'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

[Howlin]

Dave Evans sounded JUST like he did the day of his press conference.

[Fido969]

Well - I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

But then again - NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Look, I don't have to defend myself here, too, guilty until proven innocent, etc. Nor do I have to give myself a case of post-traumatic stress disorder by dragging up for your amusement every sordid detail of the worst four years of my life.

But look at the Duke case - You have seen the evidence - you know what a dog this is. But Nifong has plenty of defenders! And not just the pot-bangers - Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy - former prosecutors have been giving very active support! The MSM supported his actions for a long time, and the NYT and the Herald Sun see nothing wrong with what is going on here.

There is a huge segment of society and a huge segment of the "justice system" that is twisted beyond belief. If a person walks into a courtroom, whether it be criminal, civil or probate, they have a right to expect fairness, objectivity and impartialness.

That, however, is NOT what they are going to get.

How much more evidence do you need?

[RecallMoran]

Please back off a little. Howlin has been one of the strongest Freepers on this case since day 1 back in March. There is no one who knows these people, this case or the legal ramifications and nuances as well as Howlin. You raise some good points but the Brodhead insult aimed at Howlin was out of line.

[jennyd]

I wonder if you asked them if they want to go to trial, what would they say. I am sorry, that's just nonsense. You are saying they should go on trial in Durham?

[Howlin]

Like I said, you don't know who you're dealing with here.

Never mind.

[jennyd]

Innocent people should not go on trial to prove their innocence. Furhtemore, it's impossible. There is no option of "innocent." Our trial system is not there to prove anyone innocent.

[jennyd]

And you do? LOL.
Are you seriously saying they want to go on trial?

[onyx]

Nifong has not dropped the case, so what do you suggest, dear?

[jennyd]

Sad but true. It's naive to think that trial is going to magically prove them innocent.

[RecallMoran]

Of course they do not want a criminal trial. Nifong will fail to prove guilt. Although I respect the risks, I am not as cynical as others about the possibility of jury nullification.

And sure you can "prove innocence," just not at a criminal trial. There are other forums for that, including a civil case.

[jennyd]

You haven't followed the discussion. Howlin thinks the worst thing that can happen is Precious refusing to go forward with the case.

[Sue Perkick]

That thought has crossed my mind too. That would let Fong off way too easy. These boys need to regain their reputations. That won't happen with a big cloud of doubt in the air. I'd rather see Crystal throw him under the bus. Not likely though. I hope they sue no matter what happens. But I still think there needs to be an investigation into Nifong's handling of this case. And changes in the system. Big ones.

[Dukie07]

"In July, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that Shinnick was innocent by "findings of fact" -- a decision that essentially erases all record of the case."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/30/BUGTGKRHSF1.DTL
The quote is about 2/3 of the way down.

Is this a possibility in NC?

[onyx]

I have followed the discussion and you are misrepresenting Howlin's comments.

They need to clear their names! How can they do that?

[beyond the sea]

You've got mail .....

[RecallMoran]

By the way, Precious refusing to go forward may not necessarily stop Nifong. He can still be willing to go forward. Rare and stupid, but it is conceivable that the case can proceed without Precious. Personally, I think nothing short of a court dismissing the case will dissuade him from going forward.

[jennyd]

I doubt there was a single case of rape allegations prosecuted without a complaining witness. Don't they have a constitutional right to confront their accuser?

[onyx]

BUMP.

[Howlin]

Well, she very well could, since he hasn't even heard her "story" yet, eh?

He cannot possibly have anything else to prove his case; if he has withheld evidence, he will be hung at high noon on that campus.

[Howlin]

It's called a directed verdict; and yes, that can happen in NC.