Posted on 05/25/2006 5:04:51 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM -- A lawyer with the state NAACP said the civil rights organization intends to seek a gag order in the Duke lacrosse case, and a journalist who participated in a forum with him on Wednesday said media coverage of the alleged rape may deprive the alleged victim of her legal rights to a fair trial.
Al McSurely, an attorney who chairs the Legal Redress Committee for the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he generally respects the defense attorneys in the case as colleagues. But they are violating the State Bar's rules of professional conduct that discourage comments outside court that are likely to prejudice a case, he said.
The NAACP will try to intervene in the case to file a "quiet zone/let's let justice work" motion. That is otherwise known as a gag order, he acknowledged, although he said he doesn't like that term.
McSurely's comments came amid the first-ever Durham Conference on the Moral Challenges of our Culture at First Presbyterian Church downtown. The session gave the approximately 150 people who attended a chance to hear a series of talks and discuss among themselves sexual and domestic violence, racism, class distinctions and the media.
(Excerpt) Read more at herald-sun.com ...
I think they fear City Manager Baker interferred and got some officers to change their original records.
http://rdu.news14.com/content/your_news/durhamchapel_hill/?AC=&ArID=84601&SecID=42
More likely Nifong had her hauled in and confronted with her lies about not having consensual sex with anyone within five days prior to the alleged incident, and threatened her with prosecution for obstruction and possible other charges if she didn't fess up.
The drivers would probably not admit to having sex with her unless she named them. Further, the defense apparently didn't know about the unidentified semen sample in her at the time they announced there was no DNA match to their clients.
Exactly.
Actually, Nifong has to call her. There is just no way for him to present his case without her testimony. But if for some freakish reason he doesn't call her, she will become a witness for the defense, it is safe to say. further, the defense will hammer Nifong for trying to hide her lies by not calling her, so Nifong basically has to call her.
It's weird. After that first test, there was no hint of another man's DNA being found. I recall lawyers saying that there was no DNA found at all, in fact.
This is puzzling. How could the SBI miss the boyfriend's DNA, and if they didn't miss it, why wasn't that in the report given to the defense?
If the first report found the DNA of the boyfriend, why bother with the second round of tests? Unless Nifong just couldn't believe the results.
It's not a matter for a trial jury. It's a matter for federal Grand Jury.
"The results, the lawyers said, show that investigators collected no genetic material of any kind from the woman. "There was no DNA found in or on her that would indicate that she recently had any sex," Cheshire said."
No genetic material of any kind after the first DNA tests....
None.
No recent sex.
None.
Bupkis.
Hmmmm...... so where was the boyfriend's DNA hiding?
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/427550.html
They didn't miss it. Remember, nobody was under arrest at that point. Nifong only had a duty to inform the defense that their clients were excluded, and furnish them with any portions of the SBI report addressing those clients, NOT the alleged victim. They didn't have a sample of the boyfriend because Mangum didn't tell the SANE nurse about having sex with him during the five days prior to the alleged incident, which she was supposed to do because alleged rape victims are asked this question, and it's a very important question. Mangum clearly lied to the SANE nurse and, more importantly, Nifong knew that she had lied to the SANE nurse, thus impeaching her entire statement to the entire event, when he went into the GJ to seek his indictments.
"Investigators found no DNA under the woman's remaining fingernails, or on those taken during the search of the rental house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., which Duke recently bought in an attempt to quell student parties."
From the same article.
So we had conflicting DNA tests, which is one more reason why the DNA tests will be useless in court.
I'm not sure we know the answer to your question. We do know there was only one match.
It's so strange. In the Kobe case it was all over the net how many sources there were. Not so in this case.
According to that article in the N & O, they did miss it.
I am also recalling that the first DNA did not produce a a match or even a sample but others here say differently. I swear I remember the defense lawyers saying that the first DNA showed she had no sex that night.
Yes, that's what the report said. No genetic material at all. No recent sex at all.
It's in the article and I remember the press conference.
There was no sign of any other DNA after the first test.
Cheshire was very specific.
According to several NC lawyers, all felony trials are jury trials and the defense cannot get a bench ("court") trial.
I am sure it was just a accident...... ;)
Which article? Does the reporter assume that, or was the reporter specifically told that and, if so, by whom? What, exactly, did they mean by "miss it"?
But Cheshire would not have been entitled to that information because nobody had yet been indicted, and I seriously doubt Nifong would volunteer it.
"The results, the lawyers said, show that investigators collected no genetic material of any kind from the woman. "There was no DNA found in or on her that would indicate that she recently had any sex," Cheshire said."
I don't know any other way to read that. It's very specific.
It's my understanding there was one semen sample in her and she named three possible sources.
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.