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 the case of Durham, circus might be a good word, considering all the monkeys and clowns involved! LOL!
Well, if anyone does, it will probably be outside media, not local. And if it's outside media, I doubt they will prevail. Judges are stubborn by nature.
It ain't the trial I'm worried about, it's the 9/22 hearing. That crew won't be there for that hearing.
I think some are judging him prematurely, and my guess is that he's well aware of why this case has been deemed "exceptional". Again, there is nothing unusual about a judge banning cameras, especially older judges. Frankly, if I was a judge, I wouldn't want them in my courtroom, either. I just think he should have given more weight to the suspicions surrounding the application of the process in this case. But if he's a stubborn old coot like a lot of judges, that doesn't matter much to him and he believes he's going to remedy that in his own way and run his courtroom the way he wants to and is used to doing, or figures it's up to the electorate to straighten matters out by electing better people, and to that extent he would be right.
abb is superb. :>
Why won't there be reporters there?
My thinking is, and I could be wrong, is that none of the national reporters will be there. Only the locals, and I just don't trust them...
Well, we'll just have to wait and see. I think outside reporters will be there. It's hard for me to imagine there won't be. Lawyers (which most of these court-watcher journalists are) know the importance of pre-trial motions.
I certainly share your lack of trust in the local yokel media, though.
I think the problems with the view of the courts in this case almost all fall at the feet of Stephens.
1. He was flat lied to to get warrants. When motions were made pointing that out, he did not seem to care.
2. He had Nifong smirking and acting out in his courtroom and did nothing about it.
3. He allowed a defendant to be implicitly threatened in his courtroom admittedly before he arrived without doing a thing about it.
4. He knew nothing about the case but far far too much about that cell phone.
I am not sure if he is honest, cares about his public image or not, but what he accomplished was making himself look like a judge who is at best intimidated by the DA and at worst corrupt. Titus did nothing to change this with is unwillingness to do anything and his quasi-gag order, but it was not as personal as it should have been with Stephens who personally signed those orders based on lies and the negotiations to declare this case exceptional might have been going on the whole time he was handling the case.
Precisely. I ain't gonna trust none of them until they show me something resembling justice...
I wonder if Crystal has figured out which room she danced in at 610 yet?
Maybe Gottlieb finally straightened her out.
WTVD's story here:
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4496849
I think there will be national reporters there too. It's a big case and it touches on all those issues the MSM loves so much - race, class, "privledge", and so on. I don't think they'll be able to resist. As long as we get one really good reporter like Megyn Kendall in there I think it's fine. I would prefer the cameras though because of all the public attention this case has received.
I think the defense will pay to have a responsible reporter on hand. No way will they leave it to the N&O or HS. They'd be crazy to not insure the transcript is accurate.
I had just copied that part about Nifong's comment to paste here. Is he the stupidest person in the world or what?
What that NYT article will accomplish is two things:
1. Bring this case back up on all the cable networks where Nifong will be trashed over and over and over again.
2. Devalue the NYT brand even futher.
BTW, I think the NYT article was more a shot across the bow of Cash Michael as much as anything. It certainly undermines what he was saying and remember he read all the 1800 plus pages too and came to completely different conclusions. It was telling him to get back on the plantation.
With that in mind it the article will not change the mind of anyone who has followed this case. Nor will it change the mind of any of the racists/feminazis. So the way to see any impact of the NYT article is too see if Cash Michael or the likes of Guilfoyl start heading back to Nifong's side.
Well, Smith's ruling has struck a nerve. The AP has run that lede nationally. Let's see how the TH's deal with it...
more chatter...
http://www.slate.com/id/2148442/
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.