Posted on 05/28/2006 9:59:32 AM PDT by Perdogg
The woman who has accused three Duke University men's lacrosse players of raping her failed to identify at least one of them in a photo array eight days after the reported attack, according to a motion filed Friday by defense attorneys. The motion also says that she then selected him as an attacker more than two weeks later.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalnow.com ...
"She told me that she made the call at 610 N. Buchanan." - Sgt. Shelton
I think it's clear that neither Shelton nor Roberts are going to perjure themselves to cover Nifong's tail.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Okay, well, consider this: A woman named Nikki that says she picked up the AV walking half naked and getting called racist names picks her up drives her to Kroger. The Security Guard calls 911, Shelton is dispatched. He speaks with Nikki briefly and Nikki drives away.
He can say a woman named Nikki said she made the first call and they can still say that she hasn't been identified because they have no last name, no address, no contact info.
Looks like they are focusing on the CIVIL case.
What a surprise!
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
ladyjane,
we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. We have no reason to believe that Crystal or Lil Kim would lie about such a serious allegation *W*(()W(W) ()W()W+++W(W(*&$#$%^&*(
Sorry. I was struck by lightening while writing the previous post
Enter Susan Estrich on Greta.
Greta nor Estrich mention that the players will be in a sexual offender database for life.
In regard to the boys having to wait a year:
No one likes to be on trial. They are certaintly better off than most defendants.
Estrich: We don't try cases in the court of Public Opinion, we have to grow up.
Sounds like Susan just wants to make it seem like since the boys are well off they don't need college and they can spare a year of their life.
I don't recall Susan saying that Clinton's case should be heard at trial. Let's not listen to Lanny Davis, Paul Begallia, or Rahm Emanuel - this needs to be heard in Court.
I'm just don't recall Susan making those points.
Did she say let's just be quiet and let Judge Starr do his job, it'll all come out in Court. After all, Bill Clinton is much better off than most defendants.
I must be wrong, must be me!
Is that the way you deal with being proved wrong? Figures. You feminazis can't stand being shown you're wrong.
Probably, but it depends on the state's law.
Okay, got it now. Duh. LOL!
I doubt they would be considered public.
If you are sued in state court, you and the other parties each have a right to demand a jury trial, as long as you're not in a bankruptcy proceeding.
In the typical state court suit, a plaintiff wants a jury because he or she feels they will be more likely to award damages than a judge. Plaintiffs usually demand a jury and if required, pay the appropriate jury fee to perfect it.
You haven't proved anybody wrong. You simply proved yourself as being right one time because you agreed with me. :>
Touché!!
There you go again. I said women have the rape fantasy more than men. You said that was ridiculous. I proved you wrong.
I undertand why you are trying to leave a deceptive trail regarding what happened.
No deception. I didn't bother to read any reply you made regarding the rape fantasy because the original proposition was too idiotic to spend anymore time on.
As to the rest, you sound paranoid.
Did you get badly hosed in a divorce?
No, did you get badly hosed in life?
If she doesn't sign a release, yes, they need a subpoena. They are private medical records.
The question is, why didn't Mangum sign a release?
McCann is basically saying the lax guys deserve whatever happens to them because they're white, even if Mangum is lying, even though he tries to couch it in terms of them partying instead of their skin color being what is motivating his remarks. The fact that McCann even included the caveat, "....even if the accuser is lying" tells me that he KNOWS she's lying.
Can somebody tell me what the respercussions might be if a white journalist posed the conclusion that no matter what happened to Mangum that night, including rape, she deserved it because she's black, even if it was couched as "because she's a stripper" instead of writing "because she's black"?
Hannity May 31st
The talk was of the "driver". I guess due to the Holiday there was a lag on this story.
I did notice something unusual and I think we need to examine this. Fox did a major segment on this driver's statements on one of their most popular shows, but there was NO picture. His name was given (Brian Taylor), but there was no picture of him. This is odd. We have see pictures of even bit-part players in this story all along. Remember Jason Bissey (Neighbor) we saw his picture. Remember the cab driver, we saw his picture. Every network has a major prescence in Durham right now, yet FOX's investigative reporters didn't get any quotes from the guy and there were no pictures.
I think he wouldn't allow his picture to be taken. I think he would not grant FOX, or the other networks, interviews. FOX referred to his interview with a North Carolina paper. Megyn Kendall never said she talked to him, never. She said, we know from this article more than once.
Reading on the computer, it seems all articles emanate from this one article that the N.C. paper did.
I suspected that author of that article was sympathetic to the driver and the AV. When I looked up the author, it turns out she is the only media person to have done a sit down with Crystal. She is from the News and Observer and she did the terribly sympathetic interview of the Dancer's
brutual attack: How Crystal really only reported the case for her Father and how she was new to stripping for a group.
This article, on the driver, states that the "Driver"
did said she seemed Okay when he dropped her off, but it says "He did not say whether they consumed any alcohol."
"He did not say?" We know how reporters work, do they let someone have the floor and say what they want and then leave or do reporters have a list of things they want to know for their story? Are they assertive? Are they aggressive? Damn straight. The Title of the article was "Accuser seemed OK early on, Driver says" So, this is pertinent information, the newspaper has decided this is the major news from the story, but - he didn't happen to mention whether they were drinking Jack Daniels or smoking weed!
I'm not buying it!
Megyn Kendall said Brian REFUSED to say whether they drank alcohol or got high. I suspect Megyn spoke with this reporter on background and she has a better picture of his interview. Megyn also said, I wouldn't put too much stock in what that driver says. Does Megyn know something?
If you agree with my logic, this begs a couple questions:
1) Why doesn't the driver want his picture in the paper or on TV?
2) Why did he refuse to answer questions whether they were drinking or getting high?
3) The Driver (Taylor) says he did not know how the AV got to his house (arriving at 9:00 pm). There's an excellent question.
4) The News & Observer has gone out of its way to spin every little bit of information on this case in favor of the AV.
They practically sponsored the "Take back the Night vigil" at Duke which drew over 1,000 (angry) women shortly after their article detailing the AV's story. It would take the newspaper 3 minutes to get Brian Taylor's rap sheet. Do you think the liberal activist reporter from the N&O would've stated in the article that Mr. Taylor has no previous criminal record, if they could have? His Criminal record was not addressed either way, which makes me suspicions.
They could've even reported that, ACCORDING to Mr. Taylor, he has no criminal record. They did not.
Something doesn't smell right here with this driver. Look how sparse the description is of him. No age. No race. No City of residence. No occupation mentioned. No picture provided.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Back to Hannity's show
They made a big deal out of the fact that the Driver says he left at 10:45 for the party. In fact, the article says he "estimated" they left at 10:45 for the party.
On Hannity, NO mention was made that the Driver said that the AV RECEIVED two calls, while they were lost and looking for the location, and saying the job would be canceled if she did not get there soon.
On Hannity, they also did not mention the incredible oddity that the Driver states the estimated time they left, but the article doesn't address in anyway what time they arrived?
Lis Wiehl AGAIN brought up the DATE RAPE accusations. How many times is this going to be done? As far as I know, on FOX, they have never mentioned the possibility that she declined to be tested. Lis Wiehl and Alan Colmes bring up the (red Herring) that she was date raped more than once, and Sean said, there is No Toxicololgy Report. Lis Wiehl retorts, that's not her fault!
I wonder if anyone on the show even knows that in N.C. sexual assault victims have the right to decline. A decline by the reporting victim would even explain why her blood (which was taken) was not tested later to ascertain her blood-alcohol levels, etc. It's entirely possible, that by law they could NOT go back and test it because the AV exercised the right to forgo that test.
This is not an insignificant matter. From the newspaper article to the cable shows and from Victoria Peterson's own mouth today, they are connecting the dots from she arrived fine and then she was passed out cold. Lis Wiehl said that these drugs only take minutes to take effect.
If the AV declined that test, then her condition takes on an entirely different complexion. And it will certainly help the players at the Civil trial where the standard is much lower.
Excellent recap, according to what I remember from the show.
I don't expect the defense to comment on this driver or what he had to say until they have some cell phone records.
If she arrived at his place at 9, what did they do until 10:45? She took a shower there, according to Megyn. What else?
"She seemed okay" tells me they were drinking or doing drugs. There would be no need for the use of the word "seemed" otherwise. He would know she was okay if they weren't drinking and/or doing drugs.
There don't seem to be any wannabe Woodward and Bernsteins covering this story so far.
Yep, and no one from the media deciding to take up the cause of justice unfortunately.
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.