'60 Minutes' interviews Duke lacrosse defendants (DukeLax Ping)

Durham Herald-Sun ^ | October 11, 2006 | John Stevenson

[abb]

DURHAM -- A CBS "60 Minutes" segment on the controversial Duke University lacrosse rape case is expected to air Sunday evening and will include interviews with all three indicted players and Kim Roberts Pittman, the second dancer at the party where the attack allegedly occurred.

CBS would not comment on the show. The network's normal practice is to withhold information about "60 Minutes" broadcasts until a few days in advance.

But Pittman's lawyer, Mark Simeon of Durham, confirmed Tuesday that his client was interviewed. But Simeon ended a telephone conversation before fielding a question about what Pittman told the interviewer.

An exotic dancer at the time, Pittman was with another dancer who claimed she was raped and sodomized by three lacrosse players during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.

Pittman since has been quoted as saying the rape charges were "a crock." She also told police in a March 22 handwritten statement that she and the accuser ended their performance when someone at the lacrosse party "brought out a broomstick and ... said he would use the broomstick on us."

"That statement made me uncomfortable and I felt like I wanted to leave," Pittman added. "I raised my voice to the boys and said the show was over."

Pittman said she then asked the alleged rape victim to leave the party with her. But she said the accuser "felt we could get more money and that we shouldn't leave yet."

According to Pittman, the accuser "began showing signs of intoxication" early in the dance performance and was "basically out of it" by the time it ended.

Pittman finally drove the other dancer to a Hillsborough Road grocery store, from which a 911 call was placed to police.

There is nothing about an alleged rape in Pittman's written statement, which is included in public-record court files.

All three defendants also were interviewed for the "60 Minutes" segment, sources told The Herald-Sun. The interviewer is veteran reporter Ed Bradley.

The three -- Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans -- remain free under $100,000 bonds as they await a trial that is expected to occur next year. Each maintains he is innocent.

Neither they nor their families could be reached Tuesday for possible comment about the CBS show, and their attorneys had no comment.

Defense lawyers apparently will not appear on the television program. Neither will District Attorney Mike Nifong, who has been widely criticized for allegedly rushing to judgment in the case and making inflammatory public statements before he had sufficient evidence.

For the past four months, Nifong has not discussed the situation publicly. He was out of town on business and unreachable for comment Tuesday.

Benjamin Himan and Mark Gottlieb, police investigators in the lacrosse case, also could not be reached. But sources said the two had not been interviewed by "60 Minutes" as of Friday.

The Police Department repeatedly has declined to discuss the lacrosse incident.

It could not be determined Tuesday if a one-time driver for the alleged rape victim, Jarriel Lanier Johnson, was among those Bradley contacted.

"I have nothing to say about it," Johnson told The Herald-Sun by telephone before hanging up.

But Johnson gave police an April 6 handwritten statement about an "appointment," "a job" and a performance the accuser had at three different hotels in two days not long before the alleged rape.

Johnson also said she had sexual intercourse with him during the same time period.

URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-777449.html

[Sue Perkick]

There may be some information here in the last paragraph. Of course election law could havve changed since then.

http://www.johnlocke.org/news_columns/display_story.html?id=1671

[Sue Perkick]

But "have" is still spelled with ONE "v". Good grief. LOL.

[Dukie07]

Just finally watched the 60 min piece from their website. Current mood: cautiously optimistic.

[xoxoxox]

GENERAL ELECTION [Durham County]
Advertisement of Election & One Stop Saturday, 09/23/06
NCGS 163-33(8) Saturday, 09/30/06
Saturday, 10/07/06
Wednesday, 10/11/06

Absentee Ballots available for Election Monday, 09/18/06
NCGS 163-227.3(a)

Registration books close for Election Friday, 10/13/06 by 5:00PM **
NCGS 163-82.6 (c 1,2 & 3)

One Stop voting begins at BOE Thursday, 10/19/06 at 9AM
NCGS 163-227.2

Absentee ballot approval meetings Tuesday, 10/17/06 at 5:00PM
NCGS 163-230.1(c) Tuesday, 10/24/06 at 5:00PM
Tuesday, 10/31/06 at 5:00PM
Tuesday, 11/07/06 at 5:00PM
Absentee Applications by mail must be received at BOE Tuesday, 10/31/06 by 5:00PM
NCGS 163-230.1(a)

One Stop voting ends Saturday, 11/04/06 at 1:00PM
NCGS 163-227.2(b)

Absentee ballots must be received at BOE Monday, 11/06/06 by 5:00PM
NCGS 163-231(b)

Date of Election Tuesdsay, 11/07/06 6:30 AM until 7:30PM
NCGS 163-1(b)

Board approves Provisional Ballots Thursday, 11/14/06 at 1:30
NCGS 163-11(5)

Official Canvass Friday, 11/17/06 at 11:00AM
NCGS 163-182.5(b)

Certificates of Election Thursday, 11/23/06
NCGS 163-182.15

** Duke students have one more day to register. Books close Friday Oct 13.

[Dukie07]

And so, to interpret xoxoxox's post: Who, exactly, is pushing this? Is it simple?: Mike needed a way to win. Is it more complex?: Who is Mike's boss and is there an agenda? Is it even more complex? Who is Mike's boss's boss? You get my drift....

This case is just too weird. One has to think that either Mike is a totally irrational and possibly suicidal (career-wise, anyway) nutcase to pursue this; or, somebody has their hooks in him.

But then, as somebody said earlier, nothing about this case surprises me anymore. I just hope we are seeing the beginning of the end starting Sunday. (Wow, that was a weird sentence... just like this case.)

[Dukie07]

That should have said, "To interpret xoxox's 'earlier' post."

[Dukie07]

"Duke students have one more day to register."

Friday, the 13th. Ominous? For whom, I wonder?

[xoxoxox]

Prof. KC Johnson coming to Duke--

[Note: Blogging will be a bit light this weekend: I'll be speaking Saturday morning
on intellectual diversity in the academy (and will mention this case a bit) at the
Pope Center's conference, in Raleigh. On October 26, I've been invited to the Duke
campus to speak about the case by ACLU@DUKE.]

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

[JLS]

Mike needed a way to win. Is it more complex?: Who is Mike's boss and is there an agenda? Is it even more complex?

Nope. Nifong was going to lose. He was willing to commit a crime rather than lose. It is no more complicated than that.

Who is Mike's boss's boss?

As I have said before, Nifong is a life-long drone in the DA's office. From his position in life, the DA seemed to be god. He was the boss. He anwered to nobody.

And in fact in the real world we give DAs much latitude so that they can prosecute without outside influence. That is usually thought to be a good thing. But in the hands of an ego maniac who thinks he is god like Nifong, this latitude led to him committing a crime to get elected.

This case is just too weird. One has to think that either Mike is a totally irrational and possibly suicidal (career-wise, anyway) nutcase to pursue this; or, somebody has their hooks in him.

He is not irrational. He is completely rational from his point of view. He believed he was answerable to nobody as DA. He knew he had to do something to win the primary and he did it. He is learning every one answer to someone even DAs.

After the primary he kept this going becaue the petition drives in the general were on going and he knew that he had to go to trial to avoid being investigated and maybe charged.

The best news in all of this is he picked these defendants to act like this about. Durham was lucky to get a high profile case like this where the criminal Nifong is was revealed. The get a chance to throw him out and have the information that he is dangerous before he has been in office long and had long to ruin many lives. The only question now is whether or not Durham will take advantage of their good fortune.

[darbymcgill]

Let's not forget folks, Kim has proved herself to be a fantastic liar..

First 911 call, walking by, driving by the house. Boys came running out of a frat house yelling n....r at her.

Kroger's.. There's a girl in my car that I picked up and she won't get out. She was walking down the road and I picked her up.

We both sipped the drinks and I don't know if she drank any of mine or not.

I did not drink my drink, Precious drank part of her own, spilled the rest, then drank all of mine.

The rape was a crock

I didn't see "the rape" but....

She said she raised her voice at the broom comment..

The players said she slapped the broom commenter..

As we were finally trying to leave the boys began yelling n....r at us...

Bissey standing no more than 15 or 20 feet away only hears "hey b..ch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt..

Those are just a few off the top of my head.. she's also solicited a PR firm to make her money off this deal.. hey, why shouldn't she?

We also know that the AV's money is missing, so she says. Kim is doing her best to stay in whomever has the upper hand's good graces. I bet someone on the defense team knows more about the missing money than Kimmie wants known in open court...

I would hold off believing anything Kim says without a corroborating witness..

[Ken H]

On October 26, I've been invited to the Duke campus to speak about the case by ACLU@DUKE.]

The dominoes are falling. Direct link to KC Johnson's must read:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/10/roberts-bombshells.html

[darbymcgill]

Holy cow... looks like I could have plagiarized The Johnsville News... of course I did not.. check out his review of Kim's "versions".. much more thorough than my off the top of my head post...

[Ken H]

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-778122.html

[snip]

Neither Durham Mayor Bill Bell nor City Manager Patrick Baker was interviewed for the television investigative report.

Baker said he will be interested to see what new details the show brings to light, but he doesn't believe the Durham Police Department's work on the case should be second-guessed if new statements contradict previous ones.

"If the dancer says one thing to our officers and another to '60 Minutes,' it raises questions about her credibility and the credibility of the entire case," Baker said.

"The Police Department is at the whim of the evidence given to them. ... If people have given the Durham Police Department the wrong information, it's certainly going to affect the DA's ability to prosecute the case."

But, he cautioned, "Keep in mind these men were indicted by a grand jury. ... It wouldn't be the first time an indictment has occurred based on information that is later proven to be false.

I think justice needs to be served. I don't want anyone to go through indictments when they're innocent. If the witness or the victim is not telling the truth, that's going to come out."

Sunday's broadcast will differ from most "60 Minutes" presentations in that two out of three segments will deal with the Duke lacrosse case. Normally, each segment is on a different topic.

[darbymcgill]

ready... left foot...

shuffle ball, shuffle ball, step, step, shuffle ball, shuffle ball change, turn...

now... right foot....

shuffle ball, shuffle ball, step, step, shuffle ball, shuffle ball change, turn...

I prefer my tap dancing acapella... you can add your own music if you like...

[Jezebelle]

It doesn't matter what his initial impression of the evening's events was. The only thing that matters is what can he convince a jury of. Part of that depends on the makeup of the jury.

The moral, ethical and legal issues are separate and relate to the jury; the press and political issues don't. Neither side can plead its case on the press and political issues.

It is indeed time to "out" the accuser - past time, in fact.

Why do you deem it a "supposed" hoax?

[Jezebelle]

It still depends on if and how Bradley spins her story.

[Jezebelle]

Highly unlikely.

[Jezebelle]

Kim is going to do whatever best suits her needs. She has had time to get legal counsel. Hopefully her attorney convinced her not to lie on national TV because it will come back to bite her if she does.

I thought she was supposed to be on home detention. Why isn't she wearing an ankle bracelet? I don't see one in the photo of her with Ed Bradley.

[Jezebelle]

Well...........don't keep us in suspense, for pete's sake! What, exactly, did you see?

Thanks. :>

[Jezebelle]

Much of what happens turns on the election. If the 60M show really is devastating to Liefong, maybe this will sink him and Easley will appoint someone ethical and this can be put to rest. I'm not holding my breath on any of it happening, though.