The News & Observer reports:
Duke University lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were charged today with first degree forcible rape, first degree sexual offense and kidnapping in connection with a reported rape at a Duke lacrosse party, according to George Naylor, director of the Durham County Jail.
Bond was set for each player at $400,000, Naylor said. …
Seligmann, a sophomore from Essex Fells, N.J., and Finnerty, a sophomore from Garden City, N.Y., emerged from a sheriff’s deputy vehicle and were led, handcuffed, into the magistrate’s office at 4:54 a.m. today.
The D.A. says there is a third assailant as well, whose identity has not yet been determined. The charged players say they are innocent:
[Finnerty’s laywer Bill] Cotter said he was surprised by the indictments but downplayed their significance.
“The (grand) jury only heard one side of the story. They almost always indict. The next jury will hear the entire story, which will include our evidence. We’re confident that these young men will be found innocent.”
Kirk Osborn, Seligmann’s attorney, said, “We’re looking forward to showing that he is absolutely innocent as soon as we can.”
Julian Mack, who represented Sligmann before today’s arrest, said the charges are unfounded. “I’m devastated that he’s been charged,” he said. “It’s a terrible, terrible mistake.”
The Smoking Gun has the indictment. Finnerty has a prior record. Meanwhile, a father of two players who were not indicted — who also happens to be a 9/11 firefighter — is speaking out, saying the media coverage has been unfair and lamenting the “ruined” lives of the two charged kids, who he says are innocent.
|
Categories: Sports
|
April 18th, 2006 at 11:53:09 am
“ruinedâ€? lives of the two charged kids” I AGREE, “who he says are innocent.” The judicial process will get to the bottom of this.
I feel bad for all parties involved and I have already seen how devisive this is begining to be much like the O.J. & Kobe cases a few years ago; blacks sideing with the black person and white people going with the white person and all the while forgetting that there is an alleged crime at the heart of the problem.
I have only been focused on the facts because as a American Negro male I dont care about what this woman has alledged because if it proves false I want her charged and prosocuted to the fullest extent the law will allow. and if these two or three guys are guilty then I want to watch them carted off to jail for 10-20yrs.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:44:49 pm
Best comment yet (via Instapundit):
“Let me remind you, dear reader, even now: You don’t know what happened. You didn’t know before the DNA test, or after. You didn’t know when sentiment was strong against the players, or when the backlash flowed against the woman. Your opinion about the facts is not relevant. You don’t know.”
April 18th, 2006 at 12:48:50 pm
Agree with Nebraska, but again, am going to point out that the Lacrosse program, where 1/3 of the players have at least some type of criminal record (mostly petty crimes) and have been disciplined before by the ex-Coach for parties, drinking, and getting into altercations.
In fact, as News and Observer is reporting:
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/425722.html
One of the accused was just in DC to answer assault charges from last fall.
Now does this convict any of them? Hell NO! But it does prove poor judgement and a general attitude on a championship contending team that Duke should have been MUCH more proactive in attending too.
As for the whole rape charges, I don’t know who to believe. I’m more than willing to wait to hear evidence and such, but it would have been much easier to believe the Duke students if they didn’t have all their legal and emotional baggage.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:02:38 pm
That boy is a P-I-G pig
April 18th, 2006 at 3:05:43 pm
The DC assault has a Brendansphere tie-in…
On the same day Duke University lacrosse player Collin H. Finnerty was ordered to provide DNA samples in a rape investigation, he was in Washington to face charges that he assaulted a man last fall.
Court records show that Finnerty, 19, and two friends were arrested early Nov. 5. Finnerty was charged with simple assault.
A man told a police officer who was driving by The Georgetown Inn on Wisconsin Avenue about 2:30 a.m. Nov. 5 that Finnerty and his co-defendants assaulted him, court documents said.
The man, David Kreutz, said he was minding his own business when the three men started picking on him. The man told them to stop “calling him gay and … derogatory names.” Then they attacked him, he said, “busting his lip and bruising his chin,” court records say.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:44:59 pm
Huh?
April 18th, 2006 at 8:19:47 pm
Boo hoo, Angrier can’t argue with people so he decides to try and insult them, boo hoo.
This is the story he is allegedly refering to.
Of course no one with my name is mentioned, but AA is so pathetic that he thinks that this “insult” is somehow clever I guess? Pretty sad really.
Don’t worry AA, I’m not upset, I pity you really. You are simply incapable of discussing with anyone opinions you disagree with in a civil manner, you poor poor person.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:12:39 am
Boo hoo
April 19th, 2006 at 8:02:34 pm
“Boo hoo, Angrier can’t argue with people so he decides to try and insult them, boo hoo.”
David-
So you have switched from whining about abortion to whining about people insulting you? Let me know when you switch to your next subject to whine about so I can tune in then.
April 20th, 2006 at 5:27:18 pm
Hmmm - I wonder if David’s favourite whine is a Red one or a White one ? I know, I know, probably a Blue one rather than a Red one …
Still, in a posting with dramatis personae including a Finnerty and a McCool - and Joe’s delicate caress is nowhere to be seen ?
April 23rd, 2006 at 4:45:04 pm
Stripper claims: She struggled so hard fighting off these three white men that five of her press on nails fell off.
Facts: nails were recovered and no DNA were found under the nails; no scratches were found anywhere on any of the boys. No scratch marks were found anywhere on any of the boys’ bodies.
Stripper claims: three men raped her on the bathroom rug,
Fact:
• No vaginal or seminal fluid, no skin, blood, or hair were found anywhere in the bathroom, bath towels, bath rug, door handle, bathroom floor, basin, water faucet handle, etc.
• A man cannot take off a condom and not get DNA from himself or the female on his hands and not transfer it to everything he touches?
• Accuser claims she was vaginally penetrated; accuser claims she was panicked and thought she was going to die; Where is her vaginal fluid, urine, or blood anywhere in the bathroom? Does her body defy basic physiology capable of keeping any ejaculate from spilling out?
• Accuser claims she was anally penetrated; Where’s her fecal material or scat smears in the bathroom? Does the accuser have inhuman anal sphinter control that prevented any of the ejaculate from dripping out?
• Accuser claims she was orally sodomized; where is DNA from her saliva and tears? Did she lick up every drop and swallowed any evidence?
DNA evidence not connecting the boys to the “criminal stripper” is significant enough, but absolutely no DNA at all is significant in suggesting the rape never occurred at all!
Stripper claim bruises were result of an attack from three boys:
Fact: Time-stamped photos prove stripper arrived bruised and cut while drunk.
Pictures show the stripper performed without the finger nails, and her knees were bruised before she arived.
Nifong stated that a condom was used, if this is true than where is the spermicidal lubricant evidence? Where are the condoms? Where are the condom wrappers? Where is the empty condom box?
If no DNA material were present on the stripper, than why were DNA samples taken? The District Attorney vigorously claimed that these DNA evidence will clear the innocent.
The second stripper stated that she didn’t notice any rape, and when they got back in the car the “accuser� didn’t mention anything about being rape.
Apparently the “second stripper charged with embezzling $25,000� changed her story to conspire with the “lying stripper under-probation-for-larceny-and-trying-to-kill-a-police-officer-with-a-stolen-car� as part of a deal with Nifong to get released from jail, also contacted a public relations firm to “not let this opportunity pas her by and to spin it to my advantage�.
This in the wake of pictures surfacing showing that the “lying stripper� had those fake finger nails missing before the time she lied that a rape occurred.
With the taste of his own foot still lingering in his mouth, District Attorney Mike Nifong has another piece of evidence blow up in his face, I wonder how’s his ulcer is doing?
So would it be his own aura or is it the universe’s way of getting back at Nifong for destroying these young boys lives?
It would be funny if Nifong’s ulcer leads to a colonoscopy, or would it be “ironicâ€? or “poetic justiceâ€? that he screws 47 boys over a false rape claim and have to take a 36 inch colonoscopy tube up his @ss for his part in the fiasco he created.
Lets not forget that not only that there lacks any DNA evidence of the boys, but there’s an absolute absence of DNA from her who claims she was raped vaginally, anally, and orally… why wasn’t any of HER vaginal, urine, blood, sweat, fecal, saliva, or tears not found anywhere in the bathroom? Nifong claims that condoms could have been used, then where are the condoms? The condom wrappers, the condom box, the spermicidal evidence from the rape kit?
Some feminist claim the boys were drunk and where so overwhelmed with excitement that they couldn’t ejaculate- not even one, obviously these women have never had sex with a 19 year old male or any male.
Finally, don’t forget the three boys who lived in the house agreed to be questioned by the police for over six hours, and volunteered to a lie detector test. When the boys were told to surrender DNA samples, none called their parents r tried to block the order, they complied because they new the “stripper with the criminal record� was lying. These are not the actions of guilty boys, but Nifong claimed that they were all covering up for each other and will charge each of them with aiding and abetting because the only information they had is that no rape occurred.
These boys were and continue to be put through hell by these criminal strippers and an unscrupulous DA. Hopefully these three will be held accountable for the racial riots pending the acquittal of these innocent boys.
Below is the text of the e-mail sent by Kim Roberts to 5W Public Relations in New York. Roberts, an exotic dancer, accompanied the woman accusing members of the Duke University men’s lacrosse team of raping her the night of March 13.
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:21 PM
To: Ronn Torossian
Subject: duke lacrosse scandal
Hi!
My name is Kim and I am involved in the Duke Lacrosse scandal. Although I am no celebrity and just an average citizen, I’ve found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country. I’m worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage. I am determined not to let any negative publicity about my life overtake me. I’m so confused as to who to talk to for relevant advice and I hope that you can return my e-mail. If you cannot help, do you know of any names and numbers I can call?
Thanks for your time,
Kim Roberts
Stripper, Model, Escort, Witness
Rape shields were created in the 1970s to protect the alleged “victim� from having her reputation ruined by baseless assumptions, unfair judgments, public humiliation, and character assassinations, but any of this could describe what’s happening to every member of the lacrosse team.
Irresponsible “special interest groups� have held protests everyday holding the name and pictures of anyone on the lacrosse team, to having their pictures and hate slogans pasted all over school. The actions of these groups against these men are nothing short of harassment and unfair character assassination.
Media hungry District Attorney Mike Nifong stated he is positive a rape has occurred, but he isn’t sure if it’s by the members of the lacrosse team, yet he obtained an order to get DNA samples from only the members of the team, then he stated on a national news program that the lacrosse team has a “rowdy� reputation on campus – obviously playing up to sexist stereotyping of jocks to further play his case for the media. As Nifong continues to publicly massacre the characters out his case for public consumption, he claims that the team is “stonewalling the investigation� because they claim not to have any knowledge of what transpired, but is Nifong now believing the men to be telling the truth as he recently changed his tune stating that even if the DNA evidence clears these boys that he’ll have other evidence.
Opportunistic political groups have descended on Duke’s campus using unscrupulous methods to get media attention at the expense of innocent young men who happen to be on the lacrosse team. Young men who were too recently, only boys not yet ready to handle this ugly side of the world. In today’s climate, we need the rape shield laws extended to protect all the innocent, including those who just happen to get in the way of media hungry district attorneys and opportunistic political groups.
District Attorney Mike Nifong’s should be held accountable for the irresponsible actions he’s taken in this rape investigation.
The boys are being tried in the national media before there is any charge are made. Nifong stated that someone else could have assaulted the 27 year old stripper, yet he publicly damned the men’s lacrosse team and only the men’s lacrosse team as gang rapist, and still not knowing whether or not the “alleged victim� was telling the truth, or if the three men sought are on the team, Nifong claims the team is stonewalling to protect its own.
In response, daily protest are held with hate comments made directly to the lacrosse teammates, pictures of the teammates with rape slogans are plastered all over Duke’s campus, and now gang members are driving by the east campus threatening students.
Nifong’s circus-like antics to perform for the national media has put the whole campus in danger.
Nifong proclaimed in the national media that the DNA sweep of 46 boys would find the guilty and clear the innocent. DNA tests prove that the boys of the lacrosse team were telling the truth, but Nifong wants to go ahead with the case only weeks before his election against a woman and a black man. There should be laws in place to prevent unscrupulous politician like District Attorney Mike Nifong from bulldozing over 47 innocent boys just to bask in the international media spot-light.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:58:41 am
If you support the Duke Lacrosse team check out
http://www.myspace.com/bulldukey
or http://www.bulldukey.com/download.htm
These kids arent guilty
Kyle
April 30th, 2006 at 1:14:45 am
What is revictimization or multiple victimization?
The risk of sexual revictimization, according to the CDC, is based on vulnerability factors. One of these is the pre-existance of PTSD from a previous assault. Being the victim of child sexual abuse doubles the likelihood of adult sexual victimization (Parillo et. al., 2003) (Sarkar, N.; Sarkar, R., 2005). PTSD levels are actually higher in those who have been previously victimized than in survivors of only one assault (Follette et. al., 1996). PTSD could give the victim the appearance of vulnerability in dangerous situations and effect the ability of the victim to defend themselves.
One study found that of the 433 sexually assaulted respondents, two-thirds reported more than one incident (Sorenson et. al., 1991). Two further studies also found that women who were victimized more than once or in both childhood and adolescence had a higher risk for adult revictimization and more PTSD (Siegel & Williams, 2001), (Breslau et. al., 1999). Intervention such as counseling for mental health issues (like PTSD) and for possible addictions related to the abuse can help women with child sexual abuse histories overcome some of the abuse-related sequelae that make them vulnerable to adult revictimization (Parillo et. al., 2003). Other factors influencing recovery are emotional support from friends, relations, social and community supports (Sarkar, N.; Sarkar, R., 2005).
Problems experienced by retraumatized women were that they were more likely to be alexithymic, show dissociation scores indicating risk for dissociative disorders, and to have attempted suicide compared to the other groups (Cloitre et. al., 1997).
http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/mvrv.html
May 15th, 2006 at 2:12:02 pm
With the taste of his own foot still lingering in his mouth, District Attorney Mike Nifong has another piece of evidence blow up in his face, I wonder how’s his ulcer is doing?
So would it be his own aura or is it the universe’s way of getting back at Nifong for destroying these young boys lives?
It would be funny if Nifong’s ulcer leads to a colonoscopy, or would it be “ironicâ€? or “poetic justiceâ€? that he screws 47 boys over a false rape claim and have to take a 36 inch colonoscopy tube up his @ss for his part in the fiasco he created.
They are innocent! The drunken black stripper with the long criminal record and history of making false accusations…lied.
• Stripper made a false claim of rape by three boys in 1996.
• Stripper made a false claim of kidnapping in 1998
• Stripper charged with larceny, auto theft, and trying to kill a police officer in 2002
• 1st round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team.
• 2nd round of DNA shows no link to the lacrosse team
• DNA proves stripper had sex with boyfriend/pimp which accounts for the “rape kit� evidence of recent sexual activity.
• Innocent boy who picked up finger nail and threw it in the trash left his DNA on the fake press-on nail and will be charged for rape.
The stripper’s account of the night has serious integrity issues:
1) First she claimed 20 boys raped her, then she narrowed it down to 3 in a bathroom
a. The bathroom is absolutely and completely devoid of any evidence of a rape. Where is her DNA? Urine, blood, vaginal fluid, saliva, or tears?
b. Many people’s DNA were found under her nails but none from the innocent lacrosse boys.
c. She lied about losing her fake finger nails in a desperate struggle in the small enclosed bathroom, but pictures show that she removed her nails before inadequately performing her routine. No scratches were found on any of the innocent lacrosse boys’ bodies.
d. The 2 innocent boys she “eeny meeny miney moed� to be her rapists weren’t even at the party the time she claimed the rape occurred. She claims that she’s 100% sure, but she told her father that she’s not sure.
e. She took drugs before coming to the house, something illegal.
The stripper obviously lied, and she’s putting these innocent boys and families through hell. She deserves to be in prison for the rest of her pathetic life. She is worthless as a person and human being. Her one lie destroyed innocent boys. I hope her and Nifong’s aura catches up to them and they both get what they deserve. I hope everyone wishing this rape claim to be true, in spite of all the evidence that it never occurred, gets what’s coming to them.
I was surprise of how many false rape accusations have been made by several independent surveys reveal that 42% to approximately half of all accusations made are false. Most cases involve divorce battles involving the custody of children, some for revenge for withdraw of affection, monetary gains, an excuse for infidelity, or misidentification.
• According to the FBI, one of every 12 claims of rape filed in the United States are later deemed ‘unfounded,’ meaning the case was closed because the alleged victim recanted or because investigators found no evidence of a crime.
• Howard County Police classified one out of every four rape allegations as unfounded in 1990-91.
• The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers says around 600 teachers a year are falsely accused - a trebling since the 1989 Children’s Act.
• Citing a recent USA Today article, discussing the miracle of DNA and FBI studies of sexual assault suspects, DNA testing exonerated about 30% to 35% of the more than 4,000 sexual assault suspects on whom the FBI had conducted DNA testing over the past three years.
• Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40% of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994).
• 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over 25% of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test or after they had failed it, that no rape occurred.
• 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive.
• Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney’s Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, “there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about 50% simply did not happen.”
• Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for his zealous prosecution of rapists during his 16-year career, says that false rape accusations occur with “scary frequency.” As a regular commentator on the Bryant trial for Denver’s ABC affiliate, Silverman noted that “any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes.” According to Silverman, a Denver sex-assault unit commander estimates that nearly 50% of all reported rape claims are false.
June 7th, 2006 at 12:44:23 pm
A Special Prosecutor In The Duke Rape Case?
Susan Estrich wants DA Mike Nifong to appoint a Special Prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Ms. Estrich believes that Mike Nifong, is outmatched for Bob Bennett hired by the Duke team parents, and wants NC’s attorney general to hire Bennett’s equal to represent the state?
Why not hire Bennett’s equal to represent the state? Bringing in the top guns for a complicated case would be one thing, but bringing in the high-priced talent in order to attempt the transformation of a pig’s ear into a silk purse would be a waste of the taxpayer’s money.
Nifong claimed that a date rape drug was used but a discovery motion filed by the defense learned that there wasn’t any toxicology done. The question of a “line-up� that guaranteed a Duke lacrosse team member would be chosen. The absolute refusal of Nifong looking at exculpatory evidence of any kind, and he continues to ignore evidence that the crime never occurred.
There is no way three drunken men, inside an enclosed bathroom with a woman violently clawing and fighting would leave absolutely no DNA behind at the alleged crime scene. Where’s her tears, sweat, saliva, and other bodily fluids? If condoms were used, were are the condoms, wrappers, boxes or evidence of lubricant on or in the alleged victim? The scene described by the alleged victim is one of violence and chaos, yet even in the most calm and best of situation, anyone who has ever had sex with a condom knows that there is no way to remove a condom without touching DNA evidence from either yourself or partner.
Ms. Estrich states: “The price to date has been paid by the accuser, who has been called every name in the book”.
Really? Some think that the defendants have paid a higher price. These boys had their names, photos, addresses, personal information attached to “gang rapeâ€? in the national media and internet, they had “wanted postersâ€? posted all over their school and community, daily protests by many sexist and racist political groups identifying these boys and calling them gang rapists, Meanwhile, no mainstream media outlet that has published the accuser’s name, let alone called her a liar.
Ms. Estrich’s second point, “that the treatment of the accuser may chill other women from coming forward�
This depends on whether you think public opinion has turned because of brilliant defense maneuvering, or because of an embarrassingly weak case where evidence points to the accuser making false claim, and a DA who has a political agenda.
Ms. Estrich: “Let Nifong pick the prosecutor; if his handpicked choice believes there is no case, …then so be it.�
My guess is that Nifong will have no interest in appointing a special prosecutor prior to his election in November - in terms of Nifong’s job preservation, which seems to be his motivation here. Having a special prosecutor dismiss this over the summer will be even more politically embarrassing than having Nifong take responsibility for his own behavior.
Frankly, as best I extrapolate Ms. Estrich’s view, if the Duke Stripper replaces Tawana Brawley as the shorthand for false accuser, that will chill real rape victims who will fear that they will not be taken seriously. The only non-chilling outcome would be prosecutions and convictions, and that is not going to happen based on the evidence we’ve seen.
June 7th, 2006 at 12:45:21 pm
Blind to evidence
On Monday, May 15, a Durham County grand jury handed up a third indictment in the nothing-short-of-notorious Duke rape case. This latest indictment charges the lacrosse team’s captain, David Evans, with first-degree rape, first-degree sexual assault, and first-degree kidnapping.
The charges against Evans are identical to those handed up last month against fellow players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. Still, this final indictment does come as a bit of surprise. As I detailed in a prior column, the cases against Seligmann and Finnerty appear quite weak. As I’ll discuss in this column, the case against Evans may be even shakier. It’s true that the grand jury did return indictments against Evans, and previously against the other two. It’s also true that the District Attorney, Mike Nifong, is forging ahead — seemingly undeterred.
But Nifong’s judgment has been poor all along- and the old adage that a D.A. can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” shouldn’t be forgotten. Without defense attorneys there to test the prosecutor’s evidence via the invaluable process of cross-examination, weak evidence can be made to look pretty convincing. It’s not the grand jury’s fault; it’s just the reality that if you only hear one side, you tend to believe it.
At least a ham sandwich has some weight to it. As I’ll explain in this column, the Evans indictment - like the two that preceded it - does not. The very evidence that may have convinced the grand jury - accuser identification and new DNA evidence - is just the kind that will ultimately fall apart when defense attorneys finally do get to cross-examine the witnesses presenting it.
The Mounting Evidence in Favor of Defendants’ Innocence
All three defendants in the Duke lacrosse case have unfailingly and repeatedly proclaimed their innocence - Evans doing so most eloquently, on behalf of all three men, in a brief public comment following his being formally charged.
In fact, in a highly unusual move, newly indicted defendant Evans went to so far as to volunteer to take a lie detector test at the direction of law enforcement. When the D.A. refused, Evans enlisted a top polygrapher to administer the test anyway. He passed.
Thus far, the defense camp has come forward with a host of seemingly reliable, exculpatory evidence -evidence that will be admissible in court, and that is likely to sway a jury. I’m not talking about, maybe, kinda, sorta, or could be, exculpatory evidence either. I’m talking about weighty evidence - receipts, photos, phone records, alibi witnesses, an absence of DNA, and now actual DNA - that directly supports the defendants’ claims of innocence.
A plethora of proof supporting a defendant’s claim of innocence - not just the government’s failure to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — is a rare pearl in the practice of criminal defense. It should cause the D.A. to reassess his case.
The Problems with the Accuser’s “Identification” of Evans
In my prior columns, I discussed the problems with evidence against Seligmann - who has strong evidence supporting an alibi - and, to a lesser extent, against Finnerty. The evidence against Evans is also weak, maybe even more so.
Evans reportedly was not initially indicted, with the other two, because the accuser couldn’t identify him with certainty (only with “90 percent certainty,” in her words) from a photo lineup. Ten percent doubt sounds like a lot like reasonable doubt to me - and perhaps, at least initially, it sounded that way to D.A. Nifong too. And if the accuser herself has reasonable doubt, how can a prosecution go forward?
The accuser’s lack of certainty is even more worrisome in light of the fact that the photo lineup was grossly biased. It included only Duke lacrosse players - meaning that the accuser had no choice but to select a Duke lacrosse player if she were to select anyone at all. And this photo lineup was apparently the sole means of identification for all three defendants.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the accuser is reported to have said that Evans’s photo “looks just like [one of my assailants] without the mustache.” According to Evans’s defense lawyer, Evans has never worn a mustache. And party photos support this contention.
For all these reasons, the accuser’s identification testimony is likely to be destroyed upon cross-examination.
The Problems with the New DNA Evidence
Besides the accuser’s testimony, prosecutors also presented to the grand jury the results of a second round of DNA testing.
Readers may recall that the first round of DNA testing was, if anything, exculpatory: There was no DNA match whatsoever linking any of the forty-six lacrosse players whose DNA was taken, to the accuser.
Following those results, D.A. Nifong reportedly hired a private lab to re-test certain samples. In so doing, the new lab found a possible connection between defendant Evans and the accuser’s discarded fake fingernail, found in the trash bin inside the bathroom.
To begin, it’s awfully odd that the fake fingernail found its way into the trash bin in the first place, if a rape really occurred, and if the fake fingernail broke off during the victim’s struggle, as she claims. No victim would clean up after her accusers; she would flee the scene. And if a culprit had the presence of mind to clean up — realizing that the fake fingernail might be evidence against him — surely he wouldn’t just drop it in the trash can in the very room where the rape occurred, for police to easily find.
Significantly, too, defense attorneys claim the DNA material was found on the front of the nail — not on the underside, where it would logically have lodged had the accuser scratched and clawed at her attackers as she claims.
But even putting these points aside, the DNA connection to Evans is weak. To begin, this isn’t remotely close to the kind of “match” you may be familiar with from CSI - the kind where the odds of a false positive are infinitesimally small. Indeed, “match” here is a misnomer. All that can be said is that the DNA is “consistent” with DNA voluntarily supplied early on by Evans.
Shocking? Hardly. Evans lived in the house, and therefore may have, from time to time, blown his nose, swabbed an ear, or otherwise disposed of DNA-laden waste into that very trashcan.
Moreover, it was reportedly Evans himself who fished the fake nail from the garbage, voluntarily handing it over to police and maybe, just maybe, shedding some skin cells in the process.
As for direct evidence of sex, there is none; none from any of the forty lacrosse players, that is.
While the second round of DNA testing proved that semen was found inside the accusers vaginal cavity, spokespersons close to the defense are confident the source of the semen is the accuser’s own boyfriend.
In sum, after cross-examination, there is little, if any, chance that a jury will give weight to this DNA evidence. It clashes with the accuser’s own story, and it’s as fully consistent with Evans’s innocence as it is with his guilt.
The D.A.’s Unusual Hostility to Even Viewing Defense Evidence
Defense lawyers have repeatedly implored District Attorney Nifong to meet with them and to examine the evidence that favors the defendants. But Nifong has said no - with an attitude that boils down to, “Talk to the hand.”
That’s unusual. More often than not, prosecutors are quite open to exchanging - or at least being entertained by - the defense’s evidence. After all, it provides them with a valuable preview of what the defense’s case may ultimately look like in court. Prosecutors are legally required to turn over certain evidence to the defense, but no obligation runs the other way. And since the defense goes second, prosecutors may not be able to effectively counter defense “surprises.”
For prosecutors, meeting with the defense is thus typically a win-win situation: If they are convinced to drop the case, then that’s embarrassing - but far less than as a loss at trial would have been. If they aren’t convinced to drop the case, they’ve gotten a precious new edge at trial. And either way, both the reality and appearance of fairness to the defendants are enhanced.
Giving a defendant a lie detector test, in contrast, isn’t a win-win situation: It may hurt prosecutors’ case if the results are released to the public. (Lie detector results are rarely - if ever - admissible in court.) But at the same time, a lie detector test - while risky, and far from perfect - is likely to get prosecutors closer to the truth, which is supposed to be what they are after.
As noted above, in this case, Evans claims Nifong refused to give Evans a lie detector test. (He ultimately took one himself, and passed.) In my professional experience, a prosecutor’s refusing to administer a lie detector test to a defendant is nearly unheard-of. The defendant’s answers - and the lie detector’s response to them - may provide the prosecutor with a road map to what his vulnerabilities on the stand may be.
Just as meeting with the defense previews the defense case for prosecutors, administering a lie detector can preview the defendant’s testimony, as well as his on-the-stand demeanor, showing prosecutors what kind of a witness he will be. (Confident? Nervous? Shifty? Solid?)
I can’t help but believe that, were any of these defendants to assert that they had proof that a crime was indeed committed, this district attorney would be all ears. Suppose, for instance, that Seligmann or Evans were to turn on Finnerty, to try to save themselves - surely Nifong would happily hear them out. So how can the prosecutor justify, then, turning a blind eye to evidence of any of the accused’s innocence?
If There’s A Card Up the D.A.’s Sleeve, the Law Requires Him to Play It Soon
Some pundits have suggested that the only explanation for the District Attorney’s pressing on in the light of strong evidence that the defendants are innocent, is that he has a card up his sleeve. If so, then he needs to show that card, pronto.
The discovery statutes in North Carolina - as in most states - do not allow prosecutors to play “hide the ball.” This is a judicial proceeding, not a magic show. So D.A. Nifong will have to reveal this evidence sometime before trial.
He ought to opt to reveal it right now - to give the defense a chance to counter it. When evidence suggesting innocence is as strong as it is in this case, it’s wrong to just let the case go to trial and “see what the jury says.” These three young men’s live will be forever affected, even if they are acquitted. Even an arrest leaves a scar; the scar of trial is far deeper.
D.A. Nifong should listen to the defense, and should drop the case unless he has strong evidence supporting the accuser. Moreover, if he does have such evidence, he should show it to us now. The defendants have been forthcoming - especially Evans, who volunteered to, and then did, take a lie detector test. The prosecution should follow their example.
June 8th, 2006 at 11:34:39 am
i believe a rape did occur and Mike Nifong has a good PIECE OF EVIDENCE that it did in fact happen. He is probaly trying to get all of his ducks in a row and play it carefully. I believe he will hit us with something no one has thought about. Can’t wait to see. GO GET THEM MIKE! WORK IT!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 1:18:27 pm
Police investigating the Duke University lacrosse team on rape allegations “omitted” notes from a second dancer at the party, who told authorities the alleged victim had been drinking, was acting “crazy” and that her colleague’s accusation was a “crock,” a defense attorney said Thursday. In court documents filed Thursday, attorney Kirk Osborn said that Durham, North Carolina, police “intentionally, deliberately and/or recklessly omitted” information from a probable cause affidavit — information Osborn says would have persuaded the judge not to file felony charges against three of the players. The district attorney’s office did not return a call seeking comment.
http://lawdogbehindthebadge.blogspot.com/2006/06/latest-on-duke-rape-case.html
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-how-da-and-some-police.html
http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-on-duke-rape-case-second-dancer.html
Another police note obtained by the defense says the alleged victim acknowledged having two beers before arriving at the party and that she and Pittman both had a rum and coke after their arrival.
The accuser also told police that she used a vibrating sex toy during a dance in a hotel room for a male and female, but she told police that she had not had sex in the week before the party, the note says.
However, a male friend of the accuser said that he had sex with her that week and that he drove her to three other sexual encounters, according to the friend’s statement.
Osborn also claims in the court documents that the nurse who examined the alleged victim was in training and not yet certified.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/08/duke.lacrosse/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
June 9th, 2006 at 1:19:52 pm
apparently some people seem to think Mike Nifong can make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.