The Duke accuser reveals the truth at last: it wasn't the lacrosse team --

[pnwmom]

it could only have been . . . the gymnastics team! Who else (in the throes of wild, drunken, animal passion) could have managed these amazingly coordinated acrobatics on the floor of a tiny bathroom?

Seriously, folks, there isn't a pea's worth of credibility in the accuser's Dec. 21 statement, IMO. I'd be laughing, except it isn't a SNL skit -- it's a real hell that three real families have been put through for more than 10 months now. . . and no end in sight.

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

From Linwood Wilson's December 21 report for the prosecution:

XXX stated they (XXX & Kim) went out into the room to dance. When they go into the middle of the room the guys circled around them and this one guy said "we are going to stick a broomstick up your asses." They got scared when this was said and they started picking their clothes up off the floor. XXX stated she started feeling dizzy at this point and she and "Nikki"(Kim) ran out to "Nikki's" (Kim's) car and were getting ready to drive off when 3 guys came to the car. XXX stated that Dave Evans was one of the 3 guys. Nikki was negotiating with 3 guys. The 3 guys apologized and XXX and Kim returned to inside the house. As soon as they (XXX & Kim) got inside the house, the guys started acting crazy again. People were running around screaming. They (XXX & Kim) were separated by either "Nikki" (Kim) leaving on her own or the guys taking her (XXX not sure which just that they were separated). This was at the bathroom in the master bedroom.

XXX stated, "Dave Evan grabbed me by the arm, Tall one, Collin Finnerty) grabbed me around my waist and the other one Reade was holding my legs." There were about 20 guys in the bedroom and some of them started pushing me into the bathroom while the 3 guys were holding me. Dave Evans was holding my arms and said, "Sweatheart you can't leave."

XXX stated she was wearing a white top, red dressy undertop, white skirt and white thongs. XXX stated, "once inside the bathroom, Dave Evans was behind me, Reade Seligmann was in front of me and Finnerty was on the floor under Seligmann." I felt a sharp pain in my vagina and someone said "we're gonna rape or fuck (doesn't remember which) this black bitch." XXX stated that Dave Evans was in the rear and after a few minutes he asked one of the other guys (Seligmann) to get back behind her and Seligmann said he didn't want to because he was getting married. Finnerty then got up and got behind her and Dave Evans got under Finnerty on the floor and Seligmann was still in front of her. Crystal Mangum stated at this point she started feeling sharp pain in her ass and vagina, while Finnerty was behind her. Both Finnerty and Evans were trying to get Seligmann to "do it" but he kept saying NO. Then Seligmann got behind her, Finnerty got on the floor under her and Evans got in front of her. Dave Evans started jacking his penis and ejaculating on her face and she (XXX) started spitting. Someone opened the door and handed them towels and they started wiping me off, Dave Evans off and wiping up the floor."

SNIP

(Edited to substitute link to WRAL.)

[oldtimecanuk]

1. Geez, I bet this did'nt cost the Tax Payer too much (middle class)

This prosecutor should do some time over this bullshit IMHO..... What the hell did this cost the average tax payer to bring this to where it is? ugh....

ww

[pnwmom]

2. I'm sure the costs have been in the millions by now. These kinds of cases

are expensive. And that doesn't include the millions spent by these families to defend their sons.

[GeneCosta]

4. And the boys should sue to get every dime back

Not the stripper -- God knows how much money she has.

The prosecutor is probably carrying a good-size purse, though.

[pnwmom]

6. I hope there is a way to get them repaid.

Cities like Durham should know there are consequences for allowing prosecutors to behave like this.

[Hobarticus]

17. You think prosecutors should be held personally financially responsible

for the cases they bring to court?

[pnwmom]

18. In general, no, but in this case a number of legal authorities

believe he may be liable because of actions he took outside of his responsibility as a prosecutor, including his many interviews with the media about the case during his election campaign, before he had even filed indictments.

[Hobarticus]

22. And that's why he's getting disbarred. Simple.

Reading through this thread, I understand your strong feelings about this, and you make some good points.

He's liable in terms of getting disbarred. That's strong enough. I think it's pretty obvious that this guy's one-of-a-kind.

Holding prosecutors financially liable for their actions? Wow, that's the worst idea I've heard in a long time. Think long and hard about that. Maybe we should just stop prosecuting and pursuing criminal cases altogether in case someone's feelings get hurt.

[pnwmom]

24. What about the possibility of suing him for malicious prosecution?

Aren't prosecutors financially liable under malicious prosecution laws? As I understand it, malicious prosecution cases are very difficult to win, which is why they are so rare. But if a case ever warranted it, it would seem that this one does.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060630_spilbor.html

Ordinarily, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability in connection with their pursuit of a criminal case. That makes sense: As the Supreme Court has commented, exposing prosecutors to civil liability would undermine the functioning of the criminal justice system.

But, not all prosecutorial conduct enjoys absolute immunity. To the contrary, in Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor was not absolutely immune from civil liability for false statements made in a press conference and for other pre-trial investigative conduct; in that case, only "qualified immunity" applies.

The Court explained that this is because "he conduct of a press conference does not involve the initiation of prosecution, the presentation of the state's case in court, or actions preparatory for these functions." In other words, press conferences aren't an integral part of the prosecutor's job; they are an extra function that he chooses to perform. Prosecutors could opt not to do any press conferences, if they so chose, and still perform all the core duties of prosecution.

Thus, there may indeed be a way for the defendants, if acquitted, to sue D.A. Nifong for malicious prosecution: They must hinge their claim on his statements at press conferences.

D.A. Nifong gave, by last count, close to seventy press interviews in the weeks preceding the filing of formal charges in this case. To succeed in its claim, the defense would likely need to show that he made knowingly false or misleading statements - mischaracterizing evidence, or omitting to mention important evidence favoring the defense. Thus, the question for the defense becomes this: What did Nifong know, and when did he know it?

[pnwmom]

3. And welcome to DU, oldtimecanuk!

[oldtimecanuk]

5. Thank you PNWMOM....

I am trying to fit in here...lol... Hope I am not stepping on to many toes...

ww

[papau]

7. This smells of money buying silence so rich kids get off - the private investigator's 2 hr

December 21, 2006 Interview of Crystal Mangum (the private fellow hired by the rather wealthy parents is the Investigator Linwood H. Wilson mentioned in the OP) revealed a plausible scenario - <snip>

12. Are you certain that they used their penis to rape you?
Answer: I can't say 100% that it was a penis that was used because I couldn't see it. They had me bent over and my face pushed down to the floor so I couldn't see what they were using but I believe it was their penis. It felt like a penis, but it was a sharp pain. I couldn't say 100% that I saw them use their penis but it was certainly something.

13. What did you do when the rape ended?
Answer: I sat in the bathroom for a few minutes and then ran out of the bathroom. They (guys) dragged me out of the house and dropped me on the steps. I started beating on the door all I wanted to do was get away from the people hurting me. I didn't know whether to go back inside or run out to the street because they (guys outside) were yelling names at me. So, I ran out in the yard and fell on the ground. The guys picked me up and put me in "Nikki's" (Kim's) car.
<snip>

I do not know who is telling the truth - but the assumption that the girl is a liar seems a stretch - IMHO. Indeed I have seen the rich buy their way out of a problem too many times to not pause and note that right after the event, the stories were strong. Then, all of a
sudden, the 2nd dancer changed her story. And now the accuser is said to be having memory problems. Perhaps some Duke parents have deep pockets that can fix things? And if this is the case - the DA is getting punished for daring to believe a black girl (granted that the delay in releasing evidence that the girl slept with other men - their DNA being found on her - appears to ne a no-no for some reason under Duke law - must be that it is ok to rape a girl that has multiple partners if she is black? - so the other male DNA is somehow exculpatory?).

[oldtimecanuk]

8. I don't know where you go with this one...

If the evidence is there, then they sure as hell should be tried and found guilty.... The only thing that bothers me is the Political over tones to this case. The prosecutor is now almost up on charges of abuse of power and Disbarment.... God, I just don't know, other than the money being spent on this is outragious.. just like Iraq.

ww

[pnwmom]

9. WRONG! Linwood Wilson works for the PROSECUTOR

not the defense. If you have any problems with the credibility of this statement -- as I do -- you should blame it on the prosecution.

You ask why male DNA evidence is exculpatory? The accuser already told the police that she hadn't had sex with anyone for a week, except her boyfriend. So OF COURSE male DNA that doesn't belong to the students is exculpatory: if she is telling the truth that she hadn't had sex, then logically that DNA would belong to the real rapists! Why did Nifong decide to hide the fact that the DNA was discovered? Shouldn't he instead have been trying to find the men who left that DNA on her?

The only other possibility is that she lied about not having had sex for a week, which goes directly to her credibility. Either way, the DNA evidence of other males is exculpatory with regard to the students.

And as far as Nifong is concerned. . . he's not in trouble for "daring to believe a black girl." He's in trouble for making prejudicial statements against the students AND -- more importantly -- for withholding evidence and reports that he was legally required to provide to the defense. And for lying about it to the defense, to the Court, and to the N.C. State bar association itself. This isn't a matter of defense spin: all the details are in the North Carolina State Bar Association's complaint against Nifong. He is in deep trouble, not because he championed a black woman, but because he worked to frame three innocent defendants.

[papau]

10. You are correct - It was Nifong that hired Linwood - but Whores can be raped - other male DNA

proves squat.

That is, it proves squat unless it's a black female who chose not to reveal prior multiple partners.

The withholding of evidence is indeed the charge against the DA - but that evidence must be material, in my opinion, before a delay admitted and corrected becomes reason for "deep trouble"

I still do not know who is telling the truth - but I question the rush to judgment.

But that is just my opinion.

[pnwmom]

Who says she's a whore? You're saying that, I'm not.

Finding other male DNA clearly proves one of two things, both of which strongly help the defense case.

The first possibility is that she was lying when she said she had no sex for a week (except with her boyfriend). If she didn't want to answer the question -- if she didn't want to reveal other partners -- then she should have said so. But she didn't have a legal option to lie about her sexual activity, if that's what she did. For her to knowingly make a false statement to the police is a criminal offense. And it goes straight to her credibility, which is the major issue in this case.

The second possibility is that she was telling the truth, and that the DNA belonged to another set of rapists. Some group of men other than any of the 46 lacrosse team members. Perhaps she was gang-raped after the Duke party. Perhaps the whole night was a blur, and she was MISTAKEN about which group of men raped her.

But if Nifong himself ever believed that she was telling the truth in her statement to the police, and that she had been raped, then he would have tried to track down the source of the male DNA that he found on her. He certainly would have had someone question her about it. But he never did. The only logical conclusion is that Nifong himself thought she was lying.

[papau]

12. We don't agree on what you do if you find a girl has lied about her regular sex life after

she is questioned about an alleged rape.

The law does agree with you as to the credibility question - and that is why Nifong had to present that evidence and why his delay in doing so has caused a problem (as in were these kids properly charge by a grand jury that knew the facts - I suspect the charges would stand unless the politics calls for dropped charges and a new grand jury that will never meet on this case - money talks as I mentioned). In any case I agree with you on the credibility issue and the negative effect of the lie on the case.

Your "she's telling the truth and was gang raped earlier/later" is a "reasonable doubt Hail Mary" toss - IMO.

There is no reason to track down the source of the DNA in the girl - other than to discourage rape persecutions in the future by having even fewer girls come forward than do now (the percentage that do is minimal as most will try to blame themselves with "if only's" and will be into "I can't tell my parents"). And if the defense were to claim that there was in front of a jury I was on, I would take that as proof that the defense client is guilty.

The girl could not tell what was going into her vagina because of the way she was held face down - the men had a broom - the men are racists and one said something implying he did not want to put his penis in her as he might mess himself up just before his wedding - implication: the men "had a little fun" and raped her with the broom.

As this has happened to both men and women - see the last 10 years of New York City Police "having fun" - who are black under white physical control, it is not an implausible read of the evidence. It is certainly more likely than the gang rape later suggestion.

In any case, as I said before, I do not know what happened, and I agree with you that she hurt her credibility by not telling the DA about her sex life.

I just find the dump on her on DU sad - I think folks should not rush to judgment based on what is out there at this point.

[pnwmom]

13. You keep calling her a girl, but she's an experienced, grown woman.

Eight years older than the students. And she lied to the police, in your opinion, but we're supposed to believe her about the rest of it anyway.

Also, she supposedly can't tell the difference between the FEEL of a broomstick and a penis. Hello?

I'd love to know how you account for her new description of the "attack" with all the over/under/behind/in-front positioning of the "attackers." How did they manage to repeatedly trade places while attacking an uncooperative woman in a tiny bathroom? Does that really sound like an attack of a bunch of crazed, drunken students?

[pnwmom]

14. Also, she never says in any of her statements that the students

carried a broomstick into the bathroom with them. Or that she saw one inside there, ever. Don't you think this is something that would have stood out to her? And don't you think that if the students were using a broomstick on her, she would have noticed it during all that trading places they were supposedly doing during the attack?

Of course, we know that no broomstick was used because there is no way to shove a broomstick up someone without causing injuries -- which she didn't have. The whole broomstick issue is just a red herring.

But why do you call the 28 year old a "girl" -- and the 19-21 year olds, "the men"?

[papau]

19. I do not know who is lying - the story sounds reasonable to me at least - I'll let the trial

decide

But having gone to school with many rich kids that wanted to hang with myself and others like me, I saw and I know the power of money, and I know it gets used to cover up a lot of crap - including crap that is crime.

Indeed the only kids that stole from me back then were rich kids - always I'll pay you back - and then they leave town for the Paris apartment, only to return and get pissed when you won't cover their portion of the bill anymore.

Perhaps the guys are good kids - I don't know that they are not. But I will not pre-judge them as the truth-tellers and pre-judge the lady as a liar based on media coverage.

I don't think either of us is about to change how we approach this case -

peace

:-)

[pnwmom]

21. I'm not prejudging anyone in this case based on their

family or ethnic background or how much money they have or what else they do during the day, or have done in the past.

But after reading the accuser's own statements, and those of her driver and the other dancer, and the transcript of the photo lineup, and the transcript of Dr. Meehan's testimony, etc., I don't see enough evidence there that this should ever have been brought to the grand jury in the first place, much less to trial now.

You're right. We can agree to disagree.

[dsc]

20. plungers (the kind with wood handles)

typically would be like broom sticks though the rest of your point stands.

[pnwmom]

11. delete (dupe)

[TZ]

15. i doubt there are any angels here...

I am sure something nasty happened. Obviously not rape, but something maybe some old fashioned racial epithets. The woman obviously has lied true, but I doubt these boys are now the innocent little angels that have been oh so wrongly accused either. Apparantly these kids were misbehaving in various ways before this incident. If you want to say how awful, they never will get their reps back, I beg to differ. They can probably go elsewhere after this dies down and be fine. They did set themselves in a bad situation with a large drunken party and strippers to begin with.

[pnwmom]

16. Do you think they should be facing prison for a few DECADES

because "something nasty" happened? Because that's what they're facing. And the attorneys' bills have mounted into the millions.

The other dancer said that the racial epithet was made by a different student, not one of the accused -- and that it happened after the other dancer made her own racial slur. And Prof. James Coleman, an African American professor who headed the committee at Duke that investigated the matter, issued a report saying that the Lacrosse team actually had a very good disciplinary record.

I think it is the rankest hypocrisy, in our day and age, to act as if anyone sets themselves up for false criminal charges merely because they have a big beer party and legally hire strippers. They probably can see much more interesting stripping any day on HBO.

[Hobarticus]

23. Self-delete.