Showing posts with label Hoax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hoax. Show all posts

Sunday, June 10, 2007

"There was laughter, as well there should be"

On June 5 Durham Deputy Police Chief Ronald Hodge participated as one of the three candidates in a public forum for potential replacements for retiring Durham Police Chief Chalmers. In a Q & A segment with the candidates, Hodge commented about Durham Police actions during the Duke Lacrosse case:

"I don't recall that the Durham Police Department has been involved in something where we made major mistakes in the last five years." He said that though some errors may have been made, they were not "fatal to the outcome of the case." N & O

He was immediately the target of snickering in the audience. How could the Deputy Police Chief, who was the highest ranking police official during the investigation when Chief Chambers was absent, make such a statement?

As Councilman Eugene Brown has pointed out in his letter to the City Council Independent Investigator regarding the Hoax:

One basic question is why did three Durham residents have to go to Raleigh and to the Attorney General's office to get justice? What was in the collective DNA of some within the Durham Police Department (DPD) that denied the accused justice in our City? Who was really in charge of investigating this case, the Durham Police or the DA? Who was driving the train and who was stoking the coal in the fire engine to keep this hoax of an investigation going? What was the role of the Durham Police Department in creating what the Attorney General deemed a "rush to conviction" but apparently not to justice? Letter

In response to the critics Deputy Chief Hodge has replied in the News and Observer:

On Friday, Hodge said he stands by his comments. "A major problem to me is uncovering corruption in the department," he said. "I don't see, at the end of the day, whatever is uncovered about what the Durham Police Department did not do as it relates to the Duke lacrosse case will be major." N & O

Councilman Eugene Brown had this comment:

Durham City Council member Eugene Brown was flabbergasted by Hodge's comments at the forum. "There was laughter, as well there should be," he said. And lawyers for the players say the department made major mistakes and the city should be wary of hiring a chief who might do the same. N & O

One can't help but wonder if Deputy Chief Hodge has learned a bit of Nifongese.... perhaps he'll see, at the end of the day, whatever is uncovered about what the Durham Police Department did do as it relates to the Duke lacrosse case will be major. Certainly his and Chalmer's problems uncovering corruption in the department played a part in Mayor Bell's call for an external investigation. In view of the fact that this obvious apologist for the status quo in Durham is a finalist for the position, we believe the Durham City Council should review the search for a new Police Chief and start anew by taking over the search from City Manager Baker.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Independent Women's Forum


The Independent Women's Forum, a Washington D.C. based, non-partisan, non-profit organization is hosting a panel tomorrow evening, Thursday March 15, 2006 at 5:00pm which will discuss Defendant Nifong, the media coverage, and the role of Duke University professors in the Hoax. Panelists include Stuart Taylor Jr., senior writer and columnist for National Journal magazine and Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War against Boys. IWF's Allison Kasic, who was featured on the cover of the New York Times Magazine in May 2003 as one of the top student activists in the country, rounds out the panel. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin will moderate. For additional information: info@iwf.org.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Duke Prof Channels Wendy Murphy

What’s that you say, Mr. Robinson?
.
Have logic and justice left and gone away? This question should be on everyone’s mind after reading Duke Law School Professor Robinson Everett’s defense of DA Nifong in the Herald-Sun yesterday.
.
Professor Everett endorsed DA Nifong in the primary and general elections. Unlike Citizen’s Committee Co-Chair Kim Brummel, who demanded Nifong apologize for his unethical conduct, Professor Everett apparently sees nothing wrong with DA Nifong’s decision to hide evidence in the Hoax. He apparently believes that Wendy Murphy understands the issues raised by Nifong’s conduct better than his fellow Duke law professor James Coleman. Everett argues that it is unclear whether “Nifong had any duty to provide the defense with evidence about the presence on the accuser’s body of semen from other persons who were not lacrosse players.” Everett cites North Carolina’s rape shield law, rule or evidence 412 and suggests that it allows a District Attorney to hide evidence he doesn’t think will ultimately be admitted at trial.
.
Everett states:

“Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow receipt of evidence that alleged victim had sexual relations with persons other than the lacrosse players; but, after examining the rule, I doubt that those exceptions would apply in this case. Therefore, Judge Smith, who will try the case, may not allow the jury to hear this evidence – although the evidence clearly should be admissible that the tests revealed no semen from the lacrosse players on the body of the accused…I wonder whether the district attorney violated any constitutional or statutory requirement if he had the laboratory delete from its “reports of test result” those that would be inadmissible at trial but which he fears the defense might use to attack the accuser’s character.”

Rule 412 states the following:
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution unless such behavior:
(1) Was between the complainant and the defendant; or
(2) Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant; or
(3) Is evidence of a pattern of sexual behavior so distinctive and so closely resembling the defendant's version of the alleged encounter with the complainant as to tend to prove that such complainant consented to the act or acts charged or behaved in such a manner as to lead the defendant reasonably to believe that the complainant consented; or
(4) Is evidence of sexual behavior offered as the basis of expert psychological or psychiatric opinion that the complainant fantasized or invented the act or acts charged.
Let’s set aside (4) and its potential relevance for the time being. How in the present case is it even remotely possible to argue that (2) does not apply? How can anyone, let alone a distinguished professor of law, argue that multiple DNA samples found on the accuser in this case are not “evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendants”? Isn’t that exactly why the other DNA from at least four unidentified males is relevant? Nifong didn’t even try to argue the Robinson Everett/Wendy Murphy theory to the court, to the media, or to the NC Bar Grievance Committee. Does Professor Everett really believe the lawyer he publicly endorsed for district attorney is so incompetent that he didn’t raise an obvious argument in his own behalf and instead chose first to deny knowledge and then to make up a story about protecting the players’ privacy? Even with his career on the line, does Everett actually believe that Nifong just missed that argument or forgot his true motivations?
.
Perhaps DA Nifong’s reluctance to use Everett’s argument was due to the fact that he said repeatedly on national television and to local Durham media that he believed the accuser’s story because of the medical report from Duke Hospital, which he asserted showed vaginal trauma, and which the police described in multiple search warrants by stating, “Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally.”
.
Setting aside the fact that the medical records said no such thing and only noted diffuse edema of the vaginal walls, is Professor Everett seriously arguing that DNA found in the vaginal vault, in the rectum, and on the accuser’s underwear that doesn’t match any of the lacrosse players should be excluded from evidence because it isn’t relevant? Is he seriously arguing that DA Nifong was justified in withholding this evidence, even as his office leaked to the press the “non-exclusion” of Dave Evans from a DNA pool created from multiple plastic fingernails found in the trashcan in Evans’ bathroom? How exactly could a defendant respond to such claims in Mr. Robinson’s evidentiary neighborhood? The prosecution would assert the “injuries” were caused by the defendant, because if the defendant didn’t cause them, who did? Then the defendant would say what? Does Robinson Everett really believe a court would prevent a defendant from suggesting that the multiple donors of the recovered DNA samples may have caused the “injuries”? As controversial as rape shield laws are, does Everett really believe they operate that irrationally?
.
Furthermore, the additional DNA samples in this case are highly relevant for two other important reasons. First, the accuser claimed that at least one of the accused ejaculated. The apparent justification for why no DNA was found is a magic towel that managed to wipe away all the accused’s DNA, but left the DNA of other men. How can the defense be precluded from offering the other DNA as evidence against the magic towel theory? Second, the accuser claims that she didn’t have sexual relations with anyone prior to the party and only had sex with her boyfriend a week earlier. This claim is directly relevant to the significance attached to any medical evidence of “trauma” in her vaginal area. How can DNA evidence to the contrary possibly be considered irrelevant to the question?
.
Most importantly, it must be noted that Everett supports his argument by miscontsruing the rape shield law in stating, "Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow receipt of evidence." In fact, Rule 412 contains four narrow exceptions which might allow presentation of evidence at trial and does not speak to receipt of evidence except to specifically state the opposite of what Everett falsely claims: "...all evidence relating thereto shall be open to inspection only by the parties, the complainant, their attorneys and the court and its agents."
.
Further, the statute outlines the procedure by which the evidence in question must be presented to the court so that a ruling on admissibility is made by a judge and not the prosecutor.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless and until the court determines that evidence of sexual behavior is relevant under subdivision (b), no reference to this behavior may be made in the presence of the jury and no evidence of this behavior may be introduced at any time during the trial of:
(1) A charge of rape or a lesser included offense of rape;
(2) A charge of a sex offense or a lesser included offense of a sex offense; or
(3) An offense being tried jointly with a charge of rape or a sex offense, or with a lesser included offense of rape or a sex offense.

Before any questions pertaining to such evidence are asked of any witness, the proponent of such evidence shall first apply to the court for a determination of the relevance of the sexual behavior to which it relates. The proponent of such evidence may make application either prior to trial pursuant to G.S. 15A-952, or during the trial at the time when the proponent desires to introduce such evidence. When application is made, the court shall conduct an in camera hearing, which shall be transcribed, to consider the proponent's offer of proof and the argument of counsel, including any counsel for the complainant, to determine the extent to which such behavior is relevant. In the hearing,the proponent of the evidence shall establish the basis of admissibility of such evidence. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Rule 104, if the relevancy of the evidence which the proponent seeks to offer in the trial depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court, at the in camera hearing or at a subsequent in camera hearing scheduled for that purpose, shall accept evidence on the issue of whether that condition of fact is fulfilled and shall determine that issue. If the court finds that the evidence is relevant, it shall enter an order stating that the evidence may be admitted and the nature of the questions which will be permitted.

Nowhere in Rule 412 is there a provision for allowing the prosecutor to usurp the role of the court in determining what evidence is admissible and what evidence must be provided to the defendants. It is difficult to understand how the court could rule on the admissibility of evidence hidden from it by a prosecutor. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin appears to agree with our assessment that Everett misconstrues the letter of the statute:

"The State primarily argues that the undisclosed information is not material because it would not have been admissible, as it does not meet the Pulizzano exception to the rape shield law...
.
"We also disagree with the State's argument that this evidence is not material because we determine that the State's nondisclosure of this evidence sufficiently undermines our confidence in the outcome of Harris's criminal proceeding. While the State argues at length that the undisclosed evidence is not material because it does not meet the Pulizzano test, we find this argument to be unpersuasive because the State never afforded Harris the opportunity to bring a Pulizzano motion in the first place. We need not determine whether the five factor Pulizzano test would have been met in this case because even if the test would have been met, the circuit court would still have been obligated to balance Harris's right to present the evidence against the interest of the State in excluding it." State v. Harris
Robinson Everett ignores all these well-known facts and obvious questions and suggests that Nifong was justified in hiding evidence “that would be inadmissible at trial but which he fears the defense might use to attack the accuser’s character.” One wonders whether Everett is following any of the facts in this case or is instead just writing letters to the News & Observer and Herald-Sun because he assumes his intellect is so superior that the community would benefit from his baseless musings. We can only hope that justice’s version of “Joltin’ Joe” and the rest of the defense team can ultimately convince the special prosecutors to dismiss the charges in this Hoax. Until that day comes, Hoax enablers like Robinson Everett can only cause the rest of us to look to the sky and remember that “heaven holds a place for those who pray.”

Thursday, February 08, 2007

FODU Statement

Friends of Duke University ran an ad in today’s Chronicle responding to an open letter issued jointly by a group of Duke University professors. The text of the statement is as follows:

Some Questions from Friends of Duke University

In a recent Duke Chronicle article, Group of 88 member Ronen Plesser maintained that the new statement of a group calling itself “Concerned Duke Faculty” would form a “basis for a conversation on campus . . . a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding.”
.
Friends of Duke University endorses this conversation. But we also believe that the basis for one aspect of this conversation—the meaning of the Group of 88’s April 6 ad—needs more clarification. In that light, we would like to offer some questions for the “Concerned Duke Faculty.”
Principles of Due Process
The April 6 ad explicitly thanked “students speaking individually” and “protestors making collective noise” for not waiting. The fundamental question is what was not worthy of being awaited. Time for reason to assist emotion? Time for evidence to be gathered and assessed? Time for a defense to be made? If you were so attuned to due process, why did you fail to mention it in your April 6 ad?
.
In your recent statement, you stated “We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time. We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.” Do you or do you not endorse the “potbanging” protest that was widely covered in the media? Could you explain to the University community what criteria you used in the April 6 ad to determine which protests were worthy of your endorsement and which protests merited your disapproval?
.
In your recent statement, you claim to “stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence.” What, then, should readers of the April 6 ad have inferred from your reference to “what happened to this young woman”? Given that she had accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape, isn’t that the obvious inference, carrying with it implied guilt of some members of the lacrosse team?
.
Do you believe that Mike Nifong acted properly when he went to the grand jury on April 17 to seek indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty?
Statements of Your Fellow Signatories
Do you agree with the March 31 Chronicle op-ed of your colleague and fellow signatory, Bill Chafe, who suggested that the whites who lynched Emmett Till provided an appropriate historical context through which to interpret the actions of the lacrosse players?
.
Do you agree with the claim of your colleague and fellow signatory, Karla Holloway, that innocence and guilt have been “assessed through a metric of race and gender. White innocence means black guilt”? If so, which pieces of evidence cited by defenders of the players relate to race and gender?
.
Your colleague and fellow signatory, Alex Rosenberg, told the New York Sun on October 27 that he signed the ad because he was bothered by “affluent kids violating the law to get exploited women to take their clothes off when they could get as much hookup as they wanted from rich and attractive Duke coeds.” Was raising this issue one of the ad’s purposes?
The University and Its Students

Will you document the methodology used to obtain a representative cross section of campus opinion for the “listening” statement?

The April 6 ad contains the following anonymous quote from an alleged Duke student: “Being a big, black man, it’s hard to walk anywhere at night, and not have a campus police car slowly drive by me.” Have any of you approached the Duke police force to ask if it has a policy of slowing down when officers see a Black man on campus? Have any of you experienced or observed this phenomenon?
.
In your recent statement, you criticized those who read the April 6 ad “as rendering a judgment in the case.” That ad quoted an anonymous student, who allegedly said, “no one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation”; another anonymous student allegedly said, “If something like this happens to me . . . what would be used against me—my clothing?” Would you agree that these anonymous students appeared to have rendered a judgment in the case?
Looking Ahead
Given that in your new statement you decried an atmosphere that allowed “sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus,” would you recommend that female students accepted to the Class of 2011 attend Duke? If so, how could you support their entering an environment that you have publicly described as so dangerous?
.
Would you be willing to sign a statement, such as that of the Economics Professors, saying that all students, including lacrosse players and other student-athletes, are welcome in your classes?
.
These questions were gathered from comments made on our website, and on Professor KC Johnson’s website. Friends of Duke University does not endorse anonymous e-mails and does not endorse efforts to threaten or harass members of the lacrosse team, or any other Duke University students. Nor do we endorse efforts to threaten or harass signatories to the original Group of 88 ad or the “Concerned Faculty” statement. We do, however, believe the public statements by faculty members in both instances raise important questions and we support a dialogue about the questions presented in this ad and elsewhere.
In addition to this statement published in The Chronicle, FODU issued the following press release.

Press Release
Friends of Duke University
Date: February 8, 2007
Subject: Our response to the Open Letter posted by “Concerned Faculty” at Duke University
Contact: Jason Trumpbour, Spokesperson
.
Background
.
On April 6, 2006, a group of 88 Duke University professors published an advertisement in the University newspaper The Chronicle. This ad, entitled “We are listening to our students,” contained several references to the Duke lacrosse case. It made reference to “what happened to this young woman” and stated, “To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.” It contained quotes from students such as “If something like this happens to me . . . What would be used against me--my clothing”? And “no one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation.”
.
These professors who became known as the “Group of 88” were widely criticized for prejudging the guilt of members of the men’s lacrosse team and for attempting to advance whatever agenda they had at the expense of these students and their reputations. Their ad was also cited by defense attorneys in their motion for a change in venue as evidence of extremely prejudicial pretrial publicity.
.
Nine months later, on January 16, 2007, a group containing most of the same members and now calling itself the “Concerned Faculty” posted an open letter on their website defending their original ad. Claiming that the original ad had been “broadly, and often intentionally, misread . . . as rendering a judgment in the case,” the group rejected calls to retract or apologize for it. The complete text of the Concerned Faculty statement as well as a link to their original ad can be found here.
.
Our Response
.
One of the group’s members, Ronen Plesser stated, “My personal hope is that this will be the basis for a conversation on campus . . . a conversation that will eventually lead to some understanding.” However, the January 16 open letter begs more questions than it answers about the purposes of the “Listening” ad and the sort of conversation being sought given the peculiar language used to express its points and communicate its premises. The Friends of Duke University thought it appropriate to request further clarification. To that end we have today published an ad in the Chronicle asking a series of questions gathered from comments posted on our website and that of Professor K.C. Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland site.
.
Friends of Duke University has repeatedly reached out to these faculty members. Our first open letter published on July 19 stated,

As for those who were quick to prejudge the accused, particularly the group of 88 professors who signed an earlier call to action, we look upon them not with malice. Instead, we ask that they now count themselves among those victimized by this spring’s false accusations. We hope that all will realize now that our enemies are not each other, but those who would profit from the unfair denigration of our university and its members.

A few days before the Concerned Faculty posted their letter, we attempted to find common ground with them by asking if they would join the University in calling for due process for Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, an issue on which we hoped everyone could agree. All of our overtures have been ignored or rebuffed.
.
We remain sincere in our efforts to reach out to them. We are dismayed that, not only would they chose to ignore our efforts, but that they would instead respond with a defiant refusal to admit mistake either in judgment or expression and that they would insult the motives and/or intelligence of their critics. We do not begrudge members of the Group of 88/Concerned Faculty their right to call attention to social issues of concern to them. We instead condemn the unfair public vilification of members of the lacrosse team done in the course of expressing their concerns. We conclude our latest ad with an earnest question: “Would you be willing to sign a statement, such as that of the Economics Professors, saying that all students, including lacrosse players and other student-athletes, are welcome in your classes?”
.
A copy of that statement, originally published as a letter to the Chronicle, may be found here.
.
Friends of Duke University supports academic freedom for both faculty and students. We have no political agenda and have a diverse following representing all sorts of political views and walks of life. What all of us have in common is a deep commitment to ensuring justice for Reade, Collin and David and fair and equitable treatment for the rest of the team and Duke students generally both on campus and off. We hope that Duke University can once again be a place of civility and mutual respect among all of its members.
.
On the Web: Our site and Professor KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland site

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Indicators of False Accusations

The National Center for Women and Policing, a division of the Feminist Majority Foundation, provides training, and training materials, to law enforcement agencies with the intention of improving the ability of these agencies to response effectively to sexual assault crimes. Among their many informative and instructive publications, is a training manual entitled, “Unfounded Cases and False Accusations.” Examination of this training manual casts further aspersions on both the validity of the Duke Hoax accuser’s claims and the failure of investigators under the direction of District Attorney Mike Nifong to critically inspect those frail accusations.
.
This training manual is designed, primarily, to discourage law enforcement agencies and officers from viewing allegations of sexual assault from a perspective of suspicion that accusations are often unfounded or false. The first eighteen pages of this law enforcement training manual provides a compelling and persuasive argument for why all accusations of sexual assault require acceptance on face value, initially. To help these agencies identify potentially false accusations, the manual concludes with a six page appendix, “Indicators and Investigation of False Allegations,” which outlines the common characteristics of false accusations. The concluding appendix suggests that an allegation should only be considered skeptically when many of the common characteristics of false allegations are found. In total, the National Center for Women and Policing training manual suggests twenty nine common characteristics of false allegations. Rightfully, the manual cautions:

“An allegation should only be considered suspect when many of the indicators are present, and it should only be determined to be false when the investigative facts directly contradict the victim’s account of events.”

Comparison of these indicators to the circumstances surrounding the Hoax reveal clearly that investigators had overwhelming reason to suspect the accusation were likely false. By our count, as many as twenty-four of the twenty-nine indicators noted by the training manual appear to be present within the hoax initiator’s accusations and the surrounding circumstances. Further, it has been demonstrated on multiple occasions, here and elsewhere, that nearly all of the investigative facts directly contradict the “victim’s” account of events. By following the suggestion offered above, not only should the allegations have been considered suspect but further they should have been determined to be false in the course of an honest investigation.
.
While many of the items presented in the comparison that follows have only recently been made known to the public, all of the demonstrable commonalities between the Hoax and the indicators were either known to investigators immediately or could easily have been discovered in the course of a thorough investigation. One would think that with 24 of 29 red flags going up, the accuser's story would be approached with a bit of skepticism. Instead, DA Nifong ignored the cautions that one would expect even the greenest of investigators to pick up on while relying on the following departure from logic to justify his dismissal of the possibility that the accusations were false:

"Nifong dismissed that theory, saying a hoax would have to include faking injuries to the woman's body..."If this is all a hoax that was ... designed to get the lacrosse team ... what other major lacrosse program is behind that hoax? The presumed motivation would be to end the season of the Duke lacrosse team, and that's obviously been accomplished," Nifong said. "Seriously, when you think about it, who would be motivated to do a hoax like that? What possible reason would somebody have to do that?" N&O

Perhaps, he is simply waiting for the final five indicators to present themselves before deciding the investigation has reached the stage where an accusation that screams "Hoax!" demands to be questioned as such.

"I've had conversations with (the accuser) about how she's doing. I've had conversations with (the accuser) about her seeing her kids," Nifong said. "I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. ... We're not at that stage yet." BayNews9

Some Nifong apologists and agenda motivated opportunists have argued that the accusations deserve their day in court, to be decided upon by a jury of twelve citizens, yet in reality what was dictated by the situation, as evidenced by the comparison to follow, was that these allegation be viewed from a perspective of doubt and suspicion. Quite clearly, either the investigators directed by District Attorney Nifong were duped by a transparently false accusation or were willfully led astray. It is entirely inexcusable that accusations which present themselves as nearly perfect textbook models of what is defined by this training manual as accusations deserving of suspicion were never evaluated as potentially false.

Comparison of the Twenty Nine Indicators of False Accusations to the Hoax

1. The falsely accused will often be “a stranger, a “slight acquaintance,” [or] a “friend of a friend.”

“…a woman hired to dance at a Duke University lacrosse team party claimed that members of the team raped her…” NYT

2. The false accuser will often claim “to have fought with all their ability. They typically report punching, kicking, and scratching their assailants until they are themselves finally overpowered.”

“…the woman has said that she effectively tried to fight them off, that she broke off some of her nails in the process…” MSNBC

“According to the application for a search warrant, the woman recalls being "hit, kicked and strangled. … She tried to defend herself, but was overpowered."
ABC

“She was allegedly dragged into a bathroom, beaten, choked and sodomized by three assailants as she fought back.” Final Call

3. The false accuser will likely “bolster an inability to resist by claiming they were attacked and raped by more than one person.”

“She ended up in the bathroom with five guys who forced her to have intercourse and perform sexual acts...She later stated that she was penetrated by all five of the guys.” Durham Police officer Gwendolyn Sutton

“The female was picked up at the Kroger on Hillsborough Rd., and she was claiming
that she was raped by approximately 20 white males at 610 N. Buchanan Street."
ABC

This police report dated March 14, 2006 lists the number of suspects as two: BlueLineRadio

“The woman identified four players as her assailants.” N&O

"In the police statement she describes the rape in this way. 'Three guys – three guys
grabbed Nicky,' that's you. 'Brett, Adam, and Matt grabbed me. They separated us
at the master bedroom door while we tried to hold on to each other.” CBS

"The woman who says she was raped by three members of Duke's lacrosse team also told police 10 years ago she was raped by three men, filing a 1996 complaint claiming
she had been assaulted three years earlier when she was 14." NBC17

4. The “pseudo-victim claims the assailant was exceptionally large or powerful and able to overcome her resistance with relative ease.”

“In Officer Himan’s handwritten notes, the woman described all three as chubby or heavy. Adam: “white male, short, red cheeks fluffy hair chubby face, brn.” Matt: “Heavy set short haircut 260-270.” Bret: “Chubby.” NYT

5. A false accusation will “include the face-saving element of either having resisted or having been confronted with a situation that made resistance impossible.”

“The victim stated that she tried to leave, but the three males (Adam, Bret, and Matt) forcefully held her legs arms and raped and sexually assaulted her anally, vaginally and orally. The victim stated she was hit, kicked, and strangled during the assault. As she attempted to defend herself, she was overpowered.” TJN

6. “The report of rape is not seen by false claimants as requiring collateral reports of oral or anal sex, unless such acts are included in the person’s sexual repertoire.”

7. “Under-describing of the attack may be another manifestation of the false claimant’s naiveté as to what actually occurs in these crimes.”

8. "Women who make false allegations seem to more frequently report that they had their eyes closed at the time, that they “passed out” and do not recall the penetration, or that they cannot recall the specifics of the actual sex act itself."

“Well, if you are being forced to have sex against your will, you may not necessarily notice whether or not somebody behind you is using a condom. This was not a consensual sex situation. This was a struggle, wherein she was struggling just to be able to breathe. So I'm not sure that she would really have much way of knowing whether a condom was being used.” Mike Nifong

9. "The accuser “may also provide an emotionless, but exquisitely detailed, description of the event. She must either “invent” the acts she alleges, or she must convert a consensual sexual experience into a “rape.” Unable to recount objectively something that was done to her, she tends either to become vague and evasive or to cross the cultural barrier and become overly descriptive."

“In a motion filed on September 20, District Attorney Mike Nifong states that the Duke Hoax accuser has the “ability to recall in great detail the events prior to and during” her alleged assault.” LS

10. "False complainants do not usually present serious physical injuries."

"when she told police she had been raped, doctors at Duke Hospital noted that the woman had two scratches on her right knee and a short scratch on her right heel. None of the scratches were bleeding. Other than diffuse swelling in her vagina, the doctors documented no other injuries." N&O

“The woman was seen in the Duke Hospital emergency room the morning of March 14...She reported that she was in excruciating pain, rating it a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. Nurses and doctors, however, found no obvious discomfort and no associated symptoms of pain, such as grimacing, sweating, or changes in vital signs or posture.” N&O

11. "However, as one moves along the continuum of personal pathology, the extent of self-inflicted harm can increase."

“The second dancer in the Duke University lacrosse rape case told a television interviewer Monday that after she and the accuser left a team party, the accuser wanted to have marks on her body.” N&O

12. "False victims who have injured themselves tend to exhibit an unusually wide array of wounds. In spite of this, extremely sensitive organs or tissues such as the eyes, nipples, lips, or genitalia are almost never injured."

TRAVIS: "Well, I could see the bruises on her face. She had a scratch on her arm. And then I didn`t know the whole -- you know, the whole detail what went on, because she was feeling bad at the time. And she also said her leg was hurting."

GRACE: Well, you know what? I can understand that. I can understand that. Sir, you said you saw bruises on her face. Where were they?

TRAVIS: Right up under her eyes, and her jaw was swollen.

GRACE: And where was the scratch on her arm?

TRAVIS: It was on her right arm, I believe it were.

GRACE: Where, above or below the elbow?

TRAVIS: It was between the wrist and her elbow. Grace

“The S.A.N.E nurse's physical examination of the pelvic area of Crystal Mangum, which included the Vulva, Vagina, Cerix, Fundus and Rectal areas, noted only "diffuse edema of the vaginal walls." The S.A.N.E. nurse's report contains no opinion or conclusion that [the accuser] had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with beigh raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally." TJN

“Well, here's the problem: Edema, diffuse or otherwise, is not an injury. It is the body's response to an injury, an infection, or a disease or inflammatory process of some sort. It can be caused by any number of things.” Forensic Talk

13. "Characteristic of pseudo-victims who injure themselves is their tendency to be strangely indifferent to their wounds. They appear to accept their injuries with a degree of nonchalance not found in people who sustain similar injuries at the hands of others."

“On March 17, the woman showed Thomas a hospital bracelet and paperwork. While she talked about being owed money, the accuser never gave any word or indication of being hurt, he said.” N&O

14. “The consistency or inconsistency of the evidence may suggest that a rape complaint has been exaggerated or is completely false. An absence of the kinds of evidence usually associated with rapes can sometimes be as revealing in identifying false allegations as its presence is in establishing that a rape has actually taken place.”

"First of all, we're talking about 46 different people (who were tested). … Most experts will say (condoms aren't) going to prevent an exchange of DNA. And, also, the nature of the alleged rape was more than just simple sex. There was violence involved, there was touching. And, if that was the case, there would be some DNA present." CBS

“...the only evidence of physical trauma the S.A.N.E nurse in training could find on [the accuser] was a scratch on her knee and a small laceration to her heel, both of which were non-bleeding.”

“ [the accuser] told the S.A.N.E. nurse in training that she was not choked; that no condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used during the alleged sexual assault; and that the S.A.N.E. nurse in training noted that [the accuser's] head, neck, throat, mouth, chest, breasts, addomen, and upper and lower extremities all were normal even though [the accuser] complained of "tenderness" over her body.” TJN

15. “Complainant cannot recall where the crime took place even though she does not report being blindfolded, under influence of drugs or alcohol, or moved from location to location.”

“'Her statements are inconsistent about which bathroom it occurred in.” Gaynor

“Her accounts diverged widely on details of sexual contact, physical assault, alcohol consumption and the behavior of Kim Roberts, the second dancer, whom the accuser called "Nikki." N&O

16. "Crime scene does not support story."

“Defense attorney Bill Thomas said authorities found none of the alleged victim's DNA in the bathroom where she told police she was attacked.” ABC

“None of the woman's DNA was found on the floor, rugs or towels in the bathroom where the rape allegedly occurred.” N&O

17. "Damage to her clothing is inconsistent with any injuries she reports (i.e., cuts or scratches inconsistent with tears or cuts in clothing)."

"A member of the defense team, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because the defense is working with players who could still be indicted, showed photos to the AP on Wednesday that show the accuser on the back porch of the off-campus house, with her clothing intact. She is smiling and looking through her purse. "

"The defense team member said the digital photos were taken at 12:30 a.m., citing an electronic time-stamp known as metadata." ABC

18. "Complainant presents cut-and-paste letters allegedly from the rapist in which death or rape threats are made."

19. "Note or letter is identifiable with pseudo-victim (via handwriting analysis, indented writing, typewriter comparison, paper stock, or fingerprint comparison)."

20. "Confirming laboratory findings are absent."

TL:
"No DNA that matched the players was found on or within or on the surface of the accuser's body or any of her belongings or clothing. Not even under her fingernails. You can listen to the defense attorneys' news conference here. They say the findings show there is no evidence that any sexual activity occurred in that house on that night. If you re-read what she said happened, it is an impossibility."(video)

Defense attorneys have insisted all the players are innocent, citing DNA tests they say found no match between any of the team's white players and the accuser. According to defense attorneys, second, more detailed DNA tests came back Friday and prove no player had sex with the dancer — but that the accuser had sex with another man. Attorney Joseph Cheshire said the tests showed genetic material from a "single male source" was found on a vaginal swab taken from the accuser, but that material did not match any of the players. "In other words, it appears this woman had sex with a male," said Cheshire, who spoke at a news conference with other defense attorneys in the case. "It also appears with certainty it wasn't a Duke lacrosse player." CBS

21. "In false rape allegations, extensive and important information on the complainant is often available. In general, this information suggests that the pseudo-victim has experienced numerous personal problems and that her ability to cope is seriously impaired."

"This request is based on the fact that the complaining witness has a history of criminal activity and behavior, which includes alcohol abuse, drug abuse and dishonesty, all conduct which indicate mental, emotional and/or physical problems, which affect her credibility as a witness," the defense said in court papers. ABC

22. "In temporal sequence, the “rape” follows one or more escalating incidents revealing difficulties in her personal relationships."

On March 11, Haynes said, a couple came into the club and the accuser, who danced under the name "Precious," started pulling the female customer's hair. Someone complained, and Haynes said she told the accuser to go to the bathroom. When Haynes followed, she found the accuser naked and passed out cold, she said. Someone called the woman's boyfriend, and it took four people to get her outside
to the car. N&O

23."Complainant has history of mental or emotional problems."

“Medical records in police files show that doctors had previously diagnosed depression and bipolar disorder.” NYT

One physician wrote, "Due to the patient's long psychological history, she is at very high risk of narcotic abuse, and at clinic, we have recommended not to prescribe the patient any narcotics." N&O

“Upon information and belief, the complaining witness has suffered from mental and
emotional problems for a portion of her life and based on the presently known facts of this case and the criminal history of the complaining witness, there is a good chance she may have been committed at least once to a hospital or drug treatment program.” MSNBC

24. "Complainant has previous record of having been assaulted or raped under similar circumstances."

"The woman who claims she was raped by three Duke University lacrosse players last month also filed a complaint in 1996 saying she was raped by three other men." Fox

"The mother also told ESSENCE that when her daughter was 17 or 18, she was raped by several men, one of whom was someone she knew." Essence


25. "Allegation was made after a similar crime received publicity (suggesting modeling or “copycat” motive in which the similarity to the publicized crime offers credibility)."

26. "Complainant has extensive record of medical care for dramatic illnesses or injuries."

"The mother of the alleged victim told ESSENCE magazine that her daughter did go away to a hospital in Raleigh, North Carolina, for about a week last year, where she was treated for a 'nervous breakdown." Essence

27. Friends or associates report that the complainant’s postassaultive behavior and activities were inconsistent with her allegation.

"She wasn't – she obviously wasn't hurt or, 'cause she was fine. She wouldn't have went back in the house if she was hurt. She's was fine," Roberts says

"In the days and weeks after the attack the accuser went back to the hospital complaining of neck, back and knee pain she claimed was caused by the rape. 60 Minutes obtained a video of her dancing at a strip club two weeks after the alleged attack. The club manager told 60 Minutes that she had consistently performed her routine normally." CBS

The video segment, about a minute long, shows the woman, introduced as Precious, as she approached a floor-to-ceiling pole on a stage, dressed in a thong and skimpy top. She grasped the pole and lowered herself into a squatting position, so that her buttocks almost touched the floor. With her hands on the floor, she stretched out her right leg vertically, as though she was kicking to the ceiling while squatting, and waved her leg several times to either side of the pole. N&O

"The trip in that car from the house … went from happy to crazy," Roberts told Cuomo. ABC

"Four days after she said she was raped, the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case told co-workers at a Hillsborough strip club that she was going to get money from some boys at a Duke party who hadn't paid her, the club's former security manager said."

"The accuser never gave any indication that the party was a bad time, let alone that she was assaulted or raped, Thomas said."She was as regular as pie," Thomas said. "She didn't do anything different."

"The other girls would have known if something had happened," Thomas said. Thomas said dancers must sign in when they take guests into the club's VIP room. He said those sheets show that the woman had signed in March 17 and 18. The club's owner, Victor Olatoye, said the club's records show the woman was dancing at the club March 23, 24, 25 and into the early hours of March 26." N&O

"She was regular. She danced like she always danced, good old Precious." N&O

28. Complainant becomes outraged when asked to corroborate her victimization.

At one point, the woman threatened to drop the case if her family continued to talk to the media, he said. N&O

29. Complainant tries to steer the interview into “safe” topics or those that tend to engender sympathy.

"I've had conversations with (the accuser) about how she's doing. I've had conversations with (the accuser) about her seeing her kids," Nifong said. "I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. ... We're not at that stage yet."

Nifong said he met with the accuser and an investigator on April 11, but didn't discuss details of the case because the woman was "too traumatized." Nifong said the woman didn't make eye contact with him and often seemed on the verge of crying. Their discussion centered around how the case would develop, he said.

"She probably did not speak 15 words during the meeting," Nifong said. SFGate

"The woman spoke for an hour. She talked about her life — joining the Navy and moving to California shortly after finishing high school, marrying a man 14 years her senior, becoming pregnant by a sailor, returning home to North Carolina and getting divorced" NYT

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Nifong Speaks To No One


Nifong speaks to no one,
That's how he makes his case.
And if he speaks to no one
Then there's nothing to erase.

Nifong speaks to no one,
Cause in his dual role
Investigator and DA....
It keeps him in control.

Pole Dancer told a lot of tales,
Her "facts" changed with the wind,
But it didn't mean no never-mind
Pole Dancer never spoke to HIM.
.
If he had heard her changing tale
Rapists:.. twenty?.. three?.. no, five!
Nifong might lose the golden goose
That helped his campaign survive.

He never heard her story,
Or asked her one detail.
He never even talked to Kim,
(Though he did adjust her bail.)

He never heard no... stinkin' alibis
(A shifty defensive plot...)
Since the boys could prove their innocence,
Nifong would rather not.

A case that has no DNA,
And Line-ups crooked as they come…
And Nifong the Investigator
Never talks with ANYONE???

Three young men are charged with rape.
Nifong won't hear alibis.
He won't talk to the accuser,
Or the dancer by her side.

No, Nifong speaks to no one.
It's better to be blind.
With thirty thousand Nifong bucks
Sitting right there on the line.

See no truth, hear no truth,
Talk to no one who was there!
Is that North Carolina justice?
And Durham.... does it care???
Joan Foster

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Occam's Razor II

Six weeks ago, we presented a post entitled Occam's Razor. In this previous post, we theorized that to believe that the Duke case is a Hoax requires one to simply accept that the accuser is lying. We further postulated that to believe an assault occurred demands explanation for each of the many inconsistencies presented by the accuser, the prosecutor, the police, and the evidence as it is known. In total, we presented fifty-one contradictions that would need to be resolved before the District Attorney and the accuser could be believed. Over the past several weeks, new information has become available and the DA has presented an entirely different Theory of the Hoax. The additional information, the reinvention of the Hoax, and continued analysis have offered additional items which must be resolved if a person is to believe that the Hoax is not a Hoax.

Contradictions between the accuser’s written statement and statements of her “outcry witness”:

1. Kim Roberts, the “outcry witness,” did not seek help for the accuser when calling 911 to report being racially slurred when driving-while walking by 610 N. Buchanan, despite allegedly being told by the accuser that she had been hurt by the young men, and allegedly offering to get help.
NBC 17: Audio of Ms. Roberts' 911 Call
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case
.
2. Despite allegedly offering to get help for the accuser, Ms. Roberts not only did not mention harm or needing help during her 911 call, but also took approximately 30 minutes to get to the Kroger parking lot, and did so with the purpose of removing the accuser from her car.
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case
.
3. In her written statement, the accuser claims that she was physically separated from Ms. Roberts by a total of six men, yet Ms. Roberts claimed she re-entered the house without the accuser.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
.
4. In her written statement, the accuser claims that she was physically separated from Ms. Roberts by a total of six men, yet Mr. Nifong has claimed that there is no evidence to support charges against anyone but the three accused.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
CBS: DA Wants Duke Players' ID Card Records
WRAL: Every Member Of Duke Lacrosse Team A Potential Witness
“Nifong: We’re not trying to investigate them. We’re not trying to say that there are crimes that we want to prove that they’re guilty of.”
5. In her written statement, the accuser claims that Ms. Roberts was physically restrained by three different men while the accuser was being dragged into the bathroom by the three accused. Yet, Ms. Roberts indicated initially that the suggestion that a rape had occurred was a “crock”, and has repeatedly stated that she can’t say a rape occurred, despite the accuser's claim that Roberts witnessed the initiation of the attack.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case

6. Ms. Roberts is alleged by the accuser to have been outside the bathroom door during the alleged rape, and to have entered the bathroom immediately afterwards. Yet, Ms. Roberts claimed that the rape allegation was a “crock”, and that she cannot say that a rape occurred.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case

7. Ms. Roberts, six months after giving her statement to police, confirms in an interview with ’60 Minutes’ that her initial statement, which contradicts the accuser’s conflicting police statements, of what she witnessed and what she did not witness remains the same now as it was then.
KC Johnson: The Roberts Bombshells
.
8. Ms. Roberts disputes the accuser’s allegation that Ms. Roberts was restrained by three men at the start of the alleged assault.
MSNBC: Duke accuser lying, second stripper says

9. Ms. Roberts disputes the accuser’s allegations that Ms. Roberts entered the bathroom, dressed the accuser, and helped the accuser out of the house immediately after the alleged assault.
ESPN: Second dancer says accuser is lying

10. Ms. Roberts confirms that neither the police nor the prosecutor interviewed her with regard to the contradictions between her police statement and the accuser’s.
“Were you holding on to each other? Were you pulled apart?""Nope," Roberts replied, who added that she was hearing that account of events for the first time.”
12. Ms. Roberts confirms that the accuser was unhurt when she left the house.
"She obviously wasn't hurt...because she was fine."
TJN Kim Roberts 6.0

Total Absence of Relevant DNA Evidence:

13. The alleged brutal, 30 minute, condom-less gang rape, during which the accuser claimed two alleged attackers ejaculated, left no traces of DNA from the three accused on, in, or near the accuser.
DA Plans To Proceed With Case Despite No DNA Matches
"No DNA material from any young man tested was present on the body of the complaining woman, not present within her body, not present on the surface of her body, and not present on any of her belongings," [Wade} Smith said in a prepared statement.
14. There is a total absence of any DNA from the three accused on the accuser, despite the fact that the SANE exam took place within several hours of the alleged attack, and the accuser had neither bathed nor changed her clothes.
Duke Lacrosse DNA: Mystery Man Revealed

15. The alleged brutal, 30 minute, condom-less gang rape left no DNA from the accuser on the floor, towels, or rugs in the bathroom.
District Attorney: Duke lacrosse case 'not going away'

16. Despite allegedly having spit out the oral attacker’s ejaculate onto a bathroom rug, neither the rug nor the accuser’s mouth retained DNA from the alleged attacker, and the rug did not show traces of the accuser’s saliva.
District Attorney: Duke lacrosse case 'not going away'

17. No DNA from the alleged condom-less attackers was recovered from vaginal swabs of the accuser, yet her boyfriend’s DNA was.
Duke Lacrosse DNA: Mystery Man Revealed

18. The only person whose DNA was found within the accuser is neither suspected nor charged.
Duke Lacrosse DNA: Mystery Man Revealed
CBS: DA Wants Duke Players' ID Card Records

19. The only person whose semen was found on the bathroom floor, where the assault was alleged to have occurred, is neither suspected nor charged.
Two Duke lacrosse DNA tests are positive
CBS: DA Wants Duke Players' ID Card Records

20. Nearly two hundred wrongfully convicted men and women have been exonerated by DNA and countless others have not been charged after being exonerated by DNA yet DA Nifong asks, “How Does DNA exonerate you?” as an excuse to continue his false prosecution.
How Does DNA exonerate you?
.
Absence of Evidence of Physical Trauma:
.
21. Vaginal “trauma” turned out to be diffuse edema, despite the alleged brutal, 30 minute gang rape, and despite the accuser's industrious activities prior to the party.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
.
22. The alleged brutal, 30 minute gang rape, which the accuser claimed also included kicking in the butt, physical striking, strangulation and her head hitting a sink, left no visible bruises, nor any signs of physical trauma detectable upon medical examination by multiple nurses and doctors, except for three small non-bleeding scratches on the accuser's leg and foot.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
.
23. Anal trauma is not reported by the SANE report, despite the accuser’s allegations of anal rape, and despite Sgt. Gottlieb’s claim in his belated typed notes that the SANE nurse informed him of it.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case
Cop says nurse found trauma in Duke case
.
24. Photographs taken by DPD, and notes taken by the DPD photographer, do not indicate any bruising despite the accuser’s claims of a violent physical assault.
Cop says nurse found trauma in Duke case
NY Times Article (registration required)
.
25. Officer Himan claims the SANE Nurse-in-Training, after telling him over the phone that due to HIPPA Laws she was unable to divulge patient information, she proceeded to state that there were signs consistent with a sexual assault during her test.
Cheshire Motion
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
Discovery page 1206, Himan notes page 1

26. Officer Himan and Sergeant Gottlieb claim the SANE Nurse-in-Training told them that there were signs consistent with a sexual assault during her test, yet her own report does not state anything of the sort.
Cop says nurse found trauma in Duke case
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
.
Identification Failures and Misdeeds

27. The accuser failed to identify Reade Seligmann as her attacker the first time she viewed his photograph in a lineup.
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case
.
28. The accuser was only 70% certain that Mr. Seligmann was even at the party, yet 100% certain that he forced her to perform oral sex.
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case
.
29. The accuser failed to identify David Evans as her attacker the first time she viewed his photo in a lineup on March 21.
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case
KC Johnson Discusses the Photo ID

30. The accuser failed to identify anyone as her attacker in the first two lineups, when she was advised that “the person who committed the crime may or may not be included” in the line-up.
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case
Transcript Suggests Alleged Rape Victim ID'd Four Duke Lacrosse Players
KC Johnson Discusses the Photo ID

31. The accuser identified 4 attackers, yet alleges she was attacked by 3 men. Only 3 men were indicted.
Transcript Suggests Alleged Rape Victim ID'd Four Duke Lacrosse Players
Cop says nurse found trauma in Duke case
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case
KC Johnson Discusses the Photo ID

32. The accuser made identifications only after being informed by police that all of her possible choices were believed to have been in attendance at the party.
Cop says nurse found trauma in Duke case
Transcript Suggests Alleged Rape Victim ID'd Four Duke Lacrosse Players
KC Johnson Discusses the Photo ID
.
33. The accuser claimed David Evans had a mustache on the night of the party, yet David Evans has never worn a mustache.
Cop says nurse found trauma in Duke case
KC Johnson Discusses the Photo ID

34. The first two photo lineup attempts were neither video taped, nor well documented. Yet, the final, contrary to procedure event, was meticulously documented and videotaped.
KC Johnson Discusses the Photo ID
Rape case lineup facts are sought
.
35. The only player identified by the accuser, in both the March lineup attempts and the April manufactured lineup, as having been in attendance at the party on two of the three lineup attempts was not even in Durham, let alone at the party.
N&O: Experts “Lineups Likely Tainted”
..
36. Despite the accuser naming an alleged attacker as “Matt” and despite the accuser coincidentally identifying a Matt as an assailant, Matt was not charged perhaps because the police had already invented a fake name theory, perhaps because the accuser had previously failed to identify this “Matt,” perhaps because she identified this Matt as “Brett” or perhaps because three other players more suitable to the invented theory were also identified and four is one of the only number of attackers not included in the accusers varying versions of events.
N&O: The Problems with Matt
.
37. The accuser misidentifies the person who made the broom comment that precipitated the end of the dancer’s performance.
N&O: The Problems with Matt
.
38. The accuser identifies Collin Finnerty as an alleged assailant despite his physical appearance being exactly opposite the descriptions the accuser gave to Inv. Himan during her initial police interview.
“The accuser described her three alleged assailants to police March 16, two and a half days after the lacrosse party. According to Investigator Benjamin Himan's handwritten notes, the assailants were Adam ("white male short, red cheeks fluffy hair chubby face brn"), Matt ("heavyset, short hair cut, 260-270") and Brett ("Chubby").”

“Finnerty, 6 feet 3 inches and 175 pounds, fit none of these descriptions. He is tall and slender, with blond hair and freckles.”

39. The accuser “recognized” 15 players at one viewing but didn't recognize them at another.
N&O: Experts “Lineups Likely Tainted”
.
40. Of the four players the accuser identified with certainty in March as having been at the party, the only one she again identified in April was not in attendance while the three she had previously recognized, she failed to recognize in April.
N&O Conflicting Identifications
.
41. Two of the four alleged attackers the accuser identified in April were not identified by her in March.
N&O Conflicting Identifications
.
42. Sgt. Gottlieb’s miraculously appearing notes typed from “memory” four months after the fact indicate that the accuser’s descriptions included one that would resemble Collin Finnerty yet Finnerty was not included in any of the six photo arrays shown to the accuser in two separate March photo lineup attempts.
Enough from Duff
.
43. In addition to the player misidentified in both March and April, at least one other player was recognized as having been at the party yet was not present.
N&O Conflicting Identifications

Reade Seligmann’s Alibi

44. Reade Seligmann was photographed by a bank ATM camera one mile away from the scene of the alleged attack at a time the assault was supposed to take place.
Motion for Recusal
.
45. Reade Seligmann used his cell phone almost continually, beginning less than a minute after the dancers stopped their performance.
Motion for Recusal
.
46. Reade Seligamann was in the company of Robert Wellington, and then both Robert Wellington and a taxi driver, from minutes after the dancers stopped performing, until returning to his dorm.
Motion for Recusal

47. At 12:30, the accuser is photographed outside holding a bag/purse. Yet, it is alleged that during the supposed 30 minute rape her possessions were taken from her.
Woman altered stories of rape
.
48. Time-stamped photographs indicate that the accuser was unharmed and outside of 610 Buchanan as late as 12:30 am.
N&O: Call adds mystery to lacrosse case
.
49. The accuser called an escort service at 12:26am using the phone allegedly taken from her during the attack.
N&O: Call adds mystery to lacrosse case
.
50. Bissey’s statements, time-stamped photographs, phone records, an ATM photo, receipts, an electronic card swipe, 911 calls and multiple witness statements establish a timeline of the evening that offers no window of opportunity for Reade Seligmann to have participated in the alleged rape.
Notice of Alibi Defense
Motion for Recusal
.
51. In an effort to discredit the airtight alibi of Mr. Seligmann, DA Nifong incredibly invents a five minute time frame, based not on the accuser’s statements nor on any other known evidence and in direct contradiction to the several affidavits sworn to by Inv. Himan, in direct contradiction to the accuser‘s own statements, and apparently in contradiction to the “evidence“ presented to the grand jury.
The Exit, Return and Five Minute Theory
Nifong Knows
What Nifong Kows
Reinventing the Hoax
.
52. Also in an effort to discredit the airtight alibi of Mr. Seligmann, DA Nifong extends the timeline to include the possibility that the assault occurred prior to the accuser’s arrival and after her departure.
The Exit, Return and Five Minute Theory
Nifong Knows
What Nifong Kows
Reinventing the Hoax .

Investigation and Prosecution Curiosities, Short Comings, and Funny-Smelling
Apparent Misdeeds, not previously listed above:

53. Mr. Nifong has publicly promoted theories of the case not only unsupported by, but often contradicted by, his own “evidence”.
The DA and the documents
.
54. Himan’s probable cause affidavit contradicts statements from witnesses, medical evidence, and his own investigative actions.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
An Affiant's Belief
.
55. Gottlieb’s notes were withheld from the defense initially, not written contemporaneously, and apparently produced to conform to many, if not all, of the holes in the persecution’s case.
Cop says nurse found trauma in Duke case
.
56. Mr. Nifong refused to meet with defense attorneys to look at exculpatory evidence.
Motion for Recusal
.
57. Ms. Roberts received favorable bond treatment on the day the indictments were brought. Shortly thereafter, she began singing a different tune about the opportunity for an assault to have occurred.
Hearing delayed for 2nd lacrosse dancer
Kim Roberts on NPR
.
58. Mr. Nifong apparently disguised the existence of a toxicology test, which disputed his “date rape drug” theories of the case, from the defendants, their attorneys, the public, and the court.
Test: Lacrosse case accuser free of controlled substances
Date-rape drug test negative in lacrosse case
.
59. Alibi witness cabbie Elmostafa was intimidated by the persecution in an apparent attempt to dissuade his testimony, and charges were brought against him in an apparent effort to impeach his testimony.
KC Johnson on Elmo

60. All three of the accused have passed polygraph tests, yet the accuser apparently was never given one.
Evans Passed Polygraph
Finnerty Passed Polygraph
All Three Players Passed Polygraphs
Everett Encourages Nifong To Give Accuser Polygraph
.
61. Despite the persecution’s attempts to coerce and intimidate the lacrosse team by violating the “no contact” rule, publicly suggesting that if they were innocent they would not need lawyers, by creating ruses to encourage them to give false testimony, by threatening charges, by re-initiating old resolved charges, by publicly pronouncing their guilt, not a single peep of a false confession has been elicited.
Lacrosse players face old charges
The DA and the documents
New Yorker Article
.
62. Four months after the alleged crime, the officer in overall charge of the investigation produced only two pages of hand-written notes, and a typed 33 page single-spaced report compiled from “memory," apparently months after the party.
Cop says nurse found trauma in Duke case
.
63. “Although Nifong has never heard the woman tell her story, he believes her.”
A Stormy DA Who Likes To Fight
The Fluffer That Wasn’t
.
64. Alternately, DA Nifong claims to have not spoken to the accuser about the details of the case and to have interviewed her.
Caught By His Own Words
Someone Got it Wrong

65. Nifong continues to play hide the ball by delaying or withholding discovery.
Chesire Letter
Charlotte Observer
.
66. Despite a motion requesting they be preserved, tapes of police radio transmissions from the night of the party have been destroyed.
Duke Hoax Hearing
.
67. “The police waited two days to obtain a warrant to search the lacrosse players’ house.”
.
68. “The police took four days after interviewing the accuser to track down Roberts, the only “neutral” witness to the alleged events.”
.
69. “Nifong had already obtained the court order for DNA and run his procedurally fraudulent ID before police interviewed either of the accuser’s “drivers” to ascertain her activity before the lacrosse party.”
KC Johnson
.
70. The police did not take a statement from the accuser’s “boyfriend” before seeking indictments—even though his DNA was recovered from her.
KC Johnson
.
71. “The police have never—to this day—spoken to either Collin Finnerty or Reade Seligmann about their actions on the night of March 13-14.”
KC Johnson
.
72. “Although they had knowledge that one or more lacrosse players took photos at the party, the police never attempted to obtain those photos before seeking indictments.”
KC Johnson
.
73. “On March 29, Nifong himself stated, “All of the people at the party were Duke lacrosse players with the possible exception of two fraternity people who were there at some point that evening with another member of the Duke lacrosse team.” Yet two days later, the district attorney ordered police to confine the lineup lacrosse players”
KC Johnson

74. Indictments were sought without any effort by police or prosecutors to verify the accusers written statement with the “outcry witness,” Kim Roberts, the only independent “witness” to what the accuser alleges.
“The police never did any follow-up interviews or lineups with Roberts to help validate [the accuser’s] final official story. The police were not even inspired to re-interviewed Ms. Roberts as a potential victim, even though [the accuser’s] April 6th statement said they were holding on to each other during the attack.”
75. “The police and Nifong didn't show any interest in checking out the alleged victim's cell phone and identifying what calls she had made and received before, during and after the alleged rape. The same applies to Ms. Roberts' cell phone.”
TJN: No Law and Order
.
76. Police did not search the dorm rooms of Seligmann and Finnerty until after they were arrested.
TJN: No Law and Order
.
77. “They [police] failed to get statements from the three workers at the Durham Access medical facility that first had conduct with Ms. Mangum after the incident. Kirk Osborn, a defense attorney learned that one of the workers had taken written notes.”
TJN: No Law and Order
.
78. “Investigators never talked to the next door neighbor Jason Bissey until he heard about the rape allegations in the news media days later and came forward.”
TJN: No Law and Order

Questions about Credibility and other Contradictions:
79. The accuser previously made similar allegations against three other men, while also offering no substantiation.
Previous allegations

80. Ms. Roberts indicates that she was separated from the accuser for less than 5 minutes, yet the allegation is that the assault lasted for 30 minutes.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
The Smoking Gun

81. The accuser recanted at least one time on the night of the initial allegations.
Woman altered stories of rape
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs

82. The accuser offered several versions of the alleged attack to several people on the night of the party, two days later at UNC Hospital, and perhaps several weeks later in her long-delayed written statement, during her final photo line-up session, and possibly at other times in between if the police affidavits have any merit.
Woman altered stories of rape
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case

83. Kim Roberts has been described alternately by the accuser as a thief; a person who threw, or tried to throw, her out of her car; an accomplice to the assault, a second victim, and an “outcry witness”.
Osborn Motion: Amendment To Motion To Suppress Photographs
N & O: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case

84. On March 21, the accuser told Himan that her most recent consensual sexual relations was with her boyfriend a week prior to the party. Yet, the accuser apparently admitted later that she had sex with her boyfriend and her two drivers, who worked for the escort service, around the time of the alleged assault.
Defense sources in Duke lacrosse case speak to local newspaper
.
85. City Manager Patrick Baker’s attempt to defend the District Attorney and the Police Department by misrepresenting Ms. Roberts’ continued denial that she witnessed the initiation and conclusion to the alleged assault as a change in her statement to police casts doubt on the credibility of the investigation and the prosecution.
The Accidental Outcry Witness, '60 Minutes' Style

86. DA Nifong appears intent on introducing the theory that an object was used in the assault despite no evidence of such, despite no description of such in the accuser's statements during the April photo ID session, and despite no effort from the police to search for such an object. Reinventing the Theory of the Hoax

87. The Theory of the Hoax Nifong appears intent on presenting to a jury at trial contradicts the "evidence" presented to the grand jury to secure indictments. Reinventing the Theory of the Hoax

88. In court, DA Nifong has claimed that on April 11, the accuser was too traumatized from the alleged assault to speak about the facts of the case yet "60 Minutes' showed video of her performing an enthusiastic pole dance weeks prior to April 11.

Steadfast Proclamations of Innocence


89. From the first day of the allegations, the entire lacrosse team has steadfastly denied that any sex took place, confidently stated that no DNA evidence of sex could be found, and never once suggested or considered that a consent defense would be used or needed.
Lacrosse Captains' Statement

90. “Numerous witnesses can account for every minute of Duke University lacrosse player Collin Finnerty's actions and could testify that he did not assault an exotic dancer at an off-campus party, his father said in a Newsday interview Friday.”
Newsday

91. Six months after the alleged assault, the accused players remain steadfast in their denial that an assault took place.
'60 Minutes'

The above list remains incomplete. As new information becomes available, the quantity of irreconcilable inconsistencies will grow. Further analysis will reveal items neglected from the list. The attempts to explain away some of these contradictions has already added to the list. We expect that further attempts to disguise, rationalize or spin will also lead to additional items that require explanation. Our conclusion remains that it is far simpler, and far more rational, to believe that the accuser is lying than to invent an impossible explanation for each of the above items.