DA plans to turn over more papers in lacrosse case (DukeLax)

DURHAM -- District Attorney Mike Nifong plans to give defense lawyers at least 300 additional pages of information about the Duke University lacrosse rape case, adding to 1,298 pages of documentation surrendered previously.

Without describing their contents, Nifong said the new documents would be handed over during a preliminary hearing today for three recently indicted lacrosse players: Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans.

The three are accused of raping, sodomizing and restraining an exotic dancer in a bathroom during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.

All are free under $400,000 bonds as they await a trial that, according to Nifong, might begin next spring.

In addition to a transfer of documents, the hearing will include a request from Seligmann's lawyers that his bond be lowered to roughly one-tenth its current level. The lawyers filed an affidavit in support of that request Wednesday.

Signed by Philip Seligmann, the defendant's father, the affidavit said that Seligmann had been recruited by every Ivy League university to play football or lacrosse, and that he accepted a 90-percent scholarship to be on the Duke lacrosse team.

"This case has taken an unbelievable and horrendous emotional toll on all my family, especially my wife," the elder Seligmann wrote. "We are committed as a family, along with Reade, to do everything necessary to restore our good name."

According to the affidavit, Seligmann's bail money was provided by a family friend whose "loss of income is substantial" as a result.

In a related matter, the News and Observer Publishing Co. moved Wednesday to make public certain documents -- reportedly pertaining to the alleged rape victim's medical records -- that were filed by defense lawyers under seal.

"In this case, the fact that there are charges of sexual assault is unfortunate and controversial -- either because a woman has been sexually violated or because the defendants have been wrongfully accused -- but neither is a justification for sealing a court proceeding," a lawyer for the newspaper wrote.

The lawyer, Hugh Stevens, also said the sealed documents raised questions about Nifong's handling of the case. He said that when the conduct of public officials is at issue, it is an added reason for making the pertinent files public.

Meanwhile, several defense lawyers predicted Wednesday that Nifong's latest 300-plus pages of documentation would do little to help him, since earlier paperwork -- in their view -- was more beneficial to the defense than the prosecution.

For example, attorneys Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon have said the earlier documents showed a "very significant and disturbing deficiency" in Nifong's evidence.

Specifically, there were indications that Nifong began making public statements about the accuser's medical records even before they were in his possession, according to the two lawyers, who represent Evans.

Cheshire and Bannon said the District Attorney's Office subpoenaed the accuser's medical files from Duke Hospital on March 20 -- six days after the alleged rape.

However, the files 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 in court paperwork last week.

But the lawyers said Nifong told a local television station on March 27 that he had no doubt the exotic dancer was raped, based on a "personal review" of her medical records. They quoted the district attorney as saying, "My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place."

Citing the 1,298 pages of documentation given them by Nifong earlier, various defense lawyers also have contended there were numerous inconsistencies in the accuser's version of events, along with unacceptable omissions in a sworn affidavit prepared by police. The affidavit was used by Himan to obtain judicial permission for his evidence-gathering efforts.

Among other things, Himan failed to mention that a co-dancer had described the rape allegation as "a crock," even though she was with the accuser for all but about five minutes on the night in question, according to defense lawyers.

Nifong has bristled at that and other defense characterizations of his evidence, while attacking the national press corps for -- in his opinion -- blindly reporting the characterizations without checking their accuracy.

"Is anyone surprised that the defense attorneys are spinning this case in such a way that things do not look good for the prosecution?" Nifong wrote in an e-mail to Newsweek magazine last week.

"Their job, after all, is to create reasonable doubt, a task made all the easier by an uncritical national press corps desperate for any reportable detail, regardless of its veracity," the district attorney said.

Susan Filan started an avalanche of Media persons saying that Nifong has an excellent reputation and he is very capable, etc. I don't believe that.

Wonder why no one in the Media has reported on this (National Media), doesn't sound so capable to me:

http://www.wral.com/news/6156268/detail.html

Wonder why Bill O'Reilly hasn't taken an interest.

THE CAB DRIVER !!! They are too busy to take care of this extremely serious crime, they admit they can't keep up with open warrants and summons, but they have time to find, arrest, and Jail the Poor Cab-Driver?

http://www.wral.com/news/6156268/detail.html

thanks for the article, but there's one problem for

LINWOOD WILSON - he is quoted in the NYT as giving an interview after he rudely interrupted Cheshire outside the courtroom, in that interview he said the accuser has NOT changed her story and he has seen ALL the evidence.

Am I wrong? I'll go back and look at the NYT, but I think his response in a subsequent interview (big mistake) he addresses the woman changing her story. 5 or 55, Linwood is a mental midget that thought he was going to affect this story and control the investigation. He's in over his head - sound familar? Who else thought they were going to treat this like all the other cases they strongarm in Durham? It's on the tip of my tongue...

Hmmm..

Too bad Linwoody! Your words are memoralized in the New York Times, a long way away from stinkin' Durham. It's a whole new world, Woody !

"Mr. Cheshire's news conference was briefly interrupted by Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the district attorney, who challenged him to show where in the documents the woman had changed her story. In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story."

"After the exchange, Wilson told Eyewitness News that he had personally read all 1814 pages of discovery documents and has not read that the victim changed her version of the story."

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4299691

He doesn't mention the 20 v. 5 distinction at all.

Have to wonder about the level of education of Linwood Wilson:

This is a direct quote from the Heraldsun article provided by GAgal:

"There ain't nothing about 20 in anything I've read."

The eloquent Mr. Wilson represents the District Attorneys office, and I'm sure his misdeeds are treated legally as misdeeds by the District Attorney himself.

My recommendation, in light of another public statement from the DA's office, is to file a motion inquiring as to the reading comprehension skills of Mr. Linwood Wilson.

He is just one more person in that office that doesn't understand this won't be an under the table coersed guilty plea deal or a corrupt railroading - without exposure.

All these responses, comments, and quotes are official public statements characterizing evidence by the D.A.'s office. This is one more wound to the beast.

' ' ' ' ' ' ' Linwood Wilson takes Center Stage

LinWood Says:
"There ain't nothing about 20 in anything I've read. I wanted him to show it to me. One of the police officers did say there were 20 people present, but he didn't say 20 people raped this woman. "We all know she said three.""

HeraldSun Says:
"However, a reference to 20 assailants was made in a Duke police report on March 14. It said that "a female was brought into the Emergency Department by Durham Police in reference to possible rape. The female was picked up at the Kroger on Hillsborough Rd., and she was claiming that she was raped by approximately 20 white males.""

Again, I ask, can Mr. Linwood read? That is the operative question. The taxpayers of North Carolina deserve to know.

http://www.heraldsun.com/tools/printfriendly.cfm?StoryID=747034

However, a reference to 20 assailants was made in a Duke police report on March 14.

The March 14th Duke Police report is by Christopher Day.. He is the officer who overheard a DPD officer talking about the case on the phone. He has no first hand knowledge that 20 assailants were claimed. We'll have to do better than that...

If there is a 20 person assault claim from someone who heard it from the AV's mouth, I haven't seen it yet. I'm not saying there isn't one, I just haven't seen or heard of one.

After the confrontation yesterday, some reporters went to Linwood Wilson's office to ask him questions. Then, before Cheshire produced the police report of her claiming 5 attackers, Wilson was adament that her story had not changed. Now that he's been caught in a proven lie, he's backtracking with the "I was only disputing the 20 attackers statement." Most thinking people will see his excuse for what it is.

Linwood says that she did NOT change her story.

That was his contention yesterday.

Every statement and follow up he makes is more fodder for the Defense. It will also be in motions for a Change of Venue, which I'm sure the Durham judges will quash, but it'll be in the papers and may help to get the attention of the MSM.

We'll have to do better than that...

I don't think so. Why do we have to do better than a police officer repeating what another police officer said?

That is in fact the type of evidence, a police officer repeating what other police officers told him Mangum said, that Nifong presented to the grand jury.

BTW, this actually better than the grand jury testimony. The grand jury testimony might not all be admissible at trial as hearsay. But statements against your own interest, ie changing your story, is an exception to the hearsay rule. Now this report of 20 is not admissible against her later statements as the Duke officer did not hear it from her. But it is admissible against the DPD claiming she did not change her story.

Why do we have to do better than a police officer repeating what another police officer said?

What he thought he said... If I recall, he doesn't even know which officer he overheard. If the officer on the phone had filed a report that claimed the AV told him there were 20 assailants then you might have something.

If they can find no one from DPD who was at the hospital and fesses up and we have a document from an actual interviewer claiming 20 in attendance, not 20 attackers then, IMO Ofc. Day is discredited somewhat. He may have heard that she has changed her story several times, but he could have mis-heard the part about 20 attackers...

The person on the phone may even have misspoke unknowingly but when they took time to think through a report, transcribed more accurately what they recall.

I will also concede there has been some significant delays in filing reports and some convenient lapses in memory from some key players early in the investigation.

Patrick Baker said it was Sgt. Shelton who Day overheard talking to his watch commander. I find it very odd that Shelton's report wasn't generated until April 9, over three weeks after the party. Perhaps he had detailed notes from that evening, but didn't write them up until later. I hope he wasn't just going on memory, especially since his report wasn't produced until after the IDs were made.

What I would really like to see is her written statement. The one that took 2 days to squeeze out of her. I suppose that's her final answer. I find the written comments by both Kim and Jarriel to be the most intriquing documents so far. Just to let them free flow write is a smart technique. I think they are less inhibited writing than talking.

It is obvious there are some lies being told. We know Kim is a bald faced liar, she stated herself that she lied to the 911 operators and the police to protect herself.

We also know that many times eye witnesses are not accurate. For instance, Jason the neighbor tells us all he heard the guys say was the "grandpa" comment as far as slurs when the girls were leaving. Kim has said otherwise and we know who the MSM believe.

If you read Devon Sherwood's statements in the SI article, I find it hard to believe that a team that is this close to their teammates would tolerate any such comments. I don't think someone who knew they would offend a teammate would make such a comment knowing he might hear or would find out. I doesn't make sense to me.

Kind of a ramble to make a point, but it is that what people see and hear isn't always what happened or what was said.

Everything people testify to is what they thought they heard or saw. [Experts aside who give their opinion.] Again, it is admissible that he heard the DPD talking about her claim of 20 assailants, if DPD claims she never changed her story.

Notice he did not hear 20 assailants and tell the University boy this is a huge [or hugh in FR speak] problem. He over heard the discussion of 20 assailants as discrediting her. So he heard this in context. He was sure enough of what he heard to put it down on an incident report [or whatever Duke PD calls their form] and he did not follow up with a correction.

Now I doubt this comes up in trial, but if it were to Nifong could produce both ends of the conversation and try to refute this. But 20 is in the record now, just like 4 strippers with names are in the record, just like Pittman [aka Roberts] being with her all by five minutes and Mangum wanting to go back in and try to make some more money is in the record. Some people will try to claim they did not say what others heard them say at trial. if it ever comes to that. Mangum will likely claim she said she and Roberts [aka Nikki in this context] were sent by Tammy at Angel's and officer Sutton misunderstood her.

DPD did not believe her that night. DPD was never going to refer this case to the DA's office. Nifong saw the political opportunity it was for him and that is why he stepped in and took over the case.

Seems a one Linwood Wilson gave another interview to a 3rd paper:

"Cheshire was challenged by Linwood Wilson, an investigator for Durham's District Attorney's Office.

"If he has information that the victim CHANGED HER STORY several times, I think I have the right to see it," Wilson said. He said that, as an investigator, he has seen ALL documents in the case."

I think Linwood has to be Nifong's half-brother.

I've never seen anything like this in my life.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/14882532.htm

I find it very odd that Shelton's report wasn't generated until April 9

You're right, but the copy of his statement that we've (I've) seen so far has *SUPPLEMENTAL* written across the top. This tells me that he wrote something up originally, probably thinking the whole thing would blow over. Then when the fit hit the shan he had to go back and recreate what he had in his notes...

In my opinion his statement supports the ever changing story and the AV's attempts to "game" the system to her benefit...

But it is very clear to me the AV hadn't planned on this going so far or she wouldn't have told so many different stories to so many different people. I really think she was just trying to get out of trouble like she had many times before...

The two day delay is the mystery to me though...

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.