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.''
Unless the bar was right on a county line and there was some uncertainty as to the exact location of the assault, why wouldn't county jurisdictional boundaries be something of which a court could simply take judicial notice? Surely there are official maps, are there not?
updated...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_sp_co_ne/duke_lacrosse_13
Duke lacrosse prosecutor standing firm
By AARON BEARD, Associated Press Writer 42 minutes ago
The prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case has heard the criticism from experts and armchair lawyers, and said Monday he is comfortable with nearly all the decisions he has made and confident about taking the case to trial.
"I think that I have a responsibility to prosecute this case," District Attorney Mike Nifong said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think that really nothing about my view of the case and my view of how the case ultimately needs to be handled has been affected by any of the things that have occurred."
Nifong, running for election against two challengers who have attacked his handling of the case, obtained an indictment against three athletes accused of raping a stripper at a team party in March. They have strongly declared their innocence.
In the early days of the case, Nifong granted numerous newspaper and TV interviews, at one point calling the players "hooligans" and declaring that DNA would identify the guilty. DNA failed to connect the players to the accuser.
Nifong said Monday that granting so many interviews was his only regret.
"You do the best you can based on what you have," he said. "You can always second-guess an investigation."
Nifong's comments angered defense attorney Joseph Cheshire, who represents one of the players who has been charged, David Evans. Cheshire said Nifong's belief he "wouldn't look back and do any of that differently is astounding."
"I don't think that you could find any person educated in the law who would not second-guess many things that Mr. Nifong has done in this case," he said.
The latest questions about Nifong's handling of the case came last week, after he said he and his staff have yet to interview the accuser about the facts of the case, leaving that work to police. He said Monday his responsibility is to direct the investigation, not conduct it.
Experts differed on the wisdom of Nifong's decision.
Former Denver prosecutor Norm Early, who now works with the National District Attorneys Association, said: "It's not standard to talk to the victim in every case. The police department generally has a conversation with the victim and the law enforcement relays that information to the district attorney."
But for a case generating as much public scrutiny with such strong claims of innocence from the defense, it makes sense to have a prosecutor involved, said Yale University law professor Ronald Sullivan Jr.
"Those claims of factual innocence alone should trigger some duty in the prosecutor's office to evaluate the merits of this case," he said.
Nifong declined to comment on an interview, aired by ABC on Monday, with Kim Roberts, a second stripper at the party. Roberts said the accuser was clearly impaired and "talking crazy" after they left the party and drove to a grocery store.
Roberts said she was unable to get the accuser to leave her car, and pushed on the woman's arm and leg to try to force her out. Roberts quoted the accuser as saying: "Go ahead, go ahead. Put marks on me. Go ahead. That's what I want. Go ahead."
"And it chilled me to the bone," Roberts said.
Roberts said she is worried such detail will lead people to make assumptions about what happened at the party.
"It's going to solidify their opinions so much, that they're not going to want to hear the other aspects of the case, which I think are just as important," she said. "It's going to make people not listen to any other part of the story."
I'm sure the cook will now have help from the NAACP legal defense fund, which helps fight such blatant examples of police prejudice and cover-up (this is worse than anything the LAPD did);
also from the US Justice Dept. Civil Rights Division, which will leap at the chance to tear this to pieces;
also from the black press;
and from Jesse, who will have a few choice words on the subject.
(Does anyone think I'm wrong??)
Blinco's is nowhere near the county line, which is miles from there. This was deliberately screwed up in court by the Wake County DA's office as a "professional courtesy", just as the Raleigh Police Department never charged the Durham officer in his accident.
BARF ALERT! More bullsh!t from the Fonger...
http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-783249.html
AP Interview: Mike Nifong on the Duke lacrosse rape case
By The Associated Press
October 30, 2006 6:09 pm
DURHAM, N.C. -- In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, District Attorney Mike Nifong talked at length about the Duke lacrosse rape case, how he's handled the prosecution and his upcoming election. Here are some excerpts of the interview:
ON THE CASE:
"I think that I have a responsibility to prosecute this case. I think that really nothing about my view of the case and my view of how the case ultimately needs to be handled has been affected by any of the things that have occurred."
"You can make the case go away pretty easily. Anybody could. The next D.A., or me if I were so inclined. You can do it with the stroke of a pen. But that does nothing to address the underlying divisions that have been revealed. My personal feeling is the first step to addressing those divisions is addressing this case. That is not the kind of thing that you can really assign to somebody else and say, 'You go do this for me. The future of Durham's in the balance and I don't really want to get my hands dirty. You do it.'"
"Why do I have to be the one that's interviewed somebody? The police, other people can deal with interviews and they can report to me what they do and I can direct them from that. It's not necessary for me to ask you about a specific event from your life for me to get a sense of whether or not you're a reliable individual."
ON THE ELECTION:
"I think any election needs to be about more than just a single case. I think the people who are trying to make this about the lacrosse case are saying, 'Well, the lacrosse case gives us a picture of how this office is going to handle all such cases in the future.' To which the first response is: What are the chances we're going to have another case that's anything like this?"
"The race is absolutely unprecedented. We've never seen anything like that. And just to give you an idea, the last five elections for district attorney prior to this time have had a total of four challengers. I have had four challengers in this one race."
ON HIS MISTAKES:
"I think it was pretty clear that I (misunderstood) the likely consequence of appearing on camera. Certainly what I was trying to do was to reassure the community, to encourage people with information to come forward. And that was clearly not the effect."
"Could I have done things different? Of course I could've done things differently. Can I do things differently in the future? Of course I can do things differently in the future. But at any time, I've got to do what I think is the right thing to do."
ON THE VOTERS:
"My guess is that a portion of the electorate is motivated solely by negative feelings, that they're out specifically to vote against me. ... Those aren't people who are likely to be undecided. ... But there again, in going back to our earlier conversation on the World Series, if it were all decided on paper, it would've been the Yankees and the Mets. You've got to play the games."
"Now I must say that the single good thing about all the publicity that I've gotten is that so many people know my face now that it's really easy for me to meet people. Before, literally very few people had any idea who I was, so I had to go up and introduce myself to everybody. And now I don't have to do that."
ON THE HIS ROLE AS A PROSECUTOR:
"Judges often have to choose between two or more less-than-totally-satisfactory results. And judges can't please everybody, either. But at least I never have to go forward with a case that I don't believe in. That's the good thing."
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-783249.html
Unless someone completely neglected to mention where the incident took place (which would seem odd, "You are the owner of Blinco's Bar, located at 742 Evergreen Terrace in Springfield, right?") how would jurisdiction not be established?
Nifong: "What are the chances we're going to have
another case that's anything like this?"
Absolutely zero.
What are the chances this case is a complete fabrication?
One-Hundred Percent.
That's what I think as well. Only a TOTAL IDIOT District Attorney would try a case like that. On the other hand, this IS North Carolina.
Ahhh...I had to look for the obligatory "WTF"! ;-)
"Should I be thrown into prison for abusing my office & wasting taxpayer money to further my own agenda? Of course I should be thrown into prison for abusing my office & wasting taxpayer money to further my own agenda."
Herald-Sun Imagine that.
Back to the "bombshell,"
There is a reason for a rape victim to say she wanted marks on her. She would be more likely to be believed.
"Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket."
Good grief.
Why is there always some constantly brewing pot of this kind of stuff in the media, that we wish would just go away.
Story! Just go away!
Did that work?
Nifong is probably considering using that line....
Well, today she pleased 2 bad cops and screwed one beaten cook
Thanks for the ping!
Well at least there is one thing you can say about her. It didn't take her months to review motions...........
Dropping the charges against the boys does not exonerate Liefong for his misconduct in bringing them in the first place, nor the identification process he used in this case, nor his unethical statements to the media and other lesser offenses.
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.