| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/13/2006 11:52:58 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
New thread here |
Posted on 05/11/2006 9:17:59 PM PDT by TexKat
DURHAM, N.C. -- A Duke lacrosse player whose DNA may match tissue found under the fake fingernails of an exotic dancer who claims she was raped was identified in a photo lineup with 90 percent certainty, sources tell NBC-17.
The Durham Herald-Sun reported Thursday tissue found under the accuser's acrylic fingernail came from the same genetic pool and was "consistent" with the bodily makeup of one of 46 lacrosse players who gave DNA samples for testing.
The paper cites several sources and said scientists also ruled out a possible match with any of the other 45 students, according to the sources.
If accurate, the fingernail tissue match would offer the first DNA evidence potentially linking the dancer and an alleged attacker.
But because a complete DNA pattern was not obtained from the tissue, it was not possible to match it with the nearly 100 percent certainty that DNA results usually offer, the sources added.
90 Percent Certainty
Now, NBC-17 has learned that the player is not one of the two already accused in the case -- Reade Seligmann, of Essex Fells, N.J., and Collin Finnerty, of Garden City, N.Y. He is, however, a player that the alleged rape victim picked out in a police lineup with 90 percent certainty.
The 27-year-old North Carolina Central University student told police she was beaten and raped by three lacrosse players while she performed at a March 13 team party. She said she clawed at the players in an effort to fight them off.
Never Applied?
Defense attorneys claim, however, that nothing about the reported possible DNA match means anything to the case if you look at the type of fingernails, where they were found, and if you look at a picture of the accuser's hand shortly after she arrived at the party.
According to defense attorneys, police found four stick-on acrylic fingernails in a trashcan at 610 Buchanan Street, the house where the party took place. The tissue connected to the possible DNA match was found under one of those fingernails.
But defense attorneys said the third player accused lived at the house and it is no surprise that trace amounts of his DNA could be found inside his own trashcan. They also said they don't believe the type of fingernails that were found -- the kind that are applied with an adhesive strip -- actually ripped off during an attack. They don't believe the fingernails were ever applied and they say they have pictures to prove it.
NBC-17 has seen a picture of the dancer's hand at the house when she performed her dance routine. It appears that long, fake fingernails were on some of her fingers in that photo, but not all of them.
Other photos show what defense lawyers believe is red fingernail polish on the walls of the house and on the railing outside the house. They believe the accuser was painting and applying her nails while at the party.
Defense attorneys admit that none of them have seen the DNA report the Herald Sun article is based upon, but they said if District Attorney Mike Nifong has the DNA report, their clients are entitled to see it.
Accuser's Father Responds
The accuser's father called reports of a DNA break in the case long overdue.
"I wasn't surprised to hear that. I feel like we should have learned it before," he said.
Kim Roberts, another dancer who performed at the party where the alleged attack took place, paid an emotional visit to the accuser's parents on Thursday.
"It was real emotional -- she was crying, my wife was crying. She said that she was sorry she left (outside) the house before my daughter did," the accuser's father said.
Authorities said they would know what the DNA shows by early next week.
I have posted this a few times. For reference, here is Cheshire's interview with Zahn, (Aired April 17, 2006 - 20:00 ET). He hints at the consensual sex prior to the party.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/17/pzn.01.html
Just a bit earlier on, I spoke with Joe Cheshire, the attorney representing one of the Duke lacrosse players.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Mr. Cheshire, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
CNN has learned that two of the sealed indictments are, in fact, against lacrosse players at Duke. Do you represent either one of those men?
JOSEPH CHESHIRE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: My understanding is that I do not, which I am -- I'm very pleased to say.
ZAHN: And when you say your understanding of that is that you don't represent either one, what do you mean?
CHESHIRE: Well, I have been told who the indictments are against. I'm -- I'm not at liberty to mention those names. And, of course, the fact that I have been told that did not come directly from the prosecutor or any member of the grand jury or any member of -- of those staff. So, it's not a guaranty that it's the case. But I'm -- I'm pretty sure it is.
ZAHN: What can you tell us about those two men?
CHESHIRE: Well, they were two of the young men that were at the party. And, from what I understand it, the likelihood that these two men, with the facts that I understand, could have committed the crimes that this young woman has said that they committed, it would be almost impossible.
And I -- I think you will find some very interesting things out about the time line of these particular two individuals that will make it even stronger to show you and the public and everyone that no -- no rape happened in that house that night, which I'm absolutely convinced is the truth.
ZAHN: When you say it's impossible that that rape might have happened, are you suggesting that the DA is making up something here? CHESHIRE: I'm not saying -- well, you know, you can indict a ham sandwich in North Carolina, Paula. There's no record of what goes on in a grand jury. There's -- there's no tape recording, no court reporter. There are no rules of evidence. Two sides are not put on.
The only thing that happens is, a police officer goes in, in front of the grand jury and says, these are the facts. They're not always the true facts. And grand jurors indict 99.9 percent of the time. So, the fact that they have a grand -- a grand jury indictment means absolutely nothing in the process here.
And I'm not saying at all that the prosecutor is making anything up. The prosecutor has said he believes this accuser. Well, that's his right, to believe the accuser. But the facts, as I understand them -- and we have worked in this case very hard and very long. And we know much about this young lady. We know much about the timeline. And, as I have said all along, as all the other lawyers and all the boys have said, no rape happened in that house.
ZAHN: When...
CHESHIRE: No sexual assault happened in that house.
ZAHN: How, then, sir, do you explain the woman's injuries...
CHESHIRE: Well, I can show -- there are pictures.
ZAHN: ... particularly some of the internal injuries?
CHESHIRE: Paula, well, first of all, let me say this for a living -- let me say this about what this woman does for a living.
Anybody that knows what she does for a living and the reality of what she does for a living knows that she could have received those injuries any time before 12:00 that evening. Now, as -- as this trial goes on, we will be able to discover exactly where she is. But the fact that she may have had sex with somebody after 6:00 or before 6:00 would mean, if she went to the hospital, they would show that she had -- quote -- "injuries," which is a word I don't like, but a medical condition, or things in her body, consistent with the fact that she may have had sex with somebody.
That does not prove that she...
ZAHN: Are you talking about consensual sex with somebody else, or do you think she was attacked by...
CHESHIRE: Oh, I -- I -- I...
ZAHN: ... some man not on the lacrosse team?
CHESHIRE: I don't think she was raped at all. I -- I don't think there's any evidence that she was raped at all.
ZAHN: I want to know why you think this woman, who you claim to know an awful lot about, would have made up this story... CHESHIRE: Oh, I -- I -- I...
ZAHN: ... and turned her life upside down.
CHESHIRE: I'm -- I'm not -- I'm not going to -- and turned her life upside down? How about the life of this entire community? How about the life of all these boys? How about the life of the university? How about the life of the racial relations in the city of Durham?
ZAHN: Well, what's in it for her?
CHESHIRE: I mean, I'm really -- I -- I have to tell you the truth.
Well, I mean, I could give you all kind of things that are in it for -- for her. I -- I don't know exactly what was in her that night, but she was clearly under the influence of something very strong when she got to the party.
ZAHN: Mr. Cheshire, you said you and your team know an awful lot about this woman, about her background, and this story will not stand up in court. What do you mean by that? What do you know?
CHESHIRE: Well, I'm -- I'm not going to say or share what we know about her. Obviously, we have done a lot of work on her.
And, when someone makes an accusation, that accusation has to stand up to the actual physical facts of what happened. First of all, hers will not stand up to the actual physical facts.
Secondly, you pointed out that they need to have no motivation to lie. I believe that the lawyers in this case will be able to show, on cross-examination and on the presentation of evidence, that she did have a motive to lie.
ZAHN: So, you can't clarify for us tonight what you think that motivation is, based on the research you have done in her background?
CHESHIRE: No.
And -- and I wouldn't do that. It would be wrong for me to do that at this point in time. We haven't tried to try this case in the public opinion. We have just said that these boys are not guilty, in response to what the prosecutor has done. But those things will come out in court. And, when the public sees her cross-examination, and sees her answers, and finds out about that motivation, it will prove what we have been saying all along. And that is that no rape happened in that house.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Obviously, that was defense attorney Joe Cheshire.
Oh; good memory. I thought there was some sort of information dump the cops gave the press because they were disgusted with Nifong and that the dump included the false accuser's past history of making allegations that don't stand up.
Question - is there a timeframe in which the DA must turn over ALL of his discovery materials to the defense and was yesterday at 5:00 that timeframe?
^GMTA!
Thanks, maggie; you're a VAULT of information.
His next stop in probably Knoxville, TN or some such town.
I'd say NiFong will be disbarred and a complaint will be filed VERY soon.
My best guess was that he would pull a "Patches" and wind up in a hospital with a mild heart attack, away from the press until the governor decides what to do with him.
That conspiracy of silence guaranteed that all the players and their parents would undergo public ridicule and torment...not to mention having to put up the exorbitant $400,000 bails for the two indicted sons.
Zahn tried to cut Cheshire off, just like Grace did last night during the presser. They do not want to hear the facts that do not fit their agenda.
Actually I seem to recall reading in one the news articles that the warrant was indeed issued back in 2003 and thinking that since the warrant would have tolled the limitations period, the cabbie unfortunately wouldn't have a basis to argue false arrest, malicious prosecution or witness intimidation (unless something egregious was said, and even then, it's a they said/he said). Of course I may be wrong or that news article may be wrong.
Now the word on the street here is he has a silver bullet. It's pretty much late in the game if he has one based on the second DNA test results coming back tonight and the tone of the defense attorneys, John, he needs to use it
Hmm.. Cheshire says in that interview that Finnerty was at the party. I was hoping he could prove he wasn't there at all, as Abrams said he wasn't in any of the pictures he was shown.
Ben Himan, lead investigator in the lacrosse case, personally served the years old warrant. I'd like to know who normally serves warrants in Durham.
You might be right. One would think we would have rumors to that effect though.
I think there is a lot going on in the Durham Police Department that we don't know about. I think the Chief just doesn't want any scrutiny.
It seems to be the case that since there is so little crime to investigate in Durham, that police detectives spend all their time serving old warrants.
Police incompetence and prosecutorial misconduct produce juicy stories ripe for national attention. Miller has found in Durham what might be the best place in America to get repeated chances at tv exposure.
I second that..
What would we do without Maggie and Peach?
http://www.nbc17.com/news/9209919/detail.html
"The "single male source" who matched the genetic material found on the vaginal swab take from the victim is named in the report on the second round of DNA results, and "is known to the Durham police department," Cheshire said. He declined to give the man's name or comment on his relationship with the accuser.
"There is no indication that this man should have his name dragged through the mud," he said."
Please don't tell me it's her father. ABC radio, for those of who didn't hear, said it was her boyfriend.
I heard reporters say it was a warrant from a 2003 incident, but I'll bet you he wasn't even charged back then.
If he had been, why wouldn't they have brought him in when they tried the woman five months after the incident?
The sheriff.
Remember they went and got Reade and Collin.
Didn't we hear somewhere that Finnerty was at a Mexican restaurant during the timeframe when a rape could have occurred?
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.