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
I agree 100 percent; he's going for the gold.
In the domestic violence context, DAs sometimes go forward with cases even if a spouse refuses to go forward. They rely on other evidence. Of course, in this case there is no other evidence but Nifong is such a lunatic that may not matter. Hasn't mattered so far. FOr all we know, Precious has already decided not to go forward (like she has done every other time she has accused people of serious felonies) and Nifong is burying her until after the election.
And yes, you do have a right to confront your accuser which renders the decision to go forward moot and stupid.
They have no choice now; they HAVE to clear their names.
Do you expect them to jump for joy if she backs down and go on with their lives?
Their lives are in ruins and they have to do something to reclaim them and prove their innocence.
It's naive to think they will let this go.
674 posted on 10/14/2006 10:24:53 PM CDT by Howlin (Why Won't Nancy Pelosi Let Louis Freeh Investigate the Page Scandal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I told you before and I'll say it again: these families are MAJOR players; they will not stand for this being brushed under the rug on a technicality like her not testifying.
They are some VERY powerful people and they have VERY powerful friends; these are the kind of people who sweep into two in a new administartion; they hang out with Ben and Sally Bradlee; they ARE going to prove their sons innocent beyond any doubt. IMO, of course.
677 posted on 10/14/2006 10:27:22 PM CDT by Howlin (Why Won't Nancy Pelosi Let Louis Freeh Investigate the Page Scandal?)
"And for starters they NEED a trial to do it."
Maybe even just depositions would work.
The players' story can also be told in detailed books about the case--the public can get the truth, and their alibis, and learn about the corruption in Durham, from these.
Eventually the public will believe the truth--but in the Tawana Brawley case, there were still some supporters of the accuser for a time. Now, you can't find them anywhere. But that will probably happen in this case, too.
No, jenny, he can't. He was (supposedly) referring to discussions about the case, which would be subject to discovery - that being the subject matter at the time - and that other conversations with Mangum pertaining to strategy and theory are work product and not subject o discovery, so we don't really know how many meetings he has actually had with her. Further, he could have relayed this through Gottlieb. Since Liefong is in charge, it doesn't matter that much if he says it directly or transmits it through Gottlieb. Please, it's the essence of the message that is important, not whether Liefong said it directly or had Gottlieb do it.
Al Sharpton? :-)
I want the guys cleared too. If this were happening to my brother I'd want him cleared to the fullest extent possible. I wouldn't want him going through life under a cloud. The question is, how do you make that happen?
I agree that it would be a good thing if Crystal would throw Nifong under a bus and claim he pressured her into going forward. If she just drops out though that leaves Nifong room to say - hey, I would have won the case but she's just too traumatized. That's not good. I think they'd have to pursue a a civil action of some sort, or maybe what Dukie07 is suggesting - I've never heard of that before.
A trial would expose the truth but be an ordeal. I have a feeling it would be long and drawn out. And you can't predict a jury although I find it impossible to believe Nifong could get all 12 jurors to convict. I don't relish the idea of them going to trial. I just want them to get their reputations back. Somehow. I want them made whole again.
He can subpoena her.
That would be interesting, wouldn't it? He's just dumb enough to believe that if he subpoenas her it will look like he's forcing her to tell the truth on the stand.
"Al Sharpton? :-) "
I think Big Al actually said once, early on, that he thought the AV in Durham was lying.
Haven't heard from him since. . .
I don't think Liefong wants her to fold until after the election. She's still his only hope for a win. If she caves now, everybody will know he had no case, even the few delusionals lefties and black Durhamites that want whitey hung out to dry, no matter if they're guilty. Remember them? They won't vote for him if she caves in now.
I don't know NC law, but if the case goes to trial and there's an acquittal, there may be a petition process for a factual finding of innocence at that time.
Skip a criminal trial. Let some of the unindicted players sue the AV in their home states. That will put things on the record. And keep the 3 from having to endure even more
court proceedings.
He can't go forward without Precious. She IS his case. He has nothing else that I can see. He has to have her testimony. I suppose he could try and force her onto the stand but I doubt he'd do that.
Unfortunately there aren't many options open to them now that Nifong has forced the issue, are there?
Big Al made the call to come on down, but he was unceremoniously uninvited.
They already had more than their share of race pimps down there and didn't need anymore. :-)
O/T, but what happened to Kevin Miller? He was all over the place and then he left WPTF while I was otherwise involved this summer.
Did he get too big a head and they let him go?
All I can think if why would anybody leave this area with the case of the decade getting ready to go live.
Catching up here, trying to refocus.
How unusual is it that an investigator or Nifong did not interiew any of the three lax players?
Nevertheless, not facing the possibility of thirty years in prison is better than facing a trial that can put you there. No lawyer would ever let his client face a criminal trial when a dismissal can be had.
Lawsuits would be the route to take to prove innocence then.
There may be other procedural steps that can be taken. There are attorneys who specialize in that area of criminal law.
There may be other procedural steps that can be taken.
How can you sue if you've never been tried?
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.