Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense Calls for Evidence in Duke Rape Case
WTVD/Durham ^ | May 22, 2006 | AP

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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: duke; dukelax; falseallegations; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 821-828 next last
To: zaxxon

If you add Crystal and Kim they came away with 3 shoes.


741 posted on 05/24/2006 1:41:56 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: don'tbedenied; streeeetwise

Well, I think one would be better off alleging in a 1983 claim on these facts deprivation of the federal constitutional right of equal protection based on race; otherwise, there is a greater risk a federal court could hold that you were trying to convert a garden variety malicious prosecution claim into a 1983 claim and leave you to your state remedy.

Anyway, regardless of the underlying federal theory, the reason for my pessimism on the merits of the 1983 claim goes to the evidence itself - we haven't really seen that smoking gun by Nifong or the Durham police detectives. Nifong does, at the end of the day, have a sworn statement of a purported rape victim and a medical report consistent with that. The fact that the defendants have strong exculpatory evidence, at least the exculpatory evidence that has been reported to date, does not seem to me in and of itself sufficient to demonstrate that Nifong proceeded in bad faith or with an improper motive. After all, the City of Durham will argue, that's what juries are for, to weigh the exculpatory evidence against the other facts in the case. The closest thing we have to a smoking gun is Nifong's comments at the NCCU forum together with the circumstantial coincidence of the DA election primary.

Also, I don't think the photo identification procedure, though flawed, will eventually be found to rise to a constitutional violation.


742 posted on 05/24/2006 1:43:48 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

What's your problem? Can't find a man?

Let me guess. Your comment is just giving your opinion, but mine's being mean.

Read my posts. They mean what they mean. Do I ask you approve? No. You're free to opine as you see fit, but so am I.


743 posted on 05/24/2006 1:45:56 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: David Allen

"I would love to know if the SANE's opinion has changed any since the facts have changed."

We should probably ask if her opinion has changed since so much of the TRUTH has been revealed, versus the fiction that was spun to her by the FA.

I don't know, not personally knowing this nurse. I can only speak for myself. How would I, Nurse Pat, react? Knowing that the conclusions I had drawn had been based on a faulty foundation, I hope I would be able to openly admit I could be wrong. The lives of three young men could be forever destroyed....if a jury found them guilty based on my falsely arrived at and stated opinion.

I know I couldn't live with that. I hope this SANE has the integrity to think thing through and do the right thing.

pattyjo


744 posted on 05/24/2006 1:47:22 PM PDT by pj_627
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

LOL. True, man. That is true.


745 posted on 05/24/2006 1:50:32 PM PDT by zaxxon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: za_claws

Ha!

Love that picture of Nikky / Kim!

Remember to face her at all times!


746 posted on 05/24/2006 1:50:48 PM PDT by Mike Nifong (Any likeness to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: David Allen

Don't have a problem, except with your condesending attitude. Oh, by the way I do have a man, and thank God a wonderful one. See Ya! Loser!


747 posted on 05/24/2006 1:50:49 PM PDT by sissyjane (Don't be stuck on stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

She's a clear and present danger.

Look at what's she done.


748 posted on 05/24/2006 1:51:55 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

I think people are tending to come down hard on the SANE nurse because of Nifong's big build-up. From what we've learned from the defense about the report, it doesn't sound like she has embellished her observations.

Those rape kit forms basically ask the SANE nurse if her observations are consistent with sexual assault. It doesn't ask her if there was a rape because that's obviously not something she can attest to because she wasn't at the scene of the alleged event. The SANE nurse doesn't decide if there was a rape or not so there is no "act" for her to take. Her observations about the condition of Mangum's private parts would not be different, nor would her observations about bruising. The aspects of Mangum's condition that were consistent with sexual assault would not be different if she knew Mangum had fallen or had had other sex partners. She would simply record those answers. The SANE nurse is not responsible for Mangum's lies.

Again, the SANE nurse does not attest to whether there was a rape or not. That is a decision for the trier of fact, the jury.


749 posted on 05/24/2006 1:52:59 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

I'm not concerned about your man status. I was being facetious, in an attempt to show you how silly it is to claim another has a gender problem. I was mirroring your comment.

The women in my family are intelligent, well-educated, and competent. They don't need to hide behind their gender every time someone disagrees with them. Try it.


750 posted on 05/24/2006 1:55:37 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

Yes, and if you add Kim and crystal to Nifong, you have three liars.

Oh, wait. I forgot about Mangum's dad. He'd liar #4. This isn't working out right. Hmmmm.......would multiples of 3 work? I could add her mom and cousin, Jakki. That'd make 6.


751 posted on 05/24/2006 1:57:20 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: David Allen

I wasn't going to post to you again, but here's my last. I'm not trying to hide behind my gender. In fact I'm quite proud of it.

You have been belittling nurses and every woman on the thread. I, for one am sick and tired of it as I'm sure the other women are.

I don't have an issue, and I don't intend to ever post to you, or read one of your posts again. Get the chip off your shoulder......or move on.


752 posted on 05/24/2006 1:59:46 PM PDT by sissyjane (Don't be stuck on stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: David Allen
David, why did you sign on to FR?

You seem to have a problem with civil discourse.

753 posted on 05/24/2006 2:00:07 PM PDT by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

People on death row, convicted of crimes and then shown to be innocent by DNA, have received tens of millions of dollars for lesser offenses by police and prosecutors. Whether or not politically it goes forward, there is no doubt in my mind, having litigated 1983 cases as an attorney, that they state a claim. People who are just rounded up by police without probable cause in a protest have a 1983 claim. And, the race componenet is overwheleming. I know posters on this board have done it before, but just do the substitutions, black defendants, white prosecutor going to all white auidence and promising confictions and meeting with a white hate group, all the while ignoring similar crimes by white defendants, no doubt the case would go forward.


754 posted on 05/24/2006 2:00:26 PM PDT by streeeetwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

 

Official Freeper Megan photo

755 posted on 05/24/2006 2:01:12 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: David Allen

Nobody here has hidden behind their gender, but you have hidden behind stereotypes of women to try to insult several of us. Pretty cowardly. No doubt the women in your family would be shamed by your posts today, and no doubt the men in your family would be even more shamed, unless they're like you, of course. :>


756 posted on 05/24/2006 2:02:45 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

You really need to learn the new math, LOL!


757 posted on 05/24/2006 2:10:25 PM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: streeeetwise
just do the substitutions, black defendants, white prosecutor going to all white auidence and promising confictions and meeting with a white hate group, all the while ignoring similar crimes by white defendants, no doubt the case would go forward.

You are describing the way our laws are written and our institutions work in theory; in practice, blacks will have an easier time pursuing these types of claims and prevailing in the system than whites, on the same set of facts. I'm not saying it's right, I'm merely making an observation.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that they might get by a motion to dismiss, but on what we know so far I don't see them ultimately succeeding on the merits on a 1983 claim here.

758 posted on 05/24/2006 2:14:45 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

I've no doubt the women and men in your family are ashamed of you for what you've said here. See how silly such claims are? Doesn't it embarrass you to stoop that low for a retort?


759 posted on 05/24/2006 2:23:26 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

I suggest you review the discussion as it took place. The smarmy comments came from your gal pals.


760 posted on 05/24/2006 2:25:11 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 821-828 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson