Duke Lacrosse team rapes a woman???

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


In a discussion about the relevance of a high number (33% or 25%).

JM

Huh? Is that sentence complete?

[Jon Miller]

You removed the quote I was referencing.

JM

[Wezil]

I didn't remove anything. The reply to option deletes the original post.

Here it is.

Originally posted by Wezil

I contend the # can be whatever you want it to be based upon what you consider to be "assault".

To which you replied:

In a discussion about the relevance of a high number (33% or 25%).

JM

Now, what is the point you are making? That still appears to be an incomplete sentence that tells me nothing.

[Jon Miller]

Now read what I had written previously.

JM

[Wezil]

Bah. Have a good night.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am pretty sure it is high.

I am sorry to hear about your neice's rape. It is good that she is talking about it though, for so long women just wouldn't say anything because culture said it was their fault.

JM

Thanks... she has already been texting him, however, asking things like "How was the police cell?", which in either possible context (Genuine concern or being mocking) will no doubt mean that there is no possible conviction. He'll get away with it, and she will be blamed for being a slut.

[Az]

wth?

Gibsie, I am so very sorry to hear about what happened to your niece.

How the hell can he get away with it?

[KrazyHorse]

More importantly, why is she still talking to him?

[Gibsie]

Same reason my ex talked to her ex even after he did the same to her... very screwed up.

[Asher]

9 months after the alleged assault, she's poised to give birth: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...rss_topstories

[KrazyHorse]

Breaking news!

Picture of the baby released!!!

[The Mad Monk]

SO...How big a lawsuit is this gonna be?

Published: Dec 16, 2006 12:30 AM
Modified: Dec 16, 2006 03:13 AM

Lab chief: Nifong said don't report all DNA data
Testimony reveals that lab testing that could have been favorable to defendants in the Duke lacrosse case was omitted from a report and was not disclosed to the defense

Joseph Neff, Benjamin Niolet and Anne Blythe, Staff Writers

The head of a private DNA laboratory testified Friday that he and District Attorney Mike Nifong agreed last spring not to report DNA results favorable to Duke lacrosse players charged with rape.

The testimony of DNA Security director Brian Meehan could create difficulties inside and outside the courtroom for Nifong. The district attorney did not challenge Meehan's testimony, but he said after court that he did not withhold evidence. He said the defense could have asked for that material all along.

North Carolina law requires Nifong to hand over all evidence regardless of whether it has been requested. The sanctions for violating this law could include a dismissal of all charges against the three players.

Friday's testimony also will provide grist for those calling for Nifong to be disciplined or prosecuted. A North Carolina congressman recently asked the FBI to investigate the case. And the N.C. State Bar has received a number of complaints calling for Nifong to be disciplined for his public comments condemning the lacrosse players and for directing a police photo identification lineup that violated Durham Police Department policies.

"I tell you, the more you hear about his missteps, the more you have to question whether it's purely a matter of incompetence or worse," said James E. Coleman, a law professor at Duke University who has been critical of Nifong.

In court Friday, Meehan said his lab found DNA from unidentified men in the underwear and body of the woman who said she was gang-raped at a lacrosse party in March. Nurses at Duke Hospital collected her underwear and samples from her body a few hours after the alleged assault. Meehan said the DNA did not come from Reade Seligmann, David Evans, or Collin Finnerty, who have been charged with rape and sexual assault in the case.

Privacy concerns

Meehan struggled to say why he didn't include the evidence in a report dated May 12, almost a month after Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted. Under pointed questioning by defense lawyer Bradley Bannon, Meehan cited concerns about the privacy of the lacrosse players, the fact that he didn't know whose DNA it was, and his discussions with Nifong at meetings in his Burlington lab.

"Had Mr. Nifong said, 'We want a report on everything,' that is what we would produce," Meehan said.

"You violated the protocols of your own lab," Bannon said.

"Correct ... I don't have a legal explanation for it," Meehan said. "I was just trying to do the right thing."

A standing-room only crowd packed a small courtroom. Reporters and bloggers stood along the walls, friends and family of the accused filled the seats, and a half-dozen lacrosse players and other Duke students sat in the jury box.

The three defendants sat at the table with their legal teams, the first time the former teammates -- Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; Finnerty, 20, of Garden City, N.Y.; and Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J. -- have been in court together. Charged with rape, kidnapping and sexual offense, they have said that they are innocent and that the accusations are lies.

In April, Meehan told a Durham police investigator that his firm was eager to be involved in the case, according to the investigator's notes. Friday's hearing was not a good advertisement.

Besides acknowledging breaking his own rules, Meehan said he didn't keep logs of phone calls, e-mail messages or notes of meetings. And he failed to report in May that a tiny bit of his own DNA, perhaps a single cell, had probably contaminated one piece of evidence.

"This goes to the credibility of your lab, correct?" Bannon asked.

"Absolutely," Meehan replied.

Not a single cell

After Bannon questioned Meehan for 90 minutes, one of Seligmann's attorneys, Jim Cooney of Charlotte, spent about 10 minutes getting Meehan to summarize his testimony.

"You didn't find anything from Reade Seligmann anywhere in any of those tests," Cooney said. "Not even a single cell?"

"Correct," said Meehan, who then acknowledged the same was true for Finnerty and Evans.

Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted weeks before your May 12 report, Cooney said. If Meehan wrote in the report that Seligmann was excluded, how would that violate his privacy?

"It was a failed attempt to provide a minimal amount of information to the public," Meehan said. "Maybe it could have been done better."

Intentional decision

Cooney continued: Did Nifong and his investigators know the results of all the DNA tests?

"I believe so," Meehan said.

"Did they know the test results excluded Reade Seligmann?" Cooney asked.

"I believe so," Meehan said.

Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of Meehan and the district attorney? Cooney asked.

"Yes," Meehan replied.

At that answer, several people in the courtroom clapped. Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III warned the crowd to be quiet or leave.

Throughout much of Meehan's questioning, Nifong sat slumped forward in his chair, resting his face on one hand or leaning his chin on folded hands.

When his turn came, Nifong was brief in questioning Meehan. The scientist acknowledged that his report was less than the full truth.

"Did you intend to put in less than the full truth?" Nifong asked. "Did anyone ever tell you to conceal or hide any of your results?" "Did anyone ever tell you who you were supposed to come up with results of, who we wanted you to pick?"

No, Meehan replied each time.

At the beginning of Friday's hearing, Nifong made a statement that differed from Meehan's subsequent testimony:

"The first I had heard of this particular situation was when I was served with this particular motion" on Wednesday, Nifong told the judge.

After court, Nifong amended his remarks and said he knew about the DNA results.

"And we were trying to, just as Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud but at the same time his report made it clear that all the information was available if they wanted it and they have every word of it," Nifong said.
Staff writer Joseph Neff can be reached at 829-4516 or jneff@newsobserver.com.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/522112.html

Is this on a par with the "pick a card" incident?

If we had a dropjaw smiley, I'd be using it now.

[SpencerH]

Re: SO...How big a lawsuit is this gonna be?

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/522112.html

Is this on a par with the "pick a card" incident?

If we had a dropjaw smiley, I'd be using it now.

This story came out thursday I think when the 1st session in court occurred.

Nifong is screwed politically and maybe even criminally but it'll be very hard to sue him since they'd have to prove malice (I think) which is very difficult to do against a government official.

[snoopy369]

Here you go.

[The Mad Monk]

Thank you.