Is not! (OK sorry, I jumped the gun. I have been reading about this since early this morning so I thought the link went to the arrest story. Most of them are including it by now.)
Took no parsing at all. It is there in black and white. You said that, assuming they were guilty, they would clean the room. I want to know if evidence of an uncleaned room justifies an assumption of innocence.
No it doesn’t. It just means that they didn’t clean the room.
And cleaning the room isn’t evidence of guilt, either. It’s simply an indication that evidence may have been lost.
Perhaps the reason we are not communicating very well is that you see things in black and white (guilt or innocence) and I don’t.
I’m not even willing to take this as true. You’re saying an angry mob that has convinced itself that its concerns are not taken seriously enough would not, in any circumstances, welcome (and reward) a purely-symbolic tossing to the wolves of one of the Other? You’re more optimistic about human nature than I am.
No one’s “proven” or purported to prove their “innocence” here, nor would the DA need to have “proof of innocence” in order not to proceed.
Such is prosecutorial discretionm – he would only need to conclude that (for reasons suggested here and elsewhere) there was not probable cause to believe a crime was committed, and there was not likely to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial of such. I still don’t accept, as a given, that he would be “hanging himself politically,” though, if he proceeded despite in his heart of hearts doubting this – can you establish that every prosecutor who’s brought a trumped up, unsubstantiated, politically motivated charge has lost his job or been driven out of public life? I don’t know what happened to the Tawana prosecutors or police, or those in Wenatchee (I really don’t), but I’m not going to assume that abuse of prosecutorial discretion is always politically fatal, especially when there’s a witch hunt atmosphere in which abandonment of any discretion is precisely what is being demanded by a segment of the populace.
How many things? Some things. All things? Just as I challenged you to show where I have given undue weight to evidence (no response) I now challenge you to show where I have stated anything categorically in this thread. I will say, however, that at least as far as the discussion here is concerned guilt or innocence is pretty much the whole enchilada. If this brouhaha were not about guilt or innocence we would not be talking about it.
Saoirse, how about telling us exactly how the defense attorney can provide an alibi if he does not know who is being charged, and is not allowed to ask questions in a grand jury?
Can you show where I’ve said you give undue weight to “evidence”? Because I’ll be the first to say shame on me for saying that.
Also, the article you linked us to does not give any insight into the question about DNA sampling in the absence of interviews. Just thought I’d let you know that.
Ok you got me. Not evidence. Information. Show me where I have done that.
You kind of have to read between the lines sometimes. I would have thought that such a “not black/white person” as yourself could do that.
They are protesting the forcing of the test. They are protesting the “presumption.” It is a presumption because no investigative interviews were done. Had there been any such interviews, it would have been stated in the court order. Also, some members would have been eliminated, as they had left the party by then. The prosecutor demanded DNA testing. He did it without having conducted interviews which would have narrowed down the suspects. The attorneys protested. Now admittedly, “protesting” is not “complaining,” which is what you asked for, but I am hoping you can find it in your grey little heart to forgive me.
We began this contretemps with you asking me how I knew that the DNA tests were ordered before any investigating had been done that would eliminate suspects. I trust you haave sufficient information to make an accurate assessment on your own.
Here is a link to an updated timeline of the investigation, for anyone who is interested.
Aaanndd he goes for the triple post. Here is a news story from the Raleigh News and Observer that comments on the arrests, as well as encapsulates the events so far.
I know I know I know I know it’s just one side of the story, but … according to CNN
If this holds up the it looks bad for the prosecution. Link.
Here is a post from a law professor (on a Duke basketball website) concerning the nature of grand juries and what they do or do not do. Basically, they exist to hear the prosecution’s side of the argument and determine whether probable cause exists to charge someone with a crime.
Okay, mostly I’m checking in to break this amazing streak of consecutive posts.
One of my favorite Law & Order quotes goes something like: “A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
Is there a nugget of truth in that sentiment?
It will depend on the jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions, the great to very-great majority of cases (but not all cases) presented to the GJ will be returned w/ an indictment. Partly this is because the GJ doesn’t have much from defendant’s POV, partly because they kind of do what the prosecutors tell them to, but partly (when the system works) because good prosecutors don’t bring really dubious cases to the GJ (though it’s hard to tell what a “really good” or “really dubious” case would look like to a GJ member with only the prosecution’s side of things in the mix). The $64 question is whether Nifong, despite his showboating and ethical lapses, exercised such truly impartial discretion and screening functions here.
Not so sure. As noted, I suspect he has assiduously scouted out to make sure, not that there is especially good inculpatory evidence, but that there is no absolutely-exculpatory evidence.
If these two guys turn out to have alibis (I do not accept this notion at face value on the basis of CNN’s anonymous sources, but we’ll see if that happened) – hey, just call mistaken identiy, cut a deal with them (after all they were not there, putatively) and get them to “admit” that Tom, Dick, and Harry, who weren’t demonstrably out at the ATM, were there, and “could have” raped her.
There’s several moves left to this stupid chess game.
FWIW, it has been reported that the defense attorneys offered him the time-stamped photos. He refused. I am not sure how he would even know about the ATM evidence unless the defense told him.
And the fallout begins. Syracuse will not accept transfers from Duke. At least 43 of the 46 players are screwed by this mess, if this indicates a trend, which I strongly suspect it does. Link.
You mean like this? Bwa Haa Haa Haa. Now there is some discriminating info gathering, yepper. I can see how my standards seem somehow … different to you.
FWIW, the player(s) who used the fake name(s) are not the ones named in the indictment. I can state this with absolute authority because I read it somewhere.
Don’t know why you are still trying to fight with me, Mr. Let’s See How Many Posts I Can Make in a Row, but here is what I wrote:
So I have to ask you: You do know what “allegedly” and “probably” mean, right? It kind of suggests that I’m not taking what I heard to be a factual account. Or else I would not have used those fancy, schmancy qualifiers. I really can’t say you are like that when you describe an article primarily composed of statements from defense lawyers as being a factual account.
But hey, YMMV. Let’s drop it already!
Agreed. And, we don’t know if they provided it a priori. After seeing him ignore other factors that pointed away from this story being true, I’m not sure I, as defense counsel, would have followed my initially-logical impulse to volunteer exculpatory evidence, but we don’t know.
Which raises a few possibilities:
- The alibi is not as clearly exculpatory as anonymous sources are reporting, or was not divulged to police by the students or their counsel.
- Nifong is an idiot.
- Nifong is an unethical political hack who doesn’t much care if the case falls apart now because he’s gotten the indictment and stirred up enough shit that he can say, well, there was a coverup, or well, she was so traumatized that she got the ID wrong, or well, let’s go find the Real Rapists, you black folk, vote for me on May 2, because I’ve shown I’m the kind of tough-on-racism prosecutor who won’t balk at prosecuting even non-existent hate crimes (and what’s tougher on racism than that?)!
I do know that you have accused me of being less than discerning when determining what is trustworthy information without being able to cite one example. I do know that you have accused me of seeing everything in terms of black or white without being able to cite one example. I do know that preceding anything with “I read it somewhere” renders whatever follows virtually useless, regardless of the qualifiers employed. I do know that to say something “allegedly” happened, and to cite that allegation as probable cause for an actual event is weaselly at best. If you are not even confident it happened, how can it be the probable cause of something that **did **actually happen?
The linked story is a factual account of the police attempting to interview the students. It includes statements by two attorneys, one of whom is the wife of an attorney reperesenting the players. The attorneys make three statements, one of which in itself is an undisputed fact. Of the other two, one is a statement that while, not proven, is open to being proven. The police were given an opportunity to refute it and declined. The third statement is a matter of opinion. There are two unattributed statements that, as it turns out, are true.
**
Everything else in the news story is a matter of undisputed fact.** It is no more “primarily composed of statements from defense lawyers” than “I heard it sonewhere” is a usefull introduction to information. So yeah, I refer to it as a factual account. One opinion offered in the body of a news story does not tip the scale from “news” to “commentary.” I would have thought one who eschews the “black/white” view would understand this.
I will let it drop when you retract your allegations against me, or when you tire of making these mealy-mouthed reponses and quit the field. My money is on the latter.