Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2017, 12:55:01 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  |  Why should we believe the AV's Father again? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?  (Read 25624 times)
wumhenry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1450


Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2006, 08:37:35 PM »

IMHO is muddying the water again. The point is that the first time he was interviewed, on 3/31, the AV's father said that he saw her the day after, and all he said about what he heard or observed on that occasion was that she didn't say there was anything wrong. In the next interview, on 4/4, however, he said that when he saw her that day it was obvious that she'd been beaten up. His failure to mention the (alleged) beating injuries in the first interview is a glaring discrepancy. If such injuries had been evident the day afterward that would be highly significant, so why didn't he mention them on 3/31? Tony's answer is a good one: because he hadn't had time to put a "story" together.
Logged
Tony Soprano
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1459



Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2006, 09:28:43 PM »

IMHO is muddying the water again. The point is that the first time he was interviewed, on 3/31, the AV's father said that he saw her the day after, and all he said about what he heard or observed on that occasion was that she didn't say there was anything wrong. In the next interview, on 4/4, however, he said that when he saw her that day it was obvious that she'd been beaten up. His failure to mention the (alleged) beating injuries in the first interview is a glaring discrepancy. If such injuries had been evident the day afterward that would be highly significant, so why didn't he mention them on 3/31? Tony's answer is a good one: because he hadn't had time to put a "story" together.

YES, and someone that gets such a point as a Brutual, terrible Broomstick assault by multiple players WRONG - has lost all credibility.

That single fact alone impeaches him.    If after that, he says the earth is round, you better get photos from the US Geological Survey to verify his claims.

_

Logged
Tony Soprano
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1459



Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2006, 09:40:53 PM »

Methods of impeachment

A party may be impeached through introducing evidence of any of the following:

    * BIAS--The witness is biased against one party or in favor of the other. The witness has a personal interest in the outcome of the case. A classic example is a witness for the prosecution who is awaiting sentencing. He's more likely to be pro-prosecution in hopes of better treatment. The proper way to handle this is first question the witness to see if he will admit to the bias. If not, then the cross-examiner may bring in other witnesses to expose the bias.
    * Inconsistent Statement--The witness has made two or more conflicting statements. By exposing his conflicting statements, you reduce his credibility.
    * Character Show that the witness has a community-recognized reputation for dishonesty. Specific examples are inadmissible -- unless the witness admits them himself under cross-examination -- but presenting witnesses who can attest to the witness's character is helpful. This might seem tedious, especially when it is realized that a character witness against the principal witness may himself be impeached the same way, but normally witnesses are total unknowns to jurors, and people with reputations in their community for being total fabricators do show up in court from time to time. Coupled with character are prior criminal acts by the witness. ....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

The Mother and/or Father did interview Civil attorneys --  not much doubt they have a personal stake in this.

At this point, this guy has more baggage than American Airlines.

_
« Last Edit: September 04, 2006, 09:44:20 PM by Tony Soprano » Logged
Johnny Sack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406



Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2006, 09:59:42 PM »

Methods of impeachment

A party may be impeached through introducing evidence of any of the following:

    * BIAS--The witness is biased against one party or in favor of the other. The witness has a personal interest in the outcome of the case. A classic example is a witness for the prosecution who is awaiting sentencing. He's more likely to be pro-prosecution in hopes of better treatment. The proper way to handle this is first question the witness to see if he will admit to the bias. If not, then the cross-examiner may bring in other witnesses to expose the bias.
    * Inconsistent Statement--The witness has made two or more conflicting statements. By exposing his conflicting statements, you reduce his credibility.
    * Character Show that the witness has a community-recognized reputation for dishonesty. Specific examples are inadmissible -- unless the witness admits them himself under cross-examination -- but presenting witnesses who can attest to the witness's character is helpful. This might seem tedious, especially when it is realized that a character witness against the principal witness may himself be impeached the same way, but normally witnesses are total unknowns to jurors, and people with reputations in their community for being total fabricators do show up in court from time to time. Coupled with character are prior criminal acts by the witness. ....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

The Mother and/or Father did interview Civil attorneys --  not much doubt they have a personal stake in this.

At this point, this guy has more baggage than American Airlines.

_



The silence is deafening
Logged
Tony Soprano
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1459



Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2006, 10:06:01 PM »

 Johnny Sack !      I love it.     

As I'm sure you're aware - there's more corruption in the Durham Legal system than the Jersey Waste Management industry.

Why don't the Feds follow around some of these guys ?    Talk about gangsters!

_
Logged
Alan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2006, 10:20:36 PM »

Tony

The answer is that you need to make major changes to police cultureand to criminal procedure, not just prosecute a few bad eggs. A series of Royal Commissions in Australia led to extensive legislative reform, as well as prosecutions of individual police and reviews of tainted convictions. Probably the most significant reform is the requirement to audio-tape all suspect interviews, whether the suspect is formally in custody or not. Copies of the tape are immediately given to the defence and the court registry.

Those seriously addicted to this stuff might like to read the Wood and Fitzgerald Royal Commission reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry

http://www.pic.nsw.gov.au/Royal_Commission_Info.asp

Logged
wumhenry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1450


Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2006, 10:24:36 PM »

from IMHO:
Quote
Is that the first day he was interviewed?  What about the reporter who stopped by a week earlier? Did that reporter interview him? If so, what did the father say?
The Charlotte Observer; 4/4/2006;
Quote
Last week, a reporter stopped by the reported victim's house looking for her, the woman's father said, but he said he didn't know what was going on. He called his daughter and she said the district attorney told her not talk to anyone.
Friday, 3/31/06 -- when Daddy Precious (merely) said that when he saw the AV the day after she hadn't said anything was wrong -- was "last week" from Tuesday, 4/4/06. Nice try.

 
 
Logged
Tony Soprano
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1459



Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2006, 10:42:45 PM »

The first article attributing any statements to the Father was 3/31 Tonya Jameson piece by Knight Ridder.  There was a small delay in running with that article.

The reporters knocking on the Father's door are believed to be Samiha Khanna and Anne Blythe from the N&O.  They were the first to find her and the first to get an interview with her.

I e-mailed the Charlotte Observer about the, 3/31, Tonya Jameson article with the discrepancies between the father's statements and later interviews - and I received an e-mail back from the Editor telling me that they looked into my question and they are standing by their article where the Father says he had no clue.

There was controversy about this early on because the woman told the N&O that her Father came to see her at the hospital - and then her Father says he had no clue.      Her Father - no doubt after meeting with Mark Simeon - goes back and modifies his statement or tells a different story saying that he went to hospital to see her, BUT he didn't get to see her.   A little convoluted but stretches to cover her statements and his statements - but doesn't jive with how people talk or communicate.

I am reminded of a  lawyer for an auto insurance company told me once how his own client's story was too neat - it answered every question before it was asked, etc. The guy was a model citizen, but his story was too accomodating in so many ways.

His suspicions turned out to be correct and he had fabricated an eloborate story.

_
Logged
Tony Soprano
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1459



Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2006, 12:03:16 AM »

 

I think everyone sees through the Father.   

He clearly says that he learned on March 15th that his Daughter was raped - from her OWN MOUTH.

"When he saw her THE DAY AFTER THE PARTY, her eyes and face were swollen, her arms were scratched, and she was complaining about her leg...... It wasn't until the next day the woman told her father she had been raped, he said."

In the same article, he says that she told him that she was dancing at the party.

http://www.gambling911.com/040506Enews.html

He tells the Charlotte observer that he learned of everything in the March 25th timeframe and he says that he found out she was a dancer from the media at that time also.   He is directly contradicting the statement's he made above.

He leads everyone to believe that he was shocked by the revelations by a reporter around March 25:
""(She) didn't tell us anything about it," he said."  and "she didn't say anything was wrong."

"He didn't find out that his daughter....  is an exotic dancer _ until a reporter visited his house."
"He said he also found out through the media that his daughter, who is the youngest of three, was an exotic dancer."


He continues on about how he was in the dark, "Last week (approx 3/25), a reporter stopped by the reported victim's house looking for her, the woman's father said, but he said he didn't know what was going on."    And then he even gives an explanation why his daughter couldn't tell him anything,  " he called his daughter and she said the district attorney told her not talk to anyone."

http://p206.ezboard.com/fhackedbannedandlockeddownfrm24.showMessage?topicID=24.topic&index=1%22%20target=%22_new

Yet, in the quotes at the top of the post, he claims on March 14th he knew she was beaten up and on March 15th he knew she was raped. 

NOW, WHO KNOWS THEIR DAUGHTER WAS BEATEN TERRIBLY AND RAPED AND THEN IS SHOCKED WHEN SOMEONE ENQUIRES TO THAT ASSAULT AND RAPE?           

The guy got caught in his lies.

_

Logged
Newport
Guest


Email
Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2006, 01:08:17 AM »

Your arguments and each of them are meritless, imho.  Get over it.  The father is a liar. 

It's a good thing you never practiced law because you would be quickly laughed out of the profession.  Arguing for the sake of argument over "technicalities" or quibbles would quickly cause you to lose credibility, which I am sure you have experienced in your life.  No one likes a quibbler.  And no one likes people who don't know when to concede that they have a loser argument and who refuses to move on. 

Your arguments are all like this.  They are based on tiny technicalities that miss the larger evidentiary issue.  Such tactics don't work in the courtroom and they don't work here either.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2006, 01:17:26 AM by Newport » Logged
Newport
Guest


Email
Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2006, 01:18:21 AM »

How old are you?  You act like a little kid.  Tony proved plenty.  He proved that the father is a liar by any reasonable standard of proof.
Logged
emmy954
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1386


put on your big girl pants...


Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2006, 06:58:09 AM »

There is NO sane way to reconcile the father's many confliciting stories, other than to say he was trying to say anything he could to back up his daughter's fantastic tale (s)...this should be clear-cut, and PAINFULLY obvious to all the FA supporters out there...they'd do best to just give up trying to explain them away, especially when they just seem to focus on *one* account of Dad's, ignoring the others...moo
Logged

"Yeah, and I'll stand by your side...You'll need a good companion now, for this part of the ride.  And leave behind your sorrows, let this day be the last...well tomorrow there'll be sunshine, and all this darkness past."

Bruce Springsteen...Land of Hope and Dreams
Tony Soprano
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1459



Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2006, 07:25:31 AM »

He leads everyone to believe that he was shocked by the revelations by a reporter around March 25:
""(She) didn't tell us anything about it," he said."  and "she didn't say anything was wrong."

From the 3/31 article:

'http://p206.ezboard.com/fhackedbannedandlockeddownfrm24.showMessage?topicID=24.topic&index=1%22%20target=%22_new

Quote
Last week, a reporter stopped by the reported victim's house looking for her, the woman's father said, but he said he didn't know what was going on. He called his daughter and she said the district attorney told her not talk to anyone.

"(She) didn't tell us anything about it," he said.

She didn't tell them anything about being the woman being discussed in the news. 

You say,  she didn't tell them anything about being the woman being discussed in the news.

The Father says. "(She) didn't tell us ANYTHING about it "           Quite  a difference.



He leads everyone to believe that he was shocked by the revelations by a reporter around March 25:
""(She) didn't tell us ANYTHING about it," he said."  and "she didn't say ANYTHING was wrong."

"He said he ALSO found out through the media that his daughter, who is the youngest of three, was an exotic dancer."


He continues on about how he was in the dark, "Last week (approx 3/25), a reporter stopped by the reported victim's house looking for her, the woman's father said, but he said he didn't know what was going on."    And then he even gives an explanation why his daughter couldn't tell him anything,  " he called his daughter and she said the district attorney told her not talk to anyone."

http://p206.ezboard.com/fhackedbannedandlockeddownfrm24.showMessage?topicID=24.topic&index=1%22%20target=%22_new


The above link is the GOLD standard, the Father is caught off-guard and has an honest response.   Later, when the issue has been discussed and he believes he can be Johnny-on-the-spot and attest to her physical appearance BEFORE the party and AFTER the party - he takes the opportunity and impeaches himself. 


Logged
LTC8K6
Guest


Email
Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2006, 08:14:54 AM »

There is a quote out there somewhere that proves her parents knew she was a stripper. They are being interviewed and the response is something about not realizing their daughter had returned to stripping. Returned.

Can't find the quote right now, though.
Logged
Tony Soprano
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1459



Re: Why should we believe the AV's Father again?
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2006, 08:16:15 AM »


Quote
Last week, a reporter stopped by the reported victim's house looking for her, the woman's father said, but he said he didn't know what was going on. He called his daughter and she said the district attorney told her not talk to anyone.

"(She) didn't tell us anything about it," he said.

The context is right there, Tony: she said the district attorney told her not talk to anyone.  She didn't tell them anything about being involved  in the case being discussed in the media.


So the District Attorney tells her" not to TALK to anyone."   But, in her's Father's version C, he says she told him that she was raped.    So, I guess she talked to her Father. 

She calls Brian Taylor and says the she's going to be in the NEWS.    Is that talking to anyone?

Oh, LOOK  -  On 3/24 she invites TWO News and Observer reporters (Samiha Khanna and Anne Blythe)  into her living room, and tellls them all the sordid details.    She apparently didn't respect Nifong's wishes one bit.  Now, that wasn't very nice.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/421799.html
« Last Edit: September 05, 2006, 08:24:49 AM by Tony Soprano » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here