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

Skip to comments.

'Go Ahead, Put Marks on Me' (GMA Interview w/Kim - DukeLax Ping
ABC News ^ | October 30, 2006 | CHRIS FRANCESCANI and EAMON McNIFF

Posted on 10/30/2006 3:04:46 AM PST by abb

Second Dancer Claims Alleged Duke Lacrosse Rape Victim Said to Bruise Her By CHRIS FRANCESCANI and EAMON McNIFF ABC News Law & Justice Unit

Oct. 30, 2006 — - The second dancer in the Duke rape case has said for the first time that the accuser told her to "go ahead, put marks on me'' after the alleged attack.

Dancer Kim Roberts made the new allegation -- which she has not shared with authorities -- in an interview with Chris Cuomo that will air today on "Good Morning America."

Roberts' allegation comes in the wake of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's admission in court last week that he has not yet interviewed the accuser "about the facts of that night."

As she drove the accuser from the March 2006 Duke lacrosse party, Roberts told ABC News the woman was clearly impaired and "talking crazy." Roberts said she tried several different times to get the accuser out of her car.

"The trip in that car from the house … went from happy to crazy,'' Roberts told Cuomo. "I tried all different ways to get through to her.

"I tried to be funny and nice," she continued. "Then I tried to, you know, be stern with her. … We're kind of circling around, and as we're doing that, my last-ditch attempt to get her out of the car, I start to kind of, you know, push and prod her, you know."

Roberts said she told the woman, "Get out of my car, get out of my car."

"I … push on her leg. I kind of push on her arm," Roberts said. "And clear as a bell, it's the only thing I heard clear as a bell out of her was, she said -- she pretty much had her head down, but she said plain as day -- 'Go ahead put marks on me. That's what I want, go ahead.' ''

Roberts said the comments "chilled me to the bone, and I decided right then and there to go to the authorities."

'Weighing on My Heart'

Roberts was not aware at the time of any rape allegations, which were first made by the accuser after police had arrived and taken the woman to a crisis center.

In the interview, Roberts appeared reluctant to talk about her new claim.

"It is something that has been weighing on my heart, and I worry that maybe I won't be called to trial,'' Roberts told Cuomo, as she reached for a tissue. "Because all of, so many of her, so much of [the accuser's] statement differs from mine and I, I might not help the prosecution at all as a witness.''

Roberts became visibly upset as she described the accuser's comments for the first time, at one point stopping the interview.

"I don't even want to talk about it anymore,'' she said.

"Why is it so hard for you to reveal that?" Cuomo asked Roberts.

"Because I think it's gonna make people rush to judgment,'' she replied. "It's gonna make them stop listening. … And I don't like this at all. It's gonna make-- It's gonna make people not listen and I, I'm sure you're probably not even going to play this. It's gonna make people not listen to any other part of the story. It's gonna make people so judgmental, it's gonna solidify their opinions so much, that they're not gonna want to hear the other aspects of the case, which I think are just as important.''

Changes in Roberts' Characterization of the Events

Roberts' attorney, Mark Simeon, said she never shared what she says were the accuser's final comments with police, not realizing their significance at the time. He said she would be willing to take a lie detector test about the new information.

Three Duke lacrosse players -- Dave Evans, Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann -- were charged last spring with rape and kidnapping for the alleged attack on the exotic dancer, who had been hired by the men to perform at the off-campus party. All three men have vigorously declared their innocence, inside and outside of court.

Defense attorneys for the players declined to comment on Roberts' remarks.

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong did not return a call over the weekend for comment.

One legal expert who has followed the case closely from the start said the new information is a clear blow to an already embattled prosecution team.

"To have witnesses appear on a media program revealing information that the prosecutor doesn't know is stunningly inappropriate,'' said Linda Fairstein, who headed the Manhattan District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit for more than two decades.

Roberts has proven to be a somewhat unpredictable character in a case with a seemingly bottomless supply of surprises.

She has said consistently that she doesn't know whether or not a rape occurred. But she has characterized the evening's events differently to different people.

On March 20, when police first contacted her a week after the alleged attack, she called the rape allegation a "crock'' and said that she was with the woman for all but "less than five minutes.''

A month later, in an Associated Press interview, she indicated that she believed there had been an attack.

"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred -- and I never will. … In all honesty, I think they're guilty. … Somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression."

Then, on June 14, in an interview with National Public Radio, she said she was "unsure'' of how much time passed when the alleged victim got out of her car and went back into the house to get her purse.

"I can never say a rape did or did not occur. That's for the courts to decide. I didn't see it happen, you know? But what I can say is that there was opportunity and it could have happened.''

Simeon told ABC News that she has never shared this new information with authorities simply because she was never asked.

"She hasn't spoken to authorities beyond that very first [March 20] interview that police conducted,'' Simeon said. "She's never met with the DA and has never been called back for a follow-up interview.''

Simeon said she told him she felt her complete story was damaging to both the prosecution and the defense's cases, and as such she believes she may not be called to the witness stand at all.

Fatal Blow to Duke Prosecution?

Nifong, who is seeking reelection next month, stunned defense attorneys in court last week when he said that he has yet to interview the accuser "about the facts of that night.''

"I've had conversations with [the accuser] about how she's doing,'' Nifong said. "I've had conversations with her about seeing her kids. I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. … We're not at that stage yet.''

The prosecutor made the comment in response to a request from defense attorneys for any statements the accuser has made about the case.

Nifong said that only police have interviewed the accuser, and that none of his assistants have discussed the case with the woman either.

The highly-charged case has sparked an intense, bitter rivalry between Nifong and defense attorneys.

In September, he similarly surprised defense attorneys when he said in court that the attack, which the accuser told police took about 30 minutes, had in fact been only "five to 10 minutes.''

"When something happens to you that is really awful, it can seem like it takes place longer than it actually takes.''

Fairstein, widely considered a pioneer in the field of sex crimes prosecution, said Roberts' allegations do not bode well for either her own credibility or for the district attorney's office.

"In terms of any prosecution, it's troubling when a witness who has been interviewed many times comes up with a completely new statement,'' Fairstein told ABC News. "At some point in a prosecutorial interview, she would have been asked to give them anything she knew, any scrap of information that she had.''

Fairstein told ABC News she was shocked to learn last week that Nifong has yet to interview the accuser.

"That is just against the progress that's been made in this very specialized field,'' she said. "It belies anything a prosecutor would do before making charges. There was no need to rush to the charging judgment in this case. … This whole train should have been slowed down and everybody interviewed before charging decisions. To have witnesses appear on a media program revealing information that the prosecutor doesn't know is stunningly inappropriate.''


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: duke; dukelax; durham; nifong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 501-509 next last
To: ltc8k6

Cheek quells candidacy rumors

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun, Nov 2, 2006 : 11:54 pm ET

DURHAM -- County Commissioner Lewis Cheek said Thursday he did not intend to make an "end run around the ballot box" when he became a candidate for district attorney, only to announce later he would not serve if elected.

"If what I did was wrong, so be it," a visibly choked-up Cheek told reporters at a downtown news conference.

"I can live with that," Cheek added. "It's not about me."

If Cheek wins the balloting for district attorney in Tuesday's general election, the governor would have to select a replacement for him.

Still, many support Cheek on a "recall-Nifong" basis, largely because they don't like District Attorney Mike Nifong's handling of the Duke lacrosse rape case.

Cheek said Thursday that voters should not fear a gubernatorial appointment to the chief prosecutor's chair.

"Can you think of any reason why Gov. [Mike} Easley would not look high and low to find the best person?" he asked. "What do you think Gov. Easley wants his legacy to be?"

Cheek said he called his news conference Thursday because of a newly surfaced rumor that he might change his mind and take the district attorney's job after all, assuming he is chosen by voters.

"It doesn't matter how many votes I get on Tuesday," he said, not for the first time. "I will not take the job. ... I cannot, and will not, take the position."

He had said earlier that responsibilities to partners and employees makes it impractical to abandon his private law firm.

Cheek expressed disgust with the nature of the campaign involving him, Nifong and a third candidate -- local Republican Party chairman Steve Monks.

Even though Cheek says he will not serve, his name will be on Tuesday's ballot because some 10,000 voters petitioned in June that it be put there. Monks did not obtain enough petition signatures and is running on an unaffiliated, write-in basis.

"I've seen, heard and experienced the ugliness that causes so many people to be put off by politics and probably to hate politicians," said Cheek.

According to Cheek, rumor, innuendo and "outright lies" have marked the race.

"It's truly sickening, and it makes me sad," he said.

"This election is not about race," Cheek added. "It is not about money. It is not about party politics. It is not about Duke lacrosse . This is about honesty, integrity and respect for the rights of all citizens in Durham. If you are not satisfied [with Nifong], then you should say that with your vote."

Nifong could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Monks is expected to respond to Cheek's remarks in a news conference today.

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-784454.html


421 posted on 11/03/2006 12:10:39 AM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

"This is about honesty, integrity and respect

for the rights of all citizens in Durham."

Would Mike Nifong do the honest and respectful

thing for the good of the citizens of Durham, and

withdraw his candidacy for District Attorney?


422 posted on 11/03/2006 12:27:16 AM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6
  Interesting comment from poster at

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/wilson-and-stevenson-duke-it-out.html

The Platinum Club's owner has now:

1. Proven that FA's statement of the Duke party being her first "provocative" dance in front of a large group to be false. His affadavit on October 18th states she was employed with the club in December 2005.

2. The recanting of the affadavit adds dates to the initial one as reported by '60' and owner now states she was dancing March 24, 25 & 26. I suspect that dates prior to these will be confirmed soon. Obviously someone showed some proof to Mr. Owner.

3. The original affadavit was sworn on October 18th ( a fact conveniently omitted from the first news article), three days after '60' aired the incriminating video of FA dancing. Nifong -- the one who said he didn't watch the program -- thought he had things covered. New affadavit will be sworn today (Friday)

4. There is well-researched information on TalkLeft board on the Owner. Methinks he is a bit worried about the exposure and that he has reason to be.

Twaddlefree

2:45 AM

423 posted on 11/03/2006 12:31:03 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

On March 23rd, Nifong used his false affidavit to get DNA samples and photos of the LAX players, and Precious pole danced that night....


424 posted on 11/03/2006 12:41:05 AM PST by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6
So do I have this right:

March 23 - Prosecution submits false affidavit.
March 24 - N&O interviews Precious.
March 25 - Potbangers hold vigil.

Precious pole dances all three nights.

425 posted on 11/03/2006 12:56:35 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox
"I can live with that," Cheek added. "It's not about me."

But can he live with Monks not quiting becuse he said he wouldn't serve and Nifong endind up winning?

"Can you think of any reason why Gov. [Mike} Easley would not look high and low to find the best person?" he asked. "What do you think Gov. Easley wants his legacy to be?"

And just what will Cheek's legacy be?

426 posted on 11/03/2006 1:07:18 AM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Comment on Dr. Olatoye from:

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/11/ultimate-in-micro-management.html

huesofblue said...

The web site of the good Doctor's company just doesn't smell right. First off, it's filled with typos, even in the description of management.

Second, I took a look at a press release on the site regarding a contract one of the subsidiaries received to build 1000 housing project units. At the end it basically said, we have relationships with several major financial institutions. But if any financial instituion is interested in loaning us 25 million dollars to complete this project, we'd love to hear from you.

I've reviewed my share of corporate press releases, but I've never seen anything quite like that.

Frankly I'm a little surprised a contract like that wouldn't require some sort of evidence of financial soundness or proof of available financing.

On top of all that, the H-s article never refers to him as a doctor. Doesn't that seem a little strange to anyone? Could it be that he didn't identify himself as a Doctor on the affidavit?

Looking at that website, the good "Doctor" looks more like a strip club owner than the CEO of a major conglomerate.

12:08 AM  

427 posted on 11/03/2006 1:12:16 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=061103
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author: Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date: November 3, 2006
Cash Michaels: A "Fair" Accuser's History, Please


428 posted on 11/03/2006 2:24:00 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: abb

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=247364133328660
Prosecutors Gone Wild

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 11/2/2006

The Law: The Duke University lacrosse players still twist in the wind, as does Scooter Libby, accused of lying about a crime that never occurred. Justice should be blind, not those supposedly administering it.

District Attorney Mike Nifong is on Tuesday's ballot in Durham, N.C., and the lacrosse players he has charged remain under indictment, unable to get on with their lives, forever tarnished even if they do.

They are charged with raping an "entertainer" at a party, and Nifong continues to pursue the case despite an absence of physical evidence that a rape occurred, contradictory testimony from another "exotic dancer" and an accuser's story that has, by one defense lawyer's account, changed a dozen times.

As of early this week, Nifong had not even personally interviewed the accuser. It's not required — others can do it. But given the high-profile case, he should have done it, since the credibility of the accuser is a prime consideration in even bringing charges.

"There is almost no evidence that could be construed as corroborating the alleged victim's accusations," said Rob Warden, director of Northwestern University Law Center on Wrongful Convictions.

"The prosecutor appears to have acted precipitously, without due consideration of evidence to the contrary — evidence that does not fit into their theory."

That also seems to be the case in Special Prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald's pursuit of Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. He is not charged with outing alleged secret agent Valerie Plame, but with essentially having a different recollection of conversations with reporters telling the story than the reporters did.

As we've noted, Fitzgerald's star chamber actions may yet get his picture in the dictionary next to the phrase "prosecutorial misconduct." He knew "outing" Valerie Plame was no crime, and charged no one for it. He also probably knew who did the outing, one Richard Armitage.

Fitzgerald knew no underlying crime was committed. But he felt compelled to come up with something, so he indicted Libby for obstructing an investigation that never should have occurred into a crime for which no one has been charged — indeed, a crime that never happened.

These and other cases like them — too many cases like them — are pursued every day by prosecutors who are acting from a personal or political agenda, or both, or from a typical human fault — the inability to admit a mistake.

A major 2003 study by the Center for Public Integrity called "Harmful Error" found 2,012 cases of serious prosecutorial misconduct since 1970, serious enough to dismiss charges at trial, reverse convictions or reduce convictions.

Prosecutorial misconduct in these cases included mishandling of physical evidence, failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, using false or misleading evidence and "harassing, displaying bias toward or having a vendetta against the defendant . . . (including) instances of denial of a speedy trial."

Sometimes justice corrects the error. In high-profile political cases, such as the persecution, er, prosecution of Libby, the charge itself is punishment, a tool used to see that justice is done, but to drive the targets from political power.

Witness Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich. One still has, we hope, the presumption of innocence. The other was actually found innocent.

Sometimes prosecutors can be as selective as they are malicious. Witness the pursuit of Rush Limbaugh after he became addicted to prescription pain killers. Compare his fate to that of Sen. Edward Kennedy, who in 1969, after consuming a legal drug, alcohol, left a young woman to die at Chappaquiddick.

All Americans, from Scooter Libby to the Duke lacrosse players, are entitled to a speedy trial, and in the absence of evidence of a real crime, a speedy exoneration.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Injustice extended is persecution.


429 posted on 11/03/2006 2:25:39 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: abb
I think that article just might leave a mark. I loved this part.

William Kennedy Smith was not prosecuted for rape until his accuser took and passed a polygraph test twice.

430 posted on 11/03/2006 2:39:21 AM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead

Some animals are more equal than others...


431 posted on 11/03/2006 3:04:47 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

"I'll bet I know what was in the bag....."


ltc, not ordinary gym clothes, huh?


432 posted on 11/03/2006 4:33:02 AM PST by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Hogeye13

Some sort of "appliance?"


433 posted on 11/03/2006 4:37:24 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: abb

abb, I hope ltc will enlighten us. Curious minds, you know.


434 posted on 11/03/2006 4:39:04 AM PST by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=c196911b-5336-4c8d-a291-a3d9a038e849
Nifong? Not fine by me.
With all deliberate speed
Kristin Butler
Posted: 11/3/06
In 239 days, Mike Nifong has sullied his 27-year career with the Durham District Attorney's office. During that time, Nifong has been roundly criticized for procedural and ethical violations.

So will Durham County voters consider his misconduct at the polls?

According to a Raleigh News & Observer poll, the answer is no.

That Oct. 16-19 survey of 600 "likely voters" indicates Nifong is strongly favored to win, attracting 46 percent of those surveyed. By contrast, 28 percent pledged support for Lewis Cheek, 24 percent remained undecided, and 2 percent preferred write-in candidate Steve Monks.

Now for once, I'm speechless: What could 46 percent of Durham's likely voters possibly be thinking?

If the past seven months have taught us anything at all, it's this: Mike Nifong is not fit to be our district attorney.

His highly unethical and unprofessional conduct is as serious as it is systematic; prominent among Nifong's most egregious acts is his refusal to consider exculpatory evidence, even as he misrepresented the facts of the case to media outlets.

Of course, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans may not have ever been indicted if Nifong had not orchestrated a tainted photo lineup, whose conditions violated not only Durham police standards, but also those of the Actual Innocence Commission, an organization that advocates for the rights of the accused.

And as we all found out last week, Nifong has never spoken-not once!-to the alleged victim about the events of that night; still, he had no reservations about telling Bill O'Reilly that "there is not a doubt in my mind that [the alleged victim] was raped and assaulted at this location" and announcing to Dan Abrams that "I am convinced that there was a rape, yes sir."

This brings us to an important point: It was Mike Nifong's mouth-at least as much as Durham's racial or socioeconomic tensions-that blew this case out of proportion.

While giving more than 50 interviews in the first days of the investigation, Nifong called the players "hooligans," wondered aloud "why one would need an attorney if one had not done anything and was not charged," and denounced their "blue wall of silence" to the press.

Despite the fact that such grandstanding is clearly in violation of prosecutors' ethical code, Nifong continued to claim that the students' "daddies could buy them expensive lawyers" and that they knew the right people, while even questioning their "manhood."

This arrogant, self-serving commentary is chief among the reasons why I will be voting against Mike Nifong on Tuesday.

Nifong did, indeed, have a responsibility to carefully and dispassionately investigate the alleged rape when it was reported. In that regard, he has done more than just fail; he has use this investigation as a bully pulpit to inflame racial and socioeconomic tensions in our community.

Now, some among his supporters-notably the Independent Weekly, which is widely distributed on campus-have noted that although Nifong "may have mishandled the case," we should ask, "How could anyone know whether or not the person the governor would appoint [if Nifong loses] would do any better than Nifong?"

Well, the answer is that we certainly couldn't do much worse. As we've seen, Nifong has violated every ethical rule in the book, all the while attempting to leverage his role as prosecutor for his reelection campaign.

And never forget that we're talking about a profoundly stubborn, unstable man here, one who colleagues say will "curse you, scream at you, call you names over nothing." Others report seeing Nifong "lose his temper and berate attorneys in an unprofessional manner."

In his defense, some Nifong supporters have rationalized that "we don't have a school to tell you how to handle crisis situations" and "he was very new to the situation at the time." Yet given the district attorney's mercurial personality, these defenses seem irrelevant.

Nifong has no one to blame but his own antagonism for his electoral woes.

And woes they are-especially on the Duke campus.

Whether or not it was true that "there's been a feeling in the past that Duke students are treated differently by the court system," Nifong has made sure that we are today.

Does the man who vowed to "not allow Durham's view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke raping a black girl from Durham" really think his behavior has done anything to "address the underlying divisions that have been revealed?"

Of course not; he is the one who has "revealed" them.

Kristin Butler is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every Friday.


435 posted on 11/03/2006 5:13:54 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

I have to take this information in...Wow.


436 posted on 11/03/2006 5:16:18 AM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: abb

http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=a258cac3-6839-4543-92ee-47e4bfa38d06
Off East, locals weigh in on Nifong, lax case
Nate Freeman
Posted: 11/3/06
Eight months after the lacrosse scandal first hit the Duke and Durham communities, many students on campus are rallying for the defeat of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in the Nov. 7 election.

Walltown, a predominantly black neighborhood that lies just out of earshot of chattering freshmen on East Campus, is steps away when walking but miles away when talking. The community became a focal point of Duke-Durham tensions after three lacrosse players allegedly raped an exotic dancer at a March 13 party.

Now, there is still no consensus among Walltown residents about the scandal.

"We don't know the truth," said Abura Cain, an eight-year resident who operates a day-care center in Walltown. "The truth is going to come out and that's what I'm looking for. Some people take it personal. Me, I'm just sitting back and watching things."

Many residents emphasized that community discourse regarding the case has died down since the initial uproar.

"Around here nobody really talks about it-it's like the past," said 17-year-old resident Tasha Campbell. "There's really no anger anymore. There was a lot-now you don't hear it unless it's in the news. It's brought up again and then they forget it."

Even as they stressed the declining animosity connected to the incident, some residents voiced their approval of Nifong's aggressive pursuit of the indicted Duke students.

"Everybody would be down his throat if he didn't [prosecute]," Trevell Green said. "They get judged, and if they're guilty, they're guilty."

Other residents, however, shared the anti-Nifong sentiment prevalent on campus and criticized the district attorney for his handling of the case.

"Nifong, he botched the lineup, so that affects the way I vote," said Peter Hausmann, who has lived in Walltown for six months. "I can't speak for why people will vote for him. I will vote against him. I don't know what his motives are."

Cain criticized the team's decision to host a party with alcohol and dancers, but she said the alleged victim-a student at North Carolina Central University-should not have placed herself in such an environment.

"The girl was a student and she didn't have to take her clothes off," she said. "The young lady made a choice. It's no different from prostitution. What part of it did she think she wasn't responsible for? You've got to put a price on your identity; you've got to put a price on you. You can't give yourself out to the highest bidder."

Some members of the Walltown community took a critical stance toward the students at the party but praised the University as an asset to the area.

"Somebody raped a girl and [the party is] where she was," said a Walltown resident who declined to offer his name. "Duke is not the problem-it's some of the damn kids at Duke. They could've been anywhere."

Jessica Anduiza, a program coordinator at the Duke Center for International Development, lives in the Walltown neighborhood but said she has yet to discuss the lacrosse scandal with her neighbors.

"I think this is a very diverse community, and I can't speak for the community," she said. "I don't talk about it with them."

Despite their varying opinions regarding the case, Walltown residents and Duke faculty and students have shared in the sadness and regret generated by the incident, said Melvin Henry, a former Walltown resident who still attends services at the neighborhood's Northside Baptist Church.

"It's a no-win situation for Duke and it's a no-win situation for the community," he said. "It's just a tragedy. Everybody's hurt. I wish I could have erased the whole thing. The rest of our lives, this is history."


437 posted on 11/03/2006 5:17:34 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

Wonder what (or who) made the good doctor change his mind.

Public scrutiny sucks.


438 posted on 11/03/2006 5:26:15 AM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: gopheraj

mark


439 posted on 11/03/2006 5:26:41 AM PST by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights

I'm sure he wasn't interested in defending that fictitious affidavit in court. It's called perjury...


440 posted on 11/03/2006 5:37:10 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 501-509 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