Posted on 06/08/2006 2:03:55 PM PDT by Mike Nifong
The motion also says the alleged victim told Durham police that she had performed for a couple at a Raleigh hotel hours before the Duke lacrosse party. She told police that she used a vibrator. Osborn suggests that could be the source of the vaginal injuries mentioned in the rape kit report. (snip) Osborn says the accuser gave conflicting accounts of what happened. The motion says medical records indicate she told a doctor that she used no alcohol or drugs. The accuser told the sexual assault nurse that she had consumed one drink of alcohol and was taking Flexeril, a prescription drug used to treat muscle spasms.
The alleged victim told a doctor the next day at UNC Hospitals that "she was drunk and had had a lot of alcohol that night," the motion said.
She later told police that she had consumed a 24-ounce bottle of beer and then told police she had two 22-ounce bottles of beer, according to the motion.
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
"Not backaches"
LOL! I was going to say the same thing!
PING!
6/08 documents!
Thanks for the ping!
BTW what does "non-testimonial" mean in the context of these docs.
Yeah - I think she got it confused with PMS. [jumps in foxhole]
If a statement is "non-testimonial," its admission in a criminal trial is left "to regulation by hearsay law...
http://www.nesl.edu/csr/svnewsold/Cases/FOWLER_v._Indiana.htm
HN5 Under the United States Supreme Court's Crawford decision, a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause analysis is whether a particular statement is testimonial or non- testimonial in nature, and not whether the statements offered into evidence fall into a well-rooted hearsay exception, such as the excited utterance exception. However, the Crawford decision expressly declines to define what a testimonial statement is.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:RlpmWgWT2iIJ:www.tdcaa.com/DocumentRoot/State%2520v.%2520Forrest-596%2520S.E.2d%252022%2520(N.C.).doc+%22non+testimonial%22+statements+north+carolina&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a
More from the last link:
2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 231 at 5 (citing Crawford, __ U.S. at __, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 203).
HN5Under Crawford, a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause analysis is whether a particular statement is testimonial or non- testimonial in nature, and not whether the statements offered into evidence fall into a well-rooted hearsay exception, such as the "excited utterance" exception. Moscat, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 231 at 12-13. However, the Crawford decision "expressly declines to define what a testimonial statement is . . . ." 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 231 at 5. We must first [**13] decide whether Moore's statements are testimonial or non-testimonial in nature. If these statements are non-testimonial, then the Confrontation Clause is not implicated, and "the statement's admissibility is merely a matter of applying evidentiary rules regarding hearsay and various hearsay exceptions." Id.
Moscat is one of the first cases to interpret Crawford. The Criminal Court of New York had to determine whether a 911 call made by the victim was testimonial or non-testimonial. 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 231 at 13. The court held that the 911 call was non-testimonial in nature and "is essentially different in nature than the 'testimonial' materials that Crawford tells us the Confrontation Clause [*27] was designed to exclude." Id. The court stated:
Mike, this is what I said last night....When someone's back is up against the wall there are only 2 options, truth or lies.
Skanky Liar chose lies. Wendy and Nancy need to get a grip. Her charges have nothing to do with rape or sex. She lied to keep herself out of more trouble.
To give her charges any credibility after all of the information that has been disclosed is the ultimate insult to me as a woman.
I'd bet the farm that is the same reason she made the rape charges in the past and accused her husband of taking her into the woods and threatening her life. We called that one a long time ago
Kim is cut from the same cloth except she has the added greed factor. She lives by "what's in it for her?"
BTW, Mike how old were you when you went through all of that? Just curious.
http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-ad-6_9_06.6ca5d5fd.html
One more article. I don't think this has been posted yet.
Whoa! If the judge is at all honest, there has GOT to be movement on this brief.
More comments as I read the docs.
I have not decided if Hinman has been manipulated by Nifong or if he is a bad cop. I'll reserve judgement.
But one thing for sure...
This is not a case where Nifong jumped on a wagon to win an election. In my heart of hearts I believe (and this is only my opinion) Nifong made a calculated decision to use this for his election. Futher, IMHO, because he made that decision, it would appear he played an active role in the manipulation of evidence because he wanted to win this primary.
IOW, he appears to be guilty of fixing/buying an election (maybe not in legal terms, but my terms).
If Hinman was manipulated by Nifong, he'd better watch his back. The cops that I know (and I only know good cops, LOL!) have always said that they document, document, document. They document in the same way I document as a nurse...they imagine every lawyer looking over their shoulders as they write.
A surfeit of good news in the past couple of days. NancyGrace will be torqued up for sure. Wonder what Catfish will have to say?
So why was Kim crying? Kim is worse than the AV imo. At least the AV can say she was wacky on pills and alcohol. Honest to God, huh.....
"I didn't do enough," she said, tears welling in her eyes. "I didn't do enough. I didn't do enough."
"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty ... but somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression."
Does anyone know if Hinman is black or white?
Abrams show should be interesting today, Peach.
I think Kim came over to our side a while ago, but Nancy is still a member of the dark side.
Loved Nancy during the Peterson trial, but I've changed my opinion-BIG-TIME.
Don't you like Police Chief Chalmer's absence is telling?
So Seligmann's attorney thinks that Nifong violated the United States Constitution AND the State of North Carolina Constitution by not providing information that impeaches the hooker.
I have a question: How often do attoreys provide briefs making such strong suggestions that the Constitution has been violated?
Oh, I'll be watching Abrams at 4:00, maggie. In fact, I'm going to set the timer now so I don't let time get away from me :-)
As I said a while back, the rape nazis need to back a winner sometime soon to keep any believers.
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.