Friday, 21 April 2006

Second dancer publically identified

I have a busy day today, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t link this AP report on the second dancer in the case, now known to the public as Kim Roberts, 31, of Durham. Roberts was arrested on March 22nd on a parole violation, one week after the alleged rape at the Duke lacrosse party, although it’s unclear at this point what provision of her parole she violated.

At the very least, this part looks bad:

On Monday, the same day a grand jury indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, a judge agreed to a change so that Roberts would no longer have to pay a 15 percent fee to a bonding agent. District Attorney Mike Nifong signed a document saying he would not oppose the change.

What an amazing coincidence…


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.
[Permalink] 1. Skeptical-Hog wrote @ Fri, 21 Apr 2006, 8:57 am CDT:

At this point, I’ve concluded that this case must be some sort of sick cosmic joke arranged between the Almighty and Tom Wolfe, a la the Book of Job (wager between God and the Devil with poor old honest Job caught square in the middle). Bonfire of the Vanities meets I am Charlotte Simmons, with a wonderful cast of characters, some innocent victims (but who are they?), and all sorts of twists. I can’t wait for the movie version…. [this entire post was sarcasm and gallows humor]

[Permalink] 2. muddywater wrote @ Fri, 21 Apr 2006, 9:58 am CDT:

It looks like that Nifong cannot tolerate the other side scoring any one point in the court of the public opinion at all.

[Permalink] 3. LaxZebra wrote @ Fri, 21 Apr 2006, 10:33 am CDT:

Apparently she’s looking to make the big bucks too:

Roberts also has solicited the help of a New York public relations firm on "how to spin this to my advantage.",2933,192565,00.html

[Permalink] 4. politicaobscura wrote @ Fri, 21 Apr 2006, 10:47 am CDT:

The following is the WORST article ever written on the Duke case.–726709.html

The headline says “Lacrosse players’ alibis not ‘foolproof’ ”

It is not until the EIGHTH paragraph that we find out why the alibis are not “foolproof” ... ready for why? Here we go, ” [former justice Whichard] also said, the alibis are not “foolproof evidence.”

That’s it?

That’s it?

The alibi’s are not foolproof because a former Justice says they are not foolproof? Shouldn’t there be another paragraph that begins:” Whichard says that the alibis are lacking in a number of respects…” But there is nothing at all to back up the headlines contention that the alibis are not foolproof.

What else does Whichard have to say about the case? ” Whichard said Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong “has got to have something” or he wouldn’t have obtained indictments this week against the two players…”

Oh, “he’s got to have something”, okay, it is all clear to me now.

Journalism at it’s finest. Read it and weep… literally.


Yeah, I thought it was a pretty lame article too—in part, because the Herald-Sun buried the alibis in Thursday’s paper in a completely unrelated article, so this didn’t deserve A1 coverage—hence why I didn’t link it.

I have to say the Duke Chronicle has done the best job of any of the local papers on this story. That none of its writers have gone to j-school may be a strong causal factor…

[Permalink] 6. Skeptical-Hog wrote @ Fri, 21 Apr 2006, 11:26 am CDT:

In all fairness, Whitchard’s statement explicitly assumes the DA has additional evidence that hasn’t been made public. And if that assumption proves correct, his statement is correct: it’s not “game over” for the prosecution then at all. But we shall see what pans out and what doesn’t…. and whether giving the DA the benefit of the doubt was well-founded.

The reason the alibi isn’t foolproof in any event: the defense’s timeline may turn out to be incorrect, despite what seems to be strong photographic evidence to the contrary. I don’t think it likely that the defense timeline is materially inaccurate—in fact, I think it’s more likely that OJ Simpson will one day find the “real killer” than that the defense timeline is significantly off—but stranger things have happened, I suppose (like what, I don’t know).

[Permalink] 7. politicaobscura wrote @ Fri, 21 Apr 2006, 11:39 am CDT:

SH –
I don’t necessarily disagree, there may be many reasons why the alibis are not foolproof—my point was that NONE of them were cited in the story…


The N&O article on Roberts includes her description of Collin Finnerty:

Roberts said Thursday she does not remember Seligmann’s face, but said she recalls seeing Finnerty—whom she described as the “little skinny one.”

“I was looking him right in the eyes,” she said.


“Little skinny one?” That’s certainly what I thought of Finnerty based on all the pictures that just show his face. But check out the N&O’s photo gallery from his day in court. ( Especially the 4th and 5th picture. At 6-foot-four, and 210 pounds, is that really the “little skinny one?” Seems like he may be one of the bigger players on the team.


Compared to some of the beefalos wandering Durham, a fit athelete with the build of Colin could be considered skinny. His boyish face does look odd on such a physique.

[Permalink] 10. azbballfan wrote @ Fri, 21 Apr 2006, 6:17 pm CDT:

“Lacrosse players’ alibis not ‘foolproof’ ”
A questionable title for the report.

Although, in all fairness, the defense attorneys have dominated the headlines with some bad ones themselves.

It’s interesting to see the level (or lack of) of balanced reporting in various media sources. You can sort of tell what reporters are sucking up to what lawyers and officials.

Comments are now closed on this post.