Posted on 01/14/2007 4:25:09 PM PST by Howlin
Comments here!
Thank you. I'm sick & tired of her face being blanked out like some poor little victim that is being protected. The boys faces sure haven't been blanked out. And they're the victims in this mess. Her face should be plastered everywhere.
It was discussed on Greta that he has kept the accuser away from her family. Not even allowing them to contact her at all.
At that time an "incoherent" Precious was at Durham Access.
2:12:08 AM “Uh, um, yeah call and see if you can’t get somebody to go up to Charles street there and check on the young ‘uns”
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/04/duke-lacrosse-rape-timeline.html
About 1:4? a.m., Two other officers arrive. Officer Barfield takes the accuser to Durham Access, a county-run facility for detoxification, because of her inebriated state and she met the criteria for involuntary commitment. Officer Joseph M. Stewart followed Officer Barfield to Durham Access to assist him if needed.
The accuser interacted with at least three Durham Access Center staff members: Alycia Wright, Meriecia Smith, and Gerri Lomuriel Wilkes. In response to a question from one of those staff members, accuser initially alleged that she was raped. DPD event logs indicate that accuser was at the Durham Access Center for 40 minutes. Ms. Wilkes told Kirk Osborn that she took handwritten notes of her observations.
about 2:?? a.m., Officer Barfield calls Sgt. Shelton saying that the woman had reported being raped at the party. Shelton told the officer to take her to Duke Hospital. Officer Willie Barfield, drove women from Durham Access to Duke hospital.
2:31 a.m., Accuser arrives at Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) emergency room. Sgt. Shelton goes to DUMC.
Because the great British army and its condescending and imperial commanders were so contempuous of all things colonial.
The few colonist that did agree to fight with the British troops were so mistreated that few more ever agreed to fight.
The British were very skeptial that those colonists who appeared to be on their side actually were on their side. There was much distrust by the British troops. When every other person wants to see you dead, there is 50-50 chance that any colonist the British trusted would turn out to be a major blunder.
This girl (hey Jesse Jackasson, where is that college scholarship by the way?) had the DNA of five guys in her.
It wasn't the Duke Lacrosse team ......... it was a basketball team.
Blog Hooligans Rock
Wonder who that hooligan was that "accidently" left her face in.
mark
Which is exactly why Duke has been erased from the list of potential colleges for my daughter. It was top of the list.
Didn't Mr. Jackson say that he'd pay her college regardless of if the charges turned out to be true or not?
You are slighting here the often extensive British efforts to win hearts and minds. Actually, the parallels between the British effort to build a loyal American army and the current U.S. effort to build a loyal Iraqi army were remarkably similar. Both, of course, including many twists and turns. Why did the efforts the fail on the British part? The answer is pretty clear: relatively few Americans supported the Patriot cause and those who did lacked zeal and had to be repeatedly bailed out by British regulars, hence the later necessity to bring in Hessians.
You're welcome. There is actually some stuff that has been written on this by William Marina. The title is something like "the myth of the minority Revolution." This entire one third/one third/one third theory draws on Adams letter which again, according to Marina, refers to the Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian division of public opinion on the French Revolution.
Nifong indicted two players one month after the charges were made, and the third one two months after, and in the meantime the other players didn't know if they would be singled out or not--since none of them was guilty of anything, no one could take comfort in being innocent (or even in being able to prove they weren't present at the party).
Of course, that doesn't explain why Broadbent fired the lacrosse coach...that certainly implied a presumption of guilt on his part.
The 60 Minutes program didn't say anything about the Gang of 88 on the Duke faculty, perhaps because doing that would highlight the let-the-facts-be-damned attitude on the part of the Durham black community and the Duke faculty feminists.
That 60 Minutes has run interviews both with the three accused students and now with the three sets of parents, allowing them to make their case rather than trying to destroy them in the public mind, indicates that even a lot of liberals think the students are falsely accused.
Franklin Roosevelt made a speech on Sept. 11, 1941, in which he referred to the German naval forces as "the rattlesnakes of the Atlantic." That was before the sinking of the Reuben James.
"Nifong is now, in effect, exercising his Fifth Amendment rights."
Although it seems to be an unlikely possibility, Nifong might ultimately decide to take the Fifth in the disciplinary proceedings (not only "in effect," but in relaity), because although by its literal terms applicable only in criminal proceedings, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination has long been held to be properly asserted by parties in civil proceedings. McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S. Ct. 16, 17, 69 L. Ed. 158 (1924). (The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment was first applied to the States under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 12 L. Ed. 2d 653, 84 S. Ct. 1489 (1964)).
"A witness' privilege against self-incrimination 'not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.'" State ex rel. Munn v. McKelvey, 733 S.W.2d 765, 768 (Mo. banc 1987) (quoting Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S. Ct. 316, 322, 38 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1973)). The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination may, therefore, be asserted not only at trial, but during the discovery stage as well. State ex rel. Lieberman v. Goldman, 781 S.W.2d 802, 805 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Graystone Nash, Inc., 25 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir. 1994).
"The normal rule in a criminal case is that no negative inference from the defendant's failure to testify is permitted." Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 327-28, 119 S. Ct. 1307, 1314-15, 143 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1999). However, "the courts have never held that a Fifth Amendment claimant in a civil proceeding must be shielded from all possible negative consequences that may attend his invocation of the privilege. In fact, civil claimants have been denied certain benefits and exposed to negative consequences as a result of having invoked the privilege." In re Moses, 792 F. Supp. 529, 536 (E.D. Mich. 1992) (emphasis added); see also Cruce v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co., 851 S.W.2d 10, 14 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993).
When Philly DA Lynne Abraham (who is still in office) prosecuted anti-Clinton protestor Don Adams for assaulting the fists of Teamsters with his face.
"And we know the reason he didn't talk to her. He didn't want to have to act responsibly about her extreme inconsistencies. To interview her prior to the November election would force him to dismiss the charges, but he didn't want to because it would cost him black votes, the only solid voting block he could count on because they were salivating to see rich white boys sent to prison. Refusing to interview Mangum or read the case file closely [until] after getting the indictments would help him establish plausible deniability when the rubber met the road."
Yep, that's a very definite possibility, Jezebelle. As I explained to JLS and Ohioan From Florida when they originally expressed strong concerns that I would believe anything Nifong has said just because he said it, there are many ways (and many reasons) for a prosecutor to commit professional misconduct.
The important thing is that we all agree Nifong is subject to discipline for prosecutorial misconduct.
How right you are. At times I have felt the manic-depressives I have known should be called manipulative-depressives instead.
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.