Posted on 04/21/2006 12:56:01 AM PDT by OakOak
Edited on 04/21/2006 2:52:00 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
At first, a stripper who performed at a Duke University lacrosse team party doubted the story of a colleague who told police she was dragged into a bathroom and raped.
Now, Kim Roberts isn't so sure.
"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred - and I never will," Roberts told The Associated Press Thursday in her first on-the-record interview. But after watching defense attorneys release photos of the accuser, and upset by the leaking of both dancers' criminal pasts, she said she has to "wonder about their character."
"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty ... but somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression."
Attorneys for the 46 players have aggressively proclaimed the players' innocence, citing DNA tests during a public campaign that has included describing and releasing photos from the party.
Those photos, the defense maintains, show the accuser was both injured and impaired when she arrived, and also support the claim that one of the two players who has been indicted would not have had enough time to participate in any assault before he left the party. The district attorney has said he also hopes to charge a third suspect in the case.
The attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her. They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage."
"We believe ... her story has been motivated by her own self-interest," said attorney Bill Thomas, who represents one of the uncharged players. "I think that a jury will ultimately have to decide the question of her credibility."
Roberts, 31, was arrested on March 22 - eight days after the party - on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to documents obtained by the AP.
On Monday, the same day a grand jury indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, a judge agreed to a change so that Roberts would no longer have to pay a 15 percent fee to a bonding agent. District Attorney Mike Nifong signed a document saying he would not oppose the change.
"It seems she is receiving very favorable financial treatment for what she is now saying," Thomas said.
Mark Simeon, Roberts' attorney, said the bond conditions were changed because Roberts is not considered a flight risk. Nifong, who hasn't spoken with reporters about the case in weeks, didn't return a call seeking comment.
Roberts' testimony could be vital during any trial of the two sophomores, indicted on charges of first-degree rape, sexual offense and kidnapping.
Other than lacrosse players and the accuser, a 27-year-old student at a nearby university, Roberts is believed to be the only other person at the March 13 party.
Roberts said Thursday she does not remember Seligmann's face, but said she recalls seeing Finnerty - whom she described as the "little skinny one."
"I was looking him right in the eyes," she said.
Although she would not talk extensively about the party, she confirmed some of what the other dancer told police - including that the women initially left the party after one of the players threatened to sodomize the women with a broomstick.
The players' attorneys have said their clients were angry and demanded a refund when the women stopped dancing, but Roberts disputed that.
"They ripped themselves off when they started hollering about a broomstick," she said.
The accuser told police that the women were coaxed back into the house with an apology, at which point they were separated. That's when she said she was dragged into a bathroom and raped, beaten and choked for a half hour.
Later, police received a 911 call from a woman complaining that she had been called racial slurs by white men gathered outside the home where the party took place. The defense has said it believes the second dancer at the party made that call.
Roberts then drove the accuser - whom she reportedly had just met that night - to a grocery store and asked a security guard to call 911. The accuser was described later by a police officer as "just passed-out drunk."
The defense timeline is backed up by a cab driver who said Seligmann called for a ride at 12:14 a.m., and was picked up five minutes later. The defense argues that if the dancers were performing around midnight, Seligmann would not have had enough time to participate in the 30-minute assault described by the accuser.
The cabbie, Moez Mostafa, also said he saw a woman leaving the party in anger, and overheard someone say, "She just a stripper. She's going to call the police."
"She looked, like, mad," he said of the woman. "In her face, the way she walked, the way she talked, she looked like mad."
On Thursday, authorities released warrants detailing their search earlier this week of Finnerty's dorm room. Seized during the search were a newspaper article and an envelope addressed to Finnerty.
Also Thursday, 5W Public Relations, a New York firm that specializes in "crisis communication," distributed an e-mail signed "The 2nd Dancer," and Roberts confirmed she sent it after learning the AP knew her identity.
"I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country," she wrote. "I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage."
Ronn Torossian, 5W's president, said he replied, but got no response.
"If this person is indeed who they say they are, I would be happy to speak with her," said Torossian, whose firm has represented the likes of Sean "Diddy" Combs, Ice Cube and Lil' Kim.
Roberts, like the accuser a divorced single mother who is black, took umbrage at the notion that she should not try to make something out of her experience. She's worried that once her name and criminal record are public, no one will want to hire her.
"Why shouldn't I profit from it?" she asked. "I didn't ask to be in this position ... I would like to feed my daughter."
Roberts is bracing for an all-out attack, but said she's almost past caring.
"Don't forget that they called me a damn n####," she said. "She (the accuser) was passed out in the car. She doesn't know what she was called. I was called that. I can never forget that."
Roberts, 31, was arrested on March 22 - eight days after the party - on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to documents obtained by the AP.
I think they were more worried about the getting paid part. LOL
Thanks. I was under the impression that OakOak was in charge of these threds now and didn't see that one.
Why are you so obsessed with that ONE facet of this case?
The defense team offered to meet with Nifong and bring along their clients to tell their side of the story, but he wasn't interested.
Nor was he interested in looking at the pictures.
That ought to tell you all you need to know about this case.
And as I have said repeatedly, if the defense hadn't released what little information they have, we would all still be believing Nifong and his two "credible" witnesses.
Is that they way you want it, one sided?
Bingo. And become a star in the process. She's a modern Becky Sharp.
Nobody is in charge of these threads; and I did notice this one had to be changed TWICE by the admin moderator.
We need to stick to facts with links.
Yeah and I believe that's the reason why she had them black her face out during that first interview. Not because her family didn't know she stripped, but because she had warrants.
Because....if they reveal what "really happened", DipThong and his AV will just change the timeline again.
And, there is supposedly a 3rd suspect. She's done so well on ID'ing the first 2, why mess up a good thing? LOL
Racial slurs, while repugnant, or irrelevant to a charge of rape. Unless you believe that Mark Furman planted evidence - based solely on the fact that he had once said the "N" word.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm you might be on to something.
Ah, do you want us "whiteys" to take that attitude about being falsely accused of rape? Do you want us to all rise up and believe EVERY WHITE PERSON that makes a charge just because of their race?
I take from your remark that "The racial comment is driving ALL of this." that that is what you think; so you're admitting that none of this would have happened if a racial slur hadn't been alleged?
Do you realize what you're saying?
Why are you so obsessed with that ONE facet of this case?
Because they seem so obsessed with covering it up.
As well as whether or not the woman was threatened with a broomstick. They have not responded to that either.
It is just curious to me why they seem to release certain tidbits and not others.
Her "politician" portfolio is probably pretty full. Would just LOVE to find the DA is on her list of satified :-) customers.
It sounds like you could write a fascinating book. I'd buy it. A LOT of people would buy it if you named names ;)
If you were being indicted by a DA who would not even meet with you to hear your side of a story would you reveal anything BUT exculpatory evidence?
Are you not paying attention? The defense is doing ALL the talking.
And the reason they're only releasing what they have to is because Nifong and his "clients" change their story every time information comes out to disprove their story.
And I think you're wrong about them not addressing those remarks; I'm quite sure I have read that the girls started simulating sex and somebody asked them if they had brought sex toys and when they said no, somebody said "Well, you can use this," and held up a broom (which probably was a lacrosse stick and they just didn't know what it was).
These boys go to DUKE!!! They are really, really, really, smart, don't ya know. They were probably doing beer funnels, for at least 2 hours, since the girls were an hour late. And even with a good buzz going, they masterminded the plan, in a matter of 1 minute, that since the show stunk, they'd coax the girls back in to the house to rape/sodomize one of them while the others diverted Kim with a game of Madden on Xbox. They have the wherewithal to put on hoodies, so that she can't scratch through and they leave the hoods up so that none of their hair gets on anything. After it is over, they get the Swiffer Wet Jet and clean the bathroom. I guess because they were DRUNK, they missed the towel and the fingernails. Doesn't that make perfect sense to you all? (sarc)
I hadn't known this. And I do understand the latitut the judge has in the sentencing. On the $100,000 scale, $25K is in the first quarter. Not even at half. So, I understand the sentence, now.
She received three year probation in 2001. If she is still on probation in 2006, that means this likely not her first violation, and she may receive jail time, although I am not sure how judges handle it in NC.
Thank you. Did you happen to see at the site what constitutes "probation violation" in embezzelment cases?
Ummmm.....Let me take a stab at this one. Maybe becuase there's a psychotic District Attorney running amok - along with a Drive By Media that resembles a lynch mob - that has turned this case into a political witch hunt? Maybe the defendents don't think they'll get a fair shake with the situation like it is....
Supposing "Mark" says I'm sorry for calling you the "N" word---how much do you want to bet he'd be suspect #3?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.