nobody Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 James Kane has to have his own Lawyer. He had no choice. I don't know nuthin' 'bout no law; why's he need his own lawyer?
... Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 You mean when Cambria makes the case about everything other than the facts? Which is what he is known for. I'm sure you have all of the facts from the event in question and will provide us with a detailed comparison of the facts versus the story Cambria gives us.
darksabre Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 I don't know nuthin' 'bout no law; why's he need his own lawyer? Probably because they are being charged separately rather than as co-defendants, meaning that Pat doesn't want to receive the same judgment and punishment as his cousin.
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 Probably because they are being charged separately rather than as co-defendants, meaning that Pat doesn't want to receive the same judgment and punishment as his cousin. In criminal cases it's frowned upon when two defendants have the same lawyer. It's considered a conflict of interest.
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 I'm sure you have all of the facts from the event in question and will provide us with a detailed comparison of the facts versus the story Cambria gives us. We all have the facts. Two thugs jumped a cabbie, one thug is a spoiled rich with with the resources to hire a media lawyer who specializes in damage control and changing the focus of the investigation. Why don't you post what you really want to? The cabbie left his house dressed provocatively and was asking for it.
SwampD Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 We all have the facts. Two thugs jumped a cabbie, one thug is a spoiled rich with with the resources to hire a media lawyer who specializes in damage control and changing the focus of the investigation. Why don't you post what you really want to? The cabbie left his house dressed provocatively and was asking for it. All previous and future posts you have on this topic are rendered moot by this post.
SDS Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 We all have the facts. Two thugs jumped a cabbie, one thug is a spoiled rich with with the resources to hire a media lawyer who specializes in damage control and changing the focus of the investigation. Why don't you post what you really want to? The cabbie left his house dressed provocatively and was asking for it. Really? TWO thugs? Are you sure? Are you absolutely certain there were TWO thugs equally involved? Both of them "jumped him"? (whatever "jumping" means) Hmmmm, I didn't realize you drove a cab w/o a license DeLuca67....
Stoner Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 Really? TWO thugs? Are you sure? Are you absolutely certain there were TWO thugs equally involved? Both of them "jumped him"? (whatever "jumping" means) Hmmmm, I didn't realize you drove a cab w/o a license DeLuca67.... So what does the lack of a license have to do with anything? It's utterly amazing what will stick in the American consciousness. Some folks really believe Obama wants a Death Panel that granny will have to appear at to fight for her life, after Sarah Palin and her son take their turn.
... Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 So what does the lack of a license have to do with anything? It's utterly amazing what will stick in the American consciousness. Some folks really believe Obama wants a Death Panel that granny will have to appear at to fight for her life, after Sarah Palin and her son take their turn. It means the accuser in this case is willing to evade and/or ignore the law (lock people in his car/take more from his riders than they are obligated - steal). It means, being unlicensed, he is willing to put his clients (riders) at risk for his own benefit (cab fares). It means that you should be very careful taking this person at their word (the accusations).
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 Really? TWO thugs? Are you sure? Are you absolutely certain there were TWO thugs equally involved? Both of them "jumped him"? (whatever "jumping" means) Hmmmm, I didn't realize you drove a cab w/o a license DeLuca67.... That would explain why the cabbie doesn't want to be a part of a media circus. I get it, just like Lynch, it's tough when a local hero turns out to be just another thugs in pro-sports we have to read about.
SDS Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 So what does the lack of a license have to do with anything? It's utterly amazing what will stick in the American consciousness. Some folks really believe Obama wants a Death Panel that granny will have to appear at to fight for her life, after Sarah Palin and her son take their turn. actually, I didn't mean anything by it other than suggesting DeLuca67 was the cab driver (so, it was an extra needle). :thumbsup: How else would he know that both Kanes are thugs and were equally involved in this scuffle if he wasn't the cabbie? ;)
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 It means the accuser in this case is willing to evade and/or ignore the law (lock people in his car/take more from his riders than they are obligated - steal). It means, being unlicensed, he is willing to put his clients (riders) at risk for his own benefit (cab fares). It means that you should be very careful taking this person at their word (the accusations). It means he deserves to be attacked and robbed? The Kanes knew the status of his license and attacked out of fear?
SDS Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 That would explain why the cabbie doesn't want to be a part of a media circus. I get it, just like Lynch, it's tough when a local hero turns out to be just another thugs in pro-sports we have to read about. Actually, right now - you rank much lower on the humanity scale than either of these guys. These guys haven't had their day in court, yet you feel free to convict them in the court of public opinion. I suppose there aren't countless highly publicized cases that were proven to be false? Duke lacrosse team? Atlanta Olympic "bomber"? You have no idea if one Kane hit the cabbie and the other one was completely innocent. Do you? DO YOU?
That Aud Smell Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 Sorry, I must disagree no way should you be apologizing for disagreeing. If they paid, he said he didn't have change, they started arguing and he then locked the doors -- that's an aggressive escalation. He just doesn't get to do that. that's fair. OTOH, if they get in the cab and he says "fellas, before we go anywhere, I just want to let you know that we've had a lot of riders skip out on fares, so I can't open the doors when we get there until I get paid for the ride", they say OK and get in, and he then locks the doors and starts driving -- different story. while i doubt very much that he would have said anything to provide notice, it's my guess that the doors get locked soon after the meter starts running. FWIW, I've never had the doors locked on me in a NYC cab. I'd guess there is an NYC regulation prohibiting it. nor i - and i suspect you're right - those guys with the medallions get regulated closely. This is going to disappear fast. wait, what are we talking about?
spndnchz Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 >>> wait, what are we talking about? Whether or not Lynch should be convicted of theft of service for stealing the Delta Sonic ladies helium balloon. :wallbash:
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 Actually, right now - you rank much lower on the humanity scale than either of these guys. These guys haven't had their day in court, yet you feel free to convict them in the court of public opinion. I suppose there aren't countless highly publicized cases that were proven to be false? Duke lacrosse team? Atlanta Olympic "bomber"? You have no idea if one Kane hit the cabbie and the other one was completely innocent. Do you? DO YOU? In the cabbie's own words "one started to choke to me and the other started throwing punches saying Don't you know who I am? Don't you know who I am?"
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 So what does the lack of a license have to do with anything? It's utterly amazing what will stick in the American consciousness. Some folks really believe Obama wants a Death Panel that granny will have to appear at to fight for her life, after Sarah Palin and her son take their turn. It's sad that in many cases victims of crimes are put through far more than their attackers. Here is this guy just making a living, yeah he had no license, and he gets thrown into this. Here it is Tuesday and already we know he had a issue 10 years ago? Like it has anything to do with him being attacked.
darksabre Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 It's sad that in many cases victims of crimes are put through far more than their attackers. Here is this guy just making a living, yeah he had no license, and he gets thrown into this. Here it is Tuesday and already we know he had a issue 10 years ago? Like it has anything to do with him being attacked. Are you trying to argue now that prior record doesn't matter? Man, what planet are you on?
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 Are you trying to argue now that prior record doesn't matter? Man, what planet are you on? He had an issue 10 years ago, why would it matter today? It's sad that a prior record can't be used in a trial for the attacker, but a prior record can be used to discredit the victim?
SDS Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 In the cabbie's own words "one started to choke to me and the other started throwing punches saying Don't you know who I am? Don't you know who I am?" because people never lie... Inconsistencies in Mangum's story Over the course of the scandal, police reports, media investigations, and defense attorneys' motions and press conferences brought to light several key inconsistencies in Mangum's story.[14][73] Some of the questions about her credibility were: * Durham police said that Mangum kept changing her story and is not credible, reporting that she initially told them she was raped by 20 white men, later reducing the number to only three. * Another police report states that Mangum initially claimed she was only groped, rather than raped, but changed her story before going to the hospital. * The second stripper who performed at the house, Kim Roberts, said that Mangum was not raped. She stated that Mangum was not obviously hurt. Likewise, she refuted other aspects of Mangum’s story including denying that she helped dress Mangum after the party and saying that they were not forcefully separated by players like Mangum had reported.[17] * Mangum did not consistently choose the same three defendants in the photo lineups. Media reports have disclosed at least two photo lineups that occurred in March and April in which she was asked to recall who she saw at the party and in what capacity. In the March lineup, she did not choose Dave Evans at all. There was only one individual she identified as being at the party with 100% certainty during both procedures - Brad Ross.[74] After being identified, Ross provided to police investigators indisputable evidence that he was with his girlfriend at North Carolina State University before, during, and after the party through cell phone records and a sworn affidavit from a witness.[75] * A police report released June 23, 2006, said that Mangum initially claimed she was attacked by five men and changed her story several times. * On December 22, 2006, Nifong dropped the rape charges after Mangum stated that she was penetrated from behind but that she did not know with what. In North Carolina, penetration with an object is considered sexual assault, not rape.[76] * On January 11, 2007, several more inconsistencies came to light after the defense filed a motion detailing her interview on December 21, 2006. For example, she changed details about when she was attacked, who attacked her, and how they attacked her:[77][78] * In the new version from the December 21 interview, Mangum claims she was attacked from 11:35 p.m. to midnight, much earlier than her previous accusations. This new timing is before the well-documented alibi evidence for Reade Seligmann that places him away from the house. However, the defense revealed that this new timing would suggest Seligmann was on the phone with his girlfriend during the height of the attack. Additionally, she received an incoming call at 11:36 p.m. and somebody stayed on the line for 3 minutes, which would be during the party according to the new timetable. * The new statement contradicts time stamped photos that show her dancing between 12:00 and 12:04 a.m. It would also mean that they stayed at the party for nearly an hour after the supposed attack since Kim Roberts drove her away at 12:53 a.m. In her April statement, Mangum said they left immediately after the attack. * Mangum changed the names of her attackers, saying they used multiple pseudonyms. * The accuser also changed her description of Evans. She previously claimed that she was attacked by man that looked like Evans except with a mustache, but more recently stated that the assailant just had a five o'clock shadow. * Mangum claimed that Evans stood in front of her, making her perform oral sex on him. Previously, she stated that Seligmann did this. In the latest statement, she stated that Seligmann did not commit any sex act on her and that he had said that he could not participate because he was getting married. Although he has a girlfriend, there has never been anything to suggest he was engaged or getting married. * North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said Mangum told many different accounts of the attack. In one account, Mangum claimed she was suspended in mid-air and was being assaulted by all three of them in the bathroom. Cooper then said this event seemed very implausible due to the small size of the bathroom. According to a 60 Minutes investigation, the accuser gave at least a dozen different stories. * Mangum, at one point, claimed both Evans and Finnerty helped her into her car upon departure. However, a photo shows her being helped by another player, while electronic records and witnesses reported that Evans and Finnerty had already left. Upon seeing the photo, Mangum claimed that it must have been doctored or that Duke University paid someone off.[66] * In its own investigation, The News & Observer, North Carolina's second largest newspaper, determined that Mangum gave at least five different versions of the incident to police and medical interviewers by August 2006.
deluca67 Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 because people never lie... How inspiring, a story of some rich white kids getting away with rape. :thumbdown:
SwampD Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 How inspiring, a story of some rich white kids getting away with rape. :thumbdown: Did you get picked on by jocks in high school?
nfreeman Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 How inspiring, a story of some rich white kids getting away with rape. :thumbdown: Are you joking? They may have been rich and white (and some of them no doubt were jerks), but they absolutely didn't rape her. It's not even close. There was an enormous amount of evidence exonerating the defendants -- e.g. ATM receipts showing that they weren't home at the time the "rape" allegedly occurred. The DA who brought the case was not only fired, he was disbarred and criminally convicted and spent a night in jail. The new DA (it may even have been the governor) came out and said the defendants were innocent (as opposed to not guilty). The point (and I think this was SDS' point as well) is that just because somebody claims somebody else did something to him/her, it doesn't mean that there is any truth to it.
darksabre Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 He had an issue 10 years ago, why would it matter today? It's sad that a prior record can't be used in a trial for the attacker, but a prior record can be used to discredit the victim? Prior record is almost always taken into account. Looking at the current crime and the prior records of defendants is easily the primary function of a District Attorney. Prior record can determine plea deals, sentencing application, and a slew of other things. If Kane and cousin had prior records, you can damn well believe the prosecution would be looking at it.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted August 11, 2009 Report Posted August 11, 2009 If Chris Neil did this......the same Homer appologists would be standing in line to piss on his grave.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.