Correcting the Record in the Duke Case

Just want to correct and clarify something I wrote last month in a Bench Conference post about the Duke lacrosse case. In the post, I wrote that Durham County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Titus, who was then presiding over the case, had told lawyers several months before to comply with their ethical obligations not to talk publicly about the case in a manner designed to influence potential jurors, etc. He didn't, having only recently been appointed to preside over the case in place of Durham County Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Stephens.

The problem was caused by wire reports that indicated that Judge Titus, in July, reminded attorneys of their ethical obligations to gag themselves. He apparently reminded them in a figurative sense, and not a literal one, and it's a distinction I should have caught the first time around. I am sorry for these errors and will work hard not to let them happen again (or, at least, since we all make mistakes, not to let them make it onto the site). I appreciate the effort of those of you who took the time to point out the mistakes.

By Andrew Cohen |  August 10, 2006; 4:15 PM ET
Previous: A Solution For Which There is No Problem | Next: Why Not Just Ban Carry-Ons?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

I am just want to _remind_ Andrew Cohen and his 10 readers tht he is a sloppy, dishonest hack journalist.

Who routinely gets facts wrong, not just the one above.

It is also worth _reminding_ his readers on this day that Andrew Cohen is a tireless supporter of terrorists.

what a guy.

Posted by: | August 10, 2006 11:50 PM

Mr. Cohen,

I appreciate your admitting to the factual errors of your report. It takes a big man to admit he erred. I question, however, your placing blame elsewhere for your false assumptions based on the other guys fault. In what you referenced, where does the "previously gentle reminder" description appear? Is that something that normally comes accross the wire? You say, I saw "reminded" so I assumed it happened "several" months ago and that it happenned "gently"? Sir, you presented not only bad, unchecked facts but also invented descriptions of those facts as if you had knowledge beyond the word "reminded" and you attempt to absolve yourself now. Shame on you. Are we to assume from your "apology" that reminded means definitively: "recalled something several months before that occurred gently". Sir, I have a twelth grade education and even I know it does not. Please stand up and say that you intentionally invented the adjectives because they helped "prove" what you wanted them to. You may have had false reason to believe that the advisement had occured prior but you had no reason to describe it as being several months ago (certainly more incriminating than if it was yesterday or NEVER) nor as being GENTLE. Stating such was a false indication that you had more knowledge of it than a GUESS. Further, it was your responsibility as a blogger to verify the facts you present and not to expound on them. Just because you are not a real journalist doesn't mean you should not be held to the same standards. How dare you attempt to defer your crimes against the profession by shrugging your shoulders and saying, I dunno..his fault. As a blogger you still must be aware of the impact your manipulation has on others. While I am grateful you merely blog and don't opine for the Washington Post or advise on CBS (GAWD if you did, I'd stop writting, reading and watching TV), you should never hold a pen again. Now, you have proven yourself to be both a fraud and a coward.

Posted by: Philip Wood | August 11, 2006 01:15 AM

This is one of those fake apologies that reveal more about a writer's dishonesty than the original falsification.

Yup, Cohen is the WAPO's next Ben Domenech.

Career over, Cohen.

Posted by: No Oprah for you, Cohen | August 11, 2006 02:13 AM

Mr. Cohen, I repeat what I said about your column the first time. Your correction should have read that the whole column was bogus and a complete fabrication. You should consider a new career where telling lies does not harm others.

"Mr. Cohen,

Pretend You Are a Real Journalist.

You take the time to review the known information regarding the Duke Lacrosse case. Lets see what you would find out.

1 Judge Titus is the second judge involved in the case. He took over the case on the first of July.

2 He had issued no previous rulings of any kind regarding this case prior to the hearing. No reason to since he was not the judge.

3 The previous judge in the case had not broached the subject of a gag order of any kind, at least in open court. You can't find out what happened behind closed doors.

4. Research finds that the DA has made many (over 70) public statements to the media, most of which were false. Also, dozens of leaks of information from the DA's office, again most of which were false.

3. Research from the defense side reveals 3 press conferences to discuss the case. Two after release of false information regarding the DNA testing by the DA's office and one after the indictment of the third player.

4. The DA makes snide and disparaging remarks about the Defense Attorneys in open court. Defense Attorneys take high road and say little about them.

5. The DA verbally assaults an attorney representing an undicted player using vulgar language.

6. DA continues to talk to the press in public about the case even after the order is issued. Defense attorneys are silent.

None of the above touches on the subject of the total lack of evidence in this case, the total incompetence of the DA, the racist actions of the DA, the many attempts to manipulate the investigation of this case to the benefit of the prosecution or the patently unprofessional actions of the DA in refusing the view the exculpatory evidence before indicting.

So what does this reveal, Mr. Cohen? You are not a real journalist, just a hack and a lying one at that."


Posted by: Dennis | August 11, 2006 06:15 AM

"He apparently reminded them in a figurative sense, and not a literal one, and it's a distinction I should have caught the first time around."

I have no idea what this means. Did or did not Titus tell the defense lawyers not to make public statements that might influence potential jurors? Did or did not Titus tell Mr. Nifong and the DA's office not to make public statements that might influence potential jurors?

Posted by: BJC | August 11, 2006 08:28 AM

This "error" by Andrew Cohen is not really an mistake but an intentional product of the ways this guy does business.

He is a politically-motivated hack (an _extreme_ left-winger who daily publishes screeds in suppport of terrorists and their unfair treatment by US and Western countries) who makes up facts to fit his agenda.

The "error"(s) he made here could not have been made by anyone in good faith who was actually following the case.

Ergo, Cohen is a congential liar.

Posted by: tc | August 11, 2006 08:48 AM

On June 29th, I submitted the following, as both a Letter to the Editor and candidate for Rebuttal, to Cohen's silly dreck entitled The Media Rush to Duke's Defense:

Andrew Cohen Proves Fools Don't Always Rush In

After reading Andrew Cohen's latest tripe suggesting a media "Rush to Duke's Defense" (June 27th), one cannot but conclude that he has just awoken, bearded like Rip Van Winkle, and sauntered on over to have a looksie at what all this fuss in Durham is about. His base premise, that journalists "are tripping all over themselves to quickly and repetitively report the biased view of the young men's defense..." when, "[u]sually, reporters breathlessly take everything prosecutors and the police say at face value, often to devastating effect upon criminal defendants," could not be more uninformed, vacuous, misleading and ironic.

Cohen obviously missed the first month and a half of mainstream media coverage of this hoax. He obviously missed the breathless rush to publish and air every slanderous utterance of D.A. Nifong during his more than 70 press briefings within the first five days of the story breaking into the mainstream press. He obviously missed the breathless rush to convey to a nation Nifong's "absolute certainty" that these privileged "hooligans" had committed the alleged crime. He obviously missed the breathless rush to report Nifong's suggestion that the accuser was given a "date rape" drug on the evening in question, despite no blood work having been taken of the accuser at the hospital in the twenty four hours immediately following the alleged event. He obviously missed the breathless rush to televise Nifong physically acting out, with great dramatic flair, the manner in which the accuser was allegedly choked from behind, although she specifically denied having been choked to both the SANE nurse-in-training and the investigating police officer at the hospital. He obviously missed journalists "tripping all over themselves" to report Nifong's smug dismissal of the importance of DNA results to the strength of his case with the assertion that DNA evidence would not be likely to be found if the attackers used condoms. Turns out that the accuser has specifically denied condom use by her attackers at the time of the alleged event. He obviously missed the repeated airings of the "Wanted Poster," which referenced both the Durham Police Department and local CrimeStoppers organization, bore the team "mug shots" of 43 white players, and urged them all to "Please Come Forward." He obviously missed the television footage of lacrosse players entering the Durham Police lab to voluntarily submit their DNA samples. While their heads were covered under advice of counsel to avoid individual identification in media airings, they nonetheless appeared, in the skewed aired snippets, every bit guilty rapists. Cohen obviously missed Nifong's Blitzkrieg pandering to the black community in advance of his primary election, his suggestion that the players were hiding behind their rich "daddies," and his vow not to allow "some Duke lacrosse players raping a poor black girl" to be the nation's impression of Durham. Cohen obviously missed the laughable, if innumerable, media pieces virtually equating the "criminal" team behavior of open-container possessions and public urination with a predisposition to rape.

The mainstream media did in this case exactly what Cohen says it "usually devastating effect upon criminal defendants." Too bad Cohen missed it.

Only now, as it becomes clearer by the day that the remaining "certainty" regarding Nifong's Folly is its ultimate dismissal on motion for lack of prima facie proof, is the media "tripping all over themselves" to wipe the egg off their collective faces and get it right.

~Franklin Lakes, New Jersey

It was ignored.

The WP tacitly continues to champion the transparent political railroading and trampling of due process rights of three innocent individuals by continuing to permit this sloppy, uninformed, mail-it-in poseur to sully its pages and bandwidth. Shameful.

Posted by: NDLax84 | August 11, 2006 09:53 AM

Dear Mr. Cohen:

Thank you for publishing your correction. I have to admit that I am fairly shocked that the Chief Legal correspondent for CBS News who has penned an extremely aggressive article about the Duke LAX case for the Washington Post follows the case so carelessly as to rely on a wire report to publish a blog entry. As Susan Estrich has now joined the chorus critical of the District Attorney in this case,

and even Cash Michaels, operator of the support website for the alleged victim has expressed concerns about the investigation,

you are pretty much left alone with Wendy Murphy and Georgia Goslee as the last defenders of the prosecution in this case.

Since you are obviously not following very carefully, I will tell you that that is not very good company.

We all look forward to your comments when you do start to follow the story closely and learn some of the facts instead of relying simply on wire reports and headlines. It's all pretty amazing.

Posted by: Joel | August 11, 2006 01:29 PM

as the Defense Secretary might say, my goodness! This is the first time I've checked out this blog and it appalls me to see the quality and tenor of the responses.

Almost every one is vituperative, with a foaming-at-the-mouth aspect. I'm not in a position to evaluate Cohen's writings but clearly they have stirred a rabid reaction in some, at least those who were moved to respond.

He made a mistake and owned up to it - but then the wolfpack set upon parsing the apology and having ravaged it decided it wasn't adequate. There may be truth in the criticisms but the tone and tenor seem far worse than whatever journalistic sin was involved.

Folks, when you blog you become a journalist of a sort. YOUR opinions are on stage too and if you want to come across as a rabid blowhard you're free to do so but the price you pay is to be so offputting for anyone interested in reasonable discourse that your point is diminished.

Posted by: David - California | August 12, 2006 03:11 AM

If you had taken the time to follow this completely you would find that the apology by Mr. Cohen is much less than what it appears. Instead of taking the blame for writing a total piece of crap, he blamed his mistake on someone (or something) else.

Go educate yourself about the Duke Lacrosse case and the miscarriage of justice that is ongoing and then come back and try to defend what this lying hack journalist wrote and his POS apology. If he were truly sorry he would have properly researched the situation and written a truthful column about what is actually going on in Durham, NC. It is not a pretty site, believe me.

Posted by: Dennis | August 12, 2006 07:41 AM

"He apparently reminded them in a figurative sense, and not a literal one, and it's a distinction I should have caught the first time around."

If Titus only reminded the lawyers in a figurative sense, why did the defense file a motion to reconsider an order requiring compliance to rule 3.6? Perhaps you should study up on this motion.

Posted by: LEC | August 12, 2006 10:16 AM

Dennis, I wrote not about the case itself nor Cohen's commentary on the case, but the visceral, totally uncivil responses his "apology" received.

Rage was evident in most, as if Cohen was the District Attorney who'd brought what you and others believe to be spurious charges in the Duke lacrosse case. (I didn't say that to get you started on that issue, only to identify the appropriate object of your intense criticism).

Cohen misinterpreted what the judge was alluding to when he used the word "reminded" and embroidered on that misinterpretation with the assumption that the same judge was on the case earlier than he was.

Bad fact-checking to be sure which put lots of egg on his face, deservedly so. As dumb as that was that's all it was and he could have worded his correction better than he did. That makes him a bad columnist and his performance should be reviewed by the editors.

All the rest is, as I said, frothing at the mouth which rarely produces results except a bad image for the writer and, often enough, incitement of others to do the same.

Posted by: David - California | August 12, 2006 04:32 PM

David-California, I can only speak for myself in this matter. I do not believe his apology had any meaning at all except to blame something else for his "mistake". His mistake was writing a column about a subject that he obviously knew nothing about.

Since it is obvious that his editors are not concerned about his inaccurate writing then the public must take the responsibility to correct the record. Yes some of the responses might be visceral, but no more so than the original column written by Mr. Cohen.

He had the defense attorneys in contempt of the judges ruling which could not be further from the truth. So you know, the prosecutor is the one that has several misconduct allegations before the State Bar, not the defense attorneys.

So the whole premise of Mr. Cohen's original column is bogus and his apology is the same. It is writers like Mr. Cohen that have blackened the journalism profession.

Posted by: Dennis | August 12, 2006 06:26 PM

If only Cohen's "mistake" was actually an error.

This is the way that this hack routinely operates. Taking any factoid, he runs across that seems to fit his agenda and then going to town with it.

Cohen was performing for the nutjob choir here; facts be damned.

And he seems to think that attacking the Lacrosse defendants, on whatever account, will win him approval from the terrorist sympathizers and hardcore wackadoodles that are the Cohen fan base.

His behavior was reported to his editors who finally ordered him to print the "retraction" you see above.

Soon enough, Cohen will be back to his propaganda.

He never had any credibility to begin with.

Posted by: tc | August 12, 2006 09:27 PM

I, too, am immediately unimpressed by the prickly, argumentative cast most of these statements take. Many are argumentum ad hominum, facelessly hidden behind annoymous initals. Mr. Cohen, for whatever else is true of him, puts his name and his face on his work. If I were more cynical, I'd think these authors were Duke University apologists.
- Mark Collins Niagara Falls, Ontario

Posted by: Mark Collins | August 12, 2006 11:56 PM

Mark Collins Niagara Falls, Ontario,

No I am not a Duke University apologist. Duke University has a whole lot of apologising to do itself in this matter.

We, that choose to critize Mr. Cohen for his original bogus column and his bogus apology are seeking an honest dialogue regarding the injustice that is being carried out in Durham, NC. It doesn't help to have hack journalists like Cohen writing hit pieces that do nothing to further the truth in the matter.

I have referred to Mr Cohen as a lying, hack journalist. Sometimes the truth hurts just a badly as the lies that he printed in his original column hurt honest people.

Posted by: Dennis | August 13, 2006 06:47 AM

To Mark Collins

One of the wackjob choir, huh?

Time to drink the Cohen Koolaid.

Posted by: tc | August 13, 2006 08:14 AM

I suppose some of the people posting here are angered by the actions of the Durham DA, etc. They might not be the type of person that will threaten to incite a riot or march in the streets in order to get attention to the issue. But, they are fighting back in their own way. THere were those that did threaten to incite a riot and march in the streets at the start of this case. From the pictures on TV they were very angry and could be described as "vituperative, with a foaming-at-the-mouth aspect". The DA was trying to get reelected by some of those constituents that were encited. Perhaps if he wouldn't have been so concerned about being reelected he would have investigated properly and not made all of the inflamatory and inaccurate statements in the beginning of this case.

Posted by: LEC | August 13, 2006 08:32 AM

I suppose some of the people posting here are angered by the actions of the Durham DA, etc. They might not be the type of person that will threaten to incite a riot or march in the streets in order to get attention to the issue. But, they are fighting back in their own way. THere were those that did threaten to incite a riot and march in the streets at the start of this case. From the pictures on TV they were very angry and could be described as "vituperative, with a foaming-at-the-mouth aspect". The DA was trying to get reelected by some of those constituents that were encited. Perhaps if he wouldn't have been so concerned about being reelected he would have investigated properly and not made all of the inflamatory and inaccurate statements in the beginning of this case.

Posted by: LEC | August 13, 2006 08:35 AM

It's good to see you set the record straight, Al...err Andrew. Now if only you could talk to Tawana...err Crystal, you would realize how absurd this allegation is. Keep up the good work, I'm sure there are at least 20 or 25 of us left who still read your column.

Posted by: HiM | August 13, 2006 11:49 PM

It would have been more important to apologize for leaving out the part of the state rule on lawyer public statements which permit defense lawyers to respond to prosecutors' public statements (from Rule 3/6):

"a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client."

Cohen's orginal article claimed the defense lawyers were unethical for their press conferences, called in response to Nifong's public statements. He failed to say that the rule permitted exactly what they did.

The lawyers said they had been mindful of the rule and would continue to be so.

Posted by: Rudy | August 14, 2006 01:43 PM

To you all

Get off Andrew Cohen's back... he is right on point about the defense in the duke case. I support him and will continue to read his columns. Hey, thanks Andrew.

Posted by: justice58 | August 14, 2006 11:59 PM

The defense doesn't have to put any spin on the witness statements, police statements, the police lineup, etc. that are available for everyone to see. All of that comes from the prosecutions evidence that was turned over to the defense. It is attached to some of the motions that the defense has filed in court. It does not support the early claims of Nifong.
See this article for someone whose opinion has made a turn.

Posted by: LEC | August 17, 2006 08:16 AM


They haven't changed sides.They only want to know if Mike Nifong has the evidence to convict. If you're looking for signs of jumping ship.... not there!!! Cash Michaels is still supportive of the victim. Next more, before you base an opinion on what blackpressusa THINKS.

BTW... Mike Nifong has all he needs to bring about a conviction. He is not sharing to the public what he has and rightfully so. He is seeking justice...why don't you want him to??. Could it be??....The accused are rich white spoiled brats from Duke University and Mike Nifong is going forward with a case on the word of a black stripper. "How dare him".

Posted by: justice58 | August 17, 2006 10:17 AM


Nifong shared all kinds of info in his 70+ interviews early in the case. Some of his early claims were not supported by the evidence he had available at the time. Some of his statements were based on evidence he thought he would be able to get like the DNA results. He has since admited mistakes. Some of Nifongs evidence is available to the public now as it has been attached to court motions. So you can read the statements of the Boyfriend, the second dancer, police statements from the victim, transcripts of the lineups, etc. Granted not everything is out there yet. But there is enough to cast some serious doubt on the story of the accuser. The prosecution has to turn over the evidence to the defense in N. Carolina. They can't wait until trial. What great piece of evidence is he holding back and why at this point? I have read just about all of the evidence that is publically available to read. Have you? Do you believe the alleged victim because she black?

I have read Cash Michaels articles. I have read his posts on several forums where he has discussed his view. I know that he supports the alleged victim in that she doesn't have an advocate. However, I think has serious questions about the evidence and police processes, etc.

Consider the following:
In the lineup, normal procedures and those recommended by the innocence project were not followed.
The first 2 lineups the accuser could not identify anyone.
In the 3rd lineup about 3 weeks after the incident did not follow normal procedures or those recommended by the innocence project. During this lineup the accuser had identified 4 men as having assaulted her. The first person she identified the police ignored for some reason. I guess since the police were going with her version of the story where 3 people raped her and not the 5 rapists story they had to eliminate one of her ids.

Other problem areas:

She described someone as short and chubby in initial accounts and then picked someone that is 175lbs and over 6' tall.

She said no condom was used and no DNA was found in her.

Ask yourself tlhis question if the races of the individuals involved were reversed would you look at the information given above and doubt the accusers story?

Posted by: LEC | August 19, 2006 12:40 PM


What is race got to do with it??? That certainly must be your stand because it is not mind. No I haven't read all Mike Nifong's evidence but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has evidence to prove guilt.

LEC.... What are you afraid of?? Is it because you think that Mike Nifong CAN prove guilt?

No one can get over the 70 or so interviews...... please move on with that. The man has admitted to some mistakes. He is seeking justice and he should be. As a prosecutor, he has a duty to bring charges that he can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

One more thing LEC... I'm glad that Judge Titus put a choke hold on the defense because they went too far. It should have been in place a long time ago but we'll take it now. The victim deserves to be vindicated for what happen to her. No woman deserves to be raped even if she was working as a stripper. I don't agree with her line of work but I'm not going to condemn her for what she does but I'm supporting her for who she is and that is being a mother, daughter, sister,student, and a woman. Can you understand??

Posted by: justice58 | August 19, 2006 04:45 PM

I think you brought up race when you mentioned "white spoiled brats from Duke University".

Based on what I have read I seriously don't think he can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I kind of agree with the other dancer in her assessment that "it's a crock". The most damaging information for Nifong is his own evidence file that he has already turned over to the defense. We probably know more about the prosecutions evidence than we do the defense since they have to turn over their evidence early in the process. The defense doesn't have to turn over exculpatory evidence until just before trial as I understand it. The primary information available to the public from the defense comes through motions filed in the court for their clients. In these filings most of the information attached are from the prosecutions evidence file.

When you look at the people that were wrongly convicted that are freed through the Innocence Project the primary cause for most being convicted were false ids. Other major reasons are police and prosecutorial misconduct. With DNA science in play now many are being exonerated. In order to prevent further convictions of innocent people the Innocence project came up with recommendations for line-ups that would reduce the chance of error in photo lineups. I don't know the exact number, but I would imagine a good number of innocent African Americans were convicted through false identifications. So, having a prosecutiona and police department that follow those guidelines should be important for those accused in the Duke case as well as all citizens regardless of race.

Two important questions must be answered:

Did a rape occur?
If so, did the accused commit the rape?

Since there is no DNA on the victim from the accused the photo lineup is important to tie the suspects to a rape. The photo id is a really big problem for the prosecution. Would you want to be in a lineup that does not follow the innocence project guidelines?
1. They did not use non-suspect fillers.
2. It was conducted by an investigator in the case rather than another party.
3. She was told at the start that all of the people in the lineup were at the party.

Posted by: LEC | August 19, 2006 06:29 PM


Oh and another thing..

Before the last photo lineup the accuser identified 3 names for her attackers Brett, Matt, and Dan. She described the suspects as short and/or chubby. None of the accused have those names or fit those descriptions. In one version of her story, she said that her attackers used no condoms and that she was raped orally, annally, and vaginally. They did the rape kit not long after the attack and found no DNA of the accused (or any Lacrosse player). Yet, they found the DNA of her boyfriend in her. You don't have a problem with someone being indicted for rape in those circumstances? If you are one of those people who think "something" happened in that house. The Duke students aren't being accused of just "something". THey are accused specifically of 1st degree felonies.

Posted by: LEC | August 19, 2006 06:51 PM


Yes, I know what they're accused of, VERY serious crimes. One thing... Mike Nifong is continuing on with this case. Remember after the newsweek article, when he spoke out after weeks of silence.... he said...."none of the evidence I have seen from ANY source has CHANGED the opinion expressed initially". That is a pretty powerful and bold statement, even when he was criticized to hell and back. He has confidence that he can prove guilt.

Tell me LEC.... Why did the dukies run away from the house after knowing the police was called. Please... do not say....because they didn't want to get charged with underage drinking. It seems many of them made a contineous habit of underage drinking without fear from any police. Where were all the beer cans? (huh) They had been drinking since 2pm that afternoon. They were liquored up by the time the dancers arrived. You don't think they CLEANED up? Do you? I think yes. They just wasn't careful enough. Remember... DE and MZ's DNA was found on a towel. If I am correct... It was semen found that belonged to DE'S.

Also, the comment about "she is just a stripper". They thought no one would believe her. Wrong again. These dukes should have never PUT themselves in a position to be accused of rape. They need to have some common sense...My God... They're Duke students.

Posted by: justice58 | August 19, 2006 09:49 PM

DE's semen was on the towel mixed with other DNA not belonging to the accuser. It was in his house near his bathroom. THere is nothing on the towel to tie DE and the AV together. MZ was not charged with rape. He also lived in the house. So what. What are the odds that a persons own DNA or a male college students semen was in his own house? I think the more important point is that the accused DNA wasn't in the AV. How is that possible if no condoms were used. Even if they don't find semen in a rape victim they can find epethelial cells. The prosecution sent the DNA for a second round of testing after the SBI crime lab found nothing. The testing in the second lab found only the boyfriends DNA. They probably did the more sensitive DNA testing that would find DNA other than Semen. If no semen was left by the accused then they would have left epethelial cells. If she were raped as she described then the oral, anal, or vaginal swab should have shown something from one of the 3 persons. If a rape did occur and she mis-identified the purpetrators then why didn't another Lacrosse team member's DNA show up in her? The AV went to the hospital right away. It's not like a case where she waited or showered, etc before going to be examined.

Posted by: LEC | August 19, 2006 11:16 PM


Since you bring it up. I agree she is not just a stripper. But, maybe my impression of what people do who work for escort services are different than yours. I don't know exactly where she draws the line. Apparently not at providing demonstrations of sex toys to couples in hotel rooms as she did prior to the party. I am sure desperation made her turn to working for an escort service. Perhaps she couldn't get work after getting convicted of stealing the taxi and trying to run over the cop.

Posted by: LEC | August 19, 2006 11:37 PM


Now lets go through this... The victim was taken to Durham Access first. While at Durham Access, the victim was asked if anything happened to her. Next, she was asked if she was raped. What prompted the nurse and officers to ask that kind of question? They had to see something that wasn't right. Maybe something suspicious about her condition.I have been taken to emergency rooms a couple of times and not one of those times did a nurse EVER ask me if I was raped. Officers and nurses don't just pull that QUESTION out of the air. Please face this thing....They are certainly no choir boys and I suspect that they thought this thing wouldn't dare go this far.

When this case goes to trial and the truth comes out... I am warning you not to have faith in their version of the truth so you won't get your feelings hurt. You people say this is a hoax BUT don't be surprised if this is not another Susan Smith story. Remember that one. It was just horrible. Just unbelievable.

The Duke case will turn out having everyone stunned at hearing what really went down in that house.

And one more thing... A person doesn't have to have tearing or bruises in order to have been raped. And they most likely cleaned up afterwards. Remember, she was kind of out of it, according to police. They probably relieved themselves in the towel and cleaned up. I believe her LEC and I will continue to support her. I want to hear the whole story and not just what the defense says.

Posted by: justice58 | August 20, 2006 12:09 AM


I don't know what her reasons could be for working at an escort service. Like I said before... I don't agree with her line of work but maybe she did it for the money. You know.... working a job and getting minimum wage of $5.15 or so an hour is pure BS. How in the world can a family make it on those kind of wages?? That is probably why she went to NCCU, in order to get better educated so she could earn more money. She is smart too... I read that her GPA is a 3.0. and that's good. I can only wish her the best for her and the children.

Posted by: justice58 | August 20, 2006 12:25 AM

Nobody deserves to be raped. At the same time, nobody deserves to be falsely accused of rape. Her story does not add up. If something happened in that house, the many versions of the story of rape that she told the police and medical personnel do not add up to the evidence. She had motivation to lie. She was about to be committed because she was so out of it. Since there was no toxicology done we cannot know if her behaviour was caused by the flexeril and alcohol she admitted to taking or something else. By telling the story of rape she kept herself out of the tank. If she lied, she needs to be punished for putting 3 people, their families, and the community through hell. I wish her no ill will. I hope she can turn her life around. She has made some pretty bad choices in the past. I feel for her children as well. That does not negate the need to punish someone who falsely accueses someone of rape. She should not get a free pass on this.

Posted by: LEC | August 20, 2006 07:56 AM

Justice58, Durham Access isn't an emergency room. It is a 24 hour mental health facility where they took her because she was intoxicated. Have you ever been admitted to one of those? She had a few cuts and bruises when she got to the party. If she did fall down the stairs she would have had a few cuts as well.

If they cleaned her up as you say. How come there was DNA from the boyfriend and not the accused? Even if they finished in the towel they would leave epithelial cells in her. The second round of more sensative DNA testing should have found evidence of that. What are the odds of being raped annally, orally, and vaginally by 3 people with no condom and not having any DNA evidence left on the victim?

Posted by: LEC | August 20, 2006 08:20 AM


What if she is NOT lying? Please tell me... what would you think then? What will you think if one of the lacrosse players backs up her story? It certainly is a possibility. Mike Nifong is not going into court emptyhanded. If that was to happen (going into court emptyhanded) that is political suicide. No person in their right mind would do this.

From what I've read... Mike Nifong is not that kind of person. The people from Durham knows him and many have stated that they have respect for him as a prosecutor. I don't believe at all that Mike Nifong would intentionally ruin these dukies lives on purpose. I just don't buy that.

No LEC.... I've never been to a place like Durham Access. BTW... I could be wrong but I believe that I read about the first officer on the scene said he smelled no alcohol on her. I might be mistaken though. So if that is true... what happen to her that would have her arriving at the party, walking under her own power and then in a short period of time.... totally incoherent.... totally out of it. I have also taken flexeril and it has never had that kind of an effect on me.

As for the DNA... I can't answer that but I'm sure a DNA expert can. An expert will explain all when the time comes.

I'm only saying... don't be sucked in by the dukies. You know, people dressed in suit and tie can rape also. These dukies knew from the beginning that people would question her credibility... seeing she takes her clothes off for a living. But, that is no reason whatsoever to judge whether she was raped or not.

And about the DNA from the boyfriend.... Remember the SBI lab couldn't it at first. But also I remember clearly that Joe Cheshire told the press during that interview at the courthouse, that there was no DNA on her or in her at all. He also said, there was NO sign that she had SEX. Now, go figure that one.

There has been much discussion about her with sex toys.... that maybe her swelling and so forth came from that. I can certainly tell you that NO woman is going to hurt her own vagina. That is just crazy. I know that I wouldn't. And, it just may be possible that someone did insert that broom in her. Oh my God, how awful if that happened. You know, sometimes when something is so traumatic and so severe, some people just push it to the back of their mind and try to forget. The brain can do that, you know.

Posted by: justice58 | August 20, 2006 10:20 AM

The boys are innocent until proven guilty last I heard in this country. I am presuming innocence. You have to build a case from there not the other way around. Heres an interesting discussion thread.

Posted by: LEC | August 20, 2006 12:56 PM

Yes I know about that discussion board. But, thanks anyway.

I remember telling you on one of my post that Cash Michaels is STILL very supportive of the victim. He is just making sure that Mike Nifong has the evidence to back up his claim.

I believe that he does have the evidence to prove guilt. We shall all see.

You know LEC... I have to agree with the 2nd dancer when she said......."If the truth is on their side, then why are they supporting it with lies". Do you agree??

Posted by: justice58 | August 20, 2006 05:14 PM

Chesire said there was no DNA after the first DNA test which was done by the SBI lab. An independent lab ran another set of DNA test that found the boyfriends DNA. Chesire did comment about that later

And about the 2nd dancers comments, was that before or after the DA let her get away with not paying the restitution for her ebezzlement conviction?

Posted by: LEC | August 22, 2006 10:32 PM


I see that you're still trying to defend the duke 3. Please don't let them blow smoke up you. They are fantastic liers. Tell me this LEC.........

The defense says there was no DNA of any lacrosse player on the victim or in her. Well, I have to wonder, when they helped her to the car that night. What happened to the DNA from carrying her? As you know, they had contact with her from that. DNA had to be on her, OR was gloves worn? You have to ask.........what about the clothing that they wore? Still, there had to be contact.

Have you not QUESTIONED this fact? Just maybe something is certainly not right here. I'm just wondering if something didn't happened with that DNA or the defense has not been forthcoming with all the information.

Now come on! Let's keep it real!
If the dukes carried her to the car. Where is the DNA??

There should have been DNA since the dukes supporters have swore up and down that the dukes had on short sleeve shirts. There should have been DNA up and down on her and them for a matter of fact. Where is it? OR better yet, what happened to it. Did it magically disappear?

I'll tell you...... It's either the defense is not being truthful or something is very wrong at the lab where all was tested. Something is not adding up here. Come on, think about it.

Posted by: | August 24, 2006 12:46 AM


The last post is from me. I forgot to sign justice58. I'm sorry.

Posted by: justice58 | August 24, 2006 12:53 AM


One more thing
This may be the answer as to why the victim told different versions of what happened. Take a look at this. I found this report on a website called....

It states this:

" The development of PTSD following trauma proposes that the increased sympathetic nervous system activity leads to an exaggerated sympathetic nervous system response to the trauma, manifested by an increased concentration of adrenaline. This in turn initiates a process in which traumatic memories become over-consolidated or "inappropriately remembered" due to an exaggerated level of distress. The primary mechanism through which adrenaline facilitates memory formation is by maintaining organisms at a high level of arousal. If cortisol fails to adequately shut down adrenaline, this arousal might be prolonged and the consolidation of the memory facilitated. The increased distress every time there are traumatic reminders would further activate stress-responsive systems, resulting in secondary biological alterations associated with anxiety and hyperarousal".

Think about it.This MAY very well be the answer to many questions. I'm not saying she has this problem but it sure is a possibility.

Posted by: justice58 | August 24, 2006 01:09 AM


They found the boyfriends DNA in her. So, they got a real live sample of stuff from inside her. There was no DNA from any Lacrosse member inside her. Since they are indicted for Rape and not carrying her to the car the DNA inside her is what is important.

I think we cannot only look at PTSD when someone is incoherent from drugs/alcohol. She admitted to using Flexeril and alcohol in one version of events. She admitted to being drunk in another version of events. I think that is a better explanation than PTSD. I think a better exlanation is that when confronted with the situation where they might throw her into the drunk tank she opted for lying about being raped to get out of the situation.

Posted by: LEC | August 24, 2006 08:14 AM

justice58, the next day at UNC hospital she indicated that she was drunk. She said she had two 22 ounce beers prior to arriving at the house plus one and a half mixed drink at the house plus no telling how many flexeril. That much liquor and beer plus pain medicine would put most people out of their mind. I think the first officer had it right. She was drunk. She didn't want to stay at Durham access because she had previously been confined in an institution. When rape was mentioned she saw her way out. And as they say the rest is history.

Posted by: dennis | August 24, 2006 10:29 PM


Oh My God:.... take a look at the New York Times report. It gives details of the victim's savage rape. You should read and then draw your conclusions from there.It is very believable to me.

Posted by: justice58 | August 24, 2006 11:56 PM


One more thing: Read some comments as to what others think about this case. Have a good one!

Posted by: justice58 | August 25, 2006 01:03 PM

Justice! I've missed you on our Cornell Blog! Constantly ignoring questions, evidence and facts. I've been in withdrawl.

Justice, why don't you explain to the rest of this audience how three men violently raped this woman orally, anally, and vaginally for 30 minutes, without one DROP of dna from any of the three boys being found on her, in her, on her clothing, in her mouth, on the floor, in the trashcan, or anywhere else for that matter? Come on super scientist, figure this one out for us.

Or, why not explain to me and the rest of us why the woman originally said the 2nd striper helped the boys drag her to the bathroom, and then stole 2 grand from her? If the strippers word is worthy enough to indict three boys witout dna and without completion of an investigation, why wasn't it good enough to indict the 2nd stripper on grand larceny and aiding and abetting?

Oh, hmm, because she's LYING?! Most likely.

This woman has done a diservice to REAL rape victims everywhere, specifically african american rape victims. In selfishly lying to keep herself from jail, she ruined the lives of 47 young men, tarnished the reputtion of an excellent school, and made woman who are victims of sexual assault afraid to come forward everywhere.

Posted by: Stef | August 25, 2006 03:14 PM

And justice, remember that razy rant you went on about how Dukies offered her money to hush it up?

The accuser is living in an undisclosed location with her two children. Durham police investigators stay in touch with her. On June 30, an investigator asked her about a report that she had been offered money to drop the case.

The case file says, "She stated she has never had any offers from anyone to drop the case, nor will she accept."

-so unless she is lying (wouldn't even be surprising), no hush money was ever given. This case, as the 2nd stripper poetically put it, is a crock, and I hope this woman rots in jail for what she's done.

Posted by: Stef | August 25, 2006 03:31 PM

I read the NYT article. The major revalation is Gottliebs 33 page typed treatise. Unfortunatly for the prosecution it doesn't exactly jibe with contemporaneous notes/documents produced by others in this case. Although I am not a lawyer, I think he will get shredded by defense lawyers on this in court. First, he provided it months after the event and told one of the defense attournys he only had a few pages of hand written notes. I think he obviously made up some of the stuff in that report. Case in point:

He and officer Himan interviewed the accuser together. Himans report is dated such that it shows it was written contemporaneously to the interview. The typed stuff from Gottlieb does not indicate when particular information was put from his mind to paper. It was not turned over until I think June 17. The descriptions of the accused from the two officers interview with the accuser differ significantly.

"As recounted in one investigator's notes, one of the indicted players does not match the accuser's initial physical descriptions of her attackers: she said all three were chubby or heavyset, but one is tall and skinny. In Sergeant Gottlieb's version of the same conversation, however, her descriptions closely correspond to the defendants." From the NYT article

How do two people writing up the same interview hear "short and chubby" and "tall and skinney" at the same time? Colin Finnerty was not included in the early lineups. If the accuser had described an attacker as tall and skinny why was he not included in the early lineups? Since he is tall and skinney it would be plain stupid to leave him out of lineups if they were looking for a tall skinny guy. It is interesting that Gottliebs memories of the attackers descriptions from the interview coincided with those of the LAX players ultimately chosen. Gottlieb is also the officer who headed up the photo lineup where the accused where identified. That lineup did not follow acceptable procedures recommended to prevent false identifications. One of the requirements for a proper line-up is that it is not conducted by an officer involved in the case. THat is only one of the reasons there are problems with the lineup. Based on the first 75 people that were exhonerated by project innocence 1 of the top 4 reasons for a false conviction was police misconduct.

One of the officers is not right on the accusers discription. Had Gottlieb turned over his notes from the interview in the first round of evidence I might be able to buy that he was right and Himan was wrong. It is just too convenient. I suspect he outright lied.

This is only one problem with his 33 pages.

Posted by: LEC | August 26, 2006 05:17 PM

Oh yeah, and the top reason for false convictions is false identification. So, the whole identification process is a big deal in this whole case.

Posted by: LEC | August 26, 2006 05:21 PM


It could be that Himan got it wrong?? But, all that aside, it has shed more light on this case. From the beginning, the defense was taking selective parts out to confuse the public and now it seems to be backfiring.

As I was listening to Grete.... The panelist "Ted" said that he thinks Mike Nifong's case has strenghten and that Mike Nifong has OUT FLANKED the defense. He said the defense came out and talked too much. (Not in those words)He called the defense "stupid". (That was his word)

You think that GOTTLIEB "lied"... an "officer of the law". "Shame on you LEC".

You think that he will get shredded by the defense. I think not, I believe he can handle himself.

And about the descriptions:Well, I tend to believe the report from Gottlieb. Look at what the Duke Offficer said from an overheard conversation. That was where the twenty men came from. And he didn't even speak to the officer or the victim to see if it was correct. Just pitiful!

OK... lets look at medical evidence. The nurse said it took an extreme amount of time to examine her because of the pain. That kind of examination is uncomfortable but it still only takes a few minutes.She had injuries to her leg and her head when she hit her head on the bathroom sink.She was very upset and it took several minutes to calm her down. The report stated that she was consistent with the same story for 6 to 7 hours. I certainly believe that Mike Nifong can prove guilt.

Just watch LEC... as this case proceeds...we might even hear "plea deal". What do you think? It won't be surprising!

Posted by: justice58 | August 26, 2006 10:35 PM

Why wasn't Finnerty in the first two lineups if they were looking for a tall skinny dude? It does not make sense.

Oh this is an interesting post by Cash -

"Regarding the NYT article, my piece was actually already on the streets by the time that story came out; and no, I didn't know about it beforehand, nor have I seen Gottlieb's report. So it did make for interesting reading, and I do agree that there's plenty fishy about it. I want real evidence, not contrived nonsense." Cash M

Here is his newest article in case you haven't read it.

Posted by: LEC | August 26, 2006 11:29 PM


I can't answer that question as to why Finnerty wasn't in the first two lineups. But, I do know that Finnerty was at the party according to his parents. On an interview with MSNBC's Dan Abrams, Finnerty's parents both said he was at the party and that he saw the dancers arrive and then comes the contradiction, because the father of Finnerty said that Finnerty "saw them leave" but the mother said NO, he didn't see them leave, he was gone by then.

Dan never questioned that and I find that rather odd. As a good journalist, you know that you would ask, which is it. Dan just ignored the statment. Dan is so biased. He has become so disgustingly biased. It's as if he is not searching for the truth in this case but is determined to get the duke 3 off.

And yes, I read Cash's article. Cash is searching for the truth like all of us, wait a minute, no, some of us. Cash Micheal is saying to Mike Nifong.... where is your evidence that you promised. He is still very supportive of the victim and has made that very clear about who's ship he is on. Cash doesn't want the AA community lied to. He wants sound evidence that a rape occured. I have much respect for Cash Micheal and know that he is only holding Mike Nifong accountable. Cash doesn't want this victim to be put on the stand and have the defense rake her over the coals and destroy her like an animal. Cash is not going to have it. He is looking out for her and the AA community as well. I see absolutely nothing wrong with his stand. But, let it be known, he is still supporting the victim in this case.

Back to Finnerty: CF has a pattern of bad behavior. Look what happened in DC. This guy has an "I am entitled attitude". It seems he is a magnet for trouble and he seems to like to involve himself in a heated situation where there is a number of people involved. I believe that he went in with his buddies to gangbang her.

They thought that no one would believe her because "she is just a stripper", remember. These dukies are responsible for their own actions and erections. They need to learn self control. In a lot of this.... I hold the parents responsible. The parents should have taught them to respect women and should have taught them to have respect for other races. And one thing more... the parents or "dads" for that matter, should have certainly taught them that erections doesn't know the color of skin.

Posted by: justice58 | August 27, 2006 10:30 AM

If you want to go to "bad behavior" how about grand theft auto, attempted murder? This woman made the EXACT SAME ACCUSATION 10 years ago. It has already been made apparent that she is someone who makes bad decisions. If you want to talk personalities, cover both. I think I would rather have a good kid who got in a fight than a stripper mentally unstable daughter who stole a taxi and tried to run over a cop.

Perhaps HER parents should have taught her that removing your clothing for money isn't the best way to make a living, or that, you know, stealing cars was bad, and that of all people you try to kill, a police officer should be the LAST one. If you want to act as the editor of "good parenting"...You overlook every hole in this case, you overlook all the evidence and side with her because of one, simple, reason; she is black. If she were white, and the accused black, you wouldn't feel the same way. You are biased, you can tell even in the fact that you site finnerty's previous behavior and his parents, but not the strippers previous behavior and parents. If you're going to talk about one, talk about it all.

Posted by: Stef | August 27, 2006 12:34 PM

And perhaps YOU should learn that JUSTICE does not come only for black people, that it should be color blind. There is no reason these boys should have been arrested, with all the holes in the case, and the only reason they were arrested was because they are white, end of story. Just because they are white and have money does not equate to them being rapists, and you seem to think all rich white kids feel they have the right to rape girls. I hate to tell you, I grew up in GC and graduated the same year as Colin-of all of my guy friends, who are all probably of the same wealth of Colin, I don't know any rapists, or any who believe they are "entitled" to rape. Stop judging based on skin color and wealth, why not judge based on the evidence, like the fact Seligmann has an airtight alibi. What, are the ATM camera's biased and lying too?

GOD I can't wait until the 60 minutes episode.

Posted by: Stef | August 27, 2006 12:42 PM

Are you saying that the reason CF engages in underage drinking and fighting is that he has an "I am entitled attitude" because his parents are wealthy? Let's look on the campus of NCCU where the students tend to come from a different socio economic background. How much underage drinking goes on there? What about fighting or other crimes? If underage drinking, criminal behavior and fighting are exclusive to those having a sense of "I am entitled attitude" wouldn't those activities be significantly less likely to occur at NCCU than Duke? Get a grip on reality. Students at NCCU have parties as irresponsible as those of the LAX players. Do you think they are so much more moral at NCCU than Duke? That they don't get drunk and get in fights as well. Don't try to tell me they don't. I think that your comment really shows your bias toward the whole situation. You just don't like people that come from a different place than you. That is predjudice.

Posted by: LEC | August 27, 2006 07:41 PM


That's not true, I am not predjudice. CF feels that with his wealth and power that he can get away with certain things. You know, the attitude that money talks and BS walks attitude. The I have money to buy myself out of anything attitude. Look at him in DC, picking a fight and when the others walked away, he continued to harass the guy. I call that a bully. I care very little for bullies.

Now about NCCU: I'm sure that they have parties and engage in underage drinking as well. But,NCCU has not been put in the national spotlight like Duke University. There has been no report of any NCCU student engaging or have been accused of raping a Duke student. If that was the case, the accused would have already been sentenced to prison and I'm keeping it real and you know that it is true. Im sure they get in fights also but the NCCU students have not been accused of fighting Duke students and drawing national attention.

The NCCU students don't have the kind of wealth that most Duke students have therefore; they don't have that mentality of "I'm entitled"..... money can get me off no matter what I do.

Duke University gave the dukies a free pass to do whatever. University officials warned the lacrosse team about their behavior and didn't follow through with it. The duke lacrosse team were allowed to run amok and the university did nothing about it, and then, here comes the rape allegations. There is always consequences for your actions. It's bad that a person has to pay in this way. But, that's the price and the dukies bought it.

If this had happened at NCCU and the roles were reversed... you bet that I would be steaming mad at the black NCCU students for doing such a heinous thing. I would say...of all the stupidity, they should get what is deserved. Honest truth! Believe it if you choose because I can't make you.

I remember the Susan Smith story and at first, I was outraged that a black man or any man would highjack a car and take little white kids. But, after the police didn't find the car in those few days, I said , NO WAY. A black man is not going to steal a car and ride around with 2 little white kids in the car. No way, period. And the rest is history.

I'm not predjudice...not by a long shot.

I've already stated that I don't approve of the victim's lifestyle. But, if this hadn't happened, no one would give one iota that she was a stripper. As what has been quoted many times before.... "Nobody cares what happens in the hood".

I listened to an interview of Sports Illustrated on the line-up and it was said that the dukies felt they were entitled and that they even stole other people's meal cards and charging on it for a joke. They didn't have to do this when they had money already. I most certainly do like people that come from a different place than I do. Quite the opposite from what you think. Quite the opposite.

Posted by: justice58 | August 27, 2006 09:43 PM

If I didn't like people who are different from me....then why would I be communicating with you? Tell me...why would I? I'm assuming that you are male and probably not a "black" male. Am I correct??

Posted by: justice58 | August 27, 2006 11:56 PM

You don't have to like someone to communicate with them.

Posted by: Stef | August 29, 2006 01:05 PM

DURHAM -- A date-rape drug test reportedly involving a hair sample of the alleged Duke lacrosse victim has turned up negative, one of the defense attorneys said Wednesday.

Posted by: Stef | August 31, 2006 05:38 PM

You seem to be saying that you have less of a problem with their misdemeanor actions than the Duke students attitude. I guess it is OK for NCCU student to engage in underage drinking and have load parties as long as they don't "feel entitled". Anyone that happens to be born to parents with money would probably have a little bit of "entitled to" feeling. Is it just arrogance or the reality that they can spend more on a legal defense than an NCCU student. They can afford the bail money so that they don't have to sit in jail a year while they await thier trial.

I don't think the Duke Lacrosse team members are entitled to get off of the rape charges for any other reason than they are innocent. Prior to this the Duke students were not charged with anything more than misdemeanors. They had to do community service or pay a fines for whatever they did. Is that really a free pass? What happens to NCCU students when they get noise violation charges or charged with underage drinking? A poster on another forum indicated that the accuser, in the stolen taxi cab/high speed chase/attempt at murder of a cop incident, had 9 felony charges that were reduced to 4 misdemeanors. She only spent 3 consecutive weekends in jail. That's almost a free pass for those sort of charges.

If you really want a reality check think about the other side of the coin. Students at NCCU that get falsely charged are less likely to be able to afford a good attorney. They are more likely to plea a deal rather than risk a trial in cases like that of the Duke team. How many of NCCU students have ended up in jail when they did nothing wrong because of the same sort of tactics used by the DA. He tried to flush out the Duke students to get them to confess. He went beyond pushing the envelope of ethics in setting up the lineup and in several other areas. Those tactics for getting confessions probably work on at least some innocent people who do not have the support and legal help behind them. Many of these problems would not have been exposed except for the good legal support provided for the Duke students. You should be glad that many ordinary people can see some of the probelms with our justice system and how it can be unfair. Perhaps those same people will be more sceptical when it's an NCCCU student on trial and they are in the jury.

Posted by: Justice | September 6, 2006 12:33 AM


Posted by: justice58 | September 6, 2006 12:23 PM

If as you say I didn't care about NCCU students then I probably wouldn't care about Katrina evacuees. I spent an entire month volunteering fulltime and worked directly with evacuees many of which came from the N.O. 9th ward. Some of the people lived lifestyles similar to the AV. I didn't treat them any differently and helped them in whatever way I could. They treated me with respect and I treated them with respect. I may not agree with the lifestyle but that doesn't mean I can't show compassion when someone is in that situation.

You don't know anything about me or what I care about. I do care about justice whether it is for black, white, hispanic, or whatever. I don't believe a person just because they are a particular color like some people. I compared what the accuser said with the available facts to come to my conclusions. If the DNA evidence or other evidence supported the accusers statements I would have a different viewpoint on this whole situation.

Posted by: LEC | September 6, 2006 09:37 PM


I'm very glad to hear that you helped katrina evacuees. From reading your previous posts, you sound like a compassionate person.

True, I don't know what kind of person you are but neither do you know me. Glad to know that you care about justice whether it's whatever color or race. That is so much more the reason to give the victim in the duke case the chance to tell her side in court as to what happened on the night in question.

Honestly know that the defense has NOT been truthful in all their negative reporting of the victim. They most certainly cherrypicked certain things to make the victim look bad in the public eye. I just wasn't buying it. There is always both sides to consider. I would absolutely feel the same way if the situation was vice versa. Everyone deserves a fair chance to tell their story and then let a jury decide.

About the DNA and other evidence..... we don't know ALL there is to know. Who would make up their mind about a case and not hear both sides? I'm not talking about what the defense has led people to believe. I'm speaking of the truth, nothing but the solid truth.

The defense's goal was to trash the victim and put her on trial for reporting that a rape occured.

This cannot be swept under the rug and say "boys will be boys". These dukies had problems long before the victim filed rape charges. They were warned months before to get their act together. It was a train wreck waiting to happen. People are talking about their lives being ruined....what about the victim here? Her life has been turned upside down because of what happened to her. The dukies are to blame for their own problems and need to take responsibility for their own actions.

I don't have any reason to NOT believe that you treated katrina victims with respect. They needed someone like you to help them. Hats off to you for that!

Posted by: justice58 | September 7, 2006 08:36 PM

I know for a fact that the prosecution was not truthful in a number of statements made in all of those early interviews. Nifong said things that were completely contradicted by evidence that he had at the time. I think based on the recently exposed tox test results one can say he possibly lied in court. You show me statements made where the defense has outright lied. What I have seen from the most part from the defense is in their motions filed in court. Attached to those motions are at least some of the discovery turned over by the prosecution. You say you haven't heard everything from the prosecution. The same can be said for the defense. Anyway, the statements by Kim Roberts, the alleged victim, the cab driver, the boyfriend, the AV's driver etc attached to the motions are not defense spin. THese are the sworn statements of witnesses to law enforcement and other reports from the prosecutions files. I have also seen the time stamped ATM photo of Reade Seligman. He also has cell phone records, food receipts, the cab driver testimony, and the card entry records at Duke. You need to start looking at the inconsistencies in the information scroll down to Occam's Razor in the following link and read:

Oh, did you read Cash's latest article.

Posted by: LEC | September 7, 2006 10:56 PM


I have read Cash's latest article!
His mind has not changed about who's ship he is on. Cash is stating that he is holding Mike Nifong accountable for the evidence that he says he has. Cash wants Mike Nifong to have solid concrete evidence that will bring forth a conviction. He doesn't want the AA community lied to.He doesn't want Mike Nifong to put the victim on the stand without concrete evidence and have the defense rip her to shreds. That would be cruel. Mike Nifong promised that he has evidence and Cash wants him to put up or shut up. But, you know that Mike Nifong cannot discuss all the evidence and neither can he talk about this case in the public right now. He is not backing down so he must have something!

In his article, Cash is questioning why the victim and second dancer were invited into the house and offered drinks when the dukies said they wanted the dancers gone. It's questionable!Who in their right mind would invite anyone into their home and offer drinks to them when you want them out of your home...period? Also, the victim went back into the house to get her shoe and she was walking under her own power. Within minutes the woman couldn't walk and had to be carried or helped to her car. What caused that? It wasn't any illegal drugs because none were in her system according to a report. The defense was hoping that the victim was taking hard drugs so it would collaborate with what the dukes said about her being high. Well it didn't work.

Lets talk about the defense: The defense selectively picked certain things to file motions about so that the public would get in a frenzy about the lack of evidence and put pressure on Mike Nifong to drop the case but that didn't work either. They also said....there was only mild swelling in the vaginal area but the medical staff at Duke Hospital said it took a long time for staff to get the speculum inserted into the victim. That kind of examination only takes a few minutes. She was a sexually active woman with 2 children. It should not have been a problem to examine her. Oh, I could go on and on about the defense's little tricks.

About Reade: Why would anyone make that many phone calls to their girlfriend when you know that she is not answering the phone. All the calls are about a minute long. Reade made about 8 phone calls within minutes. I believe he was trying to create an alibi OR someone else was using the phone. Food receipts: who keeps food receipts from a fast food place. I have been to at least 3 restaurants this week and I am yet to come up with a receipt. I don't buy it LEC,and I don't think a jury will either.

Posted by: justice58 | September 8, 2006 10:47 PM

I call my boyfriend multiple times when he doesn't pick up, especially if I am leaving to meet him and he isn't picking up. Ever think he kept calling her because he was LEAVING and wanted to SEE her and wanted to see where she was before he got in the cab? You think a 19 yr old boy would risk having his girlfriend pick up and HEAR the rape? Come on, think logically. Many people repeat calls, especially drunk guys/girls, especially people who are leaving parties and going places, wanting to see where everyone else is going, figuring out plans, are pulling conspiracy theories here Justice.

As for "who saves receipts". Oh jesus, come on! People who use their credit cards often save receipts because their credit card numbers are on the paper. Often, I shuv receipts in my bag.wallet with my change. It's not unheard of, you act as though NO ONE saves receipts. Just because you don't save them doesn't mean no one does. Some people are taught to save receipts. What do you think he did, made them up? Paid off someone at the register making company to reset the register so they could print up a fake one? How about the ATM receipts, ATM video, and dorm swipe info? What, did he pay off all those electronic machines too?

You are pulling nearly impossible theories out of no where to try to reason ho whe could possibly actually have a REAL alibi. Ever think all of those things exist and are present because he DIDN'T rape this woman? It's much easier to believe this boy made calls to his gf multiple itmes because she wasnt picking up and he wanted to go see her/meet up with her and was catching a cab and needed ot know what she was doing, that he stopped to get food and went home than it is to believe a woman was violently raped by 3 large burly men and no DNA was present...use logic, not racism to form conclusions. I don't think the jury needs to "buy" anything, havign the actual receipts isn't misinformation or fake evidence-they exist. There is nothing to buy, they are real evidence that totally back up Reade's alibi.

As for the whole date rape theory you presented, it has been proven that no date rape drug was found in the woman, because despite a toxicology report (even though Nifong eluded to the idea he had one, another lie from the DA), a sample was done on the accuser's hair that proved no date rape drug was used on her. However, it has been proven that the woman was on flexocil (sp?), a prescription medication and that when mixed with the cup of beer she had was more than likely able to prduce the "dopey" and "drunk" behavior the accuser exhibited. That could absolutely explain why she "seemed drunk". Again, more plausible than a date rape drug that did not show up in a report.

Hard evidence speaks volumes louder than hear say and stories from the accuser that have no evidence to back them up.

Posted by: Michelle | September 13, 2006 11:57 PM

Justice58 (AKA Poetic Justice)

A good number of the defense motions are related to getting evidence that the DA hasn't turned over. The defense asked for the TOX screen repeatedly and got evasive answers from the DA. The defense does not have to turn over evidence until just before trial. You haven't seen what they have yet. You have seen a lot more of what the prosecution has than the defense what the defense has collected. You can be sure that they have had their investigators out gathering information.

As to Reades alibi, it isn't just one thing that would make one believe the alibi. It is the whole series of pieces of information that tell a story. He made series of phone calls -- possibly to the girlfriend. He made a phone call to the taxi company. He gets picked up by the cab driver and has the cabbie as a witness. He has another LAX player (Wellington) with him the whole time. He stops at an ATM. THere is the ATM record and the photo at the ATM of Reade stepping out of the cab. Then they stop for food. They also have the time he entered the dorm when based on when he used his entry card. This alibi involves several witnesses and electronic records. His story matches the evidence.

The accuser however has several problems with her story. The physical evidence does not support the story that the DA is going with. She doesn't always tell the same story. She had a motive to lie as well. If something did happen to her, it wasn't what she accused the 3 inidcted LAX players of doing. I know that you just want to believe the DA's early assurances because it conforms to your preconceptions of the LAX players. It fits your frame of reference.

Posted by: LEC | September 17, 2006 11:12 PM

LEC I would remind you that the defense is looking for a quick way out. They have tainted the jury pool in my humble opinion. I do think DA Nifong can recover and will.

Give him the time he needs to prepare his case properly. He has admitted the mistakes he made and still believes in his case.

The tox report was possibly not available or completed at the time the defense requested it. There will be more coming too. The state and other various agencies don't move at lightening speed just because there are big bucks involved on the other side. That is all just my humble opinion.

Posted by: Jagstar58 | September 18, 2006 06:14 AM

The state and other various agencies don't move at lightening speed just because there are big bucks involved on the other side?

They sure moved fast to get a stat done on the second set of dna test that will cost the state taxpayers over $25,000. What did they come up with zilch except finding her "boyfriends" sperm dna present within her vagina.

These test rushed through the state lab and then rushed through an independent lab yet dna from murders and other violent crimes that happened months and months before this false allegation (possibly more then a year ago) lay around waiting for even a first round of testing from the state lab. How convenient for Mr. Nifong and how unsurprising nothing was found to incriminate these boys.

Blind yourself to the truth but to expect the rest of us to turn our backs. What Nifong used for self gain and evil has and will continue to be exposed on every level.

The investigations have already begun.

Posted by: Susan | September 18, 2006 10:53 AM

To "justice58":

Go Mountaineers!


Posted by: TFTL | September 18, 2006 06:41 PM


Nifong tainted the jury pool in his 70+ interviews where he called the students hooligans and said that he believed a brutal rape took place, etc, etc, etc. When he float the ideas of a date rape drug and condom use during his interviews that tainted the jury pool as well. Nifong was looking for a quick way to get the students to confess by floating the ideas that one of the students had turned states evidence. He didn't think he would really need the evidence because he thought he could get them to confess. His plan didn't work because the students are innocent. He doesn't have the evidence to convict.

The tox screen isn't even the most recent thing that has cropped up the the prosocution hasn't turned over as evidence. Apparently, based on the latest defense motion Nifong did not turn over a hand written report for one of the Nurses from the Durham access center. This could be for one of several reasons.

1) He did not know about it
2) He did know about it but failed to seek to obtain it
3) He has it and intentionally withheld it

It would seem to me gross negligence to not obtain that report. The DPD as part of their investigation should have interviewed the nurses involved. To not do so would be just plain incompetence. Nifong told the defense the only thing available from Durham access was a sign-in sheet that had been distroyed during routine records distruction. Someone is playing games with the evidence and it's not the defense. Or else the DPD and DA office are just too incompentent for words.

Posted by: LEC | September 18, 2006 08:06 PM


I am NOT Poetic Justice

There is a Poetic Justice that post on the ABC board and I wish I could take the credit but I can't.

Where did you get that idea? Is it because of the name thing?

LEC.... as you have probably heard... the judge has slapped down the defense's motion of "Bill of Particulars". I knew it was coming. It shows their desperation even more so concerning the poll questions.

This kind of trickery just points to their weak alibis. Can you believe??....someone calling the wife of Mike Nifong. They want to taint the jury pool and get this trial moved out of Durham. It ain't gonna happen! This case will be judged in Durham...Amen.

LEC...I just hate bursting your bubble BUT ...Mike Nifong DOES have evidence to bring forth a conviction. You will see...just give it a little more time.

One more time... I am justice58 NOT Poetic Justice. See... you are letting assumptions run away with you. Stop doing that!

Posted by: justice58 | September 22, 2006 07:51 PM

Three Duke lacrosse players took five to 10 minutes to sexually assault a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a team party, and not the 30 minutes she originally described to investigators, a prosecutor said Friday.

So suddenly it went from a violent half hour rape, to 10 minutes? And no longer is it "rape" it's "sexually assault". How freakin' convenient! Even at 10 minutes, Reade's phone/atm/and receipt records make it almost impossible for him to be guilty.

Whether it's 30 minutes, 10 minutes, or 4 hours, there's still no DNA whatsoever, and not one SHRED of evidence that connects the accused to the stripper. This case is (still) illogical. Justice, saying "Nifong has the evidence" is about as useful as saying "I have a house constructed entirely out of cheese which I live in year round with little elves"...Just because you think/say he has it, doesn't mean he has it. If there was a smoking gun, something worthy of a rape charge, it would have been found out by now. Regardless, you seem to think that all this woman needs to do is sit on the stand and tell "her side of the story" in order to get a conviction, completely forgetting the idea of REASONABLE DOUBT. Every single thing this woman has said, from the time of the rape, to the boys she picked out, to what she said happened, has been debunked. Vaginal swelling? Well she used a vibrator. REASONABLE DOUBT. Violent rape with no condoms? No DNA? REASONABLE DOUBT. Reade Seligman's almost airtight alibi, complete with electroic records? REASONABLE DOUBT. Do you realize that one shred of doubt in this case connects to a not guilty ruling? Do you understand how incredibly difficult it would be to overlook stacks and stacks of evidence that shows it's VERY likely that these boys didn't commit rape, and come to a common ground, blinders on idea of guilty? To get a not guilty ruling, all the dfense has to do is make the jury think there is a CHANCE they didn't do it. To get a guilty verdict, the prosecutor has to convince the jury %100, without any reasonable doubt in their minds that these exact three boys did EXACTLY what the woman said EXACTLY as she explained it in one of her many, many stories, without one shred of hesitation or doubt in their minds. It's like saying "There was a murder, and a man was at the scene. There were also fingerprints of another person. The man says he just found the body and called the police, he had nothing to do with it. But, he was the only guy there. Many people would think he probably did it. But because there is evidence that someone else was there, it is possible that someone else might have committed the murder. Therefor, there is reason to doubt the idea that this man is definitely the killer. Reasonable doubt". Get it? Of course not, all you see is "white bad, black good".

And I am in SHOCK, SHOCK, that the judge doesn't want a logical outline of what the accuser said happened to be turned over. To convict, one would have to know which boy did what, since I think oral sexual assault and rape (actual penetration) are two separate things. Not that it matters, because she wouldn't have gotten the story straight anyway.

Also, does anyone else find it funny that McFadden was suspended because of a personal and private email? Could you imagine how many people would get suspended if schools used that logic all over campus? You have no right to private thought? People use cuss words, racial slurs, say "I want to kill her" and all types of horrible things daily, and while it may not be too nice, it's perfectly allowed. I don't see any black students getting kicked out of school for saying "Im gonna kill that cracker".

Reverse racism at its best.

I'm looking forward to the 60 minutes on Sunday. Hopefully it will show NIfong for the pathetic, race pandering coward he is.

Posted by: Stef | September 22, 2006 08:36 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company