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.
But many many here on FR seem to believe they are innocent.
But, they are INNOCENT. Until they are proven guilty. And that hasn't happened yet.
Until they are PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO BE GUILTY...THEY ARE INNOCENT
And so many are tripping and falling over this point and demanding the French Rule of Law: GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. Wrongo!
I still remember that from reading it in 8th grade.
"As your city manager, I would expect that the buck stops with me," Baker, a lawyer and former assistant city attorney with responsibilities for Police Department issues, told the council. "I'm not asking them to 'get their story straight' at all, but I do think it's my duty to know what's happening at all times. I'm not wanting to be blindsided by anything at all."
The Bowen-Chambers report -- commissioned by Duke President Richard Brodhead -- hit like a small bomb at City Hall last week. It alleged that Durham police had told their counterparts at Duke that the case would blow over because the accuser kept changing her story during the early stages of the investigation on March 14.
The report, alluding to a Duke police document, claimed that the accuser initially told Durham police she'd been raped by about 20 men.
Defense lawyers immediately seized on the Bowen-Chambers report to launch a new round of attacks on the accuser's truthfulness.
But Baker took the document as an attack on the Durham Police Department. The morning after it came out, he contacted officials at Duke to find out what they'd heard from city investigators.
They quickly conceded that the information that formed the basis of the Bowen-Chambers report's claims about Durham police came from a single low-ranking Duke police officer, Christopher Day, who overheard one end of a Durham patrol sergeant's cell-phone conversation.
Baker said the sergeant, John Shelton, was talking with his superiors while police were trying to figure out exactly what they were dealing with. Patrol officers initially believed the woman was intoxicated.
But Durham authorities -- tipped off, Baker said Monday, by medical personnel at Duke University Hospital -- soon decided they were dealing instead with a potential sexual assault, and called in investigators.
"What the Duke Police Department officer overheard was simply one portion of an ongoing conversation [Sgt. Shelton] was having with a watch commander," Baker said, adding that Day would have drawn a different conclusion had he stuck around a while longer. Day instead traveled with two of his colleagues to the scene of the alleged crime, a Duke-owned house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., to try to contact its residents.
"All of the evidence in the case makes it clear ... that we took it seriously from the get-go," Baker told the council Monday. "I've spoken with all the officers. Any conclusion or allegation that the Durham Police Department didn't take this seriously is incorrect."
The alleged attack occurred in the early hours of March 14 and had been classified as a sexual assault by Durham Police by 2:50 a.m. Police did not obtain a search warrant for the house where the attack allegedly occurred until 6:55 p.m. on March 16.
Baker did not criticize anyone at Duke other than Officer Day during his comments to the council Monday, despite the concession late last week by Joe Cheshire, a lawyer for newly indicted player David Evans, that Duke administrators had tipped off team members about the allegations before Durham police could secure a search warrant for the house.
The Chambers-Bowen report said Duke's dean of students, Sue Wasiolek, contacted former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler, Athletics Director Joe Alleva and other officials in the school's athletics department immediately after learning of the allegations the morning of March 14. The people she contacted in turn notified the lacrosse players.
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-735122.html
Has anyone done a little background on Chalmers?
I'm too lazy to search FR threads-I'll do some googling and post anything I find.
Thanks for that information, maggief.
Things like the SANE report are what I have a problem with. The mere fact of why it is being done puts a weight to it. The SANE person assumes that the victim is telling the truth and that tips the scale right from the beginning. If Crystal lied about recent sex via a "boyfriend", the SANE report conclusion has no merit to convict.
pertinent to this thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632931/posts
ROFLMAO! I believe, the above femmes, have done a royal job of portraying how zealous they can be. As in, being solidly good prosecutors having NOTHING to do with their own personal agenda.. They've effectively cut their own tongues out throughout this case thus far.
These are not "tough" prosecutors. Modern feminism is based on lies. Ergo, as prosecutors, I'd pray for their clients.
This case is getting stranger and stranger. It reminds me of the Fells Acre/Amirault case in Massachusetts. All the powers rallied around to make sure that the incompetence of the original action and the crass political motives (the DA, Harshbarger, was running for Governor) were hidden from the public. It was akin to the Salem witch trials. Does anyone know whether Dorothy Rabinowitz from the WSJ has commented on this case? She did a great job exposing the incompetence of the Amirault case. Unfortunately it was too late for many of the apparently falsely accused.
She did, IIRC. Many articles in the WSJ. I think most of them were before the days of the internet and online archiving. You may be able to google up some stuff, tho...
This was the best case I could find:
In my own words: Two BROTHERS were at a rape scene. Only one raped the girl. They weren't about to snitch on each other. DNA showed that one brother had 12 markers. The other had 13. The brother with 12 markers was "excluded", i.e., deemed innocent.
The site was very direct in saying that not only that 13 markers are necessary but that less than 13 markers "excludes" a person. This is not horseshoes.
More pertinent stuff...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1632938/posts
Thank YOU for posting this! I found a note late last night that Patrick Baker was being looked into. Good. This needs to be done. Thank you for posting this news.
Ping to #1453: Patrick Baker, City Manager of Durham.
Thank you for the update, maggieF.
Does anyone know whether Dorothy Rabinowitz from the WSJ has commented on this case?
I think I must not have been clear. Has DR commented on the Duke case? I tried Google but found nothing.
After chiding everyone about sources for their statements, it ends up that marajade had no source and was wrong about the 90 percent DNA match.
Forget Chalmers, I might read up on Baker, LOL!
Haven't seen anything by Rabinowitz on the DukeLax case. I think she's semi-retired and doesn't write too much any more...
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.