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 ...
Seems to me the judge must've believe Nifong had an argument that the kids would flee or he wouldn't have set the bail so high. On the other hand, all three made bail so they can still skip.
In mid-June.
" If you're a poor black stripper in a "frat" type house surrouned by much bigger and stronger white men ..
Bigger and stronger ??? Give me a break.
Have you seen the pictures of the alleged victim ?
She must have towered over the players-especially Finnerty aka " the little, skinny one."
Right? And who is your source?
I read a transcript on CNN including the judge and it wasn't exactly clear to me what exactly was happening on 6/19. A review of discovery, which the judge stated was to happen first and then possibly a hearing on the bond reduction.
You just asked me when the judge is going to hear the motion. I answered "mid-June." Thus, it is clear I was speaking of "the judge" YOU asked about, who was obviously the judge who was sitting on the beach presiding over the case in court when all the defense motions before the court were being reviewed.....by "the judge" (Ronald Stephens).....who put the matter of bail reduction over to mid-June. Do you always think and speak in such a circular manner?
What you have done is essentially ask, "When did X say that Y will happen?" Answer: "Mid-June." Your response, "Who is your source?" Answer: "X, the person you asked about in the first place, who said a date in mid-June, for Pete's sake!"
(Jezebelle wanders off, shaking head in stunned amazement.....)
You missed my post 185.
No, I didn't. I answered it. If you're suggesting I should have somehow read it before the one before it rather than reading them sequentially the way that most normal people do, means that it's somehow my fault for not reading it first just to make sure that you'd hadn't yet figured things out a little better, it explains a lot about the way you reason. Perhaps instead of stating that I missed something, maybe you could have said that YOU missed something, such as the hearing, and further stated that now that you've taken the time to read a transcript of the hearing, you have a better understanding of what was said.
What a novel idea.
I never dreamed that Hugh Grant would be held up as the example of how men act. If Hugh Grant was caught with a "ugly black hooker", than of course these boys would rape the stripper...man, why didn't I see this before? Silly me, I was looking at timelines, lack of evidence etc and the answer was right there....Hugh Grant!
seems I remember hearing the judge say that he was not ready to hear the bond reduction "at this time", don't remember him ever saying he never would. Of course I have not read the transcripts, just going by what I actually heard. I would have to agree that you didn't miss anything.
So Hugh's fiance wouldn't give him a BJ. He goes out and buys one from a pro. No big mystery. No secret liking of dirty black women. He just wanted a nice BJ and couldn't get one at home.
Things aren't necessarily that deep you know.
-----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?-----
ConsLib, up to this point, although you seem to be playing Devil's Advocate, your arguments have been sound and without prejudice.
However, this comment is a Cop-Out.
Certainly based on the information that has been disseminated, you have a gut feeling as to what really happened.
It may well be too early to make any legally binding verdict, but it is NOT premature to have a view.
And isn't it enlightening to finally understand that if there ever was, anywhere, anytime, a white man who had paid-for sex with a black hooker in a car, it will forever serve as incontrovertible proof that a large group of young white men have and will rape a black woman, in a group, in a residence, with another one near by, anytime there is a scenario of such in the mind of a desperate politican, and brilliantly leave no trace of it.
My, those are some cunning, tidy boys. Hugh Grant, eat your heart out.
That wasn't the point.
The point was that there is no indication of such a fantasy as you suggest of raping black hookers, evidenced by the fact that they asked for white girls, not black girls.
You're trying to weasel out of your original thesis, but I don't blame you for abandoning it.
Eight guys in five days. Are you a believer now?
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.