Powered by TypePad

« No One Knows You're A Dog | Main | Gag Me With An Order - Not! »

April 21, 2006

Comments

Bob in Pacifica

If rumors of a blood test are false that would explain why there were no allegations from the DA about rufies.

I could see the nurse who provided the test being asked about the condition of the AV at the time of testing, and why a test wasn't run, or if the AV was asked and refused to take a test. If someone showed up at the hospital so intoxicated that they are falling down and are making accusations of rape, while it may not be a standard part of the procedure you would think that someone investigating the possibility of a rape would want to know if someone had slipped her drugs. That would certainly show someone's intent for easy and unlawful access to her body.

It's also not clear to me when the allegation of rape by the AV first occurred. It didn't occur at the party, or apparently on the drive to Kroger's. Kim at one point said that the AV was too out of it to tell her where she lived. The security guard at Kroger's dialed 911 to get the AV out of Kim's car. Apparently, Kim wanted to get rid of her.

I have always assumed that the cop who arrived at Kroger's and said that the AV was "passed out drunk" was the one who first heard the rape charge, but it's my understanding that she was driven to the hospital by a boyfriend. That strikes me as curious. Shouldn't the cop, once he is told that a rape has occurred, take some control of the individual? Or, if she did, perhaps he didn't believe her? I'd like to hear his version of events.

TM

If rumors of a blood test are false that would explain why there were no allegations from the DA about rufies.

If there was no test for date rape drugs as standard procedure for a disoriented alleged rape victim, I am stunned.

OTOH, if they had a positive result I am confident it would have been leaked.

So maybe they tested for date rape drugs *only*, but not alcohol/pot/barbituates (hmm, we are on a fine line, here).

The idea would be that the "investigators" don't want to document drunkeness, only the use of date rape drugs.

Or maybe she was just clearly sober at the hospital. Maybe.

One more thing for the defense to mock.

cfw

As I recall, the Kroger guard was a she and did not get a report of rape.

Might be interesting to know when AV checked in to hospital. I hear she checked out around noon, and the exam procedeure took say 4 hours. Where was she from 1:22 AM until say 8 am?

I had thought the police came in response to the 911 and took her to the station.

She probably spent a few hours sobering up, or letting the valium or what have you wear off before she met the nurse and MD.

If she ingested drugs, she could have just as easily (more easliy?) gotten valium, quualude, roofie from a) her dispatcher, b) the person who dropped her off at 610 N. Buchanan, c) the embezzler, or d) her own stash. Nothing I have seen suggests AV got drunk (or even drank any beer or drinks) at 610 N. Buch. Without drinking at 610 N. Buch, how could she be "slipped" a pill? If slipped a pill at say midnight, would she be incapacitated by 12:20? Seems a bit too quick.

CS

TM, it seems the SANE guidelines call for drug testing if the patient thinks she was drugged. I understand that they do a draw and a BAC if the patient appears drunk, and ask the patient about possible date-rape drugs. If the patient seems oriented and alert, and says she doesn't think she was drugged, unless I'm misunderstanding, they don't test for such drugs. I stand ready to be corrected on this. Not to speculate as to this case, if a patient were concerned about other drugs showing up, she might be reluctant to say date-rape drugs were a possibility.

TM

If the patient seems oriented and alert, and says she doesn't think she was drugged, unless I'm misunderstanding, they don't test for such drugs.

That certainly makes sense, but... what about the call-in from Krogers saying she was passed out and unable to move?

If (a) it is true that the caller said that, andf (b) that was her actual condition, then why so sober a few hours later?

kim

How about the picture that shows her immobile on the back porch?
=======================================

kim

Sobriety can come fast, almost no matter what the circumstances.
==============================

ed

Hmmm.

1.

Does anyone find it odd that there are photos of a stripper falling down stairs, getting in the car, etc.? Are these supposed to be for the lax player's screen saver? Were they from one camera or more than one?

Actually I can easily see why someone would want to take pictures of this. Remember there were threats made about calling the police, which the Ms. Roberts actually did. If I were in a situation where someone was making threats about involving the police I'd certainly start trying to document the situation with pictures.

Frankly I'm extemely surprised there isn't digital video of this entire situation and there might very well *be* digital video taken during the proceedings, but kept under wraps by the defense. If these guys really are from wealthy families it's passing odd that they didn't have at least one video camera operating.

2. NYTimes has an interesting article:

NYT

Points to note:

When she arrived about 11:30 p.m., she was wearing a negligee and shiny white strappy high heels, and met a second dancer, Kim Roberts. They entered the house by the back door.
The women were paid $800 and danced briefly.
Mr. Bissey said he saw the women get into a car after they had been in the house about 20 minutes. The players and the women exchanged heated words, he said. "Some of them were saying things like, 'I want my money back,' " he recalled the men saying. Mr. Bissey said he then saw the accuser return to the house because she had left a shoe there.
The message said that he would kill the strippers and cut their skin off for sexual gratification "in my duke issue spandex." The message was signed "41," his jersey number.

About this last one. Frankly if I were arrested and tried on the content of emails and blog comments I've written I'd probably be on death row. And I doubt there's anyone out there that would be sitting right beside me.

ed

Hmmm.

sigh. Preview is my friend.

And I doubt there's anyone out there that would be sitting right beside me.

Should read: And I doubt there's anyone out there that wouldn't be sitting right beside me.

ed

Hmmm.

$800 for two strippers.

$400 each. For one hour.

Of which 1/2 hour was spent in the bathroom by one of the strippers.

With threats of going to police if they didn't get more money.

...

Oh yeah this is a great case.

kim

I don't know. That's pretty far out.
========================

CS

TM, I'm of course not saying that the complainant wasn't given GHB or whatever. I think she probably had straightened up by the time of the SANE exam. I doubt anyone on the SART had a good idea of how she'd been hours before, other than maybe a general idea that she'd come in impaired. The cops, not the SART, would have asked what happened and gotten fuzzy answers. I really hope the SART asked about drinks, etc, the patient answered truthfully, and they ordred the test. But if so, hard to believe the DA hasn't announced a positive, as it would make the bad IDs at least somewhat explainable.

CS

Here are the DOJ-promulgated model guidelines for SANE exams: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/sane/saneguide.pdf . The DOJ server was down earlier today. It's a urine rest, not a blood test, but in asking around, I didn't specify, so I don't think it changes the answer. The guidelines on drug screens are at p 73 of the document. Sure enough, it reads as if ordering a drug screen depends on how the patient presents.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame