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.''
....which brings up another point. Kim may not have associated Mangum's statement with an idea of her actually wanting the bruises, but now she's spinning it. At the time, Kim may have associated it with something she was doing to Mangum, such as taking her money and/or trying to dump her out of the car. So now she brings it up as though it was said in context of a plan by Mangum to cry rape and her statement that it chilled her to the bone and she intended to tell the authorities about it is embellishment that serves two purposes: 1). It associates the statement to a plan regarding the rape instead of to her own behavior toward Mangum (trying to dump her after possibly taking her money); and 2). Provides a means by which, because of 1)., she can insinuate her importance to the story even further while simultanously humanizing herself (chilled to the bone.tell authorities).
It may be true that Mangum said this, but I seriously doubt she said it in connection with an intention to cry rape or that Kim right then and there decided to tell authorities about it, and I certainly don't believe she was "chilled to the bone" unless it was in fear of Mangum's pimp.
Any guesses as to what will be revealed in part 2 tomorrow morning? :-)
The Bar has no valid reason to wait. The steps Liefong has already taken are a done deal. Whether he is elected is irrelevant to their oversight function.
She has a straight job now - can't remember what it is.
I basically agree with your assertions as to Kim's statements, but I have to draw the line before attributing any nobleness to her actions. Smart, yes, but noble or admirable in terms of character, no. Remember, she made her statement to police before this story exploded so there was no local pressure on her at that time to hedge her statements in favor of Mangum. When the local pressure began, she told AP she thought "something" happened. She was already committed in her police statement that there was no rape, so she could not come right out and contradict that, but she got as close to it as she could.
No reason other than MILF Man's mom is the president of the Durham County Bar Association. http://www.couchandtaibi.com/fcouch.htm
I think she's doing what she perceives serves her own interests, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as she doesn't cross the line into falsehoods and fabrications. In dealing with someone like Kim, one can only rely on her as to facts she observed. Her opinions and perceptions are not trustworthy inasmuch as they are motivated by extreme self-interest to present a good image, so that aspect of her presentation must always be kept separate from her statements of facts and observations.
I don't think Kim considers herself completely black since she is half Asian, something she has pointed out a couple times, so while she would bend to pressure from Durham blacks who support Mangum, I doubt that she embraces any solidarity or much identity with them. Brushing the Durham yoke of Liefong and black racists off her shoulders, she is free to tell the truth. If singing like a bird advances her own agenda, no harm no foul - as long as she sticks to the truth.
http://www.doc.state.nc.us/admin/DOCorgchart.pdf
Look who works for the NC DOC....
Finesse Couch
Kim has no obligation to tell anybody anything. Besides, we knew as much as we needed to about this case from the discovery the defense received. Kim's main contribution were known long ago.
She kept silent while her fate was in Liefong's hands, meaning the prosecution of her violation of probation case. I'm sure she heard about what happened to Elmostafa. Anybody with half a brain would do the same thing - shut up until out of personal jeopardy.
ROFLOL!
He loves Transformers & everyday is Mother's Day. What more could a girl want?
What a load of BS.
I agree.
"Valid" was my operative word. :>
Any excuse to put that pic up, huh?
WTF?
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4709220
Assault Case Against Durham Officers Dismissed
WTVD Eyewitness News
(10/30/06 - DURHAM) - The assault case against two fired Durham Police officers was dismissed Monday.
Gary Lee and Scott Tanner faced a Wake County judge Monday to answer to simple assault charges that cost them their jobs last month.
Lee and Tanner were fired two months after an employee at Blinco's Sports Bar said the men beat him July 20. After conducting an internal investigation, Durham Police Chief Steve Chalmers said Tanner instigated a fight with the cook outside the Glenwood Avenue bar.
Monday in court, the charges against the two former officers were dismissed on a technicality. The defense attorney claimed the prosecutors didn't establish jurisdiction, and the judge agreed.
The charges against the Lee and Tanner were dropped.
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/504521.html
Modified: Oct 30, 2006 05:02 PM
Charges dropped in police assault case
Amazing, how can the Wake Co. DA not have jurisdiction on a case that happened in Wake Co? Is the bar one that strattles the county line and there is some question about who was in what county?
Right, but it is a common term used in the hood, to let someone know you are going to press charges of assault. So to me if this was said, it was to let Kim know, Mangum would have her arrested for assault. Nothing to do with the Duke guys, at that time. Now Kim is telling it as if it is premeditated to assert the rape claim.
Did I make sense? LOL
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.