Call adds mystery to lacrosse case (DukeLax)

News and Observer ^ | July 12, 2006 | Joseph Neff

[abb]

Phone use spans time of team party

In the middle of a Duke lacrosse party where a dancer said she was gang-raped for 30 minutes, a call was placed from her cell phone to a Durham escort service.

The 12:26 a.m. call to the service, Centerfold, lasted one minute, according to a copy of her cell phone bill reviewed by The News & Observer. It is unclear whether the call was a request for another job, a cry for help or something else, or even whether the accuser made the call herself.

But the accuser's phone records add some details to the chronology of the March 13 party, a drunken spring break bash that spawned a national controversy.

Neither prosecutors nor defense lawyers would discuss the phone records Tuesday. Neither the accuser nor a second dancer at the party could be reached, nor could representatives of Centerfold. Police Chief Steve Chalmers was out of town; his spokeswoman said he would not discuss the case.

Three players have been charged with first-degree rape, sexual offense and kidnapping: Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J.; Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y.; and Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md. Lawyers for the players have proclaimed their clients' innocence and said no rape or sex occurred at the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.

District Attorney Mike Nifong, whose handling of the case has undergone national scrutiny, has been adamant that the woman was raped at the party. Nifong has not given a precise timeline of when he thinks an assault occurred.

[Neverforget01]

I wonder if the writer has a son? If calling names and and drinking beer defines ones character at 19, he just wrote off 90% of college males. Maybe that's his point?

[Neverforget01]

Oh, you can talk to yourself as long as you stay on topic ;-) J/K!

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

You are too kind. I have three sons 29, 25 & 15.

The actual percentage is 99.9%

The .1% represents my 7 month old grandson - perfect:-)

[JLS]

Interesting article on the norms of ID procedures in NC v. the Nifong ID method:

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/28086.html

[Mike Nifong]

Thank you JLS !!

I think you've zeroed in the focus of the next battle.

thanks again.

[JLS]

Monday's suppression of the IDs hearing could be the whole ballgame. Here is what I wrote on the CourtTV site about what I expect Nifong's strategy to be:

Since this will be a big issue Monday, let me WARN everyone about the Nifong argument about the "photo arrays." The instructions to the woman for the photo arrays reveals the strategy.

In the instructions the person conducting the photo array tells the woman that she will be looking at a group of people who may or may not have been at the party. What Nifong will argue is that the photo array was only to identify who was at the party and she spontaneously IDed her attackers.

Thus he will argue that there was no need for fillers. The photo array per the instructions was not to ID her attackers, but she did that spontaneously. And for the purpose of the photo array, there were fillers, ie people who were not at the party.

This will be a typical Nifong pathetic argument, but I bet he makes it. The problem will be that she did pick someone who was NOT at the party, ie #4 and it is a transparent attempt to violate the policies and good practice for photo array IDs. Now will the judge be corrupt enough or scared of the DA enough to buy this argument. He shouldn't but knows in this case.

[JLS]

After some discussion I went to the photo array report and found this:

Here is my transcription of what is in the slide show;

http://www.wral.com/slideshow/news/9141851/detail.html?qs=;s=2;w=800

quote:

---

Originally posted by wral in the link above

I explained to her during the time she was looking at each picture she should merely tell me who she remembered seeing at the party, or tell me if she did not recognize seeing an indicidual at the party. I explained to her that it was very important not to say anyone was present at the party if they were not, or if she could not recall they were present. I also told her it was important to tell us if she recalled a particular individual at the party and to let us know how she recalled seeing them from that night, what they were doing, and any type of interactions she may have had or observed with a particular individual.

---

I apologize for any typos. I think Nifong's little ploy was going ok until the detective said what he did in the last sentence. That seems to me to make this a photo array for IDing those she claimed raped her. It certainly undermines the claim that the purpose was to ID who was at the party

[stands2reason]

If one is innocent, all are innocent.

Are they going to be tried together?

[stands2reason]

Unfortunately logic and reason can provide no comfort in the future about this case. You can forget about thinking "Surely they can't" or "surely they won't."


The DPTB* will just respond, "Don't call me Shirley."



*Durham Powers-that-be

[TommyDale]

My guess is that she has no clue what a "Master Bedroom" is!

[stands2reason]

**Related story**NOT Duke LAX**

(Not interested? Please disregard.)

I guess you are not going to let it go. I'm sorry I ever asked.

[maggief]

You raise some excellent points but the instructions for the 'photo arrays' also include "any types of interactions she may have had or observed with a particular individual."

I agree with you that Nifong may contend that the purpose of the line up was to identify those at the party though the questions by the detectives dispute those claims.

Specifically, while viewing image 5 the AV states she recognizes him, the guy with the mustache, as one who assaulted her. The Sgt. then asks percentage wise the likelihood he was one who assaulted her.

At image 7, Seligmann, the AV claims 100% recognition. The questions from the Sgt. were, "How did he assault you? Which one was he?"

Notice at image 4, (so called filler?), the AV claims he looks like one of the guys that assaulted her. The Sgt. didn't ask any follow up questions: Percentage wise? How did he assault you? He moved on.

Also note image 9, whom the AV recognizes. Question from the Sgt., "In the bathroom, or at the party?"

Image 40, Finnery ... questions from Sgt., "What did he do? Was he the first or second one to do that? Is he the one who strangled you or not?"

I can see why Chalmers may have chosen to be absent.

[maggief]

Damn those wild fires.

[JLS]

I can see why Chalmers may have chosen to be absent.

I agree. Did you read that article I linked earlier that reported the research on the photo array policies used in the rest of NC? It is quite telling.

I may have posted this here before, but this is my between the line reading of how the "photo array" of the transcript really went:

1. Mangum picks number #4. Possibly she was coached who to pick, but CERTAINLY she was coached who not to pick. Of course #4 was one she was not to pick and the detective gets pissed and yells at her.

2. She is nervous and then next picks #5, Evans, but due to her nervousness after being yelled at she picks him with only 90% confidence with a mustache. [The mustache comment is her showing off that she remembers the instructions she was given.] The detective does not yell at her so her confidence grows.

3. Then she picks #7, Finnerty. This is the one that makes me think she was told who to pick also. At this point she thinks she is done.

4. We get to about 38 or 39 and are about to run out of photos and she has not picked a fourth in the view of the cop, but she has in her view. The cop gets even more pissed and yells at her again and she likely starts crying.

5. So she picks #40, Seligmann. And the cop notes her crying here although not the reason she is crying.

I think this best explains what we read in the slide show of the photo array.

[maggief]

The "event" was taped by the forensic unit. Do we know if that available in discovery to the defense?



http://www.wral.com/slideshow/dukelacrosse/9141851/detail.html?qs=;s=15;w=800

[CondorFlight]

If the judge is honest, this case is a dead duck.

But I have seen three judges now (Stephens, Bushfan, and Bayly) who all failed to be objective and who were stacked against the defense.

They have permitted this farce to continue when they could have stopped it, and every bit of grief and suffering which has occured since they presided must also be laid at their door.

Titus? You're up to the plate. Do you plan to hit a foul, too?

[JLS]

The "event" was taped by the forensic unit. Do we know if that available in discovery to the defense?

Well do we know that the recording machine was not stopped at all during the event? I wonder.

[CondorFlight]

"The "event" was taped by the forensic unit. Do we know if that available in discovery to the defense? "

It's probably going to be ready about as soon as Gottlieb's notes.

[old and cranky]

I am probably going to regret this, but..... I think the whole thing about marking when posting unrelated stuff was/is being blown out of proportion, a simple a response to the original comment would have been sufficient and then the subject dropped. Everyone please kiss and make up....

[GAgal]

I still hope Gottlieb turns out to be more honest than Himan and Nifong. He did ask the follow up question that got Crystal to clearly say Evans had a mustache that night. He also said early on, when Nifong was publicly talking of a "wall of silence", that the captains had been very cooperative.

And on page 1 of the transcript he describes the 3/31 meeting he and Himan had with Nifong as a discussion about the April 4 line-up. If Nifong tries to pretend it wasn't an attempt to elicit IDs, Gottlieb's description will show he is lying imo.