The Nifong Watch: WaPo Wants Charges Dropped

The Washington Post joins the lengthening list of heavy mainstream media outlets criticizing DA Mike Nifong:

Prosecutorial Indiscretion
It's past time to drop all charges in the Duke lacrosse case.

Just before Christmas, Mr. Nifong dropped rape charges after the accuser said she "could no longer testify with certainty that it occurred." But the three men remain charged with kidnapping and first-degree sexual offense, which carry equally severe penalties. Mr. Nifong should drop those charges as well.

It's been clear for months that Mr. Nifong's case -- to the extent he has a case -- is riddled with flaws that raise serious questions about his motives and ethics. The accuser's story has been inconsistent and unreliable -- and that was even before the latest interview with the prosecutor's office, in which, according to his filing, she said she could no longer be certain she had been penetrated with a penis. The physical evidence was scant at best; the identification procedure -- the woman was shown photographs of only Duke lacrosse players -- was shockingly shoddy; one defendant seems to have an alibi.

In recent weeks, Mr. Nifong has admitted that he failed, as required, to turn potentially exculpatory information over to the defense: test results that showed the presence of semen from several other men, but not the Duke players, in swabs taken from the woman's body and clothing. Mr. Nifong says it was an accidental oversight. Yet the director of the DNA laboratory says that he and the prosecutor agreed to leave that information out of his report because it was so "explosive." If so, Mr. Nifong has a bigger problem than a botched prosecution. He should be subject to further ethics proceedings by state bar authorities, who filed charges Thursday against him for making inflammatory and misleading comments about the case in its early days.

KC Johnson notes the politcal implications:

With the voices of the Capitol’s left and right speaking as one, AG Gonzales has more than enough political cover to launch a federal investigation into Nifong’s misconduct.

Let me offer the perfunctory Federalist push-back - although federal intervention may have been appealing a few weeks back, at this point the process seems to be reining Nifong in at the state level. 

I do recognize we are talking about an Administration with very unpredictable Federalist impulses.

PICKY, PICKY:  When I spot what loks like an error in a KC Johnson post, I immediately question my own sense of reality.  However, in his long and lovely lambasting of Wendy Murphy, I think he goes awry here in quoting her:

15.) (2 May 2006) “She was under the influence of a date rape drug.”

In fact, a toxicology report indicated no such finding.

My recollection was that the no toxicology report was ever prepared, but that information from May may have been overtaken by subsequent filings.

Regardless, Ms. Murphy's statement, as of May 2, was contradicted by the discovery made available later in May.

 

Comments

[PaulL]

If it's been clear to the Washington Post for months, why are they only now turning against Nifong? They weren't acting this way before the election, were they?

It's always easy to go along with the tide. They could have gotten points if they were in front with this, but their editorial at this late point changes my impression of them not a bit.

[topsecretk9]

before the latest interview with the prosecutor's office, in which, according to his filing, she said she could no longer be certain she had been penetrated with a penis.

from the NC Bar complaint

...Nifong engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” in his speculation that a condom might have been used, when he knew or should have known that the accuser had explicitly stated that her alleged assailants did not use condoms.

Riddle that. She's not so sure they raped her, but certain they didn't wear condoms when they didn't!

Hilarious that this "the explicit statement" was the no LAX DNA conundrum for Nifong! The whole thing is mind boggling.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I think the business about a tox report is more or less a distinction with no difference: Wendy is asserting as fact that she was under the influence of a date rape drug, but there's no tox report saying that, and lots of other sources saying she was on muscle relaxants that ought not be mixed with alcohol.

[Anonymous Lunatic]

Nifong and the accuser both belong behind bars, and all of society should stop taking the phone calls of those who have been attacking the accused until they're ready to abase themselves in public by way of apology.

[clarice]

Well,Paul, that would take courage, wouldn't it?

[maryrose]

Paul:
excellent point Paul but if WAPO had expressed this view before the election it would have stalled NiFong's momentum and mojo. Well now he
will be driven from office.
OT:
On MTP today McCain and Hil declared frontrunners and the lie is repeated about Hil not regretting her Iraq vote. She's said that publicly but the FACT of it is ignored by Russert and the media.

[cathyf]

I think the business about a tox report is more or less a distinction with no difference: Wendy is asserting as fact that she was under the influence of a date rape drug, but there's no tox report saying that, and lots of other sources saying she was on muscle relaxants that ought not be mixed with alcohol.

I think that isn't quite the distinction that I would make. Muscle relaxant + alcohol is a reasonably effective date-rape drug. The distinction is that everyone agrees that she assembled and administered the drugs by herself to herself.

My assertion, from the beginning, is that these drugs are also quite effective for rape-by-prosecutor, and that this appears to be the only rape that happened...

[clarice]

cathyf, our own living Occam's sword.

[PeterUK]

"Muscle relaxant + alcohol is a reasonably effective" way of stopping her heart and winning a Darwin Award.

[erp]

It's infuriating that it's so casually assumed that AG Gonzales needs "political cover." He's been a disappointmnent to put it mildly on this case and in general.

[kate]

The rules regarding rape need to be clarified. I've read that Britain is considering making the act of having sex with a drunk woman the crime of "rape" since the woman could not consent.

I've been following a far less known case of rape-the accused were US Marines in the Philippines. When I first heard of the case, I was on the side of the poor victim. There were charges of gang rape, the Marines were protrayed as thugs. The left was involved on the side of the "victim".

In fact, the reality was much more complicated,a very complex case. Once again, the US State Department and Marine brass dropped the PR ball on the case. Three marines were acquitted (they never had sex with the woman and were accused of conspiracy, in fact they just wanted to get back to base before they got in trouble and the "victim" tagged along, and one found guilty and sentenced to 40 years in prison. I'm not sure he is guilty. U'm just not sure. The judge said the woman could not have consented because she was so drunk.

[erp]

Was the Marine drunk too and wouldn't that be a defense of his actions as well. In the old days, just being drunk was a crime, now it's an excuse. Dumbing deviancy down and down and down.

Like incest, I think there is far less real rape (the violation of an innocent and unwilling woman) than is bandied about the media.

[ed]

Hmmm.

1. It also has to be recognized that accusations of rape are almost the perfect lever for a woman to force almost anything from a man. That there are so few safeguards against false accusations makes me very cautious.

Personally I use a camera phone with built-in video to videotape the woman I'm with giving consent. Sounds crude, rude and it can definitely be a buzz-killer.

But I have no desire to end up on a sexual predator list or in a prison cell because a woman I've been with is angry with me.

2. I've been frankly cynical about accusations of rape since a few of my friends have been falsely accused of rape. Including one really nice Christian guy who was accused when he was around 16. And no. There is absolutely zero chance that the accusation could possibly be true, something the police discovered later on when they fully investigated the case.

But of course that was after my friend was handcuffed in his homeroom classroom and dragged out to the waiting police cars. And after all that? Nothing happened to the accuser.

3. I think this case is going to make the lives of prosecutors all across the country a lot harder.

4. I think what prosecutorial immunity exists must be modified so that it is completely removed if there is any substantiated charge of misconduct. This way any prosecutor that engages in any misconduct will fact absolute ruin.

And that is probably for the better.

[kate]

No, apparently the Marine was not drunk enough. He was the youngest Marine there and the other Marines believe he was seduced. The Marine and the victim spent the night kissing, dancing etc. She was lap dancing with him according to witnesses.

When it was time to go they both went into the van. That is where the rape took place, although the accounts I read seemed more like drunken sex. He's now facing 40 years. The case got heavy media attention and there was discussion of colonialism and imperialism. This young Marine is paying the price for a lot more then what he was accused.

[Gary Maxwell]

Flexerol I believe is the muscle relaxant that it has been established in several web sites that "precious" was using. The stuff in its own right is strong. Combined with alcohol its is beyond potent. And would create the symtoms of drunk and not responsive that the 2nd dancer complained about to the store security guard while trying to get her out of her car.

[Other Tom]

I went to the linked KC Johnson piece about Wendy Murphy. After reading roughly the first third of it, I was already in stunned disbelief. I have never seen this woman, but it is appalling that, apparently, she still continues to appear on these various networks. Anybody have any good ideas about how to inform the network people about the errors, omissions and falsehoods routinely propagated by this shrew?

[clarice]

I emailed several hosts at Fox who use here, attaching an url to the piece and describing it and Johnson.

[Other Tom]

I've read the whole K.C. Johnson summary now. Much of this stuff seems defamatory on its face. I wonder if the defendants' lawyers are aware of it, and if their clients would contemplate any legal action against Murphy (and perhaps the networks) when the smoke clears. An uphill battle, to be sure, but lawyers should not be talking the way she does in any forum whatsoever. I have made a cursory attempt on Google to find an e-mail address for defense counsel, but no luck thus far. I have already drafted an e-mail to alert them to Johnson's material.

[clarice]

Other Tom, the defense would argue these guys are public figures and under the NYT v. SUllivan case one would have to meet a high test to prevail. In any event, I think the guys have more immediate concerns.
Pressure on the nets to stop using her as an "expert" would, I think, have a better shot at immediate success.

[sylvia]

That article on Murphy was bogus for several reasons.

There was not enough context to place her statements. For instance she could have said "IF the defendant was drugged" - but the excerpts neglected the "IF". Without fuller excerpts printed-we can't accurately judge whether it is a smear job against her.

In addition the supposedly "erroneous" facts Murphy quoted were often based on early unconfirmed news reports that I heard as well - such as theorizing about an object that was used, such as a broom handle. If she repeated what she heard said by reputable news sources- that is not lying and to portray it as such is again a smear.

Then there were also statements that to me seemed to be defense lawyer spins - such as Murphy saying the university President said that many students were missing that night - and then a defense that he made no such statement that night and he didn't know who was there. Well not knowing WHO was there is a little bit different than saying ALL the players were there - so it seems to be a clever gambit of defense hair-splitting and spinning. Until I see a link to the whole statement the president made, I'll reserve judgement on whether he said anything to the effect that any players were missing.

In short, I saw nothing on this supposedly shocking list that was anywhere near a provable lie, and for all to act as if it were, is a smear and they are just doing what they accuse Murphy of doing, jumping to judgement without all the facts.

But what else should I expect. Anyone, especially a strong woman, who steps up for crimes against women and children in this country should expect to be virtually burned at the stake. The castration complex is still alive and well it seems.

[clarice]

Right.:sarc.

[sylvia]

Feel free Clarice to point out one point on the list that you feel is strongest - and I would love to examine it.

[clarice]

Sylvia, I think any effort to deal rationally with you on this case is a wasted effort.

[sylvia]

Yes Wendy Murphy is an evil shrew. That is rationality. No use to challenge that idea.

[clarice]

I think the two of you have a view of the events at odds with reality and common sense .

[sylvia]

Clarice, although I value what you think - I value it even more when you actually support your argument.

[clarice]

Sylvia, it is certainly possible on occasion for an honest commentator to refer to facts which later prove unfounded.In fact, this is difficult to avoid. It is not possible for an honest commentator regularly to misstate so many key facts, and to consistently misrepresent the record as Wendy has.And she does so even when earlier reports have been corrected.
Moreover, I have seen her comment on other cases and find her to be frankly deranged on any and all cases in which sexual abuse of women or children is alleged.
Is she "evil"? I can't say. But I can say she is consistently, almost exclusively , in error and her extreme views and misrepresentations are her stock in trade.

[ed]

Hmmm.

@ sylvia

Sorry but you're completely wrong.

As an example the assertion made by Wendy Murphy that the "rape" took place because a broomstick or other foreign object was used wasn't months ago. It was *after* the Dec 15, 2006, court appearance by Dr. Meehan. Murphy tried to explain away the complete lack of DNA on Greta's show on FoxNews.

So *no*, you're wrong.

It is well known that a broomstick wasn't on the search warrant. It's well known that the DPD did not retrieve a broomstick from that house. Possibly because most people have vacuums.

Nor were there allegations by the DA's office *or* the accuser of anyone using a broomstick prior to the Dec 15, 2006, court appearance of Dr. Meehan. It's possible that cousin "Jakki" had made such accusations but then again she's also the one who claimed that the accuser had already given birth to her latest child and that the accuser had been offered $2 million to drop the case. Both of which have been proven to be falsehoods, lies or just plain wrong.

...

So perhaps you'd like to actually find a specific instance where Wendy Murphy was actually taken out of context and/or where Wendy Murphy had actually made a statement that reflected the actual evidence as it was known at that time.

But that would take more effort than posting a ridiculous bit of fluff on this blog and then making absurd FemNazi commentary.

[sylvia]

You know Clarice, I just typed a long post on Murphy for you but it didn't go through and I lost it. It said it appeared to be spam. Hmmmm. Coincidence?

[sylvia]

"As an example the assertion made by Wendy Murphy that the "rape" took place because a broomstick or other foreign object was used wasn't months ago. It was *after* the Dec 15, 2006, court appearance by Dr. Meehan. Murphy tried to explain away the complete lack of DNA on Greta's show on FoxNews."

Okay- this is what I saw on the list:

9.) (27 April 2006) “It was because a broom handle was used, which by the way, doesn’t produce DNA when you put it inside someone.”

The search warrant for the lacrosse house contained no mention of a broom; and at no point in her myriad stories did the accuser claim assault by a broom.

10.) (2 May 2006) “The broomstick DNA has not yet been revealed.”

In fact, no “broomstick DNA” exists, since the police never seized a broomstick.

None of these dates on the list are after 12/15, so I don't know what you're talking about. As far as I know, search warrants do not name specific items- they look for whatever they can that may be connected to the case, so again I don't know what the heck this means. And I am not aware of what Dr. Meehan had to say. Again, I highly doubt that the idea of an object being used has been completely discounted. As we know that the rape charge has been dropped but the case is still ongoing- that pretty much leaves nothing else but an object- so again I'm not sure where you are going here. I would have to see what Murphy actually said on Greta to judge it a lie. I think it's perfectly logical to explain the lack of DNA because of the use of an object. Again, I need more info.

[Paul Zrimsek]

"In short, I saw nothing on this supposedly shocking list that was anywhere near a provable lie, and for all to act as if it were, is a smear and they are just doing what they accuse Murphy of doing, jumping to judgement without all the facts." -- Sylvia, 1/1/07

"I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth." -- Wendy Murphy, 6/5/06, quoted on the supposedly shocking list

"Look at all the rape convicts who are freed by the Innocence Project all the time - they were all wrongly accused and I doubt they received ideal or even fair treatment from their prosecutors as well. We know with common sense similar things happen practically all the time in this country, yet I never hear a peep about those cases." -- Sylvia, 12/31/06

[sylvia]

"Nor were there allegations by the DA's office *or* the accuser of anyone using a broomstick prior to the Dec 15, 2006, court appearance of Dr. Meehan"

I believe part of the case is that the accuser is not sure what was put in her. Sorry to get graphic here, but as any female can tell you - it's not always possible to tell the difference. The charge in the case is "sexual assault" which can mean various things to be hashed out in court. The charge in the books is not say, "NC Statute 14556 Assault with a Broomstick". Sorry, that kind of charge doesn't exist. The fact that the prosector has not brought up what type of foreign object, if any, it may have been, means nothing. That is the type of info that comes out in a trial. See what I'm talking about here - half rationality is used in debating this case.

[clarice]

I believe if you check on this, (and D in W has) you will learn that penetration with a hard object would certainly have resulted in far more physical injury than she exhibited. Moreover, with respect to one of the defendants, the accuser said he ejaculated in her mouth--hard to do with a broomstick.

[sylvia]

Okay Paul - a little bit of a difference there. What Wendy said is that in her OWN experience, SHE never had a false rape charge. Just because she never did, doesn't mean that it never happened to others - in fact we know that it does. Very disingenious of you to twist my words and meaning though. Again, the propaganda flows.

[sylvia]

"you will learn that penetration with a hard object would certainly have resulted in far more physical injury than she exhibited."

Sorry again to get graphic here, but it depends on the size and shape and texture of the object. I never heard that she claimed the accused ejaculated in her mouth. Are those details even revealed publicly? Was that revealed in discovery? I have not heard that officially proclaimed. But even if he did, there is such thing as saliva that may have washed it away. I doubt that would survive for hours in the mouth.

[clarice]

If someone ejaculated in her mouth --and she did say one of the defendants had--then her last report per Nifong that no penis had penetrated her is inconsistent with that.

The nurse who exmined her and who is trained in rape cases, says unequivocally that had the accuser been penetrated with an object--like a broomstick--there would have been physical evidence--more tearing, bruising etc--than there was.
That's it. It is pointless to continue a discussion with anyone who cannot accept reality.

[sylvia]

"The nurse who exmined her and who is trained in rape cases, says unequivocally that had the accuser been penetrated with an object--like a broomstick--there would have been physical evidence--more tearing, bruising etc--than there was."

Well from what I understand that nurse was not very experienced and is being challenged by the defense. However, a broomstick is even narrower than many penises -it depends on how deeply and how much force was used to insert the object whether there was any injury. Just inserting a typical broomstick by itself wihtout unusual force is not an injury causing event. Come on Clarice - that is the reality. If you don't know that- you need to get out more.

[sylvia]

"If someone ejaculated in her mouth --and she did say one of the defendants had--then her last report per Nifong that no penis had penetrated her is inconsistent with that."

I didn't see your first point. First of all, I am not aware that it is offical knowledge that she spoke about the oral sex because I thought all of that was still privedged info. However, even if known, Nifong dropped the RAPE charge. Inserting a penis in someone's mouth is not considered rape but could be sexual assualt, which is the charge still standing. There are no inconsistencies here. Just a complete lack of logic on the part of many.

[sylvia]

Okay anyone else here who wishes to be rebutted as well? No? Okay then my work here for today is done. On to more important things that don't involve my computer. Carry on.

[topsecretk9]

6.) (19 April 2006) “If you think that I would believe for a minute the spin coming out of one of these defense attorneys, given their silence around the DNA report, their deafening silence and lawyering up in the immediate aftermath of the crime.”

In fact, most of the players waited more than a week after the party to retain counsel.

Personally, any attorney or prosecutor who claims "lawyering up" in 2007! is a sign of guilt is seriously stupid or lying.

But this Wendy statement is outrageous and demonstrates she's the Tanya Harding of punditry

4.) (5 April 2006) The players were “thinking, ‘I was entitled to do this. I’m a member of a wealthy white boy’s school in a community that allow me to do what I want when I want. They’ve gotten away with a lot for a very long time. Why not go home and celebrate?’ . . . The e-mail shows that these guys were of the mind that whatever had happened to this woman was just another day at the beach. They’ll rape her, sodomize her and tomorrow they’ll kill her.”

I do believe the defendants have a defamation claim.

[cboldt]

-- " ... anyone else here who wishes to be rebutted as well?" --

Yes please. My present butt is cracked.

[billy missle]

Personally I use a camera phone with built-in video to videotape the woman I'm with giving consent. Sounds crude, rude and it can definitely be a buzz-killer.
-ed
mmm..and how many second dates does this method get you..:)
I must admit, you have the only sentence in this post that caused a smile to cross my face..the rest..broomsticks, lawyers..gag!
jeez..while we are speaking of lawyers and DNA evidence, let me remind you of that old joke..
Why are lawyers and sperm so alike?
Only one in a hundred million do any good!

[Paul Zrimsek]

MURPHY: No, that doesn`t mean he`s innocent. I`m sick of these DNA lies. The Innocence Project and these people who falsely claim that 150 men have been exonerated and proved actually innocent with these new DNA tests on old cases is nonsense.

--CNNHN Nancy Grace Show, 11/11/05

You know, this was fun at first but it's just getting too easy now.

[Walter]

TSK9,

They may well have a defamation claim, but not based on the quoted passage.

Opinion, however harshly phrased, is not actionable.

It's difficult to make the case that a "reasonable person" (the applicable standard) would believe that the commentator was stating as a fact just what the defendants were thinking unless that reasonable person is predisposed to believe in telepathy.

Mistating what an email says is a fact, and in some cases could subject one to damages.

Mistating or misinterpreting the state of mind implied by an agreed fact or document is protected opinion.

No criticism intended--just clarification of the boundaries. After all, JoM* would have to disable comments (for lack of commentators with remaining assets) were opinion actionable.

*And let's not even get into Free Republic and dKos...

[Locomotive Breath]

I think I have it correct that there was no urine or blood tox done. At least none that is publically known. Given Nifong's propensity for hiding things there may be a negative one hidden somewhere, but at this late date any positive tox screen would have been revealed by Nifong.

However, there was a well-after-the-fact tox screen done on one of her hairs and that did test negative. IIRC it would have been able to detect the presence of date rape drug.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ sylvia

1.

None of these dates on the list are after 12/15, so I don't know what you're talking about. As far as I know, search warrants do not name specific items- they look for whatever they can that may be connected to the case, so again I don't know what the heck this means.

A. Wendy Murphy made her statements again *after* Dec 15, 2006 on a 10pm weekly show with Greta on FoxNews. How do I know this? I was watching the show.

B. Wendy Murphy had also made those same idiotic statements previously, but I discounted those **since there never was any evidence of anything to support such stupid nonsense**. Instead I provided an example of Wendy Murphy *knowing* that no broomstick was used in this supposed crime but alleging it anyways in defiance of fact.

C. The DA's office never accused the LAX players of using a broomstick.

D. The accuser never accused the LAX players of using a broomstick.

E. Specific items are indeed included on search warrants.

F. What you quoted are clear examples of the rather rabid and idiotic nature of Wendy Murphy.

2.

And I am not aware of what Dr. Meehan had to say.

As far as I know Dr. Meehan had nothing to say about any foreign object used to penetrate the accuser. Why is this?

BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ALLEGATIONS OF SUCH.

3.

Again, I highly doubt that the idea of an object being used has been completely discounted.

Oh you would eh? Why don't you go and read the police statement the accuser made. She was extremely explicit in her details. She made accusations of ejaculation, which is rather difficult for broomsticks to do BTW.

4.

As we know that the rape charge has been dropped but the case is still ongoing- that pretty much leaves nothing else but an object- so again I'm not sure where you are going here.

Except of course the DA's office *hasn't alleged that a foreign object was used*.

Just like Wendy Murphy you're trying to fill in your own personal brand of facts that has no relation to either reality or this case.

5.

I would have to see what Murphy actually said on Greta to judge it a lie.

http://www.foxnews.com is your friend there for that one.

Or perhaps you can find other nonsense spewed by Wendy Murphy on http://www.youtube.com.

Or you might try Yahoo! video. Or Google Video.

6.

I think it's perfectly logical to explain the lack of DNA because of the use of an object.

Except of course no such allegations have been made outside of Wendy Murphy and *you*.

Facts? Case? Law? Awwww. Who cares eh?

7.

Again, I need more info.

Yes that rather does describe this situation somewhat accurately.

[ed]

Hmmm.

@ billy missle

mmm..and how many second dates does this method get you..:)

Actually it does rather work out fairly well.

I generally explain it as:

"I want to remember this moment with you forever."

"Tomorrow I'm going to replay this at work to remind me of how wonderful you are."

etc etc etc.

I know it sounds a bit caddish but I really do mean it, along with the legal protection, and it does go over very well usually. Though when it doesn't, it *really* doesn't.

[Walter]

Best Comment of the Year!

Heh.

[topsecretk9]

No criticism intended--just clarification of the boundaries.

Appreciated. My bad (emPHAsis problem). I didn't mean the bolded passage...just an overall. This is what I was thinking...but then again they may not fit either

“You know, these guys actually . . . some of them have been, according to neighbors, reportedly been involved in not only carousing activity but other sexual offenses.”

“All the photographs showing how really fine she was when she left scene were doctored, where the date stamp was actually fraudulent.”

[topsecretk9]

The first "no duh" - no news pity party article of the year:

Some journalists who made careers out of questioning government officials and bearing witness to history may soon find themselves answering questions from prosecutors as key witnesses in the CIA leak case.

Ten or more reporters from some of the most prominent news organizations could be called to testify in the perjury and obstruction case of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. It's rare enough for reporters to become witnesses. But the Libby case is even more unusual because journalists will be dueling witnesses _ some called by the defense team, some by prosecutors...

..."This case, it's magnified by the fact that it's in Washington and the status of the players," Clark said. "It's a bizarre and I'd say dangerous case."

My heart weeps.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/01/D8MCNF4O2.html

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ sylvia

I believe part of the case is that the accuser is not sure what was put in her. Sorry to get graphic here, but as any female can tell you - it's not always possible to tell the difference.

WRAL: transcript of lineup

IMAGE 7 (Reade Seligman)

Victim: He looks like one of the guys that assaulted me.

Sgt: How sure of that are you?

Victim: 100%

Sgt: You're 100% sure. Ok.

Victim: Yes.

Sgt: How did he assault you? Which one was he?

Victim: He was the one that was standing in front of me... um... that made me perform oral sex on him.

Sgt: What else did he do?

Victim: That was it.

NOTE: Inv. Clayton motioned for me to repeat that for him.

Sgt: He was the one standing in front of her that made her perform oral sex. 100% sure that would have been image #7.

...

3. IMAGE 40 (Colin Finnerty)

Victim: He is the guy who assaulted me.

Sgt: What did he do

Victim: He put his penis in my anus and vagina. (the victim's eyes were pooling with tears)

Sgt: Was he the first or the second one to do that?

Victim: The second one.

Sgt: Is he the one that strangled you or not?

Victim: No.

Sgt: So that is the gentleman who put his penis in your anus; picture 40.

...

IMAGE 41

...

Sgt: Um, you said you didn't recognize him. And... Getting back one slide to the gentleman who put his penis in your anus. How sure of that are you?

Victim: 100%.

Sgt: 100%

...

I'd include something really sarcastic here but I'd rather spend my time making some coffee.

[PeterUK]

"However, a broomstick is even narrower than many penises -it depends on how deeply and how much force was used to insert the object whether there was any injury. Just inserting a typical broomstick by itself wihtout unusual force is not an injury causing event."

A broomstick is also considerably longer,a little knowledge of geometry and leverage would show how much damage would be done by such an implement in the hands of drunks.

[clarice]

You must be thinking of the non-ejaculating type broomstick, PUK

[PeterUK]

That or the one Sylvia rode in on.

[windansea]

That or the one Sylvia rode in on.

good one Peter...I was about to ask Sylvia if all the men in her life have penises "even narrower than a broomstick" as this could be part of the problem.

[PeterUK]

Comes from dating Pinnochio.

[windansea]

LOL Pete...this could be the first x rated thread in JOM history

[PeterUK]

Yes,Sylvia is a child of Disney,never been the same since "The Sorcerers Apprentice".

[topsecretk9]

el oh el !!!!!

[Paul Zrimsek]

If this were my site I'd delete the last half-dozen or so posts. For shame, people!

[PeterUK]

Paul,
Have you really read Sylvia's sordid posts which masquerade as serious analysis?

[Paul Zrimsek]

Sylvia's stuff is merely foolish. Some of the things that are being said about her now are just plain vile.

[PeterUK]

Accusing young men of using a broomstick to sexually assault a woman isn't? No evidence,just straight off the top of her head,amazing sexual comparisons,aren't vile,some kind of imbalance here Paul.

[Jane]

I agree with Paul. What's the point?

[topsecretk9]

I think a little lightening up might be in order. I don't think their was any maliciousness, just unfortunate wording and playing off it. Take a pill time people.

[boris]

just plain vile

About sums up the entire case.

Sylvia's posts may be foolish but they are also "vile".

[PeterUK]

As I understand it,the charges of assault still stand,a group of young men,at the beginning of their lives now have the "broomstick" smear on their characters.
Having observed the great smear machine at work over the last few years,this "foolishness looks amazingly like the new meme du jour.

[Other Tom]

Let's see...calling Ms. Murphy a shrew is "irrational." Repeatedly levelling false accusations of rape against three young men iw--what?

I agree: Sylvia is merely foolish; no more, no less.

[jean]

poor sylvia I think she is angry that the females here don't agree with her and Clarice seems to be her target of choice.I have confidence Clarice is more than capable of defending herself.Sylvias' remarks were laughable and the replies a tad bit off color certainly were far from vile.In fact as a frequent lucker it was nice to see ya'll lighten up .

[Specter]

[INGORE ON target="sylvia"]

My job here is done for the day.

[PeterUK]

This accusation is all over the web

Exactly Spector.

[clarice]

Susan Estrich calls the accuser a liar, says she's Nifong's fourth victim and will be destroyed on the stand if the case goes to trial. She also notes that dropping the rape charge will not shield the accuser --evidence will go in about her sexual history:
"she will be an admitted liar of the worst sort the moment she opens her mouth. She lied about rape. Dropping the rape charge does not remove the statements she made claiming rape from the case. Rape shield laws do not protect her when other contemporaneous sexual acts might explain the physical evidence of sexual contact and of bruising.”

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/estrich-pulls-no-punches.html

[topsecretk9]

Liestoppers has a list of choice Nifong quotes.

Here is one regarding the drug issue (not sure when he said this):

“On the other hand, [the accuser’s] ability to recall in great detail the events both prior to and during her assault suggested that, if any drug was administered to her, it was not one of those drugs commonly referred to as “date rape drugs.”

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Frankly it's rather amazing the number of people, who aren't either the prosecutor or accuser, who've pushed this "broomstick" theory of events.

It's even more amazing how a grasp of the most basic facts seem to elude a number of people in the professional punditry and elsewhere.

And it's incredibly astonishing how many bizzare things have been said by the family members of the accuser that have no basis in reality.

Now I'm not an expert either on broomsticks, foreign objects used in sex acts or the sticking of various things in untoward orifices. Nor really do I want to be. But as someone who has had to deal with various medical situations, that I really don't want to recount here, the one thing about this "foreign object" theory of events strikes me as a little odd:

If the LAX players used a broomstick, or what have you, then wouldn't the accuser realise that the object is 20+ degrees *cooler* than her body temperature?

Durham in April is around 60f degrees. Assume the LAX players turned on the heat and kept it a reasonable 70f degrees. Average body temperature is 98.6. Assume, for a very conservative argument's sake, that the difference in temperature between the "foreign object" and the accuser's body temperature is 20f degrees.

That's not noticeable?

[clarice]

Precious' latest version of events that she couldn't recall if she'd been penetrated by something other than a penis comes so remarkably close in time to Meehan-Nifong's scam was exposed (and it was clear that there was ZERO chance of establishing any such thing)as to constitute a true miracolo. No?

[clarice]

***Correction**
Precious' latest version of events that she couldn't recall if she'd been penetrated by a penis comes so remarkably close in time to Meehan-Nifong's scam was exposed (and it was clear that there was ZERO chance of establishing any such thing)as to constitute a true miracolo. No?

[topsecretk9]

I have been reading all these dedicated blogs and I did not know there was a video depicting dancer in limber pole dances at the same time she was visiting various hospitals for pain (or if I did, it was as if I learned it for the very first time).

At each hospital her versions of the "rape" varied. What I thought interesting was her pain rating at multiple hospitals to be 10 or near ten in a scale of 1 to 10. The first, IIRC, did not prescribe painkillers because of her med. history. But #2 hospital the next night did.

Anyways, I was wondering if she was just trying to cop some painkillers by manipulating her crime reporting, BUT these frequent visits at the time convinced the investigators/da that a severe physical assault took place?

[topsecretk9]

I am sure the above is not an original idea, so sorry if this was discussed.

[topsecretk9]

OH...and forgot to mention to that...she had high pain rating but each hospital was at a loss -- did not see typical symptoms of such a high rating and could not really find anything wrong with her.

[PeterUK]

Topsecret,
That would be compensation setting in.Here in the land of chronic back problems there are hordes of sufferers who have to carry a stick,I say carry because the stick never actually touches the ground.

[sylvia]

Wow. I repeat. The castration complex still lives. I try to actually discuss this case rationally and you people flip out. It's like a modern day witch trial.

I brought up the broomstick because it was on the list of Murphy "lies" and Ed kept bringing it up. I started to explain that it was not necessarily a lie from Murphy because I too have heard rumours of a broomstick early on in the case - so for Murphy to bring up a broomstick is not a lie - it's based on published reports. Then Ed brought up how Murphy brought up the broomstick again in Dec 15 - when he said authoritatively we know "no broomstick was used". I asked him to provide some more context on how she used that statement (ie a link would have been good) - because without the context- at least a small paragraph or so - it would be hard to judge how she was talking about it. Sorry I need some proof. He referred me to the Fox web site, without providing a specific link. So he wants to make blind accusations without showing any evidence to back it up.

(By the way Ed- just because the broomstick was not on the "search warrant" (whatever that means - which is a false concept as search warrant don't list specific objects in advance) does not mean no broomstick was used. Something not being found is not the same as saying it wasn't used - it could have been thrown away, etc. Ex, to assume someone was shot at- we don't need to find the gun or bullets that did it - witness testimony may be enough to a jury)

Then Clarice kept going on how a broomstick would injure. I said it DEPENDED on WHETHER severe force was used. So sorry if you think its vile to discuss the mechanics of the case - but Clarice brought up the whole mechanics of the broomstick and I just merely responded with facts. She then ridiculed some basic technical knowledge there so I had to respond. (And Ed-if you must know, no- a temperature difference is not always noticeable - especially in a time of stress. The object may warm up quickly with the body and friction, in a second, and especially wood as compared to metal).

And then PeterUK says this to my quote:

Me - "However, a broomstick is even narrower than many penises -it DEPENDS ON HOW DEEPLY AND HOW MUCH FORCE WAS USED to insert the object whether there was any injury. Just inserting a typical broomstick by itself wihtout unusual force is not an injury causing event."

Peter - "A broomstick is also considerably longer,a little knowledge of geometry and leverage would show how much damage would be done by such an implement in the hands of drunks."

He obviously CAN'T READ- enough said.

Anyway, in summary. I am not on my own saying that the boys used a broomstick or making up false accusations of rape. I am saying that I HEARD allegations of a broomstick early on the case - and not just from Murphy - from the media. There's a difference there - me/the media -two different things- try to use your brain to understand it.

I am also saying that the facts of the case are not known- because such information is private until a court date. The victim may have thought a penis was used in the beginning but may have changed her mind to claim she does not know what was used- as in fact Nifong just informed us she did. That is perfectly in her right to say she's not sure and up to a jury to then judge her credibility. Since we do not know for sure what was used, according to the accuser, it lies in the realm of possibility it was an object. A broomstick or any object could have been used- again since the accuser does not know - WE do not know. All she may have to say in court is that she was penetrated, with what- she wasn't aware, because she didn't see it visually. For Wendy Murphy to speculate that it may be a broomstick or some other object which may not leave DNA is then perfectly legitimate.

The fact that logic seems to have been suspended and many are trying to squelch free speech and speculation in this case is very frightening. It's either the mark of a low IQ or blind fear. People really haven't changed much over the years.

[boris]

Is there any reasonable scenario where the prosecutor, the accuser, Wendy Murphy, and sylvia could actually be correct?

No.

Has anybody at this website squelched or attempted to sylvia's free speech.?

No.

Are sylvia's rants any less "vile" than any other factor regarding this case, including mild ribbing at her expense?

No.

[clarice]

Search warrants always must describe in specific terms the objects of the search.

For Example:"
With a search warrant application; and, again that application consists of three primary pieces of information. The agent has to set forth where he or she wants to search. We have to particularly describe the place to be searched to a reasonable certainty.

The agent has to set forth what he wants to search for. Again, with particularity so we know what the agent’s authorized to search for and seize.

And, of course, probable cause. This is the meat of the application describing the facts that support probable cause. It shows that the things to be searched for are located in the place to be searched."

http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/4th-amendment-roadmap-podcasts/transcripts/search-warrants-podcast-transcript.html>Search warrants

A number of us have told you this, Sylvia, but you seem to be operating in a closed loop.

[sylvia]

Clarice- Are you telling me that the police are searching for one type of murder weapon such as a gun, but they come across another, such as a bloody knife - they are not allowed to take the knife because they didn't list it in advance? Come on. Use your logic people. The object has to RELATE to the charge. You don't have to list SPECIFICALLY what it is.

[sylvia]

Clarice from your own educational link.

"Well you can find that list in Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures 41C. There’s a laundry list of things like evidence of a crime, and that seems like it includes just about anything, but let me give you a for instance. "

You're operating on a closed loop it appears- not even reading your own link.

[clarice]

Under normal circumstances you cannot seize something not described in the search warrant. That Nifong included no broomstick in the warrant is conclusive evidence that he was never told a broomstick had been used in the incident.

"
The police can search only the place described in a warrant, and usually can seize only the property that the warrant describes. The police cannot search a house if the warrant specifies the backyard, nor can they search for weapons if the warrant specifies marijuana plants. However, this does not mean that police officers can seize only those items listed in the warrant. If, in the course of their search, police officers come across contraband or evidence of a crime that is not listed in the warrant, they can lawfully seize the unlisted items.

If the warrant specifies a certain person to be searched, the police can search only that person unless they have independent probable cause to search other persons who happen to be present at the scene of a search. However, if an officer has a reasonable suspicion that an onlooker is engaged in criminal activity, the officer can question the onlooker and, if necessary for the officer's safety, conduct a frisk for weapons." http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:y8Z6ljx8pWMJ:www.criminalattorneysandiego.com/lawyer-attorney-50CD91FC-B21D-4BE7-BA4818C8E29AC758.html+right+to+seize+items+not+listed+in+search+warrant&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3> A bloody knife is not a broomstick

Indeed, if you review the record, the only person advancing that was third parties, like Precious' father who as we know had no first hand knowledge.

[clarice]

**the only people advancing that were third parties,**********

[sylvia]

Calrice here's little more from your link about searching.

..Bloody clothes would be evidence of a crime if you suspect someone of an assault, rape, or murder. We can also search for contraband and by that, I mean stuff that’s illegal to possess, like drugs, explosives, or child pornography; just unlawful to possess in of themselves. We can search for fruits of a crime, so the fruits of a larceny maybe a stolen t.v. set or something else that was stole from a premises. We can search for instruments of crime, things that were used in the offense, like the gun used in the bank robbery, or we can search for a person to be arrested or a person who is being illegally held.

Miller: I guess that agents also have to be pretty careful about how they describe those things, don’t they?

Solari: Yes. Again, the 4th Amendment requires that the things to be seized be described with particularity, which makes sense. The particularity requirement makes sure that a search is confined in its scope to the particular described evidence that relates to the crime for which the agent demonstrated probable cause. So if the agent’s looking for contraband, then he has to tell the magistrate what kind of contraband You can’t just say contraband or items illegally possessed. You have to be specific and say for instance marijuana. If the agent is looking for a stolen TV set, or the gun that was used in the robbery, he has to describe those items and if possible give the make, model or even a serial number if one is available.

So in other words, if you read above, you can look for "instruments of a crime". Get it? You don't have to state in advance that you're looking for a broomstick or a dildo or a cucumber. You just have to demonstrate that you have reason to believe that the found object may be connected to the crime. Why I have to keep explaining this simple concept- is beyond me.

[clarice]

Don't bother taking a law exam--You have utterly missed the point, Sylvia.
A broomstick is an ordinary household object and absent some obvious physical evidence on it to suggest it had been used in a crime, the police could not seize it had it not been described in the warrant.And it wasn't in the warrant.

In fact, the police did not seize it.. persuasive evidence
that Precious never mentioned it and that it bore no evidence of having been used in an assault.

[sylvia]

Ditto Clarice. If the accuser gave some testimony about being penetrated, but indicated at the time she wasn't sure whether an object was used or not in the commision of that crime- an object may be legitimately seized. Even IF she didn't say that about an object- if the police found a dildo or some other out of place object such as a cucumber in the men's bathroom, they would have the perfect right to seize it upon suspicion of it being involved in the crime. It's all about what a reasonable person would conclude due to the charges in the case.

[boris]

Clarice:

That Nifong included no broomstick in the warrant is conclusive evidence that he was never told a broomstick had been used in the incident.

sylvia:

You don't have to state in advance that you're looking for a broomstick or a dildo or a cucumber.

The logic in Clarice's claim is not dependent on whether there is any truth to sylvia's claim. If Nifong had wanted a broomstick, it would have been in the warrant.

To sat the police could possibly have seized a broomstick had one been found, in no way provides the slightest bit of evidence that Nifong wanted one or that the accuser mentioned one.

Why I even should have to explain this simple concept is beyond sylvia.

[clarice]

No. As you would read the rules respecting search warrants, there'd be no reason to require any description of the items to be seized at all.

[sylvia]

No. As you would read the rules respecting search warrants, there'd be no reason to require any description of the items to be seized at all.

Exactly Clarice. You don't have to describe the objects in advance- you just have to state you are looking for objects used in the commission of a crime - read the excerpts above from Clarice's link. Even an ordinary household item, such as a broomstick - if the ivestigating officers can make a reasonable argument that, upon entering the alleged crime scene, they believe it may relate to the charge for whatever reason, can be seized. Case closed.

[clarice]

The case is closed as far as I am concerned Sylvia. I can't penetrate the shield with logic or fact and it seems futile to continue trying.

[sylvia]

Clarice, your response is the typical consolation of someone who has been defeated logically. I even quoted your OWN link to you. But hey if it makes you feel better, go ahead.

[boris]

the typical consolation of someone who has been defeated logically.

Clearly that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

[sylvia]

For someone to claim that a household object may not be seized in a search without it specifically being mentioned in the search warrant is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Do you think the search warrant mentioned the towels and the tissues. Did they have to list towels, tissue, paper towels, toilet paper, underwear, shower curtain, rug, curtains, trash, and on and on in the search warrant? And if it wasn't in their list but found in the bathroom they had to leave it there?

Come on. Grow up. They could take anything which the police officers feel had a relation to the charge. Such factors for a household object could be the location of the object- ie the bathroom, or anything out of place or changed in any unusual way, or an object that one of the occupants acted suspiciously about or tries to hide, etc.- many different reasons.

If the police officers had to list all objects in advance- no crimes would ever be solved. Anyway, there's no point in discussing this anymore, as this is an undisputed fact. Please look up some more info on search warrants and inform yourselves first.

[clarice]

Here is the actual search warrant.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke1.html
Item 1. is the most general description:"Any DNA evidence to include hair,semen,blood,salvia(sic) related to the suspects and victim."

Had there been any mention by the victim of a broomstick, it would seem to be covered by No. 1, but since no broomstick was seized one might conclude the police had no indication of the use of a broomstick.

[sylvia]

Ok Clarice, before I go - can you point me to a list of what objects were seized? Is this information even public?

[clarice]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke5.html