Quote :

"some other racist shit will happen and everyone will forget about it"

so true.....this country will never be unified

5/22/2006 5:43:24 PM

unity shouldn't be the goal. we will always disagree over things. hopefully in the future it will be about things that are more important than race, like our actual beliefs and plans for this country.

5/22/2006 6:55:40 PM

My neighbors drove all the way to Durham a few nights ago to get Duke Lacrosse shirts. They wore them out and almost got in some fights.

5/22/2006 6:57:08 PM

If we try to organize a rally or something at the next court date (which I believe is Colin's), would you and your neighbors like to come? I'd definitely come up from Georgia for it. Basically it's to support them and counter the harassing people as he walks into the courthouse. If you and your neighbors are up for it, get in contact with me by PM.

5/22/2006 7:24:51 PM

Quote :

"he'd be more of a scumbag if he got paid millions of dollars for his services and didn't do the best job he possibly could. that's what defense lawyers are required to do."

kind of like being a good hitman, or the guy who launders $$ for the mob,... there not such bad people, I mean hey they are hard working.

Soceity would be much better off if defense lawyers would refuse to represent people that they know are guilty.

5/22/2006 11:40:50 PM

i think we're just talking about the soulessness of lawyers in general.

5/23/2006 8:43:42 AM

last night Real Sports on HBO did a segment on the Duke Lacrosse case and the so-called racial tensions in Durham due to the incident. Features several people from Central, Duke, and Durham citizens talking about how the media is blowing the story way out of proportion with race/class being the central theme of the incident. It was a very good story...touched a bit on Nifong and the election.

5/23/2006 8:47:25 AM

i'm thinking about getting this shirt....whatcha think?



[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 11:46 AM. Reason : link]

5/23/2006 11:46:24 AM

lol get me one too i want a size medium

5/23/2006 12:15:37 PM

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 12:29 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2006 12:29:27 PM

Quote :

"the accuser allegedly did not tell the officer who met her at a supermarket after responding to a 911 call that she had been raped. Later, the woman told a doctor at a mental health facility that she had been sexually assaulted. She later denied that claim to a police officer when she arrived at the Duke hospital for care. At least two sources also said there may be a discrepancy in the number of men the accuser says were involved. The woman also originally claimed that a second dancer who accompanied her to the party, Kim Roberts, was inside the bathroom during the alleged rape, the sources said. The accuser claims she was assaulted and sodomized in that bathroom for about a half an hour and that she tried to fend off her attackers. When police asked Roberts whether she was in the room at the time, Roberts reportedly told police, "that's a crock.""

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196631,00.html

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 2:36 PM. Reason : l]

5/23/2006 2:35:30 PM

Quote :

"Defense sources also say the accuser admitted to having had sexual intercourse with at least three men around the time of the alleged attack. According to those sources, when investigators questioned her after DNA tests on the semen found inside her body did not match any of the Duke players, the accuser gave police the name of her boyfriend and two men who drove her to her dancing engagements. The drivers say in police statements that they brought the accuser to at least five separate gigs the weekend before the alleged attack, defense sources said."

OMG

5/23/2006 2:54:10 PM

Quote :

"Soceity would be much better off if defense lawyers would refuse to represent people that they know are guilty"

Dumbest thing I have ever heard and pretty much against the constitution.

5/23/2006 4:49:44 PM

um... no

a lawyer gets to choose who he represents, and it's actually against their supposed ethical code to defend a person they know are guilty. in that case they're supposed to encourage that person to plead guilty and pursue a fair punishment or drop as their council.

i mean jesus christ where do you get that unconstitutional shit from?

5/23/2006 4:53:08 PM

what about public defenders? Everyone has a right to be represented by counsel you know that thing called the 6th amendment to the constitution. So if every lawyer chose not to represent the guilty who would they have?

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 4:56 PM. Reason : k]

5/23/2006 4:56:07 PM

Public defenders are alright. Big money criminal defense lawyers and lawyers who specialize in getting people out of DWI's or murders are the scum of the earth. They make money by telling lies to keep criminals out of jail. Sure, sometimes they keep innocent men from being wrongly incarcerated, but more often than not they defend guilty motherfuckers who deserve to go to jail for a long time.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it any less morally reprehensible.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 8:22 PM. Reason : 2]

5/23/2006 8:20:42 PM

Quote :

"They make money by telling lies "

Hey hey hey, that's an awfully narrow generalization you're making there, buddy!

Some of those lawyers make big money by playing golf with the judge.

5/23/2006 8:25:41 PM

Quote :

"what about public defenders? Everyone has a right to be represented by counsel you know that thing called the 6th amendment to the constitution. So if every lawyer chose not to represent the guilty who would they have?"

reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit, apparently. here, i'll bold it for you:

Quote :

"in that case they're supposed to encourage that person to plead guilty and pursue a fair punishment or drop as their council."

5/23/2006 8:26:32 PM

I disagree with that. The obligation is to give the client the best representation possible. Regardless of whether they are guilty or not. It is not unethical to represent someone unto a not guilty verdict who you know is guilty. It is unethical to suborn perjury, that is, to ask them questions on the stand you know they will answer untruthfully. However, it is absolutely not unethical to hold the prosecution to their proof and poke holes in their cases even if you know that the defendant is guilty.

5/23/2006 9:19:40 PM

Its actually usually easier to defend a guilty client. At least when you know all the aspects of the crime, you can try to create a rock tight alibi around it.

5/23/2006 9:28:21 PM

Quote :

"what about public defenders? Everyone has a right to be represented by counsel you know that thing called the 6th amendment to the constitution. So if every lawyer chose not to represent the guilty who would they have?"

no one. That's the point. The guilty ought not be able to hire professional liars that we defend the honor of just because they're "lawyers". The should have representatives that tell the truth, that follow the oath to uphold the law like lawyers are supposed to do. What many lawyers do today makes a mockery of honesty. I not saying that the accused should not have consul, I'm just saying they don't have the right to have consul that lies unapologetically for them.

pretty much what Wolfpack2K said.

5/23/2006 10:06:10 PM

go move to russia. i think you'd like it there.

5/23/2006 10:19:26 PM

how the fuck can you say they are guilty BEFORE the trial?

5/23/2006 10:28:54 PM

Quote :

"a lawyer gets to choose who he represents, and it's actually against their supposed ethical code to defend a person they know are guilty. in that case they're supposed to encourage that person to plead guilty and pursue a fair punishment or drop as their council. "

The problem is that no lawyer can force a client to plead guilty so according to your model a person could avoid jail if their lawyers just keep refusing to represent them. Also a lawyer does not know that a person is guilty unless they were present or their client admitted to them that they are guilty. Otherwise its all speculation. You seem to think that defend and represent are different but they are not.

Quote :

"i mean jesus christ where do you get that unconstitutional shit from? "

Soceity would be much better off if defense lawyers would refuse to represent people that they know are guilty Thats where i got the shit from as I already said, but i gues readin comp is not your strong suit

5/23/2006 10:29:26 PM

its the job of the defense to represent their client's interests. How do they rationalize defending someone who has possibly even confessed to them their guilt? Just tell themselves that were they found guilty, they would face a harsher punishment than they ought to receive and the only way to mitigate that is to plead innocent. Kind of like the reverse of when the prosecution coerces people into pleading guilty to crimes they might not have even committed to avoid a trial for greater offenses.

5/23/2006 10:30:52 PM

this whole fucking page is a bunch of soapbox horse shit. this is the rape scandal thread.

5/24/2006 1:00:07 AM

^ i was about to say the same. I check this thread for updates on the case, so when I saw a new page I thought something big/new happened.

5/24/2006 1:22:17 AM

The newest update is every anchor on Fox News is ripping the prosecution a new anus.

- They have talked about statements made to investigators that insinuate the accusor was also engaged in prostitution (statements made by her "drivers")
- They have exposed an ethics violation complaint that has been filed against Nifong
- They have exposed the many different versions of the rape story she told (she was not raped, raped by the whole team, then later she said only three, she also said the other stripper was in the bathroom when she was being raped, the other stripper said that was "a crock")
- They have come on primetime and talked about the mustache discrepancy

Clips to be viewed here
http://tinyurl.com/rdrh2

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 1:44 PM. Reason : spelling]

5/24/2006 1:37:00 PM

society would be much better off if defense lawyersdistrict attorneys would refuse to representprosecute people that they know are guiltyinnocent

5/24/2006 1:49:12 PM

Quote :

"- They have exposed an ethics violation complaint that has been filed against Nifong"

Praised and blessed Be Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!

Do you have any more information on this?

5/24/2006 2:09:54 PM

They dont release it publicly until it goes through a greivance comiteee and is substantiated or something.

5/24/2006 2:16:38 PM

indeed...

but do you know how many disgruntled clients put a grievance against their attorneys? some are small like not returning phone calls. in my course, we went the NCBA and they told us they get some couple thousand grievances a month, but only a small percentage of that number actually go through a thorough investigation.

5/24/2006 2:23:07 PM

i bet this one will

case is too high profile

5/24/2006 2:24:42 PM

I hope that this case doesn't end up keeping real rape victims from coming forward in the future. Its terrible that this woman will almost single handedly set back victims rights about 30 years, But I stand firmly committed in my support to the Lacrosse players. I think its scary that someone can have their whole life ruined without a single shred of evidence, especially from such a non-credible source. I stand extremly dissatisfied with how this case has been handled in the justice system. They could not have made it any worse if they would have tried.



[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2006 2:27:07 PM

so the ethics violation they mentioned does involve this case?
i know many DAs and attorneys thought the way he handled the media in the beginning was unethical...good for them if they filed a complaint.

5/24/2006 2:27:29 PM

They did not say any details, only that it was filed by someone not directly affiliated with the defense and that it was against Mike Nifong. (aparently you dont need any type of standing to file one of these) The Bar would not confirm it and said they do not comment until after it has been reviewed by a comittee(sp?).

The speculation was that he acted unethically by indicting despite the exculpatory evidence available and the multiple versions and flawed credibility of the accusor.

5/24/2006 2:32:15 PM

well hopefully it is that and not a "he didn't call me back" kind of complaint.

5/24/2006 2:56:35 PM

Quote :

"well hopefully it is that and not a "he didn't call me back" kind of complaint."

"he didn't call me back" wouldn't be considered unethical

5/24/2006 3:08:55 PM

Actually it would. Receiving a fee from clients and then neglecting them is an ethical violation. It would probably just get the lawyer a reprimand, but if it keeps up, it would get serious.

The strongest ethical violation they would have is if they were to somehow prove that he was linked to that witness tampering - arresting Seligmann's alibi witness on an ancient warrant and then asking him "Do you want to change your story" before taking him to the magistrate. If they could prove he was behind that, there would be a disbarment.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 3:15 PM. Reason : add]

5/24/2006 3:14:23 PM

are you saying that the client in this case payed for nifong?

5/24/2006 3:16:06 PM

Well technically yes, the state does pay Nifong's salary. But I was speaking in more general terms - if you're a private attorney, and you don't return client's calls, you can be charged with an ethical violation and reprimanded by the Bar.

5/24/2006 3:20:12 PM

Quote :

""he didn't call me back" wouldn't be considered unethical"

attorney client communication...NC State Bar Rule 1.4...309 pages of rules and regulations!

but i was mainly using the "he didn't call me back" as an example of one of the "smaller" violation of attorney ethics.

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2006 3:28:40 PM

The people on Fox news basically said since Nifong is a representative of the citizens of Durham anyone in Durham would have grounds to file an ethics complaint even if they are not directly involved with the case.

5/24/2006 3:32:24 PM

I would think anyone in North Carolina would have that standing?

5/24/2006 3:35:40 PM

This case couldn't be more clear-cut, more fucking obvious

5/24/2006 3:37:55 PM

Quote :

"I would think anyone in North Carolina would have that standing?"

Yeah pretty much a TWW'r who has been watching this on the news could file an ethics complaint.

5/24/2006 3:40:17 PM

could should

5/24/2006 4:01:07 PM

could someone photoshop a moustache on the captain guy? Ill bet he would look ridiculous, just does not have a moustachey face

5/25/2006 10:07:41 AM

5/25/2006 10:20:30 AM

^hahaha i already have a lunch interview with IBM tody and that STILL made my day

5/25/2006 10:48:59 AM