The story astro just pasted actually sealed this case in my mind.
OMMFG!
The kids at Duke may or may not have done something impolite or felonious, but the authorities in Durham are unethical lying fuckwads.
Right now if I was on a jury with Nifong prosecuting Adolf Hitler I’d have trouble convicting.
Is it legal for an out of state resident to donate to whoever is running against Nifong?
Probably legal.
But no one is running against him – having won the Dem. primary, he is running essentially unopposed (there is apparently no serious Republican challenger for the post).
This latest thing is purely out of spite, and not even electorally necessary.
I told you he was a nasty fucking piece of work.
Much more cogently at this point . . . it is legal for any member of the general public (in any state) to file a state ethics complaint against him. For, e.g., his stacked lineup, his inflammatory public press conferences (dozens of them), his apparent retaliation against defendants’ alibi witness . . . etc.
Very interesting read. I was particularly struck by this exchange, on page 12:
Anyone else think this reads strange? ‘he said um he was going to stick broomsticks up your asses’. That doesn’t sound right. If she was quoting him directly, she would say 'he said, ‘I’m going to stick broomsticks up your asses’. If she was paraphrasing, she would say ‘he said he was going to stick broomstick up our asses’.
In my experience, when people lie they make strange mistakes like this. Not saying she’s lying here, of course, based on this alone - but this just jumped out at me.
Also, I noted that in the first two or three times she mentions the assault (forced to perform oral sex, or the comment about the broomstick being stuck up her ass) she pauses/hesitates, with an ‘um’ before saying it. On page 13, she says ‘he put his penis in my anus and my vagina’, no hesitation, no ‘ums’. I’m trying to decide if both the language and the no hesitation part seem off to me, or if I’m being influenced by my opinion that she’s not telling the truth.
Well, yes, it reads funny, but not outrageously so.
If it was punctuated differently -
Victim: “He said, um, he was going to ‘stick broomsticks up your asses’”.
IOW, the part in single quotes is what is a direct quotation. The perp said, “I’m going to stick broomsticks up your asses”.
I wouldn’t make too much of this. I would bet the alleged victim is not, possibly, the sharpest knife in the drawer, and apparently occasionally drinks to excess. She is also under pressure (for a variety of reasons, not all of them suspicious reasons).
If I were forced to make a choice, I might find the part about forced oral sex to be the questionable construct. I have little experience in the matter, to say the least, but I would guess that prostitutes (or “escorts”, if you prefer) have at least as much experience talking about oral sex as about intercourse. Having a broomstick inserted anally, I can see as a traumatic experience that would be hard to discuss. A blowjob, for an escort - perhaps not so much.
Of course, maybe it means nothing, or maybe she was drunk at the time and is having trouble remembering correctly. Or perhaps someone has advised her of the legal definition of rape, and she is trying to hit all the bases.
Or, of course, maybe she was really assaulted. At this point I usually add “time will tell”, but in this case I am betting it never will. Too much dust thrown, by a variety of parties.
Regards,
Shodan
Durham sherrif attempts to ban media from DA’s floor of courthouse … or maybe not. After sending this email–
and being reminded by the county Attorney that banning the media is illegal, Maj. Lucy Zastrow backtracks a little–
What a maroon.
You want a maroon?
Your heart just bleeds for him, doesn’t it? Life must be tough in the lime-light [that he avidly sought] amongst the circus [for which he is in large part responsible].
Kind of like for the kids he indicted, no? What a selfish ass.
I remember that story about him being followed to the bathroom. The reporter (who was, of course reporting about what reporters were doing) said something like “The press even followed Nifong to the bathroom. When he came out, he did not have any news.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
Defense attorneys say the second round of DNA testing has also failed to yield a match. An attorney for a player who hasn’t been charged says that genetic material from a man was found in the woman’s vagina, but that it wasn’t from a player.
Man, this case just turns weirder and weirder.
What’s the over/under on Nifong just throwing in the towel? Unless he’s got rock-solid evidence we don’t know about (like, one of the lacrosse players was running a video camera aimed at the gangbang) I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell he can get a conviction here.
But the problem is, there is no real down side to him riding it out. Tawana is still claiming she was raped, and still garnering admiring audiences for it. If he doesn’t get a conviction . . . he’ll just say, dang, the jury wanted forensic evidence I just didn’t have, better luck next time.
Nor is she likely to back down. Like Tawana, she is a nobody who has found celebrity through her “victimization.” I think she’s pretty solidly locked into that role, with all its dubious benefits.
Can I ask why you persist in blithely calling this woman “Tawana”? I mean, I understand if you don’t believe the guys in question are guilty because of the lack of evidence. But calling her “Tawana” implies that A) you know she is lying and B) that her case is in any way related to the Brawley case. If the woman really was assaulted and is accusing the wrong people, it certainly wouldn’t be fair to call her names like this.
Can’t you even fake a pretense of objectivity?
I am pretty sure in the quote you provided he is referring to the real Tawana.
Welcome back, you with the face.
I don’t know what makes you so sure about that. It isn’t the first time he’s refered to the accuser as Tawana. At any rate, the constant comparisons to the Brawley case are annoying if only for the fact that the only thing that makes them anything alike besides a gang rape allegation is the race of the players involved.
Which again, betrays a certain fixation with race that is truly troubling to me.
I’ve got no pisser in this pissing match, but I don’t think that either of those cites are referring to the Duke accuser as Tawana. Rather, they address the group of people who still maintain that ‘Tawana didn’t lie’. And it seems to me that huerta88’s post #711 refers to the fact that Brawley still maintains that her story is true.
This what I our friend Heurta wrote:
Who in this thread has said that “Tawana didn’t lie”? The first cite I gave implies that he has been arguing against such people. The second post I cited is more of the same BS.
(Emphasis added.)
Is this a whoosh? To dismiss the similarity of both situations involving gang rape allegations – which is unusual and remarkable – and focusing on the race of the accuser is something that you did, not him.
You seem to be the one fixated on race, and this last bit is way over the top. Because some of us raised an eyebrow about the statistical anomalie regarding the apparent scarcity of whites raping blacks, you’ve decided that no matter what any of us say, all we care about is race.
You should really get over that.
Yeah, and for that matter, who in this thread has said that Huerta loves Hitler? Huh? Huerta, you’ve got some serious explaining to do for such an obvious factual error.
Or maybe, those of us on planet earth recognize that he was using hyperbole.
What makes them so similar then? Clearly, if what I wrote is so whooshable-looking, you can explain why Tawana–a teenager who she claimed was assaulted by police officers–has any similarities to this case beyond what I already pointed out.
My impression comes from people suggesting that the players deserve the benefit of the doubt–at least partially–because the accuser is black. Your reliance on a fallacious statistical interpretation aside (it puzzles me why you even continue to justify yourself when statistical analysis is an area you’re woefully ignorant in, as evident in the particular awkward phrase I bolded above), the fact that you think the race of the participants has anything to do with the plausibility of this case supports my opinion. If you have a problem with me saying you are fixated on race, then stop being fixated on race already!
And I find it hard to believe that if the accuser in this case was white, anyone would call her Tawana. Do you disagree with me?
Well that’s funny. Where I come from we call that the outright misrepresentation of other people’s words to argue against a point that no one is making. Maybe I live on a different planet than you?