Coincidence? I think NOT!
Posted on 04/21/2006 7:13:24 AM PDT by Rodney King
DURHAM -- At first, a stripper who performed at a Duke University lacrosse team party doubted the story of a colleague who told police she was dragged into a bathroom and raped.
Now, Kim Roberts isn't so sure.
"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred -- and I never will," Roberts told The Associated Press on Thursday in her first on-the-record interview. But after watching defense attorneys release photos of the accuser, and upset by the leaking of both dancers' criminal pasts, she said she has to "wonder about their character."
"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty ... but somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression."
Attorneys for the 46 players have aggressively proclaimed the players' innocence, citing DNA tests during a public campaign that has included describing and releasing photos from the party.
Those photos, the defense maintains, show the accuser was both injured and impaired when she arrived, and also support the claim that one of the two players who has been indicted would not have had enough time to participate in any assault before he left the party. The district attorney has said he also hopes to charge a third suspect in the case.
The attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her. They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage."
"We believe ... her story has been motivated by her own self-interest," said attorney Bill Thomas, who represents one of the uncharged players. "I think that a jury will ultimately have to decide the question of her credibility."
Roberts, 31, was arrested on March 22 -- eight days after the party -- on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to documents obtained by the AP.
On Monday, the same day a grand jury indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, a judge agreed to a change so that Roberts would no longer have to pay a 15 percent fee to a bonding agent. District Attorney Mike Nifong signed a document saying he would not oppose the change.
"It seems she is receiving very favorable financial treatment for what she is now saying," Thomas said.
Mark Simeon, Roberts' attorney, said the bond conditions were changed because Roberts is not considered a flight risk. Nifong, who hasn't spoken with reporters about the case in weeks, didn't return a call seeking comment.
Roberts' testimony could be vital during any trial of the two sophomores, indicted on charges of first-degree rape, sexual offense and kidnapping.
Other than lacrosse players and the accuser, a 27-year-old student at a nearby university, Roberts is believed to be the only other person at the March 13 party.
Roberts said Thursday she does not remember Seligmann's face, but said she recalls seeing Finnerty -- whom she described as the "little skinny one."
"I was looking him right in the eyes," she said.
Although she would not talk extensively about the party, she confirmed some of what the other dancer told police -- including that the women initially left the party after one of the players threatened to sodomize the women with a broomstick.
The players' attorneys have said their clients were angry and demanded a refund when the women stopped dancing, but Roberts disputed that.
"They ripped themselves off when they started hollering about a broomstick," she said.
The accuser told police that the women were coaxed back into the house with an apology, at which point they were separated. That's when she said she was dragged into a bathroom and raped, beaten and choked for a half hour.
Later, police received a 911 call from a woman complaining that she had been called racial slurs by white men gathered outside the home where the party took place. Roberts acknowledged that she made the call because she was angry.
Roberts drove herself to the party and said she could have left anytime, but she said, "I didn't want to leave her with them."
Roberts then drove the accuser -- whom she had just met that night -- to a grocery store and asked a security guard to call 911. The accuser was described later by a police officer as "just passed-out drunk."
Roberts said the woman was sober when they arrived at the house. But by the time the party was over, she said the accuser was too incoherent to tell her where she lived, let alone that she had been raped.
"I didn't do enough," she said, tears welling in her eyes. "I didn't do enough. I didn't do enough."
The defense timeline is backed up by a cab driver who said Seligmann called for a ride at 12:14 a.m., and was picked up five minutes later. The defense argues that if the dancers were performing around midnight, Seligmann would not have had enough time to participate in the 30-minute assault described by the accuser.
The cabbie, Moez Mostafa, also said he saw a woman leaving the party in anger, and overheard someone say, "She just a stripper. She's going to call the police."
"She looked, like, mad," he said of the woman. "In her face, the way she walked, the way she talked, she looked like mad."
On Thursday, authorities released warrants detailing their search earlier this week of Finnerty's and Seligmann's dorm rooms. Police took a newspaper article and an envelope addressed to Finnerty from his room, and an iPod, various accessories, computer manuals, photos and a CD from Seligmann's room.
Also Thursday, 5W Public Relations, a New York firm that specializes in "crisis communication," distributed an e-mail signed "The 2nd Dancer," and Roberts confirmed she sent it after learning the AP knew her identity.
"I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country," she wrote. "I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage."
Ronn Torossian, 5W's president, said he replied, but got no response.
"If this person is indeed who they say they are, I would be happy to speak with her," said Torossian, whose firm has represented the likes of Sean "Diddy" Combs, Ice Cube and Lil' Kim.
Roberts, like the accuser a divorced single mother who is black, took umbrage at the notion that she should not try to make something out of her experience. She's worried that once her name and criminal record are public, no one will want to hire her.
"Why shouldn't I profit from it?" she asked. "I didn't ask to be in this position ... I would like to feed my daughter."
Roberts said she knows what it's like to sit in jail, and that she would never wrongly accuse an innocent person.
"If the boys are innocent, sorry fellas," she said. "Sorry you had to go through this."
But unlike her and the other dancer, she said, they have money to hire the best attorneys.
"If they're innocent, they will not go to jail," she said. But, she added, "If the truth is on their side, why are they supporting it with so many lies?"
Roberts is bracing for an all-out attack, but said she's almost past caring.
"Don't forget that they called me a damn nigger," she said. "She [the accuser] was passed out in the car. She doesn't know what she was called. I was called that. I can never forget that."
Tonight he took his circus act to Hannity & Colmes. Sean queried Rev JJ on why he has rewarded a scholarship to the stripper when chances are she may have lied.
Jesse intoned: "Don't strip .... scholarship!!"
Jeez, Jesse is becoming a parody of himself already.
Enterprise, don't fall into the AP's trap!!
We all know we need to parse AP stories VERY CLOSELY because of the heavy spin.
LISTEN TO THE VIDEO INTERVIEW
http://video.ap.org/v/en-ap/v.htm?g=c0d07e63-afdf-4d12-a1b2-105145e7aefa&f=ap
NOWHERE in the video interview does KIM say "we left the party" after the women were "disrespected" with the broomstick comment.
What KIM says is that after one of the boys "disrespected" them, Kim announced that the "SHOW IS OVER" and that then the "SHOW WAS OVER."
It is the overvoice of the ANNOUNCER who interprets this as meaning the women "LEFT THE PARTY."
We don't know whether KIM's version is that when the "show was over", the two women first went into the bathroom where they locked the door and Kim put her clothes on, or whether they then initially left the house.
NOWHERE in the article OR the video itself does KIM say "THE WOMEN WERE COAXED BACK INTO THE HOUSE."
Listen carefully to the video! Again, it is the overvoice of the ANNOUNCER interspersed between KIM's statements who says "APPARENTLY the two women were coaxed back into the house."
The one thing Kim DOES say is that "I WAS NOT IN THE BATHROOM AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT" when any rape occurred.
It could be that when they finally opened the bathroom door, Kim left first, and the AV lagged for a few minutes, and this when Kim is positing any rape might have occurred in the bathroom.
Or if they emerged from the bathroom together and left the house, Kim may be referring to the period of time after the AV says, "I've got to go back and get my shoe" as when the time in the bathroom might have occurred.
THIS IS CLASSIC AP!! We've seen it again and again.
If KIM had actually said in the interview that the two women initally left the HOUSE together after the broomstick comment, the AP would have included that in the video!
If KIM had actually said the two women were coaxed back into the house, the AP would have included that in the video, too!
We KNOW how the AP operates.
The AP, in both the print and video versions, has carefully woven together KIM's actual statements together with assertions coming only fromt the AV to leave the IMPRESSION that both women are saying exactly the same thing!
Huh??
You may be right, but early in the investigation there was a statement that they had left the party and gone outside. From April 5:
"There's also some timeline confirmation. The accuser arrived at the house at 11:30. The other dancer was already inside. They began to dance. After a few minutes, they felt threatened by the racial and sexual comments, left and got in a car outside. They both were coaxed to go back in and they did, but got separated."
Coincidence? I think NOT!
There are a lot of people who are getting smeared here. While someone may have said or done something offensive, most of them didn't. I would like to see the families and friends of the coach and players get together and show a huge group support for the players. The public lynching by the street mob should be loudly opposed and condemned by the people close to the players. If these were my friends or my family I would be very publicly angry and I would let people know it!
lol!
You said:
"You may be right, but early in the investigation there was a statement that they had left the party and gone outside."
That statement comes ONLY from the ACCUSER'S version. If you want to go read it for yourself, the original source of that account is the AV's version as described by the police in the probable cause affidavit supporting the original search warrants:
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story_graphics/20060405_warrant.pdf
The point I am making is that KIM'S interview (at least the portion made public by the AP) does NOT in fact confirm this part of the accuser's story. However, someone reading the AP article casually may come away with the opposite impression.
"When something like that is said in that tone, it is an attack on 30 million people, not just one"
They were probably in the midst of an argument over payment, with both sides yelling epithets (as people do in arguments).
And I'm sure that Kim and Crystal probably used
a few similar angry words for their part.
But I don't think that rates quite the same as casual racial comments made to dis peopl. (In arguments, drunk angry people use language they never would otherwise.)
I understand your point, and it is a good one. Though, if it comes from the accuser, and not Kim, it was a dreadful statement to make, because it makes it so much more difficult for her to assert that she was assaulted over a half-hour period. Because of the total body of statements and evidence, her statement was poorly thought out. She did not take into account the presence of "time-stamping" technology which could undermine such an assertion. Further, in "picking her suspects" she didn't anticipate that they could have solid alibis. As I understand it though, this version of them leaving the house was confirmed by others. Is that true?
Apparently neither of the women realized at the time that one or two of the guys were taking pictures of them, which would have megadata with time-stamps. Perhaps they were using camera phones. In the original interview of Kim in which her face was hidden, she appeared outraged that guys had taken photos of her without her permission, so she clearly didn't know it at the time. Probably the same thing for the AV when she gave her statement to the police.
The neighbor Bissey's statement that he overheard the AV say to Kim, after the two women had left the party and gotten into the car, that "I need to go back and get my shoe" is CRITICAL for the defense.
No one on earth is going to believe that she was strangled, beaten, sodomized and raped before that point in time. After that, she is going to back into the house where her attackers are and get her shoe? Not believable.
The prosecution will have to change its timeline IMO, and argue that the rape occurred AFTER the AV goes back to get her shoe. With the photo at 12:30 of the AV standing and smiling at the back door trying to get in and holding her purse and makeup bag and missing one shoe, that is going to be very persuasive that that time corresponds to when the AV went back to get her shoe. So the prosecution is left arguing that the rape occurred between 12:30 and 12:41 (where they have the photo of the AV being loaded into the car passed out).
The prosecution will have to argue that it happened in only a few minutes, and it seemed like a half hour because victims of violence have a poor sense of time while they are being attacked. The prosecution may also have to argue that it happened on the back porch or in the back yard, and the AV only thought it happened in the bathroom. And the prosecution may well decide when the time comes (if it comes) to present the case to a jury that they will drop the case against at least Seligmann because he has an airtight alibi after 12:19.
Nicely done.
In order for the prosecution to stick with the earlier time line, the DA will have to convince the jury that the woman shown in the photo at 12:30 standing on the back porch smiling, holding her purse and makeup bag and wearing one shoe, has just been strangled, beaten, raped and sodomized.
Her clothes are not torn, nor even is her tight outfit wrinkled or askew.
That's an extremely tough sell.
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.