Posted on 08/29/2006 1:39:25 PM PDT by abb
The Durham cab driver who has surfaced as an alibi witness in the Duke lacrosse rape case today was found not guilty of a 3-year-old shoplifting charge.
Moezeldin Elmostafa is expected to provide an alibi for Reade Seligmann, one of three Duke lacrosse players indicted in the rape case, because he gave Seligmann a ride after the party that led to the rape allegations.
After authorities learned of Elmostafa's potential role in the rape case, they found an unserved warrant naming him in a 2003 shoplifting case at a Hecht’s department store at Northgate Mall in Durham. A security officer for the store testified today in district court that he saw a woman steal handbags from the store and then jump into Elmostafa’s cab, which sped away.
The security officer testified that the cab pulled away even before the woman had closed to the door. A store surveillance tape, played in court, appeared to show that the door closed first.
Defense lawyers in the lacrosse rape case have said that Elmostafa was charged because he is a favorable witness to the defense. Loflin put one of the lacrosse investigators on the witness stand this morning and produced typed notes from the lacrosse case that show District Attorney Mike Nifong wanted to be informed when Elmostafa was arrested.
Assistant District Attorney Ashley Cannon told the judge the shoplifting case has nothing to do with the rape case.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
Here's a Checklist for the FEDERAL INVESTIGATOR:
He said they probably used condoms
He demonstrated that Choke Hold
He said they stole her money and it was left laying right there on the floor - consistent with her story.
He said DNA would Identify the perpetrators and exculpate the innocent.
He read Medical reports that hadn't been compiled or printed.
Affidavits stated the Medical reports documented injuries that are not in the Medical reports.
He said the players didn't cooperate
He said they didn't know who made the first 911 call.
His office said the woman never changed her story.
He ordered a ID lineup that violated every rule on the subject.
He refused to look at exculpatory evidence provided by the player's lawyer.
He made more prejudicial statements than any D.A. in modern history.
He gave Kim a big break and rewarded her with a deal when she stole $ 25,000.00 but went after the Cabbie for driving someone that stole 250 bucks.
He and/or his investigators neglected to tell Judges of major problems with the case in order to garner court approvals. Felonious strangulation and common law robbery were also cited on those documents submitted to the court - and those charges have vanished into the ether.
He pursued a lacrosse player on a noise violation, which a Judge threw out and questioned why the courts were being used in that fashion.
There's no reason to believe the list of attrocities won't grow either.
^^^^^^^^^^^ NIFONG IN MORE TROUBLE ? ^^^^^^^^^^^
Gottlieb was looking for a lab to do testing on 4/27 in his handwritten notes, but - get this - Nifong leads the Newsweek reporter to believe that he had tests showing she had a Date Rape Drug in her system before 4/24, when this piece was printed in Newsweek:
"In the May 1 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 24): "Sex, Lies & Duke." Newsweek reports on the Duke rape investigation and examines what could be potentially complicated motives of all those involved."
Par for the course. Nifong makes a statement and misleads the public, and then the team rushes off to make the boss's statement true. Just like the Indictments. With the last meeting of Grand Jury rapidly approaching, Nifong signs the indictment of Seligmann and Finnerty on April 12th, then on the night of April 13th - they enter the Duke Dorms to question players, without their legal counsel, in regard to who was at the Party?
See how this case has been run from the beginning!
There is no search for the truth - damn the laws and the innocent pawns that are sacrificed for political gain.
Justice will prevail. Our way of life will be preserved - and the faces of those responsible will convey their pain as they ambulate in jumpsuits.
_
So, one of the only things written down by Gottlieb at the appropriate time goes => Off! Off! Off!... right in the Nifong's face!
Yes, and apparently we know now why the information was leaked to a sympathetic NYT's reporter WHEN it was.
Nifong had turned over the Tox Test of the hair, to Defense attorneys, at a meeting with Judge Smith and since the Gag-order allows "a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client," Nifong knew it was only a matter of time before the test results hit the news.
It was a pre-emptive move. It follows the pattern in this case of prosecution's leaks followed by devastating Defense revelations.
;
Gee, I don't hear any similar admissions in the Duke lax case, even though the rush to judgment in the Duke case blazed on faster than the speed of light. Could that be because Karr is a psycho, fairy-looking pedophile and the white lax guys are....well..... manly white guys with a preference for grown-up girls?
It is truly bizarre. Also, consider the heat the media would have given the Boulder DA if she hadn't done something and the stroy got out that she let a viable suspect slip away. On the other hand, the Duke boys weren't going anywhere. There was no need to rush the case to the indictment phase without investigating it - unless of course you want to get elected and the only way to do it is to pander to a bunch of racist blacks.
You have got to be kidding! I didn't see that. She referred to Elmo as a "lowly cabbie"? Good grief. She may been hard-wired to think PC, but she sure doesn't show it in her references to people. Of course, since Elmo is a defense witness, she probably considers him fair game.
Despicable witch.
Let's see what they have to say during class. If they remain silent, I hope some students bring up the subject. If they blow it off, then it's clear they've been told to shutup and they're too spineless and worried about their fat salaries and tenure to stand up to the cowardly Brodhead and his cowardly minions.
A date-rape drug test reportedly involving a hair sample of the alleged Duke lacrosse victim has turned up negative, one of the defense attorneys said Wednesday.
[snip]
Negative results, he [Dr. Shannon Miller] said, don't necessarily mean no substances were used. That's because some drugs can wash out of the body quickly, he said, also citing the importance of the timing of the test.
I call BS on the H-S. The New York Times tried the same thing with DNA evidence. Here is what KC Johnson had to say about the NYT experts:
NYT: Outside experts say it is possible for a rapist to leave no DNA evidence.
KCJ: Who are the "outside experts" who contend it is possible for three men that the accuser said didn't use condoms and who violently raped her "to leave no DNA evidence"? Wilson and Glater don't tell us: I guess we're just supposed to trust their word.
Attorney: Date-rape drug test negative in lacrosse case
BY WILLIAM F. WEST, The Herald-Sun
August 30, 2006 10:12 pm
DURHAM -- A date-rape drug test reportedly involving a hair sample of the alleged Duke lacrosse victim has turned up negative, one of the defense attorneys said Wednesday.
According to Kirk Osborn, he and fellow defense lawyers learned the result from Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong at a meeting last week with Judge Osmond Smith about the case, in which three lacrosse players are under indictment on charges of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer at an off-campus party in March.
Attempts to obtain comment from Nifong's office were unsuccessful Wednesday.
Osborn told The Herald-Sun he wasn't surprised at the outcome of the test.
"We knew that was going to happen," he said. "It certainly eliminates whatever Mr. Nifong hinted to Newsweek magazine [in April] that they slipped her a date-rape drug."
The dancer says she was attacked when she and another dancer, Kim Roberts, performed at a team party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., across from Duke's East Campus.
A Durham County grand jury indicted Reade Seligmann, 20; Collin Finnerty, 19; and David Evans, 23, on rape, kidnapping and sexual offense charges. The three players say they are innocent.
Osborn, in court papers in June, cited medical records showing that the accuser gave conflicting accounts about her consumption of alcohol and drugs that day.
He argued in court that the woman:
-- Told one doctor she had used no alcohol or drugs.
-- Told the sexual assault nurse examiner in training that she had had one drink of alcohol and was taking Flexeril, a muscle relaxant.
-- Told another doctor that she was drunk and had consumed "a lot of alcohol."
-- Told a police investigator that she had consumed a 24-ounce bottle of beer and two 22-ounce beers.
Roberts has contended in published reports that when the alleged victim arrived at the party, she was sober, but that when the alleged victim left, she appeared to be under the influence of some substance.
After the party, the alleged victim ended up at a Kroger supermarket.
One of the security guards, Angel Altmon, told The Herald-Sun that when she called police, she told the dispatcher the woman was sitting in a car and was "intoxicated, drunk or something."
"Somebody must have slipped her something, because she wasn't drunk," Altmon told the newspaper. "If she was drunk, I would have smelled something."
Osborn, who represents Seligmann, declined to answer additional questions about the date-rape drug test, except to say he hasn't received a written copy of the report and that Nifong didn't share the news before the meeting with the judge.
The Herald-Sun couldn't reach attorneys Joe Cheshire and Brad Brannon, who represent Evans, for comment Wednesday. Attorney Bill Cotter, who represents Finnerty, said he won't discuss the evidence in the case.
Forensic consultant Shannon Miller, also a physician and associate professor of psychiatry at Wright State University in Ohio, said conducting date-rape drug testing is standard procedure.
Negative results, he said, don't necessarily mean no substances were used. That's because some drugs can wash out of the body quickly, he said, also citing the importance of the timing of the test.
But Miller said the bottom line is that the defense can reach back and cover a fair chunk of time and say, "Look, there were no drugs there."
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-765602.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/480871.html
Trip to cabbie's trial a waste, with meter on
Ruth Sheehan, Staff Writer
-snip
"nstead of showing a cab speeding away from the scene of a crime, the tape showed the shoplifter hiding her bags behind her hip, then getting in the backseat and closing the door. Then the cab pulled away from the curb."
-snip
http://dwb.newsobserver.com/news/ncwire_news/story/2999614p-9424322c.html
Rain puts damper on Duke-NCCU student get-together
A little eye-opener this morning, lol...
http://www.chortler.com/24333nancygrace.shtml
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes it rains.
Himan had that in his notes, yes, and testified to it. Clayton served the warrant and he asked Elmo at that time if he had anything else to say about the Duke case just before arresting him. Since the defense raised the issue of this being a vendetta/intimidation arrest, it follows that those two were called to testify.
But Mike, since the defense introduced the theory that the arrest warrant was served in order to intimidate Elmo in the Duke case, the defense must show some evidence of that. The only way to do that was to have Himan testify to his notes and Clayton to what he asked Elmo just before he served the warrant.
Deputy sheriffs serve as bailiffs in court.
Process servers cannot serve arrest warrants.
Sometimes the officer who serves a warrant is required to testify, usually at the behest of the prosecutor because the defendant said something incriminating when the warrant was served. In this case, I think Himan and Clayton were there because the defense called them in reference to Nifong trying to intimidate Elmo.
Any statement that a defendant makes against his own interests once he's in custody can be used as evidence. If he made an incriminating statement to the (non-sworn) jail officer who processed him (fingerprints, photo, etc.), you can bet that staff person will be called to testify.
Clayton didn't testify. Himan was called to stand for less than 10 minutes - we all know why Himan was there.
Clayton and another investigator on the case were there all day - and the Defense attorney asked the Judge - Why are they here?
The defense did not call them to be there, they were not on a witness list (other than Himan).
Linwood Wilson, when asked, told the N&O it was HIS idea.
2 points there - He works for Nifong and he said the investigators were there because there name was mentioned in a motion. So that begs the question, what is the guy that heads up the Durham Worthless Check program doing reading motions on a misdemeanor aiding and abetting shoplifting, in effect?
Linwood's not too bright and by saying he had read the motion in this most piddly case - shows they did take an inordinate interest in the case. As we all know, they have an ADA to read the motions.
"Why are they here?" could have been asked in a sense of saying, "Ask yourself why these officers are here testifying. It's because this was a warrant used to try to intimidate Elmo into modifying his future testimony in the Duke case and they participated in it and made certain statements that revealed the true motive for the arrest, that's why they are here!" as a means of amplifying what they said.
1) Clayton didn't testify
2) Why did Linwood Wilson tell the News and Observer it was HIS idea?
The question wouldn't be asked and Wilson would've said they were subpoenaed or they were on the witness list.
This is what he said: "Wilson said he asked the investigators to be in the courtroom"
Later, the article says, "Wilson said the request came from him, not Nifong."
One more thing that a local Radio host said on the Elmo case:
Why didn't Himan leave after his less than 10 minutes testimony to affirm what he wrote in his notes?
Not to mention the other 2 (Wilson may have been the other).
But has anyone seen the actual toxicology report?
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.