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.

FOX is really slipping.

Hannity would've done a much better job (he's off) of questioning Gilfoyle's idiotic comments.

Ted Williams - He respects Nifong because "Nifong has done nothing wrong." Williams says and he's kept his mouth shut.
I have a 8 year old that I would wager the house could beat Ted Williams in a debate. How stupid does this man look?

Jim Hammer- Hammer defends Nifong, the Hammer says sometimes there's no evidence because the criminals are really good!!
He gives points to Nifong for believing the "vicitim".

Hammer is dangerous. He HAS to know this was a Keg Party that had been going for some time. How "good" of criminals could they have been? How can Seligmann be two places at one time?

In a Later segment on JonBenet, Doctor Baden says that DNA testing is SO SENSITIVE today, that DNA on Jonbenet's clothes could've been from people at the store handling them. He said the DNA testing has come so far. So, what does Jim Hammer do all day that he can't figure all this out?

I think it has come down to some people - Jim Hammer, Ted Williams, Susan Filan, Kimberly Gilfoyle, etc - would rather take a chance on putting innocent young WHITE men away for 20 years, then take a .000001% chance of letting the men go that attacked a black "girl."

Why does Great let such pathetic stuff be pushed on her show. Again, she doesn't identify Woody Vann as having represented the AV. She asks for the 25th thousand time - what else could Nifong have? Bernie Grimm voluntarily removes himself from arguments by making off-topic wisecracks instead of pointing out the obvious idiocacy that his fellow guests are spewing.

No problem ... these S60K are coming from tourist tax dollars to help Durham find an image ...

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-747375.html

In Your Neighborhood: Good neighbors and city brand sought

-----

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Clement,_III

Working tirelessly for civil rights, Clement helped integrate the Carolina Theatre and other Durham businesses. He also stood on the reviewing stand during Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous "I have a Dream" speech.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:GLzmEPg91ZUJ:www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content%3Foid%3Doid%253A21876+durham+%22Fantasia+Barrino%22+clement&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a

JUNE 9, 2004
Council tries to silence theater opponents

BY FIONA MORGAN

mail this article
print-friendly format
More TRIANGLES
from Jun. 09, 2004
Greendogs come out fighting
Why the delay over MLK?
More from Jun. 09, 2004...

ALSO IN YE OLDE ARCHIVES
Backtalk Quote
Soundbite
Soundbite
More (999)...
More than 50 people waited for four hours at the Durham City Council meeting to express their concerns about a proposal to build a $42 million, 4,000-seat performing arts theater downtown. The council's decision was whether to extend negotiations between the city and a development group for another four months.

Dozens of people signed up to speak in opposition. They wanted to tell the city to stop negotiating with Clear Channel Entertainment, a media conglomerate that would exclusively manage the theater. They wanted to urge the city council to make long-overdue repairs to the Carolina Theatre the top priority when spending public money on performing arts venues.

Most of them never got the chance.

Shortly before 11 p.m., Mayor Bill Bell called a vote without allowing a single public comment on the issue. With that action, the patience of grassroots activists evaporated along with their faith that city officials value their input. Bell's refusal to hear public comments before the vote shocked even veterans of Durham politics. Those who had waited took it as a blatant insult.

Prior meetings between city officials, theater boosters and concerned citizens had been more than civil. Alan DeLisle, director of the city's office of economic development, has praised citizens for giving extensive input on the project. Theater opponents have praised the work of architect Philip Szostak, who designed and is advocating the project. Members of the Arts & Business Coalition of Downtown (ABCD) even came away from a meeting with Bell last month feeling positive.

So why the sudden disrespect?

"I'm just trying to move forward," Bell said to the outraged crowd.

Budget issues dominated the council meeting, drawing two-minute speeches from approximately 70 people concerned about cuts to after-school gang prevention programs, faith-based homeless outreach programs, adult literacy and many other things. There was discussion of the plight of hot dog vendors, a gate blocking access to a park and the lack of taxicab inspectors.

But when it came time to discuss the event center, Bell's attitude abruptly changed. "It's late," he said, adding that the vote was not on whether to build the theater, but whether to extend consideration. He said extensive public comment was not necessary to answer that question.

Council member Howard Clement III said he was in favor of the extension, because it would give the city time to confront Clear Channel over its alleged bad practices. He said he heard a G105 DJ make a racist comment about Fantasia Barrino, the winner of American Idol, on the Clear Channel-owned radio station. "Now if that's typical of Clear Channel's behavior, then I don't want them in this town."

In the 6-1 vote, only John Best opposed the extension, saying the theater isn't what Durham needs now. "It's time to scrap this whole thing and start paying attention to the needs that have accumulated," he said.

"We've been waiting here for four hours!" someone cried after the vote was taken. Some called out to Diane Catotti, who has expressed concerns about the theater in the past, to speak up on their behalf. "It's not a done deal," she said. "We're looking for input."

Bell asked if there was one person who could speak for the group. "No," people yelled. After several moments of shouting, Bell agreed to allow 15 minutes of public comment. Activist Caleb Southern, dressed in a white shirt and tie, approached the podium with his written comments. "The public at large was not consulted on this," he said. "I urge you to vote against the extension--or I would have urged you," he continued, "to stop the current process and look toward starting a new open process in the future that involves the public and asks the right questions up front."

Rob VanDewoestine presented his own financial analysis of similar theaters, including the 5,000-seat Dodge Theatre in Phoenix. His charts showed that public-private venues created using similar models did not generate revenue for their cities. "Nobody broke even," he said. In fact, most required expensive public subsidies.

Supporters of the theater proposal say it would not take money out of the city budget, because the $24 million the city would spend comes from money raised by the hotel occupancy tax, approved by the legislature specifically to fund this theater. That money comes with a deadline: Construction must begin by September 2005.

VanDewoestine said his analysis showed that the project would eventually drain public funds. "As you lose money on this theater, the money has to come from somewhere."

As the clock ticked down, Denise VanDeCruze, co-owner of Blue Coffee Company, spoke up next. "Clear Channel is a huge company with a huge PR problem that the city is buying at a huge cost," she said. She criticized the mayor's "circular logic" in extending the consideration: "We've made this mistake for five years so we might as well make it for another four months.'"

Bell tried to cut her off. "I'm going to finish in two minutes, OK?" VanDeCruze said firmly and continued.

At 11:21, public comment ended. Outside, even the theater's proponents expressed disbelief at the way things had gone. Szostak, the developer, approached members of the ABCD group to express his sympathy.

Walking away from city hall, the theater opponents' disbelief turned into a kind of euphoria. "They just proved our point," Southern said. "This proposal cannot stand up to public scrutiny."

By Tuesday morning, local listservs were buzzing with the comments people had hoped to present to the council. Southern encouraged people to e-mail and call city council members, Bell and local media.

The mayor's office said Tuesday afternoon that it had not received phone calls about the issue, and that no public hearings have been scheduled yet.

Stay tuned. If Monday's meeting is any indication, the next four months of debate over the theater will be quite a spectacle.

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.