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.''
Early Morning bump
I watched that part too Howlin. Then I turned it off. I can't stomach too much of Good Morning America.
Brian Taylor is a very familar face at NCCU.
We are sort of taking as fact his statement that she just "showed up" at his house. The same goes for his statement that he did not know her well. He is a driver. The name "Brian" shows up on the message boards at the SCL for Teasers (?).
I said earlier Kim was tough, tough and ruthless. Precious is street tough. I have thought all along she was too whacked to come up with a plan such as this, but her drivers are not stupid. The one driving Miss Medina is not dumb.
They were late, IIRC. Working on a story? Now tell me Brian Taylor cannot find Buchannan and they had to call Dear Old Dad to find it.
I am just throwing the thoughts out there, not sure what they are worth.
Okay - so for this interview, I've got GMA on for the first time in years.
And apparently she had no marks on her up until the time she was in the car and headed away from the party. Meaning that any marks she had on her were inflicted some place else and by someone other than a Lacrosse player.
FWIW
Tryton at the abc board says she is not really a bad dancer (He seems to know these things, LOL!)
I take that to mean, experienced, long timer, knows her customers and many dirty little secrets. How many in her circle resent those rich, white Duke boys and would love to get a peice of the pie??
BTW, no white dancers available in Durham that night? All booked?
They big question was "How did this happen?" Tammy Rose does not know. Melissa does not know.
This makes me think that Precious is maintaining the story that Kim participated.
Honestly I think this woman is just as untrustworthy as the accusor and has changed her story just as much. Both are lying skanks.
Good, then Nifong can try and explain how come she wasn't arrested for assisting in the rape and stealing her money. The DPD will also have to explain why they searched the players dorms for the money and not Kim's residence or bank.
This just in...
http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/30/Editorial/Are-You.Sure.Mr.Nifong-2409369.shtml?norewrite200610300813&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com
Are you sure, Mr. Nifong?
Posted: 10/30/06
This weekend, media descended on the Durham courthouse once again and pounced on a new fact emerging from a hearing in the lacrosse rape case. Following the hearing, a slew of stories and TV segments were focused on Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's reporting that he had never interviewed the alleged victim of a rape allegedly perpetrated by three members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team at a March 13 party.
To many, this fact seemed like an egregious oversight by the lead prosecutor in a controversial and nationally covered case.
Although prosecutors aren't required to-and often don't-interview alleged victims while an investigation is underway, Nifong is certainly able to do so if he wants to.
In not interviewing the alleged victim, Nifong has not done anything legally wrong. This part of his prosecutorial conduct has technically followed the law, but the district attorney's failure to interview the alleged victim seems to illustrate that he demonstrated a significant error in judgment in the way he handled the case in its initial stages.
Here's how.
For one of several examples of Nifong's confident statements that there was a rape, we can look to March 28. Fifteen days after the now-infamous party, Nifong said on Dan Abrams' nationally televised show that he was "convinced" a rape had occurred.
Nifong cited evidence from a nurse's report saying there were "injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally."
He made the public believe he was sure. And when we hear a publicly elected official tell us that he is sure, our first reaction is to believe him.
But learning that Nifong talked to most every media outlet imaginable during the first few weeks about how certain he was without ever spending time to talk to the woman seems questionable.
As evidence in this case keeps seeping out, many students at the University-and in the larger Duke and Durham communities-are beginning to wonder how it is possible that Nifong could have been so sure.
The first-hand information that comes with conducting an interview seems like an integral part in believing someone's account of events. Without it, how can one make a logically sound judgment on credibility?
If Nifong wanted to wait for the police investigation to finish before interviewing the alleged victim, that's fine. But explicity announcing that he was convinced that a rape occurred polarized a community and publicly shamed and stigmatized the lacrosse team immensely.
Unless there's factual information that Nifong is still holding onto that proves their guilt-which now appears unlikely given that he should have disclosed that information to defense lawyers already-it seems wrong to push forward in a case with only convictions and not facts.
In general, people want to believe that their public officials are telling them the truth. We hope that after this ordeal has finally ended, we will still have the same trust in what our government officials tell us on TV.
I'm thinking that Kim's lawyer is behind all this info coming out. Possibly because of Crystal's story that Kim participated.
Nifong is in the dark about Crystal's story. He only knows what Gottlieb (or whoever) told him.
Nifong hasn't spoken to Kim either.
I wonder just when Kim found out what Crystal said?
http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/30/Letters/Students.For.An.Ethical.Durham.Supports.Lewis.Cheek.For.Durham.Da-2409376.shtml?norewrite200610300814&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com
Students for an Ethical Durham supports Lewis Cheek for Durham DA.
Casey Shanley
Posted: 10/30/06
This election directly affects you. Durham District Attorney candidate Lewis Cheek is on the ballot.
Cheek wants your vote because he strongly believes that the removal of current District Attorney Mike Nifong from office is what is best for the Durham community. He wants to win. He wants justice. And so should you.
Should Cheek choose not to accept the district attorney position when he is elected, it is true that the governor would appoint someone to fill the position. We do not believe that an appointment by Gov. Mike Easley will cure all evils. The governor's appointment will not be the panacea.
What we do believe is that Easley will appoint someone who will critically examine each of the cases against David Evans, Trinity '06, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team, dismiss those charges that do not have merit and pursue any that do.
Ethical Durham believes that the governor will appoint someone who will not turn a blind eye to the discriminating police policy that targets Duke students-a policy that encourages disproportionate arrests, warrantless raids and criminal records for anyone who attends Duke University, just because that person is a Duke student.
We do not support District Attorney candidate Steve Monks. Write-in candidates virtually never win. Voting trends tell us that a write-in would need 25,000 people to handwrite their name on the ballot in this election.
Monks campaigned hard for the 6,300 signatures necessary to be on the ballot. He could not even do that. He cannot hope to get 25,000 votes as a write-in on Election Day.
In more than 1,300 Senate elections since 1913 only one write-in candidate has won (Strom Thurman in 1954) and in more than 20,000 House elections since 1900 only five write-in candidates have won. In fact, on the face of it for all we know, Monks is deliberately working to split the change vote.
It has been suggested in these pages that you should not vote because the administration of the District Attorney's office does not directly affect the Duke student community.
When the history of this episode is written, we hope that Duke Students, faculty and staff will be proud of their actions on Election Day. This election is one of historical dimensions. Do the right thing. Recall Nifong, restore justice in Durham, vote Cheek.
Casey Shanley
Board Member, Duke Students for an Ethical Durham
This opinion is not authorized by any candidate
Maybe after the Bradley interview. I always figured Kim wouldn't like it when she heard what The False One said about her.
http://www.thebreeze.org/2006/10-30/op1.html
Opinion
House Editorial: Taking advantage of the accused
Duke rape prosecutor cannot put victim’s ‘well-being’ over the pursuit of justice
Posted on October 30, 2006
Nearly eight months have passed since three members of the Duke University men’s lacrosse team were charged with the rape of a stripper hired to perform at their March 13 party. All three of the players charged (Dave Evans, 23, Reade Seligmann, 20, and Colin Finnerty, 20) have proclaimed their innocence to the rape accusations.
If only North Carolina district attorney Mike Nifong knew what exactly those accusations are.
According to an Associated Press story Friday, Nifong said during a court hearing that he hadn’t as of yet discussed the details of the night in question with the accuser. And it seems that rule No. 1 of prosecuting would be to understand what you are prosecuting.
Nifong said he hadn’t asked for the story due to the mental state of the accuser. He says the only conversations taking place with her are to check on her well-being.
That’s nice. But there is more than just her well-being at risk here. Though theoretically innocent until proven guilty, three men have been left in legal limbo, with disrupted lives and ruined reputations, in favor of the alleged victim’s emotions. Yes, rape is terrible, but truth should be main focus of the entire investigation — a truth that remains unobtainable without both sides of the story.
No timetable can be set for the human psyche, but rape is as a severe an accusation as it is crime. The district attorney needs to pick it up if he wants to continue with the investigation.
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=061030
Duke Case: Profs. Coleman and Johnson, Yes: Prof. Joyner, No
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/lifestyle/sfl-tvtjdukecoloct30,0,1893036.story?coll=sfla-features-headlines
Lacrosse players didn't get fair shot in national media
Click here to find out more!
by Tom Jicha
October 30, 2006
CBS's 60 Minutes did an exemplary job a couple of weeks ago documenting what, to all appearances, is an outrageous miscarriage of justice: the Duke lacrosse team rape case. In doing so, however, the gold standard of news magazines contributed to the perpetuation of another injustice, which nobody seems to care about.
Unless you're Jack Bauer and have been warehoused in a Chinese prison, you probably have at least some knowledge of the details of the case, which has polarized a substantial portion of the nation (and even become a point of reference on Veronica Mars). An exotic dancer, hired to perform at a party thrown by the Duke University lacrosse team, alleges she was brutally raped by at least three of the athletes. The fact that she is black and apparently on a low rung of the economic ladder -- people of means rarely strip for cash -- while the accused are white, from well-to-do families, contributed to turning the case into a cause celebre.
Another factor is that there is ample evidence, much of it cited in the 60 Minutes report fronted by Ed Bradley, that the wrong people have been charged. For example, one of the accused, Reede Seligmann, provided cell phone records that indicate he made nine calls during the time the crime was said to be taking place. Moreover, there also is time-stamped video evidence from a bank security camera that places him in another part of town. All three defendants submitted to tests, which showed no presence of their DNA on the alleged victim.
It could even be the case that no crime was committed (another dancer who was present with the accuser said the allegation is "a crock") -- unless you count the one against the young men whose lives have been ruined.
Seligmann and the other defendants, David Evans and Collin Finnerty, were prominent in the 60 Minutes piece and responded to questions from Bradley. The accuser was not seen, her name was never mentioned and she did not have to account for numerous inconsistencies in her story.
This basic unfairness is the product of a well-intentioned practice in contemporary journalism, adhered to almost universally by mainstream media, including the Sun-Sentinel. Because of America's enduring immaturity when it comes to anything involving sex, the names of alleged victims are not disclosed. However, the identities of the accused, no matter how flimsy the evidence and despite the presumption of innocence, are fair game.
If your home is invaded, your name makes the news. If you are carjacked, you're in the story. But if you are sexually assaulted, your identity is protected, as if you are somehow tainted by being the victim of a crime.
But we are what we are, and the truth is there is a stigma attached to being a victim of a sex crime, as inane as this might be. For the same reasons, there is an even worse stigma attached to being the perp or someone merely accused. 60 Minutes reported that Evans, who graduated in May, was headed toward a career on Wall Street. The key word is "was." Now his future is in limbo. Finnerty has been suspended from school. Seligmann is not allowed on campus without permission, according to 60 Minutes.
This stigma doesn't pertain to other crimes. You can be a mobster, a politically motivated burglar or a renegade military type freelancing in international intrigue against the laws of the country, and wind up getting your own TV or radio show. If you are even accused of a sex crime, no matter how unjustly, your life is toast.
As long as this stigma exists, basic fairness dictates that until there is a conviction, the accused deserves the same protection as the accuser.
There is precedent. Some of society's most violent crimes are committed by minors. Yet no matter how heinous the offense, the identity of the alleged youthful offender is withheld by many news organizations.
Given what has happened to their lives, Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty would have been treated with more discretion by the media if they were remorseless 16-year-old serial killers, rather than three young college students accused of a crime that might not even have taken place.
Tom Jicha can be reached at tjicha@sun-sentinel.com.
http://www.kirkosborn.com/Motions/AmendmentToMotionToSuppressPhotographs.pdf
"While in the car, Kim repeatedly asked "Precious" if she had the money."
(page 25 of 32)
http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/504355.html
Letter:
Published: Oct 30, 2006 12:30 AM
Modified: Oct 30, 2006 01:50 AM
It's a shame
Whenever I hear about the Duke lacrosse team incident, I don't hear the word "shame." Whether these young men are innocent or guilty, the fact remains: their conduct was shameful.
Inviting exotic dancers to a drunken team party is not acceptable conduct, but shameful. These young men represent a church-affiliated university. Weren't we once shamed to be involved in such a scandal? By today's standards this appears to be acceptable, expected behavior from college students. What are we teaching our youth? Have we stopped teaching them about shameful behavior?
Duke's mission statement includes: "...by carefully selecting students of character, determination and application... to provide a superior liberal education to undergraduate students, attending not only to their intellectual growth but also to their development as adults committed to high ethical standards...." These young men need to be held to that same higher ethical standard.
One online dictionary's definition of "shame":
1) A painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness, or disgrace. 2) One that brings dishonor, disgrace, or condemnation.
We must recognize a shameful behavior and to re-educate ourselves and youth about what is shameful.
Mrs. H. H. Gillam Jr.
Edenton
Who the heck believes she never mentioned this because she was never asked??? She never thought to mention it to Ed Bradley at her dinner at the golf club? She never thought to mention in her statements to police? While some might think she'll make a good witness, if I were on a jury, I'd want her investigated for stealing Crystal's money. She manages to call 911 for racial slurs but can't call 911 for the woman who won't get out of her car? No wonder it was so easy for her to claim she found her wondering on the road--I'm sure she thought of dumping her on the road. What a piece of work.!
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.