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.''
Duke accuser "talking crazy" after party
By AARON BEARD, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER, Published: Oct 30, 2006
DURHAM, N.C. (AP) - The woman who said she was raped after performing as a stripper at a Duke lacrosse team party was clearly impaired and "talking crazy" afterward, the second dancer at the party said in an interview broadcast Monday.
"The trip in that car from the house ... went from happy to crazy," Kim Roberts told ABC News, which aired the interview on "Good Morning America" Monday and posted details on its Web site. "I tried all different ways to get through to her."
Roberts, who has previously called the rape allegations a "crock," left the party with the accuser and drove her to a nearby grocery store. Unable to get the accuser to leave her car, Roberts said she pushed on the woman's arm and leg to try to force her out.
At that point, Roberts said, the accuser said: "'Go ahead, go ahead. Put marks on me. Go ahead. That's what I want. Go ahead.' And it chilled me to the bone." -more-
http://dwb.newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/story/3406015p-12516942c.html
Sometimes the obvious is the real answer...LOL!
Nothing wrong with cynicism as abb and Shaw said. Many if not most people do the right things because they fear their neighbors, the public via government or God will punsih them if they don't. The problem in that that fear is not enough for a worisome segment of the population.
So I don't really care why Roberts is telling what seems to be the truth to me. I don't care that Roberts fuzz here statements while potentially under Nifong's thumb any more than I care what US POWs say while in enemy hands. All I care is that for whatever reason, Roberts seems to be telling the truth and she basically has from the start.
Imagine this case if:
1. Roberts had not said it was a crock from the start.
2. Roberts decided that Nifong had so much on her that she would corroberate Mangum's story?
The N&O type smear press coverage of this story would be continuing today. Grace, etal would be slamming these guys on TV every night. The inconsistencies in Mangum stories would be bandaged over by Roberts agreeing with whatever version Nifong decided to go with. The defendants ONLY hope would be that Mangum would be such a poor witness that the jury would not believe her.
Again, I don't care why she is telling the truth. I do care very much that she has looked at the situation and found telling the truth in her best interest for whatever reason.
Cash is clueless on this. Everyone gets an exclusive story in October. Who ever said look for the next on NBC is right, but on NBC not one of their cable shows. I suspect the defense interviewed Ms. Roberts and got this information and has doled it out to the networks.
Liefong's claim that he didn't interview Mangum because of her emotional state is a crock. First, it assumes a rape occurred or else she wouldn't be in an emotional state, but the purpose of such an interview would be to make a ground-floor determination as to the credibility of the accusation - did a crime (rape) occur? Did something else occur that made her angry enough to bring the claims? Does she have another motive for making the claim? If the accuser is believeable, and is a credible person, are her claims consistent with the evidence gathered thus far? All of this and more goes into the determination as to whether or not a crime occurred, and LIEFONG NEVER DID THIS. And I think we know why.
Sarah excellent point on this possibly prompting Roberts to call the police to get Mangum out of her car. And of course the way Roberts took Mangum comment that night might have been entirely different than the way she might take them after Mangum has cried rape.
Good article, abb. Thanks.
I'd like to see the author take it one step further and examine the known evidence that no crime as charged ever occurred. This would start with a look into why Mangum would make the accusation in the first place.
Mrs. Gillam's letter is almost comical in omitting any chastisement of women who do this sort of thing for a living. What about their accountability and the same expectations of them as young people? Yes, they're now older than the boys, but not by that much. It wasn't long ago that they were the same ages as the boys. What about their upbringing and character? Or are they automatically excused because they are black and ostensibly poor? Sleaze is okay then?
Somebody ought to give Mrs. Gillam an eyeful of ADA Crouch's website. I'd like to hear her commentary on character, expectations and the like in the context of ADA Crouch's conduct.
None of what she or Crystal (both liars) says mitigates the lack of DNA for an oral/anal/vaginal rape by three men. Even if Kim said she was raped too, it doesn't matter. There should be physical evidence. There is no case here. With so many being acquitted because of DNA evidence, it makes no sense to have convictions without it. /rant
Exactly.
And now that she's resolved her court case, she can blab away.
And Simeon should have pointed out that at that point in time, March 20, Kim was a lot more worried about what was going to happen to her on her warrant for violation of probation than she was about somebody else's phony rape charge.
According to the ABC site, Part II of Kim's interview will be on the Good Morning show tomorrow. (Tuesday).
Too bad they pulled the page.
"LIEFONG NEVER DID THIS"
...and he took the investigation away from the police department and prevented them from doing it a well.
I don't know if the importance of comments to "Go ahead, put marks on me" would have been known to Kim as of March 20. Further, she was concerned about her warrant and her own court case at the time. One would have to have a transcript or a closely accurate and detailed report of the interview to know whether there was any discussion that should have naturally led to her revealing that Mangum made the statement.
But I sure don't believe she intended to go to the authorities about the statement AT THE TIME. She was obviously avoiding the cops because of her warrant. Or did she really mean after the indictments came down (and her warrant had already been served on her by then anyway)? A better interviewer would have clarified when and why she decided to go to the authorities. "Authorities" may also in her mind include, in addition to the cops, the defense attorneys.
Don't fret.........
Durham's Assistant District Attorney is a PIMP!
http://funkb.us/dada/
.....or it was in the form of a threat........"Go ahead, leave marks on me (my "Man" will deal with you later)."
I dare someone with a Durham postmark to print and sent to Mrs H H Gillam in Durham
Man I double dare you!
LOL!
Mrs Gillam is active with the Boy Scouts.
Wonder if CDestine was a Boy Scout?
ROFLOL!
C.Destine, how I've missed ya!
Just showin' some luv. ;)
Hadn't thought of it from that perspective. Very possible.
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.