Sunday, 9 April 2006

More on the photos

Joseph Neff of the News & Observer reports additional details on the photos the lacrosse players’ attorneys claim are exculpatory based on an account by attorney Joe Cheshire. There are definitely more details than previous accounts, and not all of them are all that flattering to the team:

The lacrosse players line the room, drinking out of beer cans and plastic cups, and one photo shows a player unconscious on the floor, his shorts pulled down and his underwear wet.

And we have an echo of scandals past:

Cheshire said the time-stamped photos have a 27-minute gap between when the two women stopped dancing and when the accuser was photographed outside the house. During that period, the dancers locked themselves in a bathroom and then went outside, he said.

I suppose I’m baffled that the media would run with a story based on a few attorneys’ descriptions of photographs; given the photos’ content, however, I suppose the lawyers don’t want to make them public unless absolutely necessary, but my suspicion is that they’ll have to come out at some point unless Nifong drops the case.

This 27-minute gap in the photos seems just a wee bit weird, as well. I’ll leave the Nixon jokes to others… but there are certainly ways to tell if photos were deleted from the camera’s memory cards, and perhaps even recover deleted pictures. (On the other hand, if you were forging timestamps on pictures, you would probably make the 27-minute gap shrink and “discredit” the accuser’s story by “showing” she was only in the bathroom for 3–5 minutes.) Color me skeptical on the verbal accounts of these photos until they’re shown to someone more impartial.

Cheshire’s account does, however, make more sense than the accuser’s in at least one regard; as I’ve noted before, the two dancers arrived separately, yet left together. The accuser’s account fails to explain why the second dancer (who didn’t even know her) would wait around for 30 minutes outside the house while she was still inside; the defense story indicates that both women left around the same time.

If the timestamps on the photos are valid—a big “if,” mind you—it would also confirm the timeline as being closer to my speculative timeline, because it has the women gone from the house by 12:15 or so, putting them who-knows-where for the next hour and change until they show up at Kroger. The timestamps also would turn the nosy neighbor’s account of the times he saw/heard things into complete garbage.

The other question—where did the guys go? Assume they broke up the party by 12:30; Ryan McFadyen doesn’t send his idiotic email for another 90 minutes, give or take. Some probably went home. Did some of them go to their reputed hangout, Charlie’s, just a few blocks to the west? Witnesses?

5 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

Most strippers that I have seen, when going to a private party think about things like rape before they go and do not enter the party without some sort of body guard. One woman in a room full of drunk guys would be pretty scary. Who would fo alone??

 
[Permalink] 2. RRsafety wrote @ Mon, 10 Apr 2006, 11:09 am CDT:

According to the neighbor, the Dancers were greeted around 11:50pm. If so, and combined with the “photo evidence” and 911 Calls, this is the timeline we know about.

11:50 p.m.: Bissey, on his porch, notices two women walk to the back of the house, where a man greets them.
12:00 midnight: Bissey sees the two women go into the house.
12:05 – Dance Start
12:09 – Dance Ends Dancers into bathroom
12:36 – Dancer #1 Fumbles Through Purse
12:42 – Dancer #1 Passed Out
12:45 – Dancer #1 Helped to Car
12:53: first 911 call from mystery woman, probably Dancer 2
12:55: police show up at house, find evidence of party, nobody around
1:06: police depart
1:22: second 911 call from Kroger security guard on Hillsborough Rd
1:58: Ryan McFadyen sends sick, depraved email from dorm room on campus

 

RRsafety: If the neighbor’s times are accurate, that works; I’m skeptical, myself.

Doug: Interesting point, and one that’s obliquely brought up in all of the other accounts of adult entertainers working parties, even small ones. Why these two women didn’t have bodyguards/bouncers is a bit of a mystery.

 

Are we to believe 40 NCAA Division I male athletes let allegedly drunk strippers rob them and that they could not go after them or stop them? Did the strippers hold a 6” acrylic heel on them or something? Please do not insult the public’s intelligence, defense team

 
[Permalink] 5. Give Me A Break wrote @ Wed, 19 Apr 2006, 11:24 pm CDT:

WHY IS EVERYONE TRYING TO JUDGE THE CASE BEFORE ALL THE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED. I AM SURE THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASE AND EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN FABRICATED BY THE MEDIA AND HEAR SAYERS. STOP GUESSING AND WAIT FOR EVIDENCE. HOW CAN YOU SAY SOMEONE IS GUILTY OR INNOCENT BEFORE YOU HEAR ALL THE FACTS. YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY TO TAKE SIDES OF PEOPLE YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW. I WOULD SAY THAT I AM SHOCK, BUT IT ALWAYS HAPPENS. GET A REAL LIFE.

 
Comments are now closed on this post.