Posted on 05/28/2006 9:59:32 AM PDT by Perdogg
"...if you don't get there soon, it's going to be cancelled." What time was she supposed to arrive? I thought I heard 11:30 p.m., and at well before that time she was called to say if you don't get there soon, it's going to be cancelled. That would indicate that from 10:45 p.m. to sometime after 11:30 p.m. there is a gap that needs to be explained. If she was with Brian Taylor all that time, what isn't he telling?
Meghyn Kendall said Durham isn't all that big that it would take 45 minutes to an hour to traverse to the party house from anywhere in the area. Brian is either mistaken about when they left his home, or he has some "s-plainin'" to do.
All that notwithstanding, the problem here is this should have been completely pinned down BEFORE arrests were made. Thoroughly investigated and witnesses followed up and backgrounds checked. The Duke Lacrosse Teams should have been made aware, as with the University, that an investigation was on-going and that the whereabouts of every person on the team should be maintained with the local authorities. NO ONE should have had his (or her) name hit the paper or media until every "t" was crossed and every "i" dotted. That is my experienced opinion.
I don't want to see anyone dragged into a costly, life-altering disaster unless there is an absolute exhaustive, detail investigated case developed. From my experience, the police and prosecutors feed themselves on donuts at the public trough and get their exercise jumping to conclusions.
Those two phone calls to CGM could be critical. They may show that CGM was still looking for the house at 11:30 or even 11:45.
Yet Nifong wonders why the defense wants the phone, and claims not to have checked it at the hearing......
I thought it was two separate calls, but you could be right. That doesn't explain why she had to call daddy for directions instead of asking the person who called twice telling her that 'if she didn't get there soon it would be canceled'. Why involve daddy in her tale unless he was already involved?
Somebody here pointed out that the Father's statement is in contradiction to the Brian Taylor's. One (or both) is lying.
I think the Father claimed he was with Crystal until 9:30 and Brian Taylor says she was AT his house at 9:00.
Someone may have already pointed this out again, if so, sorry.
We can't expect investigative journalists to compare and contrast these stories and then report on the contradictions.
Yes, that's the article: http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/443932.html
And your (1) some (victims) may recognize him and report him.
Yes, that exactly what I was thinking. Maybe he's also known under another name, and he didn't want that coming to light.
Well, I hear you, but most people don't succeed in keeping their face off the Television and Newspaper whether they want it on there or not.
The News Corpse knows where he lives, I can guarantee you that. How hard is it to put a reporter out there and when he leaves, approach him with a camera? Run his picture and say he declined to talk to eyewitness Channel 22?
The N&O reporter probably agreed to terms for her interview. That would explain why some of the most important questions were supposedly NOT even asked (What time did you arrive, Did she drink alcohol or get high at your house?)
A lawyer may have set up the interview and the terms of the interview and the interview could've been done at a specified location (not the drivers residence).
Mark Simeon maybe?
Sure looks like someone is going to a lot of trouble to keep certain things unknown.
Good catch, Mike. I believe her father said she was having some grapefruit juice while there.
Very interesting. I've never seen that site.
Thanks!
You know looking over this article again
http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/443932.html
It sure likes like a lawyer was involved, maybe sitting right next to Brian during the (scheduled) interview.
In regard to the three most important parts of his story (when did she arrive at the party, what condition was she in, and did they have sex). Only one is PARTLY answered and the others are NOT EVEN ASKED.
I believe the were conditions for this interview and someone set the stipulations so Brian Taylor wouldn't be huring the AV or setting himself up for a perjury charge.
1) When did she arrive at the party?
Issue not asked or answered, noticely absent from article.
Reporter at major newspaper doesn't get this information?
Doesn't place a callback or a followup visit to ascertain?
2) What condition was she in?
She was not intoxicated when he dropped her off, he says.
Later in the article it says "He did not say whether they consumed any alcohol." DRUGS are not even mentioned. Remember the context here, the woman was found passed out by police and she has at least 3 suspensions. But, since Brian did say it, I guess the reporter was too shy and polite to come out and ask him?
3) Did they have sex?
The Investigative Reporter really not wanting to pry used her personal "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy and then didn't mention anywhere in the article that she avoided that question due to a policy or personal conviction.
This question is central to the entire case, yet it is wholly avoided.
This was an interview brokered by a lawyer and they got out what they wanted to ( IN MY OPINION).
I was going to mention that, but I was too hung up on her need to call daddy for directions.
Someone sent her there...someone called and told her to hurry...why didn't she ask the someone for directions?...why involve daddy and then pretend she didn't want him to know? Why did daddy say he didn't know it was her until he saw her name in the papers?
I think the father is hiding something. That's just my opinion.
Something is wrong. Something is not adding up that much is for sure.
I bet the News Organizations don't know where Brian Taylor is and that's why we haven't seen his picture.
Someone's orchestrating the interviews and public relations of these witnesses from the dark, IMO.
Simeon?
I'm pretty sure the dance was supposed to start at 11:00 or before, but probably 11:00...
Look at it this way... she knew she was supposed to dance for 2 hours, her daddy said she told him she would be home at 1:30... so if you give her til 1:00 to dance, that gives her 30 minutes to get back to Bryan's, clean up a bit and get back to grandpa's house.
Plus Bryan said they left his place at 10:45... Probably thought they could get where ever in 15 minutes. Obviously got lost or couldn't find it or maybe they needed to stop for gas. They probably got a call sometime after 11:15 or so asking "where are you".. Then she gets another call probably around 11:30 saying "they're gonna cancel if you don't show up now"... (If she really did get 2 calls as Bryan stated)... So she calls daddy to get directions and ends up at the party at say, somewhere between 11:30 and 11:50...
My guess is they start the show a full hour late and want full pay to dance til 1:00... It's no wonder the guys were a bit upset from the get go...
Does Brian Taylor have an alias (like the two hookers) like
Jermaine, Jameel or something like that? I could have sworn I heard that name last night, and it was glossed over very quickly on Fox News.
2 hours seems like an awful long time for a stripper show.
Where did the info about a 2 hour show come from?
True, however what isn't adding up is all coming from suppoters of the AV. The defense has the truth and they aren't going to budge.
After they both did a striptease and danced for a while, what were they going to do for the other hour and a half they'd still have left?
Jarriel Johnson was named as the other driver for the AV.
Thanks. That was the other name I heard.
"The deal was for me to take her over there for about a two-hour show," he said. "She was supposed to call me to come pick her up." - Brian "Driver" Taylor
http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/443932.html
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.