The fact that Precious seems to have had sex within hours of the alleged assault would certainly be relevant with regard to how she got the "diffuse edema". So I don't see any way Nifong could weasel out of things that way.
Actually, if one really wanted to nail Nifong, one could suggest that Precious was telling the truth about being raped without condoms, but was completely confused as to where and when it happened. That's actually the only scenario that makes sense which would involve Precious actually being sexually assaulted by anyone, but under that scenario the DNA is absolutely exculpatory; further, it raises the question of why Nifong seems to have no interest in doing anything about the actual rapists.
Yes, the DNA matches are relevant to the question of how she received the supposed diffuse edema, just as they are relevant in that they impeach the credibility of her statements to police (claiming no sex for 2 wks).
But the important thing isn't whether Nifong would win or lose evidentiary rulings in the underlying case; I think he would lose those rulings.
As I said, Nifong doesn't need to make WINNING legal arguments on these points, his best defense in my opinion is to demonstrate that he took these actions based on his understanding (faulty as it may be) of the law, and not out of bad faith. IMO for Nifong, worst case is the bar commission concludes he acted in bad faith, and they disbar him permanently; best case is they conclude he was incompetent but acted in good faith, and he gets a serious censure and a temporary suspension (maybe 1-2 yrs) of his law license.
Remember, the disciplinary committee is NOT going to want to get drawn into considering the merits of the underlying case or considering the merits of evidentiary rulings; for example, they will not take any position as to whether Precious was telling the truth or which of her versions is most believable.
Nevertheless the members of the bar committee can easily imagine themselves in the shoes of defense counsel and will likely want to send a message throughout the bar that opposing counsel ought not to be playing games when it comes to sharing evidence with the other side.
As to the media statements, I think the bar committee will criticize Nifong for some of the statements, but they will not consider that as serious as the withholding of the DNA report, because so many lawyers (probably some on the bar commission) enjoy the attention brought by a high profile case and speaking to the press.
Precisely.
It would be spectacular if dereliction of duty was added to the charges. It would in essence be saying that if she was raped, Nifong had failed to pursue identification and apprehension of the perpetrators after the DNA evidence exonerated the lax boys.
In my #28 to you, I'm not saying dereliction is even a possible charge. I was mostly fantasizing. ;>
Duke Lacrosse Accuser: Injuries Consistent With Sexual Assault?
Recently, I had the chance to ask a fellow colleague what she thought. She is a nationally certified forensics nurse with almost 15 years experience in this field, who hasn't been following the Duke case.
I started out by asking her how she could recognize diffuse vaginal wall edema in a sexual assault case? She gave me this kind of dumb founded look, then asked the same question I've been asking myself all along: "How could you even see it?"
See, this has been the crux of the problem for me all along. I kept asking myself how was this nurse able to see the edema? I never have - not by itself, without any redness or other signs. I kept thinking, there has to be something else, some other genital findings. Everything I've been reading though states otherwise.
Now I know there can be rape without any physical or genital injuries. In fact, in most rape cases there aren't any injuries.
But the fact is, Sergeant Gottlieb specifically stated in his report that he asked if there were injuries consistent with a sexual assault and was told that that the “blunt force trauma” seen in the examination “was consistent with the sexual assault that was alleged by the victim.” That "blunt force trauma" has apparently turned out to be only diffuse vaginal wall edema.* The media reports state that is the only genital injury listed besides rectal edema.
Well, here's the problem: Edema, diffuse or otherwise, is not an injury. It is the body's response to an injury, an infection, or a disease or inflammatory process of some sort. It can be caused by any number of things.
Edema is not a characteristic of blunt force trauma. Characteristics of blunt force trauma are: contusions, abrasions, and lacerations.
http://tinyurl.com/353fpt