Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2017, 12:54:48 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  |  IMHO is wrong again 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: IMHO is wrong again  (Read 17879 times)
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2007, 08:45:07 AM »

I think anybody would conclude that they have a problem with how reliable the complaining witness is.

I think they did conclude that. Baker admitted as much. But that, by itself,  falls far short of concluding that she wasn't raped.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2007, 08:47:36 AM »

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/06/overlooking-brad-ross.html

The DPD presumed there were no wrong answers. If we are looking for the motive of Gottlieb and those who directed him, the key is that they presumed that there were no wrong answers. When Ross gave evidence that he wasn't there at the party the DPD, now knowing that Mangum TWICE misidentified him as being there, ignored it. They knew she could not be trusted to give an accurate identification (on top of all the information which they already had on Mangum's history which should have told them that she was not stable or reliable) and they knew that many of her identifications weren't the same between photo sessions. But the one guy she twice claimed was there was not there at all.

So not only is imho's integrity once again shot, so is the pathetic claim by Chalmers that the defense attorneys didn't give them exculpatory evidence. They did, proof that Mangum's identifications could not be relied upon. What did Chalmers' guys do? They ignored it.

The biggest proof that the April 4th ID photo session had nothing to do with finding witnesses is that the DPD never attempted to talk with any of the witnesses that she identified. What's the point of identifying witnesses if you don't ask them what they witnessed? Even if you were searching for witnesses and you find the alleged rapists, you still question the witnesses. That is, unless you weren't looking for witnesses. That is, unless you didn't really want to question witnesses. That is, because you didn't want to know what really happened.

Nice try, immie.
Logged
Sarah
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2251


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2007, 08:48:02 AM »

I think anybody would conclude that they have a problem with how reliable the complaining witness is.

I think they did conclude that. Baker admitted as much. But that, by itself,  falls far short of concluding that she wasn't raped.

True, it was the absence of DNA, injury and opportunity which clinched that.

Logged
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

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


WWW
Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2007, 08:52:40 AM »

Quote
The DPD knew the captains claimed at least five players did not attend the party and Evans claimed there were at least two non-players who did attend.  Before they power point presentation was performed the investigators were told there were "wrong answers."  The accuser was warned against taking an "eeny, meeny, miny, moe"  approach to identifying party attendees

DPD did not believe Evans or the captains at all, though. In fact Evans was wrong about Reade. DPD cannot say there were wrong answers because of what Evans or the captains told them. DPD has to know for certain that there are fillers or "wrong answers".

If DPD considered Evans and the other captains reliable regarding who was at the party, then the NTO makes no sense, as it includes players that DPD was told were not at the party, and excludes people that DPD was told were at the party.


They showed the accuser photos of 46 players.  By ANYONE'S account were there 46 guys (48 including the two frat boys) at the party by 11:40 pm?  The investigators knew all 46 players were not at the party by the time the accuser got there.
Logged

QT
MarkRougemont
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377



Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2007, 08:54:53 AM »

 imho was not wrong about this.  The topic also assumes imho has been wrong before. I don't remember that either.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2007, 08:57:41 AM »

Sherlock Peebs: Where is your evidence that the "wrong answer" that Brad was not as the party was "ignored." If you were investigating a rape case, and the complaining witness claimed to have seen a person in the street outside the place where she claimed to have been raped at approximately the time she claimed to have been raped, and after an investigation you determined that that person had not in fact been in the area, would you conclude therefore that the witness "lied" about that person being in the area. Would you conclude that that witness was "mistaken" about that person being in the area and was therefore mistaken that she had been raped?

If you would make either of these conclusions, you would not make much of an investigator.


If you were any kind of an investigator and your sole witness, the alleged victim, gave you witnesses, you would talk to the witnesses. You wouldn't wait for them to appear in a jamboree. You wouldn't presume that she was telling the truth. When new evidence appeared that cast doubt on her credibility, you would follow it up, you would requestion her, and you would question the witnesses. With this case, if you knew your only witness claiming a rape misidentified Ross twice, that the other dancer said the rape was a crock and whose version of events made Mangum's impossible, why wouldn't a good investigator actually talk to "witnesses" or, hey, suspects that she identified to see if there is any coherence in the stories?

Why would a good investigator conclude that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary that there was no reason to talk to the witnesses that Mangum identified?

Peebs, you wouldn't make a good investigator. When I investigated grievances as a shop steward, I always talked to management and/or complaining witnesses and/or witnesses for the other side. Only an idiot would ignore the other side of the story, Sherlock.
Logged
Bessy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1284


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2007, 08:57:54 AM »

Quote
The DPD knew the captains claimed at least five players did not attend the party and Evans claimed there were at least two non-players who did attend.  Before they power point presentation was performed the investigators were told there were "wrong answers."  The accuser was warned against taking an "eeny, meeny, miny, moe"  approach to identifying party attendees

DPD did not believe Evans or the captains at all, though. In fact Evans was wrong about Reade. DPD cannot say there were wrong answers because of what Evans or the captains told them. DPD has to know for certain that there are fillers or "wrong answers".

If DPD considered Evans and the other captains reliable regarding who was at the party, then the NTO makes no sense, as it includes players that DPD was told were not at the party, and excludes people that DPD was told were at the party.


They showed the accuser photos of 46 players.  By ANYONE'S account were there 46 guys (48 including the two frat boys) at the party by 11:40 pm?  The investigators knew all 46 players were not at the party by the time the accuser got there.
Did he know which ones were or were not?
Certainly Brad Ross did not provide his information until after April 5th.
To have no wrong answers they would have to include people they knew for sure were not at the party.
Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2007, 09:04:07 AM »

The DPD presumed there were no wrong answers.

That's made up fact #1 today for you Bob.

If we are looking for the motive of Gottlieb and those who directed him, the key is that they presumed that there were no wrong answers.

That's just a repeat of number one so I won't count it.

When Ross gave evidence that he wasn't there at the party the DPD, now knowing that Mangum TWICE misidentified him as being there, ignored it.

There's madeup fact #2. There's no evidence they ignored this. Have they ever claimed Ross was at the party?

They knew she could not be trusted to give an accurate identification (on top of all the information which they already had on Mangum's history which should have told them that she was not stable or reliable) and they knew that many of her identifications weren't the same between photo sessions.

Knowing that someone has made a mistake identifying someone is not a proof that they have made a mistake identifying anyone else, particularly when the circumstances and context of the identifications are not a match. Duh.

So not only is imho's integrity once again shot,

Well, it's shot at, but you missed. Made up claim #3? You betcha.

so is the pathetic claim by Chalmers that the defense attorneys didn't give them exculpatory evidence. They did, proof that Mangum's identifications could not be relied upon. What did Chalmers' guys do? They ignored it.

You use the word exculpatory differently than Chalmers.

The biggest proof that the April 4th ID photo session had nothing to do with finding witnesses is that the DPD never attempted to talk with any of the witnesses that she identified.

They were planning on doing that in court. That's why they filed a motion asking for all their addresses.

What's the point of identifying witnesses if you don't ask them what they witnessed?

They invited them all to attend a meeting for this purpose (or is it two) and these meetings were cancled. They also put out a public request for these people to come forward.

Even if you were searching for witnesses and you find the alleged rapists, you still question the witnesses. That is, unless you weren't looking for witnesses. That is, unless you didn't really want to question witnesses. That is, because you didn't want to know what really happened.

Once they had the alleged perps named, they didn't need to bother the witnesses. They could simply ask them in court what they saw. If the witnesses have a problem with that, they can always come forward before that.

That's apparently what happened.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2007, 09:10:04 AM »

Mark, the test is whether or not the DPD did anything with their identified witnesses. Were there any wrong answers? As someone pointed out, they were all wrong answers. But not to the fellows who graded the test.

In short, the cops knew she gave wrong answers but passed her anyway. So the "curve" on which she was graded did not admit that she gave any wrong answers. You will note that the DPD didn't ever say, Our only witness not only identified the three rapists, but misidentified others as being there when they were not. Her story does not match the other dancer's, who says that the complaining witness' story is a crock. There is no DNA evidence that anyone at the party touched her, but evidence suggesting that she lied about her sexual contact prior to the party. The fix was in. And immie is still trying to cover for the DPD.

So were there any wrong answers? Not yet, according to Chalmers.

+++

Mark, don't you feel a little embarrassed sometimes?
Logged
MarkRougemont
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377



Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #24 on: June 04, 2007, 09:15:51 AM »

Mark, the test is whether or not the DPD did anything with their identified witnesses. Were there any wrong answers? As someone pointed out, they were all wrong answers. But not to the fellows who graded the test.

In short, the cops knew she gave wrong answers but passed her anyway. So the "curve" on which she was graded did not admit that she gave any wrong answers. You will note that the DPD didn't ever say, Our only witness not only identified the three rapists, but misidentified others as being there when they were not. Her story does not match the other dancer's, who says that the complaining witness' story is a crock. There is no DNA evidence that anyone at the party touched her, but evidence suggesting that she lied about her sexual contact prior to the party. The fix was in. And immie is still trying to cover for the DPD.

So were there any wrong answers? Not yet, according to Chalmers.

+++

Mark, don't you feel a little embarrassed sometimes?

Yes, Bob.  I am blushing now in addition to wringing my hands, having a hissy fit, and getting all prissy about your comments. Give somebody a dude-nod, I am sure they will understand.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2007, 09:16:30 AM »

Peebs, lying to himself: Once they had the alleged perps named, they didn't need to bother the witnesses. They could simply ask them in court what they saw. If the witnesses have a problem with that, they can always come forward before that.

That's apparently what happened.


You think that if you have identified witnesses by the complaining witness, a mentally ill, drug-addicted sex worker who has lied to you about her recent sexual history and is contradicted by the other dancer at the party as well as the DNA evidence, that you can go into trial only knowing that your complaining witness will give you some version of events that ends up with her being raped? Not knowing what any of the witnesses will say? Tell me you don't believe that.

You see, that's the difference between you and me. You believe in fairy tales.
Logged
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

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


WWW
Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2007, 09:16:36 AM »

imho was not wrong about this.  The topic also assumes imho has been wrong before. I don't remember that either.

I have no objection to the title - it made me laugh out loud.  TL may object.  I recall her changing the title of PB's thread on Cooper's report because it contained his opinion that the report was a whitewash.  TL also might object to the thread on the grounds that a similar thread (differently titled - LOL!) was just shut down by her:


Quote
the Duke case is over.  Please don't start threads rehashing the evidence.
Logged

QT
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2007, 09:19:02 AM »

Rougemont: Yes, Bob.  I am blushing now in addition to wringing my hands, having a hissy fit, and getting all prissy about your comments. Give somebody a dude-nod, I am sure they will understand.

And yet you come back to humiliate yourself again.
Logged
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

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


WWW
Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2007, 09:20:43 AM »


Mark, don't you feel a little embarrassed sometimes?


I feel more than a little embarrassed for you when reading about you being "in the throes of sexual abandon"  Blech!
Logged

QT
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2007, 09:29:30 AM »

Bob In Pacifica on Today at 08:47:36 AM: The DPD presumed there were no wrong answers.

Peebs: That's made up fact #1 today for you Bob.

Bob In Pacifica: If we are looking for the motive of Gottlieb and those who directed him, the key is that they presumed that there were no wrong answers.

Peebs: That's just a repeat of number one so I won't count it.

Bob In Pacifica: When Ross gave evidence that he wasn't there at the party the DPD, now knowing that Mangum TWICE misidentified him as being there, ignored it.

Peebs: There's madeup fact #2. There's no evidence they ignored this. Have they ever claimed Ross was at the party?

+++

Would claiming that Ross was at the party be the only way to prove that that they didn't ignore the misidentifications?

Peebs, (like you say that Chalmers' meaning of "exculpatory" is different from others' meaning of "exculpatory") when I say that the DPD ignored the evidence that Ross wasn't there and that Mangum misidentified him twice, I am not saying that Gottlieb or Himan and every other cop overlooked this. I am saying that they did see it and did not include it as part of the case narrative because to do so would have further weakened the pathetic case. Was the misidentification of Ross ever in the police narrative or Nifong's public pronouncements about the facts of the case?


« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 11:40:01 PM by TalkLeft » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here