Posted on 04/24/2006 2:16:50 PM PDT by Perdogg
DURHAM, N.C. - The attorney for one of two Duke lacrosse players charged with raping a stripper demanded on Monday that prosecutors turn over the accuser’s medical, legal and education records for use in attacking her credibility.
Kirk Osborn, who represents player Reade Seligmann, said the material will provide “rich sources of information for impeaching the complaining witnesses.”
Osborn also asked a judge to hold a pretrial hearing to “determine if the complaining witness is even credible enough to provide reliable testimony.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I am not sure if you saw this, because it was on our local news, but the day of the indictments, the TV crews caught Osburn, Reade's attorney, coming out of the courthouse.
The ONLY statement he made -- because he virtually never discusses his cases -- was to say that he was stunned at how LITTLE evidence he charged them with.
He used the word "shocking."
Through the good graces of the Moderators, today's thread has been restored -- in the Smokey Back Room.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1620385/posts?page=870#870
That is exactly why I think Nufong is blowing smoke re: a date rape drug.
I agree with you analysis--and this was a message board posting. However, Kim has lied so many times, I question everything she says. If the girls in fact did not know each other where was Kim driving her? If they were seperated, why wait for the drunken girl? If she was concerned about her why not call 911 herself--did she need the security guard? Was she going to dump her in the parking lot? As we've been saying for days, Ms Kim has the answers..but can she tell the truth?
Mangum is a family name with a history dating to early 1700's in Surry and Southampton County Virginia. One of the most famous slave insurrections occured in that area -- Nat Turner's rebellion.
SPEEDING ELUDE ARREST OR/ATTEM (PRINCIPAL)
ASSAULT/THR AGNST GOVERNMNT (PRINCIPAL)
DWI LEVEL 3 (PRINCIPAL)
LARCENY (PRINCIPAL)
DURHAM -- A 23-year-old woman was arrested Friday on charges she was driving a stolen taxi and tried to run over a deputy who was pursuing her on DWI, speeding and other offenses.
Crystal Gail Mangum of 211 Charles St. faces 10 charges, including driving while impaired, driving with a revoked license, eluding police, reckless driving, failure to heed a siren and lights, assault on an officer and larceny of a motor vehicle, warrants say.
At 12:42 p.m. Friday, deputy J.P. Carroll spotted the stolen cab at Angier Avenue and Page Road and turned on his lights and siren. The driver fled, arrest warrants say. The chase led onto U.S. 70, where speeds reached 70 mph. After the car traveled into a wooded area, warrants say, Carroll approached, but the taxi driver drove toward him. He jumped away, bumping his vehicle.
Further information wasn't available, but warrants say both cars sustained damage. Mangum, jailed on $ 75,000 bail, is to appear today in District Court.
ANOTHER RUN-IN WITH THE LAW
Woman charged in taxi theft, chase News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) June 24, 2002 Monday,,
Crystal Gail Mangum, 23, of 2111 Charles St. was charged with larceny of a motor vehicle, driving while impaired, assault with a deadlyweapon, damage to real property and resisting an officer, among otheroffenses, the warrant states.
Mangum allegedly drove the stolenblue Durham Taxi Associates cab toward a Durham County sheriff'sdeputy, forcing him to jump out of the way and causing $200 of damageto his 2002 Crown Victoria cruiser, the warrant states. The deputy hadstopped Mangum because he suspected her of driving while impaired, thereport states.
Mangum was taken to Durham County Jail and held on a $75,000 secured bond.
Crime Log The Herald-Sun (Durham, NC) June 23, 2002 Sunday
This will go against the conventional thinking here, but I don't think Kim is lying about the facts of the case in her recent interviews. I think a lot of people are not paying very close attention to her actual words. I think she is trying to be misleading, but without being caught in an outright lie.
It's true Kim lied in the first 911 call. She also lied to the security guard at Kroger.
But there was little downside to what she did at the time - she wanted to sic the police on the boys without personally getting involved with the police, and later she wanted to dump Kim onto someone else (the Kroger guard) and wash her hands of the AV and go home. She wasn't in those instances giving false testimony on penalty of perjury.
But there is a big risk to Kim if she is caught in an out-and-out lie in this criminal rape case which has attracted huge attention. I think she is taking care, with her lawyer, to make sure that whatever she says in the news interviews will not be contrary to what her testimony will eventually be.
Listening carefully to what Kim says, she actually does not dispute the boys' version as to any hard facts. And if she is pressed to say something that conficts with the boys' version ("Can you confirm you were NOT in the bathroom with the AV?) she refuses to speak on that.
She says the boys are lying as to whether the AV was drunk when she arrived. Well, whether someone believes another person is under the influence is a matter of opinion in many cases. It's clear the AV was able to walk into the house under her own power, and start the routine. So if the other people at the party have a different opinion of whether the AV is drunk, so what? Kim can reasonably pretend that she thought the AV was not drunk. Kim is not in danger of being caught in a lie, because that is a matter of opinion.
Kim says the boys are lying when they say they slipped a "$100 bill" under the door of the bathroom. (By the way, she is implicitly placing herself in the bathroom by making this statement.) But the boys have said they slipped money under the door. Maybe it was $20 bills. They didn't say it was $100 bill. Kim may be misleading people here, but if the boys are able to prove somehow that they slipped $20 bills under the door, well Kim is still not caught in an outright lie.
Some people on here were under the impression that Kim said the two women immediately left the house together after they stopped their routine, but in fact a close listening to her interview reveals that she did not say that.
Some people on here thought that Kim said the two women were coaxed back into the house. Again, listening closely to the interview, she does not say that.
So I think it is worth paying close attention to Kim where she does in fact speak to her knowledge of the hard facts of the case. And so far, I haven't heard her contradict the defense version on these hard facts.
I would pay to see a deposition of Kim and Crystal. I don't think either one of them is going to be able to maintain their cool.
This isn't *really* about the victim's competancy to go to trial. We've had people go to prison for raping women who were barely vegetables in mental hospitals.
What's happening here is an effort to poison the jury pool with whatever dirt they can find. From a legal standpoint, it's a good but risky defense manuever. He could risk some backlash for "blaming the victim". But he's hoping to find something he can announce before the trial to cast more doubt on the accuser's story.
Since the case seems to lack DNA evidence, the victim's credibility is going to be a major component of this case and the defense is going to go all out to shred her credibility.
I have a theory that whatever injuries she had came from her pimp--er, manager.
She is pretty afraid of this guy, and hollered rape rather than implicate him when the cops came into the scene. Then the lies just compounded.
So far, the real results of the DNA tests have not been revealed. Only that none of it came from the white lacross players. I bet that when the truth is forced out, it will be revealed that there was DNA from multiple men. Probably some from her "manager" also.
The defense has a right to have their own test done on the DNA samples, and that is going to be real interesting...
I suspect the pimp knows this, and that is why she has voluntarily disappeared. When he finds her, she may disappear involuntarily...
The chances of no trial because of no testimony are increasing by the day. And, I bet that the hotshot lawyer won't touch this one. There is no way he can get a win, and he is not going to loose his unbroken string over a lying stripper/prostitute.
When Kim said the AV was not painting her fingernails in the bathroom, perhaps Kim was telling the truth.
Assume for a moment that the defense version is actually the truth -- then the defense is only guessing that the AV was painting her nails, because only Kim and the AV were in there, and none of the lacrosse players.
The defense belief that the AV must have been painting her fingernails when the two girls were in the bathroom appears to be based on the fact that when the AV fell down on the back porch, she smeared what appeared to be fingernail polish all over the railing.
Well, maybe it wasn't fingernail polish. Maybe it was lip gloss or some other item of makeup. In the photo at 12:30, she appears to be fumbling with her purse. Perhaps she pulled out a lipstick or a makeup compact and, as she stepped on the loose rags on the second step, lost her balance and grabbed for the rail, smearing lip gloss or other makeup on the railing.
It has always struck me as odd that the AV would be painting her nails in the bathroom anyway, at a time after Kim has already decided the "show is over!" and is in the bathroom putting on her clothes. My only thought was that perhaps the AV was trying to convince Kim to go on with the show, and was painting her fingernails in expectation of winning the argument and continuing the act.
But anyway, why does someone who does her routine in press-on nails need to paint them anyway? Don't they come in different colors? Don't they just put on the ones in the color they want?
So maybe it's not fingernail polish on the back railing. The defense ought to take samples of that and have it tested to figure out exactly what it was the AV smeared on the railing as she fell.
I'll play you're parsing game on this one... Kim did not say that the AV wasn't painting her nails in the BR. She said she didn't see her painting her nails.
secondly... the search warrant said they were looking for artificial nails, red in color... From all indications of what I have heard and can tell from the pictures, the AV's nail and the polish on the rail were pink... but if I recall the ones she had on when she got there were red...
Also, there has been a big deal made about the 5 unpainted fake nails left in the BR. But if the search warrant said to look for red nails, maybe they left them on purpose...
Good point. On the other hand, if I recall the defense version correctly, the two women emerged from the bathroom together and left the house. So Kim should have seen the AV painting her nails if that is in fact the case. Nevertheless, this is something where Kim is in little danger of being caught in a lie - since no one else was in the bathroom, she can always say (if proof later comes out that the AV was in fact painting her nails) that she just didn't notice, that she was busy herself putting on her clothes, making cellphone calls, or whatever.
From all indications of what I have heard and can tell from the pictures, the AV's nail and the polish on the rail were pink... but if I recall the ones she had on when she got there were red...
It would be interesting to see from the photos exactly which nails were missing and what color the other nails were at the beginning of the party, and what nails were missing and what color the other nails were that appear in the photos of the AV sprawled out on the ground at 12:37. If there were additional nails on her at 12:37 that were not there at 12:00, and the additional nails are pink, and the unpainted nails are clearly not able to be mistaken for pink, then that would strongly support the idea that she was indeed putting on unpainted nails and painting them pink in the bathroom.
Also, there has been a big deal made about the 5 unpainted fake nails left in the BR. But if the search warrant said to look for red nails, maybe they left them on purpose...
Do you mean the girls may have left them there on purpose? I've read various theories on here about the girls conspiring before leaving the party to cook up the rape charge and intentionally leaving things behind with that in mind, etc., but I haven't seen any such theory that can be made to fit with the reported facts of the case.
No, I mean the cops... if they didn't have red nails on the warrant, could they collect any that were non-red?
Nevertheless, this is something where Kim is in little danger of being caught in a lie
This is kinda what I was getting at earlier... She was debunking all the "lies" she said were being spread around... She said the finger nail painting was a lie... And I asked, if she didn't see her painting her nails, how does she know someone saying she did it a lie. And if she says its a lie and she doesn't know if it's a lie or not, is she lying....
whew.... does that make sense?
oops...
if they didn't have red nails on the warrant
should be
if they had red nails on the warrant
Actually the cops could collect them - in general the cops are allowed to collect other items of evidence that they happen to come upon in a search, even if those items are not specifically identified in the search warrant, so long as the cops are lawful in being where they are at the time and place they observe the other items of evidence.
And if she says its a lie and she doesn't know if it's a lie or not, is she lying
She's not in danger of perjury if she didn't know it was a lie (and the DA or a jury buys her story that she didn't know it was a lie or at least has reasonable doubt)
I'm a little hung up here on an obscure bit of testimony that I have staked a lot on. I heard on FOX or MSNBC a few days ago the neighbor making the very explicit and strong claim that he saw Mangum, as she arrived, walk up a driveway -- he emphasized that it was much more than a few steps -- and he was certain that she was not impaired. I don't recollect with certainty whether I was hearing his voice or someone reading what he had said.
I looked through the N&O archive but nothing jumped out at me.
It seems to me important if an objective witness is stating with conviction that he had a good look and Mangum looked sober as she arrived.
Kim is unquestionably parsing her words. She really came off like an idiot.
What struck me as odd was her selectivity in specifying the "lies" of the Dukies. Certainly, IF the guys are indeed lying, she can find things to be more outraged about than...whether or not the AV Mangum was already intoxicated when she arrived (a matter of opinion)...or whether or not a $100 bill was slipped under the door...or whether or not Mangum was painting her nails in the bathroom.
I mean...shouldn't she be outraged about more substantive issues such as...that the guys are denying that the girls were ever separated for 30 minutes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.