Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Go Ahead, Put Marks on Me' (GMA Interview w/Kim - DukeLax Ping
ABC News ^ | October 30, 2006 | CHRIS FRANCESCANI and EAMON McNIFF

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.''


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: duke; dukelax; durham; nifong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-509 next last
To: maggief
What are these "other, general conversations?"

They are what were called "Spectral Evidence" in the Salem Witch Trials...

301 posted on 11/01/2006 4:44:13 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: abb

"But Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline, who prosecuted Lofton, said Tuesday that inconsistencies in a victim's story should come as no surprise to anyone."

Remember Tracey Cline? She was the prosecutor in the Leon Brown case :

http://www.monkeytime.org/archive/September2002.html#durhamDNA

"9.20.02 - Ok, you tell me if this doesn't sound weird: There's a trial going on right now in Durham, according to the Herald-Sun, in which DNA samples taken from a man accused of rape don't match DNA samples taken from inside the victim. This unusual fact has not stopped the Durham District Attorney's office from prosecuting the man, whose name is Leon Brown. Brown's defense lawyer, Douglas Simons, claimed in his opening statement that there was incriminating evidence against someone else - the victim's cousin:

[Simons] told jurors that Brown voluntarily gave DNA samples that did not match samples from the victim. Nor did pubic hairs surrendered by Brown match...In addition, the victim initially told authorities that she thought her white cousin was the intruder, according to Simons. When the cousin was arrested, duct tape and other incriminating items were found in his car and on his property...District Attorney Jim Hardin Jr. gave the cousin "complete immunity" to testify against Brown, Simons told jurors. "He wanted a deal," Simons said of the cousin. "He got it."

"Defense attorneys say all kinds of things, of course - only some of them true - so we have to be careful here. But let's see if we have this right: The white cousin who was initially fingered by the rape victim strikes a deal for immunity with the D.A. in order to testify against a black guy whose DNA doesn't match the DNA found inside the victim? Is that really what this article is telling us? It's difficult to understand why the guy being charged with rape is apparently not the one whose semen was found inside the victim. Prosecutor Tracey Cline told the jury that her evidence will be sufficient to convince them that Brown was the rapist. We'll see if they agree; the trial is expected to end this week.

http://www.monkeytime.org/archive/October2002.html#durhamDNA2

"10.2.02 - Update on that Durham rape trial where the DNA from the man being prosecuted by District Attorney Jim Hardin's office didn't match the facts of the case. The Herald-Sun's John Stevenson followed up last week; the suspect, who'd spent a full year in jail awaiting trial, was completely acquitted of all charges. That's not all. The jury foreman, Howard Williams, Jr., had extremely harsh words for the prosecution, describing the trial as "a waste of time":

"We all wondered what we were doing there," he said of himself and fellow jurors. "The evidence was nonexistent. We're very comfortable with the decision we made. I can't understand why that man spent a year in jail when there was no evidence whatsoever against him. It made no sense to us. Where's the justice?"
"Surely something's wrong when a jury foreman calls out the D.A.'s office for locking someone up for a year with "no evidence whatsoever." Given the strange deal-making in the case, is it fair to wonder what on earth prosecutor Tracey Cline - who still insists she had the right man - was thinking? And is it fair to wonder - without engaging in moronic cop-bashing - how often this kind of thing happens in Durham, or in other Triangle jurisdictions? I think it is."

Typical Durham (and evidently Wake County, too) merry-go-round.


302 posted on 11/01/2006 5:01:23 AM PST by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: maggief

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_evidence
Spectral evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Spectral evidence includes testimony about dreams and visions, accepted as evidence in court. Spectral evidence was admitted at the Salem witch trials by the appointed chief justice, William Stoughton. See also apparition.

Spectral evidence was testimony that the accused witch's spirit (i.e. spectre) appeared to the witness in a dream or vision. The dream or vision was admitted as evidence. Thus, witnesses (who were often the accusers) would testify that "Goody Proctor bit, pinched, and almost choked me," and it would be taken as evidence that the accused were responsible for the biting, pinching and choking even though they were elsewhere at the time.

Thomas Brattle, a merchant of Salem, made note that "when the afflicted do mean and intend only the appearance and shape of such an one, say J. Proctor, yet they positively swear that J. Proctor did afflict them; and they were allowed to do so; as though there was no real difference between J. Proctor and the shape of J. Proctor."

Rev. Cotton Mather argued strenuously that it was appropriate to admit spectral evidence into legal proceedings. Robert Calef published More Wonders of the Invisible World to criticize Mather for this position. (Mather sued him for libel, and had the book burned in Harvard Yard). Cotton Mather remained unrepentant for his role in the trials and the admission of spectral evidence till his death.

Rev. Increase Mather, Cotton's father, however, became an opponent of spectral evidence - though not until after the Salem hangings had taken place, and not on the basis that it was false testimony by witnesses, but that it might be a deception by demons. He published Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating [sic] Men, in which he argued that "It were better that ten suspected witches should escape, than that one innocent person should be condemned".


303 posted on 11/01/2006 5:04:35 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

"An accuser can give five different stories, but if all of them indicate she was raped, it's got to go to a jury," said Vann."

If it goes to a trial and it is shown the accuser is lying,
then that's perjury, and she gets prison time.

Do those who are clamoring for a trial realize this?

The maximum penalty for making a false claim to police is $1000 fine and 200 hours community service. Prison is an altogether different story.

Does the accuser really want to face prison time for lying?


304 posted on 11/01/2006 5:05:02 AM PST by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight
If it goes to a trial and it is shown the accuser is lying, then that's perjury, and she gets prison time.

She only gets prison time if the DA prosecutes her and Nifong isn't going to do that.

305 posted on 11/01/2006 5:16:09 AM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

"District Attorney Jim Hardin"

And for those of you who might be just joining us, about 19 months ago, Easley appointed Hardin to be a judge (gak!). Easley then appointed Nifong Durham DA to fill Hardin's former spot. Easley has a lot to answer for and is never going to have to either.


306 posted on 11/01/2006 5:41:12 AM PST by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: abb
"But Nifong said hearing the woman tell her story is not the only way to determine whether she is credible."

Nifong, don't you think it would help a little bit though. Just because you ask someone about seeing their children and they give a seeming honest response, doesn't mean they are telling the truth about a gang rape, over a thirty minute period of time, that produced not one shred of evidence.

It is pretty obvious from the medical reports that the FA is very adept at lying. But I suspect, that like not interviewing the FA, he hasn't read the medical reports either. It was obvious earlier that he had not read his own discovery files.
307 posted on 11/01/2006 6:04:36 AM PST by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Hogeye13
It was obvious earlier that he had not read his own discovery files

But don't you see, it's important to Nifong to reveal the "underlying issues" of Durham. The only way to do this is to take a case without evidence to trial.

Sorry, I just can't get over this.

308 posted on 11/01/2006 6:12:02 AM PST by Neverforget01 (Republicans resign; Democrats run for reelection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: gopheraj

mark


309 posted on 11/01/2006 6:12:43 AM PST by gopheraj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Neverforget01

Actually, he is doing a pretty good job of revealing the "underlying issues" of Durham.

A corrupt, stupid DA is the first thing that comes to mind.


310 posted on 11/01/2006 6:15:48 AM PST by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: All

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/11/01/Columns/Lacrosse.A.Case.In.Crisis-2414891.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
Lacrosse: a case in crisis
The short shot
Jane Chong
Posted: 11/1/06
The change in choice catchphrase from "the perfect storm" to "the turning tide" neatly sums up the trajectory of public sentiment regarding the lacrosse affair. The tide refers mostly to the detritus of the storm, the shattered sense of justice shoved first in one direction and now the other by equal and opposite forces of apoplectic anger.

Apoplexies leave little room for introspection; they tend to seize the body and kill it.

Once upon a time, when lacrosse was just a sport, an appeal for seeing beyond black and white, innocent and guilty, victim and perpetrator incontrovertibly held high ground in an intellectual community. Now such an appeal for perceiving complexity falls on deaf, and defensive, ears. After being burned by the so-called complexity that rendered the lacrosse players faceless white entities, many understandably find reason to rebuff that familiar call for seeing in layers-reason to hold that there is no cause for creating complexity where there is none, and reason to believe the crisis indeed boils down to a battle between truth and lies, right and wrong, good and evil.

This deadlocked, dead-end debate marks a clear-cut failure to differentiate between the lacrosse case, which centers on the futures of three indicted individuals and whether they should be tried in a court of law, and the lacrosse crisis, the implications of which will rock the University and play out in the court of public opinion long after the acquittal of three young men.

I say acquittal because legal evidence and common sense suggest this case was over before it began. The crisis, on the other hand, rages on like a forest fire and continues to be treated as such, as if it will burn itself out and leave the soil richer in its wake.

If only the flying finger were really that productive.

By crisis, I mean those conditions that allowed for the spark of an accusation to become a raging social inferno on a national scale. The crisis encompasses not only the hasty initial reactions, but perhaps more disturbingly, the ongoing reactions to those reactions, which return in kind the abusive generalizations and negation of people as first and foremost individuals. The crisis is embodied by the self-righteous finger-pointing that threatens to tear at the fabric of parent, student, alumni, faculty, staff and administrative relations. The crisis extends beyond Duke's low stone wall, for image is not a superficial concern for an institution that aims to attract and educate the next generation of world leaders, the best and the brightest whose knowledge of Duke comprises blogs and media reports of a university eating itself from the inside.

The word that best describes the complex, cannibalistic crisis at hand: ironic. We claim to be a community of learners and have been thrown the biggest curveball in our institutional history, but we have failed to come away with the ability to recognize our neighbors as potential learners, rather than primary transgressors to be "tarred and feathered."

There must be a few pots-and-pans bangers out there who regret participating in that particular fight for rape victim rights. If you're wondering what they were thinking when they presumed guilt over innocence, perhaps they thought no further than their personal experiences with the cyclical violence of rape, and later considered their protest vindicated by Nifong's damning commentary-but have now learned some things and regretted some things, like all of us, in retrospect.

Some are calling for President Brodhead's head, and declaring the administration has utterly failed its students.

President Brodhead is not perfect, though I say this not with specific imperfections to cite, but with the knowledge that he is human. Like us, bestial though our bloodlust may be. Imperfections he may have, but outrageous are contentions that he lacked thought. President Brodhead is nothing if not a man who thinks. Cite "60 Minutes'" unflattering cutting and pasting if you'd like, but as a bewildered freshman, I most clearly remember anxiously watching that first press conference, as he implored that we withhold judgment above all else.

The administration is a swarming mass of humans, which makes for greater problems in the perfection department. But when the lacrosse crisis broke, they had a duty not only to the players, but a commitment to protecting an entire community. It's easy to forget that. They fumbled in an unprecedented situation and, in some senses, they failed-but to a lesser degree, some would argue, than the lacrosse captains who personally hosted the out-of-control party that, by their own admission, compromised their teammates, school and their own roles as leaders, not in a Division I sport, but of a team and community, period.

Round and round the finger revolves.

We know we're in dangerous straits, devolving as a community of learners, when after one multilayered crisis, a large flock finds it acceptable to call for our professors, minds respected for real reason in the international community, to "stick to the classroom" and "just teach."

That's not the Duke I signed up for. No tide, no matter how strong, should be slamming us this far off the course.

Crisis or no crisis, it just has no case.

Jane Chong is Trinity sophomore. Her column runs every Wednesday.


311 posted on 11/01/2006 7:42:32 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: abb

http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=5e398db1-6883-4000-a287-f689c86f6bc5
Experts say DA poll on target
Cate Harding
Posted: 11/1/06
Political polls-like the one published last week by the Raleigh News and Observer-have the ability to capture a picture of what voters are thinking at a particular time.

It is still difficult to determine, however, the extent to which the recent poll conducted by the N&O reflects actual voter sentiment and how it will influence voters' decisions come Nov. 7, especially with regards to the district attorney race.

According to the poll, which surveyed a random sample of 600 likely voters in Durham County, showed current Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong leading the race with 46 percent of the vote, followed by Lewis Cheek at 28 percent and Steve Monks at 2 percent.

"All polls are not equal-their accuracy depends on the methodology used and the size of the sample," Rob Christensen, a political writer for the N&O, wrote in an e-mail. "The size of the sample determines the margin of error."

With only a 4-percent margin of error, the poll proved to have a high level of precision, said Ian McDonald, a graduate student in political science who studies elections and voting trends.

"It was a random digit poll. Any registered voter had an equal chance to be contacted by us, including 18-to-29 year olds. The myth about the inaccuracy of polls is laughable," said Del Ali, president of Research 2000, the nonpartisan polling company that conducted the poll.

The poll was carried out by telephone interviews in which interviewees were asked how often they voted and if they were likely to vote in the upcoming election. Registered voters were broken down by race and party and were required to go through a series of screeners to determine their eligibility as a "likely" voter. They were then asked for which of the three candidates they intended to vote.

David Rohde, professor of political science, said that assuming the poll is credible, it is indicative of the electoral outcome.

"Nifong's lead is substantial and reliable. The chances of substantial deviation from the results is not very likely-only one in 20," he said. "These types of polls provide some information to other voters, but by now most people decided if they are going to vote and who for."

McDonald noted that although polls do have the ability to affect voter opinion, Nifong's lead in this case is too great for it to change the election's outcome.

"Poll results absolutely have the power to influence voter choice. Lopsided polls keep people away," McDonald said. "An election with one person leading in the polls by 16 points will be headed for a landslide 999 out of 1,000 times unless something changes dramatically."

A dramatic change is exactly what the Cheek and Monks campaigns are striving for. Both campaigns hold out hope that the poll results may influence their supporters to go out and vote in large groups, said Beth Brewer, spokesperson for the Cheek campaign.

"The poll has had a mobilizing effect on our voters," Brewer said. "Our attempt over the rest of the campaign will be to get those 24 percent undecided voters to choose our candidate."

Monks said that although the poll results were personally disappointing, they have renewed his supporters' and campaign's efforts to get "seriously aggressive."


312 posted on 11/01/2006 7:45:26 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: abb

http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/11/01/News/Veteran.Cheek.Hopes.To.recall.Nifong-2414850.shtml?norewrite200611011046&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com
Veteran Cheek hopes to 'recall Nifong'
Rebecca Wu
Posted: 11/1/06
District Attorney candidate Lewis Cheek has seen his name on ballots before, but this time is a little different.

A longtime Durham lawyer and Durham County Commissioner, Cheek has said he will decline the office if elected district attorney, compelling Gov. Mike Easley to appoint a replacement.

"What happened was some people came to me in June and asked me to consider the possibility of running," Cheek said.

He accepted at first, but had concerns about the impact his absence would have on his law firm, Hedrick, Murray & Cheek.

"My sudden exit could make problems for the law firm and the people who work there," Cheek explained.

Cheek said his supporters Dan Hill, Jackie Brown, Ed Pope and Roland Leary then asked him to authorize a petition to put his name on the ballot after the May primaries.

"[The petition] was successful, but three weeks later, it became clear to me I just really wouldn't be able to accept the position, and I made an announcement that I would not campaign," Cheek said.

Cheek is a veteran of both law and politics in Durham. A city native, Cheek spent his undergraduate years at Wake Forest and received his law degree there in 1976. He returned to Durham, where he has practiced law-primarily civil trial law-since 1976.

He was elected to City Council in 1999 and served until 2003. Cheek decided not to run for a second term because he was organizing the law firm with which he currently works.

In 2004, Cheek was asked to run for the Durham Board of County Commissioners.

"At the time, there was tension among various members of the board and a lot of folks thought it was creating distractions, preventing the county from doing business as it should. A lot of bickering was going on," Cheek said about why he agreed to reenter politics.

As one of five county commissioners, Cheek oversees a variety of county services, including funding for schools and, to a smaller extent, social services.

Although Cheek will not serve as district attorney if elected, his supporters are still pushing for a victory with the "Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek" campaign.

Hill, who served on City Council with Cheek, strongly supports him over incumbent District Attorney Mike Nifong.

"I voted for Nifong in early May in the primary because I thought he had some evidence I had not yet seen that he would be coming forth with, but the evidence turned in after the election appeared to prove rape did not occur," said Hill, referring to the current rape charges against three members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team.

"[Nifong's] statements in the first eight days of the Duke lacrosse scandal really generated a local problem-a local issue became national entertainment," Hill said.

Cheek's other opponent is Steve Monks, who is running as a write-in candidate. Hill said Monks' candidacy would have a negative effect on Cheek's chances.

"Monks cannot win. He cannot win as a write-in candidate," Hill said.


313 posted on 11/01/2006 7:46:28 AM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: abb

Nifong does not interview his accuser as a matter of policy.

How did he form his initial assessment of the case?

Based on DPD investigations? What had DPD determined

before the DA butted in. Some say the accuser's street rep

in LE gives her first name basis recognition. Was she on a

first name basis in the DA's office already, with her multiple

probes and lengthy criminal history? Woody Vann, the DA's

long-time colleague stuck up for her early on. He has done

much business with the family. When was the first time the

DA physically viewed the accuser in person after the alleged crime?

Why don't Orange County authorities bust the Platinum as a front

prostitution? Why is there no criminal investigation into the

backgrounds of the assorted drivers, managers and escort services?

Why is Mayor Bell so content to silently preside over this latest

in a long string of debacles afflicting his administration?

Durham, North Carolina will forever damn itself for the history books

in six days unless someone wakes up.


314 posted on 11/01/2006 9:05:21 AM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

Based on the "check on the children" in the police radio traffic of early in 14 March, I've always assumed that LE knew her right from the beginning.


315 posted on 11/01/2006 9:19:22 AM PST by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

The reason the tapes of the DPD radio chatter that night were erased is that the police while taking her allegation seriously did not believe her. It is clear from their actions the early morning of the event. They did not treat the house as a crime scene. They did not seek an immediate warrant. They did not tape it off an limit access. They did not rush to get witness statements while things were fresh on peoples minds.

I will bet that police chatter would have raised far more than reaonable doubt about whether Mangum was raped.


316 posted on 11/01/2006 10:11:01 AM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: All

This is SOOO off topic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1730016/posts?page=1,50


317 posted on 11/01/2006 1:36:02 PM PST by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

Thanks LB. It is off topic but pretty cool.


318 posted on 11/01/2006 2:23:36 PM PST by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: All

Must read...

Who Will Stop Mike Nifong?

The innocence posse falls off its horse

By Tara Servatius

Published 11.01.2006
http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=92358
Creative Loafing Charlotte

In Durham County, an epic legal battle is being fought in the now infamous Duke lacrosse rape case, and it's not the one you've been reading about. This fight spans hundreds of pages of legal documents, but has gotten little media attention.

It's over basic information about what happened the night of the alleged rape, evidence a 2004 open-file discovery law says the defense has a right to and should have received months ago.

At the moment, Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong is making an utter mockery of that law, and a game of legal "chicken" is quietly unfolding in which those in the know hold their breath, waiting to see if someone, anyone, will -- or can -- rein him in.

To understand the implications here, you've got to rewind to 2004. Half a dozen cases had come to light in which innocent men were sentenced to die or had served years in prison for crimes they didn't commit because prosecutors withheld evidence that would have cleared them. The state's justice system was in crisis. Every death penalty conviction was under scrutiny. Legislators created an innocence commission and some demanded a moratorium on executions.

So when the governor signed a law in 2004 that said prosecutors had to turn over their entire files, including all records of police and prosecutor's interviews with the victim or other witnesses in the case, politicians and the editorial pages sang Kumbayah, and hailed it as a major breakthrough for protecting the innocent.

Then, on April 17, the first two Duke lacrosse players were indicted for raping a stripper after a rancorous party. By Oct. 11, the defense team had sent its umpteenth letter to Nifong, again demanding what they have fought for repeatedly in court but still don't have -- records of any of the interviews Nifong has had with the accuser.

When did she tell him she was raped? Did she give him a timeline? Who raped her? No one knows, but Nifong has claimed publicly that he interviewed her and believes her story. He's also denied to the court that he has ever interviewed her. Meanwhile, the list of police investigators' notes -- Nifong is serving as the head of the investigation -- that remain "missing" could fill an entire Citizen Servatius column.

Here's just one of the latest blatant examples. In a Sept. 20 motion, Nifong wrote that the victim "told the undersigned District Attorney that she had never at any time knowingly and voluntarily taken Ecstasy." Clearly, Nifong and perhaps others have talked to this woman, and the defense has a right to the content of those interviews. Either that or Nifong lied in the Sept. 20 motion. Neither scenario is confidence inspiring, yet there are dozens of these glaring time/space paradoxes involving the alternate universes Nifong apparently inhabits.

If a witness under oath pulled the kind of stunts Nifong has, they'd be facing perjury charges. Yet Nifong has repeatedly gotten away with telling the court in writing that he has turned over all the evidence he has -- before turning over more evidence he has clearly been holding back for months after a judge orders him to.

It's a pattern that alarms Brooklyn College constitutional history professor K.C. Johnson, who has scoured reams of legal documents in the case, particularly given that some of the evidence Nifong has belatedly produced casts doubt on the defendants' guilt.

"This is the first high-profile case since the open discovery law passed in North Carolina," Johnson says. "This stuff should have been turned over in late April. If Nifong gets away with this, other North Carolina DAs will do the same thing."

In most states across the nation, laws exist that allow the governor or other elected officials to pull a district attorney off a case for breaking the law. But North Carolina doesn't have those laws. And, so far, none of the judges who have handled the case have seen fit to reign in Nifong, something Johnson says would take a great deal of backbone since it would bring instant, wall-to-wall, national media attention.

"I think people probably are watching this," Raleigh defense attorney Ann Groninger says of the state's legal community. "There is a wide discrepancy in how much the law is enforced in different counties and by different judges."

Meanwhile, the members of the "innocence posse" who cheered on the open file discovery law and demanded justice when the state bar merely slapped the wrists of prosecutors who knowingly sent innocent men to jail seem to have fallen off their horses.

"If this were New York, Nifong would have been removed months ago by the governor -- not because he believed the defendants are innocent, but because it is clear that Nifong is breaking a lot of rules," says Johnson. "This case should change North Carolina law."

And it could prove something else. If a six-member legal team with wealthy clients and unlimited resources hasn't yet managed to drag all the basic facts of this case out of a district attorney after months of trying, the average defendant in this state is thoroughly and completely screwed.

And the defendant with a public defender who has 150 other cases? He might as well plead guilty, bend over, and kiss his rear end goodbye.

Got a story idea? E-mail Tara at tara.servatius@creativeloafing.com.


319 posted on 11/01/2006 3:28:50 PM PST by abb (The Dinosaur Media: A One-Way Medium in a Two-Way World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: abb

It's a good thing these people don't, you know, write for a living or anything.

ran?cor?ous? [rang-ker-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
full of or showing rancor.
[Origin: 1580–90; rancor + -ous]

—Related forms
ran?cor?ous?ly, adverb
ran?cor?ous?ness, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
ran·cor (rngkr) Pronunciation Key
n.
Bitter, long-lasting resentment; deep-seated ill will. See Synonyms at enmity.

VERSUS

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
rau?cous? [raw-kuhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. harsh; strident; grating: raucous voices; raucous laughter.
2. rowdy; disorderly: a raucous party.


320 posted on 11/01/2006 4:12:28 PM PST by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-509 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson