Posted on 05/08/2006 1:57:24 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[snip]
A committee said Monday that Duke University administration was slow in addressing the alleged rape involving members of the lacrosse team.
It said key administrators relied too heavily on initial reports from Durham police that the alleged victim "kept changing her story and was not credible."
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
I'm thinking this is a DUKE against DUKE case. Not a Durham out to get Duke case. The rape charges got some leverage when 2 credulous DUKE investigators (a DUKE police department Lt. and a hospital rape specialist) heard the AV's story at the DUKE hospital.
The Durham Police Department picked her up at Krogers and either didn't hear the rape story or didn't buy it. Everybody was headed home to bed until the DUKE Police Department filed a report at 3:00 AM.
At DUKE, a rape report carries a top priority and high credibility and things began to happen. Even now, DUKE is apologizing for not doing more at 3:00 in the morning, not for hashing things up and rushing to judgement on their Lax guys.
Nifong bought the DUKE story, not the Durham Police Department story, with their more patient investigation which showed the AV's story to be slim on the facts.
Check the facts in this case. All the events and statements rushing the case forward is Nifong and DUKE. Everything questioning the AV's account is Durham Police Department fact-gathering released by the defense.
Trust me that the DUKE investigators will never let this go once they have been engaged in the kind of victim advocacy their training stresses. DUKE will back them up 100% even if the entire state of North Carolina knows they have been duped by the AV.
The DPD was on record as of "Friday, March 17, 2006 10:16 AM" ...
"The Durham Police District 2 Criminal Investigations Violent Crimes Unit is conducting an investigation concerning a rape of a young woman by three males at 610 N. Buchanan that was reported on 3/14/06 in the early morning hours. The female arrived at the residence for a party close to 11:30pm on Monday 3/13/2006 and left on Tuesday 3/14/2006 reportedly after midnight. ..."
http://www.duke.edu/web/police/info/weekly/031906.htm
From Duke Police log:
2006-01259 3:08 a.m. 610 N. Buchanan
Assist Outside Agency:? Durham PD investigating a sexual assault by Duke students Pending
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/OperationsReportFileDUPD3.14.06.pdf
Being from New Jersey doesn't count?
I do understand this. The lawyers arguing FOR the prisoners at Abu Ghraib have the legal right to do what they are doing, yes, even in a time of war, and clearly against what is morally and factually correct.
Dittos on Nifong's handling of this case. Technically, he's not out of line within all the rules and ettiquette regarding legalese.
2. The right to a speedy trial belongs to the accused. The accused can force this to trial on their schedule. Nifong saying next spring was just spouting off again, which may well be another bit of evidence in your theory about his mental health or lack there of.
Well, being liberal does mean leaving a huge part of your brain unused and unaccessible...
Have a good trip.
Thank you! It was good and productive. (Playing catchup here, now.)
I concur. And it doesn't take much to connect the dots, the people, the party doing this shoddy show of so-called "justice". Not only do I suspect it is a move to have a private university "socialized" but there is larger stuff at play, I'm seeing.
Fundamentally the right to a speedy trial means the accused will do the darndest to get the trail delayed (witnesses die, memories fade, life moves on), and prosecutors will endeavor to hold the trial in the heat of passion.
In NC the prosecutors and defense lawyer(s) work together on the matter under a new system.
Sit down before reading the rest of this.
NC *does not* have a speedy trial statute.
Yep, that's what I said.
The claim to a speedy trial in NC is based on the Constitution (US), and they don't have a statute (spelling out the details).
Anyway, have any of the accused been demanding early prosecution, or what?
I don't know if they have or not, but apparently they can't because of the established case management process which presumes time is waived. The defense would probably have to file a special motion to do it and that hasn't happened as far as we know.
Isn't it also the case that in American history only one defense attorney has ever asked for a "speedy trial", and he later admitted it was a great mistake (as he stood there cooled by the wind wafting from his client's legs).
LOL, no I don't think that's the case.
Remember, the "right to a speedy trial" business was relevant in the days when they kept you locked up until the court convened to hear your case. Today, with cheap loans, liberal bail policies, and modern communications, there's really no reason to keep anyone locked up pending trial unless he or she is an obvious danger to others, like Kennedy's kid. And why isn't he in jail?
Yes, it's usually the defense who wants to age a case, not the prosecution.
As for speedy trial and bail, there are also people held on "NO BAIL" or bail is made prohibitive because the defendant is a flight risk in a particularly heinous crime.
Most likely the Son Of Hiccup isn't in jail because he is a Democrat.
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.