Posted on 09/18/2006 5:19:53 PM PDT by abb
DURHAM - One of three people who saw the accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case at the crisis center where she first reported being sexually assaulted kept notes of her observations, defense lawyers said in a motion filed in court today.
In the early hours of March 14, the accuser was taken to Durham Access Center because she reportedly met the criteria for involuntary commitment, defense lawyer Brad Bannon wrote in the motion filed in Durham County Court today.
While there for 40 minutes, the accuser interacted with three women on the center's staff, the motion says.
Gerri Lomuriel Wilkes, who was working at the center the morning the accuser came in, took hand-written notes of her observations, according to the motion.
Kirk Osborn, the lawyer representing Reade Seligmann, one of three lacrosse players accused in the case, found out about the notes while interviewing Wilkes, the motion says.
Defense lawyers are asking that the notes be turned over to them.
District Attorney Mike Nifong has told defense lawyers during discovery hearings that no notes were made at the center, that only a log existed from there.
In previous documents handed over to defense lawyers, there is no evidence that police tried to contact Wilkes about that morning.
Also, defense lawyers are asking the state for a bill of particulars in which they hope to get a more precise timeline of the alleged offenses and find out which bathroom at 610 N. Buchanan the gang-rape allegedly occurred.
They also are asking the state to specify which "sexual act" each defendant is accused of committing. Staff writer Anne Blythe can be reached at 932-8741 or ablythe@newsobserver.com.
CTV seems to be retracting the "second male DNA" claims.
No penetration, but just thinking about it caused her so much pain and swelling? And yet there will be those out there that will buy this hook and sinker.
kevin finnerty in court (colin's dad)
http://www.wral.com/news/9911326/detail.html
on video
I just feel so bad for these families. I can't believe this case is going on.
update w/pic of kevin finnerty
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/489469.html
The mere thought of Liefong makes me puke. What a despicable creature. He's even too unprofessional for the traffic desk, if you ask me....not that anybody is.... just had to vent. He's what I think is referred to as a mofo? (Can I say that??? - Please edit last sentence out, if needed, mods.)
on the abc board someone said that the defense has trascripts from the poll of Nifongs wife that proved she is misleading, ok, I think they said lied. Have you heard anything?
have not heard that.
sorry, "transcripts" not "trascripts. They also said there are recordings...
Reade, Collin, and Dave might as well go ahead and report to the warden.
I certainly understand the need to vent. Nifong is a pathetic excuse for a human being and an embarrassment to the entire legal profession. His misconduct and lies are so blatant and yet no one will stop him. Unbelievable.
I'm glad Collin's dad is there. I hope he ruins Nifong. He has the financial resources to do it.
I believe Karras said she was mistaken about the 2nd male DNA. There actually isn't any, I believe.
mark
Nifong hasn't decided how it happened yet. When he figures it out, he'll let Mangum know.
Nifong affirmatively stated there were no records from Durham Access, yet there are. Can it be that he did not have inquiries made there because whatever happened or Mangum said while there would not be helpful to his case? So, when he said there were no records from the facility, once again it was a parsed spinning of the truth which is that HE has no records to turn over in discovery because HE did not seek any.
It doesn't sound fishy to me. Security people often keep log books of what transpires on their shift.
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.