It means just what it says. The lawyers are under no obligation to be forthright and straightforward to the public.
I already conceded this particular point to you. But as I recall, your main beef with the police is that they sampled for DNA without even talking to the players. Is this still your contention? See post # 416. If so, how do you know this happened?
I freely admit that there is information that I’m missing out there, so I’m not arguing with you. I’m only asking.
No. I have not called her a liar, remember. I have (in the context of a message board which is inherently a speculative forum, and one that I suspect she has better things to be doing than reading right now) applied certain evaluative analyses to her story and its first-order believability absent definitive proof either way.
I have not, for example, gone by her house banging pots and pans and demanding her indictment for (if it was false) filing a false report.
People who become involved in public events (and this one has become very public through the efforts of her supporters, in no small part) inevitably find themselves and their situations analyzed and speculated upon by strangers. This is inherent in human nature and can suck especially when (as is inevitable) a particular case becomes a proxy for more generalized issues (which, if it were not here, we would not be discussing the case).
Presumably, she and these players will (statistical probabilities tell us) not ever find themselves involved in an alleged rape imbroglio. The DA, though, and the People, are repeat players in this regard, and the interest of the people in having dubious allegations scrutinized and not having politics enter into prosecutorial decisions frankly outweigh the interests of any of the individuals involved here.
Clearer.
Except all they were saying was that the interviews took place. If you stipulate to that why add the caveat?
I know it happened because their first attempt to establish who was where and when happened on April 13, and the DNA was taken on March 29. I know that they did nothing the first two days after the alleged attack, because it is another fact in the news that is not in dispute. I know that by the time the police got around to investigating, the students had hired lawyers and were referring all questions to them, another fact reported in the national media. I suppose it is just possible that sometime between March 29 and April 14 police investigators managed to interview the team without either their lawyers or the press finding out out about it, but to assert such strains credulity beyond reason, IMO.
The time to do the interviews was the morning after the crime was reported. They should have been knocking on doors, identifying suspects, comparing stories, etc. Instead, the first anyone hears about it is when the DA calls them hooligans in the press and claims they are guilty of a horrible assault. After that, any hope of cooperation from potential witness was gone.
I agree, it is concerning. I was not defending, just attempting to offer what I understood as the explanation given by the city. I’ll ask local contacts if further clarification is available.
Jake
Thks., and I know that wasn’t you offering that lame-o excuse. The two outs I see for the DA are if he shows:
(1) the report was garbled, and the only students spoken to were non-team-members not represented by counsel (but the President’s statement seems not to reflect that view); or
(2) “rogue cops” were acting contrary to Department or DA policy/directions.
All the DA has to do is show evidence that a crime may have been committed and that those named in the indictment may have been the perpretators. The SANE nurse report (rape kit) satisfies the former, and a photo ID satisfies the latter. Bear in mind that in a grand jury hearing no one is there to dispute the believability of the evidence. That comes at the trial.
Most requests for indictment are not rejected AFAIK.
I guess I don’t understand how you know that the first attempt to establish all of this was on the 13th. That’s the part that I need you to shed light on.
I’m not asserting that the lawyers didn’t know about it. But from where I sit, it looks as if you are assuming that just because the lawyers didn’t come out and say so, then it didn’t happen.
Furthermore, if what you say is true, suggesting that the cops basically bumrushed the scene and started swabbing guys without so much of a “who are you and where were you on the night in question?”, it seems to me that the defense lawyers would have cried foul a long time ago. This is an assumption on my part, of course. But your argument is built on more assumptions, I think.
I agree that this delay certainly doesn’t reflect well on the cops. But to me, it is a lot more damaging to the prosecution’s case, because it gave ample time for the suspects to get their stories straight, clean up the scene, etc (assuming that they are guilty, of course), and sends the message that they didn’t take the charge very seriously (which is why a lot of the protesters are so het up). So when it comes to this part of your gripe, I don’t disagree with you. But it definitely doesn’t convince me that the system is out to screw the guys.
Two Duke University lacrosse players arrested. I will wait to see what evidence is presented at the trial, before I go any further in trying to decide what the truth is in this case.
I’m saying that since all requests for interviews after March 15 were referred to attorneys, it is unreasonable to assume that interviews did in fact take place. I am saying that in a case where the DA has released all sorts of “evidence” to the press, if he did in fact possess evidence from the students that implicated someone (and by extension exonerated everyone else,) it would be remarkable for him to leave that out of his public pronouncements. I am saying to that sugget that such interviews were indeed conducted without the attorneys’ knowledge strains credulity, and if the attorneys had found out about it the hue and cry would be tremendous. And furthermore, if such interviews *did indeed *take place to demand DNA from *everyone present * is an abuse of prosecutorial authority. Of course I cannot prove they did not occur. I cannot prove that Nifong did not consult a psychic, either. Too many contingent improbable events would have to take place for me to believe that such interviews happened in view of what else I do know about the case, and have communicated to you.
I did not say that and you, and I have had this discussion. There was no bum rush, there was a court order. And the attorneys did cry foul.
Well they did not clean up the scene, as the results of the search warrant clearly show. Does that mean you assume they are innocent?
All I have tried to establish is that the prosecuter and police are incompetent, not that they are “out to screw” anyone, and it is a misrepresentation of my position to state otherwise. Like when you accused me of inappropriately giving weight to evidence, and then failed to produce an example.
The only motives I have attrubuted are possible political aspirations on the part of the DA, and that only when asked to speculate, and then clearly identified as speculation.
You seem to believe that I am on a campaign to prove the students innocent, or have in fact stated that they are. Neither is true. If they are guilty, they have committed a horrible crime and should be punished accordingly. Conversely, if they are innocent and their reputations have been damaged by a combination of an unreliable witness and incompetent prosecution, what recourse have they?
Here is the AP’s story, which has more info. Looks like a third indictment is forthcoming.
As noted here.
Yes, I’m familiar with the Grand Jury system. However, the defense attorney stated he had “alibi evidence” for his client. If he failed to produce that to the grand jury (and he could have), it doesn’t make much sense to complain about his client’s being treated unfairly. It is also hard to say, as it has been upthread, that the woman is obviously lying. If a bunch of bozos on a message board could prove that, don’t you think it would have occurred to at least the DA, who not benefit by trying to prosecute an obviously innocent man.
Contra, can you clarify what you got out of this paragraph from the article you linked?
“Samantha Ekstrand, the wife and law partner of Robert Ekstrand, who is representing dozens of the players, said police were trying to confirm who attended the party. According to court records, the players have told police that only team members were at the March 13 party.”
When do you think this information obtained? Please note the “have”.
You haven’t shown me where any lawyer has complained about the DNA tests being taken without information from the students being taken first.
A court ordered bum rush is still a bum rush. No?
Why did the attorneys cry foul? Have you read anything that cited specifics? Again, I’m not asking this to arguing with you. I sincerely what to know where you’re getting your info from.
Um, no. There you go with those assumptions again.
I think you give undue weight to statements made by the defense, which is evident in the conversation that we’re having right now. But I really don’t feel like arguing with you about this so I’ll apologize. Let’s please just lay down the guns already.
They were arrested early today, the sealed indictments were handed down yesterday. My update is valid because it reveals who was indicted.
why do you believe that the attorneys even knew their client was an object of the grand jury? from what I recall of the news releases various attorneys only knew that the indictments weren’t meant for their client after the indictments were handed down.
This assumes that the DA is following his ethical obligation to serve the People and justice, and not the electoral calculus by which he might expect to benefit among black voters who have been demanding “Justice for the victim” and who would (one must assume) punish Mr. Nifong for failure to indict the white boys, even if he concluded (objectively) that the murky evidence didn’t, really, rise to the level of “probable cause” or “reasonable cause” or however the N.C. indictment standard is phrased.
Given the seemingly unethical conduct of his agents, and his inappropriate political grandstanding, I do not necessarily grant the DA the benefit of the doubt on this point. I venture a guess, YMMV, that as much of his time in the past couple weeks has been spent making sure there is no smoking gun “proof of innocence” (i.e., a video tracking the stripper through her entire time in the house and showing no sex) as finding any incremental proof of guilt that seemed, to date, thin on the ground.
In that scenario, having established the outer parameters of the exculpatory evidence, and hoping that the case was at worst a he said, she said, standoff, he could then run the risk of throwing it up against the wall, if it doesn’t stick, oh well, you know, those cunning rapists hid the evidence. And presumably the agitators would be considerably less-unhappy with this outcome/position than with a non-indictment.
I don’t know that that happened. But it’s one scenario for why he might not necessarily fear crippling embarassment from a shaky indictment, compared to the consequences of not proceeding after he’d fanned the flames of outrage.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that defense attorneys are allowed to present evidence in the grand jury. If you were about to be indicted, you would be allowed to testify, but you would have to have been given notice of the process. In this case, the indictments were sealed. No one knew who was going to be indicted. Exactly how would you have this attorney prove an alibi? Cite. (Scroll down)
I don’t think anyone has proved she is lying. Several people have shown inconsistencies in her story, as well as dubious behavior on the part of the DA. I personally believe he jumped the gun and is in too far to back out now with his primary election set for May 2. I could be wrong though.
Got it. Cleaning the scene validates an assumption of guilt (your words, not mine) But not cleaning it does not validate an assumption of innocence. Boldin mine.
On or about March 29 the three members who lived in the house volunteered the information that only team members were present, as well as volunteered to give DNA samples, after which they referred all questions to their attorneys. By March 30 or April 1 all other members had attorneys and were referring all qustions to them.
No, it assumes that he will not benefit from an obviously bogus prosecution. And he won’t. If it were possible for a message-board Schlock Holmes to prove the kids’ innocence, then the DA would br hanging himself politically by pursuing it.
What? How did you parse that out of what I said? My point was that the cops’ delay could have potentially caused a loss of evidence if the players were guilty and purposely tried to rid the premises of evidence. I have no earthly idea how you got the above out of what I wrote, but it’s making me weary of talking to you anymore.