DA: Lacrosse case to go on

Herald-Sun ^ | Apr 11, 2006 : 1:57 pm ET | staff

[muawiyah]

Not just gloves, but hair nets AND, lo and behold, face-masks.

People constantly shed cells from all over their bodies.

[muawiyah]

Polygraph tests are merely an investigative tool and are not admitted as evidence.

I doubt anyone was denied the privilege of privately arranging for a polygraph test.

I mean, like, hey everybody, there are NO CHARGES against anyone yet.

[Perdogg]

polygraphs are inadmissible in court, especially since if the DA asked them to take the test and the test came back that the players were telling the truth. The DA has enough explaining to do.

[Perdogg]

Why no charges? If Nifong really believes these guys are rapist, convene a grand jury. Why are rapist allowed to walk the streets of Durham?

[muawiyah]

The answer is that everything takes longer and costs more.

[Alia]

Thank you -- I hadn't yet gotten to looking at PROJECT INNOCENCE. O.M.G. Yeah, their group isn't about innocence, it's about making innocence a "truth to power" political action PAC. ick.

Thanks for checking out the Crochran "Dream Team" Project Innocence.

Nonetheless, as freeper Anton pointed out in thread; lots of time, women do not report the rape until long, long hours after the alleged crime against them took place. Ipso.. little to no DNA.

I had also been under the impression that tissue tests would reveal/could reveal that a CONDOM had or had NOT been used.

I don't think I heard that the Escort female had showered or douched, or whatnot. If Memory serves, she went straight on to the hospital where tests were done.

And I'll raise an ugly flag here:

The nurses and doctors asserting that they found her injuries consistent with a rape.

That statement is neither here nor there. Unless there is more detailed evidence not yet revealed. Many women (and men) in consensual sex acts can ALSO EXHIBIT SIGNS "consistent" with a rape and/or sodomy.

So, without the finer details present, I do not accept this assertion of "consistent with" as being anything more revelatory than saying "sex took place". Period.

[F.J. Mitchell]

This jackass of a DA thinks he is brillient enough to pull off a reverse of the OJ trial by convicting three kids, despite DNA evidence that proves the entire team's innocence. All except one member of the team, that is, who got a pass on providing DNA.

The DA thinks he is another Johnny Cochran.

Expect to hear him talking in rhymes pretty soon.

Something like: "If the DNA don't fit-it don't mean s..t"
or " DNA or no DNA-them boys are gonna be put away".

[F.J. Mitchell]

Only if all three alleged rapists were eunuchs.

Everybody thinks he's Johnny Cochran.

[anton]

People who work in the sex trade often incur significant sex related injuries. This woman showed up drunk, late at night, and obviously dressed for action. What the first part of her night looked like, God only knows. But the photos of her dancing with injuries (obviously before rape), are going to be pretty hard to reconcile. The rape nurse, no doubt relied upon them in her report (the cuts and scrapes on her knees, etc.) and those photos will make her report pretty much useless. Unless, of course, she disregarded the injuries and relied solely on the vaginal and anal conditions.

The whole thing is obviously a fraud. But my most puzzling question is where is the coworker? Shouldn't she have been identified by now and be quoted extensively?

[Alia]

The whole thing is obviously a fraud. But my most puzzling question is where is the coworker? Shouldn't she have been identified by now and be quoted extensively?

You mean "Kim"? The co-stripper? Yes, where is "she". Last we'all heard she was in hiding, or left the country, or being kept under wraps.

One thing which has bothered me since the early 90s? Accusers of rape, of creating hostile environment, of sexual harassment -- being "given" anonymity. Bill Cosby's "accuser" -- anonymous. The accuser is granted the "right" to make any wild accusation; but is given full immunity and anonymity.

Feminist groups asserted in the 70s that this anonymity was "necessary" in order to protect the "victim" against reprisal and/or ridicule. Think about this with me, Anton.

It's been 30 years now, and this "anonymity" rule has been in place and yet the liberal groups are still claiming women who've been raped "don't" come forward. I think its time for the "anonymity" rule to be abandoned.

Socialists want equal rights? Fine. Release the names of those making accusations. Let the accused face their accusers. Too many blind "social executions" have been taking place under the "anonymity" ruling.

Dollars to donuts, DA Nifong has the "coworker" in some protective closet for the "upcoming" trial. However, I'd be most curious to hear even dribbles of what the defendants' lawyers ASK of her.

My best guess? Nifong is going to hang this on the co-worker; not Mangum. And that's his line of argumentation.

[libstripper]

In this case they'd be crazy to give any statements--all Nifong wants to do is lynch somebody. If they all give statements there will inevitably be inconsistencies, just as in the Libby case. Nifong will then follow Fitzgerald's approach, pick an innocent target, and indict him for perjury and obstruction of justice. The only proper approach to an excessively ambitious, unethical creep like Nifong or Fitzgerald is a stone wall.

[anton]

I'm thinking that Kim lawyered up and is not talking. If she was talking this Prosecutor would be quoting her wouldn't he? And wouldn't the father have mentioned her in his interview?

I'm thinking she won't want to admit that she is a drug using prostitute who lied in her 911 call. She won't want to go to a Grand Jury and have to support the accuser and risk perjury charges if the other whore turns around on her later. If she had the accuser in her car, where was she during the "rape?" And why didn't she mention the rape in her 911 call?

[anton]

How about this:

"Meanwhile, a second dancer's statements cast further doubts on the woman's claims, defense lawyers say. That dancer said the woman never talked about being raped as they drove from the party house near Duke's East Campus to a nearby grocery store, where police were called, defense lawyers said Monday."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14312569.htm

[AmishDude]

the team wanted to take polygraph tests to prove their innocence.

Polygraphs aren't admissible as evidence. The lawyer(s) know that so it could be perceived as a bluff. Of course, the media could take them up on it.

[Alia]

... and add to this.... that she (the "victim") only brought up RAPE at the hospital according to a news story recently released quoting a nurse who was there to receive the "victim".. And the "victim" didn't say by whom. She was screaming and hysterical, crying that she was RAPED.

Sounds like slow-mo story evolving as she thought about each step... as the idea germinated, and it E-V-O-L-V-E-D.

Feminists will step in to utter: "she was in shock, you insensitive louts! Okay. so she was maybe a little tipsy, that's WHY the story was so slow to come out".

"And she didn't say anything to Kim because she was protective of Kim and Kim's desired profession".

[Alia]

she had the accuser in her car, where was she during the "rape?" And why didn't she mention the rape in her 911 call?

Bingo, Anton. Was she not there in the house?

Let's posit that neither girl wanted to be in a "white" domain. Let's say they decided to get police near the premise "just in case" the purchasers didn't pay up.

The timing of that call (and the different stories about that call) still really! bother me.