Posted on 07/12/2006 1:52:14 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
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?
Oh, you can talk to yourself as long as you stay on topic ;-) J/K!
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:-)
Interesting article on the norms of ID procedures in NC v. the Nifong ID method:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/28086.html
Thank you JLS !!
I think you've zeroed in the focus of the next battle.
thanks again.
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.
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:
If one is innocent, all are innocent.
Are they going to be tried together?
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
My guess is that she has no clue what a "Master Bedroom" is!
(Not interested? Please disregard.)
I guess you are not going to let it go. I'm sorry I ever asked.
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.
Damn those wild fires.
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
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?
"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.
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.
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.