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.''
Another out-of-control prosecutor that should be charged with misconduct instead of continuing to take a paycheck from the government.
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/11/prosecutors-question-nifongs-failure-to.html
RE:
"I had not seen that. Brings tears to my eyes.
"Colin seems to me to be the most vulnerable of the three. I don't know why I have that impression, I just do. Maybe something the "Mom Antenna" is picking up."
The costs to these young men and their families must be phenomenal. Has there been any discussion about contributions to a defense fund?
If so, I'm in.
"Has there been any discussion about contributions to a defense fund?"
You can find out all about how to contribute to the defense fund at :
http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/02/duke-lacrosse-defense-fund.html
I just caught the tail end of Greta's interview with Woody Vann.
Woody said: He was neither demoted nor promoted,just brought to the office ...blah, blah"
Did anyone see that & know what (or who) he was talking about?
I have said many times....we are shocked, outraged. But this is standard MO in Durham.
Nifong is getting away with it because the DA's office has always gotten away with it.
Sadly, this might be the first time people outside of Durham took note.
Woody said: He was neither demoted nor promoted,just brought to the office ...blah, blah"
--Nifong's time in traffic court, maybe.
"Nifong is getting away with it because the DA's office has always gotten away with it. "
-- but never under such scrutiny, and such massive scale.--- so openly, in plain sight... with so much collateral damage. His overseers are probably chagrined they have bucked the opposition so easily. They have so much free help. They will now take it as far as they can.
Durham lawyer Woody Vann, who represented Lofton, said Tuesday he agreed with that conclusion.
"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.
Don't know about you, but I'd be mighty pissed if he was my DEFENSE attorney.
When Hardin got his judgeship and Easley promoted Nifong to Durham DA,
Mike had a big headstart towards his first election. He was the first one in the
state to file election papers and was there an hour early on the first filing day.
Freda Black filed the next day. It was a two-way race. At the end of the filing
period, Keith Bishop filed for race- a spoiler like Monks?
Bishop received the Committee's endorsement, putting Mike in a tight spot
and giving the edge to Freda. Was the Committee squeezing Nifong?
The Committee is like Durham's Politburo,
secretive and dictatorial, no whites allowed.
For now it remains the domain of Lavonia Allison,
who has held sway like Castro in Cuba. She has known
all the Committee bosses for the past 70 years.
There are unconfirmed reports that the backing of
Bishop created a rift in the executive committee
over at the White Rock Kremlin.
Honey, they were sqeezing him like a Florida Orange.
THIS is who the Committee endorsed:
http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/433642.html
Keith A. Bishop
(snip)
He was censured by the State Bar in 2001 for what the bar found was an improper delay in a civil case. The bar's grievance committee found that Bishop had tried to thwart the defendant's attempt to depose a witness.
(another snip)
Unlike Nifong and Black, Bishop has never worked in the prosecutor's office and has never prosecuted a case. ......
I have read that Victoria Petersen is critical at times of the way Lavonia runs the Committee.
Is there a serious devision in the Black Community or even within the Committee?
Lavonia is not a spring chicken, is she? She is not going to live forever. Wonder who wants her power?
This maneuver then created a good deal
of leverage over Mike's electoral fortunes.
As we know, he polled just enough black
votes to squeak by and avoid a run-off.
"Is there a serious division in the Black Community
or even within the Committee? "
The Old Guard and the New Guard. Who benefits
with Nifong and openly works for his election?
Mayor Bell and Finesse Couch have vested interests.
Victoria seems to be like a lightning rod.
Finesse and her towel boy were smiling so sweetly at Nifong's meet & greet.
A Couch heading up the Committee.
You know CDestine is being groomed by Mama. DA, maybe a judgeship?
Interesting thought.
BUMP
The Couch dynasty in the making.
The headquartering of the state NAACP
chapter in Durham recently may also
be creating some rivalries.
C. Michaels likes to quote Joyner and
Al McSurely, the Chapel Hill lawyer,
on legal matters. Al, it turns out,
has quite an interesting background.
Why the Duke Hoax Continues [excerpt of particular interest from very lengthy article]
When the Duke University lacrosse team had its annual party during spring break last March, there was little reason to think that the aftermath would escalate into a vast criminal case. While the Duke faculty and administration insists that just the act of hiring strippers to perform was a singularly bad act, they are conveniently leaving out the fact that other parties involving Duke students – more than 20 in all – had including performances by strippers (or "exotic dancers," as the media continues to call them).
As one source very close to the situation has told me, Duke’s vaunted basketball team had hosted a party just two weeks earlier – with strippers helping to provide the "entertainment."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson148.html
* The laxer's big mistake was not having their party at Teaser's, as in the past.
Teaser's, a highly rated men's club in downtown Durham. Would make a great
story for some enterprising reporter. Bloggers would be better.
Tales vary on stripper's dancing
By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun
November 1, 2006 11:23 pm
DURHAM -- Radically differing accounts emerged Wednesday about an exotic dancer who has accused three men of raping and sodomizing her at an off-campus Duke University lacrosse team party.
One of those accounts had her performing supple and athletic dance routines at the adults-only Platinum Club in Hillsborough on March 17, 18 and 26.
At that time, she was complaining to physicians and police that she still suffered extreme pain from the alleged rape on the night of March 13-14. And she told District Attorney Mike Nifong as late as April 11 that she continued to be too traumatized to even talk about the sex-assault case, Nifong has said in open court.
The account of the three March dance performances was given to several lawyers by a former bouncer at the Platinum Club, H.P. "Fats" Thomas.
The lawyers, in turn, provided Thomas' account to The Herald-Sun on Wednesday. They quoted Thomas as saying he was certain about the March 17, 18 and 26 dates. They also said Thomas described the woman's movements as almost contortionist in nature.
Previous news accounts had the woman dancing at the Platinum Club only on March 26 and did not mention any earlier dates in March.
In fact, a CBS "60 Minutes" segment last month showed a short video clip of a woman -- purportedly the accuser -- performing at the club on a date that was said to be March 26. The clip was fuzzy, and the woman's face was not shown in full.
But Platinum Club owner Victor Olatoye said in a sworn affidavit, a copy of which was obtained by The Herald-Sun on Wednesday, that the bouncer's account was not true.
He said the woman danced at his nightspot beginning in December 2005 and continued for about three months, stopping in February.
In addition, he said he had reviewed the CBS video clip and disagreed that it was shot on March 26.
"The video is at my club and was prior to the rape," Olatoye wrote. "I am certain of this because [the accuser] has not stripped at my club since the rape occurred."
Olatoye could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Linwood Wilson, an investigator in the District Attorney's Office, would not comment.
Thomas, the former bouncer, initially agreed to an interview with The Herald-Sun but later said he could not answer questions without his lawyers listening in. That could not be arranged by press time Wednesday.
Meanwhile, several attorneys close to the case -- but who do not represent any of three indicted suspects -- said they believed Thomas rather than Olatoye.
For example, Durham lawyer Bill Thomas -- no relation to the former club bouncer -- said Wednesday he considered H.P. Thomas to be credible despite a lengthy arrest record. He also said the former bouncer's accounts shattered the alleged rape victim's credibility.
"It speaks volumes about her veracity," said Bill Thomas, who represents an unindicted lacrosse player.
Bill Thomas cited medical documents indicating the woman told physicians she was experiencing pain at a level of 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, while she reportedly continued to dance at the Platinum Club.
"Her version of events to doctors and police simply cannot be reconciled with her dancing," said Bill Thomas. "The dancing is not consistent with someone experiencing extreme pain. This paints a picture of a woman who is not telling the truth to her doctors and law-enforcement officials. I think it puts her credibility in question."
Nor was that the only inconsistency in the woman's story of an alleged rape, Bill Thomas added.
He cited accounts in which she once said there were twenty assailants, then five and finally three.
Her accusations led to the indictments of Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans. All are free under $100,000 bonds as they await a trial that is expected to occur next year.
Bill Thomas said Wednesday he saw a longer version of the March 26 dance video that was shown on "60 Minutes."
"It wasn't motion-picture quality," he said. "But I was able to look at the tape and conclude it was her. So was everyone else who has seen this video. I feel comfortable saying it was her."
The defense lawyer also said he accepted H.P. Thomas' assertion that the woman danced at the Platinum Club on March 17 and 18 as well.
"Fats tells a very credible story as far as I'm concerned," the attorney added. "And it will not just be Fats' word against that of the club owner. Many people will be available to corroborate his story."
The lawyer said his opinion was not changed by H.P. Thomas' criminal record, which includes arrests for everything from failure to pay child support to worthless checks to computer hacking and carrying a concealed weapon.
Bill Thomas said the former bouncer's story should spur prosecutor Mike Nifong and his investigators to take a second look at the rape case.
Last week, Nifong said in open court that he had never personally interviewed the accuser about her version of events. He also said a probe of the alleged rape was winding down.
"I find that appalling and unforgivable," Bill Thomas said Wednesday. "Being afraid of what you might find is not a sufficient reason to stop investigating a case. There is a duty to get to the truth of the matter. There is too much at stake."
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-784083.html
Wake DA: Resume Blinco's trial
By Ray Gronberg, The Herald-Sun
November 1, 2006 9:58 pm
RALEIGH -- Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby is trying to persuade a judge to reverse herself and resume the trial of two former Durham Police Department officers accused of assaulting a man outside a sports bar this summer.
Court papers filed Tuesday by Wake prosecutors argued that District Judge Debra Sasser "did not apply the substantive and procedural law of North Carolina" before dismissing misdemeanor assault charges against former officers Gary Lee and Scott Tanner.
Willoughby said he's had four of his assistants research the case law behind the motion.
"It's a matter of considerable public interest," he said, explaining why he's pushing the issue. "Because there are law-enforcement officers involved, the handling of this case strikes at the integrity of our court system. That victim is entitled to his day in court, just like anyone else."
Sasser tossed the case on the grounds that one of Willoughby's assistant prosecutors, Matt Godwin, failed to demonstrate during Monday trial proceedings that the scene of the alleged crime, Blinco's Restaurant and Sports Bar, 6711 Glenwood Ave., Raleigh, is in Wake County.
Relative to the Durham/Wake border, the bar is almost seven miles inside Wake County, but Godwin didn't ask alleged victim Rene Dennis Thomas or two Durham police officers who testified for the prosecution a question that would have specifically established that.
Defense lawyers Thomas Manning and Duncan McMillan moved for dismissal as soon as Godwin rested his case, arguing that the prosecutor hadn't established that Sasser had jurisdiction over the case.
But Willoughby and his staff contend that the defense team misrepresented some of the fundamental tenets of North Carolina criminal procedure.
The state's courts have said that improper-jurisdiction claims can only address whether an offense occurred in North Carolina, and whether the alleged crime should be tried in Superior Court or District Court, they said, invoking a 1986 N.C. Court of Appeals ruling authored by then-Appellate Court Judge Sarah Parker, now the chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court.
Moreover, defense lawyers can only challenge venue -- in other words, claim a case should be tried in another county -- by filing a motion to that effect before a trial begins. Manning and McMillan didn't, so they "waived [their] right to raise the issue," Willoughby and Godwin's reconsideration request said.
The prosecutors are asking Sasser to resume the trial "to prevent manifest injustice," or, failing that, to put her findings and legal reasoning that justifies the dismissal down on paper.
Willoughby and Godwin's arguments tracked the advice given to criminal lawyers by the "North Carolina Defender Manual," a publication of UNC's School of Government.
The book's chapter on venue noted that in 1989, the Court of Appeals allowed a Wake County drug prosecution of a cocaine sale that actually happened in Franklin County to stand because the accused's lawyer didn't raise a timely objection, and said the proper way to handle such issues was to file a dismissal motion at arraignment or within 21 days of a defendant's indictment.
Willoughby has criticized the defense team's tactics, telling one local TV station that Manning and McMillan "bushwacked the judge" with a claim "that may be the law on Judge Judy" but doesn't hold water in the state's courts. He voiced confidence Wednesday that he and his staff have the right read on it.
"If Mr. Manning has law that says the opposite, I'd love to see it because we've had four lawyers working on this for two days and we haven't been able to find it," Willoughby said.
Manning and McMillan didn't return calls on Wednesday seeking comment on the matter.
Sasser has been a judge for less than two years. For about five years prior to her election, her law practice focused mainly on the protection of abused and neglected children. The résumé she posted on her 2004 campaign Web site specified that her most recent criminal law experience came while she was working for a Charlotte law firm from 1992 to 1994.
Her decision to dismiss the case came after Durham police officers James Griffin and Richard Clayton testified that Lee took a swing at Thomas, the alleged victim, and that Tanner kicked at him. The alleged assault followed a verbal altercation outside Blinco's as the four officers and three other men, all current or former Durham police, were leaving the bar. Thomas was working there as a cook and was outside on a smoke break.
The case has attracted interest in part because Clayton and one of the other officers present, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, have worked on the Duke lacrosse rape investigation. Supporters of the three players indicted in that case have speculated that Gottlieb participated in the Blinco's incident, or at least witnessed it.
Durham police have said Gottlieb was in a parked car and didn't see what happened, and nothing said in testimony Monday by Thomas, Clayton and Griffin implicated the sergeant.
Willoughby echoed the Durham department's take on Gottlieb's role. "Gottlieb may have been somewhere in the vicinity, but he wasn't anybody we thought was a witness or had any involvement that we know of," he said.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-784079.html
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
Nifong isn't the problem
I've stayed away from commenting on the Duke lacrosse case because I felt that the law, not the public, should be involved in deciding this case. I won't debate who fired the first shot, whether it was District Attorney Mike Nifong or the defense attorney or the judge who should have placed a gag order on everyone from the very start. But I will weigh in on the election information that I am reading about. More than $8,000 of the approximate $9,000 in money to support a recall did not come from within the city or the state but from outside of the state.
Well! If City Council is worried about what a donation from Duke will look like for the new Performing Arts Center, what does this look like! I hope the people of Durham look at this and realize that a crime is a crime no matter who performs the act. DA Nifong is not the problem. Letting people who do not live, raise their families, volunteer and fight for their country, and call Durham their home to dictate to the rest of us is the problem.
WAYLAND BURTON
Durham
November 2, 2006
Vote for Monks
Having been a registered and active voter for more than 50 years as a Democrat, Republican and now non-affiliated, I have always considered local races as non-partisan -- vote for the man in your mind as the best qualified!
When Lewis Cheek vowed to run, I immediately signed the petition and asked others to do so.
When Cheek vowed not to accept, even if elected, I heard Steve Monks offer to run as a write-in candidate. I heard him speak on several occasions and along with others present, asked him some "tough" questions. He answered to my satisfaction. Now I am told that the reason Cheek will not support Monks is the fact that Monks is a Republican and the Democrat leadership does not think we could have a Republican district attorney.
So we should vote for Cheek and allow the governor to make the same mistake again?
Consider your vote to help Durham go in the right direction. Vote for Steve Monks and when you write in his name on the ballot, be sure to ink in the little oval to the left of his name. Otherwise the vote is invalid.
JACK W. BERGSTROM
Durham
November 2, 2006
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.