| Why they couldn't have a Bill of Particulars | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2010, 10:36 PM (300 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Mar 3 2010, 10:36 PM Post #1 |
|
Motion for Bill of Particulars September 18, 2006 "Defendants respectfully pray the Court to require the State to serve a bill of particulars in these cases specifically identifying 1. the date and time that the offenses allegedly took place; (Especially since it was already public knowledge by this point that Seligmann COULD NOT HAVE been present during any time when a rape was alleged to have occurred.) (Even though it was impossible, above the pay grade, and beyond the capabilities, of anyone in the press--especially NEWSWEEK--to be able to figure this out...) 2. which of the bathrooms in 610 N. Buchanan Street, Durham, North Carolina, the offenses allegedly tok place; and I'd also like to know if the dance took place in the LIVING ROOM or in the MASTER BEDROOM, as Crystal asserted. 3. the specific "sexual act" each defendant is alleged to have committed therein." Since we all know that Crystal was being hoisted in the air, I'd like to know exactly who was supposed to have been doing what, when. And we also know that Crystal was not penetrated, and that condoms were not used, but no DNA was left. Explanations from the state, please? But that would have ended the case. Hence, no Bill of Particulars could be allowed. And how many attackers were involved? Did the second dancer help in the assault? And what about the fourth player identified by Crystal on April 4th? And how about Brad Ross--he wasn't there (neither was Seligmann, at the relevant times), but since we already know that not being there was not enough to prevent being charged and prosecuted, why wasn't he prosecuted also? Just a few particulars. . . |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 3 2010, 10:43 PM Post #2 |
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/national/main2035702.shtml DA: Duke Lacrosse Attack Was Brief Says Alleged Rape In Duke Case Took 5-10 Minutes, Not 30 As Stripper First Claimed DURHAM, N.C., Sept. 22, 2006 (snip) Nifong's comments came as Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III denied a defense request that prosecutors provide a detailed accounting of the alleged assault, including the exact time, place and type of sexual act the accuser said each defendant committed. (snip) Kirk Osborn, who represents Seligmann, said the defense needed the "bill of particulars" because the accuser has told several different versions of the alleged assault, and his client has a right to know which version prosecutors will present at trial. In search and arrest warrants issued early in the investigation, police stated the accuser told investigators she was assaulted for 30 minutes. Nifong said he is not required to state the exact time of the alleged attack, but offered that authorities believe it took place between 11:30 p.m. on March 13, when the accuser arrived at the party, and 12:55 a.m. on March 14, when police arrived and found no one at the house. Friday's hearing was the first since Smith was appointed to take over the case. (snip) ( Nifong could not have been in any doubt as to when the 'rape' had to have taken place; nor could he have doubted that Seligmann could NOT have taken part in any such event. Smith may have been technically correct in denying a request for a BOP at that moment in the proceedings; but his doing so only permitted Nifong to continue his phony prosecution, instead of forcing him to admit that the rape couldn't have taken place. Irksome, though, that had ANY of the judges involved in this, ruled on ANY of the motions (motion to suppress ID, motion for Bill of Particulars, or forcing Nifong to meet the deadlines for turning over discovery), this case might have been stopped in the summer of 2006. And if the press had done a job of reporting the facts, instead of serving as Nifong's stenographers, this case also might have been stopped almsot at the outset.) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 3 2010, 10:45 PM Post #3 |
|
There's a reason for inserting that clause--and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation--and it's to avoid permitting a prosecutor for the State from bringing non-specific, vague charges, against which it is impossible to defend. Nifong never provided specific charges against each specific defendant--because he couldn't, without having to reveal that the charges were hollow. He had to avoid that for the same reason he had to avoid a Probable Cause hearing. Both these measures were made possible by the NC judicial system CRR escaped; but the system remains intact. Who's next? And why aren't the ACLU, the NAACP, and other organizations backing the suits to help expose this system and bring about needed reforms? And why isn't the media focusing on these aspects instead of just repeating the mantra, "greedy players"? Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 3 2010, 10:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 3 2010, 11:07 PM Post #4 |
|
IE, if the defendants were not guilty of rape, could they be tried again for sexual assault? If the defendants were not guilty of rape because no DNA was found, could they be tried again for using a broomstick? If they were not guilty of rape, could they be tried for kidnapping? If they were not guilty of rape, could they be tried again for petty theft, or a hate crime (against women), or...? Just exactly WHAT was it they were alleged to have done--and precisely, WHAT was alleged to have been done by WHOM? And WHEN? Nifong could keep changing the time (before or after midnight), the place (which bathroom), and even which player was involved-- as more alibi information became known. And that kind of "change" by a prosecutor--tailoring his charges to fit the defendants' alibis--is prevented by a Bill of Particulars and why such a Bill should be available at the time of indictment (But who said the Constitution applies in NC?) |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:14 PM Jul 10