Filing: Second dancer called allegations a 'crock'

From ABCNews:

At first, a stripper who performed at a Duke University lacrosse team party doubted the
story of a colleague who told police she was dragged into a bathroom and raped. Now, Kim Roberts isn't so sure.

"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred and I never will," Roberts told The Associated Press on Thursday in her first on-the-record interview. But after watching defense attorneys release photos of the accuser, and upset by the leaking of both dancers' criminal pasts, she said she has to "wonder about their character."

"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty … but somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression."

And after she gave the initial statement that she was with the other dancer for all but five minutes, and that she didn't believe an attack could have happened, the police arrested her on a previous probation violation.

But her initial reaction, before her arrest, and before trying to hire a publicist, was that it couldn't have happened.

http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/438314.html

SNIP

"On April 19, as reporters were hounding Simeon for interviews, Roberts sent an e-mail message to a prominent New York publicist.

"Although I am no celebrity and just an average citizen, I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country," Roberts wrote. "I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage. I am determined not to let any negative publicity about my life overtake me.......Thanks for your time, The 2nd Dancer."

"The publicist forwarded the message to news outlets. Defense lawyers said she was in it for the money.

"Roberts said she didn't ask to be thrust into the spotlight and for the world to know she is a dancer with a felony record".
SNIP

in this case, via the headline people would get a whole different story than the additional info you posted.

had reduced Ms. Roberts' bail terms.

The local ABC station has even more details of the motion:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4251472

The major points are that:

*The alleged victim initially told police that the second dancer, Kim Roberts, participated in the sexual assault and that she stole her money and possessions.

*Kim Roberts called these allegations "a crock" and stated that she was with the AV for all but 5 minutes while she was in the house.

*The AV told police that she had performed for a couple at a motel earlier that evening and that she had used a vibrator.

*The AV told police investigators that she was hit, kicked, and strangled but the examining physician found no neck, back, chest or abdominal tenderness.

*The AV told the SANE that she had one drink of alcohol and was also taking Flexeril, a drug for muscle spasms. It is advised to use caution when mixing alcohol and the drug as it may cause drowsiness and dizziness.

*The AV went to UNC hospital the next day and told the doctor there that she had been drunk and had a lot to drink the night before. She later told the police that she had consumed a 24-oz bottle of beer and then later said she had 2 22-oz bottles of beer.


There are other things mentioned as well but from the story it's hard to tell if they are things that the defense attorney is stating or if they are things that are contained in the police reports turned over in discovery. The story says that "Osborn says the only evidence of physical trauma the nurse could find was a scratch on the accuser's knee and a small cut on her heel, which was not bleeding." If by "Osborn says" they mean that Osborn has stated in his motion that "the reports from the SANE indicate" then the vigorous pursuit of this case by the DA continues to look shaky.

The report also indicates that the driver for the AV told the police that she had engaged in sexual activity with at least 4 different men on the weekend before the party. Allowing for the possibility that each of these encounters could have resulted in more than one instance of intercourse and adding in the AV's own admission about putting on a show with a vibrator earlier in the evening, you have a considerable amount of sexual activity in a short period of time.

So put yourself in the DA's shoes way back when all this has started to unfold. On one hand, you have an alleged victim with a couple of cuts, some erratic behavior, and an accusation that has changed at least once. On the other hand, you have a third-party witness (or potential witness) who initially states that no sexual assault happened. You have the SANE report that reads on the surface that the injuries were consistent with sexual assault, but upon further evaluation those injuries were some minor cuts and bruises and some swelling in the pink parts. But you also know that the AV engaged in some sexual activity earlier in the evening, and you have a statement from another third party (the driver) that there were several encounters in the prior days.

So what do you do then? Do you lean on the other dancer to get her to downplay her story by arresting her and then playing with her bail terms? Do you proceed at all costs without stopping to evaluate all the evidence? Do you go out and publicly proclaim guilt? Do those seem like the actions of a responsible DA?

I guess it's possible for the DA to have that big hammer ready to drop on these guys. But his actions throughout this investigation would lead one to believe otherwise. If it turns out that he doesn't have something pretty damning then I would hope he has the good sense to resign his post because he will have really abused his position.

as you suggest.

Nifong needs to serve the sentence that he's been trying to pin on these young men. There should be some form of compensation for lives ruined by the megalomanic self-serving incompetent bastard.

I can't help but think he's got something...otherwise why would he tangle with the spoiled brats from about 40 rich and politically well connected families? I mean, he's toast if he doesn't, lol. Just the Dukies in that town will ruin him.

Everyone thought Bush must know more than he was telling us about the WMD's. Or else why would he attack Iraq?

For political reasons. Money reasons. Lots of reasons -- just not WMD's.

I think Nifong had his reasons, too. They had to do with getting reelected in a tight Democratic primary race with two opponents. One of them was an African American who accused him of grandstanding with the case in order to attract more black voters. I think that guy was right.

This is the first time I've heard this. It keeps getting worse and worse, doesn't it. If there ever was a case here, the prosecutor has completely screwed it up.

From your post:

"The accuser told the nurse that Roberts assisted players in the alleged sexual assault and that the second dancer stole her money and property, the motion said."

It's not as if they were getting along famously. Kim Roberts stopped at the Kroger, after all, to find someone to forcibly remove the AV from her car.

That's something I'd like to read.

Kroger 911 call:

http://www.newsobserver.com/content/multimedia/flash_audio/20060328_911a.mp3

"a lady in somebody else's car and she will not get out of the car... she won't get out of the car, period..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12442765/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098

"At first, Roberts says she did not think the other dancer had been raped. She was mad at the other stripper, who was almost passed out in the car and not talking. Roberts said she had not collected all the money owed them for the dance, and she wondered if the other dancer was somehow hustling her."

That is based on an interview with Roberts, not defense attorneys.

Does it say arguing? No. Obviously, Roberts and the AV disagreed about getting out of Roberts car, Roberts was angry, and thought the AV had stolen her money. But since Roberts wanted her out of the car, and the AV would not get out of the car, I would qualify that as "arguing" about whether the AV is going to get out of the car.

Roberts' account of the evening says that when the AV was in her car, she was only muttering "No, no" and completely incoherent. How does that qualify as arguing? If you can't have a conversation, how can you have an argument?

You can want a dead body out of a car too, but you're not going to argue with it.

the charges were a crock, she was arrested on a charge of violating her probation?

And that after she CHANGED her story to be more supportive of the accuser, the prosecutor then supported her request to waive the required 15% bond for getting out of jail?

Interesting coincidences, don't you think?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1149803410543&col=1053692575155&call_page=TSS_HighSchool&call_pageid=969907729756&call_pagepath=Sports/HighSchool

"Defence lawyers have said they believe Roberts changed her story to gain favourable treatment in a separate criminal case. She was arrested March 22 on a probation violation stemming from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 US from a Durham employer.

"In April, a judge agreed to drop a requirement that Roberts pay a 15 per cent fee to a bonding agent to get out of jail, with Nifong signing a document saying he did not oppose the change."

http://www.wral.com/news/9343920/detail.html

SNIP

"Wednesday's motion also claims that the initial examination performed on the alleged victim did not reach a conclusion as to whether she was raped and that the only trace of physical trauma included a scratch on the alleged victim's knee and heel.

"Osborn writes that the alleged victim said she was hit, kicked and strangled, but that the investigator in the case, Benjamin Himan, omitted that "the examining physician … at 3:14 a.m. found no neck, back, chest or abdominal tenderness."

"He also writes that the investigator's probable cause affidavit omitted that the sexual assault examination found that "no condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used during the alleged sexual assault."

"The motion also states that the nurse who did the examination was not technically certified as a sexual-assault nurse, but that she was still 'in training.'"

SNIP

Osborn also claims in the court documents that the nurse who examined the alleged victim was in training and not yet certified.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/08/duke.lacrosse/index.html

It will be interesting to see how that nurse comes across when she takes the witness stand and is subjected to cross.

Depends on NCs rules of evidence.

Her testimony would be restricted by the judge to what she say, but without interpretation on her part. Her credentials, or lack thereof, will certainly be a point of dispute for the jury to weight.

If she is a nurse, she can use medical terms to describe the things she saw. The judge may say, ok she has had some training and experience so she can make make some opinions but subject to the cross that she lacks the SANE credential. Again, I don't know NC evidence rules but that is the way it works around here.

Using the same logic you are using in your post to pnwmom, one can say that those that defend Tawana Two must by definition be enablers of escort services. Do you see how silly we can get? If we stick to the known facts in the case, which include the court filings in response to Nifong's release of his case evidence, we can see that there are facts in dispute regarding the prosecutor's case and that people can hold different points of view.

I wish this trial started tomorrow.

I am so tired of people slinging opinions around about it.

If they're innocent, they shouldn't have to wait for a year to prove that.

If they're guilty, she shouldn't have to wait for a year to get justice.

It's only the prosecutor who benefited from the premature indictments. He should have spent more time developing a good case (before the indictments, not afterwards) and less time having his 70 media interviews (during his election campaign.)

Here is a related story from yesterday:

Lacrosse player's lawyers seek more papers from Nifong

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun

Jun 7, 2006 : 10:45 pm ET

DURHAM -- Saying they still needed more information from the district attorney, defense lawyers obtained permission Wednesday for Duke University lacrosse rape suspect Collin Finnerty to skip a preliminary court appearance on June 2

In a written order, Judge Ron Stephens agreed with lawyers Bill Cotter and Wade Smith that Finnerty had already attended a so-called "first setting" court appearance in April and didn't need to be present for another one.

Finnerty said nothing on his own behalf at the brief April hearing.

Every indicted felony defendant is given three "settings" as part of Durham's case-management system. Cases generally are not resolved until the third setting, which may not occur until many months after the first one.

Although Finnerty will not be present on June 22, lawyers Cotter and Smith indicated Wednesday they would seek additional information about the rape allegations from District Attorney Mike Nifong on that date.

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-742276.html

Keep up the good work.

Peace.

Here is CNN's version of the same story posted by OP:

Filing: 2nd dancer called Duke accuser's story a 'crock'

(CNN) -- Police investigating the Duke University lacrosse team on rape allegations "omitted" notes from a second dancer at the party, who told authorities the alleged victim had been drinking, was acting "crazy" and that her colleague's accusation was a "crock," a defense attorney said Thursday.

In court documents filed Thursday, attorney Kirk Osborn said that Durham, North Carolina, police "intentionally, deliberately and/or recklessly omitted" information from a probable cause affidavit -- information Osborn says would have persuaded the judge not to file felony charges against three of the players.

<snip>

But Osborn says that wouldn't be the case if the judge had seen a written statement by the lead Durham investigator summarizing an interview with Kim Pittman, aka Kim Roberts, the second dancer at the party.

Pittman referred to the accuser's report that she had been sexually assaulted as a "crock," the investigator wrote, and "she also stated that she was with her the whole time until she left," except for five minutes -- not the 30 minutes reported by the alleged victim, according to court documents.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/08/duke.lacrosse/index.html

It says she had 1 or 2 bottles of beer . . . 22 or 24 ounce bottles, that is.

Plenty enough to explain her inebriated state, along with the rum and coke.

...private parties with strippers generally don't have a "no touching" or 3-foot radius rule. A halfway aggressive lap dance could have been enough to get skin under her fingernails if they were long and she grabbed a guys arm or something.

They have maintained that there was NO such contact at all. Unless they "change their story".

Moose, we're talking about the fake fingernail retrieved from the bathroom trashcan. How does the partial DNA match to Evans conflict with maintaining no contact?

YOU may be talking about the fake fingernail, but the rest of us aren't since we have no idea what other evidence there may be besides the fingernail. After all, we only know about the fingernail at all from the defense, and Nifong has said nothing about any other possible DNA evidence that may actually have been found in the second round of testing. There's also the hair found on her and the tox report and who knows what else. Obviously, we aren't going to hear one single thing about any evidence that may connect any of the accused to the crime from the defense, and assuming it doesn't exist because THEY say it doesn't is just... well... STUPID.

What we ARE talking about is the defense, specifically Osborn, already wants to try to suppress evidence that may be anything from the catagories that Nifong told him... physical evidence collected in the search, expert testimony regarding that evidence, the tox report and the chain of custody for the evidence. That doesn't get narrowed down to a fingernail by any stretch of the imagination.

who suggested that the DNA got under her nail during an aggressive lap dance. I replied that the players maintain that there was no such contact -- meaning that such an argument is moot unless the players change their story.
What was hard to understand about that?

...is a fake fingernail which was retrieved from the bathroom trashcan of defendant Evans. Remarkably, the fingernail, taken from his bathroom trashcan, was found to have material on it which "partially" matched his DNA.

And here's where we get into this nefarious defense move to "suppress" evidence which must be damning or they wouldn't want to suppress it.

If they can exclude the fingernail, then they don't have to overpay an expert to explain that, duh, retrieving something from someone's trashcan and finding their DNA on the thing is not much of a to-do. So, yes, the defense is attacking the factual basis on which the search warrant was issued.

That Osborn is specifically trying to suppress the fingernail and nothing else. If Nifong wants to introduce the tox report it says something pertinant that's harmful to the defense, and you focus on a fingernail... a fingernail that has no trace whatsoever of Osborn's client.

You think the defense gives a crap about saving money on an expert they need to hire anyway and whose fees get charged back to the client? I'm just dying to hear your explanation of that one.

I'll eat my own underwear on the steps of City Hall at high noon and invite you to come take photos if Osborn's interest in the suppression of evidence only extends to a fingernail and he wants to suppress it to save money he isn't going to lose anyway particularly when not a trace of DNA from his client was found on any fingernail... or have you forgotten that Osborn represents Seligmann, and it was Evans' DNA partial found on the fingernail? Is Osborn just some kind of nice guy that he beats Evans' attorney to court to try to suppress evidence only connected to someone else's client? Yeah, Osborn is just dying to save money on an expert to refute the fingernail DNA that has nothing to do with his client... said client, I might add, who you've long since agreed with his attorney was never there to rape any dancer and who never touched any dancer. :crazy:

...but thanks for sharing.

If the search warrant affidavit was untruthful or misleading, then any evidence collected pursuant to the search warrant should be excluded.

How that extends to me agreeing with anyone is a figment of your colorfully active imagination.

of a warrant obtained after withholding important information from the judge. In other words, he is arguing that the judge wouldn't have signed the warrant if he had known about evidence that the prosecutor withheld from him. So he's arguing that WHATEVER information was obtained by that warrant, including photos -- which definitely do affect his client -- should be tossed out.

evidence that required the judge's approval to gather it -- like the photos and the DNA samples of 46 men -- should be suppressed, along with its "fruits" IF the prosecutor wrongly held back information that would have caused the judge not to grant his approval. In this particular situation they're arguing, among other things:

That the prosecutor should have informed the judge at the time he was presented with the warrant:
that Kim Pittman, the only non-suspect witness in the house, had stated that she was separated from the accuser for less than five minutes, and had stated that the rape accusation was a crock
that the "nurse in training" who had conducted the exam found edema and redness in the vagina but no evidence of anal penetration or choking
that the "nurse in training" drew no conclusion that there had been a sexual assault
that the physician who examined her found no areas of trauma or tenderness, aside from a cut on her foot
that the accuser had acknowledged using a sex toy on herself in an earlier engagement that day
that her driver said she had had sexual activity with four other men in the previous days
that the accuser herself had, both in the hospital and in the car, denied having been sexually assaulted
that the accuser at another point told hospital staff that Kim Pittman had helped the students to sexually assault her
that the accuser, the next day, had admitted to drinking heavily the day before (consuming up to two 22 ounce bottles of beer)

that if the judge had known all this when presented with the warrant, he wouldn't have agreed that there was sufficient evidence at that point to prove probable cause that a rape had actually occurred. Without probable cause, he wouldn't have signed the warrant, and the prosecutors wouldn't have gotten the photos or been able to use them in a lineup, or to collect any DNA evidence.

Why should evidence be excluded if it is obtained after withholding information from the judge? This is standard legal procedure, the purpose of which is to keep the prosecutor on the up-and-up.

First defense lawyers said that there were photos taken at the party that proved that the AV arrived there with extensive bruising, lots of scraping, and bleeding.

Now defense lawyers are saying that there were no bruises, no scrapes, no bleeding, and just a scratch on a knee and a small, non-bleeding cut on her heel.

So, are these different defense lawyers (and by extension, different players) "contradicting each other"?

Or have the defense lawyers (and by extension, the players), as a group, "changed their story"?

It's one or the other.

Also, the judge they refer to in their motion is the same judge who is hearing the motion. He just may not appreciate being told how he (or any other judge) would have ruled had he seen certain items.

Now defense lawyers are saying that there were no bruises, no scrapes, no bleeding, and just a scratch on a knee and a small, non-bleeding cut on her heel.

No that's not what they are saying. They are saying these were the only injuries noted by the SANE trainee.

There are photographs of the party which were shown to reporters, and the reporters noted bruises and other things on the AV's legs.

They have on 5 sections of a 17 section SANE report... why is it surprising that they claim the SANE report shows no pertinant findings when they still don't know what MOST of it says at all?

More defense spin. Even a SANE in training would note bruises that were easily seen in photographs by reporters. Bottom line is the defense is writing about that information from the SANE report that they know of and not what the whole thing says because they've whined and moaned themselves that they don't have MOST of the SANE report.

Moose's point was that if the photographs showed other injuries and the SANE report didn't report those injuries, then, somehow, the defense attorneys are contradicting themselves.

If the SANE trainee's report is incomplete, then that certainly resolves not only the apparent contradiction which Moose perceived, then it would also resolve any question as to whether the SANE trainee observed anything else.

However, is someone has a scabbed-over scrape on their leg, and they are reporting that they were attacked two hours ago, then, duh, that scrape didn't have anything to do with that attack. Any superficial wounds which were not fresh would not be relevant to what the SANE was looking for.

and that includes the SANE, and it also does not include a toxicology report which Nifong said does not exist.

in story. Or, more precisely, to the fact that the prosecution selectively communicated only damaging information at first -- to the media, to the judge, and to the defendants and their attorneys -- and only released the conflicting reports after the judge ordered them to produce the evidence sought in the discovery motion.

The defense is arguing, among other things, that it was wrong for the prosecution to report that there was evidence from the SANE report that the woman had been sexually assaulted, but to withhold from the judge the information that the medical report showed virtually no injuries. The defense was as misled by the warrant as the judge was, since at the time they first saw it they did not yet have access to the 1200 pages they were given in discovery.

I doubt that the judge would be offended to be told that he might have ruled differently if he had been given all the information that was available. But I think he might be quite offended if he believes he was manipulated by the prosecutor.

the defense in contending that the medical report showed no injuries.

They are using the supposed "fact" of no injuries as one reason to throw out the photographs of the players, the ID's of the players from those photographs, any future ID'ing of the suspects in court by the AV, and all evidence obtained through search warrants that were approved in part due to the ID's from the photographs. In other words, EVERYTHING the state has.

They are not trying to show that the AV was injured, and the S.A.N.E. nurse just missed it. They are now contending that THERE WERE NO INJURIES and that the medical reports show this. They'd better hope that the judge rules for them and that this case doesn't get to trial, because if it does, they're going to have a very hard time reconciling their earlier claims of the AV being injured on arrival at the party, and later claims that she wasn't injured at all.

As for the judge, we'll have to wait and see what he says. But the defense didn't say he might have ruled differently, they said in the filing that he WOULD have ruled differently. They called his ruling illegal and unconstitutional. I think he just might be offended at the attempt by Osborn to manipulate him, the system, and public opinion all at the same time -- especially with some of the obvious reaching that was done in that filing.

on the facts developed by the police. It was up to the police to collect the evidence of injuries, through the hospital exam. Then the defense responds to the allegations that the State makes.

What the defense is saying is that only now we learn that the official SANE report says there were no injuries -- and that this conflicts with other information that was given to the judge (and the whole world, through the media) when he signed the warrant -- and that he should have had access to this information when he made the decision.

It is not the fact of any injuries (or not) that is key here, but the fact that the prosecution may have deliberately held back important information that the judge needed in order to decide if a rape had taken place.

But you still apparently believe that the AV was terribly banged up when she got to the party, because once upon a time, the defense attorneys told you so.

And apparently you're just not willing to admit that there's a problem with the credibility of the defense story when they loudly and publicly proclaimed the existence of pictures that show bleeding injuries and extensive bruising, but then cite medical reports that say there were no such injuries, and cite them in the context that the injuries don't exist.

But, go ahead and blindly believe what the defense tells you to. We know you will, anyway.

equally loudly tried find a reason for the bruises that the prosecution was claiming.

For all we know, they were birthmarks. Or dirt smudges on the camera lens or on her legs.

The nurse doing the SANE report should be able to tell birth marks apart from bruises better than anyone could from a photograph.

The defense is now saying there weren't.

But not long ago, the defense was -- as you put it -- "trying to find a reason" that would explain the bruises. In my opinion, they made up what they thought was a good story to explain the injuries... that she already had them when she arrived. But now, they're claiming the opposite, that the medical records indicate almost no injuries at all. They claim this based on papers we haven't seen yet.

Your notion of what the defense had said was bruising in the photographs actually being birthmarks, or dirt on the camera lens, or dirt on the AV's legs is nothing short of ludicrous.

The lawyers aren't in this alone, you know. They go by what is told to them by their clients. The players gave their attorneys (don't know which player(s) or which attorney(s) yet) these "party pics", who then bellowed in the press that the pictures proved that the injuries the AV had were present on her when she got to the party.

Now, do you think they would have done that if the players at the party had told them that the dancer did not have any bruises or scrapes or bleeding at the party, and that her legs were just dirty or covered with birthmarks? If the players told them that, and the lawyers went ahead with the media blitz over something they knew to be false, then there's a problem there, wouldn't you say? And if there were no injuries, but the players said there were, then there's a problem THERE, wouldn't you say?

They all own those pictures and what was publicly said about them, and which nobody -- not one person -- corrected by saying that the AV didn't have those injuries on arrival.
It will be interesting to see how they try to reconcile the two different stories.

You are obviously presuming the students are guilty. But that's not how the court system is supposed to work.

Here's a plausible scenario, if you were to presume instead that the students are innocent.

The prosecutor proclaims injuries. The students make the mistake of believing that the prosecutor must have evidence of injuries. The students don't know how any injuries could have happened, or what the injuries are, but looking over the videos they see discolorations that look like they could be bruises. This, they think, must be what the prosecution is referring to. But the video time stamps show that the marks -- whatever they were -- were already there when she arrived. They point this out to their lawyers, who tell the media.

Then the discovery documents are released that show that there were no injuries noted after all. The defense points to the newly released SANE document and says to the judge -- you should have had this when you made your decision. This report says there were no injuries.

And then people like you blame the defense for trying to have it both ways. But the defense didn't have any choice; they're responding to the conflicting information the prosecution is doling out to them.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/sports/14340505.htm



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/lacrosse/2006-04-09-lawyers-claims_x.htm




http://www.bradenton.com/mld/charlotte/news/14304849.htm



The attorneys said that the pictures were proof of extensive bruises and scrapes.
And the "boys" themselves said that she had blood running!!
Last I knew, dirt doesn't bleed, and neither do birthmarks.

So, no, the "boys" didn't just bewilderedly, innocently mistake some "discoloration" in the photographs for something it wasn't.
They themselves proclaimed to their attorneys that the dancer was bruised, scraped, and very bloody. Now the story is that she was never injured at all.
"Oops. Nevermind about those pics, forget we said anything."

Yes, "people like me" will point out when the defense is being absurd.
I will also point out when "people like you" are being absurd, which you were in the "plausible scenario" part of your post.

Do I think they're guilty? Yup. That's my opinion, and I'm just as entitled to it as you are to your opinion that they're just poor little innocent boys.

BTW, I know how the court system is supposed to work. You're the one who doesn't want the court system to handle this case, remember?

One final thing: Yes, the defense absolutely DID have a choice in whether or not to broadcast knowingly false information. They always have that choice.

But do keep on making excuses for them.

You're welcome to focus on what you believe to be the defense "knowingly broadcasting false information" but at the end of the day that's not going to matter one bit. Why? Because the defense provided those photographs to several media outlets so while there may be variation between how the different defense attorneys described the contents of those photos, they did provide them to independent third-parties to form their own opinions.

http://www.wral.com/news/8751211/detail.html




http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1848351&page=1





http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/17/national/main1504320.shtml




So while you can parse out some quotes from the various attorneys what's really going to matter is just what those party pictures show, not what was reported in the media stories. If those photos show what appears to be what's described in the SANE in training's examination, and if the time stamping shows up, then this is incredibly damaging for the prosecution.

But what will be very difficult to reconcile are the issues addressed in that motion - most notably the way they handled the SANE exam report. Go back and read what the police stated in the probable cause section of the search warrant for Ryan McFayden's dorm room.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0405061duke4.html
A Forensic Sexual Assault Nurse (SANE) and Physician conducted the examination. Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated that the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience.

It's amazing that none of us who read this caught it and it wasn't until I read the defense motion that it clicked. Read it again carefully and you'll notice something..... the SANE nurse never said that the alleged victim's injuries were consistent with being raped vaginally and anally. The only SANE opinion was about a "traumatic event" which is certainly less damning that "consistent with sexual assault." Who determined it was consistent with sexual assault? That's the opinion of Investigator Himan who wrote the request for search warrant. That's backed up by the second sentence above where he adds "Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated that the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience." You'll note that the motion filed by the defense states that the SANE nurse's report contains no opinion or conclusion that the alleged victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries that were consistent with being sexually assaulted vaginally and anally.

That's a court filing based on paperwork that the judge has at his disposal. It's hard to dismiss that as "defense spin."

Finally, regarding the way the judge would react to the motion, the defense isn't stating what the judge would or would not have done had the prosecution shown him all the evidence they had. Instead, their exact words are "Investigator Himan omitted material facts, which if added would not have provided Judge Stephens with probable cause to believe a felony had been committed or reasonable suspicion to believe that the Defendant committed any felony and, therefore, no legal basis to issue the Non-Testimonial Identification Order."

They're not stating what the judge would or would not have done, their speculating on if there would be probable cause. You would have to be a pretty thin-skinned judge to be offended by this. As noted by someone else, were I in the judge's robe I would be more upset that the DA and police had withheld information from me.

Ahhh... this makes some sense relative to the picture of the AV leaving the house with several bags:

http://www.wral.com/news/8751211/detail.html

Seven minutes later, at 12:37 a.m., the alleged victim is lying on the back stairs. Attorneys have said that they believe she stumbled and fell, which caused some of her cuts and bruises. A tan spot in the photo, they believe, is her purse lying in the back yard.

The previous picture showing her holding several items at the top, or going down, the stairs... was that a flash picture?

What happened we may never know for sure.

But its done.

a year, the legal bills could be in the millions.

I don't care how unsympathetic these students may seem, it's not fair to put anyone through this with such a weak case.

where neither side should be able to try their case in public. Trials should be tried in the courtroom not in the media. I really believe something happened. I believe she may have some type of problems, mentally or otherwise but that would not excuse a sexual assault if it did occur.

I think she was trying to make a better life for herself and maybe had some poor choices along the way like we all have done.

However, I believe wealth and power is playing a role in this as well.

Maybe, we do not know everything the prosecutor has yet.

I just hope the justice system works in this case.

Other countries have them but they can be used to cover-up a lot of mischief. Assume a rape case (NOT this one) where the evidence is pretty good. But the defendant is rich and connected. If a prosecutor is not allowed to talk his case to the press there could be a lot of pressure brought to bear on the prosecutor to make the case go away. Or a guy is falsely accused of murder of a prominent person. If his lawyer can't talk about the real evidence the judge could be pressured to put the guy away.

in large part because the police botched the lineup and the prosecutor rushed the case to the indictment stage. We may very well never know what happened.

Rape isn't about foreplay. It's a sexual slap, punch in the self-esteem gut (or whatever part) of the Rape victim.

helped them assault her, and that she wasn't assaulted at all (she said that both in the car and in the hospital). Her story not only conflicted with other people's accounts, her stories conflicted with each other.

That's the best description of what rape is that I've ever heard. :thumbsup:

that would allow for all of what was described by the prosecutor to occur within 5 minutes.

Defenders of the accuser have to rely in suspension of disbelief to support their case.

that was STILL the best description of what rape is that I've heard yet.



That description "works" to describe rape. Period.

Of course, IG, you will take any opportunity to attack the prosecutor, the AV, and "supporters of the accuser", even when it's not necessary.

I have to rely on "suspension of disbelief" just to get through some of the idiotic things I see posted. It's hard to believe that some people are so easily swayed by cherry-picked, one-sided information that gets broadcast across the airwaves and the internet. But then again, I'm sure there are those who still believe that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, too. Some of them are probably the same people.

You mean the police reports, handwritten police-notes and the handwritten/signed witness statements?

The exculpatory witness statements that were collected by the same people prosecuting this case?

How do you read this:

"She heard that (the accuser) was sexually assaulted, which she stated is a 'crock' and she stated that she was with her the whole time until she left," according to Himan's notes. "The only time she was alone was when she would not leave and that time period was less than five minutes."

.........and not think there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this case????????

Is a great explanation for what the DA and police showed to the judge to get their search warrants and orders for DNA testing.

The people who believe in the stockpiles of weapons in Iraq are much more like
the people who believe in the stockpiles of strong evidence that the prosecution's just not sharing with us.

Just as WMDs are surely buried under the sand in Iraq... or Iran... or Syria, there are people that believe that there is secret evidence that Nifong is holding unto so that he can spring it Perry Mason style at trial. Discovery be damned!

About the power of the State to manipulate public opinion.

Seems there's some confusion either deliberate or otherwise as to what Roberts called a crock...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196631,00.html
The woman also originally claimed that a second dancer who accompanied her to the party, Kim Roberts, was inside the bathroom during the alleged rape, the sources said. The accuser claims she was assaulted and sodomized in that bathroom for about a half an hour and that she tried to fend off her attackers.

When police asked Roberts whether she was in the room at the time, Roberts reportedly told police, "that's a crock."

So, what did she actually say was a crock? The rape allegation itself, or as first reported in May that the allegation that Roberts was in the bathroom during the attack was a crock? Or did she say they were both a crock? Or the whole night was a crock? Or the whole world was a crock?

Of course, if we could actually read what the police said, that might clear that up, but for some strange reason, the defense isn't passing out copies of the motion and the exhibits attached which would include documentation from the police... how odd considering they pass out copies of every other motion they file.

Back in May it sure enough was pretty clear exactly what she said was a crock and it wasn't that a rape took place. Not that it matters anyway since there's plenty of people here already that have sworn up down and sideways that Roberts is just a big fat liar anyway... why would THIS item be truthful from her? Because some people that already claim she's a big fat liar just WANT it to be? Oh sure, conveniently she just lies about that which might be harmful to the accused and miraculously always tells the truth when it's harmful to either herself or the accuser. How kind of her to be so accomodating to the defense by only telling the truth when it works for them! And to do that for free out of the goodness of her evil lying heart, too!

Of course, if we could actually read what the police said, that might clear that up, but for some strange reason, the defense isn't passing out copies of the motion and the exhibits


Torch, now you are just plain making stuff up. You can indeed read what the police said, including the "crock" statement. As soon as these things are filed, they are available from the court and WRAL puts them online as .pdf's.

The Durham police notes, Kim Roberts hand-written statement, and the other materials you say are not available, are in fact attached as exhibits to the document right here:

http://www.wral.com/download/2006/0609/9346930.pdf

(On edit: In case you can't find it, the "crock" thing is at page 14)

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The fact is that these documents - and the exhibits showing the source materials - ARE available.

there's plenty of people here already that have sworn up down and sideways that Roberts is just a big fat liar anyway

The entire subject of Roberts propensity for truth-telling was only brought up in the context of whether her embezzlement conviction could be used as impeachment evidence. Roberts was dishonest in the 12:53 911 call, which she also leaves out of her handwritten statement you can read above.

Kim Roberts has consistently maintained that she did not witness a rape. So her opinion about whether one ocurred or not, regardless of what opinion she might have held at any point in time, is of zero value whether she is a liar or not.

Here you go:

http://www.wral.com/news/9343920/detail.html

You won't want to miss page 14, where the police report says:

"She stated that she heard that Ms. XXXX was sexually assaulted, which she stated is a "crock" and she stated that she was with her the whole time until she left. And the only time she was alone was when she would not leave and that time period was less than five minutes."

We don't have to know which of Kim Roberts conflicting statements was correct. It was wrong for exculpatory evidence like this (and much more) to have been withheld by the prosecutor when he presented the judge with the search warrant to sign.

DURHAM -- The exotic dancer who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of gang-raping her was drinking while taking medication that night, and had sex with at least four men and a sexual device in the days immediately leading up to the off-campus party, according to court papers filed Thursday.

<more> http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-742621.html

And while her sexual history is not a factor, it does lead me to believe those who so trumpted "She had injuries consistent with Rape!" may have been caused by a previous sexual encounter prior to the Party.

Of course, this still won't matter for those convinced of guilt...

Nowhere did anyone (except defense attorney Osborn) say that the AV "had sex with at least four men." Mr. Osborn attributes that allegation to Jarriel Johnson, but in Mr. Johnson's handwritten account he never says anything about sex with anyone, except for his having had intercourse with the AV over A FULL WEEK PRIOR to the alleged rape.

Mr. Osborn took Mr. Johnson's written statements concerning having driven her to four different dancing appointments over the weekend -- and extrapolated that into "sex with at least four different men." Nowhere does Mr. Johnson state that he saw her have sex with anyone, or that she told him she'd had sex with anyone, or that he believed she'd had sex with anyone. The "sex with at least four different men" line is a product of Mr. Osborn's calculated attempt to turn her stripping career into something more than it is, or was. That allegation is absolutely unsubstantiated and false. I was very skeptical of Mr. Osborn's (and the other defense attorneys') statements of supposed fact before this, but having now seen him use an allegation of that wording in a court filing, and seeing that the document that he based that allegation on contains no such allegation or wording -- now I know for sure not to trust a damn thing that comes from the defense. It's a shame that so many people do.

I'm not even sure about the supposed four dancing appointments over the weekend prior to the alleged rape. Mr. Johnson gave a very detailed account of their time together over the weekend, including the times of all the calls to pick her up and drop her off at appointments, whether he waited for her out in his car during any given showing or left and was called to pick her back up, and what they did together during the times between appointments. It was supposedly between showings that they had intercourse in a hotel room... yet after writing the whole detailed documentary of the weekend Mr. Johnson checked his date book and cell phone, and realized that he had not had sex with the AV on the date he'd listed, he'd been off by a week and it was the Sunday prior.
This makes me wonder how accurate the rest of his recollections were, since he incorrectly remembered that part of his very detailed account of the weekend.

As for the small "sexual device", the AV told the police about that herself, which is not something she really would have had to volunteer to them.

have been withheld from the judge.

The only time "this man's statements" are referenced in the court filing is when it's alleged that he said the AV had sex with four different men the weekend prior to the rape. He never said that, or anything even remotely like that. So what is the point, again???

The defense in perfectly entitled to point out discrepancies, or to show if something has been omitted from the record or the process.
BUT THEY CANNOT JUST MAKE THINGS UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH AND PUT THEM IN COURT FILINGS!

I said in another thread that I hoped the judge would rap Osborn's knuckles with his gavel. Now I hope he hits him over the head with it.

off to "perform," according to her driver, at four different private appointments in hotel rooms in the weekend prior to the party. That's pertinent information, particularly when even she admits that one of the appointments involved the use of a "sex toy."

It's interesting to note the conflicts between her statements, the evidence, and Johnson's statements. She says the only person she had had sex with was her boyfriend Matthew, the week before. She doesn't admit to having sex with Johnson. Johnson first says he had sex with her that weekend, then changes his mind and says it was the week before. (Wouldn't he have known if he had just had sex with her? That seems odd to me.) And then there is DNA evidence of someone who is not on the team. Whose DNA is that? Could DNA have survived a whole week? Something doesn't make sense here.

It's no more relevant than anyone else going to work, unless that work is as a prostitute. That's exactly what the defense, and you, are implying, but there's nothing to show that the allegation is true. Her job was dancing/stripping. She admitted to the sex toy on her own.

As to the contradictions in what she said vs. the court documents -- when asked if she'd had sex in the past week, she said yes, with her boyfriend Matthew. She was not asked about sex prior to the past week, which would include Mr. Johnson, as anything more than a week from the alleged rape would not be relevant.

I agree that Mr. Johnson should be better able to remember whether the sex he had with someone was a couple of days ago, or over a week ago.
That's why I find his entire story of the weekend, including the four dancing appointments, a bit suspect.

And yes, semem can remain in the vagina for up to 7 days. There's no reason to doubt that it came from her boyfriend, as she said it did.

.....right before the party is not relevant?


>>>>The motion also states that prior to going to the lacrosse player's party that the accuser "had a function at a hotel room with a couple where she performed using a , which clearly could have caused signs or symptoms of vaginal penetration."<<<<<

Your snippet of article above is missing a noun -- she performed using a... what?

The answer is -- a small vibrator. If small vibrators cause rape-like injuries, I'll have to get rid of mine.

But back to the question: Where do any documents say WHEN she used this nefarious, buzzing, Brobdingnagian private-parts wrecker? Was it "just before the party?" Didn't see that in the report. What does "prior to going to the lacrosse players' party" mean? An hour prior? A day? Three days? A week? I don't know. Do you?

I can't address the "relevance" of her using a small vibrator prior to the party, until "prior to the party" is better defined.

Of course the alleged victim's prior sexual history is not to be considered in and of itself as part of the case, especially (as I understand it) insofar as establishing her character or worth. I believe the only relevance it has is in finding possible explanations for whatever the nurse observed in her examination. The sexual device wouldn't necessarily cause anything, but to be blunt if it is used without lubrication it is possible to cause abrasions that it would be difficult to determine the source of.

First, I'm not sure what the heck Officer Himan was trying to say when he wrote:

SHE STATED THAT SHE HAD NOT HAD SEX A WEEK PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT AND WAS WITH HER BOYFRIEND

Does this mean she claimed not have had sex in the last 7 days and that previous to that it was with her boyfriend?
Or does this mean she claimed she had only had sex with her boyfriend in the last week?

Without talking to the investigator nobody can really say.


Secondly, the defense motion isn't saying that the AV had sex with in the days prior to the incident. Instead they're saying she was "involved in some sexual manner." That can be anything from flirting to a grinding lap dance to actual intercourse.


Finally, I agree there's nothing in there to determine just what "prior to the party" means in actual time.

at #46, just above.

Sooner or later this thing is going to invert and these unseemly ladies are going to find themselves in deep doo-doo.

but I doubt they will. Nor do I think that the DA will be held accountable for exploiting this case for political gain.

Unfortunately, our society has a tendency to excuse certain groups for bad behavior.

to make a ruling on the defense motion?

and if I'm right, what could possibly happen to the two girls and the DA?

Is there any way of repairing the damage these three have caused to the young gentlemen?

media interviews came in handy) he will win the general election, where he's running unopposed.

He's the villain, as far as I'm concerned.

way to punish him severly. I mean jail time.

.....this case will be thrown out and future rape victims will be subject to excess scrutiny not because of people making false claims, but because of people who believe them no matter how implausible they are.

The prosecution began litigating this case in the court of public opinion for your benefit. That is a fact that cannot be denied. The defense had no choice but to provide a defense in the same manner. The prosecutor, in the same court of public opinion, promised evidence that would be conclusive proof of the Duke player's guilt. After going silent, this evidence has not been shown.

Yet these players have lost their season, their coach, and their dignity because of race and the player's social standing. The prosecutor knew the public would demonize these guys because of despicable conduct everyone hates. That part is easy - undoing it is difficult.

To those that continue to assume these "rich white guys" did it, you have my personal thanks for allowing these types of charges to be used as a weapon and/or form of punishment. I haven't seen my 21 year old son since he was 13 specifically because of people like you. My ex-wife was a psycho who used this type of tool in court and I was not going to subject my new family to it because of people who are willing to believe this crap regardless of facts.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Me and future victims of real rape applaud your objectivity.

responsiblity for ruining these young lives?

...the public doesn't have that much of an attention span. The Duke players will always be associated with rapists no matter what the outcome. People hear what they want to hear and they want to hear somebody is a rapist. That's just how the world works and why missing white girls on TV get more ratings then the incompetent actions of a sitting president.

....this qutoe by Winston Churchill:



Unfortunatly, that appears to be the prosecution's strategy once he began the first of his 70+ interviews to the media at the outset of this case.

of the case, it will be almost impossible to retreat without causing a huge backlash in the local community, where support for the accuser has always been very strong.

All his foaming at the mouth has spread his contagion through the town of Durham. It's going to be a long time before that community heals from this.

prosecution's burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', I will offer 2:1 odds, up to $500 (I win $500 or lose $1,000) that there will be NO convictions for rape of ANY Lacrosse players. Any takers?

Now the DA drops the case (and he should) we have riots. How many people are going to be hurt over this? This just sucks. :(

:cry:

Welcome to DU, atomicdawg38!

n/t

:hi:

there will be any riots. The loudest supporters of the accuser have gone quiet and most folks are a bit embarrassed to have gone out on-point so far, so fast, and just want the whole thing to go away. They are hoping the accuser works out a deal with Nifong to enter rehab, drop charges and not get charged with filing a false police report. The national attention has probably created an opportunity to have Duke seriously work with the community to improve town/gown relations, and that may be the biggest benefit of the whole process.

or just noticing that they've gone quiet?

The problem with prosecuting the woman now is that it would just further inflame the community. Her most vehement supporters would remain her most vehement supporters (even if fewer in number). And if they thought she were being unjustly attacked, they might decide to attack back.

I, personally, don't care about punishing her. I think she made a stupid, drunken decision, when she found herself about to go into a mental health facility, and realized that becoming a "victim" might get her a pass out. Someone there may have even (accidentally) put the thought in her mind. So I would rather she be allowed to make a full, apologetic, convincing retraction and accept a plea deal involving treatment for substance abuse. Then the community could begin to heal.

The real villian, IMO, is Nifong, who went after the Duke students with both barrels even though the conflicting evidence was there from the very beginning. I hope the parents of the students can find some strong legal action to take against him.

I hope you're right that this may help Duke and Durham to improve their relations. And I hope this has been a wake-up call for college administrators everywhere.

And welcome to DU, chapel hill dem!

accuser. Quite frankly, this whole case has overwhelmed the conversation locally and there is a lot of Duke-fatigue going on.

Interestingly, Nifong started out as a hero, but now is viewed by me and most of my friend-circle as using the incident for his personal gain. I think the accuser is a victim of Nifong's electioneering. I hope she gets the support she needs.

Thanks for the welcome. I have been lurking here since 2002 and registered in 2004. I guess I will never get to 1000 posts at this rate!

I am so happy to see the chips falling in this case, and that the accuser is not being viewed as a villain. She was a pawn in Nifong's scheme to get reelected. I want to see her get out of this with her life intact, but I hope Nifong is dragged through the ringer.

She was drunk and in the mental health center when she made her first mistake, and then the thing snowballed on her. If the prosecutor hadn't seen the opportunity to jump on this and make himself a media hero, the whole thing probably would have gone away in a couple of days.

Posts that is. I keep having people accuse me of being a Dukie in disguise.

I'm just one more person who started out on the accuser's side and then gradually realized that I had been taken in. . . and became more and more horrified as I realized the consequences to the students and their families.

For being so gullible I have to blame my predisposition to caricature jocks everywhere. Particularly at schools like Duke. Guess I've learned my own lesson.

No longer Latest Breaking News