Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 26, 2017, 12:55:07 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  |  Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion  (Read 48219 times)
ding7777
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 703


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #225 on: December 18, 2006, 05:51:48 AM »

Lora - 
Quote
Nevertheless, we found outright errors or misrepresentations
.

Can you list them?  The one that I remember was the defense, in their motion, claimed that the LE's should have ivestigated Jarriel's claim that Precious had  (four?) sexual appointment(s) prior to the party.

I think your claim was that Jarriel never said that in his handwritten note.

Is this the type of "misrepresentation" you mean?

Logged
Lora
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 824


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #226 on: December 20, 2006, 01:28:09 AM »

Ding,

I haven't the time to go back and check precisely, but I believe one of them was that the defense said that Jarriel stated that the AV had sexual encounters, whereas his notes said she had appointments.  While we might guess as to what they were...and now the DNA results would seem to point more precisely to the type of activity she may have been engaged in during those appointments (we can't say for sure that those particular appointments were responsible for the deposits of DNA...I think it's very possible though)...his notes did not specify precisely what activities she was engaged in for her appointments.  The DNA evidence does suggest they were right about the sexual encounters, but they were wrong about Jarriel's saying so.

Another one had to do with Kim's handwritten report;  I can't recall precisely what it was now, but I believe it had to do with going back in the house.  I think defense said that Kim stated she never went back into the house, when in fact she never said any such thing.

There were two errors I found in an abc11 article about the AV's changing story.  They said neither woman told the police that Kim (a.k.a.Nikki) had danced at the party, when in fact Precious did, and they also said she told police she was dragged into the bedroom, not bathroom.  These are minor to be sure, but they made her "changing story" look slightly worse than it actually was.

Picky, perhaps, but I think it's important to be accurate in these matters if you are filing a motion or reporting a story.
Logged
A Son of Martha
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 562


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #227 on: December 20, 2006, 03:08:59 AM »

Ding,

I haven't the time to go back and check precisely, but I believe one of them was that the defense said that Jarriel stated that the AV had sexual encounters, whereas his notes said she had appointments.  While we might guess as to what they were...and now the DNA results would seem to point more precisely to the type of activity she may have been engaged in during those appointments (we can't say for sure that those particular appointments were responsible for the deposits of DNA...I think it's very possible though)...his notes did not specify precisely what activities she was engaged in for her appointments.  The DNA evidence does suggest they were right about the sexual encounters, but they were wrong about Jarriel's saying so.


I think that the defense (and many of us) quite reasonably inferred sexual activity from the report and now they (and we) have been proven right. I do not believe that the defence ever claimed that Jarriel said she had sexual activities. Perhaps you can prove me wrong.

Quote
Another one had to do with Kim's handwritten report;  I can't recall precisely what it was now, but I believe it had to do with going back in the house.  I think defense said that Kim stated she never went back into the house, when in fact she never said any such thing.

There were two errors I found in an abc11 article about the AV's changing story.  They said neither woman told the police that Kim (a.k.a.Nikki) had danced at the party, when in fact Precious did, and they also said she told police she was dragged into the bedroom, not bathroom.  These are minor to be sure, but they made her "changing story" look slightly worse than it actually was.

Picky, perhaps, but I think it's important to be accurate in these matters if you are filing a motion or reporting a story.

I think you are making a silk purse out of a sow's ear to try to minimise your past intransigence in regard to seeing the truth.
Logged
inmyhumbleopinion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4758

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


WWW
Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #228 on: December 20, 2006, 08:24:38 AM »

 http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/06/13/890/87395

Re: Duke Lacrosse: Nifong May Have Subpoenaed Fede (none / 0) (#7)
by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 03:23:17 AM EST

Talk Left posted:

Quote
    and she had engaged in intercourse with at least one other man that weekend, in mas*t*bation with a sex toy while dancing for a couple, and had two other escort appointments with men that weekend, one of which took place in a hotel room. Any of those could have accounted for the swelling;

inmyhumbleopinion posted:

With whom did she have sexual intercourse that weekend? That claim is not supported by any of the attached documents. She had a meeting with the "older gentleman" and one with the couple. We don't know if there were men or sex toys, or neither, involved in any other appointments she had that weekend.


Talk Left posted:

Quote
    The motion goes between direct quotes from the statements, one of which is a summary, and paraphrasing and interpreting them. Because all the statments are attached, there is no attempt at deception. They are put right out there for the Court to see.

Talk Left posted:

Quote
    IMHO, they did reference his summary as well as her written statement and they attached both. You're going nowhere with this argument.

inmyhumbleopinion posted:

They can not write that an attached document states one thing when it clearly states the opposite. These are not interpretations. They specifically state two facts are contained in Ms. Pittman's statement that are not in her statement. They do not reference Hinman's summary of Ms. Pittman's statement. They reference her statement which says the opposite of what they assert it says. Are their any rules concerning what they can or can not write in a motion? If so, how can one of them not be that they can not state a fact (not an interpretation of fact) is in an attached statement when it CLEARLY is not - and when the supporting statement CLEARLY states the opposite of what the motion is claiming it states.

From the defense motion:

Quote
    in this written statement, Ms. Pittman informs the investigators that [redacted] never went back in the house

Ms. Pitmann makes no such claim in her written statement, the statement to which they are referring.

From the defense motion:

Quote
    also omitted that once [redeacted] got to Ms. Pittman's automobile, she stayed there

Ms. Pittman's handwritten statement, the statement to which they are referring, says the accuser did not stay in the car.

Talk Left posted:

Quote
    I certainly think it's a fair statement to say that she was "involved in some sexual manner" with four other men.

inmyhumbleopinion posted:

What four men? There is the male/female couple and the "older gentleman." The other appointments could be performances for lesbians. The supporting document, Jarriel's statement, does not mention any men other than the"older gentleman." The "involved in some sexual manner with four other men" claim is not supported by any of the attached documents.

Logged

QT
MarkRougemont
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377



Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #229 on: December 20, 2006, 10:13:46 AM »

It would appear to me that the defense thru it's own investigation of the case, knew as far back as June that there should be more DNA from other sources showing up.  Don't understand why it took so long to push this issue.
Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #230 on: December 20, 2006, 10:26:56 AM »

It would appear to me that the defense thru it's own investigation of the case, knew as far back as June that there should be more DNA from other sources showing up.  Don't understand why it took so long to push this issue.

Perhaps someone should report them for an ethics violation.
Logged
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #231 on: December 20, 2006, 11:06:27 AM »

The courts have consistently refused to make Nifong release discovery in a timely fashion. I believe defense tried to get this done at the July 17th hearing regarding discovery, but the judge refused to make Nifong turn over discovery.
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #232 on: December 20, 2006, 11:19:20 AM »

MarkRougemont on Today at 10:13:46 AM: It would appear to me that the defense thru it's own investigation of the case, knew as far back as June that there should be more DNA from other sources showing up.  Don't understand why it took so long to push this issue.

PB: Perhaps someone should report them for an ethics violation.

People here seem to be confused about what a defense attorney's duty is versus what a DA's legal obligations are. If this is snark after nine months of living in denial about Nifong, then it's not clear from the postings. A defense attorney has no obligation to the court to reveal information that is exculpatory. His obligation is to his client. On the other hand, the DA, Nifong specifically here, had the legal obligation to reveal that information when he received it.

I certainly am not sure if the defense had DNA information of six men (boyfriend and the five unidentified donors) through its own investigation. Having men testify about sexual relations they may have had with someone who is not their wife, presumably an act of prostitution, is hard to prove or get anyone to admit to, and these acts generally happen behind closed doors. And there was no guarantee last summer that any judge would allow any information such as that into trial. The defense certainly didn't have testimony of a criminal conspiracy between Nifong and Meehan, which it now has.

If Rougemont's post is to deflate the importance of Friday's hearing, he fails. If PB's comment is snark directed against the defense, the joke is on him.

Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #233 on: December 20, 2006, 02:25:57 PM »

The courts have consistently refused to make Nifong release discovery in a timely fashion. I believe defense tried to get this done at the July 17th hearing regarding discovery, but the judge refused to make Nifong turn over discovery.

The Judge is the person who determines what the term "in a timely fashion" refers to. The judge also determines the actual limits of discovery... Questions such as when privacy concerns should outweigh probative value of evidence.

I'm curious... There was a long discussion earlier about how long dna could be recoverable inside the vagina... And we all know from Alan of Australia that dna can survive forty years outside... Presumably the semen on the accuser's panties is irrelevant, as there is no way to carbon date it to the week or even years before the party. But what of the fractions from the oral and anal swabs? Can anything actually be said of these environments?  Is there any reason to believe that these fractions could be used to in any way contradict the accuser's statements to the police or doctors, or are they in fact, for all intents and purposes, non-probative?
Logged
Bob In Pacifica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4204


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #234 on: December 20, 2006, 02:43:09 PM »

PB: Presumably the semen on the accuser's panties is irrelevant, as there is no way to carbon date it to the week or even years before the party. But what of the fractions from the oral and anal swabs? Can anything actually be said of these environments?  Is there any reason to believe that these fractions could be used to in any way contradict the accuser's statements to the police or doctors, or are they in fact, for all intents and purposes, non-probative?

The existence of someone else's DNA, five unidentified men plus the boyfriend, in and about Precious' private parts, shows that DNA from someone else survived there. Take your choice, PB: The DNA survived twelve months in and about the AV and there was none from any of the accused. Or, the DNA was deposited in and about the victim minutes before she showed up to the party and no DNA from the accused shows up. How old that DNA is can be determined by a real DNA expert, not one engaged in a criminal conspiracy to hide evidence. The many different sources would beg for an explanation, no? How could any explanation fit within her past story about her sexual history prior to the Buchanan party?

It's exculpatory because it shows that the AV had sex with at least a half dozen men during the life span of the DNA in and about her, which goes to prove that the lab didn't overlook any DNA evidence of the accused, and it goes towards proving that the AV was lying about her last sexual relationship prior to the party.

By the way, how often does the AV change her panties? Daily? Weekly? Of course, those panties operate like a clock, just like the camera at the ATM, the time-stamped pictures, the logs of the telephone calls.

And, of course, that Nifong and Meehan entered into an agreement to conceal this information from the defense is evidence of a criminal conspiracy. A criminal conspiracy by the DA is pretty strong evidence of the weakness of the DA's case, too.
Logged
Lousy1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3302


Aaah chicken! Best served al dente


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #235 on: December 20, 2006, 02:43:35 PM »

The Judge is the person who determines what the term "in a timely fashion" refers to. The judge also determines the actual limits of discovery... Questions such as when privacy concerns should outweigh probative value of evidence.
It seems that Nifong actually determines "when privacy concerns should outweigh probative value of evidence."


I'm curious... There was a long discussion earlier about how long dna could be recoverable inside the vagina... And we all know from Alan of Australia that dna can survive forty years outside... Presumably the semen on the accuser's panties is irrelevant, as there is no way to carbon date it to the week or even years before the party. But what of the fractions from the oral and anal swabs? Can anything actually be said of these environments?  Is there any reason to believe that these fractions could be used to in any way contradict the accuser's statements to the police or doctors, or are they in fact, for all intents and purposes, non-probative?

I was led to believe that certain microscopc characteristics of the sperm can approximate date.

However Nifong's star witness and a few volumes of supoenas could establish the exact time of each specimen was deposited.
Logged
PB
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3706


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #236 on: December 20, 2006, 02:50:45 PM »

It seems that Nifong actually determines "when privacy concerns should outweigh probative value of evidence."

That would be true if the defense was not on notice that the other evidence was available. It is not the case, however, because they were.
Logged
Lousy1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3302


Aaah chicken! Best served al dente


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #237 on: December 20, 2006, 03:01:41 PM »

It seems that Nifong actually determines "when privacy concerns should outweigh probative value of evidence."

That would be true if the defense was not on notice that the other evidence was available. It is not the case, however, because they were.


Asked and answered and answered and answered....
Logged
LTC8K9
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3343


Professional Lunkhead


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #238 on: December 20, 2006, 03:45:12 PM »

Quote
Asked and answered and answered and answered....

Try to get used to that if you are going to hang around here.
Also look for rewording of the same point over and over again, and recurring intentional obtuseness.
Logged
A Son of Martha
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 562


Re: Lab in Lacrosse Case Found Many DNA Sources - New Defense Motion
« Reply #239 on: December 20, 2006, 04:22:31 PM »

Quote
Asked and answered and answered and answered....

Try to get used to that if you are going to hang around here.
Also look for rewording of the same point over and over again, and recurring intentional obtuseness.

And if you have been around her long enough you will have noted the subtle shift from being AV enablers to being Nifong enablers.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Advertise Here