Posted on 05/18/2006 10:53:18 PM PDT by Dr. Richard Kimble
May 18, 2006 : 9:32 pm ET
DURHAM -- A judge agreed Thursday to let the defense try to find out what information is on the cell phone of the exotic dancer who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape, and also ordered police to preserve their notes in the case.
The decisions came as the case of State v. Reade Seligmann saw its first day in court after weeks of sometimes stunning developments, press conferences, leaked documents and almost nonstop chatter.
With a trial likely still months away, the brief hearing was supposed to be nothing more than a chance for District Attorney Mike Nifong and defense attorney Kirk Osborn, representing one of the three Duke lacrosse players charged with first-degree rape, sexual offense and kidnapping, to settle some administrative issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldsun.com ...
Difong needs to be recalled and the stripper needs to go to jail
Does her boyfriend own a broomstick? If so, was it tested?
I am furious and I cannot begin to imagine my fury were I the mom of one of the young men.
that's where I'm coming from. The parents in this case have their families at the mercy of Durhams screwed up system.
The refusal to entertain a bond reduction made my head explode!
$400K and the his family had to borrow the money!
They're paying untold interest.
I am beyond FURIOUS.
the Durham Power structure wants to reward City Manager Baker for getting all the Police on the same page (one interpretation anyway):
"I think it's time express our support for the manager that we have full confidence in what he's doing," Clement said during Thursday's council work session. "I think it's important to let Patrick know he's not out there by himself."
Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun
gronberg@heraldsun.com
May 18, 2006 : 9:26 pm ET
DURHAM -- With all that's been happening lately with the Duke lacrosse case and other events in Durham, elected officials need to give City Manager Patrick Baker a vote of confidence, Councilman Howard Clement said Thursday.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-736309.html
This is what happens when your CITY manager is spending all his time getting Cops to tow the City line on a fraud (rape) case:
CHILD POISONED IN DURHAM by DRINKING WATER (City water):
http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-736363.html
That was very telling to me about the judge. He said he would hear argument on it later, but he ruled a resounding no for the moment. The bail is an atrocious amount and is more in line with what would be set for some NY rock star or Hollyweird type. It isn't appropriate for Durham or the pocketbooks of these parents. Yes, they're well off or at least very comfortable, but $400k is a huge chunk, and totally out of line for this case, especially in view of the amount of bail a murderer recently posted, $50,000. I have a hunch the judge may lower the bail in the future, but not by a whole lot - maybe half at the most.
You're furious because a defendent's family had to borrow the bond money?
Wow. You must be furious with pretty much all criminal cases.
"The bail is an atrocious amount [...] It isn't appropriate for Durham"
Are the defendent's families from Durham?
You do know that the seriousness of the charge is only one consideration in determining bail, right? In some murder cases it could be $5000 and the defendent wouldn't have any way of paying it except by borrowing the money from someone who breaks legs if people default, and who charges %20 interest a week.
I'm well aware of the considerations in determining bail.
Since the bail money was borrowed at least in Reade's case, clearly there was a miscalculation when considering the defendants' financial abilities. Dave's family is considerably more well-heeled than Reade's or Collin's, yet the bail was the same for all players.
$400k bail for a case with weak evidence and no serious injuries to the alleged victim and no flight risk is pretty damn stiff.
Do you think Nifong ran all the boys' parents' credit files before determining his bail request?
I think Nifong asked for the extremely high bail to prove to the community that these white boys he's hassling really are rich and "privileged" as a play to his hate-filled constituents and probably because he couldn't get into Duke even though both his parents were alums. He probably thinks like his bussies over at NCCU, "Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make it even."
I think Nifong is a vengeful little prick, very unprofessional and highly unethical.
"I'm well aware of the considerations in determining bail."
So you're no longer claiming that the bail "isn't appropriate for Durham", right?
"Since the bail money was borrowed at least in Reade's case, clearly there was a miscalculation when considering the defendants' financial abilities."
That's a howler. Lots of defendents have to borrow money for bail. And "financial ability" includes the ability to find someone wiling to make the loan.
"Dave's family is considerably more well-heeled than Reade's or Collin's, yet the bail was the same for all players."
Why isn't that a reason to think Dave's was set too low as opposed to thinking Reade's and Collin's was set too high?
"$400k bail for a case with weak evidence and no serious injuries to the alleged victim and no flight risk is pretty damn stiff."
When you say "no serious injuries" you mean "apart from having being held down and raped by three guys", right? I mean, you wouldn't a general rule that rape isn't "all that serious" unless there are other injuries, would you?
And I'm not sure why you say there's no risk of flight. The defendents aren't residents of Durham, right? They have no community ties but for attending Duke, right?
buddies, not "bussies"
"I think Nifong is a vengeful little prick, very unprofessional and highly unethical."
You're welcome to that opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't all that impressed with you.
What's your point?
1). Wrong. I'm claiming that's extremely high bail for Durham, which is not a particularly wealthy county.
2). Howl all you like. Civilized jurisdictions use bail schedules established for that jurisdiction, which takes mean income and other economic factors into account, along with the prima facie facts in the case, the defendant's record, and other factors. If a defendant can demonstrate inability to meet the standards under which the bail schedule was established, a reduction is usaully granted, as long as the defendant isn't a flight risk. But Durham seems to make it up out of thin air.
3). Because Reade's and Collin's was set way too high.
4). She didn't require hospitalization for her alleged injuries. That's the point. Many rape victims are beaten, cut, bones broken, left unconscious, etc., and require hospitalization. Injuries to an alleged victim are always a consideration in setting bail. As for the substance and tone of your statement, GMAFB. There is no evidence to sustain these charges if they were reviewed by an unbiased judge in a probable cause hearing. Too bad NC has no such thing. Perhaps when they figure out we're beyond feudal law in this country, they'll establish such a procedure.
5). Those ties to Duke may be more solid than some lowlife who happened to have dumped his kit in Durham for a few years because the stepmother he's sucking off of lives there. A defendant's past record and standing within his own community is more indicative of whether or not he is a flight risk no matter what jurisdiction the matter is charged in. You have heard of extradition, haven't you? It's safe to say that, either through common knowledge or through counsel, these boys know they would be picked up and extradited if they failed to show up for court, bail would be revoked and they would be held without bail.
My point is that Nifong is a vengeful little prick.
What's your point?
A bail schedule that's set up to take mean income in Durham into account isn't appropriate when setting bail for someone who's from a community with a significantly higher mean income. Suppose Bill Gates is accused of raping a girl in Durham? You think a judge is going to feel bound by the bail schedule?
And look at you. I'm asking you to give a decent _reason_ for thinking bail was set too high, and you say Dave's richer than the other two. I ask you why that counts as a reason for thinking bail for the other two was set too high and you repeat your conclusion. Hey, it's always easier when you use your conclusion as a premise. Makes your argument's real compact ;-)
"A defendant's past record and standing within his own community is more indicative of whether or not he is a flight risk no matter what jurisdiction the matter is charged in"
Good luck with that one ;-) If you're ever, God forbid, the subject of a bond hearing while on vacation a thousand or two miles from home, you can try it out and see how it goes ... ROFLMAO
"My point is that Nifong is a vengeful little prick."
Because he asked the judge to set an unreasonably hight amount for bail?
Back to square 1 ...
Look, if you just want to say "I don't have any non-question begging reasons for thinking bail is too high" then you don't have to give a decent answer if someone asks you "Why?" If it's just something you believe for no independently good reason, just say so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.