home

Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's Changed Story

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Sun May 28, 2006 at 10:48:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

ABC11 Eyewitness News in Durham has obtained a copy of a police report that outlines in greater detail how the accuser changed her story.

< London Lawyers: 60 Guantanamo Detainees Were Kids | Haditha Killings: Video and Survivor Interviews >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's Changed Story | 194 comments (194 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#1)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:03:52 AM EST
    Deleted Let's not start a new thread with sniping at each other over past comments. Please start anew and discuss the case. Thanks.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    Sorry, IMHO, I can't respond to your misinterpretation of my post. Hopefully, TL will pay close enough attention to your posts.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:23:15 AM EST
    My transcription of page 3 of the handwritten report by Sgt. Shelton:
    She said that they left [the party] and got into "Nikki's" car. At that time, she said that someone from the party wanted them to come back into the house. She said that "Nikki" wanted to go back inside, but that she did not. She said that she and "Nikki" got into an argument about going back inside. She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one had forced her to have sex. She then mentioned that someone had taken her money. I walked to the parking lot to call the Watch Commander and let him know that she had recanted her rape allegation. Within a few minutes, I was told that she told the SANE doctor that she had been raped. I called the Watch Commander back and told him that she had changed her story back to being raped. I returned to the room where she was and asked her if she had or had not been raped. She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bathroom. I spoke with a Duke Police Lieutenant who had one of their officers go by the house to see if they could determine who lived at the house and confirm that the resident(s) was a student at Duke. The Watch Commander told me that C.I.D. had been notified. I left the hospital at that time. Duke Police still had not advised me if the resident of the house was a student.
    Read the flow of events. The AV is being evasive. Rephrased post from end of previous thread: Sgt. Shelton leaves the hospital room to report to the Watch Commander that she has recanted her rape allegation. A few minutes later he is told that she has told the SANE nurse that she was raped. He goes back inside the hospital room and confronts her directly -- was she or was she not raped? She refuses to answer "Yes" or "No." She begins talking obliquely, as if she is stalling for time. She starts crying and saying "something" about "them" dragging her into the bathroom, but apparently won't be specific about any of it. She will tell a SANE doctor that she was raped if the police officer leaves the room, but she will not say the same thing if the police officer is present? Why not?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:26:36 AM EST
    From the ABC11 report, this: According to the report, neither woman told police that Roberts also performed at the lacrosse team's party. At what point did the AV's story about both women being in the bathroom while the AV was being raped appear in the series of stories that the AV was telling? Is it now not part of the "official story" on which the rape charges are based? How was it deleted? When the AV sat down and wrote her version of events a day later, didn't anyone notice the discrepancies between what she was claiming and what she finally wrote down? I presume that the AV's statement must be in the possession of the defense by now. Any guess why that hasn't been released?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#5)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    SLO, So the story about being pulled out of the car, groped and then taken to the house and being separated and the AV being pulled into the bathroom allegedly happened as the two returned to the party after the broomstick remark. Nikki/Kim didn't want to return, but the AV did. Then men pulled the AV out of the car and groped her. But Nikki/Kim, in her recountings of the events of that night, never sees men pulling her out of the car and then pulling her into the bathroom. Presumably, Nikki/Kim would have also noticed that the men carried/dragged/steered her from the car on street across the yard and into the house. But if this is occurring a little before midnight, this would be when Bissey sees the two women at the back of the house trying to get in (or back in). Of course, this doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because the AV was being evasive and kept changing her story. Won't Sgt. Shelton make for an interesting witness for the defense?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    So the story about being pulled out of the car, groped and then taken to the house and being separated and the AV being pulled into the bathroom allegedly happened as the two returned to the party after the broomstick remark.
    Since nowhere does it say that the groping occurred BEFORE she was taken into the house, it is wishful thinking to imagine that that is the order of events that she, or the officer in his interpretation of her, claims. She may simply be referring to events in the bathroom there. SloPhoto writes,
    The AV is being evasive.
    It won't hurt her unless she continues the practice. The decision to tell a police officer you've been raped is one I wouldn't think someone would want to make at the spur of the moment. The consequences of making such a statement might turn your life upside down, no? Bissey must be having an interesting time with all of this. He already showed many signs of bad witnessitude in his early interviews, interpreting events he had seen in light of stories he had been told. I wonder where he stands with this stuff now.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    PB, From Shelton's notes: She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. From the wording it indicates that there was a connection between the groping and the pulling of her out of the car, but you think differently, right? Your interpretation is that at some point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle but that the groping didn't occur until later, after she and Roberts decided to return to the party? So some of the men at the party came out of the house, pulled her out of the car, then left the two of them outside by the car to continue discussing whether or not to return, and despite the fact that a group of men had just pulled the AV out of the car, the two women decide to return to the party? Then Bissey observes them standing at the back of the house and the men let them in, and then the groping begins, but no rape, except for the rape that then happens? Is that what you are saying?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#8)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    SLOphoto posted:
    Sgt. Shelton leaves the hospital room to report to the Watch Commander that she has recanted her rape allegation. A few minutes later he is told that she has told the SANE nurse that she was raped.
    He goes back inside the hospital room and confronts her directly -- was she or was she not raped? She refuses to answer "Yes" or "No."
    She begins talking obliquely, as if she is stalling for time. She starts crying and saying "something" about "them" dragging her into the bathroom, but apparently won't be specific about any of it. She will tell a SANE doctor that she was raped if the police officer leaves the room, but she will not say the same thing if the police officer is present? Why not?
    S.A.N.E. nurses are trained to not confront [I realize "confront" is SLOphotos's interpretation] sexual assault victims. It sounds like Sgt. Shelton was exaspertated with the accuser by this point. He thinks she was faking being "passed out drunk."He had to pry her from the car. She "wouldn't" [couldn't?] talk to him - tell them where she lived. He "wouldn't" [couldn't?] walk on her own. He sent her off to the Durham Access Center and cleared the call and then had to go to the hospital to deal with her again. Seems to me if she could have told them where she lived they would have taken her home [she wouldn't or couldn't tell them?] The first time Shelton's report states she said anything was when officer Barfield called him from the Durham Access Center after Barfield had been there awhile (wouldn't he have called sooner if the accuser claimed she was raped on the way to Durham Access?) I wonder if the intake specialst at Durham access a more sympathetic responder? Rape victims sometimes do not make their "first outcry" until they feel they are in a safe environment. If the accuser was unable - due to trauma - to communicate with Kim or the security guard (neither of whom seemed terribly sympathetic, btw) , once she was able to communicate, the Durham Access intake specialist may have been her first opportunity. I wonder if it was a woman? According to the ESPN source the accuser did not want the triage nurse at Duke hospital near hear because he was a man. From SLOphoto's post in he last thread:
    They have an argument about it, and "Nikki" apparently prevails. Some guys groped her, but no one forced her to have sex.
    She changes the topic away from sex and says that someone stole her money. None of this leads the AV to allege rape to Sgt. Shelton.
    Sgt. Shelton leaves the hospital room to report to the Watch Commander that she has recanted her rape allegation.
    A few minutes later he is told that she has told the SANE nurse that she was raped.
    He goes back inside the hospital room and confronts her directly -- was she or was she not raped?
    She refuses to answer "Yes" or "No." "She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bathroom."
    She begins talking obliquely, as if she is stalling for time. She starts crying and saying "something" about "them" dragging her into the bathroom, but apparently won't be specific about any of it. She will tell a SANE doctor that she was raped if the police officer leaves the room, but she will not say the same thing if the police officer is present? Why not?
    Do you see a pattern to her evasiveness?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#9)
    by blcc on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:40:55 PM EST
    In response to SloPhoto "The AV is being evasive" PB wrote:
    The decision to tell a police officer you've been raped is one I wouldn't think someone would want to make at the spur of the moment.
    Oh, brother! I call BS on that one. There's no-one I'd rather talk to than a police officer, if I'd been raped! Not only that, I'd be giving descriptions, locations, and every detail I could recall - over and over again - all the while thinking "I've told you where the b*st*rds were and what they looked like and what they were wearing, now stop wasting time and go get those f*ckers! I want to do a line-up right this second and see them behind bars!" That's how I felt a couple of years ago when somebody attempted to mug me. The fact that he didn't succeed didn't dim my outrage; you'd better believe if I'd been raped I'd be describing the event to the police as fast as I could get the words out. Why? Because that's how you catch the S.O.B.! So, her evasiveness with the police and wildly changing stories ring some profoundly false notes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    blcc That is what every woman I've spoken with about this case has said as well. ironically, the most vehement comments were from two black friends, who said in very graphic langauge that they wouldn't even wait for the police and maim [to rephrase their words] or kill the SOBs first, especially if they were white [but I think that part was a comic jab at me]! However, in fairness to the AV/FA not everyone has the same level of confidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#11)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    The some of the accuser's behavior with Kim, the security guard, the officers at Krogers, and at the hospital, are similar to some symptoms of rape trauma:
    The impact stage is the initial stage most survivors experience. The survivor may appear dazed, in a state of un-reality and struggling to comprehend the rape. There is a wide range of symptoms that rape survivors express during this time: from calm and controlling to hysterical and crying. Often the survivor will make comments like, "I can't believe this happened to me" or some other shock-type of statement which disclaims the actuality of the traumatic event. The victim is realizing that their lifestyle has been completely disrupted. The most common reactions of this stage are:
    Shock: The person appears to be on automatic pilot and may act as like they normally do. If this response does not work, then crisis sets in.
    Denial: The person may refuse or avoid talking about the incident, or even try not to think about it. The person wants to forget what happened. This is usually a short-lived response
    . ****
    An "outcry" witness - another student approached by the victim in the dormitory soon after the incident - also proved compelling. "She was hysterical, shaking, trembling, afraid," said Steinhauser. "She couldn't even speak, is what this person testified to."
    ****
    Immediately after a rape, survivors often experience shock. They are likely to feel cold, faint, become mentally confused (disorientated), tremble, feel nauseous and sometimes vomit.
    **** In less than an hour she went from "passed out drunk" to giving Sgt. Shelton a fairly detailed account of her and "Nikki's" dancing, etc.?
    The survivor may appear dazed, in a state of un-reality and struggling to comprehend the rape. There is a wide range of symptoms that rape survivors express during this time: from calm and controlling to hysterical and crying.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#12)
    by james on Sun May 28, 2006 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    The 'SANE NURSE' (the acronymn makes nurse a bit redundant) has near *zero experience*. She is/was an 'in-training' SANE examiner, not one with a good deal of experience. Which leads to my point: The 'in-training' SANE nurse apparently failed to complete around half of the required report. Witness the 'missing' sections. If she did, in fact, fail to complete them (rather than Nifong holding them back) she will be made into cannon fodder by the defense. Her 'medical opinion' will become meaningless. Which is where the doctor comes in. The doctor who examined her will be doubly important in this case. The 'problem' is that the SANE exams are setup to put the SANE examiner in great control of the situation to make the victim feel comfortable. There could be a defence suggestion that she was being 'leading' etc and that the doctor made only a brief examination, etc. honestly the case is basically shot. This has *nothing* to do with whether or not something actually transpired but whether there is a viable case. There isn't one - as far as I can see. As for the Sgt. - he has *more experience* dealing with victims of crime than this SANE nurse does. He's not 'in-training' and given that he's a sgt has been on the force for some time. She felt perfectly comfortable telling him she was groped at the party but then shut down with the nurse. Any thoughts as to the timeline, ie, whether it was suggested she be committed at some point between the two? Any SANE nurse who cannot remember to complete all the sections of a SANE report is incompetent. The only reason Nifong will have her on the stand is to establish that the woman was 'traumatized'. As for the AV's 'report' and why it hasn't been released - it has. And there are multiple reports. (verbally released). It's 'I was assualted in a bathroom with Kim' and then 'not with Kim' and there were '20 or 3 or 4' etc. I'd imagine that by the morning it was the one where Kim was present and there were 3 attackers from what the timeline seems to show.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#13)
    by james on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:01:14 PM EST
    There's no-one I'd rather talk to than a police officer, if I'd been raped!
    I assume you are not black and do not reside in Durham, NC? The police officers down this way are not friendly, in general, and a sex worker/escort would not want to speak to a police officer ever. They are not friends of the escorts. They view them as criminals and generally drug addicts too. It should be remembered I think the case is dead in the water. I just think it should also be remembered that some people have very good reasons for wanting to talk to a sympathetic medical professional over a beat cop.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#14)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    James posted:
    As for the Sgt. - he has *more experience* dealing with victims of crime than this SANE nurse does. He's not 'in-training' and given that he's a sgt has been on the force for some time. She felt perfectly comfortable telling him she was groped at the party but then shut down with the nurse.
    From SLOphoto's transcription of Shelron's report:
    She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one had forced her to have sex. She then mentioned that someone had taken her money. I walked to the parking lot to call the Watch Commander and let him know that she had recanted her rape allegation. Within a few minutes, I was told that she told the SANE doctor that she had been raped.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:16:25 PM EST
    PB posted: The decision to tell a police officer you've been raped is one I wouldn't think someone would want to make at the spur of the moment.
    Maybe you understand something that I don't. Imagine any other assault crime. A victim is in the hospital undergoing an exam after a brutal physical assault. She tells the doctor she has been assaulted. A policeman asks her to confirm that. She changes her story and denies it, so the officer leaves the room to report to the Watch Commander that she has changed her story. Then he receives word that she has changed it again and has told the doctor that yes, she was assaulted. The officer returns and confronts her -- "Were you assaulted, yes or no?" What spur of the moment "decision" are you referring to?
    The consequences of making such a statement might turn your life upside down, no?
    Yes. But dare I state the obvious -- there won't be any "consequences" unless she decides later on that she is determined to press forward with the issue. She knows from experience that even if she was raped she can always refuse to press rape charges even after signing a formal rape complaint. She has already done that once before. Here she won't even make a verbal statement to the officer present right after the crime was allegedly committed. So what "consequences" exactly are you referring to?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    got to be honest with you guys, this is not exactly increasing my confidence level in the AV, or the DA's case. granted, different people react differently to similar traumas, and rape is possibly one of the worst non-lethal traumas, but this case just seems to have no legs. whether by design, or due to stress, the AV has damaged her own credibility. she's left a trail of easy pickings for any half-assed defense attorney to scarf up. whether by design, or just sheer ineptitude, the durham police, due to their poor investigative methods, have left holes wide enough to drive a mac truck through, in this case. all that half-assed defense attorney need do is get behind the wheel, and put it in gear. it'll practically drive itself. whether by design, or merely a by-product of extreme arrogance, or primary season puffery, the DA has severely damaged his own case, a consequence of his many, unnecessary and buffoon-like press conferences on it. if a crime was committed, i don't see justice prevailing, for any of the affected parties. interestingly, i was just recently comparing the durham police dept's glaring incompetence in this case, to the equally glaring incompetence of the spotsylvania county, va sheriff's dept in the lisk/silva kidnappings/murders, of several years ago. i happened to work right across the hall from the local fbi office, and knew the agent working on those cases. he was not impressed with the sheriff dept's handling of them. in their defense, he pointed out that they were in no way adequately trained or experienced in these kinds of cases, and seemed unable to accomplish even the basic crime scene requirements. hence, it took years, and a screw up by the perpetrator, for him to finally be caught. to this day, my wife and i remain convinced that only one, of at least two perps, was ever captured. my suspicion is that the durham police were similarly caught off guard. this would explain all of the seeming odd lapses in time, before actions were taken, that should have occured fairly quickly. as with cash-flow, time is of the essence in criminal investigations.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:27:29 PM EST
    IMHO posted: Do you see a pattern to her evasiveness?
    Well, yes I do. But I have a pretty good suspicion that the pattern I see is not the same one that you seem to see. Evasiveness about simply being assaulted -- yes or no -- shortly after the assault took place does not lend credence to any additional details in any formalized versions of how the assault actually took place offered up at a later date. To the contrary, it would have been much more convincing to say, "YES!" and then say, "But I don't want to go into any more details right now." But as we all know now, she did not do that. OK, IMHO, now fire away at me as you will.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#18)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:33:08 PM EST
    blcc's posted:
    There's no-one I'd rather talk to than a police officer, if I'd been raped!
    James replied:
    I assume you are not black and do not reside in Durham, NC? The police officers down this way are not friendly, in general, and a sex worker/escort would not want to speak to a police officer ever. They are not friends of the escorts. They view them as criminals and generally drug addicts too.
    Good points, James. I'd also guess blcc has never been raped. I wouldn't think a victim's reaction to an attempted mugging would be all that similar to a victim's reaction to a violent gang rape. Men are even more reluctant to report rape than women. Kali, have any of the confident women you queried been the victim of a violent gang rape? The accuser said she struggled as well, but was overpowered. I wonder how your friends would feel once they had failed in their valient attempt to defend themselves and had been raped, orally sodomized, and anally sodomized? My guess is that would rob someone of the confidence they had moments before. If someone held a gun on me and demanded my wallet, in my Walter Mitty imagination, I would Kung Fu kick the gun out of his hand, but in reality if the time ever comes I may just wet my pants.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#19)
    by blcc on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:41:21 PM EST
    No James, I am not black. Nor do I live in Durham at the present time. I did, however, live in Durham for 4 years, and I don't believe the police there to be more intimidating than those in my present town of Washington, DC.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica: You wrote:
    From the wording it indicates that there was a connection between the groping and the pulling of her out of the car, but you think differently, right?
    I assume by "the connection" you mean the police officer's use of the word "and." If I were to write "I drove to the ballpark and saw a game" you might assume that I saw the game in the parking lot, but you would be reading more into it than was there. You wrote:
    Your interpretation is that at some point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle but that the groping didn't occur until later, after she and Roberts decided to return to the party?
    No. That would be your interpretation of my interpretation. It's a fair question how to reconcile the secondary source claim attributed to the AV that has her pulled from the vehicle with the secondary source information attributed to the AV in the search warrants, with the first-hand observations of Bissey. So I'll try. I notice that Shelton's notes were dated April 9th, more than three weeks after the event. But, for the sake of argument, I'll assume he has a razor sharp memory, or took dead accurate contemporaneous notes regarding his conversations with the accuser. So here's one model. Assume the accuser arrived at 11:30 or so at the house, (as the defense and the prosecution claim), and spent a good ten minutes or so figuring out with Kim what the dance should be and drinking the drink that was intended for Kim. Have the dance begin at 11:40. And end after 5 minutes or so. The women go out to the car. A few of the players follow in an effort to convince them to come back in. Kim is willing, but the AV is resistant, so a couple of the guys drag her from the car. Nothing malicious. Convinced now to return, she and Kim heads back toward the house. At about this time Bissey takes notice of the women coming through the alley. He thinks they are arriving together. Sometime shortly thereafter the women are separated and the AV winds up in the bathroom. Don't know where Kim is. She hasn't said. Something happens in the bathroom, 12:00 to 12:20 or 12:30. Between 12:20 and 12:30 (as per Bissey and the defense) the AV exits the house and goes to the car. Returning to attempt to get her shoe, she is locked out, and after stumbling hard, she lies in a heap by the back door. It is about this time that Bissey goes back inside. Eventually a player helps load the AV into Kim's car. This happens pretty close to 12:50, as Kim is not yet in her car when the cab driver sees her. Kim tells the players that she is calling the police, and they all take off. At 12:52 she actually does call the police.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#21)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    blcc posted:
    No James, I am not black. Nor do I live in Durham at the present time. I did, however, live in Durham for 4 years, and I don't believe the police there to be more intimidating than those in my present town of Washington, DC.
    blcc, how analogous do you think your experience as the vicitm of an attempted mugging is to the victim of a violent gang rape? Did you fear the reporting of the attempted mugging could get you in trouble with the police or bring pain to your parents?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    I see a pattern, starting with the trip to the drunk tank. The AV did not want to be in the drunk tank, whether it would have brought embarrassment to herself, her family, whatever. She was motivated to avoid being put on a 24-hour hold. Once she got out of being in the drunk tank, she didn't want anything to do with the cops. She kept making decisions to minimize the mess she was in without thinking that eventually when you report rapes or attempted murders someone's going to take you seriously.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#23)
    by blcc on Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    IMHO, at the time of the attempted mugging I was 37 weeks pregnant, and the attempted mugger threatened to kill me. Now, I do not know - nor do I pretend to - how traumatizing a gang-rape would be. Despite this, I can assure you with every ounce of confidence that if I had to choose which terrified me more: being raped or losing my child? That's easy. There's no question that nothing could terrify me more than the loss of my child. I repeat, nothing. I recall with great clarity how terrified I was, and that I couldn't overpower or outrun him, and that screaming bloody murder was the only thing I could do. And when he ran away, the first call I made was to 911 to report the S.O.B. It was one of the angriest events of my life and even today I'd love the chance to send him to jail. In other words, I'm very confident in the authenticity of my reaction, and very sceptical of the authenticity of the A.V.'s.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#24)
    by ding7777 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    Bedroom or Bathroom?
    She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bedroom.
    Did the AV change her story later? Did Shelton mishear the AV?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    ding7777 asks:
    Bedroom or Bathroom?
    She told me she did not want to talk to me anymore and then started crying and saying something about them dragging her into the bedroom.
    Did the AV change her story later? Did Shelton mishear the AV?
    Shelton's report says bathroom.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:29:18 PM EST
    PB says:
    No. That would be your interpretation of my interpretation. It's a fair question how to reconcile the secondary source claim attributed to the AV that has her pulled from the vehicle with the secondary source information attributed to the AV in the search warrants, with the first-hand observations of Bissey. So I'll try.
    It is my understanding that Shelton's document is a primary source. It is his record of what happened that night from the point at which he got the call to attend a disturbance at 610 N Buchanan, up to and including talking to the AV about what happened. He was there and claims that she (the AV) first told him she was pulled from the car and groped, and that she was not raped. She can of course deny that she said some or all of that, but it will take additional primary sources to corroborate either of their claims about what was said at the Duke hospital.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#27)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:50:37 PM EST
    PB, you wrote, as a possible reconciliation between Shelton's statement and later versions of events: The women go out to the car. A few of the players follow in an effort to convince them to come back in. Kim is willing, but the AV is resistant, so a couple of the guys drag her from the car. Nothing malicious. This is from Sgt. Shelton's report: She said that they left [the party] and got into "Nikki's" car. At that time, she said that someone from the party wanted them to come back into the house. She said that "Nikki" wanted to go back inside, but that she did not. She said that she and "Nikki" got into an argument about going back inside. She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one had forced her to have sex. She then mentioned that someone had taken her money. Were it the same guys who pulled her out of the car who later in the evening groped her but did not force her to have sex? When you use one subject and two verbs in a sentence you generally mean that the same subject did the two verbs. Roberts would have been having a discussion with the AV about whether or not to go back into the house. Roberts never mentions anyone putting a hand on the AV in front of her. Roberts never mentions a group of men pulling the AV out of the car. Did Kim just overlook that detail in her recollections? You would think that a group of men pulling the AV out of Roberts' car would, after the fact, be suggestive that these men were crossing the line between verbal and physical and Roberts told her story after the fact. This part of the AV's narrative apparently didn't survive to the time of the charges. There's no mention of the men pulling her out of the car, or men gathering around her and groping her in the search warrant, as I remember. I recall in the early reports that it was just one man who came out to the car to talk the dancers back inside (although that's only by my recollection). Where did the group of men come in? They pull her out of the car, then go back into the house, perhaps while Bissey isn't looking, and then the two go back into the house? Of course, the clue is to look at the whole sentence: She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. "At that point" indicates a definite moment of time, not a vague, non-specific future series of events. You can continue to believe what you will, but it really sounds to me that being pulled from the car and being groped are all part of the same event. Then the group of men who pulled the AV out of the car weren't with the AV and Roberts when the two went into the house. Sure. I think it's reasonable to believe that since the story of the group of men pulling her out of Roberts' car and then groping her (either at the same time or at some later time as PB suggests) but not forcing her to have sex with her (as Shelton reports) did not survive until the search warrant was generated. This particular story by the AV was deleted from the official version of events that night. Who decided not to include it? Who edited it out? It would be curious if the lead investigator and DA went forward with the case without knowing what Shelton (and some of the other officers) observed that night (if the report was only written on April 9 and had not been told to any superiors). It would be disturbing if the lead investigator and DA edited Shelton's observations out only because they were inconsistent with the official version.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jo on Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    pulled her from the vehicle and groped her
    Unconnected events, huh? So if you drove to the ballpark on Monday afternoon to dragrace with some friends in the parking lot, and then then Tuesday you walked to the ballpark to watch a game, it would be okay to describe it as such:
    "I drove to the ballpark and saw a game"
    .

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 03:57:37 PM EST
    Jo, When one wants to explain the inexplicable...

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#30)
    by ding7777 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    to beenaround Thanks! The link at the top of this entry (ABC11 Eyewitness News in Durham) says "bedroom". I just went back and they have not made a correction

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#31)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:08:26 PM EST
    blcc posted:
    In other words, I'm very confident in the authenticity of my reaction, and very sceptical of the authenticity of the A.V.'s.
    blcc, your experience as the victim of a violent crime sounds horrific. You may have been traumatized more than some victims of sexual assault, but the dynamic is not the same. While victims of other crimes can feel guilt and shame as a result of their victimization, it is more common and often more pronounced in victims of sexual assault. Did you blame yourself, did you feel your actions led to you being victimized? Did you fear the circumstances of your attempted mugging would lead the police to doubt your credibility? Did you fear the reporting of the attempted mugging could get you in trouble with the police? Did you hope your parents, or loved ones would not discover what happened to you? SLOphoto posted:
    Maybe you understand something that I don't. Imagine any other assault crime...
    Read the S.A.N.E. protocol. The collection of physical forensic evidence is not the only reason sexual assault is investigated differently than other assault crimes.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:13:38 PM EST
    Hi beenaround, You wrote:
    It is my understanding that Shelton's document is a primary source.
    Well, that may be an accurate terminology, but the distinction I am trying to make is between a summary and a quote. Bissey's "Hey B*tch, thank your grandfather for my cotton shirt" is an attempt at a quote. Shelton's groping effort isn't. It's a translation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica wrote:
    Of course, the clue is to look at the whole sentence: She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. "At that point" indicates a definite moment of time, not a vague, non-specific future series of events.
    Whenever there is a question of what a person means, I think the best way to find out is to ask them. In this case, you'd have to ask two people.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:19:40 PM EST
    PB wrote:
    Hi beenaround, You wrote:
    It is my understanding that Shelton's document is a primary source.
    Well, that may be an accurate terminology, but the distinction I am trying to make is between a summary and a quote. Bissey's "Hey B*tch, thank your grandfather for my cotton shirt" is an attempt at a quote. Shelton's groping effort isn't. It's a translation.
    Firstly, I am glad I did not followup with my other thought, because I do appreciate the efforts of some here to ensure that we do not go beyond what the evidence we have seen to date shows. However, in my opinion, your use of words like primary and secondary source also tends to suggest interpretations that go beyond what we know. I do agree that Bissey seems to have given us a quote, while Shelton seems to have given us an interpretation of what the AV said to him on that night at the hospital. It is unfortunate that his account was written some three weeks after the events.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#35)
    by azbballfan on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:21:34 PM EST
    There have been some posts questioning the voracity of the av's statements because of many inconsistencies in various recants of her story and Kim's. As many of you have, I've been the victim of many different crimes. Usually I report them only if I think doing so will somehow help me. For some people, there is a shame associated with being a victim. It's hard to figure out why you were selected and oftentimes you just don't want the attention you get. I was mugged as a teen and never reported it. Never told my folks. I wasn't doing anything wrong, just buying something down at the corner store. Assuming she is telling the truth, certainly the av has shown trepidation in coming forward with her story and experienced real pain by reliving the events time and time again. People react differently to different events. Just because they're different doesn't make them wrong or less believable. Actually, it makes them more human and real. It has been my experience that people who are quick to get attention for being a victim often embellish the story. I presume it is to get more attention and a bigger reaction.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#36)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    PB quoted me: Of course, the clue is to look at the whole sentence: She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. "At that point" indicates a definite moment of time, not a vague, non-specific future series of events. Then PB wrote: Whenever there is a question of what a person means, I think the best way to find out is to ask them. In this case, you'd have to ask two people. My guess is that if this ever gets to trial, Sgt. Shelton will be asked what he thought the AV meant. Then the AV will have to explain what she meant when, as Shelton reports: She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one had forced her to have sex.em> I'll ask this again: What, besides one version of her narrative of what happened that night, is evidence that a rape happened and that those three men committed it. Anyone?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#37)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    The fact that one can be groped as they are pulled from a vehicle could be influencing how the statement is being interpreted. What if we replaced the word "groped" with the word "raped?" Would the word "and" still tie the events together in the same way?
    She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and [raped] her.
    Would we be debating if the second hand statement meant she was raped as she was pulled from the vehicle or moments later on the driveway?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    Posted by James May 28, 2006 03:01 PM The police officers down this way are not friendly, in general, and a sex worker/escort would not want to speak to a police officer ever. They are not friends of the escorts. They view them as criminals and generally drug addicts too. It should be remembered I think the case is dead in the water. I just think it should also be remembered that some people have very good reasons for wanting to talk to a sympathetic medical professional over a beat cop. Seeing as how the AV is a car thief, sex worker/escort with a prior DUI, who also tried to run over a cop before, I could see why she would want to avoid the police.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#39)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 04:57:28 PM EST
    GSDfan posted:
    Seeing as how the AV is a car thief, sex worker/escort with a prior DUI, who also tried to run over a cop before, I could see why she would want to avoid the police.
    So you support the idea her reluctance to report to the police need not be a sign of a false accusation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    With respect to the AV's various descriptions of the events that transpired, obviously different people will attribute the various permutations to different factors: (1) trauma, (2) alcohol/drugs, (3) deceptiveness, etc. I suspect the jury will want to seek independent information about the AV's credibility and the extent of her injuries. My initial thoughts about this case were that the SANE report being "consistent with rape," would lead the jury to find someone guilty. However, the DNA results have changed my view, but not in the way I expected. To be specific, it appears that the AV was not truthful about her prior sexual activity to the police/DA. Thus, when the second round of DNA results found evidence from someone other than the players, I assume the AV was then asked to revisit her initial statements about previous sexual activity. Apparently, she identified three people with whom she had sexual relations - two of whom were drivers and one was her boy friend. The importance of this is difficult to overstate - First, it indicates that the AV was deceptive with the police/DA well after the events of March 14. Second, it opens-up an aspect of her life that can be used to explain the "inconclusive" SANE report. It appears that the SANE report is inconclusive in two ways - it apparently was not complete (all the steps were (apparently) not completed by an inexperienced SANE). Second, the degree of injury (per the defense) is apparently as consistent with multiple consensual partners as it is rape. Then, there is the lack of DNA for the accused players, with the possible partial match with a small amount of material found on/under a finger nail in a waste basket in Evan's home. Further, if the AV re-painted her nails, as suggested by the defense, another confounding factor is added to the mix. I believe the SANE procedures require the SANE to ask for permission to take photographs - I do not know if such pictures were taken and, if they were, whether they have been provided to the defense. Of course, we haven't even gotten to the alibi's yet. In the end, in the absence of credible corrobating evidence, it's hard to see a "winnable" case for the DA.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#41)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:20:51 PM EST
    IMHO posted:
    Do you see a pattern to her evasiveness?
    SLOphoto posted:
    Well, yes I do. But I have a pretty good suspicion that the pattern I see is not the same one that you seem to see.
    Do tell...
    Evasiveness about simply being assaulted -- yes or no -- shortly after the assault took place does not lend credence to any additional details in any formalized versions of how the assault actually took place offered up at a later date. To the contrary, it would have been much more convincing to say, "YES!" and then say, "But I don't want to go into any more details right now." But as we all know now, she did not do that.
    Oh, if only all rape victims could be as level-headed as you would be, were you to be gang raped.
    OK, IMHO, now fire away at me as you will
    Moi?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica, You wrote:
    My guess is that if this ever gets to trial, Sgt. Shelton will be asked what he thought the AV meant. Then the AV will have to explain what she meant when, as Shelton reports: She said at that point some of the guys from the party pulled her from the vehicle and groped her. She told me that no one had forced her to have sex.
    Presumably she'll get a chance to explain why she was reluctant to talk to Shelton, and jurors will have the same chance the doctor, SANE nurse, Nifong, and quite a few other police officers have had to see what they make of her credibility.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#43)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:33:27 PM EST
    Pat posted:
    To be specific, it appears that the AV was not truthful about her prior sexual activity to the police/DA. Thus, when the second round of DNA results found evidence from someone other than the players, I assume the AV was then asked to revisit her initial statements about previous sexual activity.
    Pat, What do we know about the accuser's initial statements concerning her previous sexual activity?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:39:23 PM EST
    IMHO asked:
    What do we know about the accuser's initial statements concerning her previous sexual activity?
    As I indicated in my original post, I assume she did not indicate any previous sexual activity. If she had, I presume the police/DA would have asked for DNA samples earlier in the process. It appears that such samples were requested after the preliminary second-round DNA results did not match the players.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:41:44 PM EST
    Posted by PB May 28, 2006 06:31 PM Presumably she'll get a chance to explain why she was reluctant to talk to Shelton, and jurors will have the same chance the doctor, SANE nurse, Nifong, and quite a few other police officers have had to see what they make of her credibility. PB, Do you think she'll take the stand?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:45:05 PM EST
    GSDFan, You wrote:
    Do you think she'll take the stand?
    Only if she was raped.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#47)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:03:34 PM EST
    Pat, I tend to agree with you. I imagine one of those missing pages in the SANE report may very well have had a question about recent consensual sex. It would be hard to believe that the AV had initially told the SANE nurse about all consensual sex (remember, she was doing a number of "one-on-one" sexual encounters for Bunny Hole Productions that weekend) and it not be notated. It would also be hard to believe that an honest judge of fact would not find it disturbing that the claimant of rape may have been concealing a number of other sexual events in her very recent past which could have explained the symptoms noted by the nurse consistent with rape. If it turns out that she lied to the SANE nurse about recent sexual partners, then that thin reed of hope some people around here are grasping in the hope that the AV didn't make up the rape will be gone.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:16:56 PM EST
    She HAS ti take the stand: she has no choice if there is a trial. By and at the time the DA was sure that there would be semen inside the AV, he was equally sure that it had to have been put there by someone from the party. If he had known, at that time, (i.e., the AV had told him) that someone else's sperm might have been in there, such as the boyfriend, wouldn't he have gotten a sample from the bf at the same time he compelled the players to give samples?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#49)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:17:19 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica:
    It would be hard to believe that the AV had initially told the SANE nurse about all consensual sex (remember, she was doing a number of "one-on-one" sexual encounters for Bunny Hole Productions that weekend) and it not be notated. It would also be hard to believe that an honest judge of fact would not find it disturbing that the claimant of rape may have been concealing a number of other sexual events in her very recent past which could have explained the symptoms noted by the nurse consistent with rape.
    If it turns out that she lied to the SANE nurse about recent sexual partners, then that thin reed of hope some people around here are grasping in the hope that the AV didn't make up the rape will be gone.
    Bob, what makes you think she may have lied about about recent sexual partners?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:18:03 PM EST
    ti=to

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#51)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:30:27 PM EST
    IMHO, see Pat's previous post. I don't want to get involved in a sidebar. I'll let Talkleft scrub your posts.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    IMHO Wrote:
    Kali, have any of the confident women you queried been the victim of a violent gang rape? The accuser said she struggled as well, but was overpowered. I wonder how your friends would feel once they had failed in their valient attempt to defend themselves and had been raped, orally sodomized, and anally sodomized?
    I guarantee that at the very least someone would be d*ckl*ss and the others would be bleeding profusely from a hellcat fight that would have taken place during and after. They definitely would not come back for a missing shoe, they would come back burn the house down making it even more violent.
    My guess is that it would rob someone of the confidence they had moments before.
    And my guess, knowing these head strong, confident women, which you do not, is that they meant what they said and would retaliate in kind or until they were beaten to death. Unlike you, I don't think all women are incapable of stength in the face of adversity. Your "guess" just generalizes all women as weak. Some women are and some women are not.
    If someone held a gun on me and demanded my wallet, in my Walter Mitty imagination, I would Kung Fu kick the gun out of his hand, but in reality if the time ever comes I may just wet my pants.
    And that is you, not everyone else....thankfully. Some confident 5'4" women would punch a guy a foot taller and 100 lbs. more in the stomach when they saw him rubbing up against a weak intimidated California woman tourist on the subway and call him an *assh*le and berate him until the next stop where he ran off. Would you do that? Because I saw it happen last year.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#53)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:38:15 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    IMHO, see Pat's previous post. I don't want to get involved in a sidebar. I'll let Talkleft scrub your posts.
    What are you talking about? You don't have reason to think she lied about recent previous sexual activity?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:40:43 PM EST
    Another point about the AV's potential trial testimony: I find it suggestive that Nifong did not have her testify before the grand jury, as far as I know. Does anyone remember a report that said she did? I can thnk of a couple reasons why he would not: 1. He didn't want any testimony from her, under oath, that he would have to stick with at trial, or find a reason to explain why there was different testimony at trial; and 2. He thought the stress, and the possibility of being asked difficult questions by the grand jurors, might be too much for her. Either way, I take it as his not being overly confident about how she would do, as a witness. Can you imagine what three different defense attorneys could do to her on the stand?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#55)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:47:10 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    Some confident 5'4" women would punch a guy a foot taller and 100 lbs. more in the stomach when they saw him rubbing up against a weak intimidated California woman tourist on the subway and call him an *assh*le and berate him until the next stop where he ran off. Would you do that? Because I saw it happen last year.
    She did that in full view of a guy your size? Wasn't she afraid you'd jump in and attack her in defense your fellow man? I don't think punching a man on a crowded subway equates with fighting off a sexual assault by three college athletes that have you trapped in a bathroom. Keep trying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#56)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:51:34 PM EST
    SharonInJax posted:
    Another point about the AV's potential trial testimony: I find it suggestive that Nifong did not have her testify before the grand jury, as far as I know. Does anyone remember a report that said she did? I can thnk of a couple reasons why he would not: 1. He didn't want any testimony from her, under oath, that he would have to stick with at trial, or find a reason to explain why there was different testimony at trial; and 2. He thought the stress, and the possibility of being asked difficult questions by the grand jurors, might be too much for her.
    I thought of a third reason: 3. He did not need her testimony for a grand jury to return a true bill for all nine indictments.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    IMHO wrote:
    She did that in full view of a guy your size? Wasn't she afraid you'd jump in and attack her in defense your fellow man?
    She actually beat me and another guy to saying something to the pig. Resoting to personal attacks again.....what's wrong you can't admit that not everyone in the world is a wussy and actually has the backbone to stand up for themselves? Can't deal with real world experiences that don't comport with your hypothetical, interpreted life from behind a computer in the lab? Does being weak strike too close to home?
    I don't think punching a man on a crowded subway equates with fighting off a sexual assault by three college athletes that have you trapped in a bathroom. Keep trying.
    Who said it was crowded? It wasn't meant to be compared to the AV/FA. It was in comparison to your gun comment.....remember the one where you wet your pants?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:27:49 PM EST
    There are a few things about the AV that I admire: 1. She joined the Navy in 1996 - right out of high school. 2. She obtained an associate degree from Durham Tech in 2004 - at age 26. 3. She was a fulltime student at NCCU earning good grades. 4. I think she loves her kids. On the morning after, at 7AM, she called Brian, her driver that night, to ask him to take her kids to school. I can't help but think, that the AV's behavior and statements that night were motivated, in part, by wanting to get home in time to take her kids to school. A 24-hour hold at the detox center wouldn't allow for that. But a few hours at the hospital, then a call to Brian and a quick change of clothes at his house, then home to drive the kids... But the procedure lasted too long and she ended up having to call him. But to claim rape. Is that all she could come up with? Damn! Unless it's true, of course.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:35:57 PM EST
    fillintheblanks: her father said the kids were at his house that night. Don't you think her parents would have gotten them to school? And I thought all the Brian friend said was that she wanted him to pick them up, nothing about taking them to school.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    Has it ever been established how long she was at the 'drunk tank'? Would the intake procedure there have been one-on-one interactive enough to corroborate any injuries/signs/symptoms/behaviors later observed by the SANE nurse?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:47:08 PM EST
    Rogan1313, I agree that the case is weak. As to "Why rape?", in her state of mind at the time, that was her only thought. (Unless it really happened. Sharon, I made the leap about taking them to school based on: a. She was living with her parents. b. Her kids were there. c. It was a school day. d. She didn't want to call her parents - too much explaining to do.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    Wouldn't her parents have had some questions if a stranger came to pick them up?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#64)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:54:34 PM EST
    Kalidoggie posted:
    Who said it was crowded?
    I assumed since the perv was rubbing up against the tourist, he had some kind of cover, but if they were standing in the middle of an uncrowded subway car, uh O.K. So there's the tourist, the 5'4" dynamo, you, another guy, and the perv. OK, a subway car containing at least five people with two guys that were about to confront the perv. Kalidoggie posted:
    It wasn't meant to be compared to the AV/FA. It was in comparison to your gun comment.....remember the one where you wet your pants?
    The perv had a gun? Are you sure that was a gun in his pocket? Maybe he was just enjoying the ride? Did you think that Kung Fu Fighting scenario actually happened? I was just putting it out there to see if I could impress you. Kalidoggie posted:
    Resoting to personal attacks again.
    I made a personal attack in that post? I don't think so. Your above post is full of personal attacks, but you won't see me tattling to TalK Left. I find your attempts to insult me amusing and not the least bit threatening or intimidating. You've yet to land a good one, but I'll admit it when you finally do. Keep trying.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:55:59 PM EST
    fill: less explaining than having a strange man come and pick them up, I would think.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:59:31 PM EST
    thinkandtype: my recollection is think it was little over an hour between the Kroger parking lot and Duke Medical.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    sharon and think: Brian's known the AV for two years. Her parents may know him. If she asks him to "pick up her kids," that means to me pick them and and take them to school.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#68)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:00:59 PM EST
    Bob in Pacifica posted:
    It would also be hard to believe that an honest judge of fact would not find it disturbing that the claimant of rape may have been concealing a number of other sexual events in her very recent past which could have explained the symptoms noted by the nurse consistent with rape.
    If it turns out that she lied to the SANE nurse about recent sexual partners, then that thin reed of hope some people around here are grasping in the hope that the AV didn't make up the rape will be gone.
    I asked Bob if he had any reason to believe the accuser concealed "a number of other sexual events in her very recent past," but he declined to comment further. Pat posted:
    As I indicated in my original post, I assume she did not indicate any previous sexual activity. If she had, I presume the police/DA would have asked for DNA samples earlier in the process. It appears that such samples were requested after the preliminary second-round DNA results did not match the players.
    Pat, From the S.A.N.E. protocols I have read, after the preliminary second-round DNA results did not match the players would be the appropriate time to ask the accuser for contact information for her recent previous sexual partners. This may be the reason the accuser's "boyfriend" did not give a DNA sample until May 3, after the players' DNA did not turn up a match for the semen sample. From the S.A.N.E. protocol:
    Patients are asked if they engaged in voluntary sexual intercourse with a male within a week prior to the assault. If so, patients are then asked the date and race of the contact in order to help determine the possible significance of semen remaining from the prior sexual contact.
    This person's identity is not relevant either to the medical examination or for the initial findings of the crime laboratory and should not be sought at time of initial examination. The patient should, however, be instructed to remember the identity of that person and how to reach him should a blood or hair sample be needed later.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:01:30 PM EST
    The latest defense motion specifically notes that there was no report from the "access center" and no reports from the officers who transported her to either place.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:06:31 PM EST
    fill:
    He said he did not check on the accuser's children or tell her parents where she was. "I told her I would, but I didn't," he said. "I don't know her that well."
    If he didn't know her that well, I doubt he knew her parents. Not sure you bring home guys from the strip club where you're working to meed the folks. And I still think it's a reach to say that she was asking him to take them to school. Wouldn't her parents be wondering where she was anyway? And didn't her father supposedly try to see her while she was still in the hospital?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:12:15 PM EST
    imho: may be proper protocol for the SANE process, but Nifong or the cops should have asked her before, or contemporaneously with, getting samples from the entire team, don't you think? And "initial findings of the crime laborotory" is probably not DNA testing, but standard blood type, fibers, hairs, etc.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:14:27 PM EST
    Shoot, Sharon beat me to the N&O quote, but yeah. . I'd hope that she looks for better babysitters than that guy in the future. I wonder who drove her to that guy's house. Her father never mentioned doing so, and she seems without personal transportation, so it'd be interesting to see if there was another person who could testify as to her activities/state of mind prior to the party. And on a side note, I wonder if Nikki was an assumed name for Kim, or the AV was confused. If it was the former, then I guess those finding malice in the use of assumed names to hire a stripper might want to look at use of assumed names by the strippers as well, hmm?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#73)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:18:43 PM EST
    rogan1313:
    No need to be smug about how the AV's testimony wasn't needed for indictments.
    SharonInJax was stating reasons she felt Nifong did not have the accuser appear before the grand jury. I was just stating what I thought was another reason.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:25:44 PM EST
    My guess is that the name "Nikki" was made up for the purposes of the police report to avoid naming Kim in case the documents were ever made public. No explanation is given for the alias (I assume that if Kim supplied a fake name, that would be mentioned. I assume as well that if Kim were driving, she would have been made to show her license and registration to the officer.) It appears as well in the written report that the officer starts to write "Kim" but then scratches it out and continues with a pronoun.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:25:51 PM EST
    Sharon: But why call Brian at 7AM and ask him to pick up the kids if not to take them to school? Why not call the parents? Indeed. Somehow the father learned of his daughter's hospitalization, but he didn't get to see her. Perhaps for the same reason she didn't call him. Shame perhaps? Also, according to reports, the father didn't learn it was his daughter in the news until a reporter showed up at the house. She still hadn't told him.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:27:42 PM EST
    think: the interview with her father about that night says he said she left around 10, and that he wasn't sure if she took her own car or someone picked her up. That, of course, does not agree with Brian's statment that she got to his house around 9. And Brian's timeline (ugh, that word again) doesn't match her statements in her only interview. She said she was called about the job around 8:30, but Brian says she called him a couple hours before she showed up (or 7 pm) asking if she could come over there to change and get a ride.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:30:33 PM EST
    Why would it be necessary to avoid naming Kim if the case were made public? Is that a common police practice? And if the AV referred Kim as Nikki, what name would be required to be reported?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:32:48 PM EST
    Sharon: Plus, if Brian had been her driver for a while, the parents may know him that way, too. It occurred to me that maybe Brian didn't pick up the kids (or tell the parents) because he just rolled over and went back to sleep :>) During his out-of-leftfield interview, he's rewritten history a litle bit.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:35:19 PM EST
    A couple of things about her transportation: If she has her own car, why the need for "drivers" for her one on ones? If she had her own car, why wouldn't she have driven herself to the Buchanon gig? If she drove herself to Brian's house, why does the article make a point of saying that he's not sure exactly how she got there? And if she drove herself to his house, I wonder when she picked up her car, since it's not something he saw fit to mention. I also wonder why she would have called Brian to pick up her kids, rather than her boyfriend.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Case: More Details of Accuser's (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:36:53 PM EST