Posted on 08/09/2006 9:18:34 AM PDT by flixxx
There is a scandal now brewing in the Duke lacrosse case. I'm not even sure whether to call it a rape case anymore. You're about to see why.
Consistent with the procedure in North Carolina and elsewhere, the prosecution has to turn over its evidence to the defense to prepare for trial. There's still more to come, but the bulk of what has been turned over is troubling enough. It suggests a failure to follow standard procedure that is rather mind-boggling.
Consider: The District Attorney went to the grand jury for an indictment before he even performed DNA tests (it turns out there was no match). One of the investigators was still collecting prices for DNA tests while the DA was giving interviews. He announced to the press that he was certain that a rape had taken place before excluding the possibility that the woman's physical symptoms were the result of sex with another man (turns out she'd had sex with her boyfriend within the preceding 24 hours). They were still investigating the woman's whereabouts during the 24 hours leading up to the party, and they had already been to the grand jury. The prosecutor relied on a photographic identification procedure that reportedly violated the standards of his own department. If the discovery is any indication, his case is sitting on quicksand.
None of this means the woman is lying. But at the very least, standard procedure should have been to await the results of tests, and then, given the results, the inconsistencies in the woman's statements, the fact that at least one of the boys seems to have an airtight alibi, investigate further before indicting anyone.
Instead, the train had already left the station.
It doesn't matter anymore why the DA was so determined to indict. His critics will say it was just because he was thinking about his political career. His supporters will say he really believed her, and that a District Attorney has every right to be responsive to the community that elects him. My guess is he really did believe her, but it certainly didn't hurt that he needed to. And one thing is clear: He's not going to change his mind now.
That means this case is going to trial, unless a judge steps in to stop it, which is something that rarely happens.
And of this you can be sure: No good will come of it. Trials do not tend to be healing experiences. Sides dig in. Things get more contentious, not less. Tempers are bound to flare. Reliving the evening in living color is not likely to be pretty. Hearing the racial epithets again, rereading the e-mails, all of that will not improve race relations, even if it has nothing to do with whether a rape happened or not.
Even before that, there will be the questions of who serves on the jury and what counts as a jury of their peers. Shall we start counting how many minorities there are, how many "Duke" people, how many of "us" and how many of "them"?
If she takes the stand, she'll be slaughtered on cross.
If she doesn't, the prosecution doesn't have a chance.
No one will be convinced that the case was handled fairly.
If even one of the boys is convicted, there will be outrage in the Duke community.
If they're all acquitted, there will be outrage in the black community that three white boys got away with rape.
Conservatives will be outraged that three boys' lives were ruined because an ambitious prosecutor believed a lying "slut" (as in the nuts and sluts defense), which will be played to a fare-thee-well.
Victims rights advocates like me will be depressed because we will worry, rightly, about all the messages being sent to legitimate victims.
And what would have happened if the District Attorney had waited to go to the grand jury, followed the identification procedure, let the test results come in, found out about the boyfriend and investigated enough to learn that one of the suspects had an airtight alibi? He might have decided not to file charges at all, or not to file them against these three young men.
There are reasons you follow procedures. In general, they are there to spare outrage.
From Nifong's admission of errors speech:
*****
Nifong also said there was evidence he hoped to have in the case, such as DNA, but that it didn't pan out.
"There were things we hoped to have in terms of evidence that we ended up not having," Nifong said.
*****
With Nifong apparently admitting defeat on DNA, what the heck is he gonna do in the courtroom?
Swelling is NOT trauma. That would be an incorrect,and self serving, usage.
Many common bacterial infections produce just that type of swelling. There are numerous potential reasons for swelling - it's not uncommon.
We have the advantage of examining what happened in retrospect. At that time, I don't think they were very concerned with the swellling. The were evaluating her completely. They noted the swelling and they moved on.
Remember they had the swabs and the rape kit to complete.
Here's some extractions from a defense motion:
From an official Court motion filed on 4/21/06 by Kirk Osborn:
(File Nos. 06 CRS 4334-356 )
"The examining physician for (name redacted) at 3:14 a.m. found no neck, back, chest or abdominal tenderness...... (name redacted) also told the S.A.N.E. nurse in training that she was not choked; that no condoms, fingers, or foreign objects were used during the alleged sexual assault; and that the S.A.N.E. nurse in training noted that (name redacted) head, neck, nose, throat, chest, breasts, abdomen, and upper and lower extremities all were normal".
"The ONLY evidence of physical trauma the S.A.N.E. nurse in training could find on (name redacted) was a scratch on her knee and a small laceration to her heel, both of which were non-bleeding."
"(name redacted) reported that she only complained of a vaginal assault and made NO CLAIM OF ANY OTHER KIND OF ASSAULT. The probable cause affidavit also neglected to mention that n examining DOCTOR found no evidence of other physical assault. In fact, one Doctor noted during during his examination of (name redacted) between 3:14 a.m. and 3:40 a.m. that she DENIED BEING HIT and that she claimed no neck, back, chest, or abdomen tenderness. These facts are supported by the nurses examining (name redacted) at 2:53 a.m. and 3:30 a.m. who each found the TOTAL ABSENCE of any objective signs or symptoms of pain. "
"The S.A.N.E. nurse's physical examination of the PELVIC AREA of (name redacted) which included the Vulva, Vagina, Cervix, Fundus and Rectal areas, noted ONLY "diffuse edema of the vaginal walls."
Source : Affidavit of Counsel for the Defendant in support of motion to suppress Non-Testimonial photographs. Kirk Osborn 4/21
But Finnerty doesn't resemble any of the descriptions Precious gave of the alleged rapists. He isn't short and he isn't chubby.
My guess is that the cops never showed her Finnerty's picture because he looks so different from her descriptions.
Yeah. Nifong got the medical report on April 5th. So how is it that he is running his mouth on TV about her vaginal trauma in late March?
I agree on all points and more:
1. Finnerty was IDed in a bad lineup.
2. He doesn't match the descriptions.
3. If the cops did not include him earlier it was probably because he did not match her descriptions.
4. Later Mangum probably was coached illegally to pick him due to the charge pending against him in DC.
But factually he is the only one of the three who was IDed the first time she was him apparently.
That is unfortunate for him. Hopefully the lineup she picked the three of them from will be tossed. But I must say due to this point, his prior in DC, etc he might be passing Evans as the one in most danger. Thankfully rumor has it that he has a alibi.
I would hate it if any one of these guys had no alibi, was picked by her the first time she saw him and could not be excluded from the DNA on the nail. Fortunately, that is a combination Evans/Finnerty and no single person has that much against him here.
It's wonderful for Collin if she couldn't have seen him at the party.
She id'd Collin as the second attacker to put his penis in her anus, but earlier said there had been no anal assault.
She never says who was the first attacker to assault her anally, though.
The cop asks her if Collin was the first or second, too.
Curious.
In the photo line-up transcript she said Collin raped her vaginally and anally and he was the second guy to do that. She said Reade forced her to perform oral sex and that's it. So I guess Dave allegedly was the first by default.
Link for transcript about Finnerty
http://www.wral.com/slideshow/dukelacrosse/9141851/detail.html?qs=;s=13;w=800
'The Abrams Report' for June 30
Read the transcript to the Friday show
Updated: 12:24 a.m. ET July 5, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13718006/
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARY ELLEN FINNERTY, SON CHARGED IN DUKE RAPE CASE: He explained it very briefly, because literally they were in a rush to get down to the police department and basically said, don‘t worry, you know this—nothing happened, but there was a party, there was a stripper, she claimed there was a rape, and we‘re being questioned now, and asked to give our DNA.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FILAN: The parents of one of the Duke lacrosse players charged with raping a stripper at a team party back in March break their silence. Collin Finnerty‘s parents sat down with our own Dan Abrams for an exclusive interview and they‘re more convinced now than ever that the accuser is lying, nothing happened in the house that night, and their son is innocent. They tell us their side of the story from the beginning when they first heard these allegations back in April.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAN ABRAMS, MSNBC GENERAL MANAGER: Were you concerned that there had been some sort of rape, that Collin wasn‘t involved in, in that house that night?
KEVIN FINNERTY, SON CHARGED IN DUKE RAPE CASE: To tell you the truth, we know the boys on the team very well. We know most of the families. We know most of the boys, and quite honestly, it would be totally inconsistent. These are good kids, good families, and quite honestly, it didn‘t sound right from the get-go.
ABRAMS: So there was never a point where you thought to yourself, oh, boy, maybe something got out of hand in that house that night, even if Collin wasn‘t involved, that could just be bad for all of them?
(CROSSTALK)
M.E. FINNERTY: Well based on the way it was told to us, we were confident in what he was telling us. We knew he was telling the truth.
ABRAMS: What does he say happened that night at the party?
K. FINNERTY: Nothing happened. Zero. Nothing happened.
ABRAMS: Just that there were strippers there and that they eventually left and that nothing happened?
K. FINNERTY: I think there were clearly strippers there, they were there for a brief period of time. Collin had nothing to do with the arranging of their arrival, he was in the room, he saw them come, he saw them go.
M.E. FINNERTY: He...
(CROSSTALK)
M.E. FINNERTY: No, he didn‘t see them go. He left early.
ABRAMS: When you first heard that Collin was on this short list of people who might be indicted, what did you think?
M.E. FINNERTY: Terrified. Devastated. Didn‘t make any sense to us. We knew that he had nothing to do with it, and nothing happened and, you know, why this nightmare was beginning. We had no clue.
ABRAMS: Were you stunned to hear that Collin was one of the ones who was going to be indicted?
K. FINNERTY: Oh, absolutely. Totally. It was...
M.E. FINNERTY: It was—we were blown away. I mean the only thing I could describe it as is feeling like you got hit in the stomach with a baseball bat. All three of us were totally shocked.
ABRAMS: Have you ever for a moment wondered whether it‘s possible that he could have been involved in something like this?
M.E. FINNERTY: No.
K. FINNERTY: Absolutely not...
M.E. FINNERTY: Totally innocent. Totally not Collin. Anybody that would—that knows Collin, he‘s a very gentle boy, and it‘s not within his character at all, and nothing happened at all with any member of the team.
ABRAMS: How has he been holding up through all of this?
M.E. FINNERTY: It‘s been difficult. But I think given the difficulty, he‘s actually doing as well as could be expected. You know, I think he‘s got a strong faith. I think he‘s got huge support from his siblings, from his friends, from his girlfriend, from our extended families, and truly that‘s what gets us all through every day.
K. FINNERTY: You know, I think in addition to that, Collin is innocent, he knows he‘s innocent, he knows where he was, he knows who was with him. I think he takes great comfort in knowing the truth.
ABRAMS: We‘ve heard a lot about Reade Seligmann, one of the other young men that‘s been indicted, alibi. There‘s photographs at an ATM. There are witness accounts. There‘s cell phone records. There‘s the time that he swiped his...
(CROSSTALK)
ABRAMS: ... card into the—into his dorm, and we haven‘t heard anything about Collin‘s alibi. Does he have one?
K. FINNERTY: He does and a very good one. From the outset, our legal team, our counsel is adamant that they will not reveal our evidence in the media. That said, Collin has significant exculpatory evidence. He has numerous eyewitnesses every step of the way, every minute of the night.
Clearly there was two DNA tests done and obviously no DNA. He has numerous phone calls around the time in question, many incoming, many outgoing.
M.E. FINNERTY: Restaurants.
K. FINNERTY: He has receipts and he also swiped himself with his card back into his dorm.
ABRAMS: So you‘re saying that he, like Reade Seligmann, has an alibi that would make it impossible that he could have committed this crime?
K. FINNERTY: Impossible.
M.E. FINNERTY: Yes.
ABRAMS: You‘re entirely convinced that she is just making this up, totally lying?
K. FINNERTY: Totally.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FILAN: Coming up, more of Dan‘s exclusive interview with Collin Finnerty‘s parents. Wait until you hear the real reason they think the D.A. is prosecuting the case.
Plus, a lot of you have a lot to say about Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Lafave getting off with little or no prison time compared to male teachers convicted of having sex with their students. We‘ll read your e-mails up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FILAN: Did the D.A. in the Duke rape case use the accuser‘s story to help win his own election? More of Dan‘s exclusive interview with the parents of one of the suspects in the case up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FILAN: Back now with more of Dan Abrams exclusive interview with Collin Finnerty‘s parents about the Duke lacrosse rape case. They say they think the D.A. indicted their son to help his election campaign and they tell us why they think the accuser made up this story and why they think she picked their son out of a photo lineup.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABRAMS: The accuser looked at a photo lineup of various Duke lacrosse players. As Collin‘s photo was shown, she stopped and she said, that‘s one of the guys. Why do you think that she stopped on Collin?
M.E. FINNERTY: Could have been anybody there. I just think it was sort of a pin the tail on the donkey.
K. FINNERTY: I think it was totally random. There are numerous conspiracy theories out there about why she might have picked one boy over another, but to tell you the truth, I think everybody knows on that team that nothing happened, and everybody knew that they were looking for somebody, and that the D.A. was committed to having three people arrested, and as we‘ve all read, they only showed pictures of lacrosse players. They basically said pick three. Pretty unbelievable.
ABRAMS: Are you at all worried that someone who was at that party is going to say well I saw something that is inconsistent with Collin or the other young men‘s stories?
K. FINNERTY: No, we‘re not. Not at all.
ABRAMS: So no one is going to turn...
K. FINNERTY: Nobody. No one is going to turn, because there‘s nothing to turn on.
ABRAMS: Are you angry?
M.E. FINNERTY: Sure. I‘m angry that my family and the Seligmanns and the Evans that we‘re going through—what we‘re going through right now. But I hope that, you know, I have faith in the justice system, and faith that the truth will prevail, and we will all move forward when this nightmare ends.
ABRAMS: The D.A. has said that he is convinced there was a rape. That he believes her story and he‘s moved forward in this case against your son. Why do you think he‘s doing it?
K. FINNERTY: I think this man was looking for a case that he could hold out to the public before that May Democratic Primary, and this came along and man, he ran with it.
ABRAMS: So in an effort to get reelected, you think he indicted your son?
M.E. FINNERTY: It‘s a frightening thought, but yes, I do think that‘s what happened.
ABRAMS: You‘re convinced the accuser is lying. What do you think her motivation is, money?
K. FINNERTY: Quite honestly, I don‘t think it‘s money. I think that this woman, who was by all accounts, impaired, if not significantly impaired, found herself with the police on her way to jail. And I think whether she came to or she realized where she was going, and I think defense mechanism, she did what she had to do to get out of that predicament and personally I think that‘s why she did what she did.
ABRAMS: There‘s been a lot of talk about three rich white kids and a African American woman of lesser means and a lot of people have framed this story in that context. What do you make of that?
K. FINNERTY: I think this is about the truth. What is the truth?
What happened and what didn‘t happen. It has nothing to do with class. It‘s not anything to do with money. This is about the truth. And we know that the truth is on our side and we know that Collin is innocent and we know that all the boys are innocent, and we know that nothing happened that night.
ABRAMS: It‘s been months now and the two of you have remained silent. You‘ve been asked to do interviews again and again, why have you decided to go public now?
M.E. FINNERTY: Well, I think the time was right now. I think that public opinion is shifting. There‘s so many positives for the boys. It‘s time for the public to know them.
K. FINNERTY: And at this point, having seen what is theoretically all of the evidence that they have, that the D.A. has in this case, we realize that there is no case or there shouldn‘t be a case. We know that Collin is innocent and we have actually been waiting patiently to get this story out that Collin does in fact have a lot of exculpatory evidence.
ABRAMS: So you‘re convinced that Collin‘s alibi is as strong as Reade Seligmann‘s?
M.E. FINNERTY: Yes.
K. FINNERTY: Airtight.
ABRAMS: Meaning he couldn‘t have done it?
K. FINNERTY: Absolutely not. Couldn‘t have and wouldn‘t have.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
*** Does anyone still remember how a second-rate burglary brought down Duke's most famous alumnus? ***
Yeah, I saw the Finnertys on TV. I was very impressed with them and I believe them 100%. I feel really badly that their family is going through this.
I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know who Duke's most famous alum is. But second rate burglary makes me think of Watergate or something along those lines.
Most people don't want to admit they don't know what something means, even when it turns out that they couldn't know because it's something made up by and used by only one individual.
*SHRUG* Glad to give you a laugh.
BTW, do you know what SLTM means?
Collin doesn't remotely fit any of the physical descriptions Mangum gave.
This may be why Nifong is going to try to separate the trials.
Maybe Nodong was one of the clients Mangum entertained earlier in the evening in the hotel room with the dildo, such that he could feel it reliable to say she had vaginal trauma. :>
Anyone-but-Nifong drive takes shape
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/469318.html
A check on conduct
http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/469207.html
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-759924.html
Monks to take on Nifong in DA's race
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson@heraldsun.com
Aug 9, 2006 : 9:28 pm ET
DURHAM -- Steve Monks ended weeks of speculation Wednesday by announcing he will run as an unaffiliated write-in candidate for Durham district attorney in November.
The race will pit Monks, a lawyer and chairman of the Durham County GOP, against incumbent Mike Nifong, who was on vacation Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.
Monks conceded he desperately needs to boost his name recognition and still needs to raise more money to wage a campaign.
And he vowed that, if elected, he would sympathetically but firmly interview the woman who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of raping her in March.
"I am compassionate about the fact that somebody who reports a rape is reporting a traumatic event," Monks said. "If I determine the case needs to be tried, I would try it. But I would need to interview the woman first."
That wouldn't be pleasant for her, he acknowledged, saying he himself would feel uncomfortable about the prospect and that he would regret having to put her through the trauma again.
"But it has to be done," Monks said. "I would be exceedingly sympathetic with her situation, but I'd have to ask some hard questions."
The case has attracted national media coverage. And Nifong is under fire from some quarters for pursuing the charges, largely because of apparent inconsistencies in the woman's story, disputed DNA evidence and other perceived weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence.
Monks said Wednesday he hadn't raised the $50,000 he needs, at a minimum, to fund his candidacy. But he said he had received enough financial promises to make him confident of reaching the goal.
"I know I'm going to get there now," Monks said. "The die is cast. We're going forward."
Despite a whirlwind petition drive that saw him jogging from door to door in June, Monks didn't obtain the 6,300 voter signatures needed to have his name printed on the November ballot. He said he ended up with just under 5,000 unverified signatures.
But only 100 approved signatures were necessary for Monks to pursue the district attorney's job as a write-in candidate.
Another lawyer, County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, did receive enough signatures to put his name on the ballot. But after a lengthy period of uncertainty, he decided not to campaign for the chief prosecutor's chair and said he would not serve if elected.
But Cheek's name will remain on the November ballot anyway. If he received a winning number of votes, Gov. Mike Easley would have to choose someone to replace him.
Nifong has worked in the Durham County District Attorney's Office for 28 years. He received a gubernatorial appointment to head the agency last year after his predecessor, Jim Hardin Jr., became a judge.
Monks acknowledged Wednesday that gaining name recognition would be one of his biggest campaign challenges.
"I've got to overcome Mike [Nifong], an incumbent," he said. "A write-in campaign is always problematic. A portion of the electorate probably doesn't even know my name. Good, bad or indifferent, they all know Nifong's name. I've got to get more recognition."
In an interview, Monks also discussed what he described as "the most interesting dynamic" behind the coming election: an "anybody-but-Nifong" movement.
"I can't support an anti-Nifong vote simply to get rid of Mike at any cost," Monks said. "I can't embrace that. I'm not saying those who embrace it are bad people. I just can't get behind it. I can't do it. It's not going to happen."
Monks said he wouldn't be in the race if Cheek had agreed to serve as district attorney if elected.
"There is no question Lewis' campaign was all about getting rid of Mike," he added. "I personally hoped he [Cheek] would agree to go forward, in which case I would not be doing what I'm doing now. I'm not comfortable with Mike anymore, but I'm not comfortable with the alternative either."
According to Monks, the alternative might be a winning vote for Cheek and a gubernatorial appointment of Durham's next district attorney, since Cheek would not serve.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-759921.html
Weapon effort puts police under the gun
By BriAnne Dopart : The Herald-Sun
bdopart@heraldsun.com
Aug 9, 2006 : 9:11 pm ET
DURHAM -- With Durham halfway through what he promised would be "the year of the gun," Police Chief Steve Chalmers came down hard Wednesday on some district commanders who hadn't generated the results he had hoped for.
At the Police Department's monthly "crime abatement" meeting Wednesday, Chalmers asked how many guns were seized in District 5 in July. Capt. Ron Evans replied, "Zero."
Evans said his area, which includes downtown, had fewer guns than other districts.
"Business people don't take guns to work," he said.
Department statistics show four District 5 robberies in July. District 1 saw 31 robberies and District 3 saw 22.
Evans said his officers have seized only one or two guns since the beginning of the year.
"Are you happy with those numbers?" asked Maj. Steve Mihaich.
"No, sir," Evans replied.
"Crime abatement" meetings normally are closed. A Herald-Sun reporter was allowed to attend Wednesday's meeting. Chalmers noted her presence.
Lt. P.B. Daye said officers in District 4, which covers southeastern Durham and includes crime hotspots like McDougald Terrace, seized two guns in July.
Chalmers asked if Daye was satisfied with those numbers. Daye eventually replied no.
The chief and majors Mihaich, B.J. Council and Jim Bjurstrom grilled Capt. P.T. Williams about crime in public housing communities, including McDougald Terrace.
Housing officers seized a single gun during July, Williams said.
Council, who commands the Uniform Patrol Bureau, took immediate issue with Williams' report.
"Does that tell me that we don't have any weapons in our housing projects?" she said.
Williams, she added, probably should step up his efforts, "considering this is the year of the gun."
While Districts 5 and 4 reported seizing few weapons, the chief and Mihaich praised Districts 3 and 1, which seized 13 and nine respectively.
Capt. D.C. Allen said most of the nine guns seized in District 1 (the eastern part of the city) were taken during traffic stops.
The same went for District 2 (the northwestern area), where officers seized six out of the seven weapons in July during traffic stops, Capt. J.G. Lamb said.
The department's Special Operations Division also had success removing firearms from city streets.
Capt. M.R. Taylor said the Highway Interdiction Team searched 389 vehicles and recovered four guns in July. A prostitution sting in mid-July yielded four more firearms, Taylor said.
Chalmers, while stern in his message that districts and individual patrols needed to do a better job, expressed confidence and optimism in his closing words.
He reminded his staff that while some ground was lost in July, monthly losses and gains are to be expected.
"What we deal with on a daily basis is no different than a tug of war," he said. "If we're doing the right things and the numbers [of crime incidents] are going in the wrong direction, I'm satisfied because we're doing what we're supposed to do."
Supervisors, he said, should emphasize to their officers the importance of procedure.
"Stop the vehicles, do the consent searches. ? Let's get the guns off the streets," he said.
Chalmers also reiterated his plan to "light up the city" by flooding crime hotspots with patrol cars and uniformed officers.
"I believe in omnipresence," he said. "I know we can't be everywhere, but through the right procedure we can make it seem like we are."
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
Brodhead has refused to accept responsibility
In his response to the Friends of Duke open letter, Duke President Richard Brodhead defends his actions on the flawed premise that "action has been required in the face of deep uncertainty." In fact, once he had justifiably suspended part of the lacrosse season, there was no compelling immediate need for further action. He could have deliberately preserved his options as events unfolded until there was more certainty. Instead, he bought into District Attorney Mike Nifong's self-serving story and yielded to the exaggerated cry of a strident minority of the faculty that this team was out of control. In a knee-jerk rush to judgment, he suspended player Ryan McFayden, canceled the season and fired Coach Mike Pressler, clearly choosing political expediency over reasoned adjudication.
Those condemning actions gave credence to Nifong's media blitz in the court of public opinion and intensified the avalanche of publicity. Brodhead now seeks to avoid accountability for those actions by urging those concerned to ignore the past and move forward to healing. In my experience, healing occurs only when the offending parties candidly admit and accept responsibility for their harmful actions. The lacrosse team captains publicly apologized on behalf of the team for the ill-advised spring break party shortly after it happened. Some had hoped that Brodhead would accept responsibility for that part of the anguish he has caused. It is disappointing that he did not. He missed a golden opportunity to build a bridge to those he abandoned. This is unfortunate for all concerned.
G. HOLMAN KING
Granbury, Texas
August 10, 2006
The cases are separate as of now. If Nifong wants to try them together he'll have to make a motion to join them. He said in a court hearing that he intends to try to join them. I don't know what the defense position on this is.
GOOD NEWS. Joe Neff's Sunday NandO story has been picked up and run by most other McClatchy newspapers nationwide. Mucho exposure.
Question to the group. What about Joe's online Q&A. Is he trying? Can we trust him? Should we send him leads? What say y'all?
I have been saying that Finnerty is the one in danger. IMO, Durham's going to want their pound of flesh.
Finnerty has the Georgetown thing (how did Gottlieb get out of his?) and the other two are better looking guys. How many studies do they have to do about first grade teachers giving good looking students better grades? I'm afraid the jury will feel obligated to hold someone accountable and Finnerty is the loser when placed in this group.
I noticed way back when as first as Seligmann's alibi came out - that the Talking Heads on TV were stepping back from Seligmann and Evans - but they were adamant about Finnerty. Which really doesn't make sense because if she was wrong about the other two - then how much more likely is it that she's wrong about Finnerty.
I noticed Susan Filan, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Susana Meadows (NewsweeK) all going out of their to point at Finnerty after they softened on the other two.
Think about it, much of the media thinks like Susan Estrich, that they hope this woman isn't wrong - because it'll set rape victims back a 100 years and affect future rape victims. So, the media, whom we know all influence trials, will be happy to throw a "racist - homophobe" over board in order to protect future rape victims - and allow the media to save face on the initial conviction in the media.
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.