yours.

YOU are hurting rape victims w/your sick obsession in this case. YOU can't let it go.

YOU are hurting me. YOUR "I'm very sorry about what happened to you, but it has nothing to do with the accuser in this case" is hurting me.

WHY? Why must you post ad nauseum about this case? You were not involved in this case in any way, shape or form.

You have never been raped. YOU have no fucking idea the pain it causes. YOU have no fucking idea the fear it causes.

Yet, over and over and over again, you post your uneducated crap.

Go ahead. It won't hurt my feelings.

:hi:

When you continue to persist w/your sick obsession, I will be there to point out how your are hurting rape victims everywhere. Moreover, I will point out your lies.

That should be good for a laugh.

You know jack shit. You were not there.

I do hope there is Karma.

It isn't healthy.

I have posted no lies. That's why you can't point to any.

I'm sorry about what happened to you, but if it pains you so much to participate in this discussion, then you shouldn't. It isn't a reason for me to stop posting, however. You're an adult, and you're the one who is deciding to subject yourself to this.

You refuse to admit it.

It must be sad to live a life absent of empathy or sympathy. Or do you think you are better than that? It sure seems that way.

Keep on twisting the knife. One day it will be turned on you.

a person who lives "a life absent of empathy or sympathy?"

Better in what way? An autistic person lacks empathy, but I don't think I am "better" than an autistic person.

come back on them.

Noting that this woman is full of shit is not beating up on rape victims ANYWHERE.

She lied about what happened that WEEK - who the hell knows what happened that night?

I believed Nifong that there was a good basis for the claims. I knew that most women don't bring false rape charges. And I wasn't any fan of Duke University, Duke students, or the South in general. (Sorry, Southern DUers, I don't mean you.) :grin:

But sometime in May my mother asked me about the case. So I started actually paying attention -- digging deeper. And the scales fell off my eyes. The more I read, the more obvious it was that the charges were spurious and that the prosecutor brought this case for his own ends.

Sorry, but "victim's rights" aren't in the constitution. The rights of the accused are. The prosecution brings a case, not an accuser. The accuser has the right to a fair trial. Not the accuser.

I didn't disbelieve her because she was poor or black or a stripper. I read her contradictory claims -- they didn't hold together. I read about the tainted photo lineup -- it didn't convince me. I read about the lack of injuries, despite her claim of a severe beating. That didn't make sense either. I read about the lack of DNA evidence, and the presence of other DNA evidence.

All of this, and more, is why I don't believe her story. It has nothing to do with her background.

And, though as I said, I'm not fond of rich, carousing Duke students, I'm not going to say they're guilty because I don't like them. Unlike you, apparently.

I didn't say I didn't "like the Duke students". I'm a HUGE DUKE basketball fan! (Unless they play Kentucky, of course! :) )

I did state elsewhere that I knew some Duke frat boys. And I do. I also happen to know a couple of other people involved in this - on BOTH SIDES. Although - I've NEVER talked with any of them about THIS case as I moved from Durham some time ago.

The fact that you don't interpret the same information in the same way as I do doesn't mean that you're "right" or that I'm "wrong". In fact, I haven't claimed her guilt or their guilt. I've stated that I think there is a case that needs to be pursued. I've stated that there have been errors made on just about every damn person's part that touched the investigation. I've stated that I have tried to keep an OPEN mind as to the guilt or innocence of either party.

Does it sometimes sound like I'm on a "side". Sure - in here - as it seems I'm consistently trying to point out interpretations based on innuendo and 'media stories' are shaky points upon which to base a decision.

I haven't "made up MY mind". Unlike you, apparently.

Another one called "innocent until proven guilty." Another called "accused's right to a fair trial."

Every accusation is NOT pursued. Only the cases that have a reasonable chance of being proven to an unbiased jury.

This is a case that had too many holes from the very beginning. Negative DNA evidence. A photo lineup NOT carried out according to North Carolina procedure. An accuser with hugely inconsistent stories. At least one defendant with solid alibi evidence.

Nifong has stated in court that, as N.C. law requires, he has provided the defense with all the evidence he has against them. This is a case that shouldn't have been brought to a grand jury, much less to trial.

the judge must be "in on it, too", eh?

Or just maybe he knows something *you* don't?

Civil liberties. All sides are entitled to them. In case you forgot.

If that's what you're implying. The State brings decides to bring charges to a trial, not an accuser.

Apparently you didn't realize this.

that wasn't what *I* was talking about - but hey - you make up your own mind what you think I'm implying. You seem to be pretty good at that. :)

when you are being so obscure?

someone's certainly being "ob-" something.

And still doesn't.

Too many Democrats were blinded by the fact that he was another Democrat and that the accuser was poor and black.

Being a democrat does not excuse one from being an asshole or incompetent or even exploitive.

There are many on DU, including me, that are disgusted with the actions of this DA.

And I didn't "slam" him until it became more and more apparent that the men accused, didn't do it. And with him admitting to conspire to withhold vital DNA evidence, everyone should be disgusted with his actions.

I don't think any of the people that night, LAX players or the alleged victim, is telling the absolute truth of what happened that night.

The NC Attorney General's office will now review the case and decide whether or not to go forward.


________________

The woman's testimony is filled with impossible contradictions.

We may not have "absolute truth." But we don't need it to know that this whole case has been a travesty of justice.

I was falsely arrested and it was no fun at all...I was taken to the local police department holding cell but thankfully was bailed out before I was taken to the county jail where I would have been thrown in with the general population. My mom had to call our family friend/neighbor to come up with the $10,000.00 collateral that was bail.


We got a lwayer and eventually the charges were dropped. We sued for false arrest, false imprisonment, and prosecution and won...


I don't know all the facts of this case but I do know the state has awesome power-the power to deprive you of your liberty...

but I do know someone falsely accused in a civil court and that in itself is a nightmare to go through. I have deep sympathy for the families of these boys. No one -- no matter how wealthy they are or how many lawyers they can hire -- should have to go through something like this.

In a civil unit they can put their hand in your pocket. In a criminal trial they can throw you in the hooskow..

I can't imagine what hell these families have been put through, with the prospect of 3 to 4 decades in prison hanging over their son's heads.

this dirtbag DA used a poor black girl to get the votes of a lot of poor black people so he could collect paychecks for another 4 years.

He deserves worse than they can legally give him. Hopefully he'll get at least what they can legally do.

against the LAX players just to win the DA slot?

The "poor black people" weren't fooled around here, by the way. Let's give the African Americans a little more credit than that, okay?



____________

And they elected him anyways. Why give them more credit that that?

your viewpoint is garbage.



____________________________

nm

Who are you again, and where are you from?

For the accuser, anyway. With Nifong it was all about his election campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal

"The strip club's security officer said that the accuser told co-workers four days after the alleged incident that she "was going to get money from some boys at a Duke party who hadn't paid her," adding that she essentially said, "I'm going to get paid by the white boys." The security guard did not make a big deal of it "because no one takes her seriously."

should come into play.

They said. The defense attorney said. Some say. Some have report.

Who are these people and what is their credibility? Have they been cross examined? Do they have a dog in this fight? Why should you believe them out of hand?

You've obviously never worked in an attorney's office. The way they can put things could make you think Jesus himself was guilty.

but call out someone on their "critical reading skills" (whatever the hell that means) when they point out evidence from the other side.

Why do you continue to defend a rotten DA and a lying stripper who was obviously lying? Is it because the DA was a Democrat and the stripper was African-American?

I believe everything coming from EITHER side.

I don't have enough information to MAKE an INFORMED DECISION. And neither does anyone else on here.

The fact that YOU'RE on a side necessitates my arguing the "other side"..... capice?

**Why do you continue to defend a rotten DA and a lying stripper who was obviously lying? Is it because the DA was a Democrat and the stripper was African-American? **

Why do you say she's "obviously lying?" Upon what are you basing this?

I think Nifong is a small-town DA who was in over his head. AND he's been outspent. AND the fact that DUKE means $$$ in Durham and NC.

The fact that she's a "stripper" counts against her in my honest opinion. I typically have no respect, and little tolerance, for someone who resorts to this in order to survive.

Can people make tentative decisions based on what they know?

I have this thing about people making decisions based on fact and not rhetoric and conjecture.

Of course you can make a "tentative decision" - but one shouldn't declaim unequivocally a person's guilt or innocence based on the limited - and probably inaccurate - information that you have. And you should make very very sure, that any prejudices you may harbor doesn't enter into the equation.

in many points. They can't all be true. Some of her statements are untruths. Therefore, she is an untruth-teller. Therefore, her word alone cannot be relied on.

Does that satisfy you?

And it shouldn't you, either.

For anyone feeling that she truly was raped, this is all bad. All of it. She will never see justice because of the way she has handled her story and the bungling by the DA.

One year later, the plaintiff's case is in shambles, but the status of the defendants has remained virtually unchanged.

**The defense also has argued that the accuser gave different versions of the events of March 13. However, the files show that aside from two brief early conversations with the police, she gave largely consistent accounts of being raped by three men in a bathroom, the Times reported.**

http://www.wraltv.com/news/local/story/1092027/

Some of those "inconsistencies" could understandably be trauma-related . . .

eyes of the reader. I disagree with the reporter's view, and I also think he was wrong to discount the "two brief early conversations with the police." Taken together, her statements were rife with contradictions and inconsistencies.

And now the latest version of the accuser's story -- in the December interview -- is also at odds with many statements in any of her other versions.

Whatever the reason for all the inconsistencies, her word cannot be relied on. It is far too shaky a foundation for a criminal trial.

jury to decide.

much less to a full trial.

been on the Grand Jury - what do you think would have happened?

Do you think there is evidence to which you're not privvy, btw?

Also, do you think it possible the defense attorneys', and the media, and paid PR publicists might have had a bit of an effect on your opinion?

by the evidence that is already public.

Reasonable doubt has already been proven, even if Nifong is breaking N.C. law by continuing to withhold significant evidence.

you're mind is certainly made up, isn't it?

Amazing.

Been following those Defense attorney tactics closely, have we?

It's obvious that you believe some huge conspiracy by rich white men is to blame. I'm not taking sides other than to be against the obvious prosecutorial misconduct by Nifong. If you don't have enough information to make an informed decision, then WHY HAVE YOU?

It doesn't matter if Nifong is a small town DA - it's still his job to prosecute crimes under laws and rules that govern his behavior. You're making excuses for someone who has done terrible things, and should be in jail himself.

As for the stripper: if you don't think she's lying, than you're even blinder than I thought. The published evidence shows that she has been less than truthful in nearly every aspect of this case. I feel badly for her; she has mental problems, and earns money by stripping and having sex with rich white boys who treat her like dirt. But to go to the lengths she has (for whatever motive) indicates mental issues that need to be confronted. In our society, she is unlikely to get adequate help unless she pays for it herself.

It's obvious you seem to believe some huge conspiracy by a poor mental black girl and power hungry DA are to blame.

That you think that I have, is probably because I seem to spend the majority of my time disabusing people of their biases and reliance upon questionable "sources" of which, it seems, the preponderance of posters on that particular side rely.

If you're going to argue the case, then argue the FACTS in evidence. Not what you read in some rag. NOT what the Defense Attorney's filed in "some motion" because I know for a fact that you cannot rely on *those* to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - and they're generally written in such a way as to make the defendent appear innocent (even if he isn't) and to villify the opposition.


You DO NOT have all the facts of this case, sir. You said, "The published evidence. . . "

I rest my case.

The evidence presented by other side is always skewed to their side's advantage. Your earlier posts:

"$$, race, sex, and power speaks volumes - and tends to drown out everything else, doesn't it?"

It was YOU who posted about the conspiracy involving race and money. I doubt you based that on the "FACTS in evidence".

"Because if the wealthy are able to buy their way out of anything, and are believed only because they are rich white boys then that is a message to all the rest across theh country. Go ahead -- do whatever it takes to win -- you can buy and PR your way out of anything."

Again, you're accusing a huge class of people of some conspiracy. There are plenty of wealthy people that are able to buy their way out of trouble, but in this case, that simply isn't true. You treat the men involved as if they're automatically guilty, and that they will be able to get away with anything because of their money. This is a terrible attitude. Awful.

"That so many otherwise thoughtful Democrats came down heavily on the side of the rich white boys and dismissed the poor black stripper TRULY HORRIFIES me. Haven't we learned anything about corruption and power (and money and power??) What made us such blind followers of the rich and powerful like the families/attorney's of the accused?"

It horrifies you that people here at DU come down on the side of justice? God forbid!

"Because the girl deserved from the very beginning to be treated as a "believable victim" and not dismissed because she was female, black, poor, and just a "stripper" - which everyone knows is just a "whore anyway"."

You're saying that the girl wasn't treated as a believable victim? If anything, the DA took it too far the other way, continuing to believe even when the story had become unbelievable. No one here has asked to have the allegations dismissed simply because the woman was a black stripper.

"BTW - even IF there was "misconduct on Nifong's" part - does that necessarily mean that the crime did NOT occur?"

Wonderful logic. Instead of defending a DA that did a piss-poor job (because of the D next to his name?), look at the information we do have. It does not back up the idea that the woman was raped by the Duke men.

Let me ask you:

Did the prosecutor act appropriately in this case?
Who do you think is/are the victim(s) in the case?
Should the DA be given the benefit of the doubt because he's a Democrat?
Should the stripper's allegations be given more credence because she is black and her alleged attackers were rich white men?
When an African-American makes an allegation against a white person, should he/she be assumed guilty until proven innocent? (BTW, this is the message that is coming through loud and clear in your posts - deny it all you want)

You chide me on my use of facts not in evidence, but you are make far larger (and more ridiculous) inferences from evidence that doesn't even exist.

You, madam, do not have all the evidence either; you can rest your case, but it is a sorry and sad case you make. Before accusing me of conspiracy theories, look at your ridiculous posts earlier in this thread.

I was a using a technique of writing? I was rebutting the points by taking the same words and changing them only slightly to show the other side of the coin...

**"BTW - even IF there was "misconduct on Nifong's" part - does that necessarily mean that the crime did NOT occur?"

Wonderful logic. ***

It IS wonderful logic. Even IF NIFONG committed HUGE misconduct, that does NOT mean that a crime did not take place. What about that do you not understand?

**Instead of defending a DA that did a piss-poor job (because of the D next to his name?), look at the information we do have. It does not back up the idea that the woman was raped by the Duke men.**

Again, I don't give a damn that Nifong is a Democrat. I think he might not be a very competent DA, but I don't believe he's a nefarious one. But I could be wrong about that. I dunno.

My case resting had to do with your "sources" - which just proves my point.

And the fact that you don't recognize when one is "making a point" and not taking a defined position.

**"BTW - even IF there was "misconduct on Nifong's" part - does that necessarily mean that the crime did NOT occur?"

Wonderful logic. ***

It IS wonderful logic. Even IF NIFONG committed HUGE misconduct, that does NOT mean that a crime did not take place. What about that do you not understand?

No, it's highly illogical. Nifong's behaviour either way doesn't mean or prove guilt or innocence. You're thinly veiled attempts to defend this woman shows that you have taken a side. You want so BADLY for those rich white dudes to be guilty that you let that emotion cloud your judgement.

My case resting had to do with your "sources" - which just proves my point.

Again, you try to prove a point without actually proving something. Your word doesn't make it so. If I use DU as a source for something does that mean that it's bullshit simply because it came from the internet? You are implying that every word in the media is a lie regarding the case, again getting to this conspiracy you seem so desperate to unearth. I take everything I read with a grain of salt, but when an issue is trending one way, I'm able to begin making a judgement call in my own mind. In this case, the lack of evidence for rape, and the piles of evidence for the boys being innocent didn't make it hard to decide which direction this case was going. Why are you on a witchhunt for these Lacrosse players?

And the fact that you don't recognize when one is "making a point" and not taking a defined position.

I didn't see that at all. What I do see is someone trying to blame a huge "rich white person" conspiracy for a non-rape, and who is now trying to backpeddle from that ridiculous stance.

You didn't answer my questions.

I think it proved my point quite nicely. Which I gather is what upsets you most.

**No, it's highly illogical.

Nifong's behaviour either way doesn't mean or prove guilt or innocence.**

That's EXACTLY what I just said. d'oh.

I don't WANT those boys to be guilty. I don't WANT for her to be guilty. I don't WANT anyone to BE GUILTY. (What I WANT is a world where such things (either way) couldn't possibly have ever taken place, but that'll never happen in my lifetime.)


**In this case, the lack of evidence for rape, and the piles of evidence for the boys being innocent**

SOURCE? (Legitimate, please. As in HARD evidence. Not what "someone said".)

I'm not the one on a witchhunt. I'm the one trying to get people to THINK and read critically and consider their sources of information (not to mention recognizing their own - possibly unconscious - biases.)

I'm not backpedaling on anything as I've never made a definitive statement as to whether *I* believed either party was guilty or innocent.

Do you have some inside source that is telling you about the giant white-man conspiracy? The only evidence I have is the court documentation and the information in the press. Unless you have a time machine and can go watch the actual incident, your information is as good as mine.

Until you started trying to defend your ridiculous position with me, you never mentioned that you were simply attempting to get people to "read critically".

I recognize both my conscious and unconscious biases; we all have them. I'm interested in why you would accuse me of being biased.

Your "body of work" in this thread is enough evidence to show which side you're taking. You didn't have to make a definitive statement. Do you know what your own biases are?

However, I discount much of what I read in the press.

I never said it was a "white man conspiracy" - but it certainly **could** be rich men's attempt to protect a number of things (sons, sports, Universities, cities, reputations, etc...) The 'white' part just plays well in the press, doncha know?


**I'm interested in why you would accuse me of being biased.**

From your first post to me: "Why do you continue to defend a rotten DA and a lying stripper who was obviously lying? Is it because the DA was a Democrat and the stripper was African-American? " and you think I'm just some "pro-dem", "anti-whitey" or something from your remarks to me.


I do know what my own biases are.

I'm white.

I'm female.

I'm Southern - bred, born, and raised in the DEEP SOUTH during desegretation. I was raised to believe in "separate but equal". I was raised to believe in "not mixing". I was raised - well - you get the picture.

I've been a victim of assault.

I'm not rich.

I'm not poor.

I'm not black.

I have been a relatively poor single mom for a number of years in my life (due to divorce).

I've never stripped nor prostituted and I generally have a very low opinion of people who do those things.

I've known some rich Duke frat boys. Some were very nice. Some weren't so nice. I knew a LOT of Duke grads and the parents of Duke students.

I've known some NCCU students. Some were nice. Some weren't so nice. I've known some NCCU grads and some parents of NCCU students.

I know some of the parties (on both sides of this) who've been mentioned in various aspects. Not the alleged victim nor the alleged perps. I don't know Nifong, either.


edit to add - I've not discussed the case with any of the people I mentioned as I've not talked with any of them in several years.

lump in the category of something someone "said," then there is obviously no evidence that will mean anything to YOU.

But to many of us, the DNA results, the mishandled photo-lineup, the accuser's conflicting statements, and the alibi evidence, etc., etc. adds up to a huge reasonable doubt.

Sorry - I didn't answer these before. My apologies.

Did the prosecutor act appropriately in this case?

It appears as if he may have made some mistakes.


Who do you think is/are the victim(s) in the case?

I think there are a number of victims here on all sides of this case.


Should the DA be given the benefit of the doubt because he's a Democrat?

HELL NO.


Should the stripper's allegations be given more credence because she is black and her alleged attackers were rich white men?

HELL NO.

When an African-American makes an allegation against a white person, should he/she be assumed guilty until proven innocent? (BTW, this is the message that is coming through loud and clear in your posts - deny it all you want)

HELL NO.

BTW - what race do you think I am? or sex for that matter? age, creed, orientation, religion, etc......

Your answers are definite (and correct), but those points are not coming through in your other posts in this thread.

I could be wrong, but I would guess you are a white female.

at some point? Yeah, I'm a white female.

I lived in Durham for many years, and the RTP area for about 25 years. I just recently left the area.

I'm serious when I say I don't have an opinion as to guilt or innocence on the part of either party. I'd say it's probably a coin toss as to which side is telling the truth. Both sides are probably telling their share of "lies", imho.

But then again, people can see and participate in the exact same event and see it in two diametrically opposed ways. Doesn't mean one IS lying and the other ISN'T - they just see it 'differently'.

I really do get a bee in my bonnet about people using what the Defense attorney's say as their "source" of evidence. Or anything said by someone NOT under oath and who has NOT been cross-examined.

Because most of the arguments in here are from people who HAVE 'made up their minds' - I must, of necessity, "argue the other POV". Understand?

I do that myself, seriously. (No, I'm not nuts! Ok, maybe a little :P ) I learned a long time ago that if you can "successfully debate" BOTH sides of an issue, you'll have a far better understanding of the issue itself.

I realized I'd been assuming it. Not sure why... Hmmmm.

Anyway, I guess I can see why you're arguing the other side, but your earlier posts didn't come across that way at all. Something said under oath isn't necessarily true either, but there has been enough information in the media to make a mostly educated guess.

It's just sad that this poor woman will probably end up in prison instead of a facility where she can get help. It's also sad that these boys (why do we call them boys and the stripper a woman? Another hmmmm.) will have this weight hanging from their necks for the rest of their lives. They may not have been the greatest guys, but did these deserve what they will get?

but listen to yourself - you "made a mostly educated guess" based on insufficient information garned from the media - yet you've got her going to prison and the boys suffering a false accusation for the rest of their lives......

Don't you see?

Why do we call them boys and her a woman? Interesting. Reminds me of the Iraq rape case where they kept calling that young teen girl a "woman" in the media.

because of the very things I pointed out earlier. She is poor, her mental stability is questionable, and a public defender isn't going to do much for her. A "mostly educated guess" is the best anyone can do unless they were there during the incident. But the evidence we do have simply isn't there to back up allegations of rape.

As for the boy/woman thing: it's a subjective thing (another guess?), but a "woman" has more power over her situation, and is seen as less innocent than a "girl". A "boy" is "just being a boy" while a "man" should have had some control over the situation. The term "the Duke boys" was probably coined by a defense attorney looking to paint impressions on his possible jury pool.

when the vast majority of DU'ers were strongly supporting the accuser?

I can find of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1290634#1299364

And no, I don't think the "vast majority of DU'ers were strongly supporting the accuser" then, either.

If you look, I'm pretty much saying what I've said from the get go. I don't know who's guilty. I don't know who's lying. There were plenty of screwups in the investigation but she shouldn't be penalized for that. And neither should the Dookies.

is that none of this evidence comes by itself -- this case won't be hinging on what one of the accuser's fellow employees said about her.

Or on any single piece of evidence, for that matter. But when you add it all together -- the lack of any students DNA, the existence of several unknown male's DNA, the lack of physical injuries, all the contradictions in the accuser's own statements, the alibi evidence, the flawed photo-lineup, the accuser's lying to the police (about her sexual activity), the accuser's acknowledgment of using alcohol and flexeril, etc., etc.

what you have is a case that should never -- and in normal circumstances, would never -- have been brought to the indictment stage.

in your paragraph is based on unsworn/uncross-examined testimony, media reports, or defense attorney statements.

Sorry.

And many court documents are also available on the internet. You should try actually reading them.

By the way, when the defendants lawyers bring a motion, Nifong has a chance to dispute anything in the motion -- by answering the filing. If the defendants lawyers were making false statements in their motions, Nifong would be disputing them. How do you account for the fact that he isn't?

and do - say ANYTHING....... Nifong (if he has half a brain, which I'm beginning to wonder about) wouldn't have to say anything to them. He should wait until trial.

And I have read the court documents.

And just because it's a "court document" doesn't mean it's necessarily "all true", ya know.

defense motions and opposing them -- with facts. If the other side was telling lies, he'd be pointing them out. You don't wait for trial to do this, because if you don't answer a defense motion, the judge will rule on it without your input. And he could dismiss the case and there wouldn't be any trial.

You know this is how it's done?

Nifong doesn't have to answer them.

Why hasn't the judge dismissed this already then?

And yes, I actually did work for an attorney as a paralegal. Fortunately, that was a long time ago.

Will your opinion change if he doesn't?

If you worked as a paralegal, then you know the extent to which defense attorney's will go to make their clients "look good" and the accuser to "look bad". They may not actually LIE, but they sure as hell can twist and misconstrue, can't they?

N.C. law or precedent for derailing a case at this stage.

But what I do know is that this case has mountains of reasonable doubt, and that no unbiased, intelligent jury would find these students guilty. Therefore, this case should never have been brought.

**no unbiased, intelligent jury would find these students guilty.**

How'd you do that?

and if they are found guilty, they of course the jury was biased and unintelligent. And I bet they'd probably be anti-dookies and black, to boot.

There isn't anything short of a full confession by one of the students that would change my mind. There is ALREADY too much reasonable doubt.

or what you know of the evidence that's public and the defense attorney's motions (which, as you should know, aren't really "evidence".)

if this case ever comes to trial.

And if Nifong has noted anything that is a lie in the motions, he should be answering them. That's part of his job.

And he deliberately avoided interviewing her or having her do a lie detector test so that he could continue to pretend he had a solid case. Which is also why he colluded with Dr. Meehan to have the full DNA results left out of the "final report."

"Why are so many DU-ers rabidly negative on the Prosecution" ?

"In light of the fact that no crime took place, why aren't those that so rabidly defended the girl's rights not defending the boys rights?"


Do they only support "rights" for some people and not all? Seems hypocritical to me.

""In light of the fact that no crime took place"

Were you there or something?

You don't KNOW that "no crime took place" - you ONLY KNOW - what the defense has leaked and tweaked.

nm

I know a lot of things where I wasn't there and didn't see them with my own eyes.

This is just one of them.

you KNOW. What are you psychot-- - er - psychic?

:rofl:


edit spelling.

come out of the woodwork in support of these boys.

Oh, and you're right, a crime has been committed - but not by those boys.

except the people in the room.

Why do you automatically believe that what their defense attorneys claim, is really true?

nm

of asteriks you charmingly use.

The only ones who know for sure what happened are the ones who were there that night.





______________________

I know what happened. And it was nothing.

This case should never have gone to the indictment stage, much less to trial. When Nifong brought the indictments to the grand jury, he already knew that the DNA of several men were found on her body, but none belonged to any of the defendants. He already knew that she had to see three different lineups, and he had to eliminate any fillers before she finally picked out the three students. He already knew that she said they hadn't used condoms (but he speculated in public that she was wrong, even though he knew that the testing had revealed no traces of condoms) . He already knew that Finnerty's description didn't come close to matching any of the attackers. He already knew that Seligmann had an alibi and a witness, had bank camera records and a taxi driver -- but he refused to consider the alibi. He already knew that she had lied to him -- at least about having had sex with others -- and that the students had passed lie detector tests.

But none of this mattered to him, because he had found the case that would give him the favorable media attention he needed to come up from behind in his election, to overcome the 4/1 advantage in campaign funding of his nearest opponent.

Would you care to switch sides and argue it? I can do that, too.

Unlike you, I'm not "taking sides".

So no, I don't care to switch sides and argue it. The other side is a sure loser.

arguing it, hon.

:rofl:

of the other witnesses -- speak for themselves. You don't have to rely on anything the defense attorneys claim. Read the primary documents. There is no case.

I think there is.

Shall we let a jury decide?

The DA is not supposed to prosecute cases that he has no chance of meeting the burden of proof i.e. "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's an ethical charge both regarding baseless prosecution and the waste of state resources.

Nifong should be, and probably will be, disbarred for this.

I have a reasonable belief that the crime *could* have occurred after having read all the same documents everyone else has.

The difference being - I generally dismiss just about anything written by the "defense attorney's" and anything that "someone" said....

Facts. Not opinions. Not unsworn testimony. Not uncross-examined testimony. Not highly paid attorney's who job it is to make their clients "look good" and to discredit the "victim". Not biased media types. Not sensationalists. Not people peripherally involved who get quoted and I have no idea whether or not they are credible.

See the difference?

Nothing but an incredible accuser's "say so." That's it. Boy, are you gullible.

the witness statements and other evidence, that makes you believe this case should ever have been brought to the indictment stage, much less a trial?