Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'60 Minutes' interviews Duke lacrosse defendants (DukeLax Ping)
Durham Herald-Sun ^ | October 11, 2006 | John Stevenson

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


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: duke; dukelax; durham; lacrosse; nifong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760761-780781-800801-814 next last
To: 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?

Sorry but it happened in the next county over from me. A guy raped a woman. She was murdered later before the rape case came to trial. [I think the prosecution suspected the rapist but had no evidence.] They had a witness or outcry witness to the rape who testified and the guy was convicted.
781 posted on 10/14/2006 10:42:34 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Yea. Her father said he doesn't know where she is and the last time he saw her was by chance in traffic. She was a passenger in a car and he walked over and asked how she was and she said fine and the car drove off.


782 posted on 10/14/2006 10:48:10 PM PDT by SarahUSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: JLS

There is no outcry witness in this case.


783 posted on 10/14/2006 10:52:29 PM PDT by jennyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle
Liefong would have cut her damn finger off and used it to point to three, if he had to.

Excellent way to put it. And to the literalists here, Jezebelle is just engaging in hyperbole.
784 posted on 10/14/2006 10:54:54 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: jennyd

I agree that it would be harder for Nifong to go forward without Mangum's testimony in this case. I was only showing you were wrong when you guessed that there had never been a rape case prosecuted when the victim did not testify. In the age of DNA this might be more likely to happen.

I imagine there are a number of cases of raped mentally challenged people that have gone forward on the basis of DNA evidence and not victim testimony. The DNA might often be from the offspring from the rape, but I bet there are a number of such cases.


785 posted on 10/14/2006 10:58:26 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Who said I believed him? But I sincerely doubt he ever directly told her anything.


786 posted on 10/14/2006 10:59:41 PM PDT by jennyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: JLS

He doesn't have any DNA matches either.


787 posted on 10/14/2006 11:00:53 PM PDT by jennyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: jennyd

You are of course wrong again. Nifong most certainly does have DNA matches in this case.


788 posted on 10/14/2006 11:05:40 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: JLS

I am getting tired of this nonsense. DNA matches? I am talking about DNA found in the woman. WTF are you talking about?
He is not prosecuting the donor of the DNA found in her, is he? So, again, WTF are you talking about?


789 posted on 10/14/2006 11:12:45 PM PDT by jennyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: JLS

I don't think he has any DNA matches that help his case.

Dave's match on a towel doesn't surprise me - he lives there. And the partial match on a fingernail doesn't advance things either. His lawyers said he handled it and it was in his trash can with his dental floss etc.

The only DNA from Precious that I'm aware of is from her boyfriend.

He has Matt Z.'s DNA on the floor of a bathroom but he has cleared Matt Z.

I think the DNA is exculpatory for the players.


790 posted on 10/14/2006 11:17:17 PM PDT by SarahUSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: jennyd

I am trying to correct some of your mistakes on this thread. It is apparently a full time job, I dont have time for.

1. First you say that you do not believe that a rape case has ever beeen brought when the rape victim did not testify. I mention one locally. I then pointed out an entire class of such cases I suspect are out there.

2. You respond with a false of topic statement about DNA in this case. I point out the obvious that you were wrong again.

3. You respond with another of topic statement about what Nifong is doing in this case.

You style of discussion is know as bait and switch. I don't really understand, why you just could not say, you are right there are rape cases without a complaining witness.


791 posted on 10/14/2006 11:48:10 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: SarahUSC; jennyd

The DNA in this case is not exculpatory. It is neither incriminating to the people charged But it had nothing to do with the other discussion I was having which I guess is why it was introduced.


792 posted on 10/14/2006 11:50:34 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: JLS

The legal definition of exculpatory is clearing or tending to clear from alleged fault or guilt.

The accuser in this case alleges a three person gang rape where no one wore a condom and at least two of the perpetrators ejaculated. And yet no DNA from any of the three charged lacrosse players was found on her or in her. Only her boyfriend's DNA was found. To me, this tends to clear them from alleged fault or guilt. I think it strains credulity to think that this kind of violent attack could take place under these circumstances and somehow there is not a trace of any of these guys anywhere on the accuser. They would have to be very immaculate rapists.


793 posted on 10/15/2006 12:15:12 AM PDT by SarahUSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

Hooking isn't paying much in Durham these days.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/498783.html


Published: Oct 15, 2006 12:30 AM
Modified: Oct 15, 2006 02:52 AM

14 arrested in prostitution sting

From Staff Reports
DURHAM - Fourteen people were arrested on prostitution charges in a Friday night sting.

Nine men and five women were arrested by officers posing as either prostitutes or johns.

They discussed performing sex acts for prices ranging from $10 to $25.

In one case, Makeisha Elaine Parker, 31, 212 Cushman St., offered an undercover officer, B.D. Schnee, oral sex in exchange for a ride to the store, according to warrants.

(snip)


794 posted on 10/15/2006 12:42:23 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: maggief
Hooking isn't paying much in Durham these days.

It appears law enforcement in Durham isn't paying enough either...........

Durham County Deputy, 4 Others Charged With Drug Trafficking

http://www.wral.com/news/10077017/detail.html

795 posted on 10/15/2006 2:30:44 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I've told many people how this has ruined the lives of those kids and a few people have scoffed, which surprised me. I get furious thinking about this hooker and have avoided these threads recently because my fury is so intense.


796 posted on 10/15/2006 3:57:59 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: RecallMoran

Where is Elliot Ness when you need him? Remember this exchange?



Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I'm saying is, what are you prepared to do?

Ness: Anything and everything in my power.

Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way because they're not gonna give up the fight until one of you is dead.

Ness: How do you do it then?

Malone: You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?

Ness: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so.

Malone: Well, the Lord hates a coward. Do you know what a blood oath is, Mr. Ness?

Ness: Yes.

Malone: Good, 'cause you just took one.


797 posted on 10/15/2006 4:30:48 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath; All
I've got the TIVO set to record 60 Minutes as I'm sure we'll all be talking about it and need it "for the record". If I get really ambitious I could put bits and pieces up on YouTube but I'd have to do it in a way that would be within the "fair use" provision of the copyright law.
798 posted on 10/15/2006 4:49:59 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath; All
New thread on tonight's 60 Minutes broadcast
799 posted on 10/15/2006 5:55:24 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

"This woman has destroyed everything I've worked for in my life for a lie,"

My son's words exactly.


800 posted on 10/15/2006 6:07:36 AM PDT by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 741-760761-780781-800801-814 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson