Semper Fi


  • usmcinsignianavalaviator

My Favorite Posts

« No Good Deed Goes Unpunished, Part Whatever | Main | Hu's on First »

Comments

cracker

"Not really, they brought a lot of this on themselves, and maybe they will learn a lesson or two."

Oh sure, blame the victim(s). ;-)

Nice Guy

Saying the lacrosse team brought this fake rape claim on themselves is like saying a women who was actually raped brought it on herself. It's just plain ignorance.

Polygraph accuser


I am a lawyer in practice more than 30 years. I have followed the events of the Duke lacrosse allegations closely. As a member of the bar, I am aware of my ethical obligations to my clients, the courts, my adversaries, and the public. Lawyers living up to those obligations is an essential part of our justice system. Lawyers have an exalted standard of conduct -- this is what makes our system of justice unique in the world.

I am concerned that Mike Nifong is not meeting his ethical obligations as a member of the bar. Given the status of the investigation, Nifong should require the accuser to take a polygraph examination in order to test her credibility.

If she refused to take the test or failed it, the case should be closed immediately. Nifong should not allow this investigation to languish. He has an ethical duty to investigate this matter in good faith, unaffected by his own personal or political motivations.

If he refuses to take appropriate steps to conclude this matter, then the electorate should carefully consider whether it wants, as its district attorney, a person who is willing to conduct a witchhunt instead of a search for the truth.

It is simply unfathomable in our United States that a community such as Durham could have an "inquisitor" in office who could point the accusatory finger at any of us that could ruin our lives without any credible proof of criminality.

Nice Guy

[b]Below is the text of the e-mail sent by Kim Roberts to 5W Public Relations in New York. Roberts, an exotic dancer, accompanied the woman accusing members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team of raping her the night of March 13. [/B]

Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:21 PM

To: Ronn Torossian

Subject: duke lacrosse scandal

Hi!

My name is Kim and I am involved in the Duke Lacrosse scandal. Although I am no celebrity and just an average citizen, I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country. I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage. I am determined not to let any negative publicity about my life overtake me. I'm so confused as to who to talk to for relevant advice and I hope that you can return my e-mail. If you cannot help, do you know of any names and numbers I can call?

Thanks for your time,

me again

With the taste of his own foot still lingering in his mouth, District Attorney Mike Nifong has another piece of evidence blow up in his face, I wonder how's his ulcer is doing?

So would it be his own aura or is it the universe's way of getting back at Nifong for destroying these young boys lives?

It would be funny if Nifong's ulcer leads to a colonoscopy, or would it be “ironic” or “poetic justice” that he screws 47 boys over a false rape claim and have to take a 36 inch colonoscopy tube up his @ss for his part in the fiasco he created.

They are innocent! The drunken black stripper with the long criminal record and history of making false accusations...lied.

• Stripper made a false claim of rape by three boys in 1996.
• Stripper made a false claim of kidnapping in 1998
• Stripper charged with larceny, auto theft, and trying to kill a police officer in 2002
• 1st round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team.
• 2nd round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team
• DNA proves stripper had sex with boyfriend/pimp which accounts for the “rape kit” evidence of recent sexual activity.
• Innocent boy who picked up finger nail and threw it in the trash left his DNA on the fake press-on nail and will be charged for rape.

The stripper’s account of the night has serious integrity issues:
1) First she claimed 20 boys raped her, then she narrowed it down to 3 in a bathroom

a. The bathroom is absolutely and completely devoid of any evidence of a rape. Where is her DNA? Urine, blood, vaginal fluid, saliva, or tears?
b. Many people’s DNA were found under her nails but none from the innocent lacrosse boys.
c. She lied about losing her fake finger nails in a desperate struggle in the small enclosed bathroom, but pictures show that she removed her nails before inadequately performing her routine. No scratches were found on any of the innocent lacrosse boys’ bodies.
d. The 2 innocent boys she “eeny meeny miney moed” to be her rapists weren’t even at the party the time she claimed the rape occurred. She claims that she’s 100% sure, but she told her father that she’s not sure.
e. She took drugs before coming to the house, something illegal.


The stripper obviously lied, and she’s putting these innocent boys and families through hell. She deserves to be in prison for the rest of her pathetic life. She is worthless as a person and human being. Her one lie destroyed innocent boys. I hope her and Nifong’s aura catches up to them and they both get what they deserve. I hope everyone wishing this rape claim to be true, in spite of all the evidence that it never occurred, gets what’s coming to them.

Betty

Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser Mentioned No Condoms Were Used
It seems the defense keeps finding more to support their side of things, with each new piece of information they get. Now from that stack of 1,300 papers, they have discovered that the stripper accuser mentioned no condoms were used. No condoms and…
The stripper’s body was completely void of any sign of a sexual assault (except for signs of recent vaginal and anal from her boyfriend). The alleged crime scene was completely devoid of DNA.

It is impossible that a crime scene with three drunk men in a small enclosed room with a fighting and clawing woman being orally, virginally, and anally penetrated not leave any DNA evidence of urine, blood, vaginal fluid, sweat, fecal matter, scat smears, saliva, tears, or semen... especially if condoms were used. How would they take off the condoms during all this chaos without spilling, smearing, or touching the content inside or outside of the condom?

When investigators questioned the stripper after DNA tests on the semen found inside her vagina and rectum didn’t match any of the Duke players, the stripper admitted to having had sex with at least three men around the time of the alleged rape. The stripper named her boyfriend and two men who drove her to Duke.


When questioned, the “drivers” said they would drop her off at several places, including hotel rooms.

It appears that the stripper has sex with men for rides to her strip shows…Nasty!

Blind to evidence
On Monday, May 15, a Durham County grand jury handed up a third indictment in the nothing-short-of-notorious Duke rape case. This latest indictment charges the lacrosse team's captain, David Evans, with first-degree rape, first-degree sexual assault, and first-degree kidnapping.
The charges against Evans are identical to those handed up last month against fellow players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. Still, this final indictment does come as a bit of surprise. As I detailed in a prior column, the cases against Seligmann and Finnerty appear quite weak. As I'll discuss in this column, the case against Evans may be even shakier. It's true that the grand jury did return indictments against Evans, and previously against the other two. It's also true that the District Attorney, Mike Nifong, is forging ahead -- seemingly undeterred.
But Nifong's judgment has been poor all along- and the old adage that a D.A. can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich" shouldn't be forgotten. Without defense attorneys there to test the prosecutor's evidence via the invaluable process of cross-examination, weak evidence can be made to look pretty convincing. It's not the grand jury's fault; it's just the reality that if you only hear one side, you tend to believe it.
At least a ham sandwich has some weight to it. As I'll explain in this column, the Evans indictment - like the two that preceded it - does not. The very evidence that may have convinced the grand jury - accuser identification and new DNA evidence - is just the kind that will ultimately fall apart when defense attorneys finally do get to cross-examine the witnesses presenting it.

The Mounting Evidence in Favor of Defendants' Innocence
All three defendants in the Duke lacrosse case have unfailingly and repeatedly proclaimed their innocence - Evans doing so most eloquently, on behalf of all three men, in a brief public comment following his being formally charged.
In fact, in a highly unusual move, newly indicted defendant Evans went to so far as to volunteer to take a lie detector test at the direction of law enforcement. When the D.A. refused, Evans enlisted a top polygrapher to administer the test anyway. He passed.
Thus far, the defense camp has come forward with a host of seemingly reliable, exculpatory evidence -evidence that will be admissible in court, and that is likely to sway a jury. I'm not talking about, maybe, kinda, sorta, or could be, exculpatory evidence either. I'm talking about weighty evidence - receipts, photos, phone records, alibi witnesses, an absence of DNA, and now actual DNA - that directly supports the defendants' claims of innocence.
A plethora of proof supporting a defendant's claim of innocence - not just the government's failure to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- is a rare pearl in the practice of criminal defense. It should cause the D.A. to reassess his case.

The Problems with the Accuser's "Identification" of Evans
In my prior columns, I discussed the problems with evidence against Seligmann - who has strong evidence supporting an alibi - and, to a lesser extent, against Finnerty. The evidence against Evans is also weak, maybe even more so.
Evans reportedly was not initially indicted, with the other two, because the accuser couldn't identify him with certainty (only with "90 percent certainty," in her words) from a photo lineup. Ten percent doubt sounds like a lot like reasonable doubt to me - and perhaps, at least initially, it sounded that way to D.A. Nifong too. And if the accuser herself has reasonable doubt, how can a prosecution go forward?
The accuser's lack of certainty is even more worrisome in light of the fact that the photo lineup was grossly biased. It included only Duke lacrosse players - meaning that the accuser had no choice but to select a Duke lacrosse player if she were to select anyone at all. And this photo lineup was apparently the sole means of identification for all three defendants.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the accuser is reported to have said that Evans's photo "looks just like [one of my assailants] without the mustache." According to Evans's defense lawyer, Evans has never worn a mustache. And party photos support this contention.
For all these reasons, the accuser's identification testimony is likely to be destroyed upon cross-examination.

The Problems with the New DNA Evidence
Besides the accuser's testimony, prosecutors also presented to the grand jury the results of a second round of DNA testing.
Readers may recall that the first round of DNA testing was, if anything, exculpatory: There was no DNA match whatsoever linking any of the forty-six lacrosse players whose DNA was taken, to the accuser.
Following those results, D.A. Nifong reportedly hired a private lab to re-test certain samples. In so doing, the new lab found a possible connection between defendant Evans and the accuser's discarded fake fingernail, found in the trash bin inside the bathroom.
To begin, it's awfully odd that the fake fingernail found its way into the trash bin in the first place, if a rape really occurred, and if the fake fingernail broke off during the victim's struggle, as she claims. No victim would clean up after her accusers; she would flee the scene. And if a culprit had the presence of mind to clean up -- realizing that the fake fingernail might be evidence against him -- surely he wouldn't just drop it in the trash can in the very room where the rape occurred, for police to easily find.
Significantly, too, defense attorneys claim the DNA material was found on the front of the nail -- not on the underside, where it would logically have lodged had the accuser scratched and clawed at her attackers as she claims.
But even putting these points aside, the DNA connection to Evans is weak. To begin, this isn't remotely close to the kind of "match" you may be familiar with from CSI - the kind where the odds of a false positive are infinitesimally small. Indeed, "match" here is a misnomer. All that can be said is that the DNA is "consistent" with DNA voluntarily supplied early on by Evans.
Shocking? Hardly. Evans lived in the house, and therefore may have, from time to time, blown his nose, swabbed an ear, or otherwise disposed of DNA-laden waste into that very trashcan.
Moreover, it was reportedly Evans himself who fished the fake nail from the garbage, voluntarily handing it over to police and maybe, just maybe, shedding some skin cells in the process.
As for direct evidence of sex, there is none; none from any of the forty lacrosse players, that is.
While the second round of DNA testing proved that semen was found inside the accusers vaginal cavity, spokespersons close to the defense are confident the source of the semen is the accuser's own boyfriend.
In sum, after cross-examination, there is little, if any, chance that a jury will give weight to this DNA evidence. It clashes with the accuser's own story, and it's as fully consistent with Evans's innocence as it is with his guilt.

The D.A.'s Unusual Hostility to Even Viewing Defense Evidence
Defense lawyers have repeatedly implored District Attorney Nifong to meet with them and to examine the evidence that favors the defendants. But Nifong has said no - with an attitude that boils down to, "Talk to the hand."
That's unusual. More often than not, prosecutors are quite open to exchanging - or at least being entertained by - the defense's evidence. After all, it provides them with a valuable preview of what the defense's case may ultimately look like in court. Prosecutors are legally required to turn over certain evidence to the defense, but no obligation runs the other way. And since the defense goes second, prosecutors may not be able to effectively counter defense "surprises."
For prosecutors, meeting with the defense is thus typically a win-win situation: If they are convinced to drop the case, then that's embarrassing - but far less than as a loss at trial would have been. If they aren't convinced to drop the case, they've gotten a precious new edge at trial. And either way, both the reality and appearance of fairness to the defendants are enhanced.
Giving a defendant a lie detector test, in contrast, isn't a win-win situation: It may hurt prosecutors' case if the results are released to the public. (Lie detector results are rarely - if ever - admissible in court.) But at the same time, a lie detector test - while risky, and far from perfect - is likely to get prosecutors closer to the truth, which is supposed to be what they are after.
As noted above, in this case, Evans claims Nifong refused to give Evans a lie detector test. (He ultimately took one himself, and passed.) In my professional experience, a prosecutor's refusing to administer a lie detector test to a defendant is nearly unheard-of. The defendant's answers - and the lie detector's response to them - may provide the prosecutor with a road map to what his vulnerabilities on the stand may be.
Just as meeting with the defense previews the defense case for prosecutors, administering a lie detector can preview the defendant's testimony, as well as his on-the-stand demeanor, showing prosecutors what kind of a witness he will be. (Confident? Nervous? Shifty? Solid?)
I can't help but believe that, were any of these defendants to assert that they had proof that a crime was indeed committed, this district attorney would be all ears. Suppose, for instance, that Seligmann or Evans were to turn on Finnerty, to try to save themselves - surely Nifong would happily hear them out. So how can the prosecutor justify, then, turning a blind eye to evidence of any of the accused's innocence?

If There's A Card Up the D.A.'s Sleeve, the Law Requires Him to Play It Soon
Some pundits have suggested that the only explanation for the District Attorney's pressing on in the light of strong evidence that the defendants are innocent, is that he has a card up his sleeve. If so, then he needs to show that card, pronto.
The discovery statutes in North Carolina - as in most states - do not allow prosecutors to play "hide the ball." This is a judicial proceeding, not a magic show. So D.A. Nifong will have to reveal this evidence sometime before trial.
He ought to opt to reveal it right now - to give the defense a chance to counter it. When evidence suggesting innocence is as strong as it is in this case, it's wrong to just let the case go to trial and "see what the jury says." These three young men's live will be forever affected, even if they are acquitted. Even an arrest leaves a scar; the scar of trial is far deeper.
D.A. Nifong should listen to the defense, and should drop the case unless he has strong evidence supporting the accuser. Moreover, if he does have such evidence, he should show it to us now. The defendants have been forthcoming - especially Evans, who volunteered to, and then did, take a lie detector test. The prosecution should follow their example.

A Special Prosecutor In The Duke Rape Case?
Susan Estrich wants DA Mike Nifong to appoint a Special Prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Ms. Estrich believes that Mike Nifong, is outmatched for Bob Bennett hired by the Duke team parents, and wants NC’s attorney general to hire Bennett's equal to represent the state?
Why not hire Bennett's equal to represent the state? Bringing in the top guns for a complicated case would be one thing, but bringing in the high-priced talent in order to attempt the transformation of a pig's ear into a silk purse would be a waste of the taxpayer's money.
Nifong claimed that a date rape drug was used but a discovery motion filed by the defense learned that there wasn’t any toxicology done. The question of a “line-up” that guaranteed a Duke lacrosse team member would be chosen. The absolute refusal of Nifong looking at exculpatory evidence of any kind, and he continues to ignore evidence that the crime never occurred.

There is no way three drunken men, inside an enclosed bathroom with a woman violently clawing and fighting would leave absolutely no DNA behind at the alleged crime scene. Where’s her tears, sweat, saliva, and other bodily fluids? If condoms were used, were are the condoms, wrappers, boxes or evidence of lubricant on or in the alleged victim? The scene described by the alleged victim is one of violence and chaos, yet even in the most calm and best of situation, anyone who has ever had sex with a condom knows that there is no way to remove a condom without touching DNA evidence from either yourself or partner.

Ms. Estrich states: "The price to date has been paid by the accuser, who has been called every name in the book".

Really? Some think that the defendants have paid a higher price. These boys had their names, photos, addresses, personal information attached to “gang rape” in the national media and internet, they had “wanted posters” posted all over their school and community, daily protests by many sexist and racist political groups identifying these boys and calling them gang rapists, Meanwhile, no mainstream media outlet that has published the accuser's name, let alone called her a liar.

Ms. Estrich’s second point, “that the treatment of the accuser may chill other women from coming forward”

This depends on whether you think public opinion has turned because of brilliant defense maneuvering, or because of an embarrassingly weak case where evidence points to the accuser making false claim, and a DA who has a political agenda.

Ms. Estrich: “Let Nifong pick the prosecutor; if his handpicked choice believes there is no case, …then so be it.”
My guess is that Nifong will have no interest in appointing a special prosecutor prior to his election in November - in terms of Nifong's job preservation, which seems to be his motivation here. Having a special prosecutor dismiss this over the summer will be even more politically embarrassing than having Nifong take responsibility for his own behavior.
Frankly, as best I extrapolate Ms. Estrich's view, if the Duke Stripper replaces Tawana Brawley as the shorthand for false accuser, that will chill real rape victims who will fear that they will not be taken seriously. The only non-chilling outcome would be prosecutions and convictions, and that is not going to happen based on the evidence we've seen.

Betty Friedan

Police investigating the Duke University lacrosse team on rape allegations "omitted" notes from a second dancer at the party, who told authorities the alleged victim had been drinking, was acting "crazy" and that her colleague's accusation was a "crock," a defense attorney said Thursday. In court documents filed Thursday, attorney Kirk Osborn said that Durham, North Carolina, police "intentionally, deliberately and/or recklessly omitted" information from a probable cause affidavit -- information Osborn says would have persuaded the judge not to file felony charges against three of the players. The district attorney's office did not return a call seeking comment.

http://lawdogbehindthebadge.blogspot.com/2006/06/latest-on-duke-rape-case.html

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-how-da-and-some-police.html

http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-duke-rape-case-second-dancer.html


Another police note obtained by the defense says the alleged victim acknowledged having two beers before arriving at the party and that she and Pittman both had a rum and coke after their arrival.

The accuser also told police that she used a vibrating sex toy during a dance in a hotel room for a male and female, but she told police that she had not had sex in the week before the party, the note says.

However, a male friend of the accuser said that he had sex with her that week and that he drove her to three other sexual encounters, according to the friend's statement.

Osborn also claims in the court documents that the nurse who examined the alleged victim was in training and not yet certified.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/08/duke.lacrosse/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

betty friedan

The stripper originally claimed that the second stripper helped with the rape!

Just when you think this case hit rock bottom, you find a sub-basement.

If Mike Nifong doesn't get disbarred after this, then there really is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys.

AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS NON-TESTIMONIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

3 (b) The probable cause affidavit implies there is no question that [deleted] was sexually assaulted on March 14, 2006, at 610 N. Buchanan by three men. But three days before Investigator Himan signed his affidavit, March 20, 2006, at 10:10am., Investigator Himan interviewed Kim Pittman, the only eyewitness to the events of March 14, 2006, at 610 N. Buchanan. Before Ms. Pittman was granted extremely favorable bond consideration by District Attorney Nifon personally on april 17, 2006, she told investigator Himan [ deleted ] allegation that she was sexually assaulted was a “crock.” Instead Investigator Himan alleged that [ deleted ] “reported that she was sexually assaulted for an approximate 30 minute period.”

3 (e), (8) She told Investigator Himan first that she had consumed a 24 ounce bottle of beer and thereafter that she had consumed two twenty-two ounce Ice House beers. Finally, She told the S.A.N.E nurse in training that Kim Pittman assisted the players in her alleged sexual assault and that Kim Pittman stole all her “money and everything.”

Betty Friedan

Ever since every sexist and racist group descended onto Duke to publicly condemn these boys, I went into over drive trying to make people consider that these boys wouldn't have submitted to DNA testing if they were guilty, but since the 1st DNA evidence came back, I became more persistent and met equally persistent feminist (i.e. feministing, Rachael’s Tavern, Alas a blog, Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Justice4Sisters, Hazel8500 etc...) who adamantly insist these boys are guilty for no other reason than because a "woman" (i.e. the stripper) claims it so.

I've noticed since then that most of feminist blogs have fallen silent as new evidence suggests that the stripper's claim to be false.

However, just when you think this case hit rock bottom, there’s about 50 feet of crap, then you find a sub-basement where in the corner Mike Nifong is hunched over clutching this dead case like “Gulum” (movie: Lord of the Rings) clutches the “ring of power”.

A great place to view that unbiased facts is:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/ourcall/index.cgi?501
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-newsweek-abandons.html
http://commonsensewonder.com/?p=738

“If Mike Nifong doesn't get disbarred after this, then there really is a corrupt system in Durham that protects rich white guys. In Nifong's case - stupid rich white guys with transparent political agendas.”

Betty Freidan

Funny story

I was discussing the Duke Rape claim on this feminist blog site, and this woman was claiming it’s all about women enduring the pains of oppression like she having to shave her pubes before putting on her bikini to ride her bike at the beach, the resulting stubble irritates her skin which is all a part of being forced to live in a patriarchal society of rape and female oppression.

I told “Ms Kate” if you don’t want to shave your thick pubes, then don’t! It’s as simple as that! Just comb a part in it to not confuse any birds trying to fly in! Sheesh! You claiming an oppressive patriarchal society is forcing you to shave your pubes? You’re oppressing yourself!

Nice Guy

Crystal Gail Mangum's lies of were so detailed, that she can't use feminist rhetoric to get out of them

FOOTNOTES
(1) Collin Finnerty "is the guy who assaulted me . . . . He put his penis in my anus and my vagina." Transcript of April 4 Powerpoint Identification, 1/11/07 Motion at 11 (Discovery at 1838). "At that point Matt then moved around to her front side where he penetrated her vagina.” Gottlieb Notes, 1/11/07 Motion at 11 (Discovery at 1817). "Matt had her legs and Brett was behind her and put his private part in her anus and in her vagina. . . . ." Himan's Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 1208).

(2) “That’s when Adam came around back and put his private part in my butt." Sane Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 539).

(3) “Adam said yes you can and then that was [when] Matt put his private part in me and did not use a condom." Sane Interview 1/11/07 Motion at 11 (Discovery at 538).

(4) “She stated that Brett was behind her and was the first to sodomize and then to rape her. She stated that Brett ejaculated . . . ." Gottlieb's Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 1817).

(5) "Matt started having sex with me in my vagina and he got frustrated because he said he couldn't come, He [sic] had sex with me for about 2 minutes in my vagina. . . ." Accuser's Handwritten Statement, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 810).

(6) “Brett had sex with me in my vagina he stopped after about 5 minutes, then he put his penis in my anus for about 2 minutes." Accuser's Handwritten Statement, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 810).

(7) "Matt had her legs and Brett was behind her and put his private part in her anus and in her vagina. She stated that she thinks he ejaculated . . . ." Himan's Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 1208). “She stated that Brett was behind her and was the first to sodomize and then to rape her. She stated that Brett ejaculated . . . ." Gottlieb's Interview, 1/11/07 Motion at 12 (Discovery at 1817).

Now she says she was too traumatized to remember what actually happened?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Funny Stuff

The Bear Flag League

Blog powered by Typepad

Visitors