Skip to comments.
Duke rape case set for 2007
Toronto Star ^
| May 19, 2006. 07:02 AM
| staff
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 ...
TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: benchavis; duke; dukelax; hanover; ncc; ncnb; nifong; noi; wachovia; wcc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 1,161 next last
To: Perdogg
This outrageous action represents additional evidence that we desperately need judicial reform! Are there any options or recourse for the defendants? Not only are white males disappearing from college campuses, but those that are there have big targets on their backs it seems, especially by the lesbian controlled feminists. How revolting.
61
posted on
05/19/2006 8:15:18 AM PDT
by
olezip
To: Alberta's Child
Yes but the lack of a speedy trial law is the complaint being raised here. I also think many criminal defendents don't want speedy trials because overtime evidence can degrade etc.
The innocent want a speedy trial usually. That is why the constitution promises it to them. On the plus side, if a racists Durham jury convicts on this flimsy evidence, there is certainly a federal issue.
62
posted on
05/19/2006 8:18:49 AM PDT
by
JLS
To: pray4liberty
I am all fine with zero tolerance when guilt is established.
Punishment for accusation alone is WAY over the line.
To: scan59
How long is his term(before he seeks re-elction)?This thing could go on for years!Whether there is any guilt at all,these young men will be tarnished by this for the rest of their lives!!One of them(the latest indicted)actually had the temerity to defend himself and his comrades!!!He has been accused of"poisong the water"!!!!How many press conferences has this Nifong A**HOLE held??Who's"poisoning the water"?????
To: BlueStateDepression
All the "protect the victim" folks may just find themselves in a position that they SHOULD have been backing the ones they are currently attacking.
Yep the feminazis need to quit backing losers in terms of evidence like Mangum and Faber. They need to back a case where the victim looks like they are honest for a change. But they never eat crow and they are never, never called on their continual backing of liars in case after case.
65
posted on
05/19/2006 8:27:57 AM PDT
by
JLS
To: All
This is going to give the families of the accused time to pool their money together to buy off the victim and make the case go away for Nilfag....
It is simple economics....pay a lawyer or cut your losses and pay off a false accuser.
The accuser is happy because she got her money.
Nilfag is happy because no case comes to trial and he gets re-elected.
The families are happy because they are no longer in the spotlight.
The accused are the only ones who will have to live with a false charge that eventually gets dropped hanging a big question mark over their head for the rest of their life.
If Sean Hannity is really passionate about this case, he should pick up the tab for the legal bills for all of the accused so they will not be tempted to opt out for an easy settlement.
Just my humble opinion.
To: ZULU
I also heard that Nilfong (Nullfang) was the DA in a case involving this woman in an earlier incident in which she stole a taxi, drove at a high rate of speed through congested areas, drove in the wrong lane of traffic, had a blood alcohol content of .19, had no valid license, and tried to run over a police officer. He claims he had nothing to do with it:
But District Attorney Mike Nifong, who is handling the rape case, and who was an assistant prosecutor in 2002, said Wednesday he had nothing to do with the plea deal four years ago. He said he didn't know which local prosecutor negotiated it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634187/posts
67
posted on
05/19/2006 8:34:50 AM PDT
by
Ken H
To: texan75010
I highly doubt any of these boys or their families will be tempted to pay off the false accuser.
68
posted on
05/19/2006 8:35:11 AM PDT
by
ladyjane
To: Fiji Hill
$400,000.00 bond each is not running loose.
To: ladyjane
"I highly doubt any of these boys or their families will be tempted to pay off the false accuser."
If it comes down to economics......better to pay a cheap whore and an expensive attorney. Either way you feel dirty having to do it.
To: texan75010
If they pay her off, they will appear guilty- hard to get your reputation back in that case. On the other hand, especially if they fail to change venue, the most important thing is to keep these boys out of prison, so it could be worth it. It is far too early to tell.
I know I'm in the minority, but if I were the defense attorney I'm not certain that I would want this trial held this summer or even in the early fall. Emotions are still high, and I'm not sure if a fair jury could be had in Durham or even near Durham right now. Giving time to allow the story to fade from the media would better allow the facts to speak for themselves. In addition, these type of racially charged trials always bring up the specter of possible riots. The threat of possible riots or racial violence may sway a jury to vote in favor of the mob rather than justice. Riots are more likely to happen in warm weather (now through November).
71
posted on
05/19/2006 8:39:48 AM PDT
by
LWalk18
To: Perdogg
Amendment VI : "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
So, we've tossed out speedy. Let's see what other of his rights will be violated:
- Public trial: Might embarrass the prosecutor.
- Impartial jury: The prosecutor will now have a year to poison everyone.
- Venue: This will be protected, because the prosecutor wants his poisoned jury pool.
- Nature of the crime: I don't know about this one.
- Confronting witnesses: The alleged rapee will probably not have to testify.
- Witnesses in favor: They'll be excluded. The prosecution is already working on the taxi driver.
- Counsel: Okay, that one's being protected.
Doesn't look good for these kids.
To: LWalk18
Sounds logical.....but...no one has to know the supposed victim of the case has been paid off. All she has to do is go to Nilfag and tell him she refuses to testify, and he therefore has no case.
The agreement could be that she publicly says she is just not sure of her ID of the perps and she does not want to send an innocent man to jail. This gives the accused the appearance of innocence. Everybody walks out a winner......except Lady Justice.
To: texan75010
If they settle with the accuser, then it hands Nifong a way out of his mess. They are not going to do that.
I believe every word that Dave Evans said. These guys are innocent, and they are going to clear their names.
74
posted on
05/19/2006 8:44:08 AM PDT
by
Ken H
To: Ken H
"He said he didn't know which local prosecutor negotiated it. "
Is that believable?
Initially I believd this woman's story.
Now I think she's a flake.
75
posted on
05/19/2006 8:48:03 AM PDT
by
ZULU
(Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
To: All
The funny part is going to be watching the case, Crystal, Kim, and their claims come unraveled the next 6 months.
How do you ask a stripper/prostitute with a criminal record to stop being who they are?
76
posted on
05/19/2006 8:49:52 AM PDT
by
David Allen
(the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
To: texan75010
If she were to suddenly refuse to testify, and then pursue no lawsuit, and the players also pursued no lawsuit against her or Nifong, do you think people would'nt suspect that she was paid off? Short of facing a hostile Durham jury I wouldn't do it- you can't put a price on your reputation.
77
posted on
05/19/2006 8:50:50 AM PDT
by
LWalk18
To: scan59
It got him re-elected though, and now he's letting it drag out in hopes that the furror will die down and people will forget. He's betting on human nature. A year from now, we will be following a different scandal and a fresh controversy.
Unfortunately, these young men will pay dearly for this DA's ticket to a reelection campaign.
To: pray4liberty
Is this the one whose father is a Washington DC attorney?
79
posted on
05/19/2006 8:53:15 AM PDT
by
pnz1
To: F.J. Mitchell
The citizens of Durham just voted to keep Nifong in office. He is giving them exactly what they want. I don't think that NC has recall.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 1,161 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson