Duke University's website on lacrosse case

[pnwmom]

http://dukenews.duke.edu/showcase.html

The page includes a link to a special lacrosse website with press releases, reports, and articles in the media. At the website, you can scroll down to "Latest Announcements from Duke." If you click on May 9, 2006, you can read the initial "police operations report." According to this report, the accuser initially said that she had been raped by twenty students. The report also indicates that she had changed her story several times. I couldn't view the whole page on my browser, but it appears to say that only a misdemeanor charge will be filed.

[Kingshakabobo]

1. Haven't you heard?

That report was the result of "eavesdropping." Kinda like the Downing Street Memo.

:sarcasm:

[Moosepoop]

28. If you don't think the Downing Street Memo is credible, that's your issue.

Yes, I saw the sarcasm tag in your post, but this is not the first time you have tried to liken the Duke campus cop report to the Downing Street Memo, which is a spurious comparison.

The DSM was the minutes of a meeting, taken by someone who was included in the meeting for the express purpose of writing down what was said. The transcribed minutes were an authentic representation of what was discussed at the meeting.

Contrast that to a university cop overhearing one end of a telephone conversation between two other parties, then writing up what he thinks he heard one party say to the other, without ever speaking to the person he was surreptitiously listening in on, or speaking to the person whose supposed remarks he wrote up as fact with no personal knowledge.

Other than the comparison of apples to oranges, there is no comparison to be made between the Downing Street Memo and Officer Day's misbegotten "report".

But do keep on with your comical analogy... it's rather amusing.

[Kingshakabobo]

34. But that's where YOU have fallen for government spin.

It's unfortunate that the government's OWN REPORT is contradicting their own case. Of course they will try to marginalize it.

That police officer wasn't sneaking around and/or hanging around like some side-walk gawker. He is a trained professional SENT TO MAKE AN INCIDENT REPORT, liaison with the city police, offer assistance re:student information AND REPORT BACK TO THE SCHOOL WITH HIS "TAKE" ON THE INCIDENT. The idea that he "made up" the "she changed her story" piece is laughable. What was his motive? Why is it consistent with other evidence? Did he have a mental break-down? Was he hearing things? Give me a plausible scenario how he got that impression. Why would he lie at 3 am on the morning of the incident, before the government's case "gelled"?

BTW, the DSMs aren't "transcripts." Maybe you are AWARE that right-wing criticism of those memos is that they AREN'T TRANSCRIPTS.

See how that works when you want to attack the messenger? If you have a "memo", you cry because it's not a transcript. When you have an official report, you cry that it's not on tape or you claim it was "overheard." When it was overheard, you re-frame it to "eavesdropping." When it doesn't support YOUR case you deny, deny, deny.....edit to add: (you means them. not you personally)

Both reports were made at a time when they didn't know they would be under such scrutiny. I'm sure the author of the DSM wishes he didn't write what he did. I'm sure the police officer wishes didn't write what HE did. The only difference is, the police officer will have to answer for HIS report. Too bad no one will answer for the DSMs.

[mzteris]

48. hey just re-read this post

and I have a couple of comments here:

***That police officer wasn't sneaking around and/or hanging around like some side-walk gawker.***

". . . The Duke officer, Christopher Day, never actually spoke to the sergeant or conducted any follow-up inquiry . . . Day and the sergeant were at a loading dock outside Duke Hospital, where Durham police had taken the woman for treatment. The sergeant made a call, and Day overheard him "say something to the effect of the witness had changed her story and he didn't think there were going to be anything other than misdemeanor charges filed," Baker said.

Baker added that he believes no one in the Durham Police Department's hierarchy formally relayed such an assessment to Duke police, and that Day's eavesdropping occurred while Durham officers still were trying to figure out exactly what they were dealing with. . .

said Aaron Graves, associate vice president for campus safety and security. "We just happened to be there. What heard and what they thought they heard was what they were reporting. In some cases, that may not have been direct information."



-MORE- (much)

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-733339.html

***He is a trained professional SENT TO MAKE AN INCIDENT REPORT, liaison with the city police, offer assistance re:student information AND REPORT BACK TO THE SCHOOL WITH HIS "TAKE" ON THE INCIDENT. The idea that he "made up" the "she changed her story" piece is laughable.

Is he a "police officer" or a "security officer" - Duke "Campus Police" have both.

**What was his motive?**

Maybe it was downplaying anything done by a Duke student. Maybe he was just totally incompetent.

"Day's operations report didn't mention that he'd merely listened to the sergeant's phone conversation"

[Kingshakabobo]

51. The thing is... Day's report matches up to all the other reports...

If you want to impugn his professionalism by calling him a " security officer", that's fine. I'll tell you, one of the first verbal spankings I ever received in my life, was for referring to campus police as "security" officers(while I was in school for a JD). Make no mistake, they have full police powers and authority, up to, and including arrest powers. If you want to asses motives to Day's report, that's fine. I'll take it for what it's worth as well. I tend to believe an initial report taken at 3am versus the government story "after" the government's story has "gelled."

[mzteris]

53. Duke has both

police and security officers. I was asking the question - not impugning. But as you probably know there is a big difference in training and level of responsibility.

So you see absolutely nothing wrong with his report? When he based his report on partially heard one-sided conversation? He never talked directly to any of the police officers or other parties involved.


"The study faulted administrators for taking at face value the report that the accuser had changed her story.

"Duke can't rely on secondhand reports about credibility," one law professor told Chambers and Bowen." http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/437920.html




Much has been made about the "20 men" or "17 men" claim and that she "changed her story".... yet there is this:

From the Herald Sun article I sent previously:

". . . (City Manager Patrick ) Baker added that he believes no one in the Durham Police Department's hierarchy formally relayed such an assessment to Duke police, and that Day's eavesdropping occurred while Durham officers still were trying to figure out exactly what they were dealing with.

. . . Duke officials "seriously underestimated the seriousness of the allegations" because they thought Durham police doubted the accuser's credibility, former Princeton University President William Bowen and former N.C. Central University Chancellor Julius Chambers said in a report to Brodhead released by Duke on Monday.

(MOST IMPORTANTLY)

Day also said the woman "was claiming that she was raped by approximately 20 white males," a fact the Bowen-Chambers report mentioned prominently and that prompted lawyers representing members of the lacrosse team to launch a fresh round of attacks on the accuser's credibility.

Baker, however, said he didn't know where Day had gotten that information.

"I'm not aware of that at all," Baker said when asked if the woman had told Durham police she'd been attacked by 20 men. "I've met with just about everybody involved in the case, and it hasn't been brought to my attention. I don't know where that's coming from."


From the News and Observer:

"Baker said he has never received any indication that the woman said she was raped by 20 men or that she changed her story.

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

From Eyewitness news:

"Durham City Manager Patrick Baker told Eyewitness News earlier Tuesday that he had never heard that she claimed 20 men had raped her. <…>

Baker is standing behind the city’s police officers, saying the Duke officer who wrote the report got secondhand information.

“He did not have a conversation with our officer,” Baker said in a telephone interview Tuesday night. “He did not have a conversation with the victim. He prepared his report based on conversations he overheard and the context of that conversation.” "


I - for one - put absolutely no credence in this "report". None. I can't believe anyone would. It's based on nothing. No investigation. No interviewing. No two-way conversation. No clarification. Nada. Zip. Zed.

Can you explain why you still find it even remotely credible?

[BrownOak]

54. The inverse is why you wouldn't find the story remotely credible?

You have three possibilities here:

1) The Duke cop did not hear it and made the report up.
2) The Duke cop did hear it and the Durham police officer was reporting inaccurate information.
3) The Duke cop did hear it and the Durham police officer was reporting accurate information.

To eliminate the last two options you are relying on the comments from the Durham City Manager Patrick Baker who clearly also has a vested image in mitigating the perception that the city police questioned the AV's story that night. You think Baker wants to see all those people who were protesting in front of 610 N. Buchanan St. hanging out down at his office because the police failed to fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation at the onset? Think he's not putting some spin into this situation? Think about these statements from your own posts:

From the News and Observer:

"Baker said he has never received any indication that the woman said she was raped by 20 men or that she changed her story.

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


and also


The sergeant made a call, and Day overheard him "say something to the effect of the witness had changed her story and he didn't think there were going to be anything other than misdemeanor charges filed," Baker said.

OK, which is it. Has Baker had a lot of conversations with people and never heard that the AV changed her story or has he heard that the sergeant in question did tell someone something to the effect of the witness had changed her story? Those two statements don't seem to work well together.

But more importantly, if Baker is saying that he's never heard the AV had changed her story, and he's also saying he's had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case, then how does he explain this story from WTVD: Police Report: Alleged Victim Changed Story

To be clear here, there is no third party verification of the possibility of her changing the story from 20 men to 3 men, but there is a clear indication that she did change her story from no rape to rape. Now that doesn't really mean a whole lot to me either way because just as someone who is going to make a false allegation may vacillate so too is it possible for an actual rape victim to go back and forth.

However, it's clear from what's come out since both the release of the Duke report and the response from Durham City Hall that the City Manager's response is pure damage control to minimize the fallout from his own officer's deplorable behavior at the time. (This guy's initial opinions of the case show an insensitivity toward dealing with sexual assault victims.)

We already know for a fact that the AV did change her story, despite the reaction from Baker. We don't know for a fact, but the defense is leaking the claim that she also at one point claimed 17 attackers. That's the only fact that is unknown at this time. So why, if you are going to be cynical about what the defense is saying, wouldn't you view Baker's comments in the same light; especially since it's clear that he wasn't fully truthful in his statement.

[Kingshakabobo]

56. Well said. Baker is a liar.

"Baker said he has never received any indication that the woman said she was raped by 20 men or that she changed her story."--------bullshit

We know for a fact she changed her story. Who is more credible? A city manager with his tit in the wringer and the black panthers marching on his town? Or a campus policeman taking notes and writing a report?

[mzteris]

57. Not just three

**You have three possibilities here:
1) The Duke cop did not hear it and made the report up.
2) The Duke cop did hear it and the Durham police officer was reporting inaccurate information.
3) The Duke cop did hear it and the Durham police officer was reporting accurate information.**

4-5-6) The Duke cop heard (misheard) bits and pieces of a conversation some of which may (or may not) have been about this particular incident.

7) The Duke cop was just incompent;
8) The Duke cop was an eager rookie;
9) The Duke cop was tired and hard of hearing;


Why didn't he TALK to the policeman? Why didn't he get clarification? How much can YOU tell from a partially heard one side of a conversation about anything with any degree of accuracy?


**Police Report: Alleged Victim Changed Story**

That's a different "changed her story" - that we covered yesterday. It is not uncommon - in fact it is VERY common for traumatized victims - especially rape victims going through the denial process - to make conflicting statements. It usually takes a trained (and sensitive) rape investigator to ask the right questions to get the right answers. (This actually bolsters the AV credibility.)

And nothing there about 20 or 17 men, either.



**We don't know for a fact, but the defense is leaking the claim that she also at one point claimed 17 attackers.**

This is ONLY from the Duke cops report. NO WHERE else has this statement.



**That's the only fact that is unknown at this time. So why, if you are going to be cynical about what the defense is saying, wouldn't you view Baker's comments in the same light; especially since it's clear that he wasn't fully truthful in his statement.**

Duke's own investigation into the incident is critical of the shoddy handling:

"The first was “a major failing in communications, and here the Duke Police Department and those to whom it reports bear primary responsibility,” the committee said. The second was that key Duke administrators “seriously underestimated the seriousness of the allegations,” relying too heavily on initial reports from members of the Durham police force that the alleged victim “kept changing her story and was not credible.” . . .Compounding such communications gaps, it was “a major mistake” by Duke police, Wasiolek, Moneta and others to take “at face value the reported comments of Durham police officers (and perhaps others)” on the morning of March 14 that the alleged victim “was not credible.” Their assessment affected not only the senior administration’s perception of the incident, but also that of lacrosse players who “may have been lulled into a false sense of security about the events shortly to unfold and might well have sought legal counsel sooner had they been aware of the stakes,” according to the committee.

http://dukenews.duke.edu/2006/05/bcreport.html

(Only we know know that there was NO "reports from members of the Durham police force" to the Duke cop - merely the Duke cop partially overhearing part of a conversation!)

I think you really need to let the "she said 20 men did it thing drop." That's a complete red herring from the Defense.

[Kingshakabobo]

59. *****Why didn't he TALK to the policeman?*******

How do you know he didn't? You are buying the government's spin on this. I find it VERY hard to believe he showed up, stuck his hear to a key-hole, "eavesdropped" on a conversation about some "other" rape victim, didn't talk to anyone and scurried off to write his report. That's not how it works.


*****heard (misheard) bits and pieces of a conversation some of which may (or may not) have been about this particular incident.******

So, there was some OTHER person raped, changing her story and referring to 20 attackers?? That doesn't wash.


***7) The Duke cop was just incompetent;
***8) The Duke cop was an eager rookie;
***9) The Duke cop was tired and hard of hearing;

Talk about speculation. Talk about attack the messenger.

[mzteris]

61. There were about

20 people at the party - maybe he heard 20 people - and the word rape - and put 2 and 2 together and 17!

I think - if it had have been corroborated - if he HAD actually talked to the police - that would have been put out by Duke by now, don't you think?

They (DUKE) look bad enough in this. I would think they would have made sure everyone knows that the Durham police HAD indeed said this. They have not. I have to think - based on current pervasive LOCAL opinion and behaviour - something I am exposed to on a daily basis - that Duke would have made sure that that info got out. They haven't. In fact, if you read the report, you see that they implicate Duke Security for dropping the ball - but try to halfassedly blame the Durham police department (this was on May 8th.)

There is history here that I don't expect you to know about - there has actually ALWAYS been a bit of tension between the "Duke Police" and the "Durham Police" - Duke police are there to "protect and serve" the DUKE STUDENTS. The Durham Police are there to "protect and serve" everyone in the community - NOT just the Duke Students. And, to be honest, the Durham Police look down their nose a bit at the Duke "police" as not being "real police" - and the Duke "police" are simultaneously suffering from an inferiority complex (not being a "real policeman") and suffering from a superiority complex (they work for DUKE!). (You'd have to be a local to understand, I think.)

The "17/20 men raped her" is a NON-story and has nothing to do with the case at all. (Except in how the Dfense wants to spin it to try and discredit the AV.

[Kingshakabobo]

64. I thought there were 40 people at the party?

No, I don't think, if it had have been corroborated, it would have been put out by Duke by now. Duke has already taken their lumps and distanced themselves from the report. Of course they aren't going to get in to a pissing match with the city cops.

The dynamic between the city cops and Duke cops is the same in just about evey large college town in the country. So it's no surprise or anything new.

I don't even know why we are even arguing this point anyway. You are correct in that, in the scheme of things, this isn't a large issue AND not admissible. I think these kids can beat the charges on the lack of evidence alone and kinky line-up. Furthermore, I can actually envision a scenario where she DID say 20 people and not necessarily mean she was actually raped by twenty people. It could mean there were twenty people in the house at the time and she meant THEY as in those people. MY problem with this whole discussion is the lack of logic in saying the conversation/statement NEVER took place. That, I find unbelievable and somewhat rebulicanesque-attack-the-messenger(not you, BTW. the city manager).



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12442765/site/newsweek/

>>>Nifong, the prosecutor, has indicated that he may still charge a third alleged rapist from among the 40-odd players who attended the party<<<<

[BrownOak]

62. Red Herring from the Defense????

I think you really need to let the "she said 20 men did it thing drop." That's a complete red herring from the Defense.

The "20 men" thing didn't come from the defense... it came from the Duke report.

As for your additional possibilities, aren't they all really just variations on the first item on the list? They may change the intent behind "making it up," but they don't change the possibility that the officer reported something that didn't happen.

That's a different "changed her story" - that we covered yesterday. It is not uncommon - in fact it is VERY common for traumatized victims - especially rape victims going through the denial process - to make conflicting statements. It usually takes a trained (and sensitive) rape investigator to ask the right questions to get the right answers. (This actually bolsters the AV credibility.)
Wait, are you saying that yes, the victim did change her story several times, but for some reason that couldn't possibly be what the Durham police officer was talking about when the Duke cop overheard him? Look, what the Duke officer had in his report says that the victim changed her story several times. What the Durham police reported was that she changed her story several times. Exactly where is the disconnect here?

Furthermore, you can't say that it bolsters the AV's credibility because while that behavior is not uncommon for a rape victim it is not exclusive to a rape victim. vacillating on one's story is also something that is common to someone making a false allegation. So frankly, how one views what she said to Officer Shelton is likely a good reflection on how they view the case.

And nothing there about 20 or 17 men, either.
I don't believe I ever indicated otherwise. However, you do have this report from the Duke cop who apparently overheard the Durham cop telling someone on the phone that the AV had at some point claimed she was assaulted by 20 men. Then you have the defense leaking the story that the evidence turned over in discover indicates she claimed she was assaulted by 17 men. Now sure, it's possible that the defense is making that up, but it seems possible that it may be more than just coincidence.

This is ONLY from the Duke cops report. NO WHERE else has this statement.
No, the defense is claiming this is from the discovery evidence which is not the Duke report. The Duke report states 20 attackers, the discovery evidence states 17. That had to have come from somewhere (assuming of course that the defense hasn't fabricated the stuff in the leak).

Duke's own investigation into the incident is critical of the shoddy handling:
That's really of little consequence here. The issue here isn't if Duke handled the situation well - they didn't - it's if in fact a Durham cop actually told someone while talking on the phone that the victim had changed her story several times and that she had at one point claimed multiple (20) assailants. Durham city manager Baker wants everyone to believe that the guy talking on that cell phone had no clue as to what was going on.

Yet here we are a few weeks later and it turns out that according to the police report, she did change her story several times. Again, that's not exactly a smoking gun either way. So we know for a fact that when Baker told the press that she hadn't changed her story that he was lying so that the Police Department wouldn't come under fire for the way they handled the case.

And here we are a few weeks later and we have this leak from the defense that, if verified, would seem to indicate that the officer on that cell phone may indeed have really been talking about multiple attackers.

[mzteris]

69. **That's a complete red herring from the Defense.

The "20 men" thing didn't come from the defense... it came from the Duke report.**

The shoddy Duke report, you mean. :) What I meant was that the Defense is playing this up big time for the spin to make her look bad. Like it actually means something even *if* she or anyone said she said it.

The additional possibilities were just that. Just showing that there were "only 3" possible scenarios at play all in which the Duke cop looks like he did his job just fine. I'm not saying he did or didn't, just reminding that he could have done it badly (and from all evidence available - er - maybe I should say COMMENTS available, it appears he did drop the ball.)

The disconnect is that the "changed her story comment" (in here originally) was referencing the # of men - of course that argument changed later - to she said she wasn't said she was said she wasn't changed her story (which is also "normal").

Her behaviour is not inconsistent with that of a rape victim - so to say that she was made those statements MAKES her suspect is what I'm having a problem with.


**Then you have the defense leaking the story that the evidence turned over in discover indicates she claimed she was assaulted by 17 men. **

Where are you getting the 17 men number (besides other people's comments?) From what I've read the defense has been beating the "she said 20 men" horse - and that, of course, came from the Duke report. If you have something different I'd really like to read it.

**Durham city manager Baker wants everyone to believe that the guy talking on that cell phone had no clue as to what was going on.**

Actually, I think he wants everyone to believe that the guy eavesdropping on that cell phone (call) had no clue as to what was going on. ;) (And maybe the guy ON the phone, too. Who knows? Everyone starts playing CYA instead of lets find the truth - and that's when Justice goes to hell in a handbasket.)

**So we know for a fact that when Baker told the press that she hadn't changed her story that he was lying **

Ummm - I don't think we "know for a fact . . . that he was lying" - it was *my* impression from reading the article that he was talking specifically about the "20 men" story.

[Kingshakabobo]

55. Do I see anything wrong with this report?

Sure. Do I think the officer had a seizure or brain hemorrhage that caused him to hear "she changed her story."? No. Because he wasn't the only policeman having problems with her flip-flopping. He doesn't cite any sources so the government can weasel and distance themselves from it. Great. I wouldn't base the whole defense on the report but you can't ignore it either.

BTW, you say " He never talked directly to any of the police officers or other parties involved".......what the hell do you think he was doing there at 3am? Making coffee? Honestly, if he didn't talk to the police what was he doing there? Paint me a picture.

Maybe he heard 20, maybe he didn't, but is he lying when he said "DURHAM POLICE STATED" and "she changed her story"

"the victim changer her story SEVERAL times, and eventually DURHAM POLICE STATED that charges would not exceed misdemeanor"

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/OperationsReportFileDUPD3.14.06.pdf


-- Shelton went outside to call his watch commander to tell him the woman had recanted her rape allegation. But then someone told him the woman told a doctor that she had been raped. Shelton called the watch commander back to tell him "she had changed her story back to being raped."

-- Shelton went back inside and asked the woman "if she had or had not been raped. She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bathroom."

Gee, I wonder where the campus policeman got the idea she changed her story?????????

[mzteris]

58. ok - let's clarify

are we discussing:

change her story about the 17 men

or change her story about I was raped/wasn't raped?

The ONLY source of the 17/20 men claim was the Duke cop - who had NO CONVERSATION with the Durham Police officers. It's been pretty well established that he "overheard part of a conversation" and did NO FOLLOWUP with the Police or any other parties directly involved with the incident/investigation.

If you really want to know - I think the Duke cop totally dropped the ball.

As stated ad nauseum about changing ones story about being raped or not = maybe you should do a little reading on the typical behaviour of rape victims. Her behaviour is entirely consistent with that and - in fact - lends credibility rather than detracts from it. If you knew anything at all about rape crises - you would know that victims very often will say they haven't been raped - when they have been.


Just to get you started:

"In general, the survivor's initial response to the assault will be shock and disbelief. Many survivors may appear numb. Far from being inappropriate, this response provides an emotional "time-out" during which the survivor can acknowledge and begin to process the myriad components of the experience. A survivor who was assaulted by an acquaintance may have a particularly difficult time overcoming shock and disbelief. The experience of an acquaintance rape can also make a person question the trustworthiness of others in their life. If the assault was particularly terrifying or brutal, the survivor may experience an extreme shock response and completely block out the assault."
http://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/trauma.html

SYMPTOMS
Rape is a very traumatic event. The victim may or may not be able to verbalize that she was actually raped or may come to medical attention for a different complaint. Emotional reactions differ greatly and may include: confusion, social withdrawal, tearfulness, nervousness or seemingly inappropriate laughter, numbness, hostility, and fear.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/print/ency/article/001955.htm


PUBLIC DOMAIN: National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations

". . . Clearly, the level of trauma experienced by patients can also influence their initial reactions to an assault and to postassault needs. While some may suffer physical injuries, contract an STI, or become pregnant as a result of an assault, many others do not. The experience of psychological trauma will be unique to each patient and may be more difficult to recognize than physical trauma. People have their own method of coping with sudden stress. When severely traumatized, they can appear to be calm, indifferent, submissive, jocular, angry, emotionally distraught, or even uncooperative or hostile towards those who are trying to help.37

In addition, patients’ fears and concerns can affect their initial reactions to the assault, their postassault needs, and decisions before, during, and after the exam process. For example . . . They may not want anyone to know about the assault, or may be afraid that family members and friends will reject or blame them. They may fear bringing shame to their families or be concerned that family members will seek revenge against the assailant. They may fear perceived consequences of reporting to law enforcement.

They may be concerned how their cultural background could affect the way they are treated by responders. They may wonder if the assailant will harm or harass them or their loved ones if they tell anyone about the assault. They may worry about losing their home, children, job, and other sources of income as a result of disclosure, particularly if an intimate partner assaulted them.38 They may be concerned about costs related to the exam and subsequent care of injuries.39

It is important to avoid making assumptions about patients, offenders, and the assault itself. Forms used during the exam process and discussions with patients should be framed in a way that does not assume they are of a specific background. Always ask questions and actively look and listen to understand patients’ circumstances and tailor the exam process to address their needs and concerns. Whatever the response, it should be respectful to patients and adhere to jurisdictional policies . . .

Understand that some victims may be apprehensive about interacting with responders from ethnic and racial backgrounds different from their own. They may fear or distrust responders or assume they will be met with insensitive comments or unfair treatment. They may benefit from responders of the same background or at least who understand their culture.

. . .Understand that victims may not report or discuss the assault because the stigma associated with it is so overwhelmingly negative.

. . .who come to exam sites in the immediate aftermath of an assault are typically coping with trauma, anticipating the exam, and considering the implications of reporting. Most responders that victims come in contact with are focused on objective tasks. Law enforcement officials gather information and collect crime scene evidence to facilitate the investigation. Health care personnel assess medical needs, offer treatment, and collect evidence from victims. Victims must make many related decisions that may seem overwhelming.

. . .Some victims, however, are unable to make a decision about whether they want to report or be involved in the criminal justice system in the immediate aftermath of an assault. Pressuring these victims to report may discourage their future involvement. Yet, they can benefit from support and advocacy, treatment, and information that focus on their well-being. Recognizing that evidence on their bodies is lost as time passes and that they may report at a later date, victims can also be encouraged to have the medical forensic exam conducted. . . . Patients should understand that even if health care personnel make a mandatory report, they are not obligated to talk with law enforcement officials or make a formal complaint themselves.84


84 Some victims may fear perceived consequences of reporting (e.g., retaliation by offenders; rejection by family members and friends; being discriminated against if they are males.) Victims may have these and other fears because they are from populations with differing sexual orientations or from racially or otherwise oppressed groups; inmates; or are being deported or refused citizenship (in the case of recent immigrants and refugees). Some recent immigrants or refugees may fear law enforcement because of past experiences of oppression by authorities in their countries of origin. In addition, many victims are not willing to deal with the humiliation, loss of privacy, and negativity they perceive would accompany reporting, an investigation, and prosecution.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ovw/206554.pdf

[Kingshakabobo]

60. Both. To me, they go hand in hand.......

Somehow, the campus policeman, in the course of his nefarious "eavesdropping" mission was able to pick up the fact that she was changing her story. We agree that she changed her story. No? Why is so hard to believe the campus policeman heard both things? Why is it hard to believe the government is covering their ass after the shit hit the fan?

Why is it so hard to believe that, right or wrong, the city police didn't take her claim seriously because she WAS changing her story and claiming 20 guys?

[Spike from MN]

63. Thanks for posting that.

Your post was spot-on. Some people just don't get the difference between reporting the theft of a CD player from their car and reporting a rape. To them, there is no difference. And it's likely they'll never think any differently until either they themselves or someone they know gets raped. Then again, if a friend tells them s/he was raped, will they believe the friend or will they just accuse them of making a "false accusation?" Judging by some of the posts I have seen here, I already know the answer. And the friend would know too, which is why s/he wouldn't be very likely to confide in them.

Thanks again for posting the info and links. I have been meaning to search for similar info myself in order to post it but you beat me to it.

[Kingshakabobo]

65. I don't disagree with her post. re:victim behavior

I can envision a scenario were a victim WOULD be catatonic, confused and disoriented and change her story. My beef has been the denial of it happening and being relayed to the campus police.

It appears the city police didn't believe her, at first, and that message was relayed to the campus police AND documented. Now the shit hits the fan and, magically, no one remembers saying it and the official report is re-framed as "eavesdropping." And, you can bet your ass, when the author of this report is asked about it on the stand, he will lie about it. It's called testilying.

Alan Dershowitz has done some great work on police perjury.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id224.html

· According to the Mollen Commission<2> the practice of police falsification is so common that it has spawned its own word – testilying

o Officers commit perjury to serve what they perceive to be “legitimate” law enforcement ends

o In the viewpoint of most police officers, regardless of the legality of the arrest, the defendant is in fact guilty and ought to be arrested

· When prosecutors are preparing for a trial, they often arrange “dry runs” as part of the trial preparation procedure. Frequently, prosecutors skirt along the edge of coercing or leading the police witness

o As a result, impressionable young cops learn to tailor their testimony (commit perjury) to the requirements of the law

· There are hundreds of thousands of police officers in the United States today that break the law and commit felony perjury as a calculated, premeditated offense designed to undercut the constitutional rights of unpopular defendants

[Spike from MN]

67. From your post # 55 in this thread, it would appear to me that

you do indeed have a problem with her "changing her story." Here's your post (emphasis in bold is mine):

Do I see anything wrong with this report?

Edited on Sun May-28-06 11:51 AM by Kingshakabobo
Sure. Do I think the officer had a seizure or brain hemorrhage that caused him to hear "she changed her story."? No. Because he wasn't the only policeman having problems with her flip-flopping. He doesn't cite any sources so the government can weasel and distance themselves from it. Great. I wouldn't base the whole defense on the report but you can't ignore it either.

BTW, you say " He never talked directly to any of the police officers or other parties involved".......what the hell do you think he was doing there at 3am? Making coffee? Honestly, if he didn't talk to the police what was he doing there? Paint me a picture.

Maybe he heard 20, maybe he didn't, but is he lying when he said "DURHAM POLICE STATED" and "she changed her story"

"the victim changer her story SEVERAL times, and eventually DURHAM POLICE STATED that charges would not exceed misdemeanor"

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/OperationsRepor...


-- Shelton went outside to call his watch commander to tell him the woman had recanted her rape allegation. But then someone told him the woman told a doctor that she had been raped. Shelton called the watch commander back to tell him "she had changed her story back to being raped."

-- Shelton went back inside and asked the woman "if she had or had not been raped. She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bathroom."

Gee, I wonder where the campus policeman got the idea she changed her story?????????


From that, it would appear to me that you do indeed have a problem with her "changing her story." And when you say your beef is the "denial of it happening and being relayed to the campus police" could you please clarify that for me? I guess I'm not sure exactly who or what you're referring to in that statement so if you could clarify that a bit I would appreciate it.

From your post #56 in this thread:

Baker said he has never received any indication that the woman said she was raped by 20 men or that she changed her story."--------bullshit

We know for a fact she changed her story. Who is more credible? A city manager with his tit in the wringer and the black panthers marching on his town? Or a campus policeman taking notes and writing a report?


Again, it seems to me that you have a problem with the fact that she changed her story, somthing which, as shown by mzteris' post, is not at all uncommon with rape victims and in fact, is pretty much the norm. It also seems to me you are picking and choosing who you believe based on your own pre-conceived notions. In essence, you are saying that the Duke officer is the ONLY one anyone should believe and that ALL cops are notorious for committing perjury. Good gawd, have you READ ANY of the posts here by DU rape victims regarding how horribly the cops treated them? The vast majority received absolutely appalling treatment from what I have read. I believe there was at least one that said she dropped the charges because the cop told her he didn't believe her and would actually testify against her. Good gawd, that poor person had already gone through a horrendous ordeal and then to be told THAT?? Yeah, there's your fucking perjury alright and the cops aren't testifying on the side of rape victims by any means. It's the exact oposite in far too many cases. Oh wait. Unless you think the DUers that have posted their stories here are all a bunch of liars making false accusations. Yeah, that must be it. Tell them that. Go ahead. Do a search, reply to their posts, and tell them what a bunch of liars they are. Please post the links here when you are done doing that.

[Kingshakabobo]

75. Here's what I believe. Maybe I'm not making myself clear.

I believe she DID change her story. It's in the report. You can argue the reasons of why she did change her story. I'll agree there can be perfectly valid and explainable reason why a victim WOULD change her story. That's fine. Just don't try to frame the report as "eavesdropping" or insinuate the campus officer is lying because what he wrote down is credible AND corroborated by Shelton's report. It's clear that the police HAD a problem with her story from the get-go AND put it in writting....the government will have to live with that fact. UNLESS, and this is a distinct possibility, officer Day will get on the stand and PERJURE himself with the help of the DA. It seems to me that instead of arguing the reasons she changed her story people are trying to have it both ways...."she didn't change her story BUT if she did she had a good reason."


Re: Shelton's report. When I first read it, I thought it was a big deal(hence, the post at the bottom of this thread I'm not real proud of). The more I read in to it, I could see how her catatonic state and refusal to cooperate could be the actions of someone who just suffered trauma/rape so I don't give it much weight.

I'm still 50/50 on whether she was raped or not. I still have a problem with the bogus 911 call but I don't think it matters because I think they will beat this case on lack of evidence AND the bogus line-up. IF she was raped, I think she WAS drugged and has little to no idea who did it. At the very least, Seligmann has a pretty good alibi and is probably innocent/falsely accused. Apparently, it took three trips to the line-up to identify Evans. Finnerty? No idea. I just have a real problem with the enee-menee-minee-moe lineup they conducted. It would be a terrible thing if some kid got a 40 year sentence and he was out eating drunk-food while the crime was taking place.....yes, worse than if the guilty party goes free.

[mzteris]

80. We agree on more than we disagree on

I too think the line up was screwed up (at least based on what we're hearing. Of course, there is always the possibility that what we're hearing is totally and completely false.)

Yes, she changed a part of her story. And maybe with good reason.

She *may* have misidentified Seligmann - as I stated to you earlier - or maybe he's just really "quick". The timeline is not set in stone - there is a lot of "approximating" going on. The only real times we know are the ATM and the cellphones.

I hope the hell these guys don't get off on a technicality. If they do it once - they'll do it again.

I hope to hell they aren't found guilty when they're not.


That's why the system is so important. We rely on the Police to do their jobs - CORRECTLY from right out of the box - without making assumptions, etc. - so that the truth is found.

Question: Why didn't they search the premises where the alleged rape occurred ASAP?


(I don't know why you keep sticking with Duke cop - he dropped the ball. The Durham police screwed up, too - but his report really mucked up the works, I think.)

[Spike from MN]

68. Delete. Dupe.

Piece o'crap ISP had been flaking out all day.

[mzteris]

70. When you add in

other factors besides the trauma -

she's a poor minority woman accusing rich white males;

she's a poor minority - talking to a cop - who has already been physically harsh with her and appears to believe she's just a drunk you know what.

she's a poor minority who's an "exotic dancer" talking to a cop;

she's been in trouble with the police in the past;

she's possibly under the influence of drugs/alcohol.


And for those who don't understand the power imbalance of race, class, and gender - PERIOD - in this country - ESPECIALLY in THIS part of the country - then you probably think everything I wrote above is just hoo-ha.

But I can assure you that prejudice against blacks, prejudice against women, and prejudice against the less well off is alive and kicking in Durham, NC.

[Spike from MN]

71. Oh I agree with you.

The trauma is just the tip of the iceberg. The odds are stacked against a rape victim from the start regardless.

I have absolutely no doubt that the fact that she's a poor minority and an exotic dancer to boot affected the way she was treated. I was horrified to read that the cop dragged her out of the car. Now granted, he didn't know she had been raped at that point but once he learned of that, he should have been the LAST person to try to interview her at the hospital. He should have immediately put in a request for a female cop. Why he didn't I'll never know but it's inexcusable that the victim was subsequently expected to be interviewed by the same guy that forcefully dragged her from the car. (Maybe the cop was new and didn't know enough to request a female cop for a followup but if that's the case, it's the department's fault for putting him out there without the proper training in the first place. At any rate, that's something that just never should have happened.) Add in the other factors and it's a wonder the woman even had the strength to press charges in the first place.

Oh, and rest assured that Durham isn't the only place that prejudice against blacks, women, and the less well off is alive and well. Much as we like to think it's not the case, I'd say that holds true pretty much everywhere. It's extremely sad to say but it's even sadder to turn a blind eye and not admit it's true when it is.

[mzteris]

2. there were about

20 AT the party -

when you're eavesdropping you don't really hear the whole story.

Besides, they doped her up a lot based on how the other woman described her behaviour (and rumours of the lab report)

[pnwmom]

3. Why don't you read the police operations report and then decide?

IF she was so doped up that she wasn't making sense -- whether the "dope" was something she took voluntarily or involuntarily -- then how can any of her identifications be valid?

[Kingshakabobo]

4. THAT, couple with the bogus line-up............

........of ONLY lacrosse players, the questionable ID of Seligmann, the almost impossible time-line for Seligmann and the lack of positive DNA results for ANY player.

The case should be dropped. At the very least, the case against Seligmann should be dropped.

[mzteris]

5. i've read it -

I LIVE here.. I hear it from all sides.....

The RAPE EXAM - seems pretty conclusive, btw. And who takes a "date-rape drug" voluntarily?

FWIW -

I'm not inclined to believe anyone who can write what that ahole "captain" wrote, btw......

I'm also not inclined to believe the carefully orchestrated "PRESS" put out by these rich kids' powerful attorney's.

but I'm not making any final judgements - period. There's enough doubt and suspicion for both sides. And definitely thorough F'ing up on the part of "law enforcement".

Bottom line:

*I* don't have all the facts - and neither do you.

Why don't you wait until the trial - and ALL the facts to come out - to make up YOUR mind, eh?

[TheWraith]

6. You don't have as many facts as you think you do.

One, the exam results haven't been released, so there's no confirmation of what was or wasn't found. The toxicology report hasn't been released, and contrary to rumor there's no solid evidence that she was drugged. At this point, if there's any evidence at all, it really hasn't been released to the public, so there's little to no framework to support establishing assumptions.

For somebody not making any final judgements, you're assuming stuff not in evidence.

[mzteris]

10. I haven't declared anyone

guilty or innocent, either.

People often make the mistake of assuming I have "made up my mind" because I'm offering up arguments contrary to their opinions. What they don't realize is, I may well be offering arguments contrary to the OPPOSITE opinion to someone else. (Why would I be debating the "same side" arguments with you?) If all you want is "validation" of your opinion, a public forum may not be the right place.

As for whether a "rape" took place, there is this:

"Durham County (N.C.) District Attorney Mike Nifong insists the guilty will stand trial, telling co-anchor Rene Syler on The Early Show Thursday that there's no doubt a sexual assault took place.

"The victim was examined at Duke University Medical Center by a nurse who was specially trained in sexual assault cases," Nifong said. "And the investigation at that time was certainly consistent with a sexual assault having taken place, as was the victim's demeanor at the time of the examination."


As far as the toxicology report being released, it has not been. The defense attorney's are now claiming that one was never actually done.


One thing you need to realize that with these "high-profile" cases: it's all about spinning the press - and thus - public opinion.

[pnwmom]

7. I know I don't have all the facts. I especially haven't seen that

toxicology report you referred to, the one that says she had a date rape drug. Where have you seen that?

I'm not disputing that she was raped, by the way. And I haven't made up my mind -- the evidence, at this point, is extremely murky. But there are other possibilities than that she was raped by those players at that party.

[mzteris]

11. evidently Nifong suggested as much

". . . some have suggested that she may have been given a so-called "date rape drug," and Newsweek magazine said District Attorney Mike Nifong had hinted at such a possibility. "

Though whether he was "hinting" based on results or "hinting" based on conjecture - is unknown.

[pnwmom]

14. He hinted at the possibility, but when he gave 1300 pages of "evidence"

to the defense, it didn't include any toxicology report -- and when they specifically asked for it in court, he insisted he's given them everything he has.

[mzteris]

15. operative words being

"he has".....

Who's to say he doesn't actually "have it" (yet in hand - but will get it - and has "heard" about it).

(Or maybe I used to watch too much Law & Order. :) )

[pnwmom]

16. If he has it, then he's in defiance of the judge's order.

And if he's hiding it, how could he justify keeping evidence away from the defense?

[mzteris]

18. he may - in all truthfullness -

NOT HAVE IT...... in his possession.

He may still be awaiting "conclusive results" or "further testing" - etc.....

I dunno.

I DO know it would be very irregular for there NOT to have been done a tox report - and reference to it was made early on - so until I hear otherwise (from someone OTHER than a defense attorney's speculation) I'm going to assume that one was done and the results haven't been released yet.

[BrownOak]

24. Not having it in his possession

The samples that would have been used in a tox screen were taken over 2 months ago. It's a stretch to believe that the reports were done and not returned yet. Either the AV did not consent to the tests or Nifong is sitting on the results.

[Kingshakabobo]

8. "There's enough doubt and suspicion for both sides"

EXACTLY! The thing is......only one side is looking at a 40 year prison term.

[mzteris]

12. But if they did it

don't you want them to serve that 40 year prison term?

What if it were YOUR daughter?


Edit to add this comment: That's what trials are for. . .

[Kingshakabobo]

13. If they did it, I want it to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt...

Furthermore, if the DA violated his own rules and common sense with that kangaroo line-up, I want the I.D. tossed out and the charges dropped absent any physical evidence.

If it were MY daughter I would probably want to skin these kids alive.......but it wasn't. If it were my daughter, I would have to recuse myself from any rational discussion.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"....English jurist William Blackstone.

Thank god she ID'd at least one person who was out eating drunk-food when she was "allegedly" being raped. I think that is what will sink the case. Giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she WAS raped(I'm 50/50 on that)-- if you think she mis-identified one person, you have to doubt the rest of the IDs, considering how the line-up was handled. We don't prosecute people on the enee-menee-minee-moe system in this country.

[mzteris]

17. I don't think the DA

arranged the "line up" -

I agree it was stupid to put "just the lacross team" in the lineup....... from the transcript - and it was evidently videotaped in it's entirety - you can see some of the problems inherent in the process - and get firsthand "testimony" from the alleged victim. (The video was made to show jurors what she looked and sounded like during the viewing.)

**If it were MY daughter I would probably want to skin these kids alive.......but it wasn't.**

Every woman is someone's daughter.

**Thank god she ID'd at least one person who was out eating drunk-food **

So HIS attorney "claims" - again - you have to watch just who is saying what and ask yourself what is their motive for saying it. From what I gather - the "timeline" has been played with fast and loose in the media - saying things happend at "this" time - when in reality - everyone's watch/clock is usually set at somewhat differing times......

He could have "done the deed" - which usually doesn't take long, eh - and left IMMEDIATELY thereafter ...

BTW, do you think it odd that the party broke up so early - and that a bunch of partiers "cleaned up" before they left the premises?

[Kingshakabobo]

20. I think he DID o.k. the line-up. At the very least, the DA had rules...

....established that weren't followed.

I think the party broke up early because the women were threatening to call the police over a dispute and/or racial slurs. BTW, I have a HUGE problem with the BOGUS 911 call they/Roberts made from the car. It sounds, to me, like they were trying to get someone in trouble. I think the party-goers fled because they had been down that road before and were on-notice with the police/school. Look at all the noise/drinking violations they had against them. I would have run like a scalded dog too. Who wants to be left holding the bag for under-age drinking and noise when the cops show up?

If you agree the line-up doesn't fit...you must aquit....or, drop the charges, actually.

Re: The timeline..there are time-stamped photos, ATM Photo's/receipts, dorm-door swipes, and phone records that all match the, credible, next-door-neighbor's eyewitness accounts. Some of this has been independently verified by media outlets...FWIW. Even if he did the deed and left IMMEDIATELY, you have to believe he was dialing his phone, calling his girlfriend, and someone else(six calls??), while raping the victim. And then, he went to get a snack, with a non-implicated buddy, while the police were hot on his tail. Doesn't make any sense.

Re:My daughter. Justice is supposed to be blind. That's why she is portrayed with a blind-fold and a scale. Not the fillet knife and the double-barrel shotgun I would want to use on the people who I thought raped my daughter.

[mzteris]

21. I think Roberts WAS

trying to get "someone in trouble" at that time due to the racial slurs and other threats - but that was also before she knew that her companion had been raped - she didn't learn that info until later.

** think the party broke up early because the women were threatening to call the police over a dispute and/or racial slurs.**

Then why did they take the time to clean up?

**If you agree the line-up doesn't fit...you must aquit....or, drop the charges, actually.**

Interesting - Do you agree with the "OJ verdict" or disagree?

**time-stamped photos**

can be manipulated.

**ATM Photo's/receipts, dorm-door swipes, and phone records that all match the, credible, next-door-neighbor's eyewitness accounts**

"credible next-door-neighbor*

Credible by whose standards?

Besides, the whole "timeline" is completely whacked. The "eyewitness cabbie" states he came BACK to the house at 1:05 AM - and the girls were just leaving...... according to police reports the place was empty at 12:55. See what I mean?

And I still think they had plenty of time to do the deed - leave the house - walk 1 block and a 1/2, call the cab, get to the ATM (about a half mile from the house) why even call the cab? MAYBE it was FOR the "alibi"?

*WE* don't have the "real timeline" - neither does the media - there is way too much misinformation floating around out there to make any hard decisions as to guilt/innocence - of either party.

Why would you believe the MSM on THIS when you question everything they say about the war in Iraq and this admin?

[Kingshakabobo]

22. First of all the, MSM has little to do with it....

....we are talking about local newspapers and stations, not corporo-media-access-journalists. There is some good investigative journalism going on all around the country on the local levels. I doubt, very much, that the local journalists are going to make up stories out of whole cloth. I could be wrong. To the extent that the national corporo-whore media is involved, I submit that they are a bunch of sensationalist f--kwads who would be just as happy finding the smoking gun against these kids. So, I doubt they are making things up(attesting to seeing phone records..blowing-up watch photos etc.) out of whole cloth.

**Then why did they take the time to clean up?**

What did they clean up? The police found evidence of a party, including kegs, but no people???

**trying to get "someone in trouble"**

I guess it will be up to the jury to decide who is more credible here. Two women phoning in a false police report when it would have been just as easy to report the rape at that time...versus....when the victim was in the can and "in trouble" for public intoxication.

**Interesting - Do you agree with the "OJ verdict" or disagree?**

I think OJ was guilty. That was my, lame, attempt at humor.

**time-stamped photos can be manipulated**

Yes, I suppose. So can rape allegations, SANE results and line-ups. But, the photos can be tested for manipulation...Furthermore, the timestamps match watches in some of the photos... This will be interesting. The prosecution's case, and time-stamp manipulation theory, will hinge on the victim arriving and exiting exiting a "dark" car, shoe-less(coincidentally, the right-hand shoe that she left behind) and in a contorted backward leg extended manor with THE HELP of one of the party-goers, that, according to the neighbor, wasn't there performing curbside valet service at arrival. This car exiting/entering piece should be easily provable by the identification of the 'dark" car. We'll see.

***"credible next-door-neighbor* Credible by whose standards?***

Because he doesn't have a dog in this fight and he had a birds-eye view of the incident. As a matter of fact, he has given information that doesn't exactly put the party-goers in the best light- racial slurs. I guess the DA will have to impeach his testimony. Or, at least the part that doesn't help their case.

***The "eyewitness cabbie" states he came BACK to the house at 1:05 AM - and the girls were just leaving..***

Where did you see that? I saw a time-line of cabbie being back @ 12:50, Roberts making a call, presumably down the road @ 12:53 and police arriving @ 12:55????

[mzteris]

23. look again..

**MSM has little to do with it.... ...we are talking about local newspapers and stations **

This story is on MSNBC, FOX, CNN, CBS, all of the MSM.

**I doubt, very much, that the local journalists are going to make up stories out of whole cloth. I could be wrong.**

Actually I am VERY disappointed in the way the local news channel has been handling this. Their website appears to be VERY biased towards the Duke players.

**What did they clean up? **

One of the defense attorneys (Cheshire, I think) said they had cleaned up "after the party".

***Two women phoning in a false police report when it would have been just as easy to report the rape at that time***

Only ONE woman called in - Roberts the first dancer - who DID NOT KNOW at the time anything about the alleged rape. She was just pissed about everything else.


**I think OJ was guilty. That was my, lame, attempt at humor.**

Funny. I don't know if OJ was guilty or not guilty. (As the case was irretrievably tainted by the actions of a racist cop). I can make an argument either way (if you like. :) )


**prosecution's case, and time-stamp manipulation theory, will hinge on the victim arriving and exiting exiting a "dark" car, shoe-less(coincidentally, the right-hand shoe that she left behind) and in a contorted backward leg extended manor with THE HELP of one of the party-goers, that, according to the neighbor, wasn't there performing curbside valet service at arrival. This car exiting/entering piece should be easily provable by the identification of the 'dark" car. We'll see.**

um - I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. But from what I'm hearing that "entering the car picture" is really an "exiting the car picture" that's why the leg looks so distorted. (and thus "proof" that the photos timestamp was manipulated.)

From TIME: ". . .taxi driver Moez Mostafa told TIME in an exclusive interview, he stated he saw exotic dancer Kim Roberts exchange angry words with lacrosse players, enter "an old white car" and speed away from the scene . . . that photo actually shows the accuser being dropped off at the party, not leaving it, and that it was taken well before midnight. In that photo, the accuser is shown in a black or dark-colored car, which matches a description of the car defense and prosecution sources say dropped her off at the party. The person in the driver seat of that car allegedly is not Kim Roberts, whom prosecutors will argue drove the accuser away from the party after the alleged rape. " http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1187945,00.html

**Less than an hour after he says he picked up Seligmann and a friend, Mostafa says he got another call -- at around 1:07 a.m. March 14 -- to pick up people at the same North Buchanan address.

He said he saw about 20 people on the lawn of the home, "yelling, talking back" to each other, including one African-American woman who he said didn't appear to be injured.

Four men got into the taxi, Mostafa said, and they appeared to be drunk.** http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/20/duke.rape/

Though Mostafa changed his story (time) later.

The neighbor - Jason Bissey - has given various - and sometimes differing details of what went on. Not on purpose, I'm sure, it's just that "eyewitnesses" are notoriously unreliable. They "remember things" that never actually happened. They embellish with details they didn't actually see. (shrug) I dunno.

There are things about this case that I've heard that bother me - (like pink nail polish on the stair rail?) but then again, I'm not sure if they're even true or not - so I'm withholding judgement.

[Kingshakabobo]

25. I know it's on FOX et al. but most of the leg-work is being done by the..

locals. The MSM meme is a diversion, pointless and doesn't tell me anything.

Ok. You are disappointed with the locals, but are you saying they are making stuff up... Phone records, atm receipts and cab-driver computer logs? Help me out here. You are saying they lied when they reported seeing the "evidence."?

I'm saying the victim was being helped IN TO a car and not out in the 12:41 photo. There was no one to meet the car at the curb to "help her out" when she arrived, per the witness statement.

This photo is cropped and doesn't show the missing shoe. The same shoe missing AFTER the party. Unless she arrive shoe-less????:shrug:




Honestly, I don't care what the cab-driver said. It's the phone records, computer log, atm photo and dorm-door swipe that establish time-line.

[Moosepoop]

29. What's the big deal about "into" or "out of" the dark car?

The notion of the prosecution's case hinging on the car photo depicting the AV arriving vs. departing is just another of those ideas tossed out by the press.

If it IS the car she left in, as you profess, then that proves at least one thing -- the cab driver is not a credible witness. He said the car was white. No credibility there, none left when he testifies about all of his "recollections" about transporting the players around.

His "computer logs" are nothing more than a fancy version of caller ID, and all he has to show is that he received an incoming call on his phone from Reade Seligmann's phone. Everything else is based on his memory, and due to his inconsistencies, that can be challenged by a five-year-old.

No surprise that you don't care what the cab driver said. He's changed his story repeatedly and isn't credible at all. Suddenly he's no longer important. Uh-huh.

[Kingshakabobo]

33. Nice way to mis-interpret that.

Two people were having a civil conversation and you felt the need to jump in with a thinly veiled personal attack questioning MY intellectual honesty. Personal attacks are SO 4 weeks ago on these threads so give it a rest and save your childish "Uh-huhs". MOST people have been playing nice.

What I'm saying is: I give more weight to "caller ID" that matches cell phone records that are consistent with ATM photo/receipts that corroborates eyewitness testimony and is CONSISTENT with time-stamped photos. Most people, the cab-driver included, aren't walking around taking notes as to car colors and looking at their watches. THAT'S why I don't really CARE what he RECOLLECTS.

The next-door neighbors time-line (Yes, estimates due to recollection) is "consistent with" the time-stamp photos IN THAT he corroborates the START of the time-stamped photos at "roughly" the beginning and end of the photo-sequence and beginning/end of the party. In other words, the photos aren't off by an hour as some suggest.

I have yet to HEAR one plausible(or any) time-line from "your side". So far, all I have heard is: the photos were manipulated and the cabby got the car color wrong. Also, no one cares to explain why the victim "allegedly" ARRIVED (see photo above) missing her RIGHT shoe--the same shoe she is missing after the party....it doesn't add up.

THAT'S why I don't think someone should be subject to a 40 year prison term on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony alone. I've seen the eyewitness testimony experiments and know how people can mis-remember things ESPECIALLY when under the influence of drugs(taken involuntary) or alcohol. THAT coupled with the enee-menee-minee-moe ID photo line-up and these kids shouldn't even be charged.

[Moosepoop]

49. Sorry, didn't know you were so sensitive.

I still don't get what you keep going on about regarding whether the one photo shows the dancers arriving or leaving. You say that "the prosecution" claims that the photo is of them arriving. I don't think the prosecution has ever said any such thing, in which case the assertion that he/they have done so is misinformation. Is there a link to the prosecution addressing this photo? If not, then all the commotion about how the missing shoe fits into it all is meaningless, and there's nothing to add up.

Also, most people don't need to walk around with a notepad in order to remember the difference between a black car and a white one. After all, it's literally the difference between black and white. That's a pretty glaring discrepancy. Not too long ago all the shouting was how the cabbie was the key to the alibi, at least for Reade Seligmann. He was the perfect witness -- unimpeachable, he was called. It was his testimony that was going to exonerate at least one player, because his unimpeachable testimony was going to tie all the "evidence" of photos, ATM receipt, phone records, etc., together. But now that he's got some credibility problems, including the black/white car and changing his story on more than just the second pick-up time, his testimony is suddenly no longer important.

Yeah, right.
Sure.
Mmm-hmm.
(I didn't say uh-huh! I'm playing nice :))

This post is not an attack on you (thinly veiled or otherwise) or your "intellectual honesty", so don't start crying or anything -- it's just some observations.

[mzteris]

36. "disappointed"

**You are disappointed with the locals, but are you saying they are making stuff up... Phone records, atm receipts and cab-driver computer logs? Help me out here. You are saying they lied when they reported seeing the "evidence."?**

Cabdriver computer logs? hmmm... I'm not sure I've seen reference to those - can you give me a link?

And like I said - the phone and atm records - and maybe even the cab - don't in anyway preclude Seligmann from having participated and beating feet to get out.

I'm saying that the local media is giving very one-sided accounts and presenting the Defense atty's claims as "truths". The local tv station timeline has words to accompany pictures that is full of language that appears to be very "biased".

The local newspaper - for example - in today's story - have a bit about where the AV told the first officer she was raped, then said she wasn't, then said she wouldn't talk to him anymore. There is not one word that this is very very typical behaviour for a rape victim! Nearly every rape victim goes into a denial phase. They don't want to admit it. They don't want to talk about it. (ESPECIALLY with a man!)

**I'm saying the victim was being helped IN TO a car and not out in the 12:41 photo. There was no one to meet the car at the curb to "help her out" when she arrived, per the witness statement. **

But the cab driver says he saw the women leave in a WHITE CAR.

**There was no one to meet the car at the curb to "help her out" when she arrived, per the witness statement. **


Don't forget what your mama always told you - don't believe anything you hear and half of what you see......


I don't think Jason ever said anything about that one way or another. In fact, he implies at times in his statement that the two women arrived at the same time - but then there are other statement's of his about the dress and condition of the arriving dancer wearing jeans and high heel strappy shoes and seeming to be completely "normal".

You do know that the two women arrived separately. The first dancer arrived between 11:00 and 11:30 - in *her* car (?white? ?blue?) - the AV arrived between 11:30 and 11:45 driven by someone else in a blue/black car. They got in the car to leave at ~12:50 according to Jason - ~1:01 according to the cab driver (the first time he told the story, earlier in later reports.)

Of course his account of Reade Seligmann and his dad coming to see him - before the police - to "jog his memory about the cab ride" makes me very suspect. He evidently didn't even recognize Seligmann - he only "remembered" him from details Seligmann provided to him about the cabride - (said details which could have been told him by another player, n'est pas?) Though - as stated - I don't think that's a sufficient alibi anyway.

[Kingshakabobo]

39. I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why she "ARRIVED" ..

......missing the very same shoe that was LEFT BEHIND at the scene????


RE: the cabby computer log. Yes, I know it can be manipulated but it matches cell records.

Here:



Moez Mostafa (Ahmad Elmostafa), owner of On Time Taxi, looks at the call records on his office computer in Durham, N.C., Thursday, April 20, 2006. Mostafa, who took Duke University lacrosse player Reade Seligmann home from a team party says his passenger, now charged with raping an exotic dancer, seemed calm and even jovial that night.

[mzteris]

40. oh computer logs

are definitely good...

not. They're even more subject to manipulation, aren't they? Any good hacker can fix that?

Besides, I'm not sure how his "computer log" is handled? Is it tied in automatically to his cell phone? Is his cab trip meter uplinked to it? Or does he just "enter the data in later"?

:shrug:

She didn't arrive at the scene wearing one shoe. Don't forget they got in a car to leave (~12:15) and got back out to go back to the party.

[Kingshakabobo]

41. According to the prosecution, this photo shows her arriving /dropped off.

....even though the time-stamp says 12:41am.

Yes, yes, I know the cabbie log can be manipulated easily but it MATCHES the Verizon bill....unless they are in on it?

[Kingshakabobo]

46. Of course, I did find out an interesting tidbit that I haven't seen...

....discussed here. When the team captains gave the police the list of players attending the party, they omitted Seligmann. Hmmm. Interesting. I'm not a big fan of coincidences. I wonder if there were any other names left off the list and this was just one of many oversights? I can see omitting a name as an oversight if you are partying evey weekend. Was it because he left rather early - only there a short time? Were they protecting him? Did the police single him out because he WAS left off?

[BrownOak]

26. Looking at a lot of things...

It would appear you're only withholding judgment on things that don't implicate the players because many of the things you're assuming to be truths don't hold up.

there were about 20 AT the party -

when you're eavesdropping you don't really hear the whole story.

We'll see how this plays out, but defense sources (I know, consider the source) are saying that the evidence released in discovery shows that the AV at one point stated there were 17 assailants.

Besides, they doped her up a lot based on how the other woman described her behaviour (and rumours of the lab report)
See, here's where you lose me big time. You're relying on the statements of the second dancer who has stated that she didn't originally believe the AV's story, who acted in her own interests when she lied to the police in those 911 calls, who is a convicted embezzler, who has contacted a PR firm looking to profit out of her experience, and whose story changed after she was arrested which led to her getting a favorable reduction in her bond terms. So if you're going to question the credibility of those defense attorneys, you really have to wonder what's going on with Kim Roberts. There is no more evidence to indicate she was doped up by the players than there is to indicate she was intoxicated when she arrived at the party.

The RAPE EXAM - seems pretty conclusive, btw.
How do you know just how conclusive it is? I've maintained that the report of "consistent with sexual assault" does not mean "inconsistent with other causes." Again, tempered with appropriate cynicism, defense sources have stated that the findings in the actual report show that there was no bruising, tearing, or bleeding and that the extent of the injuries was limited to swelling.

And who takes a "date-rape drug" voluntarily?
No one has established any date rape drug in connection with this case. Where's that tox screen? It's one thing to spin things for the press, it's another thing to lie in a filing with the court.

I'm not inclined to believe anyone who can write what that ahole "captain" wrote, btw......
First, it wasn't the captain who wrote the offensive email, it was another player. Second, the email was based on the movie American Psycho and while the content was shocking it is less damning in that context.

I don't think the DA arranged the "line up"
http://www.wral.com/slideshow/dukelacrosse/9141851/detail.html
From the officer's narrative:
Investigator Himan and I met with Durham Co. DA Michael Nifong in reference to doing a photographic lineup with the new mug shot style photographs.... Mr. Nifong suggested we put together the mugshot type photographs into a group since we are under the impression the players at the party were members of the Duke Lacrosse Team...

Then why did they take the time to clean up?
They didn't. The police reported that they found evidence of a party but no one on the scene.

Besides, the whole "timeline" is completely whacked. The "eyewitness cabbie" states he came BACK to the house at 1:05 AM - and the girls were just leaving...... according to police reports the place was empty at 12:55. See what I mean?

The "whole timeline" isn't completely whacked. The ATM photos and receipts indicate Seligmann was gone by 12:19, the dorm swipe card shows him entering his dorm at 12:46, and the cabbie's cell phone records indicate when he was called both by Seligmann and the second time he returned to the premises. His story fits perfectly with everything else that is being said, both by the neighbor and the players, with the only exceptions being the time and the color of the car that the dancers left in. Given the overwhelming amount of physical evidence that corroborates his report these seem to be pretty minor discrepancies.

um - I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. But from what I'm hearing that "entering the car picture" is really an "exiting the car picture" that's why the leg looks so distorted. (and thus "proof" that the photos timestamp was manipulated.)

What you're hearing is some really lame conjecture from Time magazine. It's based on nothing more than the cabbie's incorrect memory of the color of the car he saw the dancers leaving in. But given that Roberts described her car as a dark blue Honda that looks black at night, and the vehicle in that photo is clearly not a white car, but a dark car, the odds are pretty strong that it belongs to Kim Roberts. With the distinct oxidation markings on the top of the car this should be pretty easy to determine.

You can add to all of this the latest revelation that the photo lineup in which the AV identified the accused was actually the third time she had gone through that process and that in at least one previous meeting she did not identify Evans.

[TorchTheWitch]

27. About that SANE report

Again, tempered with appropriate cynicism, defense sources have stated that the findings in the actual report show that there was no bruising, tearing, or bleeding and that the extent of the injuries was limited to swelling.

The defense says in their own motion that they have only 5 sections of a 17 section SANE report... something tells me that since they're missing MOST of the report, there's lots more that was said about the accuser's injuries including that of her genitals. Because the defense has so little of the report, it's no wonder they don't have any evidence from the report of bruising, tearing or bleeding of the genitals, not that the report SAYS there was none of these things. Swelling is usually consistant with an external exam while bruising, tearing and bleeding are usually found upon the internal exam... seems to me they just don't have the section on the internal exam. The defense does admit they have a section of the SANE that reports tenderness in the abdominal lower (left/right can't remember which) quadrant which IS typically a physical injury associated with rape rather than consensual sex (and is also a finding of an external exam).

All we know at this point is that the defense has no section of the SANE report that mentions bruising, tearing or bleeding of the genitals which is not the least surprising since they have so little of the full report.

[mzteris]

38. Aren't they supposed to have

EVERYTHING?

Nifong told them he gave them everything he had. Aren't they entitled to *all* of the discovery?

Why do they "have only 5 sections of a 17 section SANE report"?

[TorchTheWitch]

45. Oh good grief!

Discovery NEVER works like that. There has NEVER been as complicated a case of any kind anywhere where every single piece of paper generated by both sides is exchanged immediately - NEVER. Some things you don't have yet to give or some things are held back on purpose to get the other side to waste time and run around in circles trying to get it or just simply to be a pain in the ass.

What is surprising is not that it's happening yet again in this case but the defense is making such a public stink about it. I guarantee you the judge is NOT going to be happy that they ran to the court immediately with something so frivilous when they haven't yet done anything to try to work it out themselves. You NEVER file a discovery motion complaining that you haven't yet gotten everything you're entitled to from the other side immediately after discovery starts nor do you not explain in the motion what steps you've taken to remedy the situation yourself without involving the court.

The judge isn't so stupid that he doesn't realize this is just more public grandstanding by the defense, and he's not going to be happy that he's going to have to rule on this motion thereby wasting the court's time. The discovery phase lasts a long time for a REASON, and both sides are expected to act like adults and try to work it out themselves without running crying to the court like a two year old running to whine to mommy.

Normal and expected procedure when you know you are missing information you know is in the possession of the other side is to write them a letter saying what is missing, that you're entitled to it, and please fork it over by XYZ date so there is proof to show a judge in a possible FUTURE discovery motion that you TRIED to remedy the situation yourself. If the items requested are not handed over by the date you specified you then write another letter saying you haven't gotten what you requested by the date you requested and request that if those items are in their possession that you hand them over ASAP so there is FURTHER proof you can then use in a possible FUTURE discovery motion to show the judge that you TRIED to remedy the situation yourself first. It should take several exchanges of request letters before involving the court to show that you have been patient, know the items should be in the possession of the other side by this time and have tried to remedy the situation yourself first.

I also guarantee you the defense hasn't forked over everything THEY have to the prosecution either, the difference being that this is normal and expected, and the prosecution isn't making a big public deal over it. In fact, we don't even know if the defense has handed over ANYTHING yet.

The only reason anyone is making a big deal about this bit of nothing is they have no idea how dueling discovery works and because the DEFENSE is making a big deal of it... EXACTLY what their point was in doing it. Good for the defense that they've duped some people and gotten them all riled up against the prosecustion over NOTHING which is EXACLTY what they'd hoped would happen.

[mzteris]

47. I just read

the link to the "demand" - it all pretty much looks like grandstanding and another attempt to "spin" public opinion. The Defense attorney's are pretty slick boys, that's for sure.

People who are relying on statements by the Defense - and things people "say" - are jumping to conclusions based on hearing what they WANT to hear.

[Moosepoop]

30. And looking at other things...

It would appear that you are downplaying things that implicate problems for the defense.

Referring to the cab driver, you wrote:

His story fits perfectly with everything else that is being said, both by the neighbor and the players, with the only exceptions being the time and the color of the car that the dancers left in. Given the overwhelming amount of physical evidence that corroborates his report these seem to be pretty minor discrepancies.

Minor discrepancies??

Sure, his timeline is flawed and he saw them leave in a white car instead of black. Just little things like that. But other than naming the wrong time, seeing lots of people at an empty house, and remembering the car as being the complete opposite in color than it was -- well, other than that, his story is great!

It's great if you overlook the fact that he's changed it a few times too... but hey, it's still great, and he's a going to make a wonderful witness...

... for somebody. ;-)

[BrownOak]

32. In the context of everything else

Minor discrepancies??

Sure, his timeline is flawed and he saw them leave in a white car instead of black. Just little things like that. But other than naming the wrong time, seeing lots of people at an empty house, and remembering the car as being the complete opposite in color than it was -- well, other than that, his story is great!

His timeline is only flawed in relation to picking up the second fare at the party. The only thing he's changed is the time which that happened. This means that he remembered the time incorrectly, it doesn't mean that he's fabricating what he saw.

The cabbie says that he picked up Seligmann around 12:20. The physical evidence supports this because it shows a call coming in to his phone at 12:14 and there are pictures of Seligmann at that ATM at 12:25 with that cab in the background.

The cabbie says that he dropped the players off at their dorm and that's confirmed by Seligmann's dorm card key records.

The cabbie says he went back to the house, originally stating that he went back after 1 AM. However, he changed that time after reviewing his cell phone records which show the call coming from the other player at (going from memory here) 12:29. Since he had Seligmann in the cab at that time and we know he dropped him off at his dorm, it would be a simple exercise to estimate when he returned to the party if you assume that he went directly back from the dorm.

He also got the color of the car wrong. But his description of what was going on at the time the party broke up is consistent with what Jason Bissey reported. Your comments about seeing lots of people at an empty house is misleading because if his return was before 12:55 then there would have been plenty of people there.

The mistakes regarding car and the time of his return to the party scene mean that he's not particularly good with details. But in the context of everything else, the details of time aren't that important. His timeline is already framed by the physical evidence.

The detail about the color of the car isn't that important either. It allowed Time to speculate on the origin of that defense photo, but in the long run that truth will come out when that car is identified. I'm willing to bet any amount of money that it will turn out to be the same vehicle that Kim Roberts was driving that night.

Actually, when you get down to it, that cabbie's testimony isn't too important to the case. Seligmann doesn't need him since he has the picture from the ATM and the prosecution knows that the Time speculation regarding the picture being the arrival of the dancer is pure BS.

[mzteris]

42. From looking at this more closely

than admittedly I have before - in re: timeline: - Seligmann's "alibi" looks "better" but not ironclad.

The neighbor says he saw them go back into the at *about* 12:18. The AV claims they immediately pulled her into the bathroom. Seligmann supposedly gets into a cab at *about* 12:19 - They get to the ATM at 12:24.12 am (that we DO KNOW for sure).

FYI - The ATM they went to is only 1.02 of a mile from the house. There's no way it would take FIVE minutes to get to the ATM from where the house is to where the ATM is - unless the cabbie drives like a little old lady from Pasadena. (The bank "directions to" estimate is only 2.7 minutes - and those are notoriously off - no one drives that slow - especially a cabbie. Especially at night - with no traffic.) So say two minutes or less back from ATM time - puts p/u at 12:22.

The rape didn't occur until after the dancers went back into the house - he *may* well have been gone at or about the same time - OR - he could have done it and left immediately and hurried to the nearest ATM to establish an "alibi". With the estimated time of "going into the house - and getting into the cab" - there is could be as much as a 10 minute overlap - or even say 5 minutes - that still gives enough time.

Also as I stated to someone else, from what I've read, there's a resemblance between Seligman and another player. (I don't *know* that - I've just read that.)

[mzteris]

37. (sigh)

do you want me to argue the "other side"? I can, if you like, but right now I'm talking with someone who believes one side - so I'm pointing out *those* flaws....

**there is to indicate she was intoxicated when she arrived at the party.**

Actually the neighbor's statement made (along with the other dancer - who yes, is a tad suspect) indicates that when the AV arrived she appeared completely "normal". She was wearing jeans and HIGH HEEL Strappy shoes - the kind that are hard enough to walk in gracefully - period, much less over an uneven surface - much less while inebriated. :) (

I'm sorry, but I discount pretty much anything by "defense sources"... they have a clear cut agenda of trying to influence public opinion. Including well-orchestrated "press conferences".

Mr. Nifong suggested - okay - I stand corrected. But was that the first or 2nd line up? As stated - I think they really dropped the ball "just putting the lacross players" on there.


**Then why did they take the time to clean up?
They didn't. The police reported that they found evidence of a party but no one on the scene.**

Then why did one of the defense attorney's say they did? (oh yeah, that's right - I can't count anything he says. lol)

The "timeline" has conflicting stories - from different people and different sources. Including the questionable "time-stamped" photographs.

One thing I've seen mentioned is that Seligmann bears a close resemblance to another player.... (whose name I forget at the moment).

They got out of the blue car, too, remember? When they were "asked back into the house" - or maybe someone was shoving her in the car, or trying to pull her from the car? I dunno. The picture "looks funny", though.

I'm curious why the neighbor has never said anything about the color of the car. It makes sense they left in the blue car (later 911 call) - but why did the cabbie say they left in an "old white car"? Big diff.

The THIRD time? I'd heard about ONE previous time, but TWO previous times? Do you have link for that?

I think the case has been handled badly from the get go. But that doesn't mean the girl is lying. Doesn't mean she's telling the truth, either, for that matter. I want the truth to come out and for justice to be down.

I have absolutely not made any "decision" as to the guilt or innocence of any party. I do not have enough information to make that kind of decision.

[BrownOak]

43. Some good points

Actually the neighbor's statement made (along with the other dancer - who yes, is a tad suspect) indicates that when the AV arrived she appeared completely "normal". She was wearing jeans and HIGH HEEL Strappy shoes - the kind that are hard enough to walk in gracefully - period, much less over an uneven surface - much less while inebriated.
That's a good point, I had forgotten that Bissey had stated she appeared fine. There's also a report out today from her driver saying she was not intoxicated when he dropped her off. However, neither of these rule out the possibility that she took some sort of recreational drug before she arrived at the party and that it kicked in once she was there. If you consider the possibility that the AV did not consent to a tox screen (a strong possibility as it is not in the records that Nifong says are everything he has at this point) then the idea she took some sort of recreational drug prior to the party becomes even more plausible.

I'm sorry, but I discount pretty much anything by "defense sources"... they have a clear cut agenda of trying to influence public opinion. Including well-orchestrated "press conferences".
I don't have a problem with that, but I'm likely less inclined to believe that the defense is out and out lying in their statements to the press or leaks to the press. That risk/reward of that type of action is a tough call as public statements that you can't back up in the courtroom would tend to hurt one's credibility. What I think the defense does do is to frame their press statements in such a way to spin the facts as strongly as possible. I also think that they are only releasing snippets of information which favor their clients (well, duh!). But when I hear them leak that the AV at one point claimed she was assaulted by 17 people, well I think that's the kind of thing that is hard to spin and should be considered.

Mr. Nifong suggested - okay - I stand corrected. But was that the first or 2nd line up? As stated - I think they really dropped the ball "just putting the lacross players" on there.
It was in fact the critical third lineup, the one where the AV made the ID's. I'll see your "dropping the ball" statement on this one and raise you a "they intentionally ignored procedures because they were uncertain of the strength of their witness." She had already been through two sets of photo lineups and now they lay out a procedure that's like shooting fish in a barrel. Doesn't that make you wonder what the DA really is working from? Think about all the other things he's done in the investigation and tell me if this looks like a guy with confidence in his case:

*the bail deal he cut with Kim Roberts after she changed her observation/thoughts about what happened
*the fake email from one of the players that was sent out to the team telling them he was going to come forward and tell what he knew (note: this may not have been from the police, but it's a possibility that it did since they had their computers at the time)
*the interviews with players in their dorm rooms when their attorneys weren't present after the DA knew they were represented. The questions they asked, just three days (one work day) prior to the first grand jury were all about who was at the party.
*the retrial of the deferred prosecution deals for players who had them. He noted that he would do this for everyone who couldn't prove they weren't at the party.
*the intimidation arrest of the defense's witness on an old and seemingly groundless warrant
*his speculation on the use of condoms as an explanation for the lack of DNA after the AV told the SANE (again, according to a defense leak) that her attackers did not wear condoms

Then why did one of the defense attorney's say they did ? (oh yeah, that's right - I can't count anything he says. lol)
I haven't seen any such claim by a defense attorney. Do you have a link?

The "timeline" has conflicting stories - from different people and different sources. Including the questionable "time-stamped" photographs.
Actually, the timeline presents more problems for the prosecution than for the defense, based upon the statements of the AV, Kim Roberts, and Jason Bissey. The AV's statement is that they arrived at the house separately, joined the other dancer around 11:30, danced for a brief period, were insulted and intimidated, and then left. She then says they were talked into returning to resume the performance, entered the house, were then separated, and then the assault occurred.

Bissey says he saw the two women arrive together (?) and then saw them come out of the house sometime around 12:20 to 12:30. At that point Bissey gets a little confusing because there are versions of his story out there that have him seeing one woman go back into the house to retrieve a shoe, two women go back into the house to retrieve a shoe, or one woman going back to the house to retrieve a shoe but no mention of seeing her enter.

So here's the question - did what Bissey see happen before or after the alleged assault? If it was before, and you have a picture of Reade Seligmann using his ATM card at a location 5 minutes away, then you have a big problem convicting him. If it was after the alleged assault, then you have a problem because everything that the AV reported happening before the assault (arriving, dancing, leaving, and returning) would have had to have happened in a span of 20 minutes (remember, Reade Seligmann is out of there at 12:19)... PLUS, you have to fit in a 30-minute rape. Now I don't expect any rape victim to have a really good handle on the length of time of an assault. However, it seems highly unlikely that the AV would have been back in the house in any less than 10 minutes after originally entering which means that Seligmann had 10 minutes to possibly assault her for what she felt was 30 minutes. Add to that the question of why she would return to the house for her shoe after such a violent assault if you're going to say it occurred before Bissey saw her return. Certainly many rape victims do things that would be out of the norm in a post-rape state of shock, but again, when you place this question in with all the others it adds one more question for the prosecution to address.

One thing I've seen mentioned is that Seligmann bears a close resemblance to another player.... (whose name I forget at the moment).
I've never seen this anywhere... again, do you have a link? But even if he does bear a resemblance to another player are you saying he conspired with the other player and gave him his ATM card for an alibi? Which seems more plausible - the defense's story or this theory you have?


They got out of the blue car, too, remember? When they were "asked back into the house" - or maybe someone was shoving her in the car, or trying to pull her from the car? I dunno. The picture "looks funny", though.
I'm curious why the neighbor has never said anything about the color of the car. It makes sense they left in the blue car (later 911 call) - but why did the cabbie say they left in an "old white car"? Big diff.
That's actually a very good point. It is most certainly not when they arrived but it could be when they were being talked back into the house. The whole point about the white car is to discredit the timeline by showing that photo was the arrival based on the cabbie's description of the car they left in as white. It's almost a certainty that the car in that photo belongs to Kim Roberts and that the cabbie was mistaken in his memory of the color. So while the picture may be of the return to the house and not when they left for good, it does not, on it's own, establish the timeline as fraudulent as it would if the dancers actually left in a white car.

The THIRD time? I'd heard about ONE previous time, but TWO previous times? Do you have link for that?
Sure... http://www.wral.com/download/2006/0526/9282538.pdf

I'm not claiming the AV is lying. However there have been very few things we've seen that support the story at this point. Now a lot of that has to do with the fact that we haven't really heard anything concrete from the prosecution. But the things we do know - not from the defense but things corroborated by third parties - do raise questions. And beyond that, the actions of the DA really raise questions.

[mzteris]

44. open dialogue - I like that.

**But when I hear them leak that the AV at one point claimed she was assaulted by 17 people, well I think that's the kind of thing that is hard to spin and should be considered.**

Did SHE "claim" that - or did someone SAY "she claimed that"?

Nifong - well he's definitely not up to L&O standards..... is he deliberately manipulating things or just incompetent? Or was ne not prepared for how this would play out? Durham's a sleepy little town - not LA or NY or Chicago. The DA isn't some high-powered guy - just *some guy* used to prosecuting a few thieves, drug cases, the rare homicide - - -


". . . Cheshire said the nail was placed in the trashcan by residents of the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. when they cleaned up after the now-infamous lacrosse party the night of March 13-14. . . . Cheshire represents one of the residents. Neither of the two men indicted in the case lived at the house. "

I'm sorry - Cheshire isn't one of THE defense attorney's.

Bissey has told several different stories - some of which conflicts other data known. At one point he says he saw them arrive and get out of a car together (the original arrival). But we know they arrived separately some time apart.

I think the "shoe incident" was WHY she went back into the house - and that was when she may have been raped. I don't think it took 30 minutes - time does do strange things under those circumstances. (See my earlier post to either you or someone else I just posted about timeline - including locations/distances/drive times of house/bank/cookout/ etc..) - the ATM is definitely NOT 5 minutes away from the house. It's 2 at MOST. Probably more like 1. Seligmann *could* have had time - it's not beyond the realm of possibility.


**gave him his ATM card for an alibi** - no I was saying it might have been the other guy who did it and she ID'd the wrong guy.

"Tony McDevitt, a junior Duke lacrosse player who has a striking resemblance to the indicted Reade Seligmann" - it's from a blog posting by Chris Lawrence who is a visiting assistant professor of political science at Duke University in Durham, N.C.


Thanks for the link.....

gotta run - (kids to pickup and take to baseball practice!)

[ncrainbowgrrl]

9. Hi Neighbor!

:hi: from Chapel Hill!

[mzteris]

19. hey yourself

don't you want to jump into the fray?

I really do try to be objective about these things -

I readily admit there *seem to be* some issues with the accusers story - but then again most of those "issues" have been raised by the attorney's for the defense - who certainly don't have an agenda, do they?

I just think that people jump to conclusions based on inherent (usually unrealized) bias...

that - and poor critical thinking skills. ;)

So what do they make of this over on the Hill?

[NaturalHigh]

31. She changed her story.

Story from ABC News

This story doesn't even mention that she originally claims she was raped by twenty white men or that she claimed that one of her attackers had a mustache (none of the three she picked out from the line-up, made up exclusively of Duke lacrosse players, had a mustache).

The DA is going to get hammered in court, IF the case even makes it that far. Hopefully, when these guys are acquitted or the charges are dropped, the players will sue the hell out of the accuser and the DA. Nobody should be allowed to make false charges and get away with it.

[Kingshakabobo]

35. Her story stinks to high-heaven.

I've been 50/50 on whether she was raped or not. I don't know about now. Unfortunately, the only person they'll be able to sue is the "victim." Good luck getting blood out of a turnip. The DA can wash his hands of the matter and say he was "mis-led."

From the link:

>>>"When I used it, the female began mouth-breathing, which is a sign that she was not really unconscious," he wrote. "My experience is that unconscious people wake up rather quickly when exposed to ammonia capsules.

"I grabbed the female and attempted to pull her from the vehicle. She grabbed the emergency brake with her left hand and would not come out of the car. At this point, I applied a bent wrist come-along to her right-hand arm? once she was out of the car, I released the pressure and she collapsed to the ground." <<<

>>>"He called me and stated the female stated she had been raped...Once at Duke , I spoke to the female, who was now cooperative," Shelton wrote. "She said some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one forced her to have sex." <<<


>>>"Within a few minutes, I was told that she told the that she had been raped? I returned? and asked her if she had or had not been raped. She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bedroom." <<<

[Moosepoop]

50. This article already has its own thread

which you know, as you posted in it.

TorchtheWitch deftly addressed the points raised by the article here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2309000#2309178

[NaturalHigh]

52. Is there some sort of rule I don't know about...

which keeps me from cross-posting that link here? If so, please enlighten me.

[stanwyck]

66. Why are you so obsessed with this case?

Why not let the judicial system sort it out? Why the crusade? We have a system, flawed, but still the best in the world, for justice.
Let it work.

[Spike from MN]

72. Oh I agree.

But there are some here that are absolutely hellbent on arguing that every single rape victim that has ever existed is a liar that is falsely accusing an innocent man of raping them. Nothing you or I or anyone can say will ever convince them otherwise. In their view, all rape victims are liars and once we accept the fact that ALL rape accusations are false accusations put forth by lying whores looking to make a buck, we can start to deal with the realities: every single person that have ever claimed s/he has been raped is a liar and they should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. They will stop at nothing less because, in their minds, there is no such thing as rape. To them, the judicial system is stacked against the rapist. I mean, just look at the stats:

72% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Those rapists, of course, never serve a day in prison. <1999 NCVS>

If the rape is reported to police, there is a 50.8% chance that an arrest will be made.

If an arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution.

If there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction.

If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail.

So, even in those 28% of rapes that are reported to police, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up in prison.

Factoring in unreported rapes, about 5%—one out of twenty— of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. 19 out of 20 will walk free.



http://hcs.harvard.edu/~casv/stats.htm

Obviously, facing the possiblity of a 16.3% chance of conviction, or 5% if you count the unreported rapes, the poor rapist doesn't have a chance against the system. The odds are against him from the start. Good gawd, what's a rapist to do?

:sarcasm: The REALLY sad thing is that I have to include the sarcasm tag because some people actually think this way.

[stanwyck]

73. Spike, I appreciate your post

thanks for taking the time for an excellent lesson for all of us. None of us know what the truth is concerning this case. Yet, the ugliness shown here at DU has appalled me. Give the accuser and the accused their day in court and let the professionals and the jury sort out what happened.
But the mindless speculation and constant repeating of snippets of innuendo and gossip is not worthy of DU.
Why the campaign against the accuser? What's driving this? Sexism? Racism?
We don't even know the facts. But there's this relentless drive to ruin the accuser.
Why?

[mzteris]

74. when you read things like this:

***But the mindless speculation and constant repeating of snippets of innuendo and gossip is not worthy of DU.
Why the campaign against the accuser? What's driving this? Sexism? Racism?
We don't even know the facts. But there's this relentless drive to ruin the accuser.
Why?***

It makes me think I've stumbled into the wrong place, ya know?

I THOUGHT liberal Democrats were all about supporting those less fortunate and combating stereotypes. Makes me wonder exactly who some of these posters really are, ya know?

I hear the exact statements from my freep brother who is a racist AND a mysogynist!

[NaturalHigh]

76. Unfortunately, anybody who doesn't believe the accuser...

is labeled as a racist and misogynist. Never mind the facts. Apparently, we are all expected to just shut up and be politically correct.

[mzteris]

79. it's not that they

"don't believe her"

It's that there is not one fact in evidence to disbelieve her.

What FACTS do you KNOW? I mean, absolutely positively KNOW?

I don't believe her or disbelieve her.

I don't know if they are guilty or innocent.

*I* don't have enough FACTS to MAKE that determination. And neither does ANYONE else!


Tell me, upon what basis do you "disbelieve" the AV?

[NaturalHigh]

81. Where do you want me to start?

Timeline discrepancies. No matching DNA (except for something that was pulled out of a player's trash can in his own house.) Conflicting statements from both of the strippers. Changed stories. Criminal records (yes, I am aware that the players also have criminal records). A suspicious 911 call from the second stripper. Faulty lineup. Testimony that one of the accused wasn't even at the party. Further testimony from dozens of guys that nobody had sex with this accuser, which the DNA tests seem to corroborate.

No, I don't believe the accuser at all. I think she cooked up a false accusation to try and get herself a monetary settlement.

[mzteris]

82. oh yeah - she's a real money grubber

no price too high to pay for having your name and your children's name and your entire family's name dragged through the mud on national tv. Everyone knows you're a "stripper". Everyone knows your past. Your entire life - your entire sex life - is examined in minute detail for the world to see. Yes sir. She's a real gold digger alright

(sigh)

If you read through this thread - you will see that every one of your remarks have been addressed.

The timeline "discrepancies" - do more to add more time for the rape to occur. There was time for the rape to occur. More than enough. (Only Reade Seligmann *may* have time alibi.)

The only place you've heard there is "no matching DNA" is from the Defense. (And DNA is NOT the holy grail. This is real life, not some tv drama. Read about DNA and it's actual role in cases.)

Conflicting statements/changed stories? The first woman (not "stripper" please, your prejudice is showing) did not know about the alleged rape.

That the 2nd woman "changed her story" - is entirely consistent with rape trauma. (Read about it.) Especially is she was drugged.

Criminal records? So if the players have one, why bring this up? What does that have to do with it? Need I remind you which has the VIOLENT criminal past?

The 911 call - again the first woman did not know about the alleged rape. She WAS pissed and yes - they DID yell racial epithets. So what's wrong with the call? She was reporting their racist behaviour. Did she lie? No. Did she leave out the part that she had been at their party? Yes. But the overall kernel of what she was reporting to the police was true.

What "testimony" that one of the accused wasn't even at the party? There has been NO TESTIMONY. The trial hasn't started yet. And yeah, Reade Seligmann WAS at the party. Where do you get that he wasn't? Even he admitted that he was AT the party.

Further testimony: again - there has been NO TESTIMONY. And of course they said "nobody had sex with the accuser." But they're not under oath, are they?

DNA tests: Oh - you've seen a copy?

I posit you don't believe her because she's "just a stripper" (a poor minority one with a (gasp!) criminal record... put up against a bunch of privileged white male ATHLETES (GOD'S CHOSEN, doncha know) why would you possible believe some poor stripper?


Sarcasm aside: admittedly this case isn't airtight. The police screwed up big time. The prosecution didn't seem to be handling it well. The line up - IF what the Defense is saying is true (and maybe it is and maybe it isn't) - was screwed up.

Could she be lying? Maybe.

Could she be telling the truth? Maybe.

Based on typical behavior by drunken group males - I'd say the odds are somebody probably did something. IF they did, there's still the question of whether she ID'd the right guys or not.


The fact that you reject out of hand everything she says, and embrace without question everything the Duke's say - well - that says a lot more about your preconceptions than anything else. You might want to re-examine WHY you have this knee-jerk reaction.

[NaturalHigh]

83. I do not feel the need...

to re-examine my belief about what happened in this case. I stand by everything in my previous post. While my opinions might be unsettling or even repugnant to you, I am still entitled to express them, just as you are entitled to express yours.

Everything I've read about this case tells me that the accuser is lying and looking for a financial settlement.

[mzteris]

84. according to your interpretation

of course.

Which is affected by your own life experiences and opinion of people different from yourself.

[NaturalHigh]

85. Again, I'm free to hold an opinion on the case...

and so are you. Our opinions differ, obviously.

[mzteris]

86. of course you are.

I find most of your opinions posted on DU to be quite - er - different from most of us, though.

Interesting, don't you think?

I also think "opinions" *should* be based on some sort factual basis. But I understand that a lot of people hold opinions that are merely emotional in nature.

Fortunately, our justice system is designed to rely on a presentation of facts in a court of law with cross examination and expert testimony.

I also find it interesting that you didn't answer any of my questions nor proffer any reasoning WHY you hold the opinion that you do.

Of course you don't HAVE to do that. You can just have an opinion for no good reason at all except that you WANT to. :shrug: I suppose we might all be guilty of that from time to time.

[NaturalHigh]

87. Mzteris, I thought that I HAD answered why...

I formed my opinion on this case. Which questions did I not answer in another thread?

As for my opinions being different, I think it's obvious that a lot of people feel like I do about this case. A lot of people, on the other hand, feel like you.

[mzteris]

88. and I asked some more....

What "testimony"?

What DNA evidence has been released?

Knowing what you know now about the 1st woman's call - do you still think that 911 call had anything to do with this case at all?

Knowing what you know now about the behaviour of rape victims - do you think her "changing her story" is sufficient reason to disbelieve her?

Knowing that no "official timeline" has actually be established, do you agree that using the timeline argument isn't - as yet - viable?

Knowing that the vast majority of what you're hearing is complete and totally orchestrated "spin" on the part of the defense team (HIGHLY paid professionals) - do you really think you're hearing the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[NaturalHigh]

89. Yes, I agree that a large part of what we've heard...

about this case was released by the defense. Does that mean that it's not true? Do you really think the defense would have said that the DNA does not match the defendants if it did? Wouldn't that just make them look worse later? Wouldn't they go with a consent defense instead? Saying that none of the defendants even had sex with the accuser is a pretty strange defense if there were some sort of DNA evidence to prove that they did.

As far as the official timeline is concerned, whose version are you referring to?

Concerning the behavior of rape victims, I would still find it pretty odd that the accuser originally claimed to have been raped by twenty guys and then changed her story to three. Like it or not, inconsistencies in her stories will be raised in court, as they should be.

As far as the original 911 call, that again relates to the credibility of a key witness in this case. Again, it will be relevant in court.

On edit: I almost forgot to mention the rigged photo lineup, where only pictures of the Duke lacrosse team were shown. That's a pretty big screw-up. They might as well have asked the accuser "which three guys do you want us to charge?"

[mzteris]

90. "Does that mean that it's not true?"

No, it doesn't mean that it's "not true" - but I certainly wouldn't use it as a basis for determining guilt or innocence. OF COURSE they are going to say they didn't do it and that everything she says if false and everythey they say is true.

The real question is - why do you put more validity to what "they" claim than what "she" claims?

**As far as the official timeline is concerned, whose version are you referring to? **

There is no "official timeline" that is in the public purview. There are plenty of "personal opinion and conjecture timelines" - including that put out by the defense - which may - or may not - be any where close to accurate.

The only absolute time(s) we know - without a doubt are "true" is the ATM visit at 12:24 am by Reade Seligmann, some cell phone calls, the 911 calls, and the police activity. Everything else is pretty much approximated, etc. . . the photo timestamp COULD have been manipulated (maybe it was, maybe it wasn't - I'm not saying either is true, but it *could* have been so you can't really rely on them at this point in time.)

**Concerning the behavior of rape victims, I would still find it pretty odd that the accuser originally claimed to have been raped by twenty guys and then changed her story to three.***

AAAAAAAAAGgggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh -------- That argument has been covered six ways from Sunday. The ONLY PERSON who SAID that she "said that" is the Duke "cop" - who evidently got his partial information from eavesdropping on one side of a phone conversation. He never talked to the the police, he never talked to any of the parties involved. He "heard" some comments and extrapolated his report from there. *That* story is a complete non-story......

Why does the first 911 call go to question the credibility of the witness? They DID hurl racial epithets. She may not have gone into complete detail about the circumstances - but the gist of what she said WAS true - what's your problem with her credibility? What was she supposed to say? Hey 911? I was dancing for hire at this party and the guys started yelling racial epithets and issuing threats. . .?

I've consistently stated that the line up - IF handled as the defense CLAIMS - was pretty screwed up. But that would hardly be the AV's fault now would it. And getting off on a technicality would be pretty sad, too.

Would you ever want your daughter to go out with even one of these guys?

Not MY daughter.

[stanwyck]

77. Glad to know there are more DUers

who aren't jumping on the "nutty/slutty" campaign that is always brought out when rape accusations are made. Here we are, in 2006, and we won't let the justice system deal with the alleged crime.
No. We have to have numerous threads about the accuser.
It's beyond disturbing.
And, yes, I wonder also about the motivation.
This seems like a calculated campaign to benefit...who? The accused? Are these the relatives/friends/defense team trying to get out ahead of the case?
Or, like your brother, people with racial and sexism issues?
Thanks for your post.
Glad to know there are other folks having trouble with reading this tabloid Faux news junk.
I guess I should just ignore it. I just hate to see this mindlessness at DU.

[goclark]

91. Love your post, my thoughts exactly nt

[Kingshakabobo]

78. *****I THOUGHT liberal Democrats were .......

all about supporting those less fortunate****


Fortunate or less fortunate has got nothing to do with it. Justice is supposed to be blind. I thought WE were supposed to be concerned about the rights of the accused and their right to mount a vigorous defense against the government. Nothing will change the fact that this woman was raped but convicting someone on bogus line-ups, with half-assed DNA "partial matches" isn't going to do ANYONE any good.

As for the DU discussion, I haven't seen to much name-calling on "my side." I can't say the same for the other "side."