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.''
I forgot to add that the same holds true as to the election results. A new DA will not take office for a full month or more. Liefong will still be the DA after the election, whether he wins or loses. There's also nothing to stop Easley from re-appointing him, so far as I know, although it would be a stupid political move.
Yes, it makes sense. And I think that's how Mangum meant it - as a threat to Kim. Kim is now reporting the remark but she did not say in the interview what she thought Mangum meant by it. People are construing it as Mangum asking to be marked up so she could blame the boys, but that's on the viewer/listener. I watched the interview late this afternoon, and Kim said that Mangum was talking crazy and made the statement in the course of crazy talk, and after Mangum said that she wanted to get her out of the car with police help because the remark "chilled her to the bone."
Devon Sherwood is scheduled for interview Tuesday a.m. on Good Morning America.
"The fact is, I didn't pick the crime. I didn't pick the time," Nifong said at the forum. "But I'm going to do the case right."
The family of Devon Sherwood, a freshman goalie and the team's only black member, said the DNA results should have marked the end of the investigation of the highly ranked team. The Blue Devils played for last year's national title and were considered a favorite this season before Duke canceled the season.
"I'm just glad that that ordeal is over with and hopefully as we progress with the case, it will show that all of the players will be exonerated ... of any wrongdoing at all," said Devon Sherwood's father, Chuck, of Freeport, N.Y.
Devon Sherwood was not tested because he is black, and the alleged victim, a black woman, had said her attackers were white.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2406672
The stress of Nifong's investigation and the prospects of a high-profile criminal trial will have a lasting effect on players, the school and the sport, said Sherwood, whose son is the squad's only black player and was therefore free of suspicion. The dancer said her three attackers were white, so the younger Sherwood did not have to give a DNA sample as 46 of his teammates were ordered to do.
'Part of that team'
"Even though my son was never implicated, he's a part of that team and feels the stress and strain as well," said Sherwood, 52, an elementary school teacher who lives in Freeport, N.Y.
Sherwood, who played goalie for the Duke lacrosse team from 1972 to 1975 and thinks he was the school's first black lacrosse player and assistant coach, has declined to say whether his son was at the March 13 team party. He said his son has felt unique pressure because both he and the accuser are black.
"He's feeling a lot of a different kind of pressure than the rest of the team," said Sherwood. "There's a feeling that because he is an African-American, he should have stepped forward and told what he knows or stepped in and stopped this."
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/430653.html
** In seven days, Nifong may get away with election fraud TWICE ! ! in six months.
He's blaming the judge for letting him go forward with the case.
LOL!
He never spoke to the accuser, so if she's lying, it's not his fault. Then, the grand jury gave him the indictments, so that's not his fault, either. Now it's the judge who is at fault for not dismissing the case. Last, but not least and soon to come, it will be the voters' fault for nominating him in the primary.
Liefong: "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."
He sounds retarded.
The Justice Dept. isn't going to do squat about it.
The NAACP didn't take much (none that I know of) notice of the matter.
Jesse, yeah, maybe.
This will be interesting.
Jesse likes the DPD since it is helping his sister stick it to the man.
I do wonder though if The False One refuses to take this case forward does he stop giving her the money to go to school. Also since part of the reason Jesse is giving her the money was that he thought she shouldn't have to strip to go to school. How does he feel that she is still stripping?
Do we know if Jesse actually ever gave her any money?
Back when all this started he said he was going to. But your right, he might not have given her anything yet.
Nifong Comfortable With Handling Of Duke Rape Case
POSTED: 10:35 pm EST October 30, 2006 [excerpts]
DURHAM, N.C. -- The district attorney at the center of the Duke lacrosse rape case has heard the criticisms from experts and armchair lawyers alike, but said Monday he's comfortable with almost all his decisions and is confident about taking the case to trial.-----
Nifong said granting so many interviews was his only regret, insisting that he and police investigators have not mishandled the case.
The effort to defeat Nifong has raised $14,500 to date, according to an election finance report. Fifty-three of the 55 donations are from outside of North Carolina.
Meanwhile, Nifong has raised more than $78,000 for his campaign, while write-in candidate Steve Monks has raised $20,000, according to filings.
Nifong said he occasionally receives pieces of hate mail -- "Some of it is, 'How can you sleep at night? You're a disgrace,'" he said -- but he said most people he has met while campaigning have been supportive. He said he's received letters of support from rape victims, which he said have meant the most.
"As a practical reality, almost anything the district attorney decides is going to make some people unhappy," he said. "It's not a position that you can afford to be terribly thin-skinned about because you have to understand that it's part of the job. You're not there to please people in the first place."
http://www.wral.com/news/10195690/detail.html
* As long as Mayor Bell and the Committee are pleased, that's all that counts.
Did this guy get indictments so he could address underlying divisions in Durham? How scary is that? Maybe he should indict a few Durham officials so he can address underlying corruption...
It's hard for me to believe he gave her any money without doing a press release about it. Somebody here would have picked up the news story. But I guess it's possible he gave her a thousand bucks without announcing it just so he could say he didn't fully renege if he's ever asked about it.
Perhaps, but what good are they if they give that much weight to those kinds of factors when considering questions of misconduct? God knows when it comes to prosecutors and lawyering, NC needs all the gatekeepers it can muster.
I'm beginning to thinik that it's actually Cheek who is the spoiler. He knew he had a respected name in the county and could get the required number of signatures. People who signed for him probably did not sign for anybody else. So, if some other serious Democrat had decided to get on the ballot the way Cheek did, and it was somebody like Cheek who was electable, they wouldn't have made it. Cheek announced after the fact (getting the signatures) that he for sure wouldn't accept office. That leaves voters with Liefong or "TBA", thus negating the likelihood that Liefong will lose by preventing any other desirable candidate from running. I don't buy his BS that he did it to give Durhamites another bite at Easley's apple.
Stinkin', lying, rotten bastard rats.
Everything is just one big social experiment to rats. They don't care about individuals. It all stems from their communist view of what serves the "group" is best and any life is worth sacrificing for their experiemnts in social engineering.
Nifong's foes raise, spend more than DA
BY GREGORY PHILLIPS, The Herald-Sun
October 30, 2006 10:22 pm
DURHAM -- Each of the two challengers in the Durham County District Attorney race has raised and spent more money in the last three months than incumbent DA Mike Nifong's campaign, according to campaign finance reports filed Monday.
A combined effort to convince voters to support Lewis Cheek -- a Democrat whose name is on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate but who says he won't serve if elected -- spent $13,434 between July 1 and Oct. 21. The campaign for Republican write-in candidate Steve Monks spent $12,963 in the same period, while the Nifong campaign spent $8,981, the reports state.
"If anybody had any perception this was a ploy to help Mike out or split the vote, I wouldn't have been staying up every morning until 2 o'clock to raise money," said Monks, chairman of the county Republican Party. "I've got a chance to win this campaign."
Nifong's campaign had only $1,945 left after spending $45,187 to win the Democratic primary in May over Freda Black and Keith Bishop, at which point Nifong had no opposition on the November ballot.
But criticism of his handling of rape charges against three Duke lacrosse players spawned two new opponents, in Monks and Cheek, although Cheek later decided he wouldn't seek the post after his name was placed on the ballot, citing the potential impact on his young law firm.
If Cheek wins the election, the governor will select a DA. Cheek has urged voters to follow their conscience and vote for him if they want a new DA appointed.
The expenditures from Cheek's own committee, which raised $5,232 (the biggest chunk coming from Patrick Smith of Raleigh, CEO of Voyager Pharmaceuticals) all went on the petition drive to get him on the ballot, Cheek said. But his unusual campaign has also been supported by the Committee To Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek.
Of the identified donors to the Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek campaign, almost all the contributions -- $9,437 out of $9,988 -- came from outside Durham, and more than $8,000 from out of state. The biggest single donation was $2,000 from Duke Students for an Ethical Durham, a group set up by Duke students to register Duke students to vote in Durham.
Monks theorizes that families of lacrosse players and their supporters rallied to support the Recall Nifong effort, which he still sees as counterproductive, claiming the governor has no motivation to appoint someone who wouldn't take the lacrosse case to trial.
But Cheek denied the Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek campaign's out-of-state support was taking any influence away from Durham voters.
"I think people are smart enough to make their minds up for themselves," he said.
Nor did Cheek place much emphasis on Nifong raising the least money.
"I truly do believe we'll see what people think on November the 7th," he said.
Nifong's supporters raised $10,614 from individual contributions in the third quarter, including attorneys who have supported him before in Tom Miller, Mark Simeon and Robert Nauseef. Nifong could not be reached for comment Monday, but Miller said he wasn't surprised or concerned Nifong trailed in fundraising.
"I don't think he likes the part when he goes to ask people for money," Miller said. "I think he's much more interested in doing the job of district attorney."
Campaign expenditures across the board consisted mostly of signs and advertising, through mailings, newspapers and the Internet.
Nifong's campaign also trailed in the money it had left as of Oct. 21, with only $2,978 remaining for a final blitz before the Nov. 7 election. The Monks campaign still had $6,990 -- thanks to $4,251 it already had when the third quarter began -- and the Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek committee had $7,835, according to the reports.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-783330.html
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.