Duke Lacrosse Team

[JEDIYoda]

yeah baby...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Look at most of the current news stories for the comments about "sealed medical records", of the accuser being the reason they decided not to press charges against her. That's effectively code for her having mental illness issues in the past.

This is a huge travesty of justice. The false accuser should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The refusal of the AG to do so is just more evidence of anti-male bias in our society. IMHO, a false accuser should suffer the maximum punishment that the falsely accused would have suffered.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

For anyone who's interested, two of the main blogs, one with a busy discussion forum, that covered this outrage can be found here:

Liestoppers http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/ (has a discussion forum. The name may be a take off on "Crime Stoppers" which may have played a role in demonizing the victims.)

Durham in Wonderland http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

 

[WhipperSnapper]

A little bit of justice?

If you're outraged about the way the victims of the false accusations were treated and want to enjoy a small token of justice, follow this thread and scroll down to the fifth post in it:

http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=2953

...to find what I assume is the cover of the New York Post.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm inclined to disagree. The former defendants (now plaintiffs) would be hard pressed to prove actual malice (aside from Nifong calling them hooligans). Nifong's likely defense would be the case merited INITIAL charges solely b/c there was an accuser that had physical evidence of harm that appeared to be corroborated by medical report (depending on the version). Although the perp ID process was flawed, the accuser still positively ID'd her attackers. The above was sufficient for a grand jury indictment.

Despite the accuser's (hereafter noted as LB) story becoming more fluid, the physical evidence of a sexual violation and her general account was sufficient to continue investigating.

Nifong's excuse for the DNA in the LB is likely to be that it wasn't really exculpatory b/c assailants could have used condoms or foreign objects. The lack of DNA evidence in the bathroom might be a tougher sell. Then again, the press on nail would seem to support part of the LB's narrative.

Nifong's counsel would basically play to the notion that he was a public servant that didn't seek out innocent college students to persecute. The LB came with a plausible story and physical evidence that justified the charges. Nifong may be responsible for overzealousness but that was a function of seeking justice for a young woman he believed had been violated.

As long as Nifong doesn't get representation comparable to the Duke lax guys . . . that story will probably beat a civil rap.

The argument is pretty preposterous when you get down to it though. There was no logical reason he couldn't have waited for the DNA results before seeking an indictment, and he ALSO failed to actually interview the accuser. (If you're primarily basing your indictment on eyewitness testimony, you're certainly expected to try to assess the credibility of that accuser.) A flawed id process isn't close to enough evidence to warrant seeking a grand jury indictment without gathering additional evidence first. Nifong also refused to meet with the defense attorneys for the players and listen to any evidence they had that would indicate they could not be guilty of the alleged allegations. (I believe the evidence clearly placing one of the accused at an ATM some distance away after a taxi ride at the time of the alleged rape would have been available if Nifong had bothered to check at that point.)

You're also ignoring that Nifong made factually incorrect statements to the public regarding the case. For instance he publicly declared that the accused players were "hiding behind a wall of silence" when one of the accused players had already talked to investigators, along with two other team captains, and all three accused players had offered to take lie detector tests. There is a strong possibility that Nifong will end up losing a civil case in this instance.

I'm not sure I agree with your sequence of events. IIRC, early representation for the players instructed them to NOT to talk to investigators. The truth is that certain misdemeanors did take place at the residence . . . stuff like underage drinking . . . and I assume defense counsel wanted to avoid the possibility of admitting to unrelated offenses.

The NC Bar has the clearest accounting of Nifong's public pronouncements that range from merely derogatory (hooligans) to exaggeration to the extent of being of questionable veracity. The former isn't a big deal while latter he's going to be pressed on. But none of the examples you cite rise to that level.

Overzealous prosecution will not result in criminal charges and are unlikely to sustain civil ones. Malicious prosecution is a different story. Given the fact that these guys were NOT summarily rounded up based solely on the LB's account and that Nifong waited for a trickle of evidence at least pointing in the general direction of an assault will provide a lot of cover. He's got a timeline that is irrefutable upon which he will claim that if the lax players had come in IMMEDIATELY to provide detailed statements of everything that happened that night . . . it might have been sufficient to allow time for DNA evidence and other records (??Seligman's ATM, dorm access) to retard formal submission to the grand jury.

Nifong will defend his behavior on the grounds that he was seeking justice and he believed a traumatized woman. It's weak (given the broader context) but it will probably work.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I'm not sure I agree with your sequence of events. IIRC, early representation for the players instructed them to NOT to talk to investigators. The truth is that certain misdemeanors did take place at the residence . . . stuff like underage drinking . . . and I assume defense counsel wanted to avoid the possibility of admitting to unrelated offenses.

The NC Bar has the clearest accounting of Nifong's public pronouncements that range from merely derogatory (hooligans) to exaggeration to the extent of being of questionable veracity. The former isn't a big deal while latter he's going to be pressed on. But none of the examples you cite rise to that level.

Overzealous prosecution will not result in criminal charges and are unlikely to sustain civil ones. Malicious prosecution is a different story. Given the fact that these guys were NOT summarily rounded up based solely on the LB's account and that Nifong waited for a trickle of evidence at least pointing in the general direction of an assault will provide a lot of cover. He's got a timeline that is irrefutable upon which he will claim that if the lax players had come in IMMEDIATELY to provide detailed statements of everything that happened that night . . . it might have been sufficient to allow time for DNA evidence and other records (??Seligman's ATM, dorm access) to retard formal submission to the grand jury.

Nifong will defend his behavior on the grounds that he was seeking justice and he believed a traumatized woman. It's weak (given the broader context) but it will probably work.

You're just wrong on a key detail. One of the three accused DID effectively immediately agree to talk to investigators and met with them, along with two other team players.

March 16, 2006

Durham police investigator Benjamin Himan obtains a search warrant from the District Court to search 610 N. Buchanan and seize items from the home. The warrant includes testimony from one of the dancers who alleges three white men sexually assaulted her in a bathroom.

Police search the house, seizing among other things a make-up bag with an ID inside, a couple of laptop computers, digital cameras, cell phones, cleaning wipes, hand towels, swabbings, a bath rug and five press-on fingernails. A resident of the house and team captain signs the warrants and the inventory of items seized. The three residents of the house are interviewed by police and provide DNA samples.

http://www.insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=2&news=fdetail&storyid=119674

One of the three individuals interviewed was in fact one of the three eventually charged in this case.

They clammed up later on, but the Prosecutor's statement was simply grossly misleading, especially given all the players but the one who was black, who clearly was not a participant according to the accuser, agreed to give DNA samples voluntarily. The other glaring problem is one of the accused's lawyers DID offer to meet with the Prosecutor and show why his client was innocent, but Nifong REFUSED to even meet with him. Nifong can't plausibly claim he believed a traumatized woman given he had not bothered to actually personally interview her when he sought the indictment.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The North Carolina Attorney General, Cooper, has interviewed with 60 Minutes and had some interesting things to say about the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum. It's scheduled to be broadcast this coming Sunday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/11/60minutes/main2673456.shtml

It's a real shame that he isn't going to prosecute her for filing a false accusation; she really deserves the same jail time that the victims would have received had they been found guilty of her false accusations; she should receive the maximum sentence that they should have received. She should be hauled off to jail and her children placed into child protective services.

Just another example of the sexist double-standard we have in this country where women can almost get away with murder but men are prosecuted based on a mere baseless accusation. I hope that the men's movement, the media, and the victims and their attorneys refuse to let this die. I hope that they'll also try to sue Mangum, even if she's judgement proof, just to go after her future earnings and just as a matter of revenge and of being malicious. They also need to go after all of the racist black organizations that came out and committed defamation against them.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

late April

April 24, 2006 issue - Attorneys for members of the Duke University lacrosse team are presenting their fullest accounting yet of what happened the night a stripper says three players raped her.

also LATE April

The report said the women were outside when "one of the suspects" came out and apologized and asked them to go back inside the house to continue to dance.

A neighbor who reportedly witnessed what was going on next door said the woman returned inside around 12:30 a.m., according to a written statement to police and provided to CNN by a source with knowledge of the case.
---
Defense attorneys said they have records showing that Seligmann called the On Time Taxi company at 12:14 a.m. from his cell phone that night.
---
Mostafa said he picked up Seligmann and a friend at 610 North Buchanan Blvd. at 12:19 a.m. He said he could tell that Seligmann had been drinking, but that he didn't appear drunk.
---
The cab driver said he then drove Seligmann to a Wachovia Bank to get money, and defense attorneys say an ATM receipt shows he withdrew cash at 12:24 a.m.
---
Mostafa said he next drove the lacrosse player to a restaurant, then back to his dorm.

Defense sources said a card reader at the door of the dorm shows Seligmann's student ID card was swiped to get inside at 12:41 a.m.

The defense says a timeline and witnesses will show Finnerty also was at a restaurant when the alleged attack took place.

Guess what, Sherlock . . . the one person you claimed provided 'early' information was the LAST one charged! Regardless, it has no bearing on the fact that a good lawyer would have pre-empted an indictment by realizing it makes FAR more sense to admit to underage drinking (and whatever else minor mischief was going on) than to allow a clearly innocent client to be charged with a serious offense.

You have a lawyer to protect yourself but these lawyers were terrible . . . expensive but terrible. Granted, Nifong was a crusade . . .

District Attorney Michael Nifong would not comment on the defense attorneys' claims. He has said he has solid evidence in the case, including a medical examination conducted by a nurse saying the young woman was a victim of sexual assault.

Nifong will say eye witness (LB) and 3rd party physical evidence from a rape kit were sufficient for charges.

But DNA samples from the players failed to match material collected by investigators, defense lawyers for some players announced last week.

Nifong will claim that's not exculpatory . . . which it isn't.

Nifong said on Tuesday that authorities are trying to determine the identity of a third suspect in the alleged rape.

One of the biggest mistakes Nifong made . . . among many . . . going after the 3rd guy despite a relatively weak case against the other two.

The allegations have resulted in the cancellation of the lacrosse season, the resignation of the team's coach and public scrutiny of what Duke President Richard Brodhead called the "history of boorish behavior and underage drinking" among players.

Although it does not 'justify' his actions, Nifong will claim the history of behavior by the team in general and other misdemeanors by Finnerty in particular were sufficient to claim a 'pattern' of behavior.

example of a timeline
Two weeks after the LB's accusation, Nifong makes the generic derogatory reference to 'hooligans' and urges witnesses to come forward. In essence, Nifong is making it clear he believes an assault occurred . . . which by definition means if people attending the event haven't come forwards with an account that matches his expectations then they must be hiding something 'wall of silence.'

My point is that Nifong was ovezealous and arguably incompetent. He will not face any criminal penalty. The possibility of civil charges is certainly present but the likelihood of success is limited by the INTERNAL consistency of Nifong's 'investigation.' He reached a conclusion and then put on the blinders as he went searching for proof.

In a statement, the bar said it opened a case against Nifong on March 30, a little more than two weeks after the party, and it found on Oct. 19 after an investigation that there was reasonable cause to refer the case to the bar's Disciplinary Commission for trial.

The NC Bar jumped him b/c we have one of the most vigilant Bar associations in America. He probably would have gotten just a slap on the wrist (or stern word) for his interviews. But they added the additional complaint of withholding evidence when it LATER came to light that he had instructed the DNA lab to produce an incomplete report. That's a totally different complaint from the Bar's original DNA issue which is the fact that Nifong tried to 'explain' why there was no positive match to the suspects by saying something he knew could be false (use of a condom; LB told nurse her 'attackers' did NOT use condoms).

original ethics complaint by NC State Bar
The point I'm making is that the Bar had no idea Nifong had withheld evidence. His public pronouncements were considered breeches of professional conduct that could not be tolerated.

And Nifong's likely defense

His attorneys have previously said those interviews were aimed at reassuring the community and seeking help from the public in obtaining information.

Nifong may even note that 20 years ago, there would be little evidence beyond an accuser and physical evidence of intercourse/assault. He will say he had enough to submit to the grand jury. Clearly, that's true considering he was successful in getting the indictment.