I Like To Watch

The accuser's story in the Duke debacle changed last December when she spoke with prosecutors and decided she was unsure about whether she had been raped.

However, a new defense filing indicates that the change was quite dramatic:

The accuser in the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case told prosecutors in December that one of the three players charged did not commit any sex act on her during the alleged attack, according to court papers filed Thursday by the defense.

    The attacker identified as Reade Seligmann only watched, she told an investigator, the papers said. While he was repeatedly urged to take part in the alleged attack, she recalled, he said he could not participate because he was getting married.

   "The accuser's most recent recollection of events demonstrates clearly that she cannot accurately recall and describe her attackers and that any identification made by her is necessarily unreliable," the defense filing said.

   The new description of Seligmann's role in the alleged assault was one of several changes the accuser made in her story during a Dec. 21 interview with an investigator from District Attorney Mike Nifong's office, the defense said.

   In that same interview, the accuser also said she was no longer certain she had been penetrated vaginally by a penis, a necessary element of rape charges in North Carolina.

   That led Nifong to dismiss rape charges against Seligmann and fellow defendants Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty. The players, who have steadfastly declared their innocence, remain charged with sexual offense and kidnapping.

As usual, it is props to KC Johnson, who wondered back in December just what the evolving criminal allegation was against Reade Seligmann.

My guess it that a spectator is still an accessory.  OK, my other guess is that Nifong is just making stuff up.

Extensive analysis of the latest defense filing and Nifong's latest fantasy has been provided by the invaluable KC Johnson.

Comments

[quest33]

Maybe this is the Onion Peel Type of Prosecution.

First charge everybody with everything, and then just start peeling off the layers crying a lot as you do it, until finally you have what??

Nothing? Ok, well an election win on the backs of a misused, abused and confused Black Electorate. Nothing new about that!

Like a stick and carrot approach to a donkey pulled cart, with the carrot being "3 white Duke devils." Ok, well a bit of untied string, maybe.

Nifong better hope that there is at least a string. Wait was that found in the trash? The G-string!

[Gary Maxwell]

Well has this now turned tragedy into farce or more ominously after reading Ms. Rabinowitz in the WSJ today, has it gone from farce to tradgedy? In her piece she details that this is not the first time a prosecutor has run amok. The Falls Creek prosecution is if anything even more unbelievable and it resulted in convicts. These young men are facing 25 years in jail from what is clearly totally fabricated testimony of a false accuser. I am willing to state my belief that the DA's investigator has a hand in reweaving her story to try to plug leaks in her previous version(s). He should be hung if I am correct in this supposition.

[Gary Maxwell]

Quest33

Add "blue eyed" in front of the Duke Devils and you will likely have a quote from the most reverent Louis Farakan. If its not about this case, I am still sure he uses the phrase liberally and often.

[hit and run]

See the article Sue linked to on the Dead Horse thread.

Yet more changes in her story.

After all...

That's her story and she's sticking to it it to them.

[T'Dereick]

Wait some minute!

Right on! You's is all messed down. Dose 3 dudes need t'go waaay down and go waaay down hard. Fo' upside 150 years mah' sucka's jave been put waaay down by de MAN and here it's goin' t'happen t'dis poo' goat.

She wuz plum tryin' t'make ha' life betta' by earnin' some bre'd fo' college and dis happens t'her. Ah be baaad... If be wuzn't dse 'esact 3 den it wuz some oda' 3. It duzn't matter. Ah be baaad... It wuz some sucka. Why would some sistah likes dat lie? It duzn't make no sens fo' ha' to honky jibe when she tryin ta dig ta college. No way dey should walk!

Jus' like Orenthawl James.

Word.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

I'm assuming the previous comment was a parody.

[cboldt]

-- I'm assuming the previous comment was a parody. --

Whatever it was, it was run through the `jive` filter.

[Daddy]

It is worth the time to familiarize yourself with the Group-of-88 Duke professors who promoted and enabled this witchhunt. 85 are Liberal Arts profs, 3 in the Sciences. Durham in Wonderland links to a roster of their names and Departments on the lower right side of his main page, "Group of 88 Membership". More revealing is the list of courses these same professors are teaching for the semester that begins this week at Duke. That roster comes from one of his posts from 01 November 2006, "Group of 88 classes", which my computer headline lists as http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/ 01/group-of-88-classes.html. An absolutely frightening read. If you had questions about why this group of educators was apparently hell bent on promoting this ongoing myth of innocent black victimhood and priveleged white racist slavemasters, this is where you will find your answers. This is their religion. With rare exception, this is a diet of malignant mental acid well designed to destroy belief and hope in the great positive melting pot ideal that is America.

[sylvia]

Hey, let's not get too excited here. The point is not what time the accuser thinks she was assaulted. Not everybody is aware of what time everything occurs. The relevant question is - what order did she say things occurred - ie is she now claiming she got assaulted BEFORE she danced and changing the sequence of all the events? In which case that could be troublesome to her claim. Or is the timeline about dancing, then assault, etc about the same, but she is just pushing it forward half an hour because she wasn't really sure what time she got there. In that case- it would be less troublesome.

See, this is my problem with this whole trial by media. The accuser says one thing and possibly twisted and burnished by the defense a little bit before it is leaked by them- and the whole country goes crazy. We don't KNOW what she said yet- we only know what (probably) the defense leaked. Just like the defense made a big deal about her saying the accuser talked about 5 guys attacking her before it was 3 - well maybe she was taling about the 5 guys in the master bedroom. In other words- until we see it all, and have all of her words in context - and that probably won't take place until a trial - we don't know what we think we know.

That's why we have trials people.

[cathyf]

But sylvia, that's not my objection at all. My objection is that given which chemicals were in her system in which amounts, I don't believe that she knows what happened any more than you do or I do. Or Mike Nifong does. As others have pointed out, she's damn lucky that she didn't just die from the flexiril and alcohol.

[clarice]

We have trials --or should under the law--only when there is reasonable cause to believe that the accused are guilty of a crime.

The only people I can see who fit that category at the moment are the defendant, Meehan and the prosecutor.

You do see, Sylvia, that the accuser who was 99% positive that Seligman raped her, now says she's not sure that any of the three did, and that Seligman never even touched her.(Undoubtedly, he didn't unless the rules of time-space were repealed that night in Durham.)

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ sylvia

What's even more curious to me is the timeline where the accuser and the second dancer got *paid*.

In the original timeline I believe the dancers got paid and then the assault took place as they left.

With this new timeline it appears that the accuser got assaulted first and then got paid. Which raises my eyebrows at least.

What crazy nonsense.

[tilson]

sylvia, all of the facts of the case have been revealed in the form of motions, which are public, and which can not be "leaked" precisely because they're public. so we indeed do KNOW exactly what Crystal said - please do not pull the "Nifong must have something" nonsense that we heard for the first 6 months of this travesty.

I don't have the time to rehash the accuser's 12 different versions (literally) of the night, but her latest version has now completely impeached at least 5 other versions of hers. not to mention the absurdity of her new claim that she was raped the very second she showed up at the house, somehow felt like dancing after she was raped, and then hung out at the house for 50 minutes after that.

this case is so ridiculous its not really a tragedy anymore -- its a dark comedy. and i'll never step foot in NC because of it.

[Tom Devlin]

syliva - We know what everyone said. WRAL published the report of the December 21 interview here: http://www.wral.com/news/local/flash/1133779/

The defense attorneys' latest brief is here: http://www.wral.com/news/local/flash/1133681/

I am not very clever, so I am not able to see where the defense "twisted and burnished" the AV's statement.

[clarice]

Well, see, it's a male "power" thing. Given an opportunity to do so attractive bright white lacrosse players will rape skanky strippers at every opportunity and then use that magic solvent to substitute other men's DNA for theirs.

In fact, all the men who post here COULD have done it under the same evidence used to hold these guys..so step up and prove you didn't do it..That is the Sylvia-Gang of 88-Nifong theory of criminal law.

[Steven Den Beste]

At this point it would take a miracle to save Mike Nifong. In this case, miracle is spelled "plea bargain". If he can hold on long enough to terrify one of the three students into pleading guilty to something, no matter what, then Nifong is out from under. But if this case is dismissed, Nifong doesn't have a snowball's chance of avoiding disbarment.

Of course, there's no chance of that since the defense attorneys all know that the prosecution case is hopeless. But it's Nifong's only real hope at this point, and I think that's the reason he's continuing to push the case; maybe, just maybe, one of the kids will give up.

[topsecretk9]

Hey, let's not get too excited here.

LOL.

[Steven Den Beste]

I just had an awful thought: What if Nifong's strategy here is to try to keep the prosecution going long enough so that one of the three families runs out of money for legal defense, forcing one of the three guys to accept a plea bargain?

[Neo]

Nifong must be planning a redeployment.

[clarice]

Heh That will never happen. He has no case, the boys will , if necessary, write a book become celebrities and pay back the fees if suits against Durham and Nifong and Meehan and Duke are insufficient to cover the costs.

[cathyf]

Well, one possibility is that Nifong might get them to plead to underage drinking or supplying alcohol to minors, and then declare victory. (This has the advantage that it's pretty clear that this is an actual crime that actually occurred.)

[Neo]

The Nifong "death spiral" is nearing completion. The only question remaining is just how big of a fireball he makes on impact.

Out of respect for the DA's office, you'd like to belief that Nifong was just experiencing a "fit of stupidity" but unfortunately Nifong is stupid to the bone.

[MayBee]

It's fascinating that the story of the timing changed, given that Seligman's attorneys have shown compelling evidence that he wasn't in the house at the time her last version took place. Now, it seems, she still has a problem because he was on the phone to his girlfriend.

That poor kid. If ever there seems to have been someone that wishes he wasn't at a party, it sounds like Seligman is that man. On the phone and then out the door.

[clarice]

Here's what it seems to me..each timeirrefutable evidence shows up for the defense, Nifong and Precious work up a new version. Defense counsel rarely make public their defense and now you can see why. I;m not criticizing these guys, though--the long time between indictment and trial (N Car has no speedy trial statute, Nifong stalled this and the Ct didn't intervene) and the atmosphere was so incendiary and the charges so baseless, they went ahead. OTOH Nifong and Precious' constant reworking of the events and timeline are only making the prosecution case seem weaker and a contrivance.

[birdseye]

Neo: "but unfortunately Nifong is stupid to the bone."

Same could be said in the case of one George W Bush.

[clarice]

birdseye again cheeps her one note, drops her bird turd and flies off.

[M. Simon]

There is an excellent post up at Classical Values on a periperal issue in this case that is central to the grievance culture driving this case.

Here is the money quote:

The "studies" groups have politicized innate differences.

[M. Simon]

Steve,

Rumor has it that there are lawyers lined up to take the case on contingency. i.e. defend the boys and then go after the money.

Given that the attn'ys the boys have are pretty sharp, I'll bet that the defence will have no problem carrying the boys until the damages can be assessed and collected.

[Richard]

I've heard the same rumor M.Simon did. There are deep pockets - Durham and Duke - to pay for the boy's lawyers when it's all done. And it's not often CD lawyers get to be the heroes, in a nationally watched case, against a crooked DA, with a pathetic case that they are sure to win.

So it might be Nifong's strategy, but if it is, it's just as stupid as every other decision he's made.

[sylvia]

Okay I read the link that Tom Devlin provided me about the Dec 21 interview. Contrary to how the News Observer portrays it, I see no major inconsistencies with the latest account, the sequence of events seems pretty much the same. And in fact, the one major thing that made me doubt her story before has been explained to me - I was wondering what guy engages in forced oral sex- as with teeth, that would indeed be a very risky venture. Instead she explains that the guy mastubated in front of her.

The only thing that is not as good in this interview is she neglects to mention how she went out to the car and then tried to get back into the house for about 10 minutes ostensibly to get her shoe, before they drove off. But as she kind of just summarized that part, it wasn't very significant.

So again, am I blind, or what's the problem here?

[sylvia]

And by the way, contrary to the media hubbub, I see no mentions of any times she quoted in her police interview from December.

[MayBee]

And in fact, the one major thing that made me doubt her story before has been explained to me - I was wondering what guy engages in forced oral sex- as with teeth, that would indeed be a very risky venture. Instead she explains that the guy mastubated in front of her.

That isn't an explanation. That is a change in her story.

[sylvia]

That isn't an explanation. That is a change in her story.

The only info I saw on that (I linked to in the other thread) was in TalkLeft that was supposed to be the most complete leaked portion of her written testimony they had at the time. There was no mention of actual insertion of the penis in her mouth, only that he "came in" her mouth. That could possibly mean in the area of her mouth- not really a change. If you have a more complete version where she states in more detail what happened, please provide the link.

[sylvia]

Here's what she wrote:

"I want to add that Adam ejaculated in my mouth and I spit it out onto the floor, part of it fell onto the floor after he pulled his [redacted]"

Okay, somewhat inconsistent, but not impossible to mean he ejaculated in the area of her mouth, part of which she could have perceived as entering her mouth. We would have to see the entirety of all her statements to conclude for sure that she's lying - not just the snippets leaked.

[andy]

On March 16, the accuser told Inv. Himan that Adam forced her to have oral sex. This is from the investigator's notes filed in court by the prosecution.

That's a huge change.

[MayBee]

I believe she also changed her story as to which Adam did that.

[Geoff]

I keep expecting the next headline to be that Mike Nifong has checked into rehab for stress and substance abuse. With hints that the pressure of the media spotlight may have caused erratic behavior. Followed by declarations that if it did it's the fault of his awful disease and neither he nor his defenders can be held accountable.

The media moral of the story will be that, the results notwithstanding, America remains a society riven by race and class and needing to display compassion for people like Mike Nifong who are asked to cope with too much. The three accused will be asked to exit, stage right, their part in the story over.

There's on thing left that bothers me, though. Is there a fourth victim in this? Based on the DNA evidence, the shifting stories, the non-corroboration by Kim Roberts, Mike Nifong might have concluded fairly early on that his star witness was emotionally unstable, had a tenuous grip on reality and had quite possibly fantasized the whole thing, then hung onto the story when it made people happy with her for her to tell it. Starting with her inexperienced but ideologically committed "women don't lie about rape" nurse. Question: for the protection and furtherance of his career, would Mike Nifong have dragged a thoroughly messed up woman through a process whose consequences she didn't really understand in the hopes that he could pull it off in the end? It almost feels possible.

[sylvia]

"On March 16, the accuser told Inv. Himan that Adam forced her to have oral sex. This is from the investigator's notes filed in court by the prosecution."

Do you have the exact wording or a link to that?

[sylvia]

"the non-corroboration by Kim Roberts"

If you examine the police statements of Roberts, Percious, and the neighbor Bissey - Roberts statements were completely off, There is no "corroboration" from Roberts.- she will probably be a hostile witness for the prosecution. Contrary to everyone's views that Prescious was delusional, Prescious's police statements were most accurate- even more so than the defense's.

[sylvia]

Just to review from the other thread, what I considered inaccuracies by Roberts and the defense:

The defense said in public statements after they danced, the women were in the bathroom alone the whole time until they left. They conveniently skipped over a whole bunch of events, as confirmed by the neighbor. The women went out to the car, they were talked back in. Roberts went out to the car alone, leaving the accuser alone in the house. Hmmm.

Kim Roberts said publicly at first the two women were together the whole time. In contrast if you read her police statement, she refers to going out to the car without Prescious to change, which meant Prescious was alone in the house. Hmmm. Roberts said the accuser wanted to go in to make more money -however, the neighbor heard the accuser talking about wanting to go back to get her missing shoe. Hmmm. Somehow, the accuser's purse ended back up in the bathroom, even though the accuser left with the purse, and never got back in the house. Roberts went back to the bathroom to "look" for the accusers purse, even though the accuser never asked her to because she said she had it in the car, and Roberts never "found" it in the bathroom, even though it was there the next day. Hmmmm.

Prescious was the only one who gave the most accurate picture of the comings and goings of the two women that night- as compared to the neighbors statements. So SHE was the delusional liar?

[MayBee]

Prescious was the only one who gave the most accurate picture of the comings and goings of the two women that night- as compared to the neighbors statements.

*Was* perhaps being the operative word (if this statement has any truth at all). She now has herself coming an hour before the neighbor saw her coming, and hanging around for 50 minutes after the rape, when the neighbor saw her leave.

[shamus]

I believe that Nifong should be put on trial in federal court for civil rights violation. The prosecution was racially motivated and it had no basis in fact. Nifong abused his position in the same manner that the police who beat Rodney King abused theirs, and he should face the same consequences.

[PaulD]

Sylvia says, "So again, am I blind, or what's the problem here?"
Basically, Sylvia, you are not up to speed on the case and it would require a long post to bring you up to date. If you are interested, you need to start by reading defendants motion to supppress http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/story_graphics/20061214_motion.pdf, the first supplement to the motion http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story_graphics/20070111_motion.pdf and some basic analysis of the case by KC Johnson http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
The lastest story is an outrage on top of an already outrageous case. I would point you to the statement of Duke Law professor James Coleman, who while being a frequent critic of Nifong generally has kept his tone as one would expect from a professor. Not anymore:
"Critics, such as Duke law professor James Coleman, said the new document was a blatant attempt to fix a flawed case and called for a criminal investigation of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and his staff.

"Who would believe that a witness, nine months later, suddenly recalls facts that coincidentally negate evidence produced by the defense?" said Coleman, who led a Duke committee that investigated the lacrosse team's culture and has criticized Nifong's handling of the case for months.

'These people are almost criminal. It's making a mockery of the system. It's like Nifong is mooning the system. It's contemptuous.' http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/531580.html

[PaulD]

Sylvia said:
"The defense said in public statements after they danced, the women were in the bathroom alone the whole time until they left. They conveniently skipped over a whole bunch of events, as confirmed by the neighbor. The women went out to the car, they were talked back in. Roberts went out to the car alone, leaving the accuser alone in the house. Hmmm."

This would be an odd story for the defense given that they have released photographs of Crystal banging on the door and laying on th porch. Also, although the defense has released more than they needed to, I think it would be very unusual for them to release a comprehensive time-line of the events that evening based on the recollections of all 46 LAX players

[Locomotive Breath]

Steven Den Beste-

There will be no plea bargin and they will not run out of money. Nifong screwed up by trying his usual cheap courthouse stunt on people who can fight back and fight back big time. Besides it's not just the resources of the three accused that are available (they have enough anyway), it's the resources of the entire team. Before this is over it's Nifong who will be begging for a plea bargin because he's run out of money.

[hit and run]

clarice:

In fact, all the men who post here COULD have done it under the same evidence used to hold these guys..so step up and prove you didn't do it..

Holy crap! I live an hour away from Duke! When did this take place again? What night? What time? Sh*t, I could have been there. In fact, because of my white, rich (in comparable terms, not absolute foooor suuuure), privileged, athletic background, I may have slipped out of my bed unconsciously and went to the party and participated in this without even realizing it, fulfilling the unavoidable expression of my power over a poor minority female. I bet I repressed the memory of doing it.

And there's no way I can prove that I didn't do it.

[Gary Maxwell]

Hit and run

I think back to my college days and the phrase " not even with your equipment" pops into my head.

[clarice]

In the latest version the picture which earlier was to have been of her leaving the house (she said it shows her putting the money in her purse) has to be of her entering. As you can see she's missing one shoe in the pic.If so (and there is that time-space probelem again) it is hard to explain her statement that she returned afterward to retrieve her shoe.

[Gary Maxwell]

For Sylvia

In the new, Nifongian version of events, Jason Bissey, the next-door neighbor who by his own account bitterly disliked the lacrosse players, gave false testimony on their behalf. Before anyone knew what specific times would be important to establish the alibis of those Nifong targeted, Bissey gave a statement to police. His statement corresponded almost exactly with the timeline offered by Kim Roberts, the lacrosse players, and all available electronic evidence. Bissey stated:

At approximately 11:50 p.m., I saw from porch that a car had been stopped directly in front of 610, and noted that two young women, both appearing to be African-American, were walking from the direction of the car and proceeding to the back-yard entrance of 610. One of the two [the accuser] was dressed in an extremely short tan skirt and was wearing high heels. Her hair was pinned up above her ears. The other women was more conservatively dressed in pants and a sweater or blouse of some sort, and her hair was shoulder-length and curly. The two women briefly spoke with one of the men who was in the back yard . . . At this point no one was outside of 610 besides the two young women . . .

I saw the women enter 610 together. After a moment, I remember quite specifically noting that it was Midnight. The reason I know it was Midnight is because I looked at my cell phone and noted the time. At approximately 12:05 a.m. on Tuesday, I re-entered by house and took a shower . . . [Later,] I noted that the skimpily dressed women had exited the car, saying something to the effect that she would go back into 610 to retrieve her shoe. She seemed agitated, but not hysterical. I left the front door open so that I could hear if the situation flared up again. I would estimate that the young women left the car at around 12:30am.

In an interview with the New York Times that first appeared last night, Bissey reiterated his position, asserting, “I’m absolutely certain. I had looked at my cellphone, and I was sure they had gone into the house at 12. I had assumed that’s when they first got there. But I can’t say for sure that was the first time they showed up. It seemed to me that it was. They had been talking calmly, and it seemed to me they were just fine.” Bissey gave no indication that anyone from the Nifong office had spoken to him to double-check regarding the veracity of the accuser's latest new version of events.

So please go ahead and rationalize away the third party next door neighbor testimony which is now at full loggerheads with the most recent version of events of "Precious". Perhaps you will want to consult with Wendy Murphy first, so take your time, we will wait.

[Gary Maxwell]

I seem to remember one of Nifong's early comments to the press was an open ended question about the team engaging defense counsel. It is not an exact quote but the gist was " why do innocent folks need defense counsel". I guess its fair to ask Mikey the same question now that he has engaged counsel for his Bar hearing. By his logic, he has admitted his own guilt.

[hit and run]

Gary:

I think back to my college days and the phrase " not even with your equipment" pops into my head.

Oh yeah, consciously there's no way I would want to. But unconsciously, there's no way I could stop myself, being a misogynistic caucasian or relative financial stability. I don't feel misogynistic, but apparently I am powerless to be anything but?

I think that's how it goes? Maybe I need to enroll in one of those classes the group of 88 professors teach to be sure?

[clarice]

Yes, Gary, your recollection is correct and certainly we can apply that to Nifong and ask, if he's innocent of the charges, why did he engage counsel?

[JAWolf]

M. Simon, lawyers in criminal (and divorce) cases are not permitted to take contingency fees.

[ed]

Hmmm.

@ sylvia

Contrary to everyone's views that Prescious was delusional, Prescious's police statements were most accurate- even more so than the defense's.

Of course her statements are accurate. It's easy to be accurate when you're making stuff up. However it's very tough to be accurate when you're trying to remember details of an actual event. This is why eye witnesses aren't all that great compared to forensic evidence.

[cathyf]

Is there a fourth victim in this? Based on the DNA evidence, the shifting stories, the non-corroboration by Kim Roberts, Mike Nifong might have concluded fairly early on that his star witness was emotionally unstable, had a tenuous grip on reality and had quite possibly fantasized the whole thing, then hung onto the story when it made people happy with her for her to tell it. Starting with her inexperienced but ideologically committed "women don't lie about rape" nurse. Question: for the protection and furtherance of his career, would Mike Nifong have dragged a thoroughly messed up woman through a process whose consequences she didn't really understand in the hopes that he could pull it off in the end? It almost feels possible.

That's always been my take on this. From multiple witness accounts, Precious seems to have drugged herself into a stupor that night (perhaps accidentally.) I think that there is a very good chance that she has no idea what happened that night, and is being bullied and blackmailed by Nifong into putting her name on whatever story he makes up. As a noble crime victim, the law can't (practically, at least) touch her. If she says, "I have no idea what you are talking about," then they have her on parole violations, they'll take her kids away and stick them in foster care, put her in jail. Especially at this point.

As for copping a plea, the possibility which would best serve justice is if the federal prosecutors come in, give Precious complete immunity in order to testify against Nifong, and go after him. I'm not sure that they would get him (after all, they acquitted the DuPage Co, IL prosecutors who tried to use the court system to murder two innocent men that the prosecutors knew beyond a doubt were innocent...)

But anyway, I think that Precious is not much of a witness to any LAX player crimes because she was zoned out of her head. But she would be a much better witness for federal prosecution of Nifong, and probably the Durham police department -- because all that happened after she came down from her high. And of course she potentially has a huge role as the star plaintiff's witness in the players' civil suits against Nifong, the city and the county. Depending on the circumstances, she may have her own big buck$ lawsuit against Nifong, too.

[clarice]

I'm begining to think there is something useful about the British system where private counsel are tapped to prosecute crimes--at least with respect to special prosecutions. Something happens to people who only prosecute--a certain lack of perspective or restraint. In fact, the only independent prosecutor uniformly praised for refusing to proceed instead of shopping around to find a crime anywhere was Jacob Stein, a respected D.C. defense counsel.

[sylvia]

Okay - so WHERE are the inconsistencies? I told you mine- where's yours? (I tried to look up PaulD's links - both of which didn't work). I also have not seen the accuser give out any times in her new police interview- so what is anyone talking about? I hear a lot of bitching but NO facts.

Many of you are under a false set of the original timeline anyway because you didn't study the basic facts before you judge, so you can't compare it accurately to the latest version. This is in regard to the comings and goings of the dancers in and out of the house- there were at least three times when the dancers entered and left the house - and you are all getting them confused. It doesn't surprise me as both the defense and Roberts seemed to blatantly blur the events, for whatever reasons.

Give me some facts- please- not more of Nifong is a jerk rhetoric. Facts are what this case has been missing from this whole case the whole time.

[sylvia]

"In the latest version the picture which earlier was to have been of her leaving the house (she said it shows her putting the money in her purse) has to be of her entering"

Wrong Clarice. She didn't dance with one shoe. It's still her leaving - she may have been checking her money, etc. Try again.

[sylvia]

"This would be an odd story for the defense given that they have released photographs of Crystal banging on the door and laying on th porch."

Yes, they said the accuser tried to get back in after they left the bathroom, but they never let her back in. They, as well as Roberts, "forgot" to mention the 5 to 10 minutes the accuser was alone in the house. And as to Gary Maxwell, you quote Bissey's interview- but what's the issue? The accuser gave no times in her December police interview and the sequence of events are basically the same - so what is in contrast here?

Please does anyone have ANYTHING here?

[Gary Maxwell]

Wow I tried. I now officially give up. If a third party report testimony is not a "fact", then I cant exist in the dimension you live in. The only thing "missing" here, by the way, is any ( and I do mean ANY ) ability to reason and use logic on your part. Do you find it difficult to get home after routine trips to places like the corner grocery store?

Dont respond you are now on my official do not read and do not respond list. Its short especially since AB/Katrina quit showing up.

[sylvia]

Gary - where are your POINTS of inconsistenceis? If you want to make a claim, back it up. Again, I showed you specifically where my inconsistencies were - not just printed a huge block quote. You need to do the same to make your point- that's called making an argument.

[sylvia]

In other words- great you printed Bissey's interview. So? And? Where is the contrast? And where has the accuser specifically mentioned a time? I read her December interview, and unless I need some Hooked on Phonics, I see no mention of any times at all. Because I see no times mentioned by the accuser, there is no problem with the times Bissey said. Again, what's the issue?

[Gary Maxwell]

For those specifically able to use inductive reasoning and logic:

Professor James Coleman a Duke Law Professor and not insignificantly given how this whole case has been cast, A black man today in the N & O newspaper:

"It's extraordinary that a witness testimony changed so drastically nine months after the incident. A jury would find it hard to believe her. That's just not credible. It's like the end of a bad mystery novel where all the ends are tied up."

Lives in Durham, is a professor on campus, teaches in the Law school and is apparently totally confused about there being any change in the testimony of the False Accuser. You make the call.

[sylvia]

Gary - WHAT changed? I don't know, I'm dealing with a witch trial here. People refuse to deal in facts - they just want to quote vagaries of how this or that media/academic poobah is "outraged". I guess they are too lazy to think for themselves... ouch - thinking - hurts!

[Gary Maxwell]

Further ranting of the very confused law professor James Coleman today in the campus paper:

""These people are almost criminal. It's making a mockery of the system. It's like Nifong is mooning the system. It's contemptuous."

How do they let him teach at such a prestigious institution when he is so confused?

[Gary Maxwell]

pparently there are several very confused indiviuals teaching at Duke Law School to wit:

"The re-working of the claims appears to be inconsistent with the testimony of the victim and would arguably cast doubt on its credibility," law professor Paul Haagen said.

[sylvia]

Gary ... I'm still waiting. Give me one point .. and we can debate it. Until then, it's all hot air.

[Gary Maxwell]

Professor Haagen again in his own words:

"Does this case look like it's moving toward an implosion? Yes, it is moving toward that," he said.

Feel pity for the poor demented fool. He probably just goes off like this with no reason on a very regular basis.

Funny the law professors that taught my B Law classes were just the opposite though. Sober and reflective sorts that seem to be unruffled by any sort of chaos or emotional outburst. I guess Michigan State University just employs different types than does Duke.

[sylvia]

Okay Gary - it's obvious you got nothing here. I am dealing with people who dont' want to deal in fact- just some back patting to make themselves feel better. I give up.

[hit and run]

I guess Michigan State University just employs different types than does Duke.

But didn't the accuser said the lacrosse players didn't use a condom? So why are Trojans relevant?

[Gary Maxwell]

Spartans my slandering friend, Spartans.

[TomB]

And where has the accuser specifically mentioned a time?

According to WRAL

"The defense claims the woman told an investigator for the prosecution on Dec. 21 that the reported attack happened between 11:35 p.m. and midnight on March 13."

[sylvia]

"The DEFENSE claims the woman told an investigator for the prosecution on Dec. 21"

Operative word here is defense. Does anyone have this interview? I tried a link upthread earlier and it didn't work. I am just going by the police interview on DEec 21 (linked upthread). I assume THAT's the interview, and I can read it for myself, and can you all. There is no mention of the time of the attack in it. I think that was THE official interview, right? If there is any other interview at that time or any other source of info on this, please link or print it, as I have not seen it yet.

[Gary Maxwell]

Anyone that would like to read the redacted investigative report of Dec 21 the link at WRAL is here:

http://wral.com/news/local/flash/1133779/> Latest Version of the story

[TomB]

I read her December interview, and unless I need some Hooked on Phonics, I see no mention of any times at all.

I'd consider suing Hooked on Phonics.

http://wral.com/news/local/flash/1133779/

Page 5

10. What time did the rape start?

Answer: 3-5 minutes after going back inside, about 11:40

[Gary Maxwell]

Hook on Ebonics maybe?

[sylvia]

Yes Gary, that's the interview I read. The only time in there is at the beginning where the accuser said she got to the house at 11:10. She does not say when she entered the house, as both dancers said they were talking a while on the porch before they went in, or say any times after that. We knew from the beginning the accuser mentioned getting there at an earlier time that Roberts said- I believe I heard the rumor the accuser thought 11:30 - so that the accuser gave an earlier time than Roberts may not be a change from what she said earlier, and she could have said 11:10 all along, as I believe Nifong never mentioned the actual time she mentioned. Just because she may not have been accurate on what time she arrived there, does not mean the sequence of events, the more important factor, has changed. And from what I can tell, they haven't substantially.

[TomB]

The only time in there is at the beginning where the accuser said she got to the house at 11:10.

Once AGAIN, from page 5:

10. What time did the rape start?

Answer: 3-5 minutes after going back inside, about 11:40

[Gary Maxwell]

I said I would not comment directly to you again but I am going to make an exception when you blantantly misrepresent the facts since some folks wont go to the link and read through it entirely. If you did then you are lying about the only time stated in it. If you didn't read it then you are lying about reading it. Either way you have totally destroyed your own credibility. I would cut and paste from it to show but its an Adobe file and I cant. But page 6 of that very link has numerous other times listed and other where she states a range like " 3-5 minutes after entering the house" which can certainly be calculated pretty precisely. TomB has given you a direct cite from page 5.

You no longer are simply clueless, you are a lying troll. Now I am truly done with you for the duration.

[sylvia]

Okay, I apologize. I missed the last page on that interview as I thought I had already scrolled to the bottom. I was wondering where everyone was getting these times. Okay, we know from the beginning the accuser gave an earlier timeline - that is no "change". She may have been wrong on the time she got there, but if you sequence her version of the events and just add about a half hour to her time, she's pretty much on schedule.

[TomB]

Okay, we know from the beginning the accuser gave an earlier timeline - that is no "change".

Huh?!

[clarice]

If you'd go to Durham in Wonderland instead of pulling the facts out of your ass, Sylvia, you'd see that even this latest version--obviously concocted by Nifong to get around irrefutable facts which tanked the last version--also has some major pitfalls (like the times Precious was on her cellphone, and why she'd return to the house to get a shoe when she entered the house without it).

[sylvia]

Yeah, I heard the accuser said about 11:30 in the media when the case started. I thought Nifong didn't release "his" timeline yet. If you have a cite about the time the accuser gave earlier, please provide it.

[sylvia]

"and why she'd return to the house to get a shoe when she entered the house without it"

When did she enter the house without the shoe? I think that can't be right. I never heard the accuser danced without a shoe.

[pd]

Sylvia:
For the link to defense motions just go to http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com. The original motion to suppress is found on the right column links. Scroll down for a link to the supplemental motion.
In the supplemental motion, defense counsel state, "In her newest version of events, the accuser now claims that the attack took place between 11:35 and midnight" Granted, that is the defense counsel's statement. But it is presented in a signed motion submitted to the court and could be easily refuted by the prosecutor if it is not true. So it seems unlikely to me that the attorneys would risk contempt sanctions for lying to the court, as well as the professional reputations for a fabrication.
I think you need to get up to speed before commenting on this case. The Durham in Wonderland is a good place to start.

[clarice]

Read the last two posts here--and see the pic of Precious. In her latest version this is her entering, not leaving the house, and as you can see she is sans one slipper.
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/

[hit and run]

Spartans my slandering friend, Spartans.

I could pretend that I knew that all along and was just trying to raise your ire -- or I could blame it on google (I did type in "michigan state trojans" in google and the first hit I saw made it look like it was correct) -- or just blame it on being stoopid and eager to make stoopid jokes.

In the end though, I probably should just admit that education, you know, I didn't make the most of it, didn't study, and....ahhh forget it.

My apologies.

[sylvia]

PD, I see no 'motion to suppress' link on the right hand side. Is it listed under something else?

And Clarice, ditto, the last wo posts are Nifong's Triple Crown, Statement from DNASI - these don't seem to be it, which posts do you mean?

[sylvia]

Okay Clarice found it - the picture was her going back to the house, and standing on the porch, after they went back to the car - matching Bissey's statements. As you can see - the time of the pic was about 12:30. That is not arrival time.

[clarice]

Go to liestoppers read thru the two most recent posts, Sylvia..not in your head but in like reality..in the second post down you cannot miss the pic of Precious it fills the page.

[sylvia]

So the accuser says this about the picture:

I (Linwood Wilson) showed [the accuser] a picture from the Dan Abrams show on MSBNC showing her on the porch at the door. Inv. Wilson asked [the accuser] when the picture was taken. [The accuser] stated the picture was taken when she arrived and was going into the house because it was showing her putting her money in her purse." - Page 5 of Defendant Nifong's Chief Investigator Linwood Wilson's

But if you look at the time on the pic - it says 12:30. Roberts and the defense said the girls went in around 11:45- 12:00. So did the defense tamper with the times on the camera? Or did Prescious make a mistake when she looked at the picture.

[clarice]

Sylvia..It's been nice talking to you.Bye.

[topsecretk9]

2:31 a.m., Accuser arrives at Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) emergency room. Sgt. Shelton goes to DUMC.

"He[other officer] called me and stated the female stated she had been raped...Once at Duke [Hospital], I spoke to the female, who was now cooperative. She told me that she worked as a stripper and that she had been hired through "Angels Escort Service" to dance with another female at 610 N. Buchanan. She said that she and "Nikki" danced and "put on a show" for the men at the party. She said that they left and got into "Nikki's" car. At that time she said that someone from the party wanted them to come back into the house. She said that "Nikki" wanted to go back inside, but that she did not. She said that she and "Nikki" got into an argument about going back inside. She said at that point some of the guys form the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one forced her to have sex. She then mentioned that someone had taken her money. I walked to the parking lot to call the Watch Commander and let him know that she had recanted her rape allegation.

2:45 a.m., Accuser checked into the hospital. Staff evaluation indicates possible sexual assualt. A Sexual Abuse nurse is summoned. Sgt Shelton's report says:
Within a few minutes, I was told that she told the SANE doctor that she had been raped. I called the Watch Commander back and told him that she had changed her story back to being raped. I returned to the room where she was and asked her if she had or had not been raped. She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bathroom.

I had forgotten she had changed her story the very night she made the accusation! I wonder how her money was stolen from her purse when there is a picture of her putting money in her purse?

[sylvia]

Clarice, I'm afraid you put too much stock in what you read in a blog and not in what is logical. These blogs are defense oriented, possibly even fed by the defense legal team. I guess that's the benefit a paying a lot of money for a defense legal team. If you actually examine the claims, they are flimsy.

[clarice]

Last word, Sylvia..All these statements are documented..In the latest--from the court documents.

[sylvia]

But if you look at the time on the pic - it says 12:30. This is part of a series of pictures from about 12:30 to 12:35 we have seen before of Presious on the porch. So? Okay, let me try again.

DOES THE PICTURE NOT SAY 12:30?

If not please, correct me.

[pd]

Sylvia:
KC Johnson identifies the relevant motion as the "Line up Motion" rather than by its formal title on the pleading (i.e. Motion to Suppress".) Look again and you will find it. Scroll down the main text for a post that contains the link for the supplemental motion.
As a person who did not bring any preconceptions to this case, but who has taken an interests in it, I can tell you that you are not up to speed on this case if you view it is as anything other than a complete outrage. I think that some of the frustration that people have responding to your posts is that there is so much that you are apparently unware of and it would take a great deal of effort to educate you on information and discussions that easily found elsewhere.

[sylvia]

Yes Topsecret- she gave inconsistent statments that first night to the police. First of all, she was bombed that night. Second of all, how do we know how bright this police officer was and how well he understood and recorded her words, she may have been mumbling, random, etc. Let's go by the police statemtn she gave later - and there does not seem to be much change there.

[TomB]

Some commenters on this and other blogs have made statements to the effect of "why not just allow the trial to go forward, and if the evidence of innocence is so strong, they boys will be vindicated."

Thanks to sylvia for proving the folly of that idea. There is always the chance that at least one "sylvia" may get on the jury, and, no matter what evidence is presented, she will NEVER be dislodged from her opinion.

[sylvia]

"can tell you that you are not up to speed on this case if you view it is as anything other than a complete outrage."

I can tell you that you are getting your information from defense oriented blogs, possibly even fed or actually written by defense sources, and I believe that has been highly effective in getting the public and the media to buy flimsy and twisted information. Because when I actually try to get someone to think for themselves here- they can't. They just refer me to "the BLOGS." Wow, a good defense means everything doesn't it.