Posted on 08/24/2006 8:01:43 PM PDT by Perdogg
DURHAM, N.C. — On March 21, a week after an African-American woman charged that she had been raped by three white Duke University lacrosse players, the police sergeant supervising the investigation met with the sexual-assault nurse who had examined the woman in the emergency room. The sergeant, Mark D. Gottlieb, reviewed the medical report, which did not say much: some swelling, no visible bruises.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I talked to my contact @ WRAL about this - she said she would bring it up with her General Manager. I told her that as far as the blogger community was concerned (Lol, took it upon myself to speak for everyone) we didn't trust anyone in the Durham judicial system - we needed to see for ourselves. And I bragged to her on how valuable the archived clips of the earlier hearings have been to us...
"His role is to both oversee a fair trial and convince the public that it was a fair "trial."
Maybe his role is just to protect the corrupt oligarchy which has been looting Durham for years.
Maybe these guys have been operating in their tiny corner of the world for so long that they can't really understand that a giant spotlight has just been turned on.
"What's different about this case is that it would never have been brought under normal circumstances."
Nifong hasn't been alone; he's had cooperation. The first honest judge at the bench should have stopped this case cold.
But Nifong knew he could trust his co-conspirators--so we have Stephens and Titus and Bushfan cooperating, and not throwing the case out--not even admonishing him for providing false info for warrants which they signed.
It's a perfect storm, plus a corrupted judicial system, plus
a corrupted local newspaper, plus a North Carolina DA
system that permits DAs to become tyrants over scheduling
and judge-shopping.
True, but there are plenty of judges who don't want cameras in their courtrooms. I think banning them was bad judgment in this particular case because there's so much suspicion surrounding the Durham system and the DA himself. Leaving the courtroom open to cameras would go a long way toward assuaging some of that suspicion. It's usually accepted that a judge who bans cameras does it because he is a no-nonsense judge who wants to avoid the circus atmosphere in his courtroom that the press is famous for creating. But because of the suspicions surrounding the application of the process in this case and the DA himself, banning the cameras just heightens the suspicions. But there should be ample legal reporters (lawyer-journalists) present to give the public a full report on the intricacies and nuances of what takes place as well as the legal implications of the main substance of the hearings.
I don't think she hallucinated a rape. She conjured it up to avoid a court-ordered drug test and the likelihood of going to jail.
How ya doin' Jezebelle? ;-)
I would think Durham will NOT allow any cameras, because they are afraid the entire world will see how stupid many of them are. They will not do well on TV, as many have already witnessed during the recent hearings.
The day after incident, she told UNC medical that she'd had a lot to drink the night before. I contend she did that to account for her behavior, some of which she probably couldn't remember, and her condition which was largely induced by a combination of drugs and alcohol by blaming alcohol entirely, a legal substance.
Normally, I would agree, Jez. But would you trust the NandO and HS to be honest what with all the dealings we've had with them? IMO, not a chance...
I'm sure there will be some good reporting but I just like to see for myself. I also agree with you that they should allow cameras because of all the suspicion about this case. Maybe they will for the trial - if it gets that far - he just banned them for pre-trial hearings. I wonder if anyone in the media will file a motion for him to reconsider?
I agree with your last sentence - that Mangum may have convinced herself by now that she really was raped. Weak-minded, dependent people such as she have a coping mechanism by which they adopt fictions as their realities. Actually, sociopaths do the same thing, but for a different reason.
If Nifong doesn't call her as a witness, the defense can.
Damned good job abb.
I agree. She made up the rape and she knows it's a false story. I don't think she hallucinated it but I do think she's disturbed.
I think she made it up to get out of a bad situation at Durham Access. In fact, apparently someone asked her if she had been raped and she said yes and I think she realized that was her ticket out.
New bloggery here...
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=598
1). I doubt that Mangum would have to testify for the motions. I don't think the ban includes reporters in the courtroom, just cameras and recorders. There were no cameras during the Scott Peterson trial nor the Michael Jackson trial. Reporters were armed with blackberries, giving reports from inside the courtroom to their counterparts outside who reported on camera to their respective news stations. Most judges don't have "Itoitis." I wouldn't read a whole lot into the banning of cameras and recorders, even though I think it was a mistake.
2). I doubt that news stations will sue to get cameras in there.
3). Lol, yes, he probably is. Bad call, imo.
4). He's probably a better liar. He probably also wants to play along to get along. He's got his own troubles. Plus, at the time this case came down he was probably on departmental probation because he was promoted to sergeant less than a year before, then to supervisor of investigations in Feb. of '06. I don't know if the supervisorial position was just a command assignment or an actual promotion, but if it was, his probationary status would probably have started again then. If it wasn't, he nevertheless would have still been on probation when this case came down as he was promoted to sergeant in May of '05.
When there is an indictment, or an arrest warrant signed by another judge, a judge sitting for the hearings and even the trial cannot simply dismiss charges and throw out evidence willy-nilly. The proper motions have to be made and heard. I believe some of those motions have been made, and they follow a logical order in their presentation. We all hate that this case is going on, but we have to just be patient until the motions are heard. Getting this case out of the queue is extremely helpful. "Put up or shut up" will soon be upon us, I believe.
Lol, well, all those "plusses" are some of the elements of the perfect storm I was talking about, plus Mangum and her situation, spring break and the boys' situation, this being Duke, a prestigious university in a town overloaded with poor blacks and a lot of black criminals, and a black town leadership, on and on. It's uncanny how it all came together to create this masterpiece of a disaster.
Howdy, Tommy. :> Where ya' been lately?
It's hard to know at this point what is in this particular judge's mind. I don't want to sound as though I'm making excuses for his decision because I think it was a bad one in this particular case, but many judges have disallowed cameras in their courtrooms since the OJ case. It is a distraction and causes people to behave and conduct themselves unnaturally, and creates controversies and gossip among courtroom novices and onlookers - a circus that just doesn't have to be.
How about Greta, Megyn Kendall, Beth Carras, Dan Abrams and the many other good legal reporters out there?
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.