Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2017, 12:55:19 AM
75132 Posts in 1768 Topics by 359 Members
Latest Member: nic4real
Home Help Login Register
TalkLeft Discussion Forums  |  Topics  |  Duke Players' Discredited Sexual Assault Case  |  Archived Duke Players' Discredited Sexual Assault Case Topics  |  New version from accuser 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 Go Down Print
Author Topic: New version from accuser  (Read 43084 times)
ExtortionCity
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 464


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #180 on: January 11, 2007, 11:43:16 PM »

She says Seligmann didn't perform any sex acts on her, but she says he was holding her legs, etc. So, it's a moot point in any case. She has Seligmann aiding, which would be the same charge anyway.


I don't think so. She says Seligmann grabbed her legs to get her into the bathroom but once they were in the bathroom all she says is that he stood in front of her.

Wait!

I thought Seligmann stood behind her!

I think the only person that's standing behind her is Nifong and maybe a handful of so called enablers
Logged
SharonInJax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1790



Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #181 on: January 11, 2007, 11:54:33 PM »

Just catching up with the thread, but

Quote
Soooooo....Seligmann was in front of her before he was behind her!?!

I can't wait for the movie version to come out.

E:  factor in the bathroom size.  I said early and often that spatial limits were key to the truth of the AV's claims.

My opinion:  This entire case, the bringing of it, rested upon a willingness to believe the AV, and to disbelieve the Duke lax team.  Reasons to do one or the other are lost at this pont.  The "willing suspension of disbelief" is supposed to be reserved and limited to fiction, not criminal cases.

And, Epluribus:  neglected to do so earlier, but welcome.  There can not be too many voices of reason, and yours lately has been one of the fresh, and refreshing, takes on this mess.
Logged
wumhenry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1450


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #182 on: January 12, 2007, 01:33:18 AM »

Quote
The motion claims that this statement is on page 4977 of the discovery pages... That would seem to be Linwood's typewritten note page 2, but nowhere on that page can I find the statement. In the words of distinguished criminologist Henry Lee..."Something wrong."
I frankly don't consider this an honest error.

Why is it that statements that begin with "frankly" are almost never frank?

According to her latest account, Seligman twice refused to do her when the others egged him on, and she doesn't say that he did anything sexual.  Furthermore, she now says that Evans performed the sex act that she'd previously attributed to Seligman.  That's a huge inconsistency, and it can't be explained away as the result of memory loss.
Logged
Epublius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1397


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #183 on: January 12, 2007, 07:17:59 AM »


And, Epluribus:  neglected to do so earlier, but welcome.  There can not be too many voices of reason, and yours lately has been one of the fresh, and refreshing, takes on this mess.

Thanks Sharon.

I've read a number of your posts, and it's an honor to be in such good company.
Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #184 on: January 12, 2007, 07:48:20 AM »

Why is it that statements that begin with "frankly" are almost never frank?

I don't know, but this one was. They (the defense team, the Press, Marie, now you) are claiming the accuser has said something she hasn't. It's one thing to believe its what she meant. It's quite another to attribute it to her as something she said.
Logged
Epublius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1397


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #185 on: January 12, 2007, 08:14:31 AM »

Why is it that statements that begin with "frankly" are almost never frank?

I don't know, but this one was. They (the defense team, the Press, Marie, now you) are claiming the accuser has said something she hasn't. It's one thing to believe its what she meant. It's quite another to attribute it to her as something she said.

PB,

She's said so much that conflicts with other things that she's said that it's difficult to know which is which or the latest version at any one time.

And, trying to discern what she MEANS is not a task for mere mortals.

Logged
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

"I thought he was banned permanently too" OM OM OM


WWW
Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #186 on: January 12, 2007, 09:02:02 AM »

Why is it that statements that begin with "frankly" are almost never frank?

I don't know, but this one was. They (the defense team, the Press, Marie, now you) are claiming the accuser has said something she hasn't. It's one thing to believe its what she meant. It's quite another to attribute it to her as something she said.

PB,

She's said so much that conflicts with other things that she's said that it's difficult to know which is which or the latest version at any one time.

And, trying to discern what she MEANS is not a task for mere mortals.



Trying to discern what she meant is not the same as stating she said something she did not say.
Logged

QT
Epublius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1397


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #187 on: January 12, 2007, 09:18:56 AM »


Trying to discern what she meant is not the same as stating she said something she did not say.

Quite true.  However, don't forget that we're often dealing with notes written by others instead of taped interviews where we know exactly what she said, and how she said it.  So, some degree of attempted interpretation doesn't seem entirely out of order.

Logged
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

"I thought he was banned permanently too" OM OM OM


WWW
Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #188 on: January 12, 2007, 09:24:13 AM »


Trying to discern what she meant is not the same as stating she said something she did not say.

Quite true.  However, don't forget that we're often dealing with notes written by others instead of taped interviews where we know exactly what she said, and how she said it.  So, some degree of attempted interpretation doesn't seem entirely out of order.



Interpretation is fine, just don't state the notes contain a statement by the  accuser that she did not make.
Logged

QT
angelfire44
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #189 on: January 12, 2007, 09:25:09 AM »

     Note that  in the new version she is,despite the pictures,wearing  white bottoms.and did shower at Brian's.She is going to claim the pants with the multiple DNA were planted on her!
     Ready for this one,Angelfire?
      

Ready for what, Sydney?

She was wearing white thongs. The white thongs were included in the evidence items taken at the hospital, along with the white top, the red top, the white skirt, and the red lace panties. She didn't list the red panties when recounting her outfit to Wilson (or he missed including them in his typed report). So?

"and did shower at Brian's." That's nothing new, she said that from the start. What was your question?
Logged
Epublius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1397


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #190 on: January 12, 2007, 09:28:53 AM »


Interpretation is fine, just don't state the notes contain a statement by the  accuser that she did not make.

That's fair.  A fact is a fact.
Logged
ChickyGirl
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 600



Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #191 on: January 12, 2007, 10:00:59 AM »

I don't feel that RS just watching is a good point in his favor.
Logged
Epublius
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1397


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #192 on: January 12, 2007, 10:11:44 AM »

I don't feel that RS just watching is a good point in his favor.

If that were true, I'd certainly agree.  But, of course, none of this is true.

Logged
ChickyGirl
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 600



Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #193 on: January 12, 2007, 10:27:00 AM »

I don't feel that RS just watching is a good point in his favor.

If that were true, I'd certainly agree.  But, of course, none of this is true.




Since the victim is saying that now,, do you feel the DA will drop the final two charges against RS?  Could the DA drop the two charges, and charge him now with accessory? 
Logged
fahrenam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 316


Re: New version from accuser
« Reply #194 on: January 12, 2007, 10:29:21 AM »

I was wondering the same thing but I think that the kidnapping charge would still stand and then LTC quoted a statute that suggests that the law sees no difference between being an accessory to a felony and commiting the felony.  Is that right LTC or other lawyers?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here