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.
A lesson from experience in a civil suit. There are few Henry Fondas on juries. The managing partner in a big Boston Law firm told me that he hated jury trials when he has a winning case, because he still had a 30% chance of losing almost regardless of the facts - so long as the judge did not indicate a directed verdict. On the other hand he loved them when he had a losing case, since he still had a 30% chance of winning, when he really shouldn't.
Sobering statistics since they are not far from a coin flip!
You are missing the point. On April 4 to the police officer he said "trauma". The only thing a witness could testify to is something that they could visibly see and recognize. There is not a snowballs chance in a hot frying pan that any witness they could drum up could testify to vaginal trauma. Nifong lied about a lot of things publicly but to the officer he did not lie. He wanted witnesses to the trauma that he saw on the FA when they first met. If it was there before the party he had to come up with an explanation of how it got there. Since he could not have seen the reports he could only go on what he had visibly observed. I doubt that he did a pelvic exam when he saw the FA.
Why? If they move as slowly as the HUD officials have since 2000 another $3 million or so can end up being unaccounted for.
HUD awarded Durham the $35 million grant in 2000 to tear down the Few Gardens public housing complex and replace it with 425 new East Durham homes. Of that, $5.3 million was budgeted to help the more than 200 families that would be displaced so they could qualify for federally backed mortgages to buy new Hope VI homes.
More than $3 million in grant money was spent, but The N&O reported in April that the authority had lost track of the majority of the families it was supposed to help and that only eight residents completed the required homeownership classes.
What does $3 million divided by 8 come out to be?
Nifong saw trauma that the nurses could not see?
You missed the point entirely.
No, he saw trauma that happened after the nurses saw her. The trauma was there when the FA went to UNC the next day. You know what pimps do to a hooker when the hooker loses the pimps money. The B/F--pimp was not alone with her until after the FA left Duke.
There is not a shred of evidence of anything of the sort, except in your imagination, and that of her father.
But if you avoid CTV, you miss Candy Kisses yelling at you.
I suppose it was also in Dan Abrams imagination as well when he reported the injuries she had at UNC hospital. She didn't have them at Duke less than 12 hours before. Where did she get them? You are the one that does not have a shred of evidence to back you position. Again, I REPEAT, Nifong said trauma, not vaginal trauma. If he had said vaginal trauma the officer would have written it down.
A very nice house anywhere in North Carolina!!
For those that haven't heard, McKinney's campaign entourage now includes members of the New Black Panthers. After her primary defeat Tuesday to Hank Johnson for Georgia's 4th Congressional district, some of these folks went on a bit of a rampage referring to white reporters as "crackers," calling her opponent an "Uncle Tom," blaming her loss on Israel, and shouting anti-Semitic epithets at a Jewish reporter.
What is so difficult for you to understand the pimp/hooker business? It is really simple, you don't bring home the money, you take a beating. It has always been that way. She was expected to earn a lot more money than $400 at that party. Tips should have earned her twice that much. She lost her $400 and didn't get any tips either. She was in double trouble.
What is really funny about this certainty that Nifong was talking about vaginal swelling is our discussion on the previous thread about how one would know enough to testify that someone else did not have vaginal swelling! My wife keeps me more informed about herself than I care to hear sometimes. But I certainly could not testify as to whether she had vaginal swelling before she went to a certain party.
Who could Nifong have been looking for to testify. I know the use of the sex toy says she well may have had vaginal swelling, but say for a moment she had not used a sex toy or had not had sex with anyone that day. Could someone who was with her then testify she did not have vaginal swelling? Heck given her profession, refusal to use a sex toy or have sex with her driver might be talem as evidence of soreness and swelling? But the use of the toy and sex with the driver does not rule out varginal swelling nor does it rule out that either caused swelling.
On the other hand as we have discussed, I would certainly know if my wife had a swollen jaw or a cut on the head etc before she went to a certain party. And that is something I could testify to.
Alas I am probably stirring up the certain again with this post. As I have said, I am happy to let the certain continue to be certain, but I am not willing to change my view without further evidence and by that I do not me MSM outlets ignoring the trip to UNC ER.
She didn't have any trauma at UNC, either. She went there as a private matter for neck pain.
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.