Posted on 04/18/2006 3:26:57 AM PDT by Mad-Margaret
DURHAM -- A day after a grand jury indicted two Duke University lacrosse players in connection with a reported rape, two men emerged from a sheriff's deputy vehicle and were led, handcuffed, into the magistrates office at the Durham County Jail at 4:54 a.m. today.
The arrests stem from a party that began March 13. The accuser, who is a mother of two, an N.C. Central University student and an escort service dancer, told police March 14 that she was sexually assaulted by three men in a bathroom at an off-campus house shared by three lacrosse team captains. The accuser is black; she said her rapists were white.
Defense lawyers said players maintained that there was no sex at all. They said the accuser concocted the story, that she was drunk and injured late March 13 when she arrived at the three-bedroom house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.
"... Two young men have been charged with crimes they did not commit. This is a tragedy," Bob Ekstrand, who represents team players, said Monday in a prepared statement. "For the two young men, an ordeal lies ahead. They do not face it alone; they face it with the love of family and friends and strengthened by the truth. They are both innocent."
Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens sealed a manila envelope containing the indictments shortly after the grand jury finished its business Monday. The judge cited a state law that requires everyone involved in a case, including witnesses, to keep the indictment secret until a suspect is arrested.
Last month, a judge ordered DNA tests on the team's 46 white players; he excluded the only black team member. The players' attorneys say the tests showed none of the players' genetic material on or in the woman.
Nifong, bolstered by a medical exam that found injuries on the woman consistent with sexual assault, says he is confident that she was assaulted in the university-owned house. Nifong said last week at a forum at NCCU that the accuser identified at least one of her attackers.
Until Sunday night, the only other witness, the second woman hired to dance at the party, had remained silent. In television interviews, she told her story.
The woman's attorney, Mark Simeon of Durham, declined Monday to make her available for an interview. She spoke on the MSNBC cable news network, which did not identify her and showed her in silhouette. Simeon confirmed that it was his client on MSNBC.
The woman told MSNBC that she did not witness a rape and does not know whether one occurred.
The woman said she arrived thinking that she would be dancing at a bachelor party of 15 people. She was not expecting a party of lacrosse players, many of whom she said were in a drunken stupor. The woman said she was infuriated to learn that some players photographed her dancing.
The accuser did not appear to be on drugs or to have been drinking when she arrived, the second dancer said. She was "absolutely fine and in control of herself."
When the accuser left, less than an hour after she arrived, she was incoherent and stumbling, the second dancer said.
"She couldn't really walk on her own," the woman said. "She really couldn't get her thoughts together enough to answer any questions. ... She was a different person than I met at the beginning."
The second woman said she was the person who called 911 as the party was breaking up, to complain that some lacrosse players had used racial slurs. "The boys hollered the 'N' word," she said. "I was upset and called 911."
She said she pretended to be a passer-by because she didn't want people in her life to know about her job as an escort service dancer.
It is unclear how that woman's story would affect the case. Players' attorneys have said she would only help them. By day's end Monday, Nifong left without talking to reporters; it remains unclear what evidence he has.
Throughout Monday, there were many more reporters on the sixth floor of the courthouse than the 18 members of the grand jury panel. Reporters tracked the district attorney's movements in minute detail. Just after noon, Nifong emerged from his office and walked across the hallway to the bathroom.
Reporters surrounded the bathroom door in a crowd that included five television cameras, three still photographers, sound men with boom microphones and at least a dozen print reporters. At the sound of flushing, the group tensed, raised cameras and prepared. Nifong did not emerge with news.
"I no longer get to go anywhere in my community without people knowing who I am," said Nifong, who faces two challengers in a primary election May 2. Staff writer Anne Blythe can be reached at 932-8741 or ablythe@newsobserver.com.
Maybe we are on mind different tracks, but I did read the responses before posting. "Foreign object" was ruled out. "Penis penetration" was ruled out.
So? How does a man rape if not using an object or a penis?
If you are thinking along oral lines; you'd be wrong. In law, that's still considered in most states as sodomy. Not rape.
Oh, yes do add that sentence on just for kickers.
That I am not sure. I thought the question was how a rape could occur without a penis. I missed a reply by someone else mentioning no object was use.
Those rich, white people!
I'm starting to hate them too. I'm surprised they didn't list the assessed value of the SUV and its gas mileage.
The News&Observer interviewed the accuser and her father and in those interviews her father says she was driving the day after the incident. It is widely believed that her license is suspended. Gee, why do you think the New&Observer didn't point that out.
What's worse, running a red light, or driving illegally with a suspended license and no insurance?
So many parallels in this case.
.
I understood your point quite clearly - Hollywood creates an impression of the court system that doesn't generally reflect reality (and that the system is corrupt in many ways).
You say my synopsis has errors and I will admit it was a stream of thought trying to remember all the major points so it is generally in chronological order but not perfect.
I am not even disputing that the movie is the sum of parts of a system that has gone wrong in many ways.
Still my review stands. This wasn't just a case essentially lost because of the forces against him, including himself - this was a story of a lawyer that went against his own clients wishes, got in over his head, tried to reapply for the settlement $, failed due to inadmissable evidence, a judge that wrongfully allowed the introduction of said evidence, promptly had evidence stricken and jury advised, and then won by jury nullification.
He had no right and in fact had an obligation to be reasonably secure that his case could win at trial even if a civil proceeding has a lower threshhold for burden of proof.
Jury sympathy producing verdicts, whether serving justice or not, is not a solution for corruption but an invitation for more. This movie could have provided a truly compelling case where multiple testimony, introduced evidence made it abundantly clear that an injustice would be realized if the jury ("YOU are the law. Not the lawyers. Not the judge. Not the....) didn't exercise their veto ability (ignoring jury instructions, standards of proof). This was not such a case and you have no proof unless you actually address points in my review which you apparently have now "testified" you would not do.
"Apparently you're everything people seem to think you are."
What the hell does that mean?
"I think it best that you and I just stick to our respectives frames of reference and discontinue the dialogue."
My frame of reference is that I saw the movie and wrote a quick review highlighting moments in the movie and my perception of said points. You're frame of reference is that you say you've been to court and know prosecutors and the system is corrupt so we must corrupt back. BS. This was judicial activism plain and simple - I don't like it from judges and I don't like it from juries.
And last but not least: I almost hurled when the jury requested for a higher settlement than asked for. Now that I would call "Super Jury Nullification."
She has to testify.
I'm PRAYIN' this is solid stuff.
On further thought......I wonder if CNN has this right. I thought the alibi on one (do you know which one) was pretty solid, the other was iffy - just a possibility. I wonder if the Clinton News Network has just picked up the details wrong and is lumping a possibility in with the other more solid one. DFid they say anything specific, or was it real quick and general?
She has to testify.
When she realized she was going to the nut ward, she claimed rape.
First she was going to the drunk tank, then the psych ward, then she came up with the rape charge.
I notice Nifong has never siad anything about her being drugged. If DMC ran a tox screen, I hope we learn the results of it soon. The defense should get every record Nifong has and start exposing them. If they've got valid, solid alibis, Nifong is going to have to dismiss this.
Was she a Gore supporter? Or just anxious (and breathless as usual) to get the word out first?
All the reports rushed to the cameras with the story. My guess is she was in too much of a hurry to get to the camera and she didn't get her story straight.
All the reporters........ Time to sleep
The one with a previous charge (Finnerty) has the weaker alibi. I heard that he was at a Restaurant and people there can place him there.
Seligmann has the airtight alibi.
But, one showing they couldn't have possibily been involved will cast doubt on all "selections".
It looks like it took almost a month for her to ID these boys. Her father said she told him THE DAY AFTER the event that she had to go to the Policestation and identify them.
That delay is little too much to take.
If you don't get DNA in a case where the victim is reportedly beaten, kicked, strangled and then Gang-raped by men drinking from a KEG...
I would think Gang-Rapes are the crime with the most likelyhood of finding DNA. This is actually a good point, because I bet the 75-80% stat Nifong quoted is for simple rapes. Not Gang Rapes and sodomies. I'd be willing to bet.
.
Thanks for the info.
I wonder how good Finnerty's alibi is. I wonder if there's a dinner check or check card or credit card debit for him to use. Anything like that available, or is it strictly a witness identification?
Yes, I've also pointed out that this mid-identification on the one will certainly taint the identification of the other.
The identification isn't going to hold up because the team roster has been plastered everywhere, including the newspaper. Of course, she'll lie and say she didn't see it, but I don't think anybody but blacks will believe her, and that's only because they want to believe her.
Do we know for sure yet if there is a video surveillance of Seligman at the ATM during the party?
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.