Posted on 05/25/2006 5:04:51 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM -- A lawyer with the state NAACP said the civil rights organization intends to seek a gag order in the Duke lacrosse case, and a journalist who participated in a forum with him on Wednesday said media coverage of the alleged rape may deprive the alleged victim of her legal rights to a fair trial.
Al McSurely, an attorney who chairs the Legal Redress Committee for the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he generally respects the defense attorneys in the case as colleagues. But they are violating the State Bar's rules of professional conduct that discourage comments outside court that are likely to prejudice a case, he said.
The NAACP will try to intervene in the case to file a "quiet zone/let's let justice work" motion. That is otherwise known as a gag order, he acknowledged, although he said he doesn't like that term.
McSurely's comments came amid the first-ever Durham Conference on the Moral Challenges of our Culture at First Presbyterian Church downtown. The session gave the approximately 150 people who attended a chance to hear a series of talks and discuss among themselves sexual and domestic violence, racism, class distinctions and the media.
(Excerpt) Read more at herald-sun.com ...
via NBC-17 in Raleigh:
"A handwritten narrative report by Sgt. J.C. Shelton that is attached to the motion says the accuser first reported being raped after officers had decided to involuntary commit her."
10 posted on 05/27/2006 3:13:09 AM EDT by zaxxon
I think Sgt. Shelton sounds like an experienced officer with a good read on people. In his radio call with the dispatcher, he said the accuser was medically "fine", just "passed out drunk". He said he was taking her in for a 24 hr. hold.
His 4/9 report seems to say that from her reaction to the ammonia, he decided she was only faking being passed out. She resisted being removed from the car, and collapsed on the pavement after being pulled out. After she wouldn't (not couldn't) give the officers her name and address, Sgt. Shelton decided to "involuntarily commit" her at Durham Access Center, and handed her off to two other officers on scene. Cheshire said neither of those officers with her with she cried rape at DAC wrote a report given to them in discovery.
Sgt. was told she cried rape, told the junior officers to take her to Duke, where she recanted and recanted her recantation. It sounds like Shelton finally had had enough and asked her point blank whether she had been raped or not. I think Crystal realized her "poor me" act was useless with Shelton. That's when she refused to speak to him any more. Sgt. Shelton may be the only competent Durham employee who appears as a witness.
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-739040.html
Read Day's report and where he writes "raped" use the word "groped" instead.
CGM was groped by approxmiately 20 white males, she changed her story several times, and the charges probably wouldn't exceed misdemeanor assault. That sounds a lot like the night as it was described in Shelton's report up to the point when she no longer wanted to speak to him.
many news orgs drop connectivity after a period of time....but I have seen years-old articles previously posted on these Duke/rape threads from the local rags in NC, so there is a way for the posters to find them. Without the correct title or an exact phrase from the piece, persistence re keywords is the only way I know. I noticed lots of stuff taken down re kerry that indicated a cache existed, but even many of the caches led to 'page not found' or some such. Obviously I do not know the real answer to your Q, but I'll bet that someone in NC does....
Along the lines of what you said.
Did her state become that of screaming and hysterical (what the Sane read as traumaized) because she was in a mental hospital and they were restraining her - (INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT). Was that the source of her trauma. That has to be very scary for anyone.
Especially with her background of unstableness and Psych Wards.
http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/443932.html
Accuser seemed OK early on, driver says
DURHAM - The man who drove the accuser in the Duke University lacrosse case to the team party said she did not seem intoxicated when he dropped her off that night.
Brian Taylor, who met the accuser at a Super Bowl party two years ago, said he spent an hour and a half with her before driving her to the party where she was hired to dance.
"She had called me a few hours earlier, asking me if she could use my place to get ready," Taylor said Friday.
Taylor said he did not know how the woman, a 27-year-old N.C. Central University student with two children, got to his home March 13. But he said that when she arrived about 9 p.m., he noticed nothing unusual about her demeanor. He did not say whether they consumed any alcohol.
Taylor had known for a while that his guest was a dancer. He and a male friend had watched her perform at clubs in Smithfield and Hillsborough.
As he sat in front of his PlayStation console March 13, the accuser showered behind a closed door and modeled at least two negligees for her host, he said.
"She asked my opinion," he said. "The first one was this black outfit, and I said, 'No.' When she came out in the red one I said, 'That's better.' "
It was 10:45 p.m., Taylor estimated, when they left for 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.
"The deal was for me to take her over there for about a two-hour show," he said. "She was supposed to call me to come pick her up."
Taylor did not hear from her again until 7 a.m. the next day. She was at Duke Hospital.
"She was distraught," he said. "I could tell that she was crying. She asked me to pick up her kids."
He said she didn't mention being attacked in that conversation or in a call more than a week later.
"She just told me her name would be in the news," Taylor said.
He said he did not check on the accuser's children or tell her parents where she was. "I told her I would, but I didn't," he said. "I don't know her that well."
Taylor said he has not seen the accuser since that night. Police came to his home weeks ago and asked him to make a statement.
He said that all he could tell investigators was about their visit and the drive to the house, which he had difficulty finding.
Taylor and his passenger were flagged down by a man outside 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. awaiting their arrival. "On our way there, she got two calls on her cell phone saying if you don't come soon, it's going to get canceled," Taylor said.
Here's another thing that is going to cause Baker & Nifong problems.
In Shelton's supplemental report, he says Kim tells him, I don't know if she's drunk or High.
This is important. Before Mark Simeon signs her up and before Mark Simeon and Willie Gary (by extension) get involved with Crystal - Roberts is saying - She may be drunk or HIGH.
She had EVERY opportunity to say then - contemporaneous - that she may have been drugged by those white guys, but she does NOT. Drugging, Slipping, Date-Rape, none of that stuff is mentioned by Roberts. Roberts did tell him that she was afraid to leave Crystal with those White men and she tells him about the racial epiteths from the White men. So, it would be logical, at that time, for her to say when describing Crystal's condition, they may have slipped her something, or I don't know if they drugged her, BUT she says
I don't know if she's DRUNK or HIGH.
Quite a difference. And her statements at that time are much more valuable than her press conferences after she's signed up with lawyers and asked for advice on how to take advantage of this "opportunity"
I think Nifong shifted when he became aware of the standing, smiling photo of the AV when she was leaving the house for good. To get around this damning photo - She was slipped a date rape drug. It's the only way to explain her behavior after this terrible gang-rape and beating.
But, now he has to deal with Roberts initial statement and Crystal's clarity during the photo lineup - and Crystal's history of becoming unresponsive after partying. Like 2002, when she stole a Car and tried to run over a cop. That cop reported her as becoming unresponsive during questioning, and the club manager and fellow strippers reported her as unresponsive before she stole the car.
There's quite a smokey smell in Durham. Lots of "unsolved mysteries" and always surrounding the usual cabal running shop in Durham.
yeh, and there's a call to or from her daddy documented in her phone re directions, which terminated at some specific time with her telling daddy "never mind, we're here, now, bye". This call, if not gone to dead-battery heaveb will fix her arrival time
Thank you for posting this data. We uncovered similar data threads ago. Yours is much more explicit.
People in Durham have told me that the power structure in Durham has ways of punishing those who don't play by the rules laid out by those "running" Durham. So, I'm not sure I'd agree with your theories about a fair trial in Durham.
"He didn't know her that well" and she was modeling lingerie
for him?
I'm assuming he put down the play station at some point. He doesn't know this woman that well and he went to watch her dance at some point in the past, and now she's showering and modeling see-thru outfits for him at his place?
I think it's safe to say that this is one of the drivers that she said belatedly that could account for DNA insider her.
Also, from Maggie's article in the N&O, what was conspicuously absent was the time he dropper her off at 610 Buchanan. The article has times all through and then the Good old News and Observer leaves that out. It should've at least said he couldn't recall or he wouldn't answer - BUT it does NOT.
I think that's a bad sign for Nifong and the Baker Boys that the super liberal News and Observer left that out - can't be good news for them. If it was good news, it would be the headline on all the wires. DANCER's TIMELINE CORROBORATED!
DURHAM JUSTICE.
In earlier threads, I spent 3/4ths of my "online" time digging around Durham. Nope. I positively, without a doubt, concur that a trial should NOT be held in Durham. I would fear for those good people sitting in that jury -- aside from what would be "done" to the Duke Boys.
In reference to Alia's comments on Murky Durham and JLS, fourth party privacy concerns on Crystal's phone:
Don't forget Baker is a 38 year old civil servant driving a Ranger Rover and his wife doesn't work.
Just like many knew it would eventually come out that the AV was committing other crimes (like prostitution, underreporting on her taxes, etc.) I think, if we are lucky, other corruption in the Durham Power hierarchy will be uncovered during this trail too.
He said he did not check on the accuser's children or tell her parents where she was. "I told her I would, but I didn't," he said. "I don't know her that well."
He admits he lied ... his entire story is likely a lie.
Yes!
In counties like Durham, it would be so easy to find out where Jurors live. I had thought that myself. Do these Jurors want to exposure themselves to maltaf cocktails, exposure the children to danger.
You are so right. DURHAM JUSTICE
July 7 2004 The Chapel Hill News NC archives.
Natasha Lee Brumley, 21, of 1205 Cypress Road was charged with prostitution and released on a written promise.
Willie Earl Drewery Jr., 29, of 291 Tremount Ave., East Orange, N.J., was charged with aiding and abetting prostitution and possession of marijuana. According to a police report, Drewery, who listed his employer as Eye Candy Escort and Massage of East Orange, said that he was Brumley's "manager." He was held in Orange County Jail in lieu of $500 bail.
another, poss relation?:
-Tara Lajaynese Drewery, 34, of 1205 Cypress Road was charged March 6 with two counts of worthless check. She was cited and released.
I wonder if Tara and Kimmy knew each other?
Maggief,
You mean you don't think the Power Station was his main concern?
She had to say - HONEY, look over here!
You can't make this stuff up!
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.