Posted on 05/17/2006 10:06:43 PM PDT by freespirited
Defense lawyers suggested Wednesday that the District Attorney's Office may have shown favoritism as early as 2002 to an exotic dancer who claimed she was gang raped during a Duke University lacrosse party in March.
In a written motion filed in Durham County Superior Court, attorneys for indicted rape suspect Reade Seligmann asked why the dancer received "such a favorable plea bargain" for criminal charges arising out of a drunken, stolen-car, high-speed police chase in June 2002.
Court records show that even though the woman was charged with four felonies and numerous other traffic violations, the offenses were plea-bargained down to misdemeanors and she received only probation.
But District Attorney Mike Nifong, who is handling the rape case, and who was an assistant prosecutor in 2002, said Wednesday he had nothing to do with the plea deal four years ago. He said he didn't know which local prosecutor negotiated it.
Wednesday's motion was submitted by lawyers Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner.
"I think this is just Kirk's way of suggesting something untoward happened," said Nifong. "He can argue it in court and a judge can rule on it."
Seligmann is scheduled for a preliminary appearance in Durham County Superior Court today. His lawyers have asked that various motions be heard, including a request to reduce Seligmann's bond from $400,000 to $40,000.
Although Seligmann posted the bond by certified check and was released from jail last month, the money was supplied by a family friend who would like to have much of it back, a defense motion says.
But even though Seligmann's lawyers have asked to argue certain motions this afternoon, there is no guarantee they will get their way.
Nifong said it might be too early to deal with such business at today's so-called "first setting" of the case.
"I'm not sure exactly what's going to happen," he said. "The purpose of a first setting is not to hear motions. Generally, they are heard at the second setting. It will be up to the judge."
The other indicted rape suspects, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, also are free under $400,000 bonds. They are due for preliminary court appearances next month.
The alleged mid-March sexual attack supposedly occurred during a lacrosse party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., where one of the exotic dancers claimed she was raped, sodomized and beaten for some 30 minutes in a bathroom by three Duke students.
In addition to seeking information about the 2002 incident, Seligmann's attorneys filed papers Wednesday asking for numerous details about the ongoing rape investigation. Among other things, they asked Nifong to give them recordings of 911 calls made the night of the alleged rape, along with notes and memoranda pertaining to communications between Nifong and Duke University on the subject.
Details about the exotic dancer's complete criminal history, as well as that of the second dancer at the party, also are sought in the newly filed motion.
Finally, defense attorneys said they want investigative files pertaining to various employers of the two dancers, including Allure Escort Services and Bunny Hole Entertainment.
If Nifong doesn't voluntarily surrender the requested information within seven days, a judge should order him to do so, lawyers Osborn and Conner wrote.
Meanwhile, a Durham County Sheriff's Office report -- reviewed four years ago by Sgt. T.H. McCrae and recently obtained by The Herald-Sun -- provides details of the 2002 car chase involving the alleged rape victim.
The incident began at a topless dance club while the woman was performing for a taxi driver, McCrae wrote.
"As she was feeling him up and putting her hands in his pockets she removed the keys to his taxi cab, without him knowing," the officer said. "He [the cabbie] told her he would drive her home but needed to go to the restroom first. While in the restroom he was advised that she was driving off in his taxi cab."
McCrae said he chased the woman at speeds up to 70 mph in a 55-mph zone until she finally stopped.
"As I began to approach the vehicle she put it in drive and drove towards me," McCrae added. "I jumped out of the way to the right and she missed me. The suspect then struck the right rear quarter of my patrol vehicle."
Another chase ensued, but the woman finally was apprehended after having a flat tire, according to McCrae.
The officer said she registered a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.19 on a portable sensing device -- more than double North Carolina's 0.08 legal threshold for impairment.
And while being questioned, the dancer "passed out and was unresponsive," McCrae said.
She was taken to the emergency room at Duke University Hospital, McCrae's report indicated.
On the night of the alleged rape, the woman was also described by an officer as being "passed out drunk" before being taken to the emergency room and saying she had been assaulted.
In connection with the 2002 incident, the woman was charged with felonious assault with a deadly weapon [the stolen taxi] on a government officer, felonious larceny and felonious possession of a stolen vehicle, felonious speeding to elude arrest, driving while impaired, driving with a revoked license, driving while left of center, ignoring an officer's blue lights and siren, reckless driving, driving the wrong way on a dual-lane highway, having an open alcoholic beverage container in the car, two counts of damaging personal property and resisting a public officer.
I am not sure that is true.
It was the only source that matched what they found.
They tested three men. Could that mean they found three or more different types of DNA in her?
three? They tested the entire lacrosse team, more than 40 young men. This seemed extreme to me unless there really was no sex in that house that night and they thought they were proving their innocence.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
I should have said they tested three men not on the lacrosse team. The testing was done after the team members submitted their samples.
And in fact they didn't test the entire lacrosse team, only the members who were white.
Given that we don't have all the facts, no one in their right mind should be convinced one way or the other.
I don't see how. Just because she's a stupid drunken tramp doesn't mean she's a liar.
of her accusation when there is no physical evidence of a rape,
That we know of. We don't have all the facts, though.
and one of the defendants whom she positively identified has a time-stamped security photo substantiated alibi.
According to the defense's timeline. We don't know what the prosecution's rebuttal to that is. Maybe it holds watter, maybe it doesn't, but there's no way anyone can know that at this point.
It's not rational to judge a case before you've heard both sides and before you've seen all the evidence.
All that proves is that she had sex with her boyfriend at some point before she danced in front to the lacross team. It doesn't rule out the possibility that the lacross boys wore condoms when they raped her. This would not be the first time such a thing happened, you know. These are smart kids; it's very plausible that they took steps to cover their tracks.
Also as evidence for rape, there's that SANE nurse's report -- the one that's been brayed about incessantly by Wendy Murphy and the other talking-head feminazis. It's been quoted as stating findings "consistent with rape..."
I agree, it doesn't prove rape, but it gives reason to suspect it.
The evidnece available to the public now is clearly not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was raped. However, you don't have access to all the evidence. Rational people, unlike you, wait until they see all the evidence before forming an opinion when the evidence they have in front of them is not conclusive either way.
Did you, O Rational One, "wait to see all the evidence" before even forming an opinion in the OJ case?
And btw, even superior people like you occasionally jump to unfounded conclusions. For example, you conclude that I was "conclusive" about this case. Read the post again.
That statement truly stretches credulity.
The accuser claims anal, oral, and vaginal rape. Even with condoms --and I must say the notion of oral "rape" with a condom borders on the laughable-- all the forensic experts I've heard agree that some genetic evidence would have been left behind in at least one of those orifices.
If there had been oral, anal, and vaginal rape, there should've been plentiful material left behind; if not semen, then other cells or fluids or hairs. Condoms definitely do not prevent such transference.
The fact that ZERO DNA evidence from the lacrosse team players was found in or on the accuser is pretty darned exculpatory for them. No, not 100% "conclusive." But exculpatory (look it up if you mistakenly think exculpatory = conclusive).
I didn't make up my mind until the DNA evidence came out. That was conclusive.
For example, you conclude that I was "conclusive" about this case.
No I didn't. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Why? It's happened before.
all the forensic experts I've heard agree that some genetic evidence would have been left behind in at least one of those orifices.
And other experts say not necessarily.
If there had been oral, anal, and vaginal rape, there should've been plentiful material left behind; if not semen, then other cells or fluids or hairs. Condoms definitely do not prevent such transference.
Other cells or fluids might have been left behind (in fact they were), but it's perfectly plausible that there wouldn't be sufficient quantities to get a conclusive DNA match. And in fact, that's exactly what happened.
The fact that ZERO DNA evidence from the lacrosse team players was found in or on the accuser is pretty darned exculpatory for them.
In the absence of other evidence, yes. However, we do not know what other evidence the prosecution has. All I am saying is that we wait and see. If nothing new comes out, then I agree, these guys should be acquitted. If the DA takes this case to trial without more evidence, he should be impeached. But I'm withholding judgement until I see what he has. I suggest you do the same.
No, not 100% "conclusive." But exculpatory (look it up if you mistakenly think exculpatory = conclusive).
I know the difference between the two words, thank you very much.
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.