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.
Thank you.
For some reason the media is making a big deal about this case, why, because maybe its got a lot of everything in it: class, race, money and they think it will bring them lots and lots of viewers.
I haven't followed the case as closely as you and many other posters on the board as is evidenced by my clueless posts.
But still believe she has just as much a right as anybody else to file a report she was raped.
Maybe Nifong is an idiot for taking it before a grand jury and maybe Nifong just wants the office, heck, I don't know.
But I really do want to hold out hope that the world is good and right and just.
Am I wrong to post silly stuff like this to the thread?
Rats... I didn't get the memo... no way can I catch up now..
what's tonight's prize....????
Hey.... anyone wanna volunteer for 200+ post cuss fight?
Have you posted similar types of comments on such threads as you are on this one? If not, why did you pick the Duke thread to do so?
If the world was good and right, she would have been in the drunk tank that night and none of this would have happened.
All you need to know about this case is that the student newspaper at the college she goes to knows a lot of stuff about her that will help the defense but they refuse to print it because she's a "sister."
Oh, yes, he will.
They are going to wipe the floor with him.
And he deserves it.
Nifong's henchman, eh.
Which one, knifing or fang?
You seem to be a good person and one who loves one's country and you strike me as one who would make a mighty fine neighbor.
Having said that - you are a moron.
On Greta tonight, they said that because Nifong knew about those pictures and he didn't show them to the Grand Jury, the entire indictment can be thrown out.
If the prosecuter is off his rocker....as it appears..what legal recourse is there? short of a trial?
You didn't have to scroll down; if you're on a long thread and you want to see the responses to someone's post, just click on "View Replies" at the bottom of the post, over to the right of
"Post Reply".
When someone has a question, I like to check the replies and often find someone has already answered and in a better way than I could have. It's a good tool for lazy (ehm) I mean, efficient people like myself. :-)
We tune her out immediately, lol! We DVR everything, then fast-forward through the screaming morons like Wendy and the commercials and the crap like the gossip segments about American Idol. It cuts our TV watching time in half, at least.
I can tell by the first few words out of Wendy's mouth whether or not she's figured this out yet. For a short while it looked like she was starting to, but that was a couple weeks ago and lately she's back to her rabid self so we just DVR past her. It's more peaceful that way, and does wonders for the blood pressure.
Yes, because it would be much more unethical to seek an indictment with the proof that Dave has never had a mustache. By refusing to look at the phtos, he can deny he had that evidence when the subject is raised as a civil rights matter or at trial or in an ethics review hearing. Nifong has been so hell-bent on indicting these guys he has taken the unheard of position of refusing to look at exculpatory evidence or to even talk to the suspects.
Now that the election is over, one has to wonder why he's still on this crusade to ruin the lives of these innocent young men.
Really? you can't see how this has ruined the lives of all the team members, especially the three under indictment?
Let me ask you this: suppose you were accused and charged with three heinous felonies that you know you are completely innocent of, and you had to mount a multi-million dollar defense, post $400,000 bail - more than currently charged murderers in the same jurisdiction had to post - your potential career is ruined, your good name is ruined, you are expelled from school, no other school will let yoou transfer in, your parents are in tears and petrified, and you are facing spending the rest of your life in prison, starting from the age of about twenty?
Not a problem, eh?
Okay. Sure. Whatever you say.
Yes, he will. So, do you view that eventual scenario as "no harm, no foul"? You don't see the devastating harm done innocent people by such charges?
That is she, as I posted earlier. It's definitely the same woman. She gave her name as Cory Peterson. I guess she thinks she's somebody to be reckoned with. She's just another loud moth race-baiter. I think Joe Cheshire fixed her but good by turning her words into a valid reason for a change of venue.
Since you admit you haven't followed the case closely and are indeed clueless about it, how in hell can you, in the same breath, state that Mangum has the right to file this claim? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!
Now, if Tucker would tell us the name of the 3 mystery men...
Justice should indeed be blind. And I'm not so sure the boys were rude. It strikes me that the behavior would be fairly typical for viewers of a Burlesque act. And the dancers were indeed performing a Burlesque Act. They appear to have not been very good at what they were hired to do.
Now, anyone can pick a TV channel, a movie, and in some cases, TV show to witness Burlesquian Acts 24-7. This was not so 30 years ago. Ergo, the accuser and other dancer are in a tough field of competition, IME.
As if "one" irate person could be representative of an entire race of people. My God, how disgusting that notion is.
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.