Coincidence? I think NOT!
Posted on 04/21/2006 7:13:24 AM PDT by Rodney King
Tonight he took his circus act to Hannity & Colmes. Sean queried Rev JJ on why he has rewarded a scholarship to the stripper when chances are she may have lied.
Jesse intoned: "Don't strip .... scholarship!!"
Jeez, Jesse is becoming a parody of himself already.
Enterprise, don't fall into the AP's trap!!
We all know we need to parse AP stories VERY CLOSELY because of the heavy spin.
LISTEN TO THE VIDEO INTERVIEW
http://video.ap.org/v/en-ap/v.htm?g=c0d07e63-afdf-4d12-a1b2-105145e7aefa&f=ap
NOWHERE in the video interview does KIM say "we left the party" after the women were "disrespected" with the broomstick comment.
What KIM says is that after one of the boys "disrespected" them, Kim announced that the "SHOW IS OVER" and that then the "SHOW WAS OVER."
It is the overvoice of the ANNOUNCER who interprets this as meaning the women "LEFT THE PARTY."
We don't know whether KIM's version is that when the "show was over", the two women first went into the bathroom where they locked the door and Kim put her clothes on, or whether they then initially left the house.
NOWHERE in the article OR the video itself does KIM say "THE WOMEN WERE COAXED BACK INTO THE HOUSE."
Listen carefully to the video! Again, it is the overvoice of the ANNOUNCER interspersed between KIM's statements who says "APPARENTLY the two women were coaxed back into the house."
The one thing Kim DOES say is that "I WAS NOT IN THE BATHROOM AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT" when any rape occurred.
It could be that when they finally opened the bathroom door, Kim left first, and the AV lagged for a few minutes, and this when Kim is positing any rape might have occurred in the bathroom.
Or if they emerged from the bathroom together and left the house, Kim may be referring to the period of time after the AV says, "I've got to go back and get my shoe" as when the time in the bathroom might have occurred.
THIS IS CLASSIC AP!! We've seen it again and again.
If KIM had actually said in the interview that the two women initally left the HOUSE together after the broomstick comment, the AP would have included that in the video!
If KIM had actually said the two women were coaxed back into the house, the AP would have included that in the video, too!
We KNOW how the AP operates.
The AP, in both the print and video versions, has carefully woven together KIM's actual statements together with assertions coming only fromt the AV to leave the IMPRESSION that both women are saying exactly the same thing!
Huh??
You may be right, but early in the investigation there was a statement that they had left the party and gone outside. From April 5:
"There's also some timeline confirmation. The accuser arrived at the house at 11:30. The other dancer was already inside. They began to dance. After a few minutes, they felt threatened by the racial and sexual comments, left and got in a car outside. They both were coaxed to go back in and they did, but got separated."
Coincidence? I think NOT!
There are a lot of people who are getting smeared here. While someone may have said or done something offensive, most of them didn't. I would like to see the families and friends of the coach and players get together and show a huge group support for the players. The public lynching by the street mob should be loudly opposed and condemned by the people close to the players. If these were my friends or my family I would be very publicly angry and I would let people know it!
lol!
You said:
"You may be right, but early in the investigation there was a statement that they had left the party and gone outside."
That statement comes ONLY from the ACCUSER'S version. If you want to go read it for yourself, the original source of that account is the AV's version as described by the police in the probable cause affidavit supporting the original search warrants:
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story_graphics/20060405_warrant.pdf
The point I am making is that KIM'S interview (at least the portion made public by the AP) does NOT in fact confirm this part of the accuser's story. However, someone reading the AP article casually may come away with the opposite impression.
"When something like that is said in that tone, it is an attack on 30 million people, not just one"
They were probably in the midst of an argument over payment, with both sides yelling epithets (as people do in arguments).
And I'm sure that Kim and Crystal probably used
a few similar angry words for their part.
But I don't think that rates quite the same as casual racial comments made to dis peopl. (In arguments, drunk angry people use language they never would otherwise.)
I understand your point, and it is a good one. Though, if it comes from the accuser, and not Kim, it was a dreadful statement to make, because it makes it so much more difficult for her to assert that she was assaulted over a half-hour period. Because of the total body of statements and evidence, her statement was poorly thought out. She did not take into account the presence of "time-stamping" technology which could undermine such an assertion. Further, in "picking her suspects" she didn't anticipate that they could have solid alibis. As I understand it though, this version of them leaving the house was confirmed by others. Is that true?
Apparently neither of the women realized at the time that one or two of the guys were taking pictures of them, which would have megadata with time-stamps. Perhaps they were using camera phones. In the original interview of Kim in which her face was hidden, she appeared outraged that guys had taken photos of her without her permission, so she clearly didn't know it at the time. Probably the same thing for the AV when she gave her statement to the police.
The neighbor Bissey's statement that he overheard the AV say to Kim, after the two women had left the party and gotten into the car, that "I need to go back and get my shoe" is CRITICAL for the defense.
No one on earth is going to believe that she was strangled, beaten, sodomized and raped before that point in time. After that, she is going to back into the house where her attackers are and get her shoe? Not believable.
The prosecution will have to change its timeline IMO, and argue that the rape occurred AFTER the AV goes back to get her shoe. With the photo at 12:30 of the AV standing and smiling at the back door trying to get in and holding her purse and makeup bag and missing one shoe, that is going to be very persuasive that that time corresponds to when the AV went back to get her shoe. So the prosecution is left arguing that the rape occurred between 12:30 and 12:41 (where they have the photo of the AV being loaded into the car passed out).
The prosecution will have to argue that it happened in only a few minutes, and it seemed like a half hour because victims of violence have a poor sense of time while they are being attacked. The prosecution may also have to argue that it happened on the back porch or in the back yard, and the AV only thought it happened in the bathroom. And the prosecution may well decide when the time comes (if it comes) to present the case to a jury that they will drop the case against at least Seligmann because he has an airtight alibi after 12:19.
Nicely done.
In order for the prosecution to stick with the earlier time line, the DA will have to convince the jury that the woman shown in the photo at 12:30 standing on the back porch smiling, holding her purse and makeup bag and wearing one shoe, has just been strangled, beaten, raped and sodomized.
Her clothes are not torn, nor even is her tight outfit wrinkled or askew.
That's an extremely tough sell.
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.