Defense Attorneys Seek Toxicology Reports On Accuser In Duke Case

[FreakinDJ]

Defense Attorneys Seek Toxicology Reports On Accuser In Duke Case

DURHAM, N.C. -- Lawyers representing one of three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape want details about any toxicology tests performed on the accuser, asking in a motion filed Monday whether such evidence even exists.

"No such toxicology report, if it exists, was provided to the defense," wrote attorneys Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner, referring to nearly 1,300 pages of evidence prosecutors provided to defense attorneys last week.

The attorneys represent Reade Seligmann, one of three lacrosse players charged with raping a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a March 13 team party.

Seligmann's attorneys want a judge to order prosecutors to provide any reports "generated from blood, urine or other biological samples" collected from the accuser. In the motion, they cited a story published in Newsweek earlier this month that said District Attorney Mike Nifong "hinted" such tests would reveal the presence of a date-rape drug.
http://www.wral.com/news/9256654/detail.html

[ugarte]

1. The accuser is looking for a civil attorney

I have a hunch this will all end up like Kobe's rape case, settled out of court for $$, with Nifong's blessing.

[TorchTheWitch]

3. got a link for that?

Willie Gary has been offering for quite some time, but she hasn't talked to him. Her parents hired Mark Simeon, Kim Roberts' attorney, for general legal matters, but I haven't seen anything anywhere of the accuser looking for an attorney.

She should have an attorney anyway. The DA represents the state, not her personally.

[FreakinDJ]

9. I think this link should work

Fat chance this case will go to trial Civil or Other wise

Defense Sources: Duke Accuser Gave Conflicting Stories About Alleged Rape

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."

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

All this case proves is the need for stiff penalties involving FALSE ACCUSATIONS of RAPE

[TorchTheWitch]

14. Not at all, but thanks anyway

Nothing in that link answers my question, so maybe you're responding to the wrong post. I really don't care what the defense has to say about much of anything anyway.

In any case, somehow I was under the impression that cases are tried in a court of law, not the press... what was I thinking.

[hoboken123]

22. ?

They're not going to try this in court?

[TorchTheWitch]

29. I was being sarcastic

I thought my sarcasm was obvious enough to not require a sarcasm tag... silly me. In any case, we here in the U.S. of A. try cases in a court of law rather than in the press... it's a rather nice way to do justice, don't you think? But unfortunately, some people in a progressive and democratic forum seem to think that this case in particular requires no court of law and prefer to go along willy nilly with the journalists attempting to try it in the press even though those same people are the first to proclaim they side with the accused because we're supposed to assume innocense in a court of law.
:crazy:

[hoboken123]

39. I'm still missing your point

If you're saying people shouldn't debate the merits of an upcoming court case, or the particular details involved, then I can't agree.

[BrownOak]

43. Not to speak for Torchie, but

I believe her point is that discussion is healthy, but it should be tempered with cynicism regarding the statements from the defense that are not verified by any third party.

[hoboken123]

44. Only the defense requires skepticism?

I don't understand why you put 'from the defense' in that sentence.

Take it out and you have a healthy way to look at things...with it in it seems naive at best.

[BrownOak]

45. Agreed, except

that other than the generic "I know they did it" there hasn't been much in terms of actual claims from Nifong.

[TorchTheWitch]

48. That's ok

Some people don't need actual claims from Nifong about this case. His going forward with it during an election is sufficient enough for them to determine that she's a liar and Nifong is using her and her case to get elected... nevermind the fact that it's his job to try the case and NOT going forward with it would be unethical and could land him in hot water (little details like that are unnecessary for some people to make a determination that it's all about an election).

[TorchTheWitch]

47. Did I say that?

Funny, I don't see where I've said that. Debating the merits of an upcoming case and it's details is just fine, and I've engaged often in doing just that. However, coming to a conclusion about guilt or innocense without knowing all the facts or knowing what all the evidence is would be trying to case in the press, and we don't do that in this country because our justice system uses actual courts of law to determine guilt or innocense and only after all the evidense is laid out and the facts are known. Some people here don't seem to believe that this case justifies the determination of guilt or innocense in a court of law despite that being our justice system and prefer to conclude that someone is guilty or innocent based on what little details that may or may not be true that they gleen from the press.

Got it?

[FreakinDJ]

5. Oh that will work

There are no "Rape Shield Laws" in civil litigation

[zann725]

32. Calling "Gloria Allred"..."Gloria Allred". No out-of-court "silence"

here, please.

LaCrosse players are tough. They know how to push a "ball" around" HARD. They can take a little old "public truthiness ", and (if guilty) deserve public embarrassment AT LEAST equal to that they forced on accuser in question.

[Placebo]

2. Does ANYONE care about this case?

I mean, honestly.

[TorchTheWitch]

4. That's an odd question

Isn't the answer pretty obvious?

[IndianaGreen]

15. It smells like another Tawana Brawley case

and if it is, I care that there is no miscarriage of justice and no misconduct on the part of prosecutor Nifong. Dan Abrams had an extensive report today. No evidence of vaginal or anal forceful penetration, according to medical report released by prosecutor during discovery. Alleged victim changed her story several times.

[TorchTheWitch]

30. Tawana Brawley

Since you obviously like to bring this up at every opportunity even though the two accusers and two cases have nothing in common...

Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley Tawana Brawley

There now... that should be sufficient to not require that you keep bringing up that name over and over again in this case as it's long since become tiresome.

[BrownOak]

6. From the Evidence Turned Over Last Week

All of this is what the defense has released or discussed from the nearly-1300 pages of evidence which the DA has stated was all that he had in the case - so take it with a grain of salt for what it is.

1. On The Abrams Report, it was stated by one of the talking heads who had access to the defense that according to the SANE report, the AV told the nurse examiner that her assailants did not use condoms. If so, this is troubling for two reasons; first, because the odds of no DNA being present after a violent gang rape where the victim was evaluated by a SANE less than 3 hours after the assault seem very low; and secondly, because when answering questions about the potential lack of DNA just before the release of the first round of tests, Mike Nifong stated that the attackers could have worn condoms. If the reports of the AV stating no condoms were used are correct, then Nifong's statements seem to be motivated not so much by a search for the truth, but an effort to foster an image of guilt.

2. According to the motions filed with the court yesterday, the prosecution's evidence does not contain any toxicology reports. Furthermore, the SANE stated on her report that no toxicology tests were performed. How the hell does that happen? You have a woman who is claiming she was assaulted and you have various people describing her as "passed out drunk" from that same evening. How do you not perform a toxicology test? Nifong stated that: "If there was a toxicology report available, it would've been included in the discovery I handed over to the defense." He also said that he had turned over all the evidence he has to date and that when any new reports or documents come in, they too, would be handed over to the defense. It's been two months since the incident was reported. How do you not have a toxicology report at this time? Just as importantly, how do you pontificate(as Nifong has done) to the press about toxicology reports possibly revealing the presence of a date rape drug if no such tests have been performed?

3. On Fox's Hannity & Colmes last night Megyn Kendall discussed the medical report findings disclosed by the defense. She stated “The (medical) report supposedly shows, according to defense sources, no abrasions, no tears, no bleeding. What it did show was, quote, diffuse edema, which is swelling and supposedly she reported that her breasts were tender when palpated and that her lower right quadrant was tender when palpated." I've stated several times that I felt that the SANE's finding of consistent with sexual assault did not mean inconsistent with other possible sources. The basis for what can be found as "consistent with sexual assault" seems to be a wide range of things given that the SANE handbook itself indicates that in most cases of sexual assault there are no injuries (either genital or non-genital). If the basis for the findings reported above is accurate then the question to ask is if those same injuries/conditions could be caused from other activities. (Keeping score here, you have the source coming from the defense, given to a supportive reporter on a supportive show on the most supportive network... again, take that FWIW but IF this is an accurate summary of the report then it will be difficult for the prosecution once trial starts. Also note that according to the defense themselves, they feel portions of the SANE report are missing so there could be more evidence.)

4. From the same source as above, the defense is saying the evidence provided shows that the AV was driven to hotels for appointments 5 times over the weekend prior to the party. You can make of that what you will, but almost anyone in a jury box is going to question what happened in those hotel rooms given the traditional job description of "escort." The defense is also saying that the evidence shows that the three non-lacrosse players who were asked to provide DNA samples for testing were the AV's boyfriend and the two drivers who took her to those hotels. As none of those people were accused of committing a rape it is reasonable to assume that they were identified by the AV as consensual partners. I realize that some may construe this as attacking the AV, but the question has to be asked if the swelling that provided the basis for the SANE report findings of consistent with sexual assault could also be the result of frequent, consensual sexual activity.

5. Continuing from what Fox reported, the defense is saying the evidence released shows that the AV did vacillate between the accusations of being raped and not being raped, and also reported at one point that she was assaulted by 17 men. The defense is also stating that the evidence shows Kim Roberts initially felt the accusation was a "piece of crock."


So, when looking at all of that you have to either believe that the defense has lied about what is in that evidence or that, at the very least Nifong acted rashly when he first proclaimed that he had no doubt a rape had occurred in the house.

With the first example, it's possible that the defense is lying about the contents of the evidence and it's certainly probable that they are only discussing the evidence that supports their clients. There's enough plausible deniability in the "confidential source" talking to a reporter that they personally won't be splashed by any fabrication. However, they also stand little to gain as it's clear that the DA isn't going to back down from the charges - in fact, he can't back down, and that's where the problem lies.

Just as likely as the defense lying is the possibility that when Nifong made his first public comments about having no doubt a rape took place, he was fully sincere. If you think about it, he had a victim with noticeable bruising on her body and swelling in her genital area. He had a group of suspects who were known to be a hard partying bunch. He had confirmed reports of racial slurs hurled at the victim's. So he jumped to the statement that a rape did occur and now he has no choice but to go forward.

Assuming that at least a portion of the stuff being leaked right now is true it appears that there was enough potential exculpatory evidence in the DA's possession that he should have proceeded more cautiously with this prosecution.

[chookie]

7. Darn shame about the toxicology test

It had been reported since early on that toxicology tests were being processed. It would have been important evidence that could have pretty much definitely corroborated or not the notion that the accuser was administered a date rape drug. (It is said by the accuser and Kim Roberts that the accuser had a drink when she arrived at the party, and that she also drank Kim Roberts drink, who had refused it.) Kim Roberts and Nifong have both made statements that they believe such a drug was administered.

I think it would also be enlightening to find out what her blood alcohol level was. This test could have revealed approximately how much she drank, and over what period of time. If it did not corroborate the report that she had two drinks at the party, then another explanation for the high level of chemical impairment must be sought.

I have to go over SANE protocols again, and see what they have to say about testing for date rape drugs or alcohol. If a accuser/victim presents with a strong indication of chemical impairment, you'd THINK the SANE or investigators would order such a test. If not, it seems to me that this is a troubling gap in the protocols.

Question -- is there any chance Nifong is suppressing the toxicology reports? Or was he simply in error when he first stated that results of such tests were pending?

[FreakinDJ]

8. Victim must AGREE to toxicology screening

kind of a catch 22. If the victim refuses the drug test they can't examine for evidence

The medical guidelines section discusses the importance of obtaining a conscious victim's consent for any toxicology screens. However with unconscious victims, while it encourages making decisions to take urine samples on a case-by-case basis, it still states that emergency personnel "should" take a urine sample on unconscious victims if they believe a victim was given a controlled substance. Some advocates who have worked with sexual assault survivors have expressed concern about any approach that might test without consent as it may further traumatize the victim.(p.45)

http://www.vawnet.org/SexualViolence/PreventionAndEducation/Approaches/SchoolBased/IL_AvertingCampDateRape_sum.php

[onenote]

10. I think toxicology tests can be ordered by emergency room doc

if medically indicated.

[FreakinDJ]

11. Only with victim's consent

sorry

If she refused test could not be performed "Right to privacy"

[chookie]

12. Here's what I found

BTW -- thanks for clarifying this.

"Alcohol and/or drug screening should be ordered by the ED physician only if medically indicated: not routinely or for screening purposes. The tests are usually performed only if: 1) indicated by the patient's medical condition (e.g. progressive lethargy or significant toxicity); 2) the patient has been forced to injest a substance; or 3)patient is concerned about the type and/or quantity of the injested substance(s)."
Massachusetts Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners Program: SANE Protocols (sorry -- it's a .pdf)

I'm assuming she was examined by an emergency room doctor before she was examined by the SANE. Given the fact that she was heavily passed out in the car when police first encountered her, I'm thinking she must have still had a very high level of chemical impairment in the ER. I'm a bit baffled why the ED would not have been concerned about her level of toxicity....

If she did not consent, why? Maybe it's just me, but if I were falling down impaired after only two drinks, I'd want to find out why. I might not be too keen on it if I had injested the large amounts of alcohol myself and wanted to withhold this info from the police -- but then again, that's just me.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Yes I tried looking for North Carolina outline as well

All I could find was the National standards from the Violence Against Women web site

But if it were GHB (date rape drug) they could still even today detec it in her hair

Currently this service is available primarily through Dr. Kintz’ lab for $500, but a major American drug testing service has expressed an interest in making this option available as part of their services. Samples required about 100 strands of hair, cut as close to the scalp as possible. Samples must be taken by a doctor or supervised by an attorney

GHB has been the most vexing of drugs in many ways, but particularly in terms of drug-facilitated sexual assaults. Gone from blood in about four hours and from urine in about twelve, it is difficult to detect even when the victim comes forward immediately. Delays in police response, police agencies/hospitals still taking only blood evidence, and typically lengthy delays at hospitals before examinations are done and urine samples are taken have all contributed to make it a perplexing nightmare.
http://www.projectghb.org/newsletters/20030415.htm

But hair samples can also detec all sorts of "other" things, so sorry it all seems to boil down to consent

[IndianaGreen]

16. Not when you are looking for evidence of date rape drug

or the person is found passed out in a car, as this one was.

[TorchTheWitch]

17. Of course Nifong has a choice

Although any prosecutor is required to go forward with a rape case if there is sufficient evidence, the accuser has ID the suspects and she/he wants to continue, they can also quite easily stop a case in its tracks at any time by just convincing the accuser that it would be in there best interest (whether or not it actually is). With the very high amount of coverage this case has gotten, I don't see it being difficult at all for Nifong to convince the accuser to drop it if he thinks for whatever reason it should be. Then he could just blame the reason for it being dropped as it was the wishes of the accuser. Happens all the time... attorneys don't like to lose, and unfortunately, there are too many that are more interested in their own win/lose statistics then whether or not a case should be tried.

As for the accuser's story... if she was so impaired she couldn't even remember where she lived and was passing out/falling down, it would come as no surprise to me if her story was at first a tangled web of inconsistancies given her condition. I imagine as she became more sober she also would have become more coherant... this would be more than likely be so whether or not she was drunk on alcohol or some other drug or was under the influence of a date rape drug.

I'm very curious about the possible use of a date rape drug in that having been a witness to someone who had been slipped one last summer and observed her behavior, the accuser's behavior would make a lot more sense to me. I've always wondered if the woman I know who had been given one exhibited behavior that was typical or not. Incidently, that woman luckily was rescued in time by me and another dancer who were to be meeting her at a local bar where she was slipped the drug by someone, so we got there in time before anything may have happened to her... wooo, that was a scary situation though. I've often wondered if we reacted appropriately at the time or maybe should have become suspicious sooner or something... eh, I don't know.

As for condom usage, that's kind of neither here nor there. A sober person may not be aware of something like that, so I wouldn't expect this impaired person to. It may be that she THINKS they didn't use them and just doesn't know for sure herself... there's probably a lot she is hazy about the details of experience given her condition at the time, but I can also see that being true of someone who wasn't impaired.

It isn't that DNA isn't present in or on the victim without condom usage but whether or not a sample is obtained that has sufficient DNA to point to a certain person positively particularly if the rapist doesn't ejaculate and/or the victim cleans herself. We already know that there is a high percentage of victims who are raped that a DNA test doesn't positively ID anyone, so this arguement just keeps going around in circles. Real life isn't CSI.

I'm not going to speculate about Nifong and how strong or weak his case is or what possible alterior motives he may have. He's very highly regarded on both sides of the aisle, so stupidity isn't something I'd expect with him. There's no way that all his evidence is going to be in the press, and we know that. It's more likely that MOST of it isn't. The defense isn't going to say word one about anything there may be that may make their clients look bad and certainly may lie outright about certain evidence, so we aren't able to make any judgements about what evidence there is or isn't or what anyones' supposed alterior motives may be.

As for a toxicology test, I'd find it bizzare in the extreme if one wasn't done. There was certainly medical indication that one was needed, and I'd find it to be extremely negligent if such a thing were overlooked. Samples would have been taken anyway as part of the exam, but whether or not a specific test would be run on them may be up to the patient's discretion. I'd find it very strange that she would either refuse the test to be done at the time or continue to refuse later.

If the defense if complaining that certain items from discovery are missing that's certainly nothing new. Has there ever been ANY case where all of the discovery was turned over immediately? both sides can only turn over what they have and often purposely leave out certain items or are still waiting on certain items themselves. Hospitals are notorious for taking forever to release all that's requested and produce legible copies. They're so bad at it that document service companies exist where you pay those companies to wrestle with Records Dept.'s to get everything requested in a timely manner and that's complete and legible.

As for Kim Roberts stating that the accusation was "a crock" is that the rape accusation itself or any supposed accusation of it being 17-20 men? That isn't very clear, but then, the defense never is very clear about much of anything. We already know that Ms. Roberts didn't believe a rape occurred at first, so that's really nothing new anyway.

[BrownOak]

18. Choices

Obviously Nifong has the option to drop the charges or talk the AV into dropping them. But from both a political and a PR standpoint, he has few options because he came out so strongly behind the case before the investigation was completed. How much of this stuff was known before he took the case to the grand jury? Obviously a good chunk of it. But he couldn't back out two weeks before the election and he can't back out now.

I agree that the condition of the AV would certainly impact what she was telling the SANE, but at the same point, that makes it even more questionable as to why there wasn't a tox screen. Think about it - the only possible reasons that a tox screen wasn't performed would be if the SANE was incompetent or if the AV refused to consent. The first calls into question the findings from that examiner while the second raises the question of why the AV wouldn't allow the test. There's no good reason the AV wouldn't consent to the tox screen. Essentially there was something in her system - or something not in her system - that she didn't want the police to know. Either way, it doesn't support her allegations.

Regarding the potential missing records, Nifong told the court that he turned over everything.

[Moosepoop]

19. Yes, but...

Regarding the potential missing records, Nifong told the court that he turned over everything.

Everything he has so far, that is. And he said that he'll turn over anything he gets, as he gets it.

[BrownOak]

23. Right, but how long does it take to run a tox report? n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

27. it's not an issue of DOING the test

The issue is obtaining the report of that test. It could be on the desk of the person who wrote it and hasn't even made it to the Records Dept. yet. Actually, I'd find it pretty likely that it's in limbo somewhere between the possession of the person that wrote it and the file in the Records Dept. In all honesty, sometimes it can take over a YEAR to get a legible copy of everything requested from a hospital.

It often is the case where you have to go raise hell at the hospital in person or involve hospital administration or your client in lighting a fire under someone's ass to cough up the information requested. That's why there is a market for document retrieval companies... hospitals and doctors are REALLY bad at getting to the requester legible copies of everything requested in a timely manner.

To make matters worse, hospitals don't have all the records on a particular patient (even a particular case of a paticular patient) all in one file... the records are spread out in different places depending on the type of record and who did what that required a record. Some documents never go to the Records Dept. at all and remain in the possession of the doctor or deptartment that produced the record. It seems pretty unorganized and stupid, but that's what they do... maybe they have their own reasons for doing it that way.

[jberryhill]

31. At any other hospital, that would make sense, but...

Considering that the hospital in question is DUKE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, then I believe they'd be pretty motivated to make sure the prosecutor had the report.

[TorchTheWitch]

35. Not necessarily

In medical malpractice I worked on MANY defense cases where our own client was the hospital in which we were attempting to get records and they STILL couldn't get their act together. Happens ALL the time. If there IS something in that toxicology report that looks bad for the Duke players the university would actually have a reason to try to supress it... that happens all the time, too. Incriminating documents are often fudged or "disappeared" altogether.

Given that this is such a high profile case, you can bet the hospital administrator would have known long before now what was in that toxicology report. Not to say that the hospital "disappeared" the report, but if there is something in there that may reflect badly on them, yeah, no surprise that they'd stall on coughing it up to the prosecution.

The defense has probably already known what was in that toxicology report as it is in the hospital's best interest that it doesn't show that the accuser was under the influence of a date rape drug. No question that the hospital probably had an off the record discussion with the defense about the contents as soon as the report was written up and defense counsel identified.

[jberryhill]

41. No Question?

No question that the hospital probably had an off the record discussion with the defense

Given the tenor of Duke's report on the matter, and the various penalties they have imposed, properly, already, I would question the extent to which anyone at Duke is willing to hang their ass out to dry by engaging in the various offenses manifest in such a discussion.

If you are proposing a broader conspiracy now involving the hospital in suppressing the report, then the proper strategic move by the defense would simply be to await its non-appearance at trial, rather than to be trumpeting its alleged absence from the material they have.

In a med-mal case, the hospital is one of the defendants. That's simply not the case here.

[TorchTheWitch]

49. Not always

A hospital isn't always named in a complaint in a med mal case and therefore aren't involved in said case even though they may have interest in it... depends what the case is and its details. That doesn't stop them from having under the table discussions with defense counsel. It's done all the time. Hospitals are concerned about their image and have an interest in med mal cases they aren't directly involved in.

For example, a case where a certain doctor who a certain hospital gives privileges to who is named in a complaint for an alleged incident that took place outside of the hospital (like in his office) and the hospital isn't named in the complaint because they had no direct involvement in the case, yet they still have an interest in the case because they give privileges to that doctor and have a concern that what he is involved in may reflect badly on their hospital.

There are also cases where a hospital is directly involved in a case but the plaintiff decides their involvement is too minimal to name them in the complaint knowing it won't stick. Usually the plaintiff attorney will name everyone and their grandmother on a complaint just to cover every base knowing that certain defendants will be dismissed from it but not always... some plaintiff attorneys will know under the circumstances what defendants are going to be dismissed and not name them to begin with or not name certain defendants because they didn't know of the extent of their involvement until later and will then try to add them to the complaint later.

Hospitals have an interest in cases they aren't named in but are worried they MIGHT be in the future or MIGHT be in a future criminal case connected to the med mal case... in the course of trying to cover up a medical mistake doctors or nurses have been known to criminally fudge records, hide evidence or even go so far as to allow a patient to die in order that no one find out their mistake (often it's the criminal element in some med mal cases that makes them so interesting).

In other words, there are a lot of cases that hospitals aren't named in as defendants but still have an interest in. Perfect example is this case... the hospital isn't directly involved in the case but has an interest in it having to do with their image as the hospital is connected to the university. It's just more usual that it would be a med mal case where a hospital not named in a complaint would have an interest.

[jberryhill]

52. Filling in the blanks

No defendants' DNA found on or in the victim means... they used condoms.

The victim's missing shoe means... they secreted it away because it was somehow damning evidence.

No mustache on Evans, despite the victim's statement that he had one, means... he wore a fake mustache.

And now,

No toxicology report means... the defense and the hospital have colluded to hide it.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. A conviction in this case is going to have to rest on something other than the utter absence of physical evidence which corroborates the accusation coupled gap-filling by resolving all doubt against the defendants on the basis of conspiracy hypotheses.

The only thing mentioned by anyone so far that can be portrayed in the best light possible to show any physical contact between any defendant and the victim is the partial DNA of Evans on the artificial fingernail retrieved from Evans' bathroom trashcan. If a jury believes that Evans' DNA just might be found on something retrieved from his own bathroom trashcan, and the prosecutor's own expert is going to have to admit that possibility, then that piece of the puzzle flies out the window.

The best thing that is going to come from Kim Roberts is that the players were jerks, but she, and not a defense attorney speaking for her, is very clear that she cannot say that a sexual assault took place.

We can discuss the things that have been reported, and certainly take into account the sources of those reports, but if this case continues to hinge on "something Nifong has that he didn't mention in 70 statements" then I'm stumped as to what might make out a proof beyond a reasonable doubt that these three defendants are guilty of the crime with which they have been charged.

[TorchTheWitch]

55. I've said no such thing

No defendants' DNA found on or in the victim means... they used condoms.

The victim's missing shoe means... they secreted it away because it was somehow damning evidence.

No mustache on Evans, despite the victim's statement that he had one, means... he wore a fake mustache.

And now,

No toxicology report means... the defense and the hospital have colluded to hide it.

I never said that no DNA found on or in the victim means they used condoms, or the victim's missing personal items mean they were "disappeared" to hide evidence, no mustache on Evans means he wore a fake one or that no toxicology report means that the hospital is trying to hide it. These are possibilities, not conclusions. Unlike some people, I haven't made ANY conclusions in this case... maybe you should focus your attention on those who HAVE on BOTH sides seeing as your concern here seems to be conclusions based on possibilities.

Nifong hasn't said much of anything at all about this case other then various forms of "I know they did it". Why is it surprising that we don't know and won't know what strong evidence he may have until trial? For that matter, what strong evidence do we know of that the defense has actually put out themselves other than claim they have and that they haven't cried about later? Other than the photos and the polygraph of Evans, where is all this evidence the defense claims they have? Other than what documents have been publically available, NEITHER side has been willing to show what they have, and 90% of what's in the press has been talk from the defense. Why are you not complaining that the defense isn't backing up what they claim with documentation? Why would you believe Seligmann's alibi is so strong when his own attorney has no interest in filing a motion to dismiss the charges against him based on his alibi? Are you just selectively "stumped"? Obviously Nifong would have to have some evidence we don't know of that warrants these three men going to trial because not one of their attorneys has made any move to try to have the charges against them dismissed.

[jberryhill]

64. Okay fine..

So, in summary of this subthread, even when a crime victim is specifically examined at a hospital for the purpose of obtaining and preserving evidence of a crime, in fact by a specialist trained to look for evidence of the specific crime alleged, then said same hospital would be slow in preserving and producing the records of that crime investigation when specifically requested by the relevant law enforcement authority in connection with the investigation of that crime.

And we know this because medical records in civil cases, typically brought months after the injuries have come to fruition, are hard to get.

Got it.

[BrownOak]

33. With all the attention on this case

I think the possibility that the results of such a critical piece of evidence are sitting on someone's desk waiting to find their way into central records is really, really, small. Like Bushie IQ small...

FWIW - I'm pretty sure that Duke has migrated to a paperless records system. Data is entered directly into the system by those doing the reports.

Then again, they did clean surgical instruments in hydraulic fluid last year so who knows...

[TorchTheWitch]

37. Not small at all

I've worked on MANY medical malpractice cases where our client was the hospital and they STILL couldn't get their act together. I can't even count how many times I've had to enlist the aid of the hospital administrator and sometimes THEY still had a problem getting documents. They've also been known to supress or "lose" documents that aren't favorable to them.

The hospital is connected to the university who has an interest in whether or not that toxicology report contains information that may reflect badly on them. You can bet that the hospital administrator knew what was in the report as soon as it was written and probably shared that information in an off the record discussion with defense counsel. They can't give a copy of it to defense without the written consent of the patient, but you can bet that whether or not the report says yea or nay on a date rape drug has probably been discussed with defense counsel.

[AngryAmish]

38. This is true

Hospitals in general are very far behind electronic organization of records. Some are 100% electronic (Children's Memorial in Chicago)and getting records is a breeze. Stroger (Cook County) is a nightmare. You literally have to bring them to court and have them held in contempt in many cases.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

46. Ain't that the truth!

I work for a small litigation firm and getting records (even with the proper notarized authorizations) from hospitals or doctors is nightmarishly difficult at times.

After working here for 3 years, I've become incredibly nervous about going to doctors and hospitals; if their records dept. can't hang on to a request that I sent them two weeks ago or find the records from a patient's treatment 4 months ago, I really have no trust or faith in their capacity to accurately diagnose and/or treat me.

The incompetence found in the records room at any hospital in NYC is absolutely scandalous and shocking.

[BrownOak]

59. But the difference is

When you're after records for a civil action, in almost all cases, you're trying to secure documentation of an action that was not done specifically for trial purposes. A better analogy for this would be if you were representing an accident victim in a civil action and sent them to a medical provider for tests to be used in the trial. Or, to use an analogy from outside of the court, it would be like getting the results of your medical tests when you went in for an MRI or other type of tests.

The point is that it's different when you are requesting a procedure and requesting the results up front than it is when you are going in after the fact to find where information has been filed.

[chookie]

25. A very minor point

My understanding (please see above) is that the SANE does not perform a tox test as part of the protocol -- it's not what they do, and this is not an indication of incompetence by the SANE.

The ED doctor -- who sees the patient before the SANE, is to deal with urgent medical conditions -- is the one who should assess whether a tox test is called for (again, see the posts above). Why the ED did not order a test, when presented with a highly chemically impaired patient reporting she had been raped, is one of the baffling facts of this case.

Consent to toxicology in a circumstance like this seems to be paramount, if the ED did not order tox tests based on symptoms before the SANE took over. Why the accuser did not consent to toxicological tests is a matter of conjecture. It's a pity, because the results would have corroborated or not the allegation that drugs were involved in the alleged assault. If she did not consent, the reason is a matter of investigation, particularly as not long ago she was involved in a rather dramatic auto theft, seeming to try to run over a police officer during a high speed chase etc, while highly intoxicated (it is reported by police that she passed out several times during their investigation.) Is it a reasonable conjecture that -- at least -- she has a history of lack of impulse control while highly intoxicated (1.9 level), which suggests a pattern of disfunctional behavior?

Again I say, pity the tox tests were not performed -- IMHO they would have provided clues as to the events of that night.

It's kinda weird that Nifong had us all waiting for the tox findings -- and now claims none are available for examination. What the heck really happened? Was he mistaken -- or possibly suppressing the outcome of the tests?

As to whether the case will proceed or not -- my assessment is that it will, not on the basis of available evidence, but because Nifong and the accuser are stuck in a mess of their own creation, which is "politically" supported, but not factually supported.

The case MAY be dropped if the accuser is advised -- by some pretty powerful legal artillery now at her disposal -- that she can do better pursuing this matter in a civil case. Big buckos may lie ahead for her and her attorney....

[BrownOak]

34. Point taken... so let's get into that conjecture

You are correct, it is the ED who has to make the call to run a tox screen.

As for why the AV would possibly refuse the tox screen, I can't think of a single reason that would not be helpful to the defense's case. The only realistic possibility in there is that she didn't want the police to know what was or was not in her blood at the time. I suppose that it could be possible the AV had some illegal substance in her blood but was still drugged with roofies and didn't want to get in trouble for the illegal substance. But given the way Nifong has cut corners and made deals to pursue this case I find it hard to believe he would prosecute the AV for any illegal drugs that may have been in her blood.

As for your other points, I agree that this case is going to go forward because of the political situation. That's why I've repeatedly said he has no choice at this point. I don't think we can state that it is not factually supported since we don't know all the facts. Remember that we've only seen what the defense has shared from the investigation and the discovery. Who knows what else is in there.

I also think the civil action is going to depend largely on what comes out from the criminal trial.

[TorchTheWitch]

26. He said he turned over everything he HAS

Nifong said he turned over everything he HAS, not everything there is. And he certainly could be either lying or mistaken about that. Mistaken because he didn't copy the file himself and has no idea what the secretary copied and mailed, or lying because that's nothing new... dueling discovery is normal and expected in practically every case. It could also be that the defense was given the report and are grandstanding about it being "missing" for their own purposes... nothing new there either. If every single piece of discovery was exchanged immediately by both sides I'd be shocked.

Nifong CAN back out now or the day before trial if he wants simply by convincing the accuser that she should and publically blaming her as the reason the case was dropped. No big deal, happens all the time. He'd convince her to drop the case in a private meeting and then go in front of the cameras and tell the world he can't go forward with the case even though he wants to because it's the decision of the accuser whether or not to go forward and he's respecting her decision. It's sneaky and pretty evil, but it's done all the time. The fact that he hasn't dropped it already by now just tells me that he has a good case that he wants to go forward with. Wouldn't even surprise me that after the beating the accuser has taken in the press and that she's so frightened for her safety that she keeps moving around that Nifong has been urging her to NOT drop the case.

As for the toxicology test, as I said, I'd find it really bizarre if one wasn't done. Samples would have been taken for it anyway as part of the exam either by the initial ER or the SANE, but probably by the initial ER. Whether or not those samples were tested is up to the accuser, and I see little reason why she would refuse... the doctors and police would have made it clear to her the importance for consenting to the test, and she'd already know it was obvious she was impaired by SOMETHING, so what would she be trying to hide? Even if at the time she was so worried about them finding she was impaired by an illegal substance, she would have been assured at the time and later that it wouldn't be something to worry about, and since the samples were already taken, a test could have been done on them.

Since she was so impaired at the time, I also don't see a reason why she would be so worried about the test being done since she wouldn't have been thinking clearly at that time anyway. I just see no reason that she would have not consented to having the test done either at the time or later on, and the test not being done out of negligence would be such an odd circumstance I just don't see that happening.

It is also possible that at the time BECAUSE she was so impaired it would be unethical to try to obtain her consent to having the test done at the time... it's not a matter of her just saying yes or no, she would have had to sign a consent form, and obtaining the signature of someone who is so impaired they probably can't even sign their name properly may be unethical. Since the samples for a test would have been taken, her consent to the testing could be obtained later. BUT, the SANE would have done her exam while the accuser was still impaired, so AT THAT TIME it's possible that no consent to a toxicology test would have been given, so the SANE would have to report that correctly... doesn't mean a test wasn't done later. Seeing as hospitals and doctors need to cover their butts for anything they could be sued for, it very well may be SOP to obtain consent for testing when the patient is sober... as long as samples are taken at the time, there's no emergency to go ahead with testing without the patient's consent.

[BrownOak]

36. Consent

According to the SANE Handbook:

When intoxication is suspected by medical personnel, the victim must be tested prior to discharge from the ED to avoid medical-legal liability for releasing an individual who is legally intoxicated and may be a harm to themselves or others.

Blood is used instead of urine because of the preference of the crime lab for analysis and storage. Be sure to check with the local crime laboratory personnel. Drug and alcohol screens are not run routinely as they are very expensive tests and can be run at a later time by the crime lab if the level of victim intoxication becomes a question when the case goes to court.

So it's not a case of someone being too impaired for consent as the tox screen would have been run prior to release.

Regardless of whether or not the test was performed on the night of the SANE's exam, the question of a date rape drug has been prevalent since Kim Roberts went public with her statements that the AV was sober when she showed up but appeared intoxicated shortly after that. That was over a month ago that the story was public and it's likely the DA heard about it before then. Even without that, if you have a victim who is described as "passed out drunk" by the first law officer who sees her, any rational person would push for a tox screen at some point; at the SANE exam, the next day, the next week. It's simply inconceivable that nobody pushed for a test in the weeks after the allegations.

Stating that the tests are out there but not yet returned to the DA is a long shot at best. At the end of all of this you're left with three choices:

-the tests have been performed but not returned yet
-the AV refused to consent to the tests
-the DA has the results and is sitting on them

Of those three the last two seem the most plausible which would lead one to ask the question of "why?" for either. If the AV did not consent to the test, why? If the DA is sitting on the results (which would mean that he lied to the court when he said he returned everything he had), why?

[TorchTheWitch]

40. Why lie?

To supress evidence as long as possible. The defense could also be lying when they say they don't have it. This is nature of dueling discovery. If either side didn't HAVE to give over their evidence, they wouldn't as it's in the best interest of both parties to keep the other side from knowing all they've got until the last possible moment. A lot of times certain items or information isn't coughed up until the court gets involved and makes them. And a lot of times certain information isn't coughed up for any more real reason than to just be a pain in the ass the same way frivilous motion bombing or stalling on depostion dates is... waste the other side's time running around in circles as much as possible.

[BrownOak]

42. But we've left the public arena and are now dealing with

statements to the court. Nifong told the court he has handed over everything. The defense has told the court they don't have the report. Either way, if the tests have been completed and returned to Nifong, someone is lying to the court. That's an entirely different thing than spinning something to the press.

[TorchTheWitch]

50. that happens too

Lying to the court. The problem with that is the court being able to prove it's a lie, and they generally don't bother because they can't prove it, and they also generally know they're being BS'd by somebody. When the judge gets tired of being stuck in the middle of dueling discovery they start sanctioning in a way that would actually hurt. Sometimes sanctioning monetarily is enough to get both sides to stop playing games but not always. Depending on the judge, dueling discovery can get out of control for quite some time or be stopped as soon as the judge gets involved. Most of the time a judge will put up with a certain amount of crying to the court, but they also don't appreciate anyone crying to the court when the attorneys involved haven't tried to resolve the problem on their own first.

I always thought of it as being much like two kids crying to mommy...

Attorney Side A - "She took my doll!"
Attorney Side B - "No I didn't! She hit me for no reason!"
Judge - "Now kids, you have to play nice."

Later...

Attorney Side A - "She still won't give my doll back!"
Attorney Side B - "I never took her doll and she hit me again!"
Judge - "All right kids, you both go to your rooms and no tv until you can play nice."

Later still...

Attorney Side A - "She snuck in my room and hit me with my doll!"
Attorney Side B - "I did not and I never took her doll!"
Judge - "That's it! You're both getting a spanking! I've had it with you two!"

How much a judge will put up with depends on what kind of "mommy" they are and/or whether or not "mommy" is in a bad mood. ;)

[BrownOak]

60. Nice example, that really hit home... literally

Fortunately our twins are just 6 months old right now (actually, 6 months old tomorrow!) so we don't get that type of bickering... yet.

My wife and I got a baby sitter the other night for one of our rare breaks from the core duo processor screamers so we went out for a movie and dinner. We went to the local art house theater to see Tsotsi, a highly regarded South African movie. Unfortunately, the story line of the movie involves the protagonist car-jacking a vehicle only to discover a baby in the back that he finds himself incapable of abandoning. Since the character is a street thug his parenting skills are lacking and since his parenting skills are lacking the baby isn't very happy. So the first 45 minutes of the film are packed with lots of crying baby scenes... exactly what we were looking to escape. I was returning from the lobby after a quick beer run and literally flinched upon hearing the crying when I reentered the theater.

[Moosepoop]

20. Now there's some good lawyering!

FILE A MOTION FOR DISCOVERY based on a pair of reporters' vague characterization of a prosecutor's possible thoughts as put forth in a Newsweek article!

Cite a partial sentence in the article as your #1 piece of evidence to support the motion! Don't produce anything the prosecutor has actually been quoted as saying, and don't go to the reporter to get an actual quote of the prosecutor's, or even an explanation of what was "hinted" at. No, just mention an article which alleges in one sentence that the prosecutor had "hinted" at something at a prior time.

Don't bother to look up the original reference to the "hinting". (That would be in a CBS news article written about one of the co-authors of the Newsweek article, and the time she spent at Duke -- her alma mater -- gathering information for the Newsweek article. The Newsweek cover story was the May 1 edition, but hit the stands on April 24. The CBS News article was published on April 24, and referred to the simutaneous Newsweek story.)
The original quote from the co-author -- Susannah Meadows, in the CBS article, was this:

"When I spoke to the prosecutor two weeks ago, he hinted at this — he hinted at the possibility that there might have been something put into her drink."

Ah, well -- there you have it! The prosecutor allegedly hinted at the possibility that there might have been something put into her drink. Not any hinting about toxicology tests having been done. Not any hinting at the existence of reports being held from such tests. Just maybe the possibility of something having been put in the drink. Now, any decent lawyer is going to jump the gun and file yet another motion based on one sentence in the Newsweek article which references another article which alludes to a perceived "hinting" of the AV being slipped a mickey. Yep, that's some mighty fine lawyering, all right!

I'll bet the judge raps this attorney's knuckles with his gavel. :D

[IndianaGreen]

21. The Evidence of Innocence: Strong and Clear

Nifong's request for search warrant says that the victim was raped anally as well as vaginally. Today's release of medical report shows nothing to support Nifong's claim in the search warrant.

The Evidence of Innocence: Strong and Clear

Let's start with the time-stamped digital camera photos. There was speculation that the time-stamps might have been altered - but defense attorneys pointed out that the time stamps matched the time shown on watches in the photos themselves, disproving that theory quite conclusively.

The key photos place the accuser on the back steps of the house where the party took place at 12:30:47 a.m. - and there again (this time with a cut on her foot) at 12:37:58 a.m. - leaving only about seven minutes for the alleged rape to have occurred. Meanwhile, other photos make clear that there was no other time frame during which the rape could have occurred.

Additionally, taxi logs and ATM receipts place one of the defendants, Reade Seligmann, miles away from the home at a time when, according to the accuser, he was violating her inside the home's bathroom.

At 12:24 a.m., according to an ATM receipt, Seligmann's ATM card was used at a nearby Wachovia bank. Was this a clever ploy by Seligmann to create an alibi by having someone else use his card while he was raping the accuser? Hardly. A cabdriver confirms Seligmann's trip, with a friend, to the bank, and it appears phone records will show him calling an out-of-state girlfriend just after the ATM trip. The driver's account is confirmed by his log of stops. And presumably, Seligmann's friend can confirm all this, too.

After the ATM trip, the cabdriver says, Seligmann and his friend headed to get fast food, and the driver dropped them off at the dorm. And indeed, Seligmann's student ID card was used to check in at 12:46 a.m.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060428_spilbor.html

[Moosepoop]

24. All that has what to do with my post?

Absolutely nothing. You sure you didn't mean to respond to the OP or some other post?

As for your post, there are so many problems with the supposed "defense timeline", the "time-stamped photos", and the rest of the handy-dandy alibi that it'll take me some time to poke all the holes in it that it calls for. That will have to wait until tomorrow after I get home from work. Right now I have to get to bed so I can get up for work in the morning. But hang tight, I'm looking forward to this.

Nighty-night.

[jberryhill]

54. Please do it before the thread gets locked...

...but if the thread gets locked, PM it to me.

Poking holes in snippets of "defense" things that have been put forward is sort of the opposite of how a trial is run, but do distinguish between, for example, Seligmann's defense and Evans' defense. Anything alleged to have happened after 12:19 is not relevant to Seligmann one way or the other.

But if you don't beat the lock, then we'll have to wait until the next news blurb.

[Moosepoop]

62. If this thread gets locked first,

then simply start a new one. Please don't instruct me to post, how to post, when to post, or to PM you. I don't take orders from you.

It doesn't matter how these posts compare to how a trial is run, because this forum is not a courtroom, and this is not a trial. It's a discussion. There's a difference.

When I post what I think concerning the alibi that IndianaGreen linked to an article about, I'll address the things in that article. Again, please refrain from giving me instructions on how and what to post in reply to a post that was not yours to begin with.

Thank you.

[jberryhill]

65. Apparently...

...you don't take sincere expressions of someone eagerly looking forward to what you have to say, either.

"Please (plez) adv. - Yes. Used in polite affirmative replies to offers: 'May I help you? Please.'"

Interesting word that "please" thing. I guess it is all the rage among military commanders giving orders. Sorry, I had no idea.

[TorchTheWitch]

28. You've seen the documents?

Today's release of medical report shows nothing to support Nifong's claim in the search warrant.

So when did you review all these documents and how is it that the defense attorneys in this case regard you so highly that they let you look at them? Or is it that you HAVEN'T seen them and therefore have no damn idea what they contain or don't contain?

And you quote a defense attorney who has nothing at all to do with the case other than being a Fox News commentator who hasn't seen ANY evidence that doesn't favor the defense and comes to a conclusion based on this that the case should be dropped... well, now I know that if I ever need an attorney who not to hire seeing as no attorney is worth their paycheck who has no interest in even wondering about evidence they haven't seen and seemingly has no ability to look at all sides of a case.

Plenty of other defense attorneys have been able to comment on what they know about the case from both sides, how a judge may be likely to rule in certain instances and aren't so stupid as to conclude a case they don't know enough about should be dropped, but no, this woman can't seem to be able to do that... why such an interest in an obviously agenda driven commentator? Could it be because you and this attorney share the same agenda and little things like facts and ALL evidence have no place in that agenda?

[Moosepoop]

51. Hey, Torch...

You just gotta appreciate the irony of people (be they the defense attorneys or posters here) who trumpet that the medical report doesn't show serious genital injuries to the AV, while at the same time they're crying real hard and loud about how a substantial portion is missing from the same report.

One side of mouth: "The medical report isn't complete! It's missing a substantial portion! We call foul! Judge, do something!!!"

Other side of mouth: "The medical report doesn't detail genital injuries! All hail the medical report!!!"

:rofl:

Ya just gotta laugh at them. ;)

[jberryhill]

53. Not having trumpeted anything about that subject...

...since unlike some other original documents, we only have what the defense says about the SANE report, I fail to understand the perceived inconsistency.

A SANE will write a report of his/her examination. If that report is incomplete, then it would be apparent.

A toxicology report will come from the lab. If there is no toxicology report from the lab, then that would also be apparent.

What the defense has received is some several hundred pages of stuff. They claim there is no toxicology report in it. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But why is that claim inconsistent, in your mind, with their apparent absence of a complaint that the SANE report is incomplete.

Are you saying that if no toxicology report was included, then it would necessarily follow that the SANE report is not in there?

I don't understand.

There is not a "medical report", as you seem to believe. There are records of reports from each of the persons who examined the victim and/or analyzed samples of things from the victim.

I guess since you believe there is some sort of all-encompassing "medical report" that you would think it odd. But one wonders about someone finding such rolling-on-the-floor chuckles at a rape investigation.

[TorchTheWitch]

57. To be clear

"medical report" is how the poster Moosepoop was responding to referred to the documents... complain to that poster of their missuse of the term.

To be clear about the SANE report... the defense is claiming that they are missing portions of the SANE report yet are also claiming that there is nothing in the SANE report that shows there were any abrasions, tears, bleeding, etc. as though they did have a complete SANE report.

[jberryhill]

58. To be even clearer

Seligmann's attorneys want a judge to order prosecutors to provide any reports "generated from blood, urine or other biological samples" collected from the accuser.

I read that as lab reports, unless this is a virtuoso SANE who examines the patient, takes the samples, and also does the lab work.

If I had a copy of Hamlet with the first act missing, I'd still know everyone dies at the end.

[BrownOak]

61. Right thought, wrong motion

Your quote regarding what the defense has requested was taken from the Motion to obtain the tox screen results (if one exists).

What Moose and Torchie are talking about is the defense's claim that "substantial portions" of the SANE's exam have not been provided through discovery. That's in the defense's second motion which does not indicate the details of the missing information.

However, your Hamlet metaphor is spot-on.

Nobody is saying what's missing from the medical report, and in fact, from the defense's leaks, it appears that the results of the genital examination is in the evidence turned over through discovery.

[TorchTheWitch]

63. who are you quoting?

Whoever it is, it wasn't anything I said.

In any case, you're still missing the point. Nevermind. If you still don't get the irony or even get that we aren't talking about any lab reports, forget it. Moosepoop and anyone else that get it can appreciate it without your interference, thanks.

[TorchTheWitch]

56. Really

It's just ridiculous. But I suppose not any more ridiculous about making claims about "facts" they don't actually know exist. A defense attorney's say-so is plenty good enough for some people even when those defense attorneys contradict themselves.