No, not Rove - it is an indictment of the alleged third man in the Duke lacrosse incident.
Is the hockey quip de rigeur here, or too tasteless? I'm leaning towards "tasteless".
MORE: Jeralyn Merritt hangs a No Sale sign on DA Nifong.
The Duke Basketball Report hosts some lawyer's views.
And we are wondering about this, on the Third Man identification:
During the lineup, investigators flashed a photograph on a large computer screen for one minute followed by a blank screen and then another photograph for a minute. When the fifth image of 46 came up, the woman said the photograph resembled one of her attackers, but without a mustache. She was "about 90 percent" certain it was the same person.
One team member gave defense lawyers a sworn statement that lacrosse players were not allowed to have mustaches.
Two photographs later, when Seligmann's photograph came up, the woman said he looked "like one of the guys who assaulted" her, according to Gottlieb. Seconds later, she said she was 100 percent sure it was him.
So except for the mustache, this is the guy - well, let's indict him and find out.
And perhaps stats maven can help me with this - with forty-six photos on offer as potential assailants, three of the first seven were selected. How often would that happen if there were in fact three assailants sprinkled randomly amongst forty-three "innocents"?
Of course, the procedure is absurd - since every photo she saw was of someone at the party, she really could not miss. Well, other than picking a guy who went out for Chinese food, and another guy who had no mustache.
Cruel of you, Tom. Exceedingly cruel.
Posted by: Moe Lane | May 15, 2006 at 02:32 PM
Who is a bigger ass? Nifong or Fitzgerald?
Posted by: Loki | May 15, 2006 at 03:03 PM
TM
You had me going there for a minute!
Posted by: maryrose | May 15, 2006 at 03:14 PM
Prosecution hall of fame (in alphabetical order) Earle, Fitzgerald and Nifong.Or, if we want a nifty acronym FEN
Posted by: clarice | May 15, 2006 at 04:19 PM
"Jesus saves, but Espo scores on the rebound."
There, I (sorta') rescued you TM.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | May 15, 2006 at 04:22 PM
"The DNA will tell the story in this case......"
""the DNA would exonerate innocent people,"""
Errr, what I meant to say......
--------------------------------------------
Libby was the first...
Libby revealed NIE information he was not authorized...
Err, what I meant to say was.....
Posted by: Patton | May 15, 2006 at 05:24 PM
Each "assailant" has roughly a one in seven chance of being among the first seven photos (7/46). The probabilities are independent. So before starting the "line-up", one would predict that only in about one out of 350 trials would all three be identified after only 7 photos. (Rough guess but I doubt is very far off).
She clearly got impatient with the process.
Posted by: noah | May 16, 2006 at 02:31 AM
Ooops. Only two were identified? And I'm confused obviously...if the players aren't allowed mustaches, how did it happen that she was shown a photo with a mustache?
I guess I will have to break down and read the links. Later.
Posted by: noah | May 16, 2006 at 02:36 AM
I just heard she identified FOUR men.
So we have one indicted with an apparent air tight alibi.
One who she said had a moustache indicted when he never had a moustache.
Not a single bit of the any of the three indicted men on her--no semen, saliva, skin cells, hair, nada.
The man indicted today has DNA similar to a fingernail found in his trash can. The DNA is useless because (a) it is only "partially consistent" which means zip and it was on the "outside"of the nail which also means nothing especially as it was in his trash cans with lots of stuff with his dna on it..
And there is no speedy trial requirement there so the prosecutor will not bring the case until next year.
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 02:59 AM
Noah is almost right but once the first "assailant" is placed in the first seven there are only six slots left, then five, so the answer is actually (7/46)*(6/45)*(5/44) or about 1 in 430.
Since I know more about probability than about law, is there really no practical way to get a speedy trial, notwithstanding the sixth amendment, absent a statute setting a specific timeframe? This is surprising to me.
Posted by: DF | May 16, 2006 at 03:13 AM
The defendants will have to find a way to raise the Sixth Amendment claim. I expect that will be their next step.
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 03:34 AM
DF, yep.
I also completely misread Tom's post re the moustache. All is clear now.
Hey, O for 2 ain't bad, its only the bottom of the sixth and I'm up next.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast. (A. Pope)
Posted by: noah | May 16, 2006 at 05:52 AM
Clarice
Since when do you not have Constitutional granted rights as a citizen? Just cuz its State court? How could that be? I am virtually positve that we all have a right to a "speedy" trial granted by the US Constitution ( 6th amendment ), whatever that has been intrepreted to mean, but it cant be a year plus, if I am prviding the definition. And does not the 14th amendment mean that State courts must observe this fundamental right?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | May 16, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Speedy Trial rights in North Carolina
Speedy trial time frames are determined on a case-by-case basis in North Carolina.
Posted by: Sue | May 16, 2006 at 11:36 AM
http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1020204~LDS/NORTH+CAROLINA+CRIMINAL+PROCESS.html>Source
Meant to link this above...
Posted by: Sue | May 16, 2006 at 11:37 AM
How about this: Nifong is a Rovian plant whose job is to undermine the integrity of prosecutors, causing juries to question their every assertion, thus making Fitzgerald's job virtually impossible, thus saving Rove from an indictment and Libby from a conviction.
Posted by: tim maguire | May 16, 2006 at 11:56 AM
Nifong is doing an outstanding job under those assumptions!
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | May 16, 2006 at 02:27 PM
Got an article which will probably go online tomorrow about this case..I'll post it when it's up.
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 02:32 PM
she id'd the third rapist what more do they need.and where is he from potamac md. one of the richest towns in md.this kid looks and sounds guilty.get this trial under way
Posted by: tomr | May 16, 2006 at 02:34 PM
Tom R., she seems to have gone 1 for 3 (at best) in id's; that is a creditable witness to you? You do understand she was shooting ducks in a barrel? And how does his zip code figure into the gulit/innocence discussion?
Posted by: abe | May 16, 2006 at 09:59 PM
look in his eyes i see guilt.his lawyer thinks speak in public look innocent will help.it doesn't get the trial started
Posted by: tomr | May 17, 2006 at 08:19 AM
Tomr Do you hear voices too?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | May 17, 2006 at 08:20 AM
Interesting column today by Kathleen Parker in the Orlando paper:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/breathing_while_white.html>BREATHING WHILE WHITE
Despite the title, she does a pretty good job of addressing the pampered athletes crapola, that got my panties in a twist a day or two ago.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | May 17, 2006 at 08:37 AM
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5503 My take on it.
Posted by: clarice | May 17, 2006 at 09:53 AM
Great article, clarice. Amazing mind you have, to bring up A Passage to India.
It seems to me this prosecutor has decided he can't deal with the political pressure of the case, so in lieu of an investigation he is just going to put her story to a jury and see what sticks. I find that inexcusable.
Posted by: MayBee | May 17, 2006 at 10:33 AM
Thanks, MayBee..Actually, I think he rushed to get the first 2 indictments for political reasons and is in no hurry to try the case at all.
Posted by: clarice | May 17, 2006 at 11:02 AM
In an otherwise excellent piece, Feldman make one mistake ('the accuser made a prior charge years ago involving three white men' -- the prior charges by the accuser were made against three black men, not white men).
one minor quibble at lucianne.com where your article is posted Clarice
Posted by: windansea | May 17, 2006 at 11:12 AM
Thanks..I'll see if the editor can change it. That's what I get for relying on memory. (I distinctly recall it being described originally as I reported it, but not the change--Of course, that is common. First reports often get revised.)
Posted by: clarice | May 17, 2006 at 11:24 AM
Clarice
I have been haunting some other sites on this and yesterday several posters managed to convince themselves that Evans has used a false mustache. There was no shaking their confidence in this, no matter how unlikely it was to have occurred.
I fear for the defendants. Not because there is any compelling evidence, other than her accusation I see zero corroboration. No I fear that it will be a reverse OJ verdict. This time instead of having a murderer walking free among us, we may witness the incarceration of totally innocent young men. And that outcome to me has always been the worse of the two potential extremes.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | May 17, 2006 at 12:17 PM
he used fake names fake mustache this kid is a real piece of work
Posted by: tomr | May 17, 2006 at 03:41 PM
She used fake nails and made at least one false rape accusation; that's a real piece of work. Keep trying, Tomrboy.
Posted by: abe | May 17, 2006 at 06:59 PM
thats why a jury will decide.guilty 3 years
Posted by: tomr | May 17, 2006 at 07:28 PM
Son of Sam's dog spoke to him, how about you?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | May 17, 2006 at 10:00 PM
the judge is right make them wait let them twist.what they did too that poor girl.rich punk kids
Posted by: tomr | May 19, 2006 at 12:15 PM
dump danowski have him go too duke.let him lose there
Posted by: tomr | May 22, 2006 at 07:14 PM
a 25 year old kid at duke the profram is doomed
Posted by: bob | June 07, 2006 at 08:01 PM