Posted on 05/19/2006 7:17:27 AM PDT by Perdogg
DURHAM, N.C.One of three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape wants the case resolved in time for the next school year, his lawyer said in court yesterday. But the judge warned he will not fast-track the proceedings.
The case "is not going to jump ahead of the line and be handled any differently," Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Stephens said at a hearing for sophomore Reade Seligmann.
After the brief hearing, District Attorney Mike Nifong said he does not expect any trial to begin before next year.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestar.com ...
As soon as that whore made the false accusations (I'm making a education guess here as to her honesty) against the young men she effectively ruined their lives regardless of any outcome of a trial or dropped charges.
This is a silly debate. A payoff would ruin these kids life. Their lawyers, should, however, explore every technicality that might cause the case to fail before trial.
As the priest/counsellor said the other day: do not demand that someone open the door for for you when your cage only has three sides.
I hadn't heard that before, but if it's true that rattlesnake was the one to plea bargain her previous case, then you just may be right.
I agree that statement holds some merit. A learned trait that all humans can gain from is that of personal responsibility. Law is only the vehicle to be used in holding folks accountable for the choices they make.
Enforcement is the key. We should use it more often.
6 month's wait for a major trial is reasonable. More than 8 months is pushing it.
They both should be doing hard time right now--the accuser for trying to run down a cop, and the accessory for imbezzlement.
I agree, I think 6 months would be reasonable also.
But they are still out on the streets, able to put on their rape hoodies at night and go out and rape other women and leave no DNA trace. The only reason Nifong knows about these criminal masterminds is that they messed up and hired their victim. (/sarcasm)
Oh, but they're the victims here!! They were on their way home from the Women's Prayer Group meeting, where they were planning a food drive for the poor, when these bad white men jumped them and made them do terrible things!
I said from day one the "DNA" would end up being her boyfriend's.
Is he delaying this trial until 2007 because he knows he can still lose his job in November if it all hits the fan before then, or is his job secure?
-PJ
I have heard that suggested but it sounds too much like a movie script to me. I just think he sees this as his ticket to election in Nov (he was appointed) and his 15 min of fame. Plus, the defense lawyers will find out if that is what's going on- Durham is not a very big place.
You don't run against the opposing party in a primary. The sole purpose is to determine who does run against the other guys. He was in a primary against 2 other Dems and won it. He is the presumed winner in the DA's race b/c there is no one running for the Republicans. I did read somewhere that another party could still register candidacy by June (30th?) and run against him in Nov.
Well I'm hoping that there will be a change if venue. Some of the people from Durham believe that they are guilty, and as one said (paraphrased), even if they're not guilty they should pay for past injustices.
Justice will not be well served if the trial(s) are held in Durham.
Judges have to get elected too. Nifong probably isn't the only one that is going to be looking out for himself.
I think the defense hopes to hell there will be one too. I don't think we will see that happen till after November 7th if you know what I mean.
From the local Durham TV station board, from the HIGH HORSE, dripping with sanctimony, the holy ones protesting underage drinking yesterday:
http://forums.go.com/abclocal/WTVD/thread?threadID=117602
"Side Stories at the Lacrosse Case
Author: DurhamTRY
"My husband (Earl) and I (Wanda) were 2 of the sign carrying folks. We were briefly seen on the news last night. We thank ABC 11 for being one of the few media present to take us seriously. Underage drinking is our cause. If underage drinking wasn't involved, we might not have a Lacrosse issue to discuss. Local stats: Did you know that 44% of HS students drink alcohol and 22% of MS students drink alcohol? There was a 2nd alleged rape on Duke's campus about 3 weeks ago (?) 5,000 teens lose their lives in alcohol related automobile accidents each year. We've heard of 6 recently in the news but there have been others.
We want to help save lives. We want your help. Contact us for strategies on how to do just that.
I really do want to hear what you think of this issue as well. According to Ralph Hingson, School of Public Health, Boston University, (each year) 600,000 students are assaulted by another student who's been drinking;70,000 are victims of date rape; 100,000 say they were too drunk to know whether the sex they had was consensual.
Posted: 5/19/06 1:57 PM "
I kid you not. There really are protesters against everything.
Someone can still mount an independent campaign against him (perhaps even a Republican as a write-in), so he has a motive to keep this case going past the November election, which is why I think he wants to push the trial into 2007.
Since this is a county race, why can't someone mount a last-minute campaign against him, since the voting population is so small? That person could leverage mounting disgust if it appears that the case is becoming politically motivated and that the defendants have alibis.
-PJ
Yale Galenter just told Abrams that according to the discovery info turned over yesterday, the accuser was asked at the hospital whether her attackers wore condoms and she said "No."
If Freda Black could not beat Nifong, no write in candidate could, barring an end to the lacrosse persectuion. His local power base is too strong.
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.