Entire Duke Lacrosse Team Suspended from Play - Page 11

macallan25 · #**151** 04-21-2006, 07:59 PM

So why do they keep saying its a re election campaign on TV.

Quote:

Originally posted by MysticCat81
FWIW, it's not a re-election campaign, it's his first campaign. The elected DA was appointed a judge and the current DA, a career ADA, was appointed to finish out his term. This is his first election.

MysticCat · #**152** 04-24-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by macallan25
So why do they keep saying its a re election campaign on TV.

Ignorance? Assuming that because he's in office now it must be a re-election campaign? Not paying attention or doing the research? Not caring enough to get it right? Not letting facts get in the way of opinion? Repeating a mistake they heard from someone else?

Take your pick. And take it into consideration in giving credence to anything else the talking heads are saying.

Angels&Arrows · #**153** 04-24-2006, 02:19 PM

Probably because he is!!!!!!!

www.mikenifong.com

Mike Nifong was appointed to District Attorney for Durham by Governor Mike Easley a year ago. It is traditionaly an elected position, the Democratic Primary is May 2, 2006 (less than a month away).

MysticCat · #**154** 04-24-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Angels&Arrows
Probably because he is!!!!!!!

Mike Nifong was appointed to District Attorney for Durham by Governor Mike Easley a year ago. It is traditionaly an elected position, the Democratic Primary is May 2, 2006 (less than a month away).

Yes, which means he is running for election (as it says on the website), not re-election.

It is an elected position, but Nifong was appointed to fill the unexpired term of the former (elected) DA, who was appointed to the Superior Court bench.

macallan25 · #**155** 04-24-2006, 05:21 PM

Chill out...holy shit. I just didn't expect MSNBC, Fox News, etc. etc. to get that wrong.

Furthermore, he was appointed, yes...which means he holds the position. He is running for the position again...so there really is nothing wrong with calling it a re-election. I really don't know why you insist on arguing the topic.

Quote:

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Ignorance? Assuming that because he's in office now it must be a re-election campaign? Not paying attention or doing the research? Not caring enough to get it right? Not letting facts get in the way of opinion? Repeating a mistake they heard from someone else?

Take your pick. And take it into consideration in giving credence to anything else the talking heads are saying.

macallan25 · #**156** 04-24-2006, 10:30 PM

Just saw on msnbc that one of the guys the stripper identified as a rapist (Seligmann I think was his name) allready has ATM records, cab records, cell phone calls, and dorm card swipe records that pretty much completely clear him of any wrongdoing because he was nowhere near the house at the time of the "rape".

Wasn't the stripper absolutely positive these two guys were the rapists?

MysticCat · #**157** 04-25-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by macallan25
Chill out...holy shit. I just didn't expect MSNBC, Fox News, etc. etc. to get that wrong.

Furthermore, he was appointed, yes...which means he holds the position. He is running for the position again...so there really is nothing wrong with calling it a re-election. I really don't know why you insist on arguing the topic.

Don't worry, I'm chill. It's not so much that I insist on arguing, but like you I would like to think that national (and local) news organizations would get it right, although experience consistently seems to be teaching me otherwise. He is running for the position for the first time. You can't be re-elected unless you have already been elected once, which he hasn't.

I think the fact that he hasn't previously been elected is relevant in this case. He has a career DA background, but not a political background. I suspect that had he run for election before, and had he had a better firsthand understanding of not only the legal side but the political side of being the DA, he might have been more circumspect in how he handled the case from the beginning. I doubt we would have seen all of the interviews early on. There would have been a lot of "no comments on a pending investigation."

Speculation on my part, of course, but's it's why I (and many of my collegues at the bar) think that fact that he has never been elected before has some bearing on the way this case has unfolded.

Quote:

Just saw on msnbc that one of the guys the stripper identified as a rapist (Seligmann I think was his name) allready has ATM records, cab records, cell phone calls, and dorm card swipe records that pretty much completely clear him of any wrongdoing because he was nowhere near the house at the time of the "rape".

Wasn't the stripper absolutely positive these two guys were the rapists?

A lot depends on exactly how the timeline can be established, but he does seem to have a very good alibi. The cab driver has accurate records of pick-up, drop-off etc., and can positively identify Seligmann as one of the guys he picked up.

The accuser didn't make the identifications until a few weeks ago -- 3 or 4 weeks after the alleged incident. Many questions are also being raised about how the photo identification was conducted, and whether it was conducted in a prejudicial way.

macallan25 · #**158** 04-25-2006, 11:47 AM

Yeah, the timeline they had on TV seemed pretty conclusive. All the phone calls and transactions were in order and the cab driver was able to identify.

I remember hearing a little bit about the photo ID and how it may have been conducted wrong. If I remember right, I think they said that there were no added photos of people not at the party or something like that.....so she could have easily just picked two random guys. I may be wrong, it was a week or two ago.

MysticCat · #**159** 04-25-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by macallan25
I remember hearing a little bit about the photo ID and how it may have been conducted wrong. If I remember right, I think they said that there were no added photos of people not at the party or something like that.....so she could have easily just picked two random guys. I may be wrong, it was a week or two ago.

From what I have heard, she was just shown pictures of the LAX team.

The proper procedure, as I understand it, is that she should have been shown a picture of a suspect, mixed in with the pictures of 7 or so other people who resemble the suspect. And she should have beens shown these pictures one at a time.

DSTCHAOS · #**160** 04-25-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MysticCat81
From what I have heard, she was just shown pictures of the LAX team.

The proper procedure, as I understand it, is that she should have been shown a picture of a suspect, mixed in with the pictures of 7 or so other people who resemble the suspect. And she should have beens shown these pictures one at a time.

You are correct.

The way they handled this was extremely prejudicial.

Kevin · #**161** 04-25-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DSTCHAOS
You are correct.

The way they handled this was extremely prejudicial.

So either the police were incompetant, or they had instructions to get a positive I.D. no matter what...

That's what I gather from this.

Optimist Prime · #**162** 04-25-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DSTCHAOS
You are correct.

The way they handled this was extremely prejudicial.

pre-judical...i just looked at that word. They tried to beat the judge to his job, it seems.

I would have just called them "weak minded"

Man, they screwed this one up.

DSTCHAOS · #**163** 04-25-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
So either the police were incompetant, or they had instructions to get a positive I.D. no matter what...

That's what I gather from this.

Or the positive I.D. was being set-up so it would be invalidated and later thrown out of consideration. Wish we could've had a candid camera behind the scenes to know the truth.

I hope and pray that these young men will be given fair consideration and their innocence or guilt will be proven.

Tom Earp · #**164** 04-25-2006, 04:10 PM

Proof and fair consideration are the key elements here!

It really sounds like incompitence on many facets here.

Set a line up, show similar persons or use pictures the same way.

If there are recorded information with time lines then there is a paper trail. If there is a paper trail, then there is no proof of said crime.

This DA is nothing but a Wanna Be and is doing a horrendous job pf Investigation!

He is making these Young man look bad in the Press and All Media with out proof. He is having this case so judged there. If they did it, then prosecute it where it belongs!

Coramoor · #**165** 04-25-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by macallan25
Yeah, the timeline they had on TV seemed pretty conclusive. All the phone calls and transactions were in order and the cab driver was able to identify.

I remember hearing a little bit about the photo ID and how it may have been conducted wrong. If I remember right, I think they said that there were no added photos of people not at the party or something like that.....so she could have easily just picked two random guys. I may be wrong, it was a week or two ago.

On top of that I think its kind of ironic that while the stripper hasn't been touched by the media, these kids have been drawn, quartered, hanged by the media, Duke, and NAACP.

On top of that the kid is accused of breaking a previous probation and is facing trial for that.

I really hope that if the stripper is found to be lying she goes to jail for the rest of her natural life.