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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 801-814 next last
To: abb

Yeah, but so far nothing ever happens....


81 posted on 10/11/2006 2:21:47 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: All

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4650588

LAX Defense Seeks Accuser's Statements
AP

(10/11/06 -- DURHAM) - Attorneys representing three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape have again asked prosecutors for the details of any statements made by the accuser, as well as any additional notes and reports from investigators working the case.

In a letter sent to District Attorney Mike Nifong on Wednesday and included in the court file, attorneys Joseph Cheshire and Brad Bannon -- who represent charged player David Evans -- said the information was not included in 615 pages of evidence Nifong turned over to defense attorneys last month.

"We have made these requests time and time again," they wrote. "We understand and appreciate that this is not the only case in Durham and that you have an office to run. ... When, however, you chose to assume control over the investigation and prosecution of this case, you also accepted the attendant responsibilities of producing materials to which, you have acknowledged in court, we are entitled."

Nifong was out of town attending a district attorney's conference Wednesday and had not read the letter, said Sheila Eason, an assistant in Nifong's office.

In April, a grand jury indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, 20, and Collin Finnerty, 20, on charges of rape, kidnapping and sexual offense. Evans, 23, was charged with the same crimes a month later. The accuser, a student at nearby North Carolina Central University, told police she was raped in a bathroom by three men at a March 13 off-campus lacrosse team party.

In the letter, the defense attorneys cited an April 11 meeting between Nifong, investigators and the accuser. Nifong said during a procedural court hearing last month that she made no statements and was asked no questions during that meeting.

The letter goes on to cite a court motion in which Nifong states the accuser told him she had not taken Ecstasy on the night of the party, and comments from the chairman of a local political action committee saying that Nifong said "he's the only one that's interviewed this victim."

"It is clear that you have spoken with (the accuser) about the facts of this case. ... It is equally clear that we still have no reports of any factual statements (the accuser) has made to you in the in the investigation and prosecution of this case, whether in the presence of others or not," the attorneys wrote.

The defense also said that it had not received any handwritten notes from Durham Police Investigator Benjamin Himan for his activities in the case after May 15; no reports from Himan after June 26; and no reports from Sgt. Mark Gottlieb since July 14. Defense attorneys also asked for any reports on the activities of Linwood Wilson, an investigator in Nifong's office.


82 posted on 10/11/2006 2:44:46 PM PDT by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: abb

Until a judge forces the issue, we can expect Nifong to continue to lie. Was Judge Smith copied on the letter? The article suggests a motion, bit only mentions the letter. Did I miss something?


83 posted on 10/11/2006 2:52:06 PM PDT by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6
Right it seems like DA's and cops are allowed to lie to judges in Durham.
84 posted on 10/11/2006 3:13:56 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: abb
Nifong was out of town attending a district attorney's conference Wednesday and had not read the letter, said Sheila Eason, an assistant in Nifong's office.

I hope they treated him like a leper.

85 posted on 10/11/2006 3:16:03 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

I found this partial article. Didn't want to pay for the whole thing.



Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) - September 26, 2006

Second dancer sentenced to up to 120 days house arrest Key witness in lacrosse case admits committing five probation violations

A key witness in the Duke University lacrosse rape case admitted Monday to committing five probation violations and was sentenced to up to 120 days of electronic house arrest. In addition, the overall probationary period for Kim Roberts Pittman was extended for three years. It now is scheduled to end on Dec. 10, 2009, instead of this December.Pittman was performing exotic dances at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-march when another dancer allegedly was raped, sodomized and beaten by three...


86 posted on 10/11/2006 3:33:28 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: abb
"Nifong agreed that under state law, he would have to hand over a written report recounting anything the woman said about the incident. But Nifong told the lawyers in a hearing last month before Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III, that he had no statements to hand over. "

In a case this complex, it is beyond credibility to believe that Nifong, who is going to personally prosecute this case, would not have any notes or reports. Once again, this smells.

87 posted on 10/11/2006 4:05:26 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
"The boys will most likely spend most of their time defending their reaction to being ripped off, supposedly slapped and ridiculed by two of Durham's finest, "just doing their jobs" to support their "fatherless" children in a white male dominated society.."

I was in Vegas a couple of weeks ago. Some of the strippers advertise for 60 dollars to dance. When they get to the event, they get the money up front, and they usually come as a pair. Once they get the money up front, they say, "It's 60 dollars to get us here, but it will cost an additional 500 dollars for us to stay."

88 posted on 10/11/2006 4:09:26 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
I was in Vegas a couple of weeks ago. Some of the strippers advertise for 60 dollars to dance. When they get to the event, they get the money up front, and they usually come as a pair. Once they get the money up front, they say, "It's 60 dollars to get us here, but it will cost an additional 500 dollars for us to stay."

Well? Did you pay up or not? (LOL! Just kidding!)

89 posted on 10/11/2006 4:20:26 PM PDT by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: abb

Hee hee. It was a family vacation. I was told this information by my wife's cousin's daughter who lives and works in Vegas.


90 posted on 10/11/2006 4:25:42 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

Not if the cops look the other way. I suppose she can decorate her ankle bracelet with some of the cheap trinkets she wears elsewhere on her ugly body and her customers won't notice.


91 posted on 10/11/2006 4:56:44 PM PDT by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
"It's 60 dollars to get us here, but it will cost an additional 500 dollars for us to stay."

We know from Kim's statements and excerpts from the AV's that each has accused the other of wanting to "stay to earn more money but I didn't want to".. Sounds like the first liar didn't have a chance. Then to hear Kim say "she didn't know how to make money on tips" is laughable.

Kim and the AV both admitted they got their $400 up front. Kim even stated the AV claimed to have her money after she was dragged to the car.

So what happened to the AV's $400 that DF gave her and what happened to the additional $1600 that the AV claimed was stolen from her in the original police report.

Methinks poor Kimmie's got some more splainin to do... I wonder if Ed asks her if she robbed the AV? In my opinion it will be a "tell" of how much he knows about the case if he even mentions the 12:53 to 1:20 interval. Even if he does ask, my guess is that Kim ain't saying nothing about the facts of the case. (Remember her "I ain't talkin bout none of that" mumble in her television premier?) She'll just be making more "unsubstantiated" claims similar to the ones Ms. Melanie refuses to publish.

92 posted on 10/11/2006 4:57:41 PM PDT by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: bjc

There was a motion already filed on this subject matter a while back. The letter would be in furtherance of that same motion. A copy should have been sent to the court, or certainly will be soon if Liefong doesn't comply, which he won't.


93 posted on 10/11/2006 5:01:10 PM PDT by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

Thanks bunches, LB. :>


94 posted on 10/11/2006 5:02:44 PM PDT by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Yeah, it smells because he wants a story concocted that fits around/explains away the defense's evidence of innocence.


95 posted on 10/11/2006 5:03:53 PM PDT by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

There's no truth in advertising anymore.


96 posted on 10/11/2006 5:05:09 PM PDT by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill
I wonder if Ed asks her if she robbed the AV?

My guess is that her lawyer made sure that question and others would not be asked prior to her appearing for the interview. Her appearance on the show will do nothing for this story since I am sure they didn't ask the questions that need to be asked of her. I hope they didn't pay her much for the interview because she isn't worth it.

97 posted on 10/11/2006 5:09:40 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead

This is being discussed over at Talk Left, but I think it bears repeating :

If Nifong says "he is the only person who has talked to the victim,” then that means that Gottlieb has NOT talked to the victim.

Ergo, what Gottlieb put into his 30-page report is a lie.

(I hope the defense takes note of this, too...)


98 posted on 10/11/2006 5:20:04 PM PDT by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

This is the reverse of how it usually works. Normally, when someone gets arrested, the defense looks at all the reports and conducts a defense based on possible holes in the prosecutions case. In this case, it's the prosecution which seems to be looking to conduct a case based on possible weaknesses in the defense's case. It's amazing!


99 posted on 10/11/2006 5:30:54 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight
I am sure the defense is paying attention to this. But I hope the judge is really paying attention to the cops and Nifong's multiple lies to the court. What is the next court date the 27th?
100 posted on 10/11/2006 5:35:29 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 801-814 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