Posted on 05/18/2006 10:53:18 PM PDT by Dr. Richard Kimble
May 18, 2006 : 9:32 pm ET
DURHAM -- A judge agreed Thursday to let the defense try to find out what information is on the cell phone of the exotic dancer who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape, and also ordered police to preserve their notes in the case.
The decisions came as the case of State v. Reade Seligmann saw its first day in court after weeks of sometimes stunning developments, press conferences, leaked documents and almost nonstop chatter.
With a trial likely still months away, the brief hearing was supposed to be nothing more than a chance for District Attorney Mike Nifong and defense attorney Kirk Osborn, representing one of the three Duke lacrosse players charged with first-degree rape, sexual offense and kidnapping, to settle some administrative issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldsun.com ...
You're at least 3 weeks behind on your info.
"The judge asked Nifong if the current bail amount met the guideline..."
Apparently it was, or the judge would have reduced it.
Don't think so.
The statements have been carefully worded.
It is possible that the data have been misinterpreted.
Sure. Whatever you say.
" I always go back to: None of these boys were desparate enough to have sex with either Kim or Crystal. And unprotected sex?? Who the hell knows what she'c carrying."
You know what else has always bothered me ?
The players saying " Sweetheart, you're not going anywhere."
It doesn't ring true- sounds like something Rhett Butler would say-it's relaxed, soothing, the prelude to a romantic encounter.
Definitely not the typical phraseology of a 19 or 20 year old guy .
Which could also explain whey they all left the house.
IIRC, when I watched the defense and Evans remarks on Monday, there was a black man - young one - in the crowd with him. He was on the left side. Maybe that is the one black lacrosse player. Having him stand there should say something to the blacks. I imagine they will say he "has" to stand there so he can play lacrosse or is a Uncle Tom.
"Defense attorneys say the lacrosse players requested two white dancers for the party, but the two African-American women showed up."
No, the judge said he would hear the matter later, not that day.
If you're not going to follow what is said and done in the case, you shouldn't comment on things you know nothing about.
Touché, lol!
An outstanding riposte, Ken!
The fact they requested two white girls would only be relevant if someone thought they had planned the whole thing ahead of time in the sober light of day. Whereas if they did rape that girl, it's far more likely they formed the intention to do so after they started drinking and she started dancing.
On the other hand, if you're saying they would have gang-raped a young attractive white stripper, and you're right about that, it would be strong evidence that the crime wasn't racially motivated.
The point is that it shoots down the idea that the players had an itch for "ugly black hookers" (your phrase).
Whereas if they did rape that girl, it's far more likely they formed the intention to do so after they started drinking and she started dancing.
That is a huge IF in light of the DNA reports, the photos, and the timeline.
On the other hand, if you're saying they would have gang-raped a young attractive white stripper, and you're right about that,
That is not what I was saying, and you know it. Simple question-- based on what you know about the case, who do you think is telling the truth?
[Did the defendents say "Sweetheart, you're not going anywhere"?]
"It doesn't ring true- sounds like something Rhett Butler would say-it's relaxed, soothing, the prelude to a romantic encounter."
I hope for the defendents sake, they don't make that argument in court.
If you're a poor black stripper in a "frat" type house surrouned by much bigger and stronger white men who have been drinking while you take off your clothes and wiggle in sexually stimulating ways, that's definately NOT a soothing remark.
On the contrary, if they wanted to say something soothing they would have said "Hey thanks, everything's cool -- you can stay and party if you want or you can leave anytime and we'll call you a cab."
"The point is that it shoots down the idea that the players had an itch for "ugly black hookers"
First, if they had an itch for gang raping a black woman, it doesn't follow they prefer black strippers over white ones. Consider the example of Hugh Grant. He was engaged to a young, gorgeous white girl. But when he had an opportunity to get a BJ from a cheap, UGLY, much older black hooker, he went for it. In the aftermath, after his fiance broke off the engagement (surprise), he didn't say "Hey, I've discovered I prefer older UGLY black girls" and start dating one.
Second, lots of chemical reactions take place only when the temperature rises above a critical threshold. It's much more likely that they started feeling an itch after they started drinking and she started dancing as opposed to feeling an itch well before the party began and in the sober light of day. People do things when they're drunk and horny and in a group that they'd never do otherwise. Underage drinking at a "frat" type party with strippers is a lighted Bunsen Burner.
"based on what you know about the case, who do you think is telling the truth?"
I haven't prejudged the case one way or the other. We haven't a single witness give testimony under oath and subject to cross-examination. Seems a little premature to have a view, don't you think?
So they request white dancers, and in less than 15 minutes, Reade gets the itch to do an "ugly black hooker" (again, your phrase). In the meantime, he calls his girlfriend, a cab, and is out the door around 12:15 AM. On top of that, the cab driver reported a normal demeanor on Reade's part. Your scenario is nonsense.
The guidelines are likely VERY broad. NiFong used the probability of him fleeing to justify the bail. Where the heck is the kid going to flee, too?? He's gonna live some secret life on some deserted Island? The kids wants AND NEEDS the protection of his parents. The idea that he would flee is absurd.
This forum is not a courtroom with the same standard for making judgments. It is a court of public opinion. Quit being a weasel, and give us your best opinion on who is telling the truth.
"No, the judge said he would hear the matter later, not that day."
So when is the judge going to entertain motions from defense attys in relation to lowering the bond amounts that were set? Since it seems you EVERYTHING about this case.
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.