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.''
What about Kim's parents? Have they given any interviews?
Sorry if this has been posted. Duke should tell Durham to shove it.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-783054.html
Councilman voices concern over $2M from Duke
Oct 29, 2006 : 10:18 pm ET
EXCERPT
"In talking with local lawyers, they've called this 'Milk-Bone money' -- where Durham has to sit up and beg for Duke's money," John Schelp, an Old West Durham Neighborhood Association activist who's been involved in talks with the university about the rezoning, said in an Oct. 21 e-mail to the council. "This deal is darn close to quid pro quo -- and can have a chilling effect on the regulatory function of the city and the legislative function of the council."
http://forums.go.com/abclocal/WTVD/thread?threadID=135978
"60" GOT SUCKERED
Author: cashmichaels
I dunno' if she keeps it up and somebody actually believes what a self-sacrificing, hard-working, honest, up-right individual she is, she might run for the Senate.
On the other hand, what lunatic would put her on the stand now? She's toxic. What a minute -- we are talking about Nifong here -- so, okay, the Defense will have an easy time discrediting her entire testimony after the local lunatic puts her on the stand. Easy peasy. ;-)
Thanks you for ping.
The comment Kim says Precious made does explain why she would resort to having the police called to get Precious out of her car. If someone said that to me, I'd want a witness as to exactly what Precious' condition was when she left my car. If this is true, I think Kim deduced correctly that Precious was gearing up to tell every lie under the sun.
I agree.
Cash knows his audience.
He can't say anything bad about Crystal without getting into trouble.
When did he find Pittman?
He hasn't.
Cash is stirring the pot trying to stay relevant, as he's been upstaged by the national MSM.
He can't find her? Can't he find the Platinum Club?
Thanks for that.
So, a person who was there can't say what another person who was there did? How is this just an opinion?
Precious' memory has to be sketchy. She could have opined about her missing money and Kim's motives.
Rush Limbaugh has finally weighed in--about 13 minutes after the hour--mentioning both Nifong's claim he had not yet spoken to the AV, and Kim's remarks about putting marks on her.
Durham DA says he has "responsibility to prosecute" lacrosse case
DURHAM, N.C. The prosecutor at the center of the Duke lacrosse rape case says he has a responsibility to prosecute the charges against three team members accused by a stripper of the assault.
Mike Nifong made his comments today in an interview with The Associated Press.
The district attorney has been criticized by defense lawyers and armchair experts for his handling of the case. But Nifong says he's comfortable with almost all of his decisions.
Nifong also says he is confident about taking the case to trial. No trial date has been set.
Nifong has said he and his staff still hadn't interviewed the accuser directly. He says his job is to direct the investigation, not conduct it.
The prosecutor says he has taken cases to court for 28 years as an assistant D-A and nobody ever questioned when he would interview witnesses.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press.
http://www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5608790&nav=menu70_2
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.