eric the Lil' Devil spake, and sayeth

you know whats crazy? there was no DNA evidence and those dudes were still charged! lets look at it from the other standpoint, if there had been DNA they would of had to charge all of them that the evidence showed and the media would of ate them alive and convicted them before they ever got to court! my question is that if it was true, and a gang rape, how were these dudes so careful that these CSI wanna be faggots couldn’t find anything? the media should of paraded the lack of DNA evidence like they would have if it were reversed! But, oh my bad; thats really not a story there? you can’t accept the fact that these fucking whores got one to many money shots in their eye without a tip? WTF? theses ho’s should be sent back to their respective corners that they work and get pimpslapped the whole way there! for false accusations the mistaken accuser should be subject to the sentence that the falsely accused defendant would of had to face, as well as financial penalties for slander and libelous acts such as these.:-w typical whores? they’ll write a book and say how badly they were treated and it’ll be a lifetime\afterschool special to get ratings?!!

April 23rd, 2006

aJ the Zen Master remarked

That is disgusting! I mean some people can stoop low and others start digging from there!
Both the women should be sentenced to life for spoiling the name and possibly the reputation of so many young men who might be completely clean and most probably will lead a good life!

April 23rd, 2006

Keith the Director spake, and sayeth

This whole thing is just a fucking joke… they had to go an d use racial slurs as an in b/c of their lack of evidnece period. From everything i’ve read and seen, the two whores got what they were paid 2 do. Then there is a discrpancy in pay and they get bent out of shape and leave. The stupid bitch probably cut her leg on the door jam walking in needle point stilettos and tripped b/c she was drunk or high.

Notice how everythig reverts back to the 911 call. She didn’t even claim rape to 911 she claimed to being harassed and verbally berated with racial slur. Hrrmmmmm… you think you might have mentioned something as important as being raped to a 911 operator instead of racial slurs?

then of course when it comes down to it let’s blame white kids for the incident since they can afford to pay whatever it is. And I’m not even gonna get fucking started with jesse fucking jackson. that piece of shit has totry and ge involved in evry racial issue to date b/c he can’t do anything else correctly!

I hope these bitches get made out to be the frauds they are, and thankful for her stupid ass emailing lil kim what she did she pretty much sealed her own fate.

April 23rd, 2006

aJ the Zen Master got all philosophical

Maybe it was an emotional statement, but yes they should be punished strictly and the punishment should be used as a deterrent. Why? Cos in this case, it’s a sexual offence, and in the US, if I’m not wrong, those convicted (am not sure about accused) are tagged and have to report to the cops every once in a while. Though it’s a good thing for those who have actually committed a crime, for innocents, it is a sigma and a blot for life. And this should not happen!

April 23rd, 2006

Stephan the Virgin mentioned

Two things:

Finnerty has a record for gay bashing, which his lawyers seem to dismiss as one of those minor things we all do, you know, drinking in the dorms, making out with women in the dorm halls, smoking pot at rock concerts, beating up gay people… stop there.

And the evidence sucks, and while the strippers were probably harassed by the trible of lacrosse warriors, proving crimimality is going to be almost impossible, but the DA is in a f—-d position. Drop the case and be the tool of gay-bashing elitist lacrossers, or pursue the case without enow evidence. . for the momnet, he chooses the former.

April 24th, 2006

Keith the Director said this

Kidnapping and gay bashing? When did those enter as a charges? Like christine said to the two girls went on their own and were not forced their or forced to stay which is obvious with them both lkeaving at the same time. kidnapping has no merit. Rape charges however are very serious, and in answer to your query aj offenders don’t have to report in persay, but they do get a nice mugshot put up on the internet labeling them as sex offenders. I know there are websites for every city and county where you can look up the child molesters and it gives their name semi-addresses, and picstures. So if this is fabricated and gets these boys in deep shit their are essentially fucked for life!

try explaining that to a prospective employer and see who gets a job. Also as far as gay bashing goes..that is not a criminal offense. Let’s just start arresting people for calling each other names? WTF I gay bash every other day it seems and summe time I do it on the golf course everyday I’m playing like…dude you hit like a fag..get in the weight room! Does that make me a criminal? Should I be arrested for it?….FUCK NO! These kid di nothing wrong with the racial slurs or gay bashing that they need to get arrested for. If racial slurs are a criminal offense the next time I hear a black person use the word cracker in any context except for a refernce to the snack food I’m going to call the police! The DA is reaching at straws at this point b/c of the lack of substantial or any evidence period to have their case hold up.

April 24th, 2006

Crystal the Soldier penned this

For once, I agree, to a point. For example, the day before the Sugar Bowl a woman claimed a senior starting player for FSU raped her. He was suspended, missed the game, and then nothing came of the allegations, as far as I can find. So, FSU was in the city of their biggest rival, and some kid missed his biggest game of his college career because some chick decided to pull that lie out of her ass. My dad knows the player, says he’s a great guy, will probably still be in the NFL next year in spite of the allegations, but it was still bullshit. Things like that make real rape victims afraid to come forward, because no one believes them any more.

April 24th, 2006

Keith the Director remarked

other reasons? :-t hrumph I’m shocked and appalled at those accusations Actually good point crystal i had forgotten all about that kod being suspended for FSU’s beating at the hands of PSU =d> It’s quite interestinghow something so big could disappear from the news so quickly as it appeared.

April 25th, 2006

Keith the Director scribbled

Christine I do have to agree with you on your sentiments on how people with emphathise with them after the fact if or should I say when they are found innocent!

April 25th, 2006

Keith the Director remarked

Damn christine yet anmother very good point i agree with…thats 2 in the same day this is getting scary!

April 25th, 2006

Christian scribbled the Virgin mentioned

Now that the stripper “eeny meeny miney moed” her attackers, the defense has to come out an defend these boys:-w, now that they know which one of the boys she has chosen to have been her rapists:-?.

It seems that the stripper quite possibly falsely accused 3 boys of rape in 1996, and falsely accused her then husband of kidnapping her in 1996, and was arrested for larceny, auto theft, public indecency, and trying to kill a police officer in 2002. I bet the toxicity screen on the day of her “alleged rape” will show drugs that she’s abused before. Seems like she has major character flaws to put it nicely.

The boys she “eeny meeny miney moed” have air tight alibis. She should have accused the black boy, he probably be serving 10 years behind bars by now, and she could be going on with her stripping/escort/criminal career.

Women who lie about rape hurt real victims of rape and innocent men every where.

May 8th, 2006

Christian scribbled the Virgin quibbed this

Nifong is running scared. If he had anything big, he?d spill it. His desperation was obvious when he held that conference at the NCC University where he thought he was in friendly territory.
Nifong claims the boys are ?stone walling?, but when the accusation was made, the police questioned the three boys who lived in the house for over six hours, not one asked for a lawyer. When the entire team was told they had to submit DNA samples, they didn?t call their parents or fight the warrant.
The boys cooperated completely. These aren?t the actions of guilty boys. Only when their parents witnessed the circus-like atmosphere created by District Attorney Mike Nifong, the boys were advised to remain quiet.
Nifong nationally proclaimed that he will indict the entire team for aiding and abetting. He doesn?t care whether anyone is innocent or guilty, or if he has to bulldoze over 50 boys to get to one. Nifong portrayed all of these boys as rapists while claiming that they?re hiding information because the only information they have is that the rape never occurred, and DNA evidence supports the boys? story, and the second stripper coincides with the boys account of events, but it doesn?t matter.
Because of Nifong, these boys have already been convicted in the media. Their reputations destroyed as their names and pictures are widely distributed with hate slogans labeling them as rapist.
Nifong will get an indictment to avoid facing the racial tensions he stoked to near riot levels, then he will leave this ?powder keg? to the next elected DA to handle the fallout, and when this case presents itself to be unfounded and accusations of ?white privilege? force racial tensions to explode, I predict Mr. Nifong will be somewhere far far away on vacation.
Stripper claims: three intoxicated men raped her, as she violently fought them, in a small enclosed bathroom,
Fact:
? No vaginal or seminal fluid, no skin, blood, or hair were found anywhere in the bathroom, bath towels, bath rug, door handle, bathroom floor, basin, water faucet handle, etc.
? A man cannot take off a condom and not get DNA from himself or the female on his hands and not transfer it to everything he touches?
? Accuser claims she was vaginally penetrated; accuser claims she was panicked and thought she was going to die; Where is her vaginal fluid, urine, or blood anywhere in the bathroom? Does her body defy basic physiology capable of keeping any ejaculate from spilling out?
? Accuser claims she was anally penetrated; Where?s her fecal material or scat smears in the bathroom? Does the accuser have inhuman anal sphinter control that prevented any of the ejaculate from dripping out?
? Accuser claims she was orally sodomized; where is DNA from her saliva and tears? Did she lick up every drop and swallowed any evidence?
Stripper claim bruises were result of an attack from three boys:
Fact: Time-stamped photos prove stripper arrived bruised and cut while drunk.
Nifong stated that a condom was used, if this is true than where is the spermicidal lubricant evidence? Where are the condoms? Where are the condom wrappers? Where is the empty condom box?
If no DNA material were present on the stripper, than why were DNA samples taken? The District Attorney vigorously claimed that these DNA evidence will clear the innocent.
When we think of a single mother, we picture a woman struggling to support herself and her children. Laura Grissim [Letters; April 14] plays on this stereotype to portray the Durham rape accuser/stripper as a stereotypical working single mom.
It?s amazing how just by claiming a person to be a ?mother? puts a ?halo? on her head. Feminist claim that some women have no other option to provide for herself and her children which paints a picture of a selfless martyr, but this is misleading especially regarding this particular ?single mom?. This single mom and her children live with their grandfather so the threat of being homeless or hungry is unlikely. This single mom has been arrested in for larceny and evading police, which doesn?t fit the mold of ?martyr?. This single mom arrived at the party inebriated and was found drunk and disorderly in a parking lot, but looking at this woman as an individual instead of a sexist stereotype reveals a more realistic picture of this single mom which dims her halo.
Feminist go on to rants that criticizing this woman ?hinges on blaming the victim?. This single mom is not a victim. This single mom is an ?accuser?. There?s enough evidence to question her integrity and whether a crime actually occurred. I find it hypocritical that feminist so easily give this ?single mom? the benefit of the doubt while condemning a group of boys who happen to be on a sports team. People should avoid stereotypes and focus on each individual, including the ?accuser?, as a person.
The actions of District Attorney Mike Nifong have been reckless and irresponsible in playing out this case before the national media. This has inflamed racial stereotypes throughout Durham which makes it more important that everyone take a step back and let the police do their job. If this woman lied; thus exposing Nifong as a fool, then she should be prosecuted for this crime, which have destroyed these young boys? lives and reputations. Being a ?single mom? shouldn?t be an excuse to condone being so reckless and destructive.
Apparently the ?second stripper charged with embezzling $25,000? changed her story to conspire with the ?lying stripper under probation for larceny and trying to kill a police officer with a stolen car? as part of a deal with Nifong to get released from jail, also contacted a public relations firm to ?not let this opportunity pas her by and to spin it to my advantage?.
This in the wake of pictures surfacing showing that the ?lying stripper? had those fake finger nails missing before the time she lied that a rape occurred.
With the taste of his own foot still lingering in his mouth, District Attorney Mike Nifong has another piece of evidence blow up in his face, I wonder how?s his ulcer is doing?
So would it be his own aura or is it the universe?s way of getting back at Nifong for destroying these young boys lives?
It would be funny if Nifong?s ulcer leads to a colonoscopy, or would it be ?ironic? or ?poetic justice? that he screws 47 boys over a false rape claim and have to take a 36 inch colonoscopy tube up his @ss for his part in the fiasco he created.
Lets not forget that not only that there lacks any DNA evidence of the boys, but there?s an absolute absence of DNA from her who claims she was raped vaginally, anally, and orally? why wasn?t any of HER vaginal, urine, blood, sweat, fecal, saliva, or tears not found anywhere in the bathroom? Nifong claims that condoms could have been used, then where are the condoms? The condom wrappers, the condom box, the spermicidal evidence from the rape kit?
Some feminist claim the boys were drunk and where so overwhelmed with excitement that they couldn?t ejaculate- not even one, obviously these women have never had sex with a 19 year old male or any male.
Finally, don?t forget the three boys who lived in the house agreed to be questioned by the police for over six hours, and volunteered to a lie detector test. When the boys were told to surrender DNA samples, none called their parents r tried to block the order, they complied because they new the ?stripper with the criminal record? was lying. These are not the actions of guilty boys, but Nifong claimed that they were all covering up for each other and will charge each of them with aiding and abetting because the only information they had is that no rape occurred.
These boys were and continue to be put through hell by these criminal strippers and an unscrupulous DA. Hopefully these three will be held accountable for the racial riots pending the acquittal of these innocent boys.

This whole situation is the creation of a black woman (Crystal Gail Mangum) with a history of making false accusations of rape and kidnapping (1996 & 199 with serious character and integrity flaws (larceny, auto theft, attampted murder 2002) and the unethical media hungry District Attorney (Mike Nifong).
Ms. Mangum?s story of events don?t match the evidence. In fact the total and complete lack of evidence reveals that a crime never occurred. Nifong states that Ms. Mangum is 100% sure of the two boys, with the air-tight alibies, she ?eeny meeny miney moed? in the DA?s manipulated photo line-up, but her father stated that she told him that she wasn?t sure. Ms. Mangum?s ex-husband states that he believes her 100%, but she made a false accusation that he kidnapped her in 1998.
Everyone seems to be concerned with the stripper, but what about all the innocent boys she destroyed with her lies? Will Mifong hold her responsible for these false accusations?

May 8th, 2006

Christian scribbled the Virgin remarked

Duke Lacrosse Rape 8-}Accuser Mentioned No Condoms Were Used
It seems the defense keeps finding more to support their side of things, with each new piece of information they get. Now from that stack of 1,300 papers, they have discovered that the stripper 8-} accuser mentioned no condoms were used. No condoms and?
The stripper?s body was completely void of any sign of a sexual assault (except for signs of recent vaginal and anal from her boyfriend >:p). The alleged crime scene was completely devoid of DNA.

It is impossible that a crime scene with three drunk men in a small enclosed room with a fighting and clawing woman being orally, virginally, and anally penetrated not leave any DNA evidence of urine, blood, vaginal fluid, sweat, fecal matter, scat smears, saliva, tears, or semen… especially if condoms were used. How would they take off the condoms during all this chaos without spilling, smearing, or touching the content inside or outside of the condom?

When investigators questioned the stripper $-) after DNA tests on the semen found inside her vagina and rectum didn?t match any of the Duke players, the stripper $-) admitted to having had sex with at least three men around the time of the alleged rape. The stripper named her boyfriend and two men who drove her to Duke.

When questioned, the ?drivers? said they would drop her off at several places, including hotel rooms.

It appears that the stripper has sex with men for rides to her strip shows?Nasty!

May 24th, 2006

Keith the Director got all philosophical

Than You christian for digging up yet more irrefutable proof this hoe is just a lying piece of filth that was only looking for a quick payday because she is spending too much time stripping and failing her classes! Good job super sleuth

May 24th, 2006

Christian scribbled the Virgin hunt n' pecked this

>- I’m not interested in banter kieth, only facts >-

Blind to evidence

On Monday, May 15, a Durham County grand jury handed up a third indictment in the nothing-short-of-notorious Duke rape case. This latest indictment charges the lacrosse team’s captain, David Evans, with first-degree rape, first-degree sexual assault, and first-degree kidnapping.

The charges against Evans are identical to those handed up last month against fellow players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. Still, this final indictment does come as a bit of surprise. As I detailed in a prior column, the cases against Seligmann and Finnerty appear quite weak. As I’ll discuss in this column, the case against Evans may be even shakier. It’s true that the grand jury did return indictments against Evans, and previously against the other two. It’s also true that the District Attorney, Mike Nifong, is forging ahead — seemingly undeterred.

But Nifong’s judgment has been poor all along- and the old adage that a D.A. can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” shouldn’t be forgotten. Without defense attorneys there to test the prosecutor’s evidence via the invaluable process of cross-examination, weak evidence can be made to look pretty convincing. It’s not the grand jury’s fault; it’s just the reality that if you only hear one side, you tend to believe it.
At least a ham sandwich has some weight to it. As I’ll explain in this column, the Evans indictment - like the two that preceded it - does not. The very evidence that may have convinced the grand jury - accuser identification and new DNA evidence - is just the kind that will ultimately fall apart when defense attorneys finally do get to cross-examine the witnesses presenting it.

The Mounting Evidence in Favor of Defendants’ Innocence

All three defendants in the Duke lacrosse case have unfailingly and repeatedly proclaimed their innocence - Evans doing so most eloquently, on behalf of all three men, in a brief public comment following his being formally charged.

In fact, in a highly unusual move, newly indicted defendant Evans went to so far as to volunteer to take a lie detector test at the direction of law enforcement. When the D.A. refused, Evans enlisted a top polygrapher to administer the test anyway. He passed.
Thus far, the defense camp has come forward with a host of seemingly reliable, exculpatory evidence -evidence that will be admissible in court, and that is likely to sway a jury. I’m not talking about, maybe, kinda, sorta, or could be, exculpatory evidence either. I’m talking about weighty evidence - receipts, photos, phone records, alibi witnesses, an absence of DNA, and now actual DNA - that directly supports the defendants’ claims of innocence.

A plethora of proof supporting a defendant’s claim of innocence - not just the government’s failure to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — is a rare pearl in the practice of criminal defense. It should cause the D.A. to reassess his case.
The Problems with the Accuser’s “Identification” of Evans
In my prior columns, I discussed the problems with evidence against Seligmann - who has strong evidence supporting an alibi - and, to a lesser extent, against Finnerty. The evidence against Evans is also weak, maybe even more so.

Evans reportedly was not initially indicted, with the other two, because the accuser couldn’t identify him with certainty (only with “90 percent certainty,” in her words) from a photo lineup. Ten percent doubt sounds like a lot like reasonable doubt to me - and perhaps, at least initially, it sounded that way to D.A. Nifong too. And if the accuser herself has reasonable doubt, how can a prosecution go forward?

The accuser’s lack of certainty is even more worrisome in light of the fact that the photo lineup was grossly biased. It included only Duke lacrosse players - meaning that the accuser had no choice but to select a Duke lacrosse player if she were to select anyone at all. And this photo lineup was apparently the sole means of identification for all three defendants.

Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the accuser is reported to have said that Evans’s photo “looks just like [one of my assailants] without the mustache.” According to Evans’s defense lawyer, Evans has never worn a mustache. And party photos support this contention.

For all these reasons, the accuser’s identification testimony is likely to be destroyed upon cross-examination.

The Problems with the New DNA Evidence

Besides the accuser’s testimony, prosecutors also presented to the grand jury the results of a second round of DNA testing.

Readers may recall that the first round of DNA testing was, if anything, exculpatory: There was no DNA match whatsoever linking any of the forty-six lacrosse players whose DNA was taken, to the accuser.

Following those results, D.A. Nifong reportedly hired a private lab to re-test certain samples. In so doing, the new lab found a possible connection between defendant Evans and the accuser’s discarded fake fingernail, found in the trash bin inside the bathroom.
To begin, it’s awfully odd that the fake fingernail found its way into the trash bin in the first place, if a rape really occurred, and if the fake fingernail broke off during the victim’s struggle, as she claims. No victim would clean up after her accusers; she would flee the scene. And if a culprit had the presence of mind to clean up — realizing that the fake fingernail might be evidence against him — surely he wouldn’t just drop it in the trash can in the very room where the rape occurred, for police to easily find.
Significantly, too, defense attorneys claim the DNA material was found on the front of the nail — not on the underside, where it would logically have lodged had the accuser scratched and clawed at her attackers as she claims.

But even putting these points aside, the DNA connection to Evans is weak. To begin, this isn’t remotely close to the kind of “match” you may be familiar with from CSI - the kind where the odds of a false positive are infinitesimally small. Indeed, “match” here is a misnomer. All that can be said is that the DNA is “consistent” with DNA voluntarily supplied early on by Evans.

Shocking? Hardly. Evans lived in the house, and therefore may have, from time to time, blown his nose, swabbed an ear, or otherwise disposed of DNA-laden waste into that very trashcan.

Moreover, it was reportedly Evans himself who fished the fake nail from the garbage, voluntarily handing it over to police and maybe, just maybe, shedding some skin cells in the process.

As for direct evidence of sex, there is none; none from any of the forty lacrosse players, that is.

While the second round of DNA testing proved that semen was found inside the accusers vaginal cavity, spokespersons close to the defense are confident the source of the semen is the accuser’s own boyfriend.
In sum, after cross-examination, there is little, if any, chance that a jury will give weight to this DNA evidence. It clashes with the accuser’s own story, and it’s as fully consistent with Evans’s innocence as it is with his guilt.
The D.A.’s Unusual Hostility to Even Viewing Defense Evidence
Defense lawyers have repeatedly implored District Attorney Nifong to meet with them and to examine the evidence that favors the defendants. But Nifong has said no - with an attitude that boils down to, “Talk to the hand.”
That’s unusual. More often than not, prosecutors are quite open to exchanging - or at least being entertained by - the defense’s evidence. After all, it provides them with a valuable preview of what the defense’s case may ultimately look like in court. Prosecutors are legally required to turn over certain evidence to the defense, but no obligation runs the other way. And since the defense goes second, prosecutors may not be able to effectively counter defense “surprises.”
For prosecutors, meeting with the defense is thus typically a win-win situation: If they are convinced to drop the case, then that’s embarrassing - but far less than as a loss at trial would have been. If they aren’t convinced to drop the case, they’ve gotten a precious new edge at trial. And either way, both the reality and appearance of fairness to the defendants are enhanced.
Giving a defendant a lie detector test, in contrast, isn’t a win-win situation: It may hurt prosecutors’ case if the results are released to the public. (Lie detector results are rarely - if ever - admissible in court.) But at the same time, a lie detector test - while risky, and far from perfect - is likely to get prosecutors closer to the truth, which is supposed to be what they are after.
As noted above, in this case, Evans claims Nifong refused to give Evans a lie detector test. (He ultimately took one himself, and passed.) In my professional experience, a prosecutor’s refusing to administer a lie detector test to a defendant is nearly unheard-of. The defendant’s answers - and the lie detector’s response to them - may provide the prosecutor with a road map to what his vulnerabilities on the stand may be.
Just as meeting with the defense previews the defense case for prosecutors, administering a lie detector can preview the defendant’s testimony, as well as his on-the-stand demeanor, showing prosecutors what kind of a witness he will be. (Confident? Nervous? Shifty? Solid?)
I can’t help but believe that, were any of these defendants to assert that they had proof that a crime was indeed committed, this district attorney would be all ears. Suppose, for instance, that Seligmann or Evans were to turn on Finnerty, to try to save themselves - surely Nifong would happily hear them out. So how can the prosecutor justify, then, turning a blind eye to evidence of any of the accused’s innocence?
If There’s A Card Up the D.A.’s Sleeve, the Law Requires Him to Play It Soon
Some pundits have suggested that the only explanation for the District Attorney’s pressing on in the light of strong evidence that the defendants are innocent, is that he has a card up his sleeve. If so, then he needs to show that card, pronto.
The discovery statutes in North Carolina - as in most states - do not allow prosecutors to play “hide the ball.” This is a judicial proceeding, not a magic show. So D.A. Nifong will have to reveal this evidence sometime before trial.
He ought to opt to reveal it right now - to give the defense a chance to counter it. When evidence suggesting innocence is as strong as it is in this case, it’s wrong to just let the case go to trial and “see what the jury says.” These three young men’s live will be forever affected, even if they are acquitted. Even an arrest leaves a scar; the scar of trial is far deeper.
D.A. Nifong should listen to the defense, and should drop the case unless he has strong evidence supporting the accuser. Moreover, if he does have such evidence, he should show it to us now. The defendants have been forthcoming - especially Evans, who volunteered to, and then did, take a lie detector test. The prosecution should follow their example.

June 1st, 2006

Keith the Director penned this

Banter or not I’m hugary for the facts as well. thanx for putting more up. I can still say my 2 cents worth. If I think she’s a hoe trying to get a payday I stand by my statement! >- I hope he is a memeber of the team that shows how deep camaraderie runs in sports!

June 2nd, 2006

Keith the Director thought this

I see your point Christine, I like to have faith in the system, but I’ve seen it fail innocents and let true criminals off scott free because of bullshit loop holes their attorneys found, and poor police work done onsite. I would like to have faith, but I don’t. I had forgotten about this altogether b/c it hasn’t been on ESPN in a while. I will wait to see the final verdict to make any further decisions on the matter. I have voiced MHO like it or not. We have no say in the outcome hopefully justice will be served…the correct way, BY THE FACTS!

June 2nd, 2006