Comments | dukeobsrvr: Reasonable Doubt?

dukeobsrvr

Reasonable Doubt?

Mar 30, 2006 02:42

At this point it is far too early to make any judgment as to what went down the evening on march 13. The media (some more than others), the community, and the district attorney have given us a juiced up sensationalist account of what went down that evening based on the testimony of one escort, but have done little to substantiate their claims. ( Read more... )

Comments 90

anonymous March 30 2006, 09:17:45 UTC

Dukeobsrvr, you da man ( ... )

anonymous March 30 2006, 14:39:00 UTC

Thanks for being thorough and accurate. This is the best thing written on the matter yet. DukeObsrvr has done more for the community than a bunch of professional activists with their pots and pans could have ever done.

chronicle article anonymous March 30 2006, 15:27:57 UTC

the chronicle today states the second stripper never re-entered the house, which is contrary to what the accuser stated. she obviously didn't know what was going on if she didn't realize that she was walking back into the house alone. drugs? alcohol? blurred memory?

also, this quote from Nifong is interesting: "Basically it would just be one more thing to prove, and it would not help me in any fashion."
Note that he didn't say, "it would not help the case in any fashion" or the "state's case"...he said "me". this guy has definitely seems to have alterior motives.

devilwtchr March 30 2006, 17:04:52 UTC

I suggest editing this and submitting it to the Chronicle...

devilwtchr March 30 2006, 17:23:02 UTC

i agree.
also, even if DNA comes up as a match, this does not prove rape. Rape has several elements, all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

DNA would be damning evidence devilwtchr March 30 2006, 18:02:35 UTC

If these kid said that consensual sex occurred, the DNA evidence wouldn't make it a slam dunk case.

Because they said they didn't have any type of sexual relations with her, consensual or forced, then the DNA evidence would be huge for the prosecution because it would completely discredit them.

Re: DNA would be damning evidence devilwtchr March 30 2006, 20:21:49 UTC

Exactly, which raises the question, why would they say such a thing? It seems to me that there probably were no sexual relations, consensual or forced- at least, they know that they didn't ejaculate in her. Otherwise, it would be very stupid to say that there was no sex, and I'm sure their attorneys advised them as to the statement they would make.

DA= Douchebag Attorney anonymous March 30 2006, 18:00:40 UTC

Latest ridiculous quote from NiFong: "They don't want to admit the enormity of what they've done."

This guy is completely out of control. There is NO PROOF yet.

He is a fucking disgrace.

Re: DA= Douchebag Attorney anonymous March 30 2006, 18:20:37 UTC

if the case goes to trial its gonna be tough to find an acceptible jury pool nifong hasn't tainted. it already would have been tough seeing as how every black woman (25% of durham) and most black men are ready to crucify anyone white, duke, or lax, much less someone who is all three. now even the people who aren't banging the tools of women (aka pots and pans) will be convinced that these guys did it.

but its actually kinda funny because nifong is playing good cop on camera to increase his profile, as he is going into what will be a close election. but because of what i mentioned above, if this case goes to trial, the defense will move for a change of venue and have a VERY good case for that. then nifong will have to turn the case over to the chatham or wake or orange county da and then won't even be able to brag to durhamites about how he locked up the unholy yankees.