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 ...
That does seem to break that all important chain of custody doesn't it?
That is where the integrity of the Judge would come in. The Judge is the gatekeeper on expert testimony, subject to judicial review. An expert has to have experience and build upon peer reviewed science or expertise. So, a retired FBI agent who had examined thousands of digital photos is an expert. A Durham detective who bought his first camera phone last year is not. While I am apalled by Nifong, I am not ready to conclude that every person of authority in Durham is without standards.
I posted a new thread (my second, I believe) here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1636310/posts?page=1
I pinged some but not all of the duke lax ping. It's a barfer from the Washington Post (Pravda on the Potomac).
I sincerely hope you're right.
Metadata is part of the image. Fiddling with it is way beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals. There is no commercial program that would do it. It is possible that the timestamps are also in the camera. Not to mention, the images may have been emailed early on, providing another trail. If the images were emailed within the first couple of days, there is no chance that they could be altered without leaving a trace.
Also, if the Judge is going to rule against Nifong he is going to have to crush him to protect his own reputation.
I think it has already been demonstrated that the metadata is rather easily altered.
The key will be the watch in the photos, and Nifong is almost guaranteed to say the watch was set wrong on purpose, going by the other odd things he has said.
http://www.slate.com/id/2140303/
but not if you have the device. they have the device.
I think it's going to be difficult to argue that the images have been altered. It's true that it can be done, but there are a lot of problems. suppose the camera keeps a record of activity, or suppose the images were emailed in a timely fashion.
Photographs are generally accompanied by testiomony, and the Duke students have a number of unindicted people to testify as to the timeline. You can't just alter one number in a file and expect to get a way with it. You have to change the whole sequence of images and make it conform to reality.
Do we know with which what device these pictures were taken? Digital camera? Cell phone? I don't think we know something even that basic. Did I miss it? I agree that if we have the original storage media with the pictures still on them, then that's a big plus for the defense.
But the "explainer" does not say whether changing the metadata leaves a trace or trail of when the data was changed. Still he was definitive enough to make me want to see a definitive statement of what can and cannot be done with this type of image file.
Of course the strong plus here is that the time frame is already pretty well defined by independent observers - the neighbor, taxi driver, ATM camera. Still with the potential for a rogue DA, the more evidence you have the better.
Yes, there is a lot we don't know about the pictures. The boys have smart lawyers and I am sure the integrity of the data has been maintained and experts will so testify.
Nifong seems to be betting that the pictures can be dismissed. Either because the boys had the camera(s)and could have altered the times, or because the pictures are digital and as such can't be relied upon.
My cell phone can be set manually, or I can let the network set the time, for example.
I would really like to see a clear picture with a watch in it.
Yes, when you back out and look at the whole picture of the events that night, the photos are obviously genuine.
To reasonable folks, anway.
Thanks for the new ping.
Keep the new information coming.
;)
On a lighter note (no pun intended) Scientists appear to have made light go backwards
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1636346/posts
Perhaps Nifong can use this to explain the time line!!
In Duke Case, A Rogues' Gallery
By Stuart Taylor Jr., National Journal © National Journal Group Inc.
Monday, May 22, 2006
My rogues' gallery does not (in all probability) include any Duke University lacrosse player.
New defense motions filed. Claim there was no tox report in the discovery they received.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4194520
Yet Nifong alluded to a date rape drug possibility in the Newsweek piece.
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.