Posted on 10/11/2006 1:52:56 AM PDT by abb
Well madam investigator, Nifong has:
1. Admitted proximity, ie Mangum, Evans, Finerty and Seligmann were all at the same location.
2. Mangums allegation
3. A rape exam not inconsistent with rape. I am not saying consistent with rape, but the rape exam did not prove she was not raped.
Other than that, he has no physical evidence that I know of? He has claims of racial taunts back and forth which are not evidence and I doubt could be admitted in court.
Am I missing anything and are 1-3 enough to make a prima facie case?
My biggest hope is that a new DA is selected in Nov and he uses his head and drops this mess.
I spoke to a CT judge who said that once a Grand Jury returns an indictment, a DA is off the hook unless he knowingly presented false info. I didn't ask him about the lineups and I wished I had :(
Well, that's what I meant when I said a credible allegation. Something to corroborate and support the AV's claim.
I agree that Liefong has nothing. And yet the case keeps going. It's in court and the judge and lawyers are going about their business as though this is normal.
What do you think about the defense filing a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence? Megyn Kendall said on O'Reilly that the defense is nervous about doing that because the standard for Nifong to get this to trial is so low. But he has nothing besides the accuser's testimony and whatever her story du jour is. Oh yea, and diffuse edema. Beyond that he has nothing. That must be a really low standard.
That old man is nothing but a damned liar and has done nothing but lie from the start. But leave it to the limp-weenie media there to drag him out for another round of BS when the going gets tough. The H-S has no shame, none at all. They still don't get it - nobody is buying their smoke and mirrors anymore.
The old man says he hasn't seen her in months. Isn't that nice. Wasn't she hooking in Charlotte the last we all knew of her? She had/has a website linking her to some whorehouse/escort services in Charlotte. Maybe daddy should fire up his pickup and head to Charlotte to find his little lost girl who's subjecting her kids to the life she leads. Why hasn't somebody dropped a dime on the whore to CPS (Child protective Services) and had her meal tickets taken away?
Yea but,
1. Were Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans all there at the relevant time, together in the bathroom with Precious?
2. Mangum's allegation - which allegation? She's told a dozen stories and none of them have any basis in fact. They aren't credible.
3. Diffuse edema can be caused by consensual sex. As for the rape exam proving there WASN'T a rape, that's theoretically imposssible. You can't prove a negative.
No, they're not. He has to have evidence that a crime was committed before he can go forward with a prosecution. The medical evidence must show there was a rape, not MAYBE there was a rape. The fact that Mangum was in male company, no matter whose, is certainly not proof a crime occurred. Mangum's stories contradict each other and conflict with other substantiated facts and witness statements, so her allegation cannot stand as OBJECTIVE evidence of a crime. Prosecutors and cops can investigate when they think a crime may have been committed, and should, but they cannot prosecute without objective and adequate evidence that a crime occurred. The only way Liefong moved this forward was by avoiding a real investigation and ramming through the indictments, which wasn't all that hard given NC's system, and since NC doesn't have a probable cause hearing process beyond that, Liefong has gotten to sustain the prosecution without having any sort of legally provable case. His case does not meet the legal standards for prosecution, but NC law permits him to go forward without examination of the elements of the crime and probable cause before a court.
Sarah, I know there could be a problem putting all four together at the same time, but that goes to proving the case. I was asking Jezebelle as an investigator [or ex-investigtor] whether she viewed what Nifong has makes a prima facie case.
I did not think so, but wanted to see her opinion. As you know I am not an attorney nor an investigator, so I am not sure what it takes to make a prima facie case legally.
A prima facie case means you have sufficient evidence, that unrebutted, proves a certain fact. This evidence, standing alone would compel a conclusion favorable to the prosecution if the defendant produces no evidence to rebut it. Basically this is enough evidence to get you past a motion to dismiss or motion for a directed verdict.
I don't think he has it because he has to have prima facie evidence as to every fact necessary to prove the elements of his case.
Nifong has an accuser with a rambling story and about as weak a medical report as you can get. The medical report certainly doesn't back up the accuser's story of a three person, three orifice gang rape. It doesn't support the notion that she was hit and kicked. He has no corroboration for her story - either eyewitness corroboration or physical evidence such as DNA. He has a big fat zero.
Timed wisely, it would be a good move, in my opinion. But that assumes a judge who is stand-up and cares more about the law than he does politics. I don't know enough about this judge to say for sure, so I'm not going to second-guess defense counsel.
What I do know for sure, though, is that the law in NC needs to be changed. Their system is medeval - no, make that medevIl.
"Reid's typed report makes no mention of bruises, only a cut heel, a cut toe and bandages on both knees. Reid's photographs of the accuser's face and neck show no bruises."
Seems strange. If her father is telling the truth, she should have looked pretty bad when Reid saw her.
"Mangum's father" and "truth" create an oxymoron when used in the same sentence.
Unfortunately Mangum's statement unrebutted by the defense is probably is a prima facie case then. While you are correct, the rape exam is about was weak as it can be, it does not show that a rape could not have taken place.
What is going to do Nifong in is his refusal to look at the evidence the defendant's offered him or Roberts throwing him under the bus and admitting he gave her the sweatheart bail deal in exchange for her moving her story toward Mangun's.
Sure she has..
On March 14th at about 1:30 AM: she told Ofc. Shelton that she saw the AV walking alone down Buchanan St. when a bunch of white guys ran out of the house and starting yelling bad words at her, so she picked her up and brought her to safety. She told him that was the first time they met.
On March 22nd at about 2:30 PM: she told Ofc. Hinman that she arrived at the 610 Buchanan house at about 11:00 PM and chit chatted with the boys till about 11:30 PM when the AV arrived. She said they walked to the back porch where they talked about the dance. She told him that was the first time they met.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/us/14duke.html
Duff is nuts...
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liduke1014,0,7813904.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
Collin was apparently there for the show.
No, you're not understanding. In order for there to be a prosecutable case, the first thing required is that there be an objective, substantiated showing that a crime occurred. Such a showing, which derives from evidence, is unrebutted due to there being no evidence that conflicts or rebuts it. That is determined at the investigative phase before there is a defense. It's not something the defense presents, but is part of the process of determining if a crime was committed and, if so, what crime. The conflicting statements, which are evidence, along with Kim's statements are dispositive of a crime having occurred.
The rape exam and the lack of DNA foreign to Mangum or anybody she admits having consensual sex with are also dispostive of a crime occurring. The reason the rape exam is dispositive of the crime occurring is because Mangum describes be anally assaulted, beaten about the head and face, kicked, and held in a choke hold. There is no physical evidence of any of that occurring, so the medical report is inconsistent with the accuser's statement. Further rebutting her accusation is photographic evidence of Mangum falling down the steps and having bruises on her legs at the outset of the dancing. The fact that it's the defense that has that evidence is beside the point. It exists, and was offered to the prosecutor who declined to look at it. That means the prosecutor refused to look at evidence that directly pertains to whether or not a crime occurred at all.
What has happened here is that Liefong has defied the accepted presumption that LE's job is to investigate crimes and alleged crimes with due diligence for the purpose of attaining a just result. There is nothing failsfe in NC's system - no check and balance - to address a situation in which the steps taken by LE deliberately avoid the expected and presumed purposes of diligent officers engaged in the criminal justice system.
Here's another one...
In her March 20th 10:10 AM: Phone interview with Hinman, the "crock" statement.. Kim says that "she was with her the whole time, until she left. And the only time she was alone was when she would not leave and that time period was less than 5 minutes"
In her March 22nd 2:30 PM: Statement, Kim writes.. "I went to my car wanting to leave, but not wanting to leave the girl in the house alone"... Kim left the AV in the bathroom and went to the car alone... later in the same statement she writes this... "I made an attempt to get her things, I took my belongings, locked her in my car and went back up to the house to try and retrieve her bag."... Leaving her alone for the second time.
Neither of these comport to the separation time described by the AV.
The reason I think her statement might not be enough is because there isn't enough support for the specifics of her statement. The physical evidence doesn't back up her story. She'd get on the stand and testify to a brutal gang rape in a small space. She got penetrated anally, vaginally and orally. No one used a condom and two of the guys "finished". Then the medical personnel will testify that they found edema and two cuts. The only semen they could find was her boyfriend's. Her story doesn't match the facts. None of her stories match the facts.
If just her story is enough then any woman can claim rape by any man and even though there are no injuries or evidence of any kind other than her say-so, the case can go to a jury. That doesn't seem right to me. That may be the law but if so, then Shakespeare was right - the law is an ass.
Darby, has Roberts told the police Mangum was raped and also told them she wasn't raped? Has she told them they were always together except for less than 5 minutes and also told them they were apart longer than 5 minutes or long enough for what Mangum said happened (in whichever of Mangum's stories the prosecution is going with) to have happened? Has she told them Mangum's story was a crock and then told them it wasn't? Did she tell them Mangum wanted to go back inside to make more money and then recant that? That's what I'm talking about - not when they first met or who drove whom where afterwards, but what happened at the house in relation to Mangum's claims.
Roberts lied to the cops about picking Mangum up because she didn't want to go into the dance thing, who she worked for, and all that. She wanted to avoid giving them reason to think anything wrong or bad or fishy about her because she wanted to avoid them doing a warrant check. Being an exotic dancer and working out of an escort service are usually a signal that you have a record of some sort. She lied in the 911 call because she was pissed off at the boys. Neither of those events have anything to do with whether or not Mangum was raped. Those two events are only peripherally related and have nothing to do with the heart of the case. It's not complicated at all.
Roberts has not given conflicting statements to the cops with respect to any facts she's aware of surrounding Mangum's claim of being raped. If you find one, let me know.
I have not been talking about Kim's statements comporting with Mangum's statements. I have been talking about Kim's statements comporting with Kim's statements.
According to the statements you've quoted, I still don't see a problem, since Mangum claims she was raped in the bathroom, not the car. Kim's statements address leaving Mangum alone in the bathroom for less than 5 minutes. She later says she also left Mangum alone in the car, locked in, while she went back to retrieve her bag. When the question before you is was there enough time that she was left alone for what she says happened to actually have happened, leaving her locked in the car doesn't enter into it since Mangum claims the rape took place in the house, not the car.
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.