Posted on 04/13/2006 3:21:02 PM PDT by ghost of nixon
DURHAM, N.C. -- A woman who claims she was sexually assaulted by members of Duke University's lacrosse team was described as "just passed-out drunk" by one of the first police officers to see her, according to a recording of radio traffic released by Durham police on Thursday and obtained by The Associated Press.
The conversation between the officer and a police dispatcher took place about 1:30 a.m. March 14, about five minutes after a grocery store security guard called 911 to report a woman in the parking lot who would not get out of someone else's car.
The officer gave the dispatcher the police code for an intoxicated person and said the woman was unconscious. When asked whether she needed medical help, the officer said: "She's breathing and appears to be fine. She's not in distress. She's just passed-out drunk."
The black woman, a 27-year-old dancer and college student, told police she was sexually assaulted and beaten by three white men around midnight at an off-campus party thrown by Duke's lacrosse team. The racially charged allegations have led Duke to cancel the highly ranked team's season and accept the resignation of its coach.
No charges have been filed, but district attorney Mike Nifong has said he believes a crime was committed. Attorneys for the players have said DNA tests failed to connect any players to the alleged attack, and they have urged Nifong to drop his investigation.
The radio recordings, obtained by the AP through a records request, are the first instance in which police or anyone connected with the investigation has said the woman appeared to be intoxicated.
Defense lawyers, however, have said time-stamped photographs taken by the players show that the accuser was drunk and had already suffered some injuries when she arrived at the house for the party.
The recording is consistent with "what I have seen of the photo evidence before," attorney Kerry Sutton said. Those photos, she said, showed that she was "way beyond where you would put somebody behind the wheel of a car."
The description of the woman's medical exam -- which Nifong has said is his basis for believing a rape occurred -- does not mention her being drunk. It states only that the woman's injuries and behavior were consistent with having been raped, sexually assaulted and having suffered a traumatic experience.
The woman has told police she and another dancer hired to dance at the party arrived at 11:30 p.m. March 13. The pair reportedly left the house a short time later, fearing for their safety. The accuser told police the two were coaxed back into the house with an apology, at which point they were separated. That's when she said she was dragged into a bathroom and sexually assaulted, beaten and choked for a half-hour.
At 12:53 a.m., police received a 911 call from a woman complaining that she had been called racial slurs by white men gathered outside the home where the party took place.
The defense has said it believes the second dancer at the party made that call. The 911 call from the grocery store security guard was placed at 1:22 a.m.
In it, the caller says, "Um, the problem is ... it's a lady in somebody else's car and she will not get out of their car. She's like, she's like intoxicated, drunk or something. She's, I mean, she won't get out of the car, period."
A police spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking comment on the radio traffic.
The case has focused intense national scrutiny on Duke and the lacrosse players and has sparked protests on the elite private university's campus and elsewhere in Durham. The school last week canceled the highly ranked team's season and coach Mike Pressler resigned after the release of a vulgar and graphic e-mail sent by a team member shortly after the alleged assault.
Several of the defense attorneys say they expect the district attorney to ask a grand jury on Monday to issue charges in connection with allegations.
"Rest up on Sunday," Sutton said.
There has been no official word, however, on whether Nifong intends to present the allegations Monday. His next opportunity would come two weeks later.
Yes, along with lectures on how responsible Nifong is, just like any other DA, and no way would he bring a case that wasn't solid, blah blah blah.
Where did you read that she wore a "body suit?" Can you give us your source for that?
Reports I read said she was wearing a see-through negligee when the Kroger guard, police and hospital personnel saw her.
But the first black stripper, "Kim", was there for 30 minutes before the accuser showed up, why didn't they cancel right then?
Can anyone say "Tawana Brawley"?""
You beat me to it.
And now, it looks like even DNA will NOT be permitted anymore as a way to clear the accused. All that seems to be neeeded nowdays, is the word of the accuser,(even if it is "I originally consented, but a couple of weeks later, I changed my mind, and now, I believe it is rape) and some agenda from the prosecuter, and a salted jury. If all of this is allowed to continue, we will get to the the point where it is::
SHE SAID, and now, HE has to PROVE he DIDN'T do it!!
He's a Durham, North Carolina Democrat. The question practically answers itself.
Maybe they were waiting for the white one to show up.
I've wondered who keeps the accuser's small children while she's in class and especially late at night when she is out doing "one on ones" and stripping.
If her father keeps them, then he must be either lying or blind as a bat in not knowing what she did for a 'living'.
WPTF said yesterday's report that the rev al is coming USnday is now just a rumor.
But as biased as a Durham jury might be, I just dont feel there is much chance that you would get all twelve to agree with a railroading.
If that happened...if the evidence was as utterly on the side of the defense as it seems now....and if a racial and liberal-feminist excited jury tried to send innocent young men to a place of real rapes....I would have such a strong reaction to that that I can not indulge here on this forum in musings about what I might do. I feel that I might oppose this in a very direct, personal, and physical way.
Yes, I think they were married about ten months. But my sense from the interview was that they kept in touch from time to time, so he would probably know why she was given a general discharge because that would be a major event that she might discuss with him or that he would learn through the family/friends grapevine. At 19 then, that may have been when she was in the Navy. If she met him there and they married, he may have learned through other military friends what happened. I also read that her two children are 7 & 5. She's 27 & 1/2, so her first child was born when she was 20. If she and the ex-husband married when she was 19 and they were married for ten months, and the ex-husband is not the father, which apparently he isn't, I wonder if that pregnancy might have been the reason for the divorce? Her infidelity?
Ooops! Yes, I had forgotten that, LOLOL!
I agree that her story stinks to high heaven. However, in many states no one will care if she has lied to the police because there is no major penalty, at most a misdemeanor. However, if she is forced to testify before a grand jury, and if she lies, she can be charged with a felony.
I don't know how they do it in NC, but in Cali, the defense would have that officer designated as a 'expert witness' and he'd be allowed to give an opinion as to her condition. Of course the defendant's attorney would go into areas such 'her ability to recall, etc etc'.
Does it work that way in NC?
She was in the Navy, huh? I wonder if she was on a ship, what's the statistic of female Navy sailors getting pregnant while stationed on ship? 10%? Sounds like she may have been with another sailor while she was married to her husband.
I am a little confused about this topic...maybe you or someone can help me out.
I believe that the delicate discretion of the media is voluntary and it is time to lean on the media about the hideous unfairness that their high-minded ethics are doing in this case.
The shield laws are something different, right? Do they protect the woman from courtroom inquiry into her past?
They should have done a tox screen and alcohol test. I think they did the alcohol test and O'Reilly just stated that supposedly it was negative. Drugs? Maybe she was worried that she'd get nailed for drugs so she cried rape to mask that.
I've read the rape kit was employed and the total exam lasted nearly five hours, which is long even for a rape kit, but that may have included the time she was at the hospital screaming and hollering before they started the process. Rape kits take about 3-4 hours to complete.
I guess.
The alleged victim is presumed to be truthful.
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.