Posted on 05/15/2006 7:14:12 AM PDT by pissant
DURHAM - A Durham grand jury is scheduled to meet today, and the session could mean new charges in the investigation of a reported rape at a Duke lacrosse team party.
Two of the team's players were indicted in April on charges of first degree rape, first degree sex offense and first degree kidnapping. They are accused of assaulting an escort service dancer in a bathroom of a house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. Their lawyers say the men are innocent, and lawyers representing dozens of team members say that no sex or assault occurred at the March 13 party.
But the woman says she was attacked by three men, and Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong said he has been working on bringing charges against a third person.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TODAY? If Nifong decides to submit the case, police investigators and possibly other witnesses will try to convince grand jurors in a secret session that the state has probable cause to bring a case forward. Grand jurors will hear only the prosecution's side of the case. The standard required for a true bill of indictment is far lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required for a conviction.
IF INDICTMENTS ARE ISSUED, WHEN WILL THEY BECOME PUBLIC? On April 17, a judge ordered the indictments in the lacrosse case sealed. The names of the players who were indicted were not released until 5 a.m. the next day when the players surrendered at the Durham County jail. If Nifong again requests that the indictments be sealed, the law allows a judge to keep them secret until the person is arrested or appears in court.
WHEN WILL ALL THE EVIDENCE BE REVEALED? State law requires prosecutors to turn over all of their case files to defense lawyers, but nothing requires the evidence to be turned over to the public. In open court hearings, lawyers often discuss some of the evidence, but the state's case may not be revealed until trial. No trial dates have been set. When a report on the DNA testing is complete, Nifong is required by law to turn it over to all 46 members of the lacrosse team who submitted DNA samples.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? The cases against Reade William Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., and Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y., are moving forward. Finnerty has a court date in June. Seligmann is scheduled to appear in court Thursday. His attorney, Kirk Osborn, has filed a series of motions challenging Nifong's handling of the case and asking a judge to bar the prosecutor from further involvement.
I've typed many a police report. She is legally considered a victim, along with the State.
"Personally, I am on the side of justice."
Me too. So far, we've only heard from the defense.
____________________________________________
So you missed Nifongs 70, yes seventy, make that SEVENTY statement to the press, three indictment and false leaks last week about the DNA?
In most states this case wouldnt make it to trial. My bet, in fact, is this wont even make it to trial in NC either.
The DA wouldnt be so desperate and sloppy if he had a stronger case. Weak cases usually die early.
I heard on the radio today: one guy saying why are the news corpse reporting this Duke stuff?
he said: we have Health Care, gas prices & a white house that has been lying to us. the DJ agreed with him. there are so many other things more important.
the problem is they had no problem discussing it endlessly when it made the Duke guys out to be rapists born of privilege
Discovery is supposed to be turned over to the defense by Thursday, Seligmann's hearing. So far the MSM seems to be giving Nifong the benefit of the doubt, trusting he has a smoking gun we haven't seen. Hopefully, the defense will alert the press if there is no "there" there, and they will demand some answers from Nifong and the police.
You know I have tremendous respect for you on this board.
But until we've heard every piece of evidence and until that time, I can't say the defendants are innocent or not.
Complete Eyewitness News Coverage of the Investigation - ABC NEWS CHANNEL 11
Duke Lacrosse Controversy - THE NEWS&OBSERVER
That's the part that got to Kimberly as well. Now it's only NG and Wendy...they're still at it.
"In most states this case wouldnt make it to trial."
You'd be surprised. I've worked for a charging prosecutorial atty, I've seen lots of cases I thought shouldn't of been charged and they were.
Our young herione, alledged victim was charged with trying to run over a cop in 2002.
I wonder if she is still on probation or parole, therefore making her ineligible to vote.
While it wouldn't be relevant to the rape case (case may be a generous word).... But if this information is correct...
Voter Reg. No: 000030067414
Owner ID: 8270321
Residence: 2111 Charles St. Durham, NC 27707-2907
Registration Date: Sept. 10, 2004
Birthplace: North Carolina
Party: Democratic
Precinct: 09
Congressional: 4th Congress
School/Ward: 2A Ward 2
Wouldn't it be funny if she were illegally registered to vote? A little if she voted fradulently in '04... and absolutely hillarious if she voted fraudently in the recent primary.
I'm just thinking out loud, I'm not as smart as Buckhead.
There is no victim. There is an accuser.
This case is reminiscent of Kate Faber and Kobe Bryant.
Yes, there was sex between the two of them, but there was also sex between Faber and two other men, 48 hours on either side of her encounter with Bryant.
The DA in Colorado Springs realized he couldn't put his accuser on the stand with that kind of timeline, and Bryant wanted to get this off the front page. So he settled.
But these guys are not going to settle, and Crystal Mangum is going to be left, if she's lucky, with nothing. If she's not, she'll have a defamation lawsuit hanging over her head.
I don't care what's in the threads on FR. We've been at it before and we've been on opposites before. Like this would be any diff?
I've typed police reports for a living. She would be a victim.
And again, one of the defendants in this case alleged committed assault?
And you all are calling the victim in this case a skank? Big deal.
you sound like your mind is made up. need I remind you no evidence has been presented in court?
why doesn't the treatment of the Cab driver witness upset you?
why didn't you post when Nancy Grace and Kimberly Gulfoil called them rapists night after night?
why doesn't the Distric Attorney leaking damaging parts of reports upset you?
you are trying to make yourself sound like the voice of reason but you really just have a different opinion and you are hoping to convince other people of your side. me thinks
you have supported the dancer all along. you are mad at those guys: huh?
There is nothing else. If the accuser can't determine whether or not one of her accusers had a mustache (yet she identifies him with 90% certainty without the mustache), she's going to get shiskabobbed on the stand.
From what I understand of the AV's appearance and condition, I doubt that any of the boys would have had any desire to have any contact at all with her.
But on the remote chance that not only one but three were so inclined, it's even more doubtful that they would have chosen this behavior, even if they were drunk, because of the risk of being reported by her, and also because they would have been concerned that their teammates would find out, ridicule them for their poor taste, and condemn them for such a heinous act, and that at least one teammate would testify truthfully.
I don't care what it was. The defendant in this case is also a defendant in an another assault case. This does speak to his character.
Well good then, since those links are off site you can read them.
I d/n hear it but if he did good for him! It is long past time, that the skank has been protected for too long. She is a 27 y/o woman who has made some very serious charges against these three young men. Their names and pix have been plastered all over the country and she has been 'protected'! Bull tickee!!!
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.