A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

What Does Nifong Have?

--Special Libertarian Librarian Correspondent John Heeder

Video of the indicted lacrosse athletes and their names were released today. Reade Seligmann, a sophomore from Essex Fells, N.J., and Collin Finnerty, a sophomore from Garden City, N.Y. are now at the mercy of the North Carolina justice system. Both athletes made $400,000 bail.

NBC’s Today Show showed three of the time-stamped photos that defense attorneys claim clear their clients of any wrongdoing in this rape case. The one photo of the stripper was pixilated so that her face was not discernable. Presumably this is to protect her identity. The NBC reporter claimed the stripper in the picture is smiling as she left the ‘scene of the crime’. He also claimed she had left once that night, and then returned to the house to retrieve a shoe she dropped.

What does Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong have? The stripper claims that she left the house after exchanging harsh words with some of the athletes, she was then lured back into the house, then taken to a bathroom and subjected to a brutal thirty minute rape by three of the athletes.

Which brings up the question: what physical evidence would such a thirty-minute ordeal leave on the woman’s body? Semen, obviously, but what about scratches, bruises, vaginal bruising and/or contusions?

No information of the stripper’s physical condition has been released. Could the young woman’s condition back up her claims? Is Nifong proceeding on physical evidence in his vigorous prosecution of this case?

And really, what sort of woman would suffer a rape attack, and then return later to retrieve a lost shoe?


The above makes it sound like the woman in question, the stripper, paid two visits to the scene of the alleged rape, a second visit to retrieve a show. Reports say that she crossed the lawn, then turned around and returned to the house to retrieve the shoe she dropped.

Stay tuned.

Labels: , ,

John, you're wrong.

You are making the same rush to judgement, for whatever reasons, that you claim others are making; you have presumed the woman is guilty of fraud and the DA is guilty of political opportunism.

Both of your posts list item after item showing why you believe that no crime occurred. Is it really not possible to your mind that a serious crime actually happened and that the DA is treating it as such?

The reality is that neither you nor I will be party to the entire range of information in this case. Right now, the DA is, as is the judge who issued the indictments. Both felt there was cause to believe a crime had occurred.

Beyond that will be for a jury to decide, and I am 100% positive that they will be instructed that the suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and that a guilty verdict must be supported beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have much more of a discussion of both your posts at my blog here.

If you feel like trying to burn me down, stop by. So we can keep Nick's joint all nice and blood-free
All right, I left a lengthy response.

John isn't wrong..he is just posting the information available...to my knowledge there is no real public evidence of any kind against these kids..but there is substantial public evidence indicating they were not involved or that there was no crime committed... he then speculates based on what there is to speculate on... when he starts ignoring counter evidence then you can say he is wrong about this column..as of now he is DOBA
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?