WRAL confirms first 911 caller definitely second dancer (Signifying Nothing: how does saying nothing at all become so loud?)

Saturday, 8 April 2006

WRAL confirms first 911 caller definitely second dancer

Although it’s not a huge deal at this point, WRAL has confirmed defense claims that the woman responsible for the first 911 call (allegedly from passersby complaining about people at the house at 610 Buchanan using the “n-word” in reference to them) is the same woman identified as “Kim” heard in the background of the second 911 call from the Kroger security guard. WRAL also indicates that police have interviewed “Kim,” but no specifics from the interview have been divulged, although presumably the timeline of events in the two search warrants are based on the accounts of Kim and the alleged victim.

This clarifies one question I received today from a reader, who wondered why the police or DA had not made a specific appeal for the first 911 caller to come forward, even though having an additional eyewitness to the party would have been helpful.

It also raises a second question that’s been swirling around in my head. This account, like all others, says she “only met the victim that night at 610 North Buchanan.” They worked for separate agencies, and presumably didn’t know that the other was going to be there. Yet both women left in “Kim’s” car—this seems indisputable; in fact, it’s about the only thing everyone agrees on besides the existence of the party. How did the victim get to 610 North Buchanan at 11:30 pm on a Tuesday night? DATA? Taxi? Did she drive herself, or get a ride? The warrants are of no help; neither lists “car keys” as an item to be located, and while the first warrant included a “purse” as an item to be searched for, none was located.

Just another of those little puzzle pieces that’s bothering me… and it’s probably insignificant.

2 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

1. John wrote @ Sat, 8 Apr 2006, 4:35 am CDT:

A certain statement made by defense lawyers, and earlier, the actions of the three lacrosse captains, argue heavily that no rape occurred.

Early into the investigation, defense lawyers asserted that since no sexual contact occurred, there would be no match of items (impliedly, semen, hair, skin) taken from the complainant with DNA of any of the 46 team members. Such a statement effectively eliminates as a defense that there was sex, but that it was consensual. In a case of this sort—where a self-described escort (in most instances, a euphemism for prostitute) comes calling—consensual sex is a compelling defense, not a defense lightly tossed into the hamper. Condoms or not, the chance of no DNA matches occurring after a 30 minute bout of rape, assault, and sodomy, are slim and none. Defense counsel would not make such a statement unless sure of its accuracy.

Despite repeated complaints in the media and in Durham that the team members have not cooperated in coming forward with information, the three team captains initially came forward and gave statements to the police investigators as to what occurred. More importantly, they offered to undergo lie detector testing, which was declined by the police. It is apparent that the statements given to the police were completely exculpatory of themselves and others at the party. No guilty party, and no party with guilty knowledge, volunteers to subject himself to a lie detector test, and in this case, three sought the test.

Either no rape occurred, or the players and their lawyers are fools.