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
There don't seem to be alot of options. But they have very good lawyers and good lawyers can be creative - especially when they believe in their clients so much.
I personally would like to see Kevin Finnerty unleash an army of attorneys and grind Nifong and the whole bunch into dog meat.
Also Dave's dad is a lawyer. I'm sure he has some ideas.
We're moving to eastern TN soon (Smokey Mountains). Get somebody to swear me in and I'll help you. Be delighted! :>
LOL....you're getting closer. Pretty soon you'll be in the jury pool!
I have no doubt they are holding their cards very close right now.
I know these attorneys, at least a few of them personally, and the rest by reputations. I have great faith in their ability to prove them innocent.
And I, like you, am ready to see some serious butt kicking. I just hope I don't miss it live on TV. :-)
You are seriously suggesting they want a trial, aren't you?
Upon conclusion of which, they could end up in prison for 30 years. Jury is always a gamble. Many have commented one never knows what a jury is going to do.
All you are doing is proving my point. You're either being deliberately obtuse or you are dense.
You brought up the details voluntarily. I simply asked a few questions to fill in a couple blanks. But if you don't want to answer questions, I suggest you not bring up your personal experience to begin with. It's kind of Nifongish to only want to tell certain parts of the story.
You made a claim that corruption took place, but you didn't specify in any way what form that corruption took. It simply sounds like things didn't go your way until the very end, and you attribute that to corruption. That's an easy charge to make, but if you have nothing to back it up, it's just hot air.
I've already said I believe you, so there should be nothing traumatic about our discussion that you didn't bring on yourself voluntarily.
Nothing you've said is "evidence". It's opinion based on your view of your own unfortunate episode and this case, and your opinion consists of broad, sweeping statements, nothing more. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but please, don't try to pass it off as fact or evidence of being rampant throughout the country. There are thousands upon thousands of criminal prosecutions every year. Two cases do not make a national crisis, especially when one of them was primarily a civil case.
BTW, I was not asking you out of amusement, simply the need for clarification on the corruption claim that you made and still haven't backed up. But that's fine.
I don't think I am either obtuse or dense. Just in possession of some common sense.
Well, as they say, the jury's still out on that.
Uh, I gather you understand we are all in violent agreement on that point.
"How unusual is it that an investigator or Nifong
did not interview any of the three lax players?"
The three team captains that rented the house
were grilled by DPD for several hours shortly after
the party.
CBS has been working on this story for six months.
They have interviewed dozens if not a hundred people.
Nifong has refused to be interviewed and cut the AV
off from them.
Part one, per Gaynor, is the easy part. Shredding the
rape allegations. However, these interviews could not
be made while the gag order was in effect.
Judge O. Smith ungagged the defendants and Bradley
and crew were back to the Washington Duke in a flash.
Part two was the hard part- but the one already in the can.
Actually, they're not the same thing. A directed verdict occurs when the judge immediately steps in and overturns a jury verdict of guilt. A judge cannot direct a verdict of guilt in any jurisdiction I have ever heard of. A "factual finding of innocence" occurs in conjunction with a jury's acquittal, and is a finding from the judge, but not an actual verdict, which comes from the jury. Not all states have a "factual finding of innocence" available without some form of petition first, and perhaps some don't have it all. IF NC has it available, it would come in that form because NC does not have bench trials for felonies. You would know the law in NC on the availability of a factual finding of innocence there better than I would. NC has some strange laws, that is for sure, so a lack of such a possible finding would not surprise me, even through petition.
Others of us know better.
Oh, I wasn't discussing that part; I should have been clearer; I was talking about if they were to find them guilty, a judge can set aside the verdict.
I have never been involved with anything like that and frankly am not involved in cases where that would be a course anybody I work for or with would have to ever avail themselves of.
I tried to Google it, but couldn't find anything pertaining to NC; did you?
Beats me. He seemed to be the only media person at the outset who wasn't buying into Liefong 100% hook, line and sinker. Maybe they fired him?
Totally unusual for the cops not to interview them, not unuusual at all for the DA not to interview them. Sometimes a DA will observe an interview, however. The cops should have interviewed them even if they had lawyers, if the lawyers were willing, which I think they would have been.
He was getting full of himself, IMO.
I just cannot imagine he would have left on his own when he was practically Nancy Grace's lead every single night.
-----
(Miller has moved "Miller in the Morning" to SuperTalk 99.7 WTN in Nashville, Tennessee. He's been on the air there since Aug. 18, 2006.)
Hey, maybe you can catch him!
mark
from the CBS article:
"....He says neither investigators from the prosecutor's office nor police have questioned him about the night of the alleged crime since he was picked out of a line-up.....
By procedural steps I was talking about a petition for an expungement of the arrest in the furtherance of justice because the charges were unfounded due to insufficient corpus and prosecutor misconduct. It would necessitate an opening of the DA's files with respect to his conduct and the substance of the corpus - whether a crime had actually been committed, not the guilt or innocence of the boys.
If your question was in reference to how could they sue Mangum if there had been no trial, there are any number of torts they could sue under.
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.