Coffeehouse Thread

28 posts

What is going on with the Justice Sytem in NC?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    phreaks

    First it was the "Little Rascals" fiasco in the 90's, now we have the Duke 3.

    What the hell is wrong with the justice system in NC and why isn't it being addressed?

    Nice in-depth essay: here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson130.html

  • User profile image
    Jason Cox

    For the sake of 'if you cant say something nice', I'm just not gonna say anything regarding NC. Lets just say 40% of my last job was dealing with NC and it didnt leave a good impression on me.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    I personally dont know any of the suspects in the case, personally Im not going to say she wasnt raped because what constitutes rape?  She could have agreed to have sex with 1 of the players, not uncommon but if he invited his friends to join in without her consent, thats rape.  But thats what happens when you have spoiled little rich kids.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    rjdohnert wrote:
    I personally dont know any of the suspects in the case, personally Im not going to say she wasnt raped because what constitutes rape?  She could have agreed to have sex with 1 of the players, not uncommon but if he invited his friends to join in without her consent, thats rape.  But thats what happens when you have spoiled little rich kids.


    The implications of the lack of evidence are outstanding.
    Coupled with the process (or lack thereof) of due diligence and fact finding and I say, it's all BS.

    How do you know what their financial family situation is? Oh they go to Duke and play Lacrosse, they must be spoiled rich kids!

    And even if that is the case, the point is what? That the notion of innocence until guilt is proven (the burden of which is on the prosecution) is out the window?

    Lives have been ruined, there is no evidence, and one of the alleged rapists has a cement alibi.

    The prosecutor Mike nifong has gone to great lengths to attempt to discredit the alibi, even though all evidence points that the kid is innocent.

    Justice is about truth, not convenience.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    phreaks wrote:

    And even if that is the case, the point is what? That the notion of innocence until guilt is proven (the burden of which is on the prosecution) is out the window?

    So, are those guys being locked up right now? I'm not sure what you mean by "innocence until guilty is out the window".

    phreaks wrote:

    Lives have been ruined, there is no evidence, and one of the alleged rapists has a cement alibi.

    The judge apparently felt there was enough evidence to bring charges. What more do you want?

    phreaks wrote:
    The prosecutor Mike nifong has gone to great lengths to attempt to discredit the alibi, even though all evidence points that the kid is innocent.

    That's for the jury to decide.

    phreaks wrote:
    Justice is about truth, not convenience.
    Justice is blind. Not for the accused nor accusing.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    Minh wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    And even if that is the case, the point is what? That the notion of innocence until guilt is proven (the burden of which is on the prosecution) is out the window?

    So, are those guys being locked up right now? I'm not sure what you mean by "innocence until guilty is out the window".


    You need some evidence for an indictment. Not as much as you would need for a conviction, but some. It takes more than an accusation to secure an indictment. The problem is there is no evidence, none. DNA tests were all negative, 1 of the accusers has a solid alibi with time stamped photos and electronic campus door access logs that prove he couldn't have been there.

    Also, they have been kicked out suspended from school until the case is concluded.

    Minh wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    Lives have been ruined, there is no evidence, and one of the alleged rapists has a cement alibi.

    The judge apparently felt there was enough evidence to bring charges. What more do you want?



    It's not up to a judge, it's a Grand Jury that ultimately makes the call. The prosecution is allowed to present any 'evidence' they want, regardless of it's merit and culpability.

    And in this particular case the prosecutor has lied on several occasions.

    Minh wrote:
    

    phreaks wrote: The prosecutor Mike nifong has gone to great lengths to attempt to discredit the alibi, even though all evidence points that the kid is innocent.

    That's for the jury to decide.


    Actually, no it isn't. A prosecutors conduct has nothing to do with a jury. A jury decides guilt or innocence and sometimes a penalty. They don't investigate or police the procesuting attorney's conduct or professionalism.

    Minh wrote:
    

    phreaks wrote: Justice is about truth, not convenience.
    Justice is blind. Not for the accused nor accusing.


    If justice were truely blind, how do you explain the prosecutors remarks on the 2nd day of the case opened, before any evidence had even been collected and before the the suspects had even been interviewed?

    The point is it is 'supposed' to take more than a unsubstantiated accusation to even get an indictment.  Read the facts, if you aren't appalled then I don't know what to say.


    Sometimes I think you just like to argue.

    Read this story and tell me what you think then,
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140.shtml

  • User profile image
    Minh

    phreaks wrote:

    You need some evidence for an indictment. Not as much as you would need for a conviction, but some. It takes more than an accusation to secure an indictment. The problem is there is no evidence, none. DNA tests were all negative, 1 of the accusers has a solid alibi with time stamped photos and electronic campus door access logs that prove he couldn't have been there.

    There was enough evidence for a grand jury to allow the indictment to go ahead, wasn't there?

    phreaks wrote:

    Also, they have been kicked out suspended from school until the case is concluded.

    That's the choice of a private institution, ain't it?

    phreaks wrote:

    Minh wrote:

    The judge apparently felt there was enough evidence to bring charges. What more do you want?

    It's not up to a judge, it's a Grand Jury that ultimately makes the call. The prosecution is allowed to present any 'evidence' they want, regardless of it's merit and culpability.

    Not true. The prosecutor can present plausible evidence, but he just can't say that Woody Woodpecker told him in a dream that those boys raped the dancer. I don't think the grandjury would go for that.

    phreaks wrote:

    And in this particular case the prosecutor has lied on several occasions.

    That will come out in the trial, then.

    phreaks wrote:

    Minh wrote:

    phreaks wrote: The prosecutor Mike nifong has gone to great lengths to attempt to discredit the alibi, even though all evidence points that the kid is innocent.

    That's for the jury to decide.


    Actually, no it isn't. A prosecutors conduct has nothing to do with a jury. A jury decides guilt or innocence and sometimes a penalty. They don't investigate or police the procesuting attorney's conduct or professionalism.

    It's the jury responsibility to determine if the alibi is credible.

    phreaks wrote:

    Minh wrote:

    phreaks wrote: Justice is about truth, not convenience.
    Justice is blind. Not for the accused nor accusing.


    If justice were truely blind, how do you explain the prosecutors remarks on the 2nd day of the case opened, before any evidence had even been collected and before the the suspects had even been interviewed?

    The point is it is 'supposed' to take more than a unsubstantiated accusation to even get an indictment.  Read the facts, if you aren't appalled then I don't know what to say.


    Sometimes I think you just like to argue.

    Who says I just like to argue. I don't "just like to argue". Why would I just like to argue? No! It's categorically false.

    phreaks wrote:

    Read this story and tell me what you think then,
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140.shtml

    I really still don't know who's telling the truth. But I will keep a close watch when/if the trial begins.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    Minh wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    You need some evidence for an indictment. Not as much as you would need for a conviction, but some. It takes more than an accusation to secure an indictment. The problem is there is no evidence, none. DNA tests were all negative, 1 of the accusers has a solid alibi with time stamped photos and electronic campus door access logs that prove he couldn't have been there.

    There was enough evidence for a grand jury to allow the indictment to go ahead, wasn't there?



    His 'evidence' is that the accuser selected the 3 out of a lineup. The only problem with that is there was no control objects included in the lineup. The only memebrs of the line-up were ppl who were at the party. They have compared the process to a multiple choice test where there were no 'wrong' options. My understanding is that this process was infact sub-standard and will most likely be thrown out in court.

    Minh wrote:
    


    phreaks wrote:
    Also, they have been kicked out suspended from school until the case is concluded.

    That's the choice of a private institution, ain't it?



    Yes, it is their perogative, that doesn't make it better for those kids though.

    Minh wrote:
    

    phreaks wrote:
    Minh wrote:

    The judge apparently felt there was enough evidence to bring charges. What more do you want?

    It's not up to a judge, it's a Grand Jury that ultimately makes the call. The prosecution is allowed to present any 'evidence' they want, regardless of it's merit and culpability.

    Not true. The prosecutor can present plausible evidence, but he just can't say that Woody Woodpecker told him in a dream that those boys raped the dancer. I don't think the grandjury would go for that.



    Again, I defer to the lineup selection. That IS the prosecutors evidence.

    The prosecutor ran his mouth BEFORE any evidence was collected and stated that DNA would prove his case because at least 1 of the Duke kids had ejaculated inside of the victem; when that didn't pan out, he resorted to dastardly and underhanded tactics.

    The DA had the cab driver that gave one of the kids a ride that night arrested on trumped up theft charges, to try to illicit a conviction. Under NC law, a convict cannot testify as a witness, so this would have solved his alibi problem. Those charges were however thrown out by a judge, but the prosecutor still tried. It is a sick perversion of his authority.

    Minh wrote:
    

    phreaks wrote:
    And in this particular case the prosecutor has lied on several occasions.

    That will come out in the trial, then.

    phreaks wrote:
    Minh wrote:

    phreaks wrote: The prosecutor Mike nifong has gone to great lengths to attempt to discredit the alibi, even though all evidence points that the kid is innocent.

    That's for the jury to decide.


    Actually, no it isn't. A prosecutors conduct has nothing to do with a jury. A jury decides guilt or innocence and sometimes a penalty. They don't investigate or police the procesuting attorney's conduct or professionalism.

    It's the jury responsibility to determine if the alibi is credible.



    Not if the DA get's the alibi removed, which is what he was trying to do.


    Minh wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    Minh wrote:

    phreaks wrote: Justice is about truth, not convenience.
    Justice is blind. Not for the accused nor accusing.


    If justice were truely blind, how do you explain the prosecutors remarks on the 2nd day of the case opened, before any evidence had even been collected and before the the suspects had even been interviewed?

    The point is it is 'supposed' to take more than a unsubstantiated accusation to even get an indictment.  Read the facts, if you aren't appalled then I don't know what to say.


    Sometimes I think you just like to argue.

    Who says I just like to argue. I don't "just like to argue". Why would I just like to argue? No! It's categorically false.

    phreaks wrote:
    Read this story and tell me what you think then,
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140.shtml

    I really still don't know who's telling the truth. But I will keep a close watch when/if the trial begins.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    We dont know what was done if anything, they did find at least one players DNA on her.  Like I said, some women dont like the whole gangbang scenario and if you dont give consent its rape.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    rjdohnert wrote:
    We dont know what was done if anything, they did find at least one players DNA on her.  Like I said, some women dont like the whole gangbang scenario and if you dont give consent its rape.


    Nope, from what I understand; no DNA found on her, none at all, nill, zip.

    They found a fake fingernail of hers in the bathroom trashcan, and that had some DNA on it; of course there were also tissues in the trash that contained mucus. Making the connection?

    There was no DNA of any member of the Duke Lacrosse team found on or in the woman.

    http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-25,GGLG:en&q=duke%20rape%20dna&sa=N&tab=wn

    And  remember when everyone was saying that if the DNA came out negative, the charges should be dismissed; that's the way it's supposed to work, right?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/11/earlyshow/main1487668.shtml

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    Nope because they are guilty as sin, if no sperm was found in her couldnt they have worn a condom?  Or worn a condom and pulled out.  Either way, guilty as charged.  Send em to prison so the a$$ raping ca begin.  Its the least of what they deserve.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    rjdohnert wrote:
    Nope because they are guilty as sin, if no sperm was found in her couldnt they have worn a condom?  Or worn a condom and pulled out.  Either way, guilty as charged.  Send em to prison so the a$$ raping ca begin.  Its the least of what they deserve.
    She stated they raped her anally, orally and (I need to watch my language)lly, and that no one wore a condom and that at least one ejaculated inside of her.One of the men she claims 'raped' her, is seen at a Wachovia ATM 15 miles away at the time the 'rape' took place.From what evidence are you basing your opinion?

    //Stupid filters, anally is acceptable but vag1nally isn't????

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    Who really cares, they are going to prison.  Then when they get out.  Sex offender registry is in their future.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    rjdohnert wrote:
    Who really cares, they are going to prison.  Then when they get out.  Sex offender registry is in their future.


    I doubt it, and I am taking your comments with a grain of salt, seeing that you are unable to qualify your rationalization with contribute anything other than nonsense.

  • User profile image
    Minh

    rjdohnert wrote:
    Who really cares, they are going to prison.  Then when they get out.  Sex offender registry is in their future.

    There are worse thing that are done in jail -- as this educational cartoon succinctly illustrates.

    PS. another scared straight video

  • User profile image
    geekling

    I don't come here often, but I don't remember rjdohnert being a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic, though. Did this start happening recently?

    Did I miss something in his comments that aren't... strange?

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    Im no Lunatic, Im just picking on Phreaks.  I so love to get people worked up.  But like I said before, consenting to sex with one person does not mean she consented to a gang bang.  Let the courts figure it out.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    Ever had one of those days where you wanted to just piss someone off just for the hell of it?

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.