Second dancer in Duke case now being smeared

[LostinVA]

I must be insane for posting this, but I thought it might interest some people. What bothers me about this is that it reeks a bit of intimidation.


Second Dancer In Duke Incident Gives First Interview

DURHAM, N.C. -- 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."

<snip>

The attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her. They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage."


http://www.wral.com/news/8878198/detail.html

[Virginia Dare]

1. So she doesn't know any more than anyone else...

not a very good witness for either side.

[LostinVA]

5. I actually see it completely different than you

And see here as a very good witness for the plaintiff. Everything that she DOES know does not help the defense at all, and does help the accuser on some points.

[Virginia Dare]

8. I'll take your word for it...

I haven't been following it very closely, but by admitting that she doesn't really know what happened, seems to me an lawyer worth his or her salt could rip her testimony to shreds.

Just from her comments that you just posted, she's a very shaky witness at best.

[LostinVA]

10. That's why I think she's a good witness

Because she DOES say she doesn't know if a rape happened. But she does know certain things happened, and she tells it, without pointing her finger at ANYONE except the players who called her a n*gger and told her to stick a broomstick up her butt.

Her criminal stuff won't hurt much, because ALL the players in this trial have an arrest record.

[LisaL]

106. She was convicted of embezzlement. Embezzlement implies

dishonesty in order to make a profit. Do you think someone with her record makes a credible witness?

[dogday]

136. One of the accused was convicted

of assault of a homeless man.. A freaking homeless man.. What kind of freak beats up on someone who is like that??????

[BrownOak]

140. Incorrect, see below or post a link n/t

[dogday]

144. Not incorrect, one of them has a record

for beating up a homeless man....He did community service... You prove it's not... I will find the link, but why on earth would I make that up????

ON EDIT
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-lacrosse21apr21,1,5281186.story?coll=la-news-a_section



Duke Player May Face Jail in Separate Case
Recent rape charges could revoke a deal that let him avoid trial in an alleged simple assault.
By Peter Clark, Newsday
April 21, 2006


WASHINGTON — Collin H. Finnerty's court appearance for an alleged assault in Georgetown last year has been moved up to Tuesday, when the lacrosse player from Long Island will face the possibility of jail time because of allegations against him in the Duke University rape case.

The hearing is to determine if Finnerty's arrest this week and the accusations in North Carolina are enough to warrant a revocation of the agreement that allowed him to avoid a trial and possible jail time last year, said Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office here.

[BrownOak]

149. Well, that was sure challenging

Did you read the link at all? Try doing a search for the word "homeless" in there.

From the story:

Bloxsom does not want to talk to reporters, who have been waiting outside his Georgetown town house, according to a roommate interviewed Wednesday night.

[dogday]

153. I posted a link

which is more than you have done in any of your posts.. Give me some reference....

[BrownOak]

155. What I'm saying is that

your link didn't say anything about this guy being homeless. He wasn't.

I guess if you want a link, I could give you this one:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=finnerty%20georgetown%20duke%20homeless&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn

[dogday]

157. What the freak does it matter if he was homeless???

he assaulted someone, I am sure that the media said he was a homeless man.. Yep the same media who has been trashing the victim.. Are they wrong? He was convicted for an act of violence, there is a history there.. All I said from the beginning if you bring up the victim's record, you should bring up the accused as well......

[BrownOak]

159. Calm down

Read what I wrote below:

"Finnerty did beat up someone, but the guy wasn't homeless. Nor was he gay as the media is trying to portray this. Finnerty called him gay (which is pretty ugly) but he also called him other things. It's clear that he (Finnerty) was an asshole that night, but it's not true that it was a hate crime nor was it a crime on the homeless."



Since the question that I replied to here was "what kind of person beats up the homeless" it seemed germane to point out that this guy wasn't homeless.

[dogday]

160. Then who and what was it about?

If not homeless what, you have defined the crime, but not the reason... You allude..


I am not upset :hi:

[BrownOak]

162. Smiles make the world better...

No, I don't have the reason other than the most toxic combination in the world - excessive testosterone, mixed with alcohol, and held inside a giant asshole. It appears to me that Finnerty and his two friends decided to hassle someone and this guy was it. I know a guy from another message board who claims to be friends with the victim's roommate - I have no reason to doubt him. He says the guy's not gay and that he was pretty much minding his own business when Finnerty picked the fight.

Like I said, I don't condone his actions, but the anal retentive part of me.... which is most of me.... wants to be sure that they are accurately portrayed. The AF (asshole factor) of his actions stands on its own anyhow.

[dogday]

164. He did accused the guy of being gay

He was beating him up with another guy and calling him gay according to the victim..


http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/429880.html


According to court records, Finnerty and two former Chaminade teammates attacked a man who was driving by The Georgetown Inn on Wisconsin Avenue in the early hours of Nov. 5, "busting his lip and bruising his chin."

The man said that he told them to stop "calling him gay and ... derogatory names."


I do concede he was not homeless, the accused thought him to be gay.....

[BrownOak]

168. Not really clear if he thought he was gay

or if he thought that calling him gay would be an insult that would provoke a fight. I think if the victim truly was gay that this would have been tried as a hate crime. Instead it just seems more like your run of the mill bully assault. There's not really enough there to make the conclusion what he thought at the time, although clearly thinking my not be his strong suit anyhow.

[dogday]

169. The fact that he did it

is enough don't you think??? He said it, whether he thought it meant nothing, he said it.... Hate crime...


3 guys beat up on this guy... Oh you are going to give this guy a break... He has a history of violence and not just violence, but violence in a group setting... That does not look good does it?????

On edit: rich boy got a break, but if they convict him of this, it will change the outcome of the crime.....

[BrownOak]

171. Hate Crime

Haven't you just made every 3rd grade playground fight a hate crime?

The hate crime statutes mean that the victim must have been specifically targeted because of his race or status. It does not extend to the idea that insults are considered part of the criteria. If the attackers called someone a bitch, it would not be animal cruelty. If they called someone an idiot it would not be an attack on the handicapped.

[dogday]

173. We are not talking 3rd grade

we are talking about 3 adult males... They targeted him for some reason, if you say they did not think it, then they just did it for fun? Right? Man you can spin it a million different ways, but the fact is the victim himself said they called him gay and other names.... You don't believe the victim? I would like to know that???

Law doesn't care if you meant it or not, the fact that you did it makes you guilty.... They acted it upon it, they insulted the man and when he told them to stop, they beat him...

[BrownOak]

176. Yes, I believe the victim

but, and clearly the court agreed with this, calling him gay and other derogatory names does not make this a hate crime. How about this scenario, two football players get into a fight because they're both hitting on the same girl and one calls the other a fag and then beats him up. Is that a hate crime?

[dogday]

177. That is one on one over a girl

This was a man who was did not know them, did not know why they were calling him names, and got his ass beat down by 3 to 1 because he told them to stop calling him a gay and other names....

One thing they did is try to insult him.. They did not mean it, I think they meant every mean name they called this guy.....

[jazzjunkysue]

121. Having seen the footage myself this morning, I agree.

Because she's one of the "dancers" she should be a big asset to the accuser, but, her own taped interview (CNN) is so unimpressive, it won't help the accuser much. I think it will ultimately make the "dancers" look worse, and so, it might help the defence.

Before you start throwing rocks, I make no statement either way about the guilt or innocense of the charged college boys. I wasn't there. My opinion or guess about what happened is irrelevant. But this taped interview, along with the leak of her email to a PR firm asking how she can benefit from this situation, rule her out as useful to the accuser.

This accuser is on her own, and it's gonna be a long up-hill climb. I wonder, if she wins, and gets them to do some time, if in the end, it will be worth all she'll have to go through.

The courts seldom are a satifying way to exact a remedy for personal injury. If you haven't attemped it yourself, you can't understand. The courts are limited. They take more out of you than they ever give.

[Occulus]

2. If she really said this:

"They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage."

in an email.......


I don't know; that just doesn't sit well with me right there.

[LostinVA]

7. Did you Read the whole article?

I understand her position:

Roberts, like the accuser a divorced single mother who is black, took umbrage at the notion that she should not try to make something out of her experience. She's worried that once her name and criminal record are public, no one will want to hire her.

"Why shouldn't I profit from it?" she asked. "I didn't ask to be in this position ... I would like to feed my daughter."


Her doing paid interviews may actually hurt the DA's use of her as a witness (although it also hurts the Defense for the same reason), but I understand her reasoning.

[TheWraith]

27. She's basically ruined as a witness.

If the prosecution called her, the defense would hit her credibility based on the fact that A) she doesn't really know anything, and B) she stands to make money if this thing becomes even more of a circus than it is now.

If the defense called her, the prosecution would bring up her criminal history, the fact that she doesn't know what really happened, the fact that she's a stripper, etc., and effectively make her out to be an opportunist at best.

Either way, she'd end up doing more damage to whoever called her than she could ever do to the other side.

[OzarkDem]

42. She's a credible witness

That's why they're trying to attack her.

[LostinVA]

47. Yup -- that's why several people here are, and why they will be in

Durham, too. I meant it when I said she showed integrity that night. She could have easily gotten herself out of a really bad situation, but didn't.

[LisaL]

109. If this ever gets to trial, I would love to see prosecution put her

on the stand. She had made conflicting statements already, she is caught lying on 911 tape, she lied to the Kroger's security guard, and she admitted she is out to make a profit. Yes, she will be a dream witness, no doubt of that.

[Evergreen Emerald]

166. you would "love to?"

I would love the truth to come out.

[Neil Lisst]

178. the defense can win without her, but the prosecution has to have her

even if she's a bad witness for the state, she has to testify, IMO.

I agree that she's a mess for either side, although I think she helps the defense more. Her story doesn't help the accuser, and the deal she got on the embezzlement charge is so transparent any jury will be repulsed by it.

[BrownOak]

143. No one will want to hire her??????

Any meaningful job is going to ask you the "have you ever been convicted" question on the application.

Whatever the motivations are, she's looking to profit from this situation, as such, anyone should look at her statements with a degree of skepticism, especially since those statements have done a complete 180 from where they started.

Oddly enough that happens right after the cops bring her in and lean on her, let's look at what happened here-

-She performed at the party.
-She falsified a 911 call to get the players in trouble with the police.
-She told defense lawyers after the investigation started that she doubted the victim's story.
-She gave her statement to the police and was immediately arrested at that time on a probation violation. She was given a secured bond of $25K, of which she had to come up with 15%.
-She leaked to the press through her attorney that she disagreed with the way the defense was stating her position, a position that she herself has said she originally did believe.
-On the day the players are indicted, the DA changes her bond from secured to unsecured status, meaning she no longer has to leave money with the state. The explanation is that she was not a flight risk... why was she considered one earlier?
-After the players are indicted she contacts a PR firm to find a way to profit from all of this.

If one of the players or the cabbie in this case had behaved like that you would eviscerate them.

[supernova]

3. I read that, but you know what?

If was in the middle of this media storm, I'd be asking for advice too.

She's no help to the defense now, so they're gonna dick her over. (pun intended)

[Bridget Burke]

4. The defense attorneys need to save their arguments for the trial.

I don't know what really happened. But it looks as though the case is being tried in the media.

[Catchawave]

19. I'm surprised there hasn't been a gag order ?

The second lady and the cab driver are being cross-examined by the press. The girl on Rita Cosby for heaven's sake. Was surprised they let the press "study" those photos too.

A lotta leaking of information, in and out of context, could lead to a mistrial ? There won't be a fair trial, that's for sure, and no matter, those boys' and girls' lives probably ruined forever :cry:

[Jersey Devil]

37. I don't think a gag order is possible

Reading the story, the comments about the witness were by a lawyer for one of the uncharged players. A court can order the prosecutor and the defense attorneys not to talk about a case, but I doubt it could enter a gag order to a lawyer who was not representing one of the parties charged in the case.

[Marie26]

45. They leaked the alibi the same way. nt

[Jersey Devil]

58. clever

Not completely kosher, but clever.

[hiaasenrocks]

51. Both sides are trying this case in the media.

I would like to see a count of the number of press conferences this DA has held.

None of us know what happened. It is too early for anyone to take a position on this. When I see someone who has made up their mind -- or even leaning one way or the other -- it's just laughable. Both sides are engaging in public grandstanding and people think these are legitimate sources of information by which one can reasonably make a decision about this case. Gimme a break.

[malaise]

127. I agree with you

Sadly it's OK for Dan Abrams and company from the corporate media to make money by having their own trial in the media, but it is not OK for anyone else.

[goclark]

138. Dan Abrams

makes me :puke:

[oasis]

175. Dan Abrams alma mater: Duke University. Another frat boy going the extra

mile for the "blue" Devils.

[goclark]

181. Interesting, Don't recall him announcing he is a DUKE graduate!

He has been fighting so hard to stay "neutral." :O:

[oasis]

182. B.A. degree in political science,1988.

[LostinVA]

190. Oh-ho! Hadn't heard that

[jsquared]

196. I also read that he pledged the frat

most popular with lacrosse players. (Now that would really create some bias, as those ties are far stronger.)

[Kagemusha]

6. "They're rich white kids, of course they did something."

And it's really not hard to lash out when someone's come after your character already.

Edit: Trying to point out that her reaction would be the same whether a rape occured or not because this isn't really about the truth, it's about "I think they're guilty, whoever 'they' are" because someone called her something disparaging, so that proves they're guilty doesn't it?

[LostinVA]

9. But why lash out at her? She hasn't done anything

Oh, wait. She did! Two days ago, she addressed Defense statement she says are lies. They were being real nice to her until she wouldn't play with them. Then they started slamming her in the press.

That is ridiculous. There really needs to be a gag order, pronto.

[Virginia Dare]

11. Defense is probably letting her sing like a bird...

so the jury pool will be tainted, she's definitely all over the place, and yes, somebody needs to gag her.

[LostinVA]

15. No, someone needs to gag everyone

I knew when I posted this, she would be attacked just like the accuser. Even though she's the ONLY one who's been making public statements that isn't declaring they know what happened... she's only telling her POV.

All over the place? Interesting how people see things differently.

[Virginia Dare]

18. I'm not attacking her at all...

I'm saying from a legal standpoint, her testimony, based on what she is saying here would be difficult to use for either side. Opinions aren't facts.

And yes, there needs to be a general gag order. It's important for both the accuser and the accused that there be a fair trial.

[LostinVA]

34. I talking about the facts she's giving

Concerning the victim's state of mind, state of dress and body, demeanor, basic time line, men who she knows was there (the skinny little one), remarks made to the women, etc. Whoever said anything about her opinions? Those aren't admissible testimony, anyway.

[jukes]

70. change

of venue. that's why they use it.

[mondo joe]

12. If someone accused you of doing something, wouldn't you

respond? Wouldn't you scrutinize their motivation?

[izzie]

13. I am going to walk the fence on this and wait for the jury

Having lived in the South once I really have to watch my self on how I think. Riding around in a car with Maine plates in the South when I lived their got me a lot of remarks. It did not leave me feeling good at all.

[Catherine Vincent]

14. video...

http://video.ap.org/v/en-ap/v.htm?g=c0d07e63-afdf-4d12-a1b2-105145e7aefa&f=txhou

[Lerkfish]

16. here's a particularly intriguing section...

"It seems she is receiving very favorable financial treatment for what she is now saying," Thomas said.
Mark Simeon, Roberts' attorney, said the bond conditions were changed because Roberts is not considered a flight risk. Nifong, who hasn't spoken with reporters about the case in weeks, didn't return a call seeking comment.
Roberts' testimony could be vital during any trial of the two sophomores, indicted on charges of first-degree rape, sexual offense and kidnapping.


Although she would not talk extensively about the party, she confirmed some of what the other dancer told police -- including that the women initially left the party after one of the players threatened to sodomize the women with a broomstick.

[LostinVA]

17. Yes, the DEFENSE is saying that, no on else

If she isn't a flight risk, and she has a child to support, they would treat her favorably. That is totally not unusual.

God, I started this thread but I'm hiding it now -- this is getting ridiculous.

This woman acted with integrity that night, and may be one of the few who did: she didn't leave the accuser there. She could have. The accuser was a total stranger. She could have left or dumped her on the street and she didn't.

[Virginia Dare]

23. It was a self fulfilling prophecy on your part..

no one here has posted anything ridiculous on this thread.

For the record, in my opinion, the woman was raped, probably by more than one of the players. But none of us, including you, knows what really happened. It's all speculation on everyone's part based on what we've read or heard.

We just have to hope that there will be a fair trial and justice will be done.

[LostinVA]

46. There';s no need for the header of your post

I misunderstood Lerkfish, and have apologized. Read the way I interpreted it, it was ridiculous.

And, you are mistaken. People are posting ridiculous stuff on her, including discounting the very fact she was raped, which is backed up by medical evidence. People are also discounting the second dancer's testimony, just because. THIS is what ticks me off and is what I considered ridiculous.

So, it isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's just another brick in the wall that's been building this week... a certain eagerness of certain posters to just slurp down what the Defense serves up and point almost gleefully at the accuser.

But enough. I had no one to explain myself to but Lerkfish, and I';ve done that.

[Virginia Dare]

135. Sorry if the header offended you..

but it was no more out of line than you accusing me of "attacking" the witness. You obviously have strong opinions about this case, and I respect that, but you should also respect others' opinions as well.

Apparently there have been some offensive comments in other threads regarding this case, and apparently you are extremely upset over it, but just because others here don't see things the same way you do in no way implies they are on some sort of smear campaign.

Maybe there are a few trolls out there who are, but I'm not one of them, and a more careful reading of my posts would have made that apparent.

[Lerkfish]

24. WHOA. I'm on your side in this, I find it intriguing because it says

a lot about WHO is saying it.

[shaniqua6392]

20. While we turn our attention to this crap....

soldiers die. We should keep our focus on Iraq and Afghanistan and not fall into this trap that the media has intentionally set for us. Women are raped in this country every day. Why is this one any different? Why have we gone from discussing Natalie Holloway to this rape case? It is to distract from the real issues. Email all networks and tell them we do not feel that this is headline news, as tragic as it is. If they are going to focus on a rape victim they should focus on ALL rape victims. If they are going to focus on missing young women they should focus on ALL missing women and children. They just keep telling us that this case and the Natalie Holloway case are really what the American people want to see. That is a bunch of crap in my opinion. I personally want the truth and some REAL investigative reporting for a change.

[Virginia Dare]

21. Agreed...n/t

[shaniqua6392]

22. Thank you. n/t

[lukasahero]

31. And when we don't, racism, sexism and classism

continue to florish. Guess those "non-issues" have nothing to do with the war or the soldiers who are dying there.

[LostinVA]

33. Thank you -- why are people saying this is a non-issue and not important?

Racism, classism, and rape aren't important? Exposing the medieval ideas so many people still hold about rape and women is unimportant? Bah.

Soldiers dying is important, as is poor American children dying from hunger and disease. As is the NPS selling off our parks. And the uncared for animals roaming our streets. And global warming. And every thing that is in this case. You can care about many things.

And, this case does strike a chord because it does encompass so many important things.

[jukes]

72. apsitively, LiV

and let's be honest, this war wdnt have started if the "enemy" hadn't been brown & non-xian.

the outcome of this case, and how it's viewed in the meantime, are EXTREMELY important issues!

[BrownOak]

147. Exactly...

Regardless of what you believe in this case or even the outcome, this is important

On Race - Durham as a city is going to carry a scar on this for a long time. If it is shown that the allegations are true then it reinforces all the negative aspects of race relations. Same thing if it is shown if the allegations are not true. And god forbid, it there results of the investigation aren't conclusive one way or the other, it becomes even worse. That may be a local issue, but it just adds one more stone to the wall that segregates us all.

On Classism - If the allegations are true it shows an ugly sense of entitlement, if they're not true it shows an ugly presumption of a sense of entitlement. How many people think these guys are guilty because they're RWA? How many think the victim was responsible because she's a black stripper?

On Rape - every rape or rape allegation is important as is the justice that should follow. Who knows how many actual rapes occur each year and the cost - physical, emotional, fiscal - that carries.

That doesn't mean that the quagmire of Iraq or other issues are any less important, but we should all be able to multitask enough to not ignore this.

[Virginia Dare]

154. I take a more cynical view about this...

While it's true that many people here are posting about this issue because it shines a light on sexual exploitation and social injustice, that is not why the media has pounced on it.

There is a tawdry element to this story, and I think the mainstream media figures that people will pay attention to it because of that, so they'll keep it in focus.

Unfortunately, this is to the detriment of both the alleged victim as well as the accused, and everyone else involved. All of their lives will be trashed because of it, and that's truly a shame.

[FiveGoodMen]

50. Absolutely!

[jukes]

73. let's not forget

that while soldiers die, innocent men, women, and children of the invaded countries die and are maimed.

the horror of this war is NOT just about americans.

[FiveGoodMen]

132. Absolutely to you, too!

[jbnow]

54. Though honestly, while we focus

on Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers still die.

That's the saddest part.

[jazzjunkysue]

86. True.

[aikoaiko]

25. It looks like the second stripper is going to take advantage of this too.

I'm not so sure I see a smear here.

[Lerkfish]

26. "too"?

:eyes: :mad: :puke:

[aikoaiko]

28. I'm not sure why I got the meanie faces.

I was referring to all the media exploitation and demogoguery.

[Lerkfish]

29. AH, sorry sounded like you were blaming both strippers

[0007]

35. What do you mean?

[aikoaiko]

36. see post 28

A lot of people seem to be trying to turn this situation into somr kind of advantage for themselves.

[jukes]

74. aikoaiko

your post is, at best, unclear. it seems VERY biased and racist.

[aikoaiko]

87. its too late to edit but see post 28 for clarification.

A lot of people are looking to take advantage of this accusation of rape.

Do you not agree?

[FredScuttle]

123. Who

Who else is "taking advantage"?

[aikoaiko]

180. media, pundits, locals, etc looking for their 15 min of fame.

Sometimes I fear the prosecutor is just posturing for his reelection vote.

And now a key witness is calling a PR firm looking to spin it to her advantage.

I know some people think I don't believe the accuser. Truth is I think it is probable that she was sexually assaulted. By far, most accusations of rape are founded. On the other hand, I'm not ready to say that I've heard enough to say that the Duke men raped her.

[FredScuttle]

186. Like the DA said

"I didn't create the crime and I didn't create the time"

I would hazard a guess that the LAST thing a DA needs right before his re-election campaign is the highest profile case in which the whole world is watching and 2nd-guessing his every move.

[BrownOak]

188. Unless of course

he's facing a tough election and has an issue that will generate support from the largest demographic group in the game.

[FredScuttle]

191. And which demographic would that be?

As of the census of 2000, the racial makeup of the county is 50.91% White, 39.46% Black or African American

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_County%2C_North_Carolina

Nice race bait.


Unless there's a single-mother, exotic dancer segment we're missing...hey, it's a new voting target to replace soccer moms and security moms - "stripper moms"!

[BrownOak]

194. Look more closely at the voters, not just the general population

Voting breakdown for Durham County

-140K registered voters
-86.5K are registered Democrats
-27K are registered as Republicans
-27K are registered as unaffiliated
-79K of registered voters are White
-53.8K of registered voters are Black
-the rest fall into American Indian or Other

Now, this is where you have to get into conjecture, but I think it's safe to assume that there are relatively few black Republicans in Durham County. So say that maybe 10% of the Republicans in Durham aren't white. That leaves you with about 25K worth of the white population registered as Republicans leaving 54K to be distributed between the Democrats and unaffiliated. Take away from the list for the handful of registered black Republicans and you have about 50K worth of registered black voters to be split between the Democrats and unaffiliated. That gives you 104K registered Democrats so you have to reduce that by 14K voters who would be unaffiliated. Given the efforts made by the Democratic party in this area toward voter registration within the black population, I think it's reasonable to believe that there are more unaffiliated white voters than there are black voters. Maybe you're not comfortable with that and you want to just split the difference on that 14K leaving you with 43K registered black Dems and 47K registered white Dems.

Given the horrible nature of the racial slurs the players used, the vigorous prosecution of this case is certain to resonate with a large segment of those black voters. That's not race baiting, that's merely recognizing the inevitable result of the history of injustice for black people. The merits of this particular prosecution are certainly debatable, but emotions and frustration of the black community are legitimate. So, of those 43K registered black Dems, Nifong can likely anticipate a very great approval level. If he just splits the votes of the registered white Democrats he has a great opportunity to win the election.

Contrast that with where he was one month ago. He was facing a tough election. Who really pays that much attention to the DA race? But he was facing an opponent in Freda Black who had the advantage of name recognition since she was the prosecutor on the high profile Michael Peterson murder trial. Now, the name everyone knows is Nifong.

If you don't think he's embraced this case with an eye toward political gain, consider that in the first weeks after the story broke, he granted dozens of interviews.

[FredScuttle]

197. So, in your view, the DA is pandering for black votes?

"The merits of this particular prosecution are certainly debatable"...uh, no actually, they aren't. The DA concluded that he had a prosecutable case and proceeded with the indictments. Now, if his case will convince a jury...that is certainly debatable. But, as I said above, it wasn't the DA that hosted this party where a woman was dragged into a bathroom and gang-raped.

However "tough" his reelection campaign was before this case, it's now exponentially harder since he's leading the most-watched trial this year with all the "experts" second-guessing his every move.

And, by the way, district attorneys represent ALL the people in their jurisdictions, not just their party's registered voters.

[BrownOak]

200. Lookat his actions

it wasn't the DA that hosted this party where a woman was dragged into a bathroom and gang-raped.


Uh, that would be the part that is debatable, unless of course the DA has shared with you some significant testimony or evidence he's holding.

Your original point was that this was the last case he needed since it is so high profile. How much lower of a profile would it have been if the DA himself hadn't granted about 70 media interviews in the first few weeks? You'll note that you didn't hear anything from the defense until March 30th, two days after Nifong had blasted the players in public because none had spoken out. Nifong opened the door for these guys to dump all this stuff in the press when he first violated the State Bar's ethics outlines.

Everything he did at the outset of this trial doesn't play like a guy who was trying to minimize the publicity. In fact, he could have assigned the case to one of his assistants like his predecessor did when he had Freda Black try the Peterson case.

When Nifong first decided to run for the DA position he reached out to Bill Simeon, a black attorney in Durham who had run for the DA office in the last election and lost to Nifong's previous boss Jim Hardin. Simeon admits to not getting along with Nifong, but according to Newsweek, on March 28th, the day after Nifong first spoke publicly against the players, Simeon pledged his support. He invited him to speak at his church and introduced him as "good prosecutor," but who, Simeon said he had recently learned, was also a "good man." Simeon also told Newsweek he went before the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, a very influential group, and urged them to vote for Nifong.

Oddly enough, on March 30th, the second dancer, who on the same day she gave the police her statement in the rape case had also been arrested on a probation violation, retained Bill Simeon to represent her. Simeon was able to somehow persuade the DA to change her bond status from secured to unsecured.

So yeah, I do think that his actions have been influenced by his political aspirations. And while DA's represents ALL the people in their jurisdictions, they're elected (at least in this case) by those who are registered to their party.

[LostinVA]

195. OMG -- that is so funny Jukes!

I'm using it and making believe I thought of it...

[shamalama]

30. Watching and waiting

BOTH sides of the aisle are playing this one in the Court Of Public Opinion as much as in a real court. That way no matter what the verdict there will be those that cry "foul".

If the boys did it, then they deserve to learn all about rape in a federal prison.

If she made the story up for opportunity/extortion, then she deserves hard time in lockup.

I simply hope that the trial is based on facts, that this case will not turn into nothing more than a media circus, and that the truth becomes clear to all with open minds. Rape is serious and needs to be treated seriously. I hope those of us outside of the courtroom will also treat this seriously and will wait for the facts before claiming "guilt" or "innocence".

[LostinVA]

32. The woman was raped

I suspect the odds are it happened at the party... the DA needs to make sure he tries the RIGHT men. But, per the medical rape exam, she was raped.

[aikoaiko]

38. As per the medical exam her injuries were consistent w rape

I don't recall any conclusions beyond that.

[LostinVA]

43. Yes, which means she was raped

THis has been discussed on several threads. which I'm sure you know, as you've been on those threads. Per legal and medical protocol, the SANE cannot say she was raped, since she was not an eyewitness of the event. My mother is a pediatric nurse in NC, and said SANE's are considered expert medical witnesses in rape trials in NC.

My mother has herself done hundreds of rape kits on patients between the ages of two to college-age, and says there is no mistaking rape injuries for consensual sex bruising.

Splitting semantic hairs doesn't change the facts, although many on these rape threads wish it did. I guess making yourself believe she wasn't raped makes it easier to sermonize her or something.

And, I'm not discussing who the rapists may be, I am simply saying the medical report shows she was sexually assaulted.

on edit: I will not discuss this specific aspect of the case with you any longer, because you refuse to accept the SANE's and doctor's findings. If you won't accept the exp

[onenote]

56. Neither your stubborness nor your mother's statements make you right

All that we know is that the SANE nurse found that the woman's injuries are consistent with rape. We do not know whether any finding was made as to whether those same injuries also could have been incurred throug consensual sex. The fact that injuries are deemed to be consistent with rape does not, in and of itself preclude the finding that those same injuries also could have occured through consensual sex. I am not saying that this is the case here. All I am saying is that it is incorrect to state that a rape must have occurred anytime someone is found to have incurred injuries consistent with rape. That may be the case most of the time. It may very well be the case here and I wouldn't question anyone who says that they "believe" the accused was raped based on what they've read and the fact that her injuries have been found to be consistent with rape. But it absolutely is NOT the case that whenever someone has incurred injuries consistent with rape it means a rape has occurred. I'll link below once again to the story regarding the BYU case where two medical experts (including the Doctor that initially examined the accuser and found her injuries to be consistent with rape) admitted that in that case, those same injuries also could have resulted from consensual sex.

In short, until the question has been posed to the experts as to whether the injuries incurred in this case are consistent ONLY with rape or whether those injuries also could be consistent with either rape or consensual sex, it is wrong, both as a matter of fact and principle, to keep repeating that the injuries in this case are proof positive that a rape occurred.


http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_244094915.html

[hiaasenrocks]

59. There was a similar case in Florida a few years ago.

I remember my aunt and uncle telling me about it. Pretty much the same type of non-conclusive medical report.

I'll try to find the story.

The medical expert who said it could go either way was trashed and smeared by the alleged victim's PR team.

Too many people in the public rely more on emotion rather than evidence to make up their minds about these cases.

[Solomon]

179. Haven't heard any of the suspects claim it was consensual sex. So far

they have denied that any sex took place.

[mondo joe]

204. No one said it had to be with the suspects. -eom-

[aikoaiko]

60. Of course I accept the expert's opinion, but not yours which is imaginativ

I stated the experts opinion. you stated yours. You should learn the difference or go ask your mommy for an explanation.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jukes]

77. delete

oopsie!

[mondo joe]

41. Incorrect. They found her injuries were consistent with rape.

That doesn't exclude other possibilities.

The medical team can't determine that she was raped.

[jukes]

78. o/c,mondo!

ahe might hame slipped and fallen repeatedly on a huge dildo.

she might have been abducted by aliens for probing research.

or certain posters might be trying to obfuscate.

[mondo joe]

88. Or she might have engaged in other activities that would

yield similar results, as has been determined in other cases.

[jukes]

183. OF COURSE!

self-inflicted so she cd collect in litigation!

[jukes]

75. the forensic evidence

certainly suggest a rape, perhaps a gang-rape DID occur. the perpetrators deserve to be punished.
"to learn all about rape in a federal prison." is a harsh statement; that shdnt be what prison is about. we need to have a prison system that DOESM'T perpetuate the culture of violence.

BTW, this isn't a federal crime.

[Neil Lisst]

39. Not "smeared." It's not a smear to tell the truth about what she's done.

Which is (1) bow to pressure and change her story, and (2) try to get a media firm to help her.

She's not being smeared, she's being exposed for inconsistencies and bias.

[hiaasenrocks]

49. Agreed.

This is the first DU thread on this rape case I've read in about four or five days. I decided to stay away from these topics because the prejudging here is almost out of control.

We don't know the facts yet.

I sure hope these same people didn't believe Juanita Broderick's false claims of rape against President Clinton, just because "she said it happened."

[Neil Lisst]

52. if any of these guys assaulted her, I want them convicted.

But not because someone is mad they outted her criminal record, or because the DA has offered her a deal on her other outstanding charges.

[hiaasenrocks]

53. I'm with you on that. I would like to see

any and all crimes in this case prosecuted.

It's just too early to tell at this point.

[LostinVA]

55. Juanita Broderick didn't have a rape exam that showed rape injuries

If she had, and had been in Clinton's office an hour before, then I would have cautiously believed her. She would have deserved that.

BUt... there was none of that. There is in this case. Regardless of the rapists, the woman WAS raped.

[hiaasenrocks]

57. We don't know what happened.

I brought up the Juanita Broderick "case" because several days ago there were people on here saying, "If a woman says she was raped, I believe her." I would rather wait to see what evidence is presented in court, under oath before making up my mind based on what someone says or some report that is leaked to the media. Accepting someone's word or selectively believing media reports based on emotion or hope is just ridiculous.

[jukes]

80. and i hope

you're chosen party loses the next presidential election.

[hiaasenrocks]

199. Too bad you don't have anything substantive to add

to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want Democrats (my "chosen party") to lose. Maybe you can explain that one.

[jukes]

79. yes

that wd be what an apologist might choose to believe.

or a slick defense-team hired by richboys might be trying to discredit her.

[OzarkDem]

40. Typical in these cases - my experience in a rape case

I posted in another thread that my college roommate was gang raped my freshman year. She was a 4.0 student, cheerleader from a small town who went to a party at a frat house and had consensual sex with a guy she had a crush on. Afterwards, he left the room and, before she could get dressed, a group of fellow frat brothers came in and took turns raping her. She was expelled from school, they all stayed with little or no punishment.

She and I had only known each other a few months, but I believed her. I wasn't even there that weekend, but I was caught up in it too. I was called on the carpet by the college dean's office (I was also an honor student, on scholarship, and a feminist). I was threatened with a number of actions if I continued to back up my roommate's story. They even sent a letter to my mother, who in turn threatened them with legal action. Ma and I both told them to f*** off, in polite terms.

I was harrassed by the frat guys on campus and got obscene phone calls for months after until I appealed to some other members, who eventually got them to back off. I stayed and graduated with honors, but the Dean's office harassed me for the next couple of years until I moved off campus.

People can be so sick in a rape situation, they'll even attack the people who back up the victim's story. I'm shocked this kind of thing is still going on, the same as it did in 1973.

[LisaL]

93. She doesn't back up anyone's story.

She admitted she saw nothing, while she was there.
WTF cares about her feelings on the matter?
The woman says that she wants to profit from the case, and you think I should believe her hunch?
This case is as ridiculous a case as it can get.
The accuser couldn't even pick up her attackers, until 3 weeks later, when she was shown a photo line up that only included lacrosse players. Pardon me if I am not going to be concerned with a woman that is out to get some $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, by her own admission.
http://www.wral.com/news/8893975/detail.html

[OzarkDem]

141. She's backing up the other woman's story

regarding the behavior of the students that she saw that night. That alone is causing her to get a lot of criticism.

I applaud her for standing up in a no-win situation. She stands to lose far more than she gains in doing this. And keep in mind, if it were money she was after, she could have made it just as easily by not backing up her friend's story.

If you were a woman you would understand.

[bloom]

44. It is interesting that the smears would start

AFTER she said the defense team was lying.

Not surprising.

It seems that she could have a lot of good information on who was NOT in the bathroom. (Kind of like the Clue game).

[LostinVA]

48. Yeah, when she was keeping quiet, they didn't even mention her

Until they overplayed their hand... then, when she she gave an interview -- BAM! They hit her with the Smear Machine. Girlfriend isn't backing down, though. And she was honest about the PR firm. THAT'S what'll save her -- like Faye Resnick in the OJ trials. Daniel Petrocelli said she was the most honest witness on either side - she was honest about herself, everyone else, and stayed to the facts as much as possible.

[KittyWampus]

62. There are no smears. Please start your game of Clue over.

[bloom]

64. Smears/discrediting/whatever

Not that they can't and won't do worse - I expect that they will.


"The attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her. They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage."

"We believe ... her story has been motivated by her own self-interest," said attorney Bill Thomas, who represents one of the uncharged players. "I think that a jury will ultimately have to decide the question of her credibility."

Roberts, 31, was arrested on March 22 - eight days after the party - on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to documents obtained by the AP.

"It seems she is receiving very favorable financial treatment for what she is now saying," Thomas said."

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/431162.html


Of course Rush already called both of them "ho"s

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604030004

Carlson has said similar things...

" It's OK to have a bias against strippers in this case, isn't it?"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604120013

"Savage has also previously referred to the alleged victim as a "dirty, verminous black stripper.""

That would apply to both of them, I presume.

[jukes]

81. semantic bullshit

"smear" is a perfectly acceptable term for attempting to discredit a witness based on her past crminal record or attempts to gain compensation for an horrific experience.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

97. Why is this controversial?

Under an adversarial court system, the *duty* of a defence team is to try and get their client acquitted by all legal means. *If* their claims about her are false, then they've clearly done something wrong, but discrediting hostile witnesses where possible is their moral duty.

If you don't allow accused rapists access to defence lawyers who will use all legal means, sporting or otherwise, to get them acquitted, then what you have is a conviction system, not a justice system.

I think there's arguably a case for stronger laws against reporting details of all those involved in criminal trials until the verdict is in, except in cases of specific public interest. But in the absence of such laws, we should be criticising the defence team if they *don't* do things like this, not if they do (assuming, of course, that the allegations are true - if they're not then they've stepped over the obvious line).

The people responsible for revealing the truth are the police, the judge and the jury.

[mondo joe]

119. Every now and then DUers forget things like the right to defense and

they channel some sort of weird hyper-freeperism.

[bloom]

124. maybe you agree with Carlson

" It's OK to have a bias against strippers in this case, isn't it?"


Some things are legitimate and some things are not. You may think that it IS legitimate to have a "bias against strippers". I do not.

She is not the one on trial here. That is large part of it. So while it may make sense to bring up relevant things in court - the more that the defense team (along with Rush, Carlson, Savage, et al) smears the women - the more they are assholes in my opinion. And to me it makes their case look weaker if they have to go out of their way to attack the victims.

And then there is the phenomena of how rape victims are attacked more than other victims -as if they are the ones on trial.

And I don't think too much about people who give this sort of thing a lot of credibility.

All of the things that were brought up look nit-picky and/or stupid and/or sexist.

[mondo joe]

126. When did the poster suggest or state a bias against strippers?

You're implying things about another poster that were never even said.

Now who's smearing?

[northzax]

61. which smears are these?

I see an email she wrote to a PR firm looking for advice. She did, in fact, write that, correct?

and the embezzlement thing. of course the DA cut a deal, that's what DAs DO. how is that a smear? and when a witness is currently on bail for an embezzlement charge, that's relevant, don't you think? as relevant as the cab driver, I think. it looks to me like a very factual article, in the same tone as the ones about the accused's previous brushes with the law (was that a 'smear' as well? I don't think so)

We don't know what anyone has said under oath, before then it's all smoke and mirrors, from all the witnesses.

[bloom]

63. " the second dancer has come out in support of the accuser, offers details

"Involuntary Intoxication?
In the ongoing Duke University sexual assault probe, the second dancer has come out in support of the accuser, and offers details that suggest the alleged victim may have been drugged."


WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Susannah Meadows
Updated: 3:27 p.m. ET April 18, 2006

"As a grand jury met in Durham, N.C., Monday to possibly consider indictments against Duke University lacrosse team members for allegedly raping an exotic dancer last month at a party, the second dancer who was there that night has come forward in support of the accuser. She has offered new details that suggest the alleged victim might have taken or been given some drug at the party.

According to the second dancer, when the alleged victim arrived at the March 13 party to perform, she was clearly sober, the second dancer’s attorney Mark Simeon tells NEWSWEEK. But by the time the alleged victim left the party, about an hour after she had arrived, the second dancer noticed that the woman appeared to be under the influence of some substance. In a call to a police dispatcher at about 1:30 that night, which was made public last week, one of the first officers to see the accuser said she was “passed-out drunk” but “not in distress.” She was taken to the hospital some time in the early morning hours of March 14, where she underwent a battery of tests. Robert Ekstrand, who represents 33 of the lacrosse players, declined to comment on the matter.

When asked about the alleged victim’s evident intoxication the night of the party, District Attorney Mike Nifong told NEWSWEEK several weeks ago that her impaired state was not necessarily voluntary. Refusing to speak about the evidence in this case specifically, Nifong, in retrospect, now appears to have been offering a clue: “What does it mean that she was intoxicated?” said Nifong. “Just as an example--speaking hypothetically--if I had a witness who saw her right before this and she was not intoxicated, and then I had a witness who said that she was given a drink at the party and after taking a few sips of that drink acted in a particular way, that could be evidence of something other than intoxication, or at least other than voluntary intoxication,” Nifong told NEWSWEEK. “There are many explanations for someone appearing to be intoxicated,” he said. Asked if he had any evidence suggesting this scenario took place the night of the alleged rape, Nifong responded, “I don’t have any evidence that I want to talk to you about right now.” Still speaking hypothetically, he went on to say that depending on the circumstances, an alleged victim’s intoxication might make her a more credible witness.

The second dancer, who says she was the person who called 911 that night to report that she had been called a n----- by one of the men at the house, also does not support the defense’s version of events. When presented with a detailed timeline of the night offered by the defense, the second dancer told NEWSWEEK through her attorney that it was not accurate....

But Simeon told NEWSWEEK that his client in fact rejects the defense’s version of events. “I’ve shown their story line to my client and she says there’s a lot that’s wrong with it.” From the beginning the second dancer has been cooperating fully with the police investigation and with district attorney Nifong, and looks forward to testifying truthfully at trial, Simeon said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12357584/site/newsweek/

[fishnfla]

69. She called 911only because she was called a racial slur?

I cant believe that, all this stuff is going down, underage drinking and threats of broomsticks, and she calls 911 for the n-word? Did the cops respond to this call?

Has there been a transcript of this 911 call, or is the same call as from the grocery store parking lot?

[LisaL]

92. Supposedly, the cops did respond, but when they showed

up, everybody was gone.
And yes, there is a transcript of 911 call. It's not the same call as from the grocery's parking lot.

[Walt Disney]

65. With all due respect, she smeared herself.

[LostinVA]

66. With all due respect, that's is not correct

Actually, it's a bit ludicrous, especially when Bloom has presented the smears so very factually.

Good try though. Why are you so intent on helping to discredit this very important witness?

[Walt Disney]

67. I'm not really intent on doing anything with respect to this case;

I just happened to see the woman in the process of being interviewed. And she is far from being an "important witness." Rather, she is not a credible witness.

[AllieB]

68. Not credible according to whom?

[Walt Disney]

95. To anyone who examines her statements objectively.

[LisaL]

98. She admitted she wants to make profit out of this.

Would you find anyone who said they are out to make profit out of it credible? And never mind, credible or not, she does not claim she saw anything happening.

[mondo joe]

116. The only opinions that matter are the judge and jury.

The judge for what is admissable, the jury for their determination based on - one hopes - the evidence.

[AllieB]

129. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

:thumbsup:

[Walt Disney]

192. That is true; however, I think this woman's credibility is so far gone

that the prosecutor will never put her on the stand.

[dogday]

71. Not credible, who is credible ????

[jukes]

85. not a single response. from any detractors!

i'm offline, so you can post your rebuttals w/o fear now!

[LisaL]

91. Who is credible? Well, not her, that's for sure.

[dogday]

99. You don't know that, your answer is not credible.....

[LisaL]

105. Unlike some, I got common sense.

[dogday]

112. Wow watch it you are common

some of us have more than that!!!!!

[jukes]

83. not intent, walt

but you insist on characterizing her as "unimportant" and "not credible".

my "intent" meter just buried the needle!

[Lex]

84. The defense found her perfectly credible until . . .

she said she believed something terrible happened to the alleged victim that night.

Soon as she said that, the defense began to say to the press that she had credibility problems and released information about her prior arrest.

Figures.

[LisaL]

90. WTF cares what she believes? By her own admission,

she didn't see anything.

[dogday]

100. She saw events up to and after the alleged

incident... Her testimony is revelant...

[AllieB]

102. Exactly.

Too bad the people who have bought the defense's talking points hook, line and sinker don't have the critical thinking skills to figure that out.

[LisaL]

104. The second stripper admits she is out

to make a profit. You figure this one out.

[AllieB]

107. That's what the defense is saying

[LisaL]

113. No, that is not what defense is saying.

It's her own words. She gave a press conference.

[dogday]

110. Where is that exactly, the link

you orginially posted never shows that and I would like other sources besides defense attornies, they are hardly reliable now are they... I am following the rule of law buddy, what are following????

[OzarkDem]

142. No she didn't

and your motives are suspect in repeating false and misleading information.

[Walt Disney]

96. Well, they are "the defense." And like you say--"figures."

[Neil Lisst]

122. Do you usually find someone credible after they change their story?

When someone lies to you, you doubt them, especially when the DA makes a sweetheart deal with the witness on her outstanding criminal case.

Standard procedure in LAW is to impeach a witness on credibility the instant they change their story.

I don't know how anyone can say "she changed her story after 3 weeks, and now they're attacking her credibility." That's what they should do. She changed her story. That doesn't trouble you? She tried to hire a PR firm to see how she could help herself most. She made a deal with prosecutors that avoided jail OR bond.

She lied and now they're holding her to task, as anyone would faced with a lying witness who changed her story to gain from it.

Defense counsel are not smearing her, they're telling the truth about her.

[BrownOak]

137. Well, gosh, let's see, what has happened since then

Let's see, first the second dancer, by her own admission, states that she didn't believe the story from the accuser.

Then, eight days after the party, the second dancer gives her interview to the police about the party and is immediately arrested on a probation violation. She's given a secured bond of $25K, meaning she had to leave 15% of that with the state.

Then, she changes her story and leaks the information to the press that the defense is lying when they say that she doesn't believe the allegations from the accuser.

Then, she gets her bond terms altered to an unsecured bond because the DA has determined she's no longer a flight risk. This begs the question, was she a flight risk before when the bond was originally set? If so, what's changed? I mean, other than her story about what happened that evening, what's changed?

Then, she contacts a PR firm stating that (and this is a direct quote) "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."

So, yeah, maybe some things have changed since her original statements that would make one question her motivations and credibility.

[dogday]

146. Why do you make these things facts?????

Do you not follow the rule of law???? The defense can say anything they want... Look at David Westerfield, his counsel smeared the parents of the little girl he killed, all the while knowing he did it, cause he was willing to give them the body location for life in prison before the trial ever stated, but the public never knew that till the trial was over....

I take Defense lawyers talk with a grain of salt since then... If these guys were so innocent, why is the law so hell-bent about this????

[BrownOak]

148. Because they are a matter of public record

It's not the defense that is saying any of this:

-The defense are not the ones saying that the second dancer didn't at first believe the allegations. That's from this story which is based on an interview with her.

-The defense are not the ones saying that the second dancer was arrested after her police interview. That's from this story which is based on public record.

-The defense are not the ones noting change in bond structure, that's in both of those links as a matter of public record.

-The defense are not the ones stating her bond was changed because she's no longer a flight risk. That's from the first link and is a quote from the second dancer's attorney.

-The defense are not the ones stating she contacted a PR firm to try to find ways to exploit this. She freely admits as much in the first link and you can read the entire email here.


I think it's fine for you to take the comments from the defense with a grain of salt. But this part of the story is on a low sodium diet. All the facts are out there and none of it looks good from the standpoint of the prosecution.

Why is the law so hell-bent on this? Well, first there's the election angle. But there's also the part where the DA has backed himself into a corner and has no choice to proceed. For all the outrage about the defense trying this in the media, it seems forgotten that Nifong (the DA) made the first public comments when he implicating the players were guilty. Since that point he went on dozens of interviews, both locally and nationally. He's characterized the players as "a bunch of hooligans" and he's made statements that the players need to step up and tell what happened, implying that something did happen. Remember that when the DA talks, people immediately give it creditability. And then he stops talking and people say, "he must have something." so Nifong's put himself in the position that had better find someone, or he's going to look the fool and lose the election.

Consider this - in addition to his public comments, which may very well draw him censure from the State Bar, Nifong has also had the police go to the players' dorm rooms and try to do interviews without the players' attorneys present. It's a fine line to walk because you cannot do that with a custodial interview. But the general approach is that once a person is represented, everything goes through their attorney. He's also put together a photo lineup that guaranteed the accuser would pick a member of the lacrosse team. Those again are known facts. They come from the Duke public safety office and from the police report of the lineup.

The North Carolina recommended guidelines for photo identification lineups calls for 7 fillers to be used for each suspect. In this case, the DA used only photos of the players. (There's an unsubstantiated rumor that the photos used were photos take of the players with their shirts off taken at the time of the DNA testing.) So the DA was guaranteed that no matter who the accuser picked, they would be members of the team. Doesn't that seem incredibly suspect to you?

Oh, one more thing, what were the police asking the players that night at the dorm? They were trying to get them to identify who was at the party that night. Maybe Mr. Nifong wasn't completely comfortable with the results of that photo ID as well. On top of all of this, there was an email generated by one of the players claiming to be ready to go to the police the next day and confess. That player claims he never sent the email and he hasn't gone to the police. Suspicions are high that the origin of that email was the DA's investigators.

So doesn't it seem that the DA is looking pretty desperate and working outside the lines in the last couple of weeks?

[dogday]

151. Public record is not a record of law

you must prove your facts, on both sides, not just one side and you don't try a case in the public.. Public record, my ass, this is defense spin for their client, and they came out swinging from moment one... This is a matter of LAW not the public record ... man

[BrownOak]

167. Well, much of the public record to which I am referring

is literally public record. Like the records of her statement to the police, her arrest, and her bond set as secured and her bond being changed to unsecured. The only thing stopping them from being record of law is because the trial hasn't started yet and they haven't been introduced. At that point they will be record of law.

As for the other stuff, I was relaying the statements from both the second dancer and from her attorney. Again, since these are their own statements, the only thing that will prevent them from becoming record of law is if they accuse the media of lying or misrepresenting those facts once this thing hits the court. However, it would seem likely that if they were misquoted, both parties would speak up.

[Moosepoop]

165. Prove that she's changed her story.

You said earlier: "Let's see, first the second dancer, by her own admission, states that she didn't believe the story from the accuser."

Then you said: "The defense are not the ones saying that the second dancer didn't at first believe the allegations. That's from this story which is based on an interview with her."

The story you linked to does not have any quotes from the dancer stating that she originally did not believe the allegations. The video of her interview does not show her making such a statement, either.

And yes, the defense has been out in force, saying that she's changed her story. One of the lawyers claims to have "seen a summary" of her initial interviews with his team, but he does not offer a particular damning statement. Seems to me they'd be trumpeting any such quotes from the rooftops.

Since you are the one proclaiming that the second dancer has admitted to changing her story from disbelieving the allegations to believing them, then please provide an actual quote or documentation of what she said.

[BrownOak]

170. Well, this seems a pretty powerful indication

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.

True, those are not quotes from her, but that is the lead to the interview story so it seems pretty logical that the lead is based on her statements. Unless you are claiming that the AP would deliberately misrepresent the story.

[Moosepoop]

185. Nice try.

This is from the same article:

"Defense attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her."

*******

That's a "pretty powerful indication" of what the defense has said, not what the dancer herself has said.

And no, I'm not "claiming" anything about the AP's representation of the story.
Look at the bottom of the article. It was copyrighted (and presumably written) by WRAL.com.
The AP "contributed" to the report.
Yep, the AP contributed the video of the interview, and probably a transcript of it, but any misrepresentation seems to belong to the lawyers and to WRAL. And you.

[BrownOak]

187. Nice try (squared)

here's another story from the AP with the same lead, but not from WRAL.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003270377

The pertinent section:

Kim Roberts had told The Associated Press on Thursday in her first on-the-record interview that she wasn't sure that had the rape occurred on her colleague.

[Moosepoop]

189. Squared? More like circular.

You keep going round and round in circles on this.

First, "All Headline News" is not the AP. They are different organizations. They have different owners and CEOs. A Headline News article that includes a line such as "so-and-so told the AP..." is still in no way, shape or form an Associated Press article. Ask the AP, if you don't believe me.

This article from Headline News was written by Shaveta Bansal, who is a -- wait for it -- HEADLINE NEWS contributor, not an ASSOCIATED PRESS contributor. Got it??

This article was written (rewritten?) to sound just like the others out there such as what you have already linked to.

Now, let's look at what the author of this article wrote. First, the sentence you provided:

Kim Roberts had told The Associated Press on Thursday in her first on-the-record interview that she wasn't sure that had the rape occurred on her colleague.

That sentence doesn't even make sense. I'm certain the writer meant for the word "had" to follow the phrase "the rape", not precede it. Just a typo or bad editing, but hey, we all make mistakes.

But now for the supporting quote, the meat of the story, the statement from the dancer that demonstrates her previous doubt:

"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred — and I never will," she said.

Um, yeah. That's changing her story, all right. I distinctly remember her saying that she was in the bathroom and saw the rape happen with her own two eyes... oh wait, no she didn't. She never said any such thing.
So, by currently stating (and yes, it's a current statement quoted from the AP interview) that she does not claim to have personally witnessed the rape in the bathroom, she has "changed her tune" exactly how???

Try again, and please come up with a statement made by the dancer that she originally doubted the allegations, as you keep claiming. Such a statement, if it existed, would be a very hot sound bite, and should be available to you all over the 'net. You seem to have a fair bit of trouble finding it.
You've been giving it the ol' college try though... Duke, perhaps?

[BrownOak]

193. It's the second dancer on the grassy knoll theory

Looks like the misrepresentation is now the lawyers, WRAL, me, and about 100 other media outlets who have reported this in the same damn way as WRAL. At least I’m going to have a lot of company.

There will not be an actual quote because the AP did not directly quote her, but rather summarized her statements in their lead to the article. So no, I cannot provide the words from her with a quote. However, if the AP, or any other news outlet reported that someone had said something, but did not use a direct quote, your options are to either believe the story, doubt the accuracy or the story, or question the veracity of the reporting. Which one of those are you going with?

Regardless of what you consider the meat of the story, the issue we are discussing is if the second dancer changed her story. Sure, she is saying that she cannot say for certain if a rape occurred, but she has gone from saying that she did not think a rape occurred (when she said she doubted the accuser’s story) to saying that she cannot say if a rape occurred. That’s a shift in position that is really magnified when she adds that she thinks the players are guilty. So, she has gone from saying that she did not think a rape happened to that while she cannot say for certain a rape happened she thinks it did. It would seem that would be a significant change in her read on the situation.

With that in mind, here are some other links which hopefully won’t be totally dismissed because a typo:

An exotic dancer who performed at a Duke University lacrosse team party said she initially doubted the story of a colleague who said she was dragged into a bathroom and raped. Now, Kim Roberts isn't so sure.

…snip…

"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."
The Philadelphia Inquirer

Hmm, exotic dancer said she initially doubted....



*******or******

Another dancer at the infamous Duke lacrosse team party says at first she doubted the story of a colleague who told police she was raped there.

…snip…

But now Kim Roberts tells The Associated Press she believes it.
KWTX

OK, dancer says at first she doubted....

*******or******


Here’s one from The San Diego Union-Tribune which is notable because it’s the same exact story as the WRAL linked story but this one has the headline: 2nd dancer at Duke lacrosse party questions her initial doubts of rape accuser.

What, dancer questions her initial doubts....

You’ll note that they refer to “her initial doubts” and not things like “the stories of her initial doubts” or “the defense claims of her initial doubts.” It appears that this paper doesn’t agree with your reading of the article. You’ll get the same reading on it here from WWAY with their headline 2nd party dancer now questions doubts about accuser.


*******or******

There’s this one here with the headline Second Dancer in Duke Rape Case Changes Story. which opens with:

The other stripper tells The Associated Press that she thinks they're guilty.

Kim Roberts says she at first doubted the story of a colleague who told police she was dragged into a bathroom and raped at a Duke lacrosse party. But she now tells the AP that after seeing steps the defense attorneys have taken that she wonders about their character.

Hmm, Kim Roberts says she at first doubted....

*******or******

Finally, there’s this blurb from BET, who would no doubt look to spin all this in favor of the suspects: Another exotic dancer, who performed at the team’s party, initially told police that she did not believe the accuser, who she did not know before that night.

Now Kim Roberts says she's not so sure it didn't happen.

OK, dancer initially told police she did not believe....



Are you saying that the media outlets who have reported this by attributing those “doubts about the accuser” or “the accuser’s story” to the dancer have all misinterpreted what they got from the AP and that you, who hasn’t seen the transcripts of the interview, nor the unedited video footage, possess the key to what the AP really meant.

Or, do you think this is some giant AP spin to misrepresent the initial feelings of the second dancer, some terrible reporting mistake that the second dancer and her attorney didn’t seem to think was worth correcting, or if in fact perhaps the second dancer did really tell the AP that she initially doubted the accuser?

Which seems the more plausible explanation?

[Moosepoop]

198. You are an advertiser's (or Republican's) wet dream.

That's the most plausible explanation.

For you, if something is repeated in print or on the TeeVee often enough, it's fact, whether there is substantive proof of what is being said or not.

What you have provided in the above post are merely many examples of the cut-and-paste style of "reporting" that passes for journalism these days.
Every one of those articles are a rehash of something someone originally wrote, with a few words changed here and there to avoid copyright problems. No matter the source of the "original" item, there seems to be nothing anywhere to substantiate the basic premise -- that the second dancer originally doubted that a rape had occurred. Nowhere.
If there really is such a statement, made by her, why isn't it out there in quoted form? The articles have gone from "the attorneys claim she said" to "she said", without any example of her actually saying it. What quotes of hers that they do provide do not reflect any original doubt.

Why do you keep trying to get me to say that there's some vast conspiracy afoot at the AP?? I think that perhaps one reporter did some sloppy writing, and it got copied and recopied ad nauseum. And that, for some people, makes it fact.

I'm sure you have a house full of Ronco products, since they said on TeeVee that each one of them "reallyreallyworks!!!!", and those ads were on many different channels. Therefore, what was said about each of those products MUST have been necessarily true, right?
Do you still have your Atlas Bodybuilding Course that you ordered out of a comic book as a kid? I'm sure you were convinced of it's effectiveness by the "proof" of the cartoon drawings showing the 97-pound weakling becoming a muscle-bound hunk. And it wasn't just in ONE comic book, it was in ALL of them!!! So I bet you thought the claims made in the ad were true. Did the bodybuilding course work? Did it help you get your spot on the Duke sports team?

Just admit that you can't produce proof of the dancer changing her story, because at this point there isn't any out there. I know you won't admit it, you can't, you don't have the thinking skills required to discern fact from supposition. But you're right about one thing -- you have lots of company.

[BrownOak]

201. When all else fails, go ad hominem

Quality work on your part, I'll give you credit. But perhaps in your screed of personal attacks you may have taken the time to ask yourself what proof you have that would indicate the other side of the equation. What proof do you have that all those headlines saying that the "Second Dancer Changes Story" are incorrect? Why are they all wrong, yet you're right?

I'm well aware of how cut and paste journalism works. In fact, almost all of those reports were compiled by using the AP source which was pretty much the point to the whole exercise. I understand that with my limited thinking skills that may not have been 100% clear when I stated:

Are you saying that the media outlets who have reported this by attributing those “doubts about the accuser” or “the accuser’s story” to the dancer have all misinterpreted what they got from the AP and that you, who hasn’t seen the transcripts of the interview, nor the unedited video footage, possess the key to what the AP really meant.

See, the point was that if I've been overly assumptive in my reading of that AP report, then so have a whole bunch of other people out there, including those who are actually publishing the news. You're doubting the accuracy of that report saying it was misrepresented by WRAL and me. I'm telling you that either there's a whole bunch of media outlets out there run by people without your superior intellect who can understand what the opening paragraph is trying to say, or perhaps you may be wrong in your assumption that the reporter erred in attributing the defense's statements about the dancer's original doubt to her.

The reality of this situation is that reporters do not use every quote they get. But just because something is not supported with a quote does not mean it is unsubstantiated. Read that opening paragraph again:

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.

It does not say "defense attorneys claim that at first," nor does it say "sources indicate that at first." It is clearly written in such a way as to indicate that those thoughts were the second dancer's as she related them to the author.

It's been several days since that story broke. Do you think that a person who wanted advice on how to "spin this to her advantage" would let something like that sit out there for several days, misrepresenting her position? If all these media outlets who reported it as I've interpreted it are incorrect, don't you think one of them would issue some sort of correction?

So maybe "proof" for you means that you're not going to believe anything that is reported to come from someone without a direct quote. But for me, I'm comfortable at this point accepting the belief that the AP would not intentionally misrepresent this issue and if they did those who were misrepresented would have had something to say about it. Taking it further, what I lack in those thinking skills you speak about is rivaled in shortcoming only by my limitations of arrogance, for I lack the hubris to automatically assume something to be an error on someone else's part if it doesn't fit within my strict confines of acceptance.

[Neil Lisst]

202. Good post, BrownOak

It goes without saying that no one online posting here can "prove" anything right now, beyond what was printed in a particular source. We can all use our online sources to see what has been written consistently.

It's clear the second dancer, Kim Roberts, did change her story from how she felt initially. It's likely she's been under great pressure from her community to support the accuser's claim.

[Moosepoop]

203. Aww, you guys are cute.

So "truthiness" is what is "written consistently"?
No wonder the Bush cabal had such an easy time with the mainstream media and those who consume it.

You guys believe whatever you want to believe.
Just try not to be too surprised when your super-secret decoder ring tells you to

B-E-S-U-R-E-T-O-D-R-I-N-K-Y-O-U-R-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E.

[Neil Lisst]

205. and you're aptly named

Your posts are uniformly weak. Do you do anything other than use middle school insults?

[Moosepoop]

206. You're becoming petulant, it must be past your bedtime.

But in answer to your question, yes. I challenge people who make unfounded declarations to prove them. Obviously, the poster I had asked to prove something couldn't do so, and then for whatever reason you felt the need to jump in. Odd that you deemed the other poster to be in need of your assistance to deal with my "uniformly weak" posts, but that's probably to be expected. Every imagined jock needs a cheerleader.

[BrownOak]

207. Yeah, you really throw down the gauntlet

So "truthiness" is what is "written consistently"?
No wonder the Bush cabal had such an easy time with the mainstream media and those who consume it.

You guys believe whatever you want to believe.

First, thanks much for your permission to believe what I want to. Very generous of you.

Now you want to equate this situation to the truthiness that's associated with the Bushbots. But we're really not talking about the same thing here now are we? This is a situation where you're claiming that the article has falsely attributed a position to the subject. That differs greatly from the truthiness where misinformation is fed to the media by someone trying to manipulate it.

Again, I'll ask you the questions which you don't want to answer. The article states that:

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.

Since the article did not state "defense attorneys claim that at first," or "sources indicate that at first" when talking about the stripper's alleged doubts, do you agree that the article reads as if those thoughts were the dancers?

You've also stated that you believe that all of those articles which state that the dancer changed her position were merely repeating the sloppy writing of one reporter. Are you saying that the reporter was sloppy because he did not offer a quote that satisfied your needed level of proof? Or are you saying it was sloppy reporting because the reporter mistakenly attributed the defense's comments regarding doubt to the dancer? And if you're saying it was a mistake on the part of the reporter, well I do know how much you like to challenge posters who make unfounded declarations, so have at it. Show us how this was a mistake.

While you're busy avoiding those questions with another round of your clever repartee you can pause to read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12442765/site/newsweek/page... /

At first, Roberts says she did not think the other dancer had been raped.

<snip>

Police also questioned Roberts. It is not clear what she told them, or whether her statement to police matches her later statements to NEWSWEEK and other media outlets. Roberts did say that, within several days of the incident, she went to James D. (Butch) Williams, a prominent local attorney, to ask his advice. She says that from the outset Williams told her that he already represented one of the Duke players. Williams asked if she believed there had been a rape, and Roberts answered no. But when Williams tried to get her to sign an affidavit, she balked. She said she later became livid when she heard that Williams had shared her story with other attorneys. Seeing Williams's face appear on a TV during her interview with NEWSWEEK, she stood up and began punching the air in anger at him. "I feel like he preyed on my naiveté," she told NEWSWEEK. "I don't want someone to play me like I'm stupid."

Roberts says she changed her mind about whether the other woman had been raped.

Sadly, no direct quotes so this clearly fails the Moosepoop standard. What do think, more sloppy reporting from those hacks at Newsweek?

[jukes]

82. w/o respect

she did nothing underhanded.

[Walt Disney]

94. Whatever you say...

[jukes]

184. what an

adroit response! i'm so chastised!

[LisaL]

89. Ludicrous. The woman herself isn't even hiding

that she wants to profit from all this, and you think someone is smearing her.
And the way this case is going, it's clear this DA was out to get them, whoever they are. I mean, this is a story of so-called line up-
three weeks after the event, the accuser is shown 46 pictures of lacrosse players only. No matter which one she picked-he was going to be a suspect.
It's absolutely ludicrous, but you are rather be concerned with a woman that has an embezzlement conviction and admits her goal is to profit from the case.
http://www.wral.com/news/8893975/detail.html

[dogday]

101. Perhaps we should ask the one guy who

is guilty of an assault of a homeless man.. There is an evil person there, beat up someone who is already down on their luck... You bring up previous crimes, be prepared to understand what that means..

[LisaL]

103. WTF are you talking about? Guilty of an assault on a homeless

man? You got all your facts screwed up, buddy.

[dogday]

108. No I don't

One of the defendants has that history, check again buddy!!!

[LisaL]

111. Nope.

Nobody beat up a homeless man. It's like you heard a noise, but haven't a clue where it's coming from.

[dogday]

114. He has a record and recieved

community service... I bet you most of the people who posted on this topic know that, but you... But you know it now....

[AllieB]

117. But those poor boys are angels

O8)

How dare you point out that they may be sociopaths!

[dogday]

118. The truth be the truth

I hate it for him, he had to learn the hard way....

[dogday]

120. Poor is one thing that does not describe them

Their parents were able to post their 400,000 bond without any problem...

[AllieB]

115. Your obsession with this case is scary

are you this obsessed with Bush's lying? Republican corruption? a possible nuclear attack on Iran? Getting Democrats elected in 2006?

[Neil Lisst]

125. Your obsession with Lizzy is scary

Why do you feel a need to chastise that poster for posting her thoughts on this topic? Do you think that by nagging her on each and every post you'll change her mind? And what's wrong with her disagreeing with you?

Sometimes people disagree, and it doesn't mean one of them is defective.

[AllieB]

128. Who are you again? I don't remember ever having an interchange with you.

In case you didn't notice, the poster that you are referring to responded to me first. Wanting to find out her motivations is not obsessive. I'm trying to understand where she's coming from.

No need to get defensive.

[Neil Lisst]

130. I'm the guy who thinks you're obsessing, not Lizzy

In your post to which I directed my comment, you attacked Lizzy for allegedly being obsessed with this case, and then you mentioned other political issues, as if to suggest the poster might not really be a legit DUer.

It gets old, that constant cacophony of cat calls from those here who think anyone who disagrees with them is a freeper.

[AllieB]

131. I never called her a freeper, nor did I imply it

I'm sorry if you read it that way. I was wondering if she put the same amount of energy into causes that directly affect us as Americans.

It's very hard to miss when it's the same person who responds to me everytime I post on this subject. I think your judgement is clouded by the fact that you both agree on this matter, and you feel that you need to defend her behavior. I have no illusions that I may disagree with you on this thread, but agree with you on another subject. Same goes for the aforementioned poster. I have no beef with anyone, but when they obsessively respond to me, I have to wonder why. :shrug:

[mondo joe]

133. If she's posting as often as you are, wouldn't you be equally

obsessed?

There are a handful of posters fueling most of the Duke Rape threads. Lizzy certainly counts among them, but is far from the only one.

[AllieB]

134. I'm not posting nearly as often as others

if you guys are so obsessed with my behavior, do a search. All I know is that when I do choose to post on a Duke thread, someone always responds to me.

Nice pile on defending your pal. :-)

[BrownOak]

139. Actually you do, it wasn't a homeless guy

Finnerty did beat up someone, but the guy wasn't homeless. Nor was he gay as the media is trying to portray this. Finnerty called him gay (which is pretty ugly) but he also called him other things. It's clear that he (Finnerty) was an asshole that night, but it's not true that it was a hate crime nor was it a crime on the homeless.

[dogday]

145. Oh the media is portraying this badly----

that's a freaking laugh and a half.... They are portraying his beating on homeless man as bad, yet they sling rocks and arrows at the victim......

[BrownOak]

150. Dude... he wasn't freakin' homeless, let go of the bumper here n/t

[dogday]

152. I posted the link

whether you like it or not, this guy has a past of violence....

[BrownOak]

156. I don't argue that

I'm saying that the guy he beat up in Georgetown wasn't homeless. Nothing in your link suggests otherwise.

[dogday]

158. And what does it matter

he has the history of violence, you going to smear the victim, get the story straight on the accused.. He is quilt and I heard on MSNBC it was, but then again, can you really believe the media...

[BrownOak]

161. Yeah, it does matter

If you are going to bring up the history of these people that's fine. Just be accurate. You know that beating up the homeless is going to produce more disgust than beating up someone who's not homeless. I'm not condoning either of them and I agree that it is a reflection of this guys character. However, if you want to be accurate, saying he beat up the homeless or that he beat up a gay guy are not the case.

[dogday]

163. Yes it does matter He was not homeless- He was being called gay!!!!

I am sorry there is a difference between homeless and gay... But of course you don't believe this victim either do you....

According to court records, Finnerty and two former Chaminade teammates attacked a man who was driving by The Georgetown Inn on Wisconsin Avenue in the early hours of Nov. 5, "busting his lip and bruising his chin."

The man said that he told them to stop "calling him gay and ... derogatory names."



http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/429880.html


On edit: He has a history of violence and violence in a group setting.... That don't look so good either.....

[BrownOak]

172. Let's contain this to the posts at the top of the thread

rather than repeat everything.

[dogday]

174. heheheh

I can't post no more ma, me fingers are broke.....lol :rofl: