Posted on 06/16/2006 10:39:09 AM PDT by freespirited
DURHAM -- Two defense lawyers in the Duke University lacrosse rape case unveiled Thursday what they called a "very significant and disturbing deficiency" in the prosecution's evidence: paperwork indicating District Attorney Mike Nifong began discussing the accuser's medical records even before they were in his possession.
Among other things, Nifong made public statements about possible condom use by the alleged rapists, even though the accuser told hospital officials that no condoms were involved, lawyers Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon wrote in a new court motion.
The two attorneys represent indicted rape suspect David Forker Evans, who graduated last month.
Nifong declined comment.
Cheshire and Bannon said Nifong's office subpoenaed the accuser's medical information from Duke University Hospital on March 20 -- six days after the sexual assault allegedly occurred during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.
However, the records were not printed out in compliance with the subpoena until March 30, and Police Investigator Benjamin Himan didn't pick them up until April 5, Cheshire and Bannon wrote.
As the basis for their motion, the two attorneys cited nearly 1,300 pages of documentation they received from Nifong last month, but which they did not thoroughly review until more recently. The accuser's medical records were included.
Cheshire and Bannon said that, according to the documentation, "It is reasonable to assume that the earliest point in time when anyone involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case could have received any details from Duke Hospital ... about the hospital's treatment of and interaction with [the accuser] was April 5, 2006."
Yet, Nifong began talking publicly about the situation on March 27, Cheshire and Bannon said.
For example, Nifong told a local television station on March 29 that he had no doubt the accuser -- an exotic dancer -- had been raped. He cited a "personal review" of the woman's medical records and added: "My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place."
The same day, Nifong told a newspaper the attackers "could have used condoms" that might have eliminated any DNA evidence, according to Cheshire and Bannon.
And on March 30, the lawyers added, Nifong stated on a nationally televised morning show that there was "no doubt" a sexual assault took place. He said: "The victim was examined at Duke University Medical Center by a nurse who was specially trained in sexual assault cases, and the investigation at that time was certainly consistent with a sexual assault having taken place, as was the victim's demeanor at the time of the examination."
Ten days later, Nifong granted a newspaper interview after DNA testing produced no matches between any Duke lacrosse players and the accuser, Cheshire and Bannon wrote.
"I would not be surprised if condoms were used," Nifong said at that time. "Probably an exotic dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex."
Giving Nifong the benefit of the doubt, Cheshire and Bannon conceded Thursday that he might have gone to Duke Hospital and viewed the accuser's medical records before police picked them up on April 5, or someone at Duke might have taken the records to Nifong or spoken with him about them.
But the latter scenario would not explain Nifong's public statements implying the use of condoms, Cheshire and Bannon said.
By his own count, Nifong granted dozens of media interviews in the early stages of the investigation. He has since adopted a general no-comment policy.
In addition to Evans, two other Duke students recently were indicted on rape, kidnapping and sex-offense charges in the case: Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, who were sophomore lacrosse players at the time of the March party.
All three suspects have proclaimed their innocence and are free on $400,000 bonds as they await a trial that, according to Nifong, might begin next spring.
LOL! In Fuster, ridiculous and obscene as it was, at least there was more than one "witness" not telling wildly changing stories. You didn't have mountains of exculpatory evidence, like stuff showing one defendant could not have been doing what he is accused of unless he is capable of beating, kicking, raping while simultaneously on his cell phone talking to his girlfriend and calling for a cab.
This accuser doesn't just have zero credibility. It's more like zero minus 50. The idea that anyone could be indicted based solely on her testimony, when it is contradicted by everything else, including the medical evidence, is outrageous.
She said no condoms were used. If there were no condoms, there should be DNA and/or traces of these boys--e.g. their body hair. There should have been fibers from their clothes. Three people can't come into contact with a person like that and leave not a trace of one of them behind.
Apologists for the DA keep saying the defense is only revealing what is favorable to it, but some reporters have read the entire file. Dan Abrams did and blasted Liefong.
Fuster's still in a Flori-duh slammer for **** which never happened and there, but for God's grace, go any of us. There has to be a solution. In the duck case, at some point, anything can be broken down and whatever supposedly protects this a$$hole nifong from reality is going to break down.
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.