Defense gets accuser's phone data

Herald Sun ^ | May 18th, 2006 | J. Stevenson

[marajade]

Seems to me the judge must've believe Nifong had an argument that the kids would flee or he wouldn't have set the bail so high. On the other hand, all three made bail so they can still skip.

[Jezebelle]

In mid-June.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" If you're a poor black stripper in a "frat" type house surrouned by much bigger and stronger white men ..

Bigger and stronger ??? Give me a break.
Have you seen the pictures of the alleged victim ?
She must have towered over the players-especially Finnerty aka " the little, skinny one."

[marajade]

Right? And who is your source?

[marajade]

I read a transcript on CNN including the judge and it wasn't exactly clear to me what exactly was happening on 6/19. A review of discovery, which the judge stated was to happen first and then possibly a hearing on the bond reduction.

[Jezebelle]

You just asked me when the judge is going to hear the motion. I answered "mid-June." Thus, it is clear I was speaking of "the judge" YOU asked about, who was obviously the judge who was sitting on the beach presiding over the case in court when all the defense motions before the court were being reviewed.....by "the judge" (Ronald Stephens).....who put the matter of bail reduction over to mid-June. Do you always think and speak in such a circular manner?

What you have done is essentially ask, "When did X say that Y will happen?" Answer: "Mid-June." Your response, "Who is your source?" Answer: "X, the person you asked about in the first place, who said a date in mid-June, for Pete's sake!"

(Jezebelle wanders off, shaking head in stunned amazement.....)

[marajade]

You missed my post 185.

[Jezebelle]

If you read a transcript of the hearing, it would, by necessity, have included the judge.

If you had watched the hearing, it would be clear to you that the judge will hear more about the bail reduction at the next hearing. He doesn't seem disposed to grant a bail reduction, but the matter is put over until the next hearing, where it won't be the priority or leading matter, but nevertheless will be heard.

Bail reduction hearings often get into the strength of the evidence against the accused, and the stronger the evidence is, usually the bail tips on the higher side because there is a working theory that a defendant facing powerful evidence is more likely to flee than a defendant with a solid defense. A righteous bail hearing would, in this case, get into the evidence of that defense. One might think from Judge Stephens' tepid response that he doesn't want that to happen, which makes me wonder why that might be.

And for those who are interested in the subject of bail as a serious matter and not just something to annoy other posters about, here's a little info on bail generally and in relation to this case. The amount of bail set is supposed to be the MINIMUM amount required to assure the appearance of the defendant at hearings, trial, or otherwise called to appear by the court, not the MAXIMUM. It is not supposed to be punitive. Letters and other expressions of confidence in the defendant's honest and willing ability to abide by the court's direction put forward by people in high-ranking positions of government authority usually carry considerable weight, especially in connection to defendants unsaddled with serious criminal histories. Some may be aware of cases where a young person was released into the supervision of a teacher, for instance, instead of forcing bail to be posted. I know of a case where the mayor of a city vouched for an adult defendant, which brought about a bail reduction that allowed some much needed money to immediately flow back to the man's family. In this case, we have very weak evidence, a solid alibi, a young man still under the tutelage of well-respected parents and family in their community, and apparently an abundance of favorable statements from senators, congressmen, and other well-known people in positions of respect, honor and responsibility vouching for Reade, yet Stephens didn't warm rapidly to the idea of bail reduction discussions. Thinking not so much about the bail amount and its reduction itself, but rather the judge's reluctance to want to address the elements that go into the bail reduction presentation by the defense, I really have to wonder whassup with that. It has rather a bad odor to it, but we will see next month whether or not Judge Stephens gives the defense a full hearing on the subject; specifically if he tries to cut the defense off again when they talk about the (poor) evidence against Reade, Reade's solid alibi, and the statements of support from well-placed people they have to offer. Conversely, in fairness to the judge, it is also true that the fact that Reade is out on bail and there were other more pressing matters to address Thursday, such as the control of evidence, could have made the judge less enthused about addressing bail *at that moment* and actually will give the subject a fair hearing next month. It may be that he simply confirmed from Nifong that the bail was within schedule or guideline with the idea that as long as it wasn't totally out of line, the matter could wait another month. Judge Stephens may also have suspected, cynically in my opinion, the defense of using the whole bail reduction issue as a ploy to get their alibi formally out to the public as well as the statements of trust or praise from the highly-placed authorities vouching for Reade to improve Reade's image and denigrate Nifong's (not a difficult task, imo).

[Jezebelle]

No, I didn't. I answered it. If you're suggesting I should have somehow read it before the one before it rather than reading them sequentially the way that most normal people do, means that it's somehow my fault for not reading it first just to make sure that you'd hadn't yet figured things out a little better, it explains a lot about the way you reason. Perhaps instead of stating that I missed something, maybe you could have said that YOU missed something, such as the hearing, and further stated that now that you've taken the time to read a transcript of the hearing, you have a better understanding of what was said.

What a novel idea.

[old and cranky]

I never dreamed that Hugh Grant would be held up as the example of how men act. If Hugh Grant was caught with a "ugly black hooker", than of course these boys would rape the stripper...man, why didn't I see this before? Silly me, I was looking at timelines, lack of evidence etc and the answer was right there....Hugh Grant!

[old and cranky]

seems I remember hearing the judge say that he was not ready to hear the bond reduction "at this time", don't remember him ever saying he never would. Of course I have not read the transcripts, just going by what I actually heard. I would have to agree that you didn't miss anything.

[ltc8k6]

So Hugh's fiance wouldn't give him a BJ. He goes out and buys one from a pro. No big mystery. No secret liking of dirty black women. He just wanted a nice BJ and couldn't get one at home.

Things aren't necessarily that deep you know.

[TruthHurts001]

-----I haven't prejudged the case one way or the other. We haven't a single witness give testimony under oath and subject to cross-examination. Seems a little premature to have a view, don't you think?-----

ConsLib, up to this point, although you seem to be playing Devil's Advocate, your arguments have been sound and without prejudice.

However, this comment is a Cop-Out.

Certainly based on the information that has been disseminated, you have a gut feeling as to what really happened.

It may well be too early to make any legally binding verdict, but it is NOT premature to have a view.

[Jezebelle]

And isn't it enlightening to finally understand that if there ever was, anywhere, anytime, a white man who had paid-for sex with a black hooker in a car, it will forever serve as incontrovertible proof that a large group of young white men have and will rape a black woman, in a group, in a residence, with another one near by, anytime there is a scenario of such in the mind of a desperate politican, and brilliantly leave no trace of it.

My, those are some cunning, tidy boys. Hugh Grant, eat your heart out.

[Jezebelle]

That wasn't the point.

The point was that there is no indication of such a fantasy as you suggest of raping black hookers, evidenced by the fact that they asked for white girls, not black girls.

You're trying to weasel out of your original thesis, but I don't blame you for abandoning it.

[ladyjane]

Sure. Whatever you say.

Eight guys in five days. Are you a believer now?