Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2017, 12:53:02 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 17876 times)
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2007, 09:32:27 AM »

immie, discussing her problems with sex: I feel more than a little embarrassed for you when reading about you being "in the throes of sexual abandon"  Blech!

Have you talked with a psychiatrist about your feelings about sex, or do you think that presuming all men are rapists will resolve your issues?
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 #31 on: June 04, 2007, 09:36:25 AM »

immie, discussing her problems with sex: I feel more than a little embarrassed for you when reading about you being "in the throes of sexual abandon"  Blech!


If only I could find someone willing to put in the long hours that would be required to "cure" me...
Logged

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

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2007, 09:41:46 AM »

imho: If only I could find someone willing to put in the long hours that would be required to "cure" me...

immie, it appears to have been a long search without resolution for you, and all the time you spent here has not located your cure. As they say, first you have to want to be cured. You just want to display.
Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2007, 09:43:11 AM »

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.

I don't believe Crystal was mentally ill, or drug-addicted, nor do I know that she lied about her sexual history. I The other dancer, of course, contradicted herself quite publicly when she noted that she believed the accuser, taking back what she said about the allegations being a crock.

The police go forward with what they have. A good prosecutor doesn't win cases, he tries cases. This case would have had a lot less left unsaid if it had actually been tried.

When Nifong said "I don't need his permission to indict his client" it set pettiness as the tone for this particular dispute. That's what makes it so celebrated. Nifong has a lot of positive attributes as a prosecutor, but his temperament is not one of them. He's paying a price for that. He has old horndogs like you trying to preach morality to him. What could be worse than that?

You see, that's the difference between you and me. You believe in fairy tales.

I've seen through you since the beginning Bob. It's impossible to read your posts without feeling like you got too close to the gorilla cage after  Mexican night.
Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2007, 09:48:17 AM »

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?

This "narrative" you speak of is the stuff of contemporary literature classes and left-wing plib plab. The prosecution turns over discovery prior to trial, but they make their case at trial. We don't know what the prosecution narrative would have been, but it is certain that it would have to have involved taking note of the fact that noit everything Crystal told them would or could possibly have been accurate.
Logged
Lousy1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3302


Aaah chicken! Best served al dente


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2007, 09:55:00 AM »

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?

This "narrative" you speak of is the stuff of contemporary literature classes and left-wing plib plab. The prosecution turns over discovery prior to trial, but they make their case at trial. We don't know what the prosecution narrative would have been, but it is certain that it would have to have involved taking note of the fact that noit everything Crystal told them would or could possibly have been accurate.

Was anything Crystal told them accurate? I have to agree with IMHO, the police held a lineup with all wrong answers. Unfortunately they failed to charge CGM at the end of the procedure. It might have been entrapment.
Logged
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2007, 10:05:32 AM »

Quote
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.

DPD did not know when the accuser got there as late in the case as 12/21. As of 12/21, she arrived at 11:10.

When, before 12/21, did DPD settle on an arrival time for Crystal of 11:40?

When did DPD settle on the idea that all 46 players were not at the party?

Was it before or after Nifong's motion to get all of the player's home addresses and key card data?

If Nifong knew on 4/4 that all 46 players were not at the party, what was his justification for the motion? Nifong argues as late as July that he needs the key card data and the home addresses of all 46 lacrosse players.

Logged
darby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #37 on: June 04, 2007, 10:09:37 AM »

Quote
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.

DPD did not know when the accuser got there as late in the case as 12/21. As of 12/21, she arrived at 11:10.

When, before 12/21, did DPD settle on an arrival time for Crystal of 11:40?

When did DPD settle on the idea that all 46 players were not at the party?

Was it before or after Nifong's motion to get all of the player's home addresses and key card data?

If Nifong knew on 4/4 that all 46 players were not at the party, what was his justification for the motion? Nifong argues as late as July that he needs the key card data and the home addresses of all 46 lacrosse players.




Also, if they knew he wasn't at the party, why did he have to give them his DNA?
Logged
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2007, 10:15:06 AM »

Quote
Also, if they knew he wasn't at the party, why did he have to give them his DNA?

Yes, when does DPD decide that all 46 players were not at the party? Presumably it must be after the 3/23 NTO (or that NTO is fraudulent) but before the 4/4 lineup is planned.
Logged
wumhenry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1450


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2007, 10:18:05 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.

Of course, they couldn't be sure that all of those included in the lineup were present when the women were there, but that's beside the point.  What is the point?  The point is that they didn't include any non-suspects.  That is, they didn't include anyone in the lineup that they knew had no opportunity to commit the alleged crime.  Rather, Gottlieb's instructions to Mangum plainly indicate that they limited the selection to "people we had reason to believe attended the party."

And they coached Mangum to minimize the possibility of picking somebody who could establish an alibi.  It's laughable that IMHO stresses this as though it were a badge of legitimacy.  If they'd had any confidence in Mangum's story, there'd have been no need to tell her to avoid fingering anyone who she couldn't remember seeing at the party.

Quote
I sat down with the victim in the briefing room at the conference table and explained to her were going to sit in the far side of the room at the desk and look at people we had reason to believe attended the party. I told her when she sat down she would only be able to see a screen on the monitor showing the introduction of the presentation. I explained to her during the time she was looking at each picture she should merely tell me who she remembered seeing at the party, or tell me if she did not recognize seeing an individual at the party. I explained to her it was very important not to say anyone was present at the party if they were not, or say they were if she could not recall they were present. I also told her it was important to tell us if she recalled seeing a particular individual at the party and to let us know how she recalled seeing them from that night, what they were doing, and any type of interactions she may have had or observed with a particular individual.

Logged
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #40 on: June 04, 2007, 10:18:55 AM »

Also, how did DPD determine who was or was not at the party with certainty prior to 4/4? If you are going to call a player a filler, you must know he was not at the party anywhere around the relevant times, and you must be sure of this.
Logged
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #41 on: June 04, 2007, 10:21:24 AM »

Quote
The investigators knew all 46 players were not at the party by the time the accuser got there.

Crystal gives a statement on 4/6, 2 days after 4/4. Just when did DPD know for sure when Crystal got there?
Logged
wumhenry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1450


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #42 on: June 04, 2007, 10:22:25 AM »


Was anything Crystal told them accurate? I have to agree with IMHO, the police held a lineup with all wrong answers.  

Right, all wrong answers, but 100% suspects.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #43 on: June 04, 2007, 10:22:42 AM »

Peebs, pledging allegiance: I don't believe Crystal was mentally ill, or drug-addicted, nor do I know that she lied about her sexual history.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #44 on: June 04, 2007, 10:25:16 AM »

So what again did imho say? As the great Aretha Franklin once asked, "Who's zoomin' who?"
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here