'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

[darbymcgill]

John Bennett, pastor at the Church of the Apostolic Revival in Durham, N.C., said Friday that he was "very disappointed" that "60 Minutes" plans to broadcast an interview with the second dancer because she has gone back and forth on whether she believes the accuser was raped. "Hopefully, justice is blind when it is time to carry out the proper punishment for what has been committed, and perhaps what has not been committed," Bennett said.

Absolutely golden...

[Jezebelle]

So, the AfricanhyphenatedAmerican "community" is trashing one of their own in order to save face.

How perfect.

And how would there be punishment for something "not committed"? In his context, the good reverend uses "committed" in reference to a crime, so why would there be punishment for a crime not committed?

This guy is a pastor? They're usually better educated than this. What a dumbass. I guess he was trying to sound erudite and profound, wise and lofty, blah blah blah. Instead he sounds like a bag of hot air with one foot in his mouth and the other pumping the wheel of a grinder with a few too many axes waiting in line.

I really don't know what the hell he meant, other than he's hoping his congregation is even dumber than he is and buys into his fallacious BS.

[darbymcgill]

Nifong: Ms. Pittman in your telephonic interview with Ofc. Hinmna on March 20th statement you said the only time you were separated from the victim from the time you arrived, until the time you left was when you left the bathroom to go to your car and the victim stayed behind. Is that correct Ms. Pittman?

Kim: yessir..

Nifong: Ms. Pittman in your March 22nd written statement you claimed you left the victim locked in the car and went back in the house alone to look for her things. Is that correct Ms. Pittman.

Kim: yessir...

Nifong: Ms. Pittman, were you lying to Mr. Hinman on March 20th or were you lying in your written statement on March 22nd?

Kim: yessir...

Nifong: Ms. Pittman, can you give the court other examples of where you have lied in your statements to police about the events of evening of March 13th and early morning on March 14th.

Kim: yessir...

Nifong: No more questions, your witness... Mr. Osborn.

There could even be another period of seperation if you believe Bissey and the boys about the AV going to the car and returning either for her purse or shoe.. whomever you choose to believe.

[darbymcgill]

I really don't know what the hell he meant

I would be interested in what you actually thought he was getting at... What I thought when I first read the statement was... They may not have committed a crime, but they should be punished for what they did do....

I'm wondering if he is only referring to the males involved? You get 3 guesses...

[ltc8k6]

He meant those making false claims should be punished, I think.

[darbymcgill]

He meant those making false claims should be punished, I think.

Wouldn't that include 47% of Durham and 99% of the media?

j/k....

[Jezebelle]

Darby, you're falling for Liefong's BS. There is nothing inconsistent in Kim saying that she left Mangum in the house for less than 5 minutes - and that was the only time she left her alone - and later saying that she also left her locked in the car while she went back into the house. It's obvious to me from Kim's first interview when she said the rape allegation was a crock, that she was being asked about her and Mangum's whereabouts and movements IN THE HOUSE WHERE THE RAPE ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED. Further, Liefong is technically wrong anyway because he asks Kim, "you said the only time you were separated from the victim from the time you arrived, until the time you left was when you left the bathroom to go to your car and the victim stayed behind. Is that correct Ms. Pittman?" Then he asks, "you claimed you left the victim locked in the car and went back in the house alone to look for her things. Is that correct Ms. Pittman." So, he's talking about her coming and going from two different places, one where the boys were and one where they weren't, in the house and out of the house, apples and oranges. It's a cheap, tacky, transparent little trick, that's all, and anybody with any common sense understands what she meant. In the first statement, she's addressing whether Mangum could have been raped or not - if there was time enough if and when she was alone in the house. In the second statement, she's talking about their respective movements generally. The fact that Liefong didn't follow up with, "Well, which statement date were you lying to Mr. Hinman?" tells me all I need to know about what he was up to. He was trying to present an opportunity for Kim to make up an entire new story that would be helpful to him, otherwise he would have asked which of those dates her statement was true and which it wasn't and she was being cooperative with him on it, since the statements aren't mutually exclusive of each other as I have explained to you several times now. Of course, now I'm worried that she did change her story to suit Liefong so he'd cut her a deal and we just don't know about it yet.

[darbymcgill]

I'm not really falling for anything from Nifong... All I'm saying is that it has been proved that Kim has lied over and over again. She has lied to the police, to the security guard, to the 911 operator... In several media interviews, granted not to the police, she has changed her version almost as much as the AV.

So for anyone to get fired up about anything that Kim says, is in my opinion risky.

Who's to say if the police really interrogated her instead of coaching her to fit their version of the crime what she might have told them. It's obvious to me that the cops had some input into her March 22nd, written version of the events...

Kim is in it for Kim, she's changed her story so often, she probably can't even remember the true version...

[Jezebelle]

Well, let's assume the reverend knows by now that Kim's 60M interview is unfavorable to the lying whore.

He regrets that she has given this interview.

Therefore, I conclude he is siding with Mangum, the lying whore, either because he chooses to believe her or because he doesn't want to take the heat when it's shown that she's lying. My suspicion lies with the latter, so let's say for the moment that I'm right. He doesn't want to take the heat for leading the black "community" down the racist path that turned out to be a terd in the punchbowl and makes the black "community" and its leadership all look bad.

He wants justice to be blind when the meting out of punishment comes due. I think he means "color-blind", and uses it to mean that Lady Justice should not take into account that the accuser is black and fail to convict or punish the boys because she's black and they're white. That's a bone thrown to the black "community." Since he has absolved himself by focusing on the crime, or lack thereof, or the crime of false accusation, that punishment won't include him or the black "community." He refers to Mangum as the "accuser", not the "victim" which, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe he did in the early weeks in the marches he led to the lax house and so on. That's a bone to the boys and the whites who support them.

So, my conclusion is that he is bailing on all of them 'cuz he either expects Liefong to lose the election or at least the case, but is hedging his bets in order to maintain his street cred in the black "community" by mildly condemning Kim and assigning some guilt to the boys just because they breathe, I guess, and because they are white, and because it's convenient for him to place some guilt on them for having a party and using racial epithets (never mind that the women came willingly to the party and used racial insults first) so that he can, in the future, continue to grind the racial axe as needed for hustling money and power.

In other words, he's covering his own butt and trying to maintain his position even though he wrongly took his followers down a racist path to embarrassment and almost to an undeserved and premature race riot, and is probably the one who brought the NBPP into the case, the NBPP being responsible for the "dead man walking" remark in court and other intimidating acts of racism, and who also almost caused a race riot. He was central in stirring the race pot but wants to point the finger at all the people at the lax house - anybody but him. Notice he's been very quiet for several months until now, but now he has to get out in front of this 60M thing since he laid such a big egg in the first place.

And I'm out of wind on this topic..........whew!

[Jezebelle]

I agree that getting fired up about what she has to say isn't a good idea in terms of the trial, but in terms of the 60M show, if her account supports the boys, that's a very good thing. If the stories she told about how and where she met up with Mangum that night are explained by her wanting to avoid arrest on her probation violation warrant, it eases the impact of those lies, especially since they aren't germaine to what happened inside the house. People dislike but they understand those kinds of lies. Seldom do witnesses come in packages marked, "Pure as the driven snow."

Again, though, I ask you where and how has she changed her story to the police as to whether or not Mangum was raped or could have been raped, to her knowledge and observations? That testimony you recited is frightening because it indicates to me that she was cooperating with Liefong at that point. Nobody agrees to call themselves a liar unless there's something in it for them. I suspect since then she has gotten counsel and has returned to her original statement. She may even explain her interim opinions given to the media that are slanted toward Liefong with some information about promises and intimidation from and by Liefong. Elmostafa's testimony may buttress that as well.

[Jezebelle]

It'll be good to see him. It sounds as though he is doing as well as can be expected in light of everything that has been done to him. He looks so young and so....well....Opie of Mayberryish.

Poor kid. I'm afraid the mental vitality and exuberance of youth has been stolen from him. For some reason, he seems the most vulnerable of the three. Reade seems the strongest, Dave somewhere in between. But I don't really know. I wish them and their families the very best. This is such a travesty.

[darbymcgill]

That testimony you recited is frightening because it indicates to me that she was cooperating with Liefong at that point.

I made that up... As far as I know Kim and Nifong have never talked...

Also as far as I know the only statement Kim gave to the cops about the "rape / sexual assault" was on the 20th

SHE STATED THAT SHE HEARD THAT MS. MANGUM WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED, WHICH SHE STATED IS A “CROCK” AND SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS WITH HER THE WHOLE TIME UNTIL SHE LEFT

The only things she says in her written statement in my opinion are lists of events that the cops wanted entered. She even left one out that reflected negatively on the boys version and had to go back and add it almost 2 hours after she finished her original statment.

the AV arrives a 11:30 (fits cops theory, but wrong)

they were given drinks (fits date rape drug, but later she says she doesn't know if the AV drank more than a sip)

the broom comment (broom rape was a cop theory early, but wrong)

here's a part I think she changed

I left the alone bathroom with my dancing gear on. I changed my clothes in the car. Some of the boys came by wanting to talk to me. I was told by one of the guys Precious was passed out in the backyard. Within minutes she was helped out of the backyard and into my car.

That statement of events we know would have taken considerably longer than 5 minutes. She and the AV went to the BR at 12:05. The AV made a phone call at 12:26, is shown on the back porch alone at 12:30 and being put in the car at 12:41.

Kim's written statement leaves the impression that she didn't see the AV from the time she (Kim) left the bath room until the boys dragged her to the car at 12:41. That's a 20 - 30 minute gap where she didn't see the AV.

Finally Kim says she goes back to get the AV's stuff. And retraces her steps along the side of the house to the back porch. (fits the cops theory that the AV's stuff wasn't in the back yard or she would have seen it. no other reason to make the amendment 2 hours later)

So, in my opinion, Kim was just writing down what the cops wanted her to write down.

[writmeister]

This guy is a pastor? They're usually better educated than this. What a dumbass. I guess he was trying to sound erudite and profound, wise and lofty, blah blah blah. Instead he sounds like a bag of hot air with one foot in his mouth and the other pumping the wheel of a grinder with a few too many axes waiting in line.

Not always. Some denominations do not require much of an education for someone to become a pastor.

[writmeister]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liduke1014,0,7813904.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Collin was apparently there for the show.

I suspect this will be the main topic at CTV until the airing of 60 Minutes tomorrow night.

[Jezebelle]

If she was writing down what the cops wanted her to write down, her story would comport with Mangum's and there would be no "crock" statement.

Anyway, I don't appreciate you making stuff up. Maybe you find it amusing, but when I reply to somebody I tell the truth as I understand it and don't try to make my point through lies.

We don't know what time im said she left the bathroom or if she was there when Mangum made her phone call. Kim said that when Mangum was put in the car, she wanted to go back in because there was more money to be made. That's pretty damning, and not something the cops woulod want her to write down.

Anyway, I don't appreciate your methods of discussion, so I think this is over, as well as any future discussions between us. But thanks for letting me know that exchange with Liefong was all BS. Now I'm not worried anymore about Kim's testimony.

See ya'.

[Jezebelle]

Why am I not surprised that this one would be one that doesn't?

[jennyd]

No. I think she was being as truthful as it is possible for her to be at that time.
While not all in her report might be the truth, I do not think police told her to write anything, or her story would have matched with Precious on how they were separated by 6 men, and it does not.

[darbymcgill]

If she was writing down what the cops wanted her to write down, her story would comport with Mangum's and there would be no "crock" statement.

I don't appreciate my parody being called a lie... From you're statement above as well as you not knowing my earlier post was parody you obviously don't know as much about this case as I thought.

There was not a "crock" statement in Kim's written document, neither was there a 5 minutes statement. But I thought you would have known that... Linwood...

[Jezebelle]

I don't know if you're delusional and think I'm Linwood, or drunk or are just a vicious person who enjoys playing games, but your methods of discussing this case are psychopathic, in my opinion, and this is not the first time you have done this. Until this past week, I was mostly gone from this forum for almost a month. Others will have to just understand that I (erringly) placed trust in your representations under the assumption that it was information that came to light during my absence from this forum. I had no idea you were fabricating blatant lies.

By the way, it doesn't matter if she wrote a statement or made statements over the phone to one of the cops - it's still a witness statement and her account, with no known changes of any significance that you are honestly aware of - just those you make up. So the answer to my original question as to whether Kim gave conflicting stories as to what happened in the house is "No", but you just didn't want to admit that, once again, you are wrong. Maybe you just need to learn to RTFQ (read the f'ng question) so you don't feel compelled to make a lying jackass out of yourself again in order to save face, since appearing to be right is more important to you than actually being right.

Anyway, shame on you.

[darbymcgill]

Remember the first rule of holes.....