Posted on 10/11/2006 1:52:56 AM PDT by 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
I believe the trip to Kroger is part of the AV's police statement.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/10/campaign-finance-follow-ups.html
Ed Bradley apparently said that Dave Evan's dental floss was also in the bathroom trash can with the finger nails.
This from posters who saw Ed on with Hannah Storm.
Where are Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy and the other HOHs on this?
AWOL.
Two pingers are preferred to one by me. While Howlin stays up odd hours like me, two pingers get us all pinged as timely as possible.
They wouldn't, but they should have. Usually, because witness identifiactions are not wholly reliable, especially in a case where the alleged victim was under the influence and/or has at least twice failed to pick the person out of previous line-ups (be they standing or photo), a good investigator would confront the suspect with the identiofication and ask them if there's anything he (the suspect) wants to tell him, and then escalate the interview from there to an interrogation. A good investigator would seek any alibi the suspect might have, and then work on verifying or eliminating that alibi in order to determine if this was a viable suspect or not.
You see, the fact that none of that was done clearly demonstrates that all they were looking for was a prima facie case so they could indict anybody who was warm and breathing instead of the right person (assuming that a crime had actually occurred, of course). By not interviewing him, they relieve themselves of the necessary follow-up so they can just go with the identification to present to the Durham Grand Jury. It's then their burden to decide if there's enough cause to believe there was a crime and that the persons named in the indictment are more likely than not responsible for it. That way, Liefong and his cohorts have a panoply of other people to blame, and we already see that coming out in Baker's recent statements that blame Mangum and others for lying to the cops. She's one (deserving) scapegoat, and the grand jury will soon become another.
All Lifong had to do was ensure that professional investigative steps were ignored in order to get the indictments with a straight face. Grand jurors are notoriously dumb and clueless about the original purpose of grand juries and what their role, responsibilities and powers are. They're usually a bunch of dumbass bumpkins.
One thing I hope comes of this case is a media investigation and public airing of the (indicting) grand jury process so that people on future (indicting) grand juries will come to it with an understanding of what they are really there for, and it certainly is NOT to serve as a rubber stamp to the Mike Nifongs of this world.
Thanks, Ken!
Exactly.
Well, not so fast. NC has some unusual laws and the particular indicting grand jury system they use leaves the people ripe for this kind of abuse. This case presented a perfect storm of political circumstances, personalities and events converging within a rather unusual legal system that allowed this travesty to be set into motion and move forward judicially unchecked. In other words, most other states have checks and balances that would have derailed this before it got anywhere near this far down the road.
Otherwise known as "plausible deniability".
LOL! I don't see any reason why your points, all of which I agree with, and mine can't co-exist quite happily. Consider this, in view of my point: If Liefong believed a crime had actually occurred, there would be no reason NOT to go ahead, investigate it, and put together a solid case instead of a house of cards. Right? :>
I agree. It's a peripheral incident.
Wiehl is a lefty. Believing a rape occurred fits her life-view paradigm.
The false allegations don't originate with LE or the judges, and they aren't making the laws. Legislatures make laws, which brings us to the political arena. Don't blame LE for what happens in legislatures.
As far as a crisis in the justice system goes, I would say that most of those occur in the judiciary in relation to inadequate sentencing.
I, too, have been there and wore the T-shirt for 32 years, so please spare your scolding.
I'll find it. It's in this thread somewhere.
That's my point. Mangum said it, not Kim. So how does Wiehl claim Kim has changed her story? She's spinning.
Thanks, Ken. I was going to find that for Howlin, but you've already done it.
Yes, I know. We were talking about the relevance and motivation of Kim's 911 call.
No offense, but the legislatures are making laws that make it a crime to make false charges. The DAs though aren't prosecuting them and the judges aren't punishing them.
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.