Posted on 05/22/2006 4:05:16 PM PDT by zaxxon
Lawyers representing one of three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape want details about any toxicology tests performed on the accuser, asking in a motion filed Monday whether such evidence even exists.
"No such toxicology report, if it exists, was provided to the defense," wrote attorneys Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner, referring to nearly 1,300 pages of evidence prosecutors provided to defense attorneys last week. The attorneys represent Reade Seligmann, one of three lacrosse players charged with raping a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a March 13 team party.
Seligmann's attorneys want a judge to order prosecutors to provide any reports "generated from blood, urine or other biological samples" collected from the accuser. In the motion, they cited a story published in Newsweek earlier this month that said District Attorney Mike Nifong "hinted" such tests would reveal the presence of a date-rape drug.
Authorities have said a doctor and specially trained nurse performed a physical exam on the accuser that found evidence of sexual assault. But the nurse who filled out a report on that exam indicted no toxicology tests were performed, according to the defense motion.
Nifong declined to comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
Oh, snap, Gloria Steinhem!
You go girl!
That's right. I really don't see anything wrong or sexist about expecting the best from and assuming the best about people engaged in important professions and endeavors. That a person becomes interested in an important service profession indicates they have high standards and ethics in the first place, so it seems logical to me that we assume they meet those standards until proved wrong. Kind of a no-brainer, imo. I would not like to go through life expecting the worst or looking for the worst in people who have established ethics and standards, and I doubt if people who expect and look for the worst have very many friends.
not discredited when his cab is on the atm photo at the time confirmed by cell phones.
Didn't I tell you I wouldn't reward your nagging?
Keep wasting your time trying to explain to me what I meant. This is why women talk three times as much as men. They repeat themselves needlessly.
Well, a dance engagement is a legitimate/lawful activity, so it would not be necessary to pay the pimp. I believe I read that the boys were paying cash because they didn't want a credit card record of the event and that they also called just that afternoon to book the appointment so, all things considered, I guess it was agreed they would pay cash directly to the women when they arrived. Escort services are pretty free-wheeling and don't have established policies to adhere to, obviously. It's pretty much run the way the pimp wants to run it.
This kind of crap makes you look like a DU troll attempting to set up quotes making this forum look bad.
Based on your sign-up date and your attitude, I'm guessing you've been banned in the past and have returned. I expect you'll be nuked any time now.
I agree with you, his evidence is not discredited by the reference to the car color. His evidence is of most relevance to the Seligmann alibi, and that part is supported by his computer log, the telephone call records, the ATM photos and the dorm entrance swipe card time. I really don't expect a conflict at trial between Kim's testimony and the lacrosse players' testimony as to the basic outline of what transpired when Kim and the boys argued and Kim departed (there may be a conflict in testimony between exactly what words were exchanged at that time, however), so Elmostafa's account of what he saw the second time he arrived I expect at trial will be of secondary importance (other than his overhearing someone say "She's just a stripper - she's going to call the police" which the prosecution may try to make something out of, in which case they would be trying to support, not discredit, his credibility).
David Allen
District Attorney
D*** A**
There's a pattern ... just sayin'
I absolutely agree about the various forms of physical evidence. I only bring this up to say that there are people who will feel that if the taxi driver's story is not perfect in every detail then it's not perfect in any detail.
First of all, it's a well known fact that women talk 3 times as much as men. The average woman says 7000 words compared to an average man's 2000.
It's a fact. Look it up.
You think that because you're a woman you can get away with snotty comments directed at men, as if you're entitled.
Why don't I suggest you lack the necessary femininity to attract a man, and that's why you're being such a shrew about my comments? Would that be fine?
You see yourself as the victim, and you're using the victim cloak to complain about me. Lady, you decided you just had to let me know you didn't approve of my posts. I don't care. Isn't it obvious? You've stated your position, now you're just being a pest.
Kind of like CGM's story, yes?
I am sorry, I did not mean to offend you...sweetcakes is an expression I use. I call my kids sweetcakes. Didn't realize it was a bad word.
I tried not to be snarly. In fact, I tried to be respectful.
I look at the pros and cons. What would cause the most damage?
1. Lie on a medical document so that I could advance a social agenda, risking losing my license or inviting a lawsuit?
2. Piss off the DA because I will not slant the medical record?
It's a no brainer. I can understand how her interpretation of physical evidence could be framed according to what she saw. But as far as collecting the evidence per policy and procedure.. Not doing what is mandated is not acceptable.
Are there shitty nurses out there? You bet..She could be one, I have no clue. But before I would even suggest that a tox screen was omitted by design, I would have to see the chart. I would look for the notes which should say why there was no tox screen done.
As I said, we can agree to disagree. But the topic has been exhausted.
Believe what you like. It's just not important. If you want to have a dialogue about the subject without relating it to this case, then talk to yourself about it. I've tried to be polite to you, but you're becoming a pain in the ass, frankly. I don't have to prove anything to you, nor do I care what vast or limited knowledge is on display. I discussed it with you because I thought you were interested in the subject, but the reality appears to be that it's really all about you not being able to accept that somebody disagrees with your understanding of the usefulness of the blood sample. You don't give a rat's patoot about how the subject of the sample relates to this case. Neither you nor I is a scientist and I've told you what I know about it in relation to thirty-two years in LE that included the need for a working knowledge of tox screening procedures and specimen handling in relation to evidentiary usefulness.
I am done talking to you about this.
Thank you. That was perfectly sane and sound.
I do not assume that anyone in the process is unbiased except the scientists.
LOL! :>
Dukie07 slaps forehead with palm of hand...
Sorry, I completey forgot that part!
Transcript of Abrams Report from yesterday:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12954022/
I'm rather happy not being attractive to men. You may take that any way you wish. I've also been on this forum long enough to see trolls like you swatted like flies.
I give you a month, tops. You will mouth off to a moderator and be sent to kitty heaven.
ROTFL!!!
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.