Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2017, 12:53:34 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 17877 times)
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

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


WWW
Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2007, 10:28:52 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.

Looks like imho was right.  Better ask TL to change the title of your thread, wumhwenry.

IMHO is wrong again right
Logged

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

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #46 on: June 04, 2007, 10:32:47 AM »

imho: Are you now admitting that it was a frame from the start?

Thank you. We rest your case.
Logged
wumhenry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1450


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2007, 11:57:04 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.

Looks like imho was right.  Better ask TL to change the title of your thread, wumhwenry.

IMHO is wrong again right

LOL.  Nope, the title is apt.  It was an all-suspect, no-filler lineup, so the "meme" that it was a multiple-choice test without wrong answers is not a crock.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2007, 12:05:28 PM »

They sure weren't looking for witnesses. Unlike Peebs' bizarre beliefs, if you are conducting an investigation and you have identified (potential) witnesses, you talk to them. You don't wait until the trial to see what they know. Why bother even identifying witnesses? Why not call all the lacrosse players into court during the trial and put them all on the stand and see what they say? Yeah, that's the ticket.
Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2007, 12:05:42 PM »

LOL.  Nope, the title is apt.  It was an all-suspect, no-filler lineup, so the "meme" that it was a multiple-choice test without wrong answers is not a crock.

People keep declaring it was a lineup which, of course, has been discredited.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #50 on: June 04, 2007, 12:12:52 PM »

Peebs: People keep declaring it was a lineup which, of course, has been discredited.

Peebs, you are saying that it wasn't a lineup but to identify witnesses which the DPD never bothered to question because they were going to talk to them once they were on the stand at trial?

*** or hole in the ground. Where is your head, Peebs?
Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #51 on: June 04, 2007, 12:16:15 PM »

They sure weren't looking for witnesses. 

Of course they were. You can't put together the case without knowing which people would have been in a proper position to know what had happened. The police knew from the lineups that there were very few "suspects" remaining that the accuser had not had a chance to view.

Of course, once she picked her alleged assailants out, it somewhat obviated the need to build the case entirely on the staged coordinated answers of hostile uncooperative witnesses. The prosecution could go forward without the help of the players.
Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #52 on: June 04, 2007, 12:22:04 PM »

Peebs: People keep declaring it was a lineup which, of course, has been discredited.

Peebs, you are saying that it wasn't a lineup but to identify witnesses which the DPD never bothered to question because they were going to talk to them once they were on the stand at trial?

*** or hole in the ground. Where is your head, Peebs?

Hi Bob,
Chalmers has told us why the lineup was done the way it was, as has Nifong. If you prefer your "Nifong would frame anyone to keep his pension" fairy tale, coupled with Dhazes "Gottlieb was jealous of the wealth and looks of the fabulously talented lacrosse players" fairy tale, go right ahead. I see ithose stories as grade A bologna. A used car salesman wouldn't try and sell those stories, even if given a kickback by a wealthy Duke lacrosse fan.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #53 on: June 04, 2007, 12:30:12 PM »

PB: You can't put together the case without knowing which people would have been in a proper position to know what had happened.

But you can put on a case where the only witness you've talked with besides the complainant says that the claim of a rape was a crock? And so you line up witnesses to prove your case and don't even talk with them? Hostile or not, if they are going to be witnesses they are going to say something when put up on the stand, right? And you don't want to know what they saw or what they'll say? So you're gonna prove your case by maybe knowing who was at the party but not knowing what they'll say. And that is your way of gathering up witnesses? Just imagine putting Ross on the stand:

Nifong: Now you were identified by Ms. Mangum as being at the party in two reviews of photographs we presented to her. What did you see that night?

Ross: I not only wasn't at the party, I wasn't even in Durham. And not only wasn't I in Durham, I gave you that proof of that in April 2006.


Great way to run a trial.One question would destroy both Mangum's and Nifong's credibiilty.  Peebs, up the dosage.
Logged
QuadDog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #54 on: June 04, 2007, 12:31:30 PM »

In my opinion Chalmers and Nifong are both lying to cover their butts.  Grade A bologna is certainly better than the crap you're buying.
Logged
macd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 449


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2007, 12:42:34 PM »

I'll agree with IMHO.
Using the analogy "multiple choice test with no wrong answers" is not a good description.
It was not multiple choice and there was the opportunity for wrong answers.

She was asked what she remembered the individual players were doing.  She made multiple errors in that regard.  She said she saw people that weren't there.  She did not remember people who were there.  She misattributed other actions.  Heck, she fingered four people as attacking her, when she said only three did, and really none did.

So, she proved her self an unreliable witness and made many wrong answers on this test that was not multiple choice.

The format of the line-up (or non-line-up) broke many procedures and was not a reliable method of identifying suspects or witnesses.  Does anyone claim that it is?

Criticize the widely used analogy if you want (I agree, but it seems pointless), but I don't think anyone can defend April 4 line-up procedure.
Logged
wumhenry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1450


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #56 on: June 04, 2007, 12:56:55 PM »

LOL.  Nope, the title is apt.  It was an all-suspect, no-filler lineup, so the "meme" that it was a multiple-choice test without wrong answers is not a crock.

People keep declaring it was a lineup which, of course, has been discredited.

In the minds of people who are easily gulled.

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.

The highlighted text is tantamount to an instruction to finger (alleged) perps.  So, yep, it sure was a lineup.
Logged
QuadDog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #57 on: June 04, 2007, 12:57:07 PM »

I'll agree with IMHO.
Using the analogy "multiple choice test with no wrong answers" is not a good description.
It was not multiple choice and there was the opportunity for wrong answers.

She was asked what she remembered the individual players were doing.  She made multiple errors in that regard.  She said she saw people that weren't there.  She did not remember people who were there.  She misattributed other actions.  Heck, she fingered four people as attacking her, when she said only three did, and really none did.

So, she proved her self an unreliable witness and made many wrong answers on this test that was not multiple choice.

The format of the line-up (or non-line-up) broke many procedures and was not a reliable method of identifying suspects or witnesses.  Does anyone claim that it is?

Criticize the widely used analogy if you want (I agree, but it seems pointless), but I don't think anyone can defend April 4 line-up procedure.
I believe it was used to obtain indictments.  I can't think of anything else they might have used.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #58 on: June 04, 2007, 01:02:07 PM »

Call it multiple choice, true-false, or essay. It doesn't matter. Mangum couldn't give a wrong answer. A wrong answer was ignored. The people giving her the grade were going to pass her no matter what. Heck, how many tries did they give her to take the test?
Logged
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: IMHO is wrong again
« Reply #59 on: June 04, 2007, 01:03:34 PM »

Yes, what was used to indict Reade and Collin?

It had to be the 4/4 "lineup".

If anyone has any idea what else Himan and Gottlieb could have used to point to Reade and Collin for the GJ, I'd love to hear it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here