2nd Duke party dancer faces probation violation charges

[IndianaGreen]

I wonder if Nifong will use these charges to elicit the sort of testimony from Kim Roberts that he needs to bolster his case against the Duke rape defendants. Remember Reade Seligmann's cab driver being arrested on an old misdemeanor warrant?

2nd Duke party dancer faces probation violation charges

12:14 PM EDT on Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Associated Press

DURHAM, N.C. -- A stripper who performed at a Duke University lacrosse team party where another dancer said she was raped by three team members faces probation violation charges.

A hearing for Kim Roberts scheduled for Tuesday in Durham County Superior Court was postponed until July 24. She made an obscene hand gesture toward a television reporter and photographer and stuck out her tongue at them during her court visit.

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.

She failed to pay restitution to her former employer, missed appointments with her probation officer and left North Carolina without permission to visit California, according to court documents.

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-ad-5_31_06-duke.3e17daea.html

[JesterCS]

1. imagine that *yawn*

Someone with that track record.....

once a liar, always a liar

[mzteris]

38. kinda like those

dookies with their records, eh?

[Kagemusha]

2. Guess she didn't give Nifong what he wanted.

Figures.

[FreakinDJ]

3. No doubt he needs corroborating testimony

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2006/05/duke_lacrosse_c.html

[Drum]

4. cool site

thanks for that link!

[FreakinDJ]

5. Law Professor at UNC Law school

[TorchTheWitch]

6. Holy Cow!

She violated her probation! *gasp* And she gave the finger to the reporters! *eeeeeekkkk*

Is there supposed to be something interesting about this? So she's a thief. big deal. We already knew that. Or is it the obscene gesture that's so horrifying?

Lord knows, an embezzler and obscene gesture making person just make the WORST witnesses compared to all the violent murders and other hideous criminals that are taken from jail and put on the stand in their orange jumpsuits to testify in a case. Kind of makes you wonder why so many mob cases depend so heavily on a snitch... who would ever believe the testimony of a violent criminal in the mob? I just can't imagine whey so many attorneys on both sides rely on testimony of criminals, even the most violent and horrible ones rotting in prison... what the hell are they thinking to put such people on the stand when nobody in their right mind would believe a word they say about anything?

Well, if the testimony of criminals would be unbelievable in a separate incident that sure puts Finnerty in trouble then, huh? He's even a VIOLENT criminal, so how in the world is anything he says about an entirely different incident and entirely different crime going to be believable? OOOOOO, and this one is even about HIM, too! Huh... if criminals of any sort are all liars then I just can't imagine what it is that makes you believe Finnerty is telling the truth... I mean, come on... he's a proven violent criminal. I guess a violent criminal accused of another violent crime is certainly more believeable to some people than an embezzler who gives the finger to a camera.

[jberryhill]

8. There is an important distinction

First of all, the probability that Finnerty would take the stand to testify to anything is low. Finnerty's credibility as a witness to anything is unlikely to be an issue.

Second, he is an alleged violent criminal, as the DC charge is not yet proven, either. Proceedings are scheduled in that case. To state that he is a "proven violent" criminal is simply not true.

if criminals of any sort are all liars

You are wrong on the law here. The rules of evidence make a distinction among criminals, and whether they might be liars.

As far as using a "prior bad act" on the subject of witness credibility, in general, prior crimes are inadmissible on the issue. For example, you can be a bank robber, jaywalker, and as VIOLENT a criminal as you like. None of those are going to come in as impeachment evidence, because the rules of evidence deem them irrelevant to truth-telling propensity.

There is an exception to the "prior bad act" type of evidence, and involves whether the prior crime in question is a _crimen falsi_ - i.e. a crime which by its nature involves deception or dishonesty. A witness can be impeached on introduction of evidence of a _crimen falsi_. Embezzlement is indeed one such crime.

The rules of evidence, whether you like or not, DO indeed make a distinction between a violent criminal and an embezzler on the subject of propensity for telling the truth. There is nothing about a murderer which suggests they are dishonest. There IS something about an embezzler. That's black-letter law.

However, on the overall subject, the embezzlement thing is certainly not as timely or relevant as Kim Roberts' clear lying in the 12:53 911 call, and in her statement to Officer Shelton at the Kroger parking lot.

Hence, the subject of the embezzlement charge may be deemed duplicative on the issue of credibility, and wouldn't come in if that judgment were made. HOWEVER, the subject may be relevant to bias, if there is enough of a foundation to suggest that Nifong is playing with her pending prosecution to get what he wants out of her.

[Kingshakabobo]

16. You said it better than I. I was going to call her a low-life sneak thief.

There is something especially low about a person who embezzles/steals from someone who trusted them. That, and her attempt to profit from this.

[jberryhill]

18. I wasn't characterizing her

I was merely pointing out that a prior assault would be inadmissible on the issue of credibility, but a prior embezzlement would be. That's just the law of evidence, that's not a personal judgment.

[mzteris]

40. oh yeah

the one who beats the crap out of guy because he's "gay" is much better person!

[TorchTheWitch]

33. Nobody here CARES about the law

Where have you been? Nobody here gives a crap about whether anything is hearsay or whether anyone is going to take the stand or not or whether there is even any evidence in this case. All anyone cares about in this case is what happened and who is innocent or guilty otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it at all.

At SOME point Finnerty claims he didn't rape anyone, so he's either a liar or not. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference to anyone here (except you) whether or not he says so on the stand since he obviously is pleading not guilty.

The point is that if you're going to argue that someone is going to lie because past criminal behavior may suggest that they will than you can't assume that someone is not a rapist when they have a past of violent criminal behavior... that's a clear bias and really shouldn't have to be explained.

There is an exception to the "prior bad act" type of evidence, and involves whether the prior crime in question is a _crimen falsi_ - i.e. a crime which by its nature involves deception or dishonesty. A witness can be impeached on introduction of evidence of a _crimen falsi_. Embezzlement is indeed one such crime.

Do you really think that anyone here knows anything at all about this or gives a crap? The OP certainly doesn't, and you seem to be the only one that does. Go argue the legal technicalties of the case with someone who actually cares. What people care about here is whether or not Kim Roberts is telling the truth whether she's a past criminal of any kind or not. It wouldn't matter if she was a lily white virgin with an entirely spotless past, they'd STILL wonder about whether or not she's telling the truth in this particular case. If they couldn't use her past criminal behavior they'd go with the fact that she's a stripper, and well, just EVERYONE knows that strippers are all a bunch of lying, thieving ho's... or did you somehow miss those claims?

Finnerty is a violent criminal because he plead guilty and received punishment for a violent crime. If there's some reason why you assume he's not proven to be guilty when he plead guilty and accepted punishment for the crime, and is in fact going back to court on that case not because he's changing his plea but because he broke his plea agreement, I can't help you. His trial has nothing to do with proving him guilty or not guilty since he IS guilty and already agreed himself that he is. If a confession of guilt doesn't make one to be proven guilty then he must have lied when he confessed... oh, holy cow, that would make him a LIAR! Ok, so he's either a proven violent criminal or a proven liar... which do you want to go with?

How is it that Roberts can be assumed to be a liar because she's a proven embezzler yet Finnerty can't be assumed to be a rapist when he's a proven violent criminal? And NO, I don't want to hear any legally technical explaination since none of us other than you give a shit and are interested in what ACTUALLY happened and who may ACTUALLY be innocent or guilty or honest or a liar.

And just how is Finnerty not a proven violent criminal yet Roberts is a proven embezzler when they both plead guilty and received punishment for their crimes? Why are you not arguing whether or not Roberts is a proven embezzler when you'll argue whether or not Finnerty is a proven violent criminal? You don't see any bias at all in assuming that Roberts is guilty of her crime but not assuming that Finnerty is guilty of his?

[jberryhill]

34. Well for one thing

Roberts was CONVICTED of the embezzlement.

How is it that Roberts can be assumed to be a liar because she's a proven embezzler

Not the point at all. The jury can weigh the embezzlement thing against their own perception of her demeanor. Nowhere did I say she can be "assumed" to be anything.

We KNOW Roberts lied several times that night.

Here, listen to an mp3 of Kim Roberts lying:

http://www.newsobserver.com/content/multimedia/flash_audio/20060328_911b.mp3

Good golly. That's Kim Roberts, in her own voice, in her own words, lying.

25 minutes later, she is seeking help, from the security guard at the Kroger (also an African American woman, btw) trying to get her "girlfriend" forcibly removed from her car:

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

(note the description of the car color, btw)

Sheesh.

And, yes, I did miss the post where someone said all strippers were liars, thieves, or anything else.

Roberts, on the other hand, thought the victim might be a thief:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12442765/site/newsweek/page/4/
Roberts said she had not collected all the money owed them for the dance, and she wondered if the other dancer was somehow hustling her.

So, go argue with Kim Roberts - SHE thought the other stripper might be a thief.

On the subject of Finnerty, I refer you to my post some time ago in which I characterized him as a "violent jerk".

Yes, Finnerty is a violent jerk, and Roberts is a liar. I'm not having either one of them over to my place for tea.

You are incorrect that Finnert pled guilty. He accepted a diversion program without admission of guilt. That is, in fact, the reason WHY he has to go back to DC to stand trial in the underlying charge. His arrest in this matter triggered the terms of the diversion program. There was no conviction, and there was no plea.

And I apologize about caring about the law which I am sworn to uphold. It separates us from a mob.

I also don't recall making any personal remarks directed toward you, and would appreciate the same courtesy.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Hey, those are great links about Roberts

Her video interviews will probably be used by the defense to impugn her credibility if what she says on the stand materially differs from what she told the press.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Bush shares your views about the law

Due process is an impediment to everything!

:eyes:

I don't know about Finnerty's role in this case, but I know enough about Seligmann to conclude he has a strong alibi, and about Evans to know that the accuser misidentified him as an assailant.

[Kingshakabobo]

9. .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192628,00.html



Below is the text of the e-mail sent by Kim Roberts to 5W Public Relations in New York. Roberts, an exotic dancer, accompanied the woman accusing members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team of raping her the night of March 13.

Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:21 PM

To: Ronn Torossian

Subject: duke lacrosse scandal

Hi!

My name is Kim and I am involved in the Duke Lacrosse scandal. Although I am no celebrity and just an average citizen, I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country. I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage. I am determined not to let any negative publicity about my life overtake me. I'm so confused as to who to talk to for relevant advice and I hope that you can return my e-mail. If you cannot help, do you know of any names and numbers I can call?

Thanks for your time,

[IndianaGreen]

10. Do you have a link to this?

It would help as a reference to those of us that are following this case.

To their credit, the PR firm released the e-mail to the media rather than exploiting the situation.

[Kingshakabobo]

11. I edited. It's from fux news. It appears they are the ones who.....

....got the "scoop" so they have it in original format with headers.

[IndianaGreen]

14. I got the CNN transcript and I posted that in another post

in this thread.

[jberryhill]

12. Eh...

She says "I am determined not to let any negative publicity about my life overtake me" so it is not immediately obvious to me that "spin this to my advantage" necessarily reflected a pecuniary intent. She wanted advice on not looking bad.

Take Kato Kaelin, for example. Not the smartest guy in the world, and living with a murderer, but he did manage to get a few gigs by coming off as cute & funny in the whole ordeal.

This case could use someone like him for comic relief.

But going from normal life to having cameras and microphones pointed at you is a perfectly good reason to look for advice from a PR firm, and given her reported performance today, she could use that kind of advice.

[Kingshakabobo]

19. Yes, but she admits her intent was profit...

"Why shouldn't I profit from it?" she said when questioned about her willingness to profit from her colleague's alleged rape - or the ruin of two young men who may be innocent of the charges. "I didn't ask to be in this position...I would like to feed my daughter."

[jberryhill]

22. Mmmm...

"when questioned about her willingness to profit"

I'll grant you it doesn't look good, but it's not clear whether she was talking about taking advantage of out-of-court publicity, as opposed to shading her testimony.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Never mind, I googgled it. Here are the transcript and links

CNN transcript:

PAULA ZAHN NOW

Aired April 21, 2006 - 20:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ROBERTS: I was there from the beginning to the end. The only thing I did not see was the rape, because I was not in the bathroom at that particular moment. Everything leading up to it, I was there. Everything leaving from it, I was there. And, mind you, I believe I was the only sober person in the place.

<snip>

CARROLL: These court documents obtained by CNN show, Roberts was arrested after the alleged rape for violating her parole in an embezzlement case. One of her violations was leaving the state without prior approval. Bail was set this past Monday at $25,000.

But district attorney Michael Nifong approved an unsecured bond, essentially allow Roberts to leave jail without posting bail. Her attorney told CNN, she's no longer a flight risk, because she's cooperating fully with the police and the district attorney in the Duke investigation.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It is a plausible theory that a witness was given special consideration in one case, in return for testimony in the really big Duke lacrosse case. The question here is, is anything she's saying ultimately all that incriminating, because she admits, she didn't see any rape.

CARROLL: The district attorney's office says bail issues are decided on a case-by-case basis. Kim Roberts, meanwhile, has considered hiring a public-relations firm.

She sent an e-mail to 5W Public Relations in New York City, saying, "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."

Roberts' attorney called the e-mail regrettable.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/21/pzn.01.html

[jberryhill]

15. What's "regrettable" is..

The PR firm passing along the email for publication.

Maybe it's just me, and I realize my situation is different, but I get unsolicited emails every day from people looking for legal help. Some are misguided, some are funny and some are poignant <1>. Naturally, those inquiries are confidential, and in this instance we are talking about a PR firm. But to embarass her like that, IMHO, reflects poorly on the PR firm.


<1> For example, I am a patent attorney, and wouldn't know the first thing about criminal appeals, but there are prisoners who apparently spend all of their free time handwriting letters about their situation and sending them at random to attorneys, looking for help with appeals. I respond to them politely, but to publish that sort of thing would be awful.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Roberts did not recall seeing Seligmann at party (CBS)

Kim Roberts, answers questions during an
interview in Raleigh, N.C., Friday, April 21, 2006.
Roberts was the second exotic dancer at a Duke
lacrosse team party at which another stripper
claims she was raped. (AP)

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

<snip>

Also Thursday, 5W Public Relations, a New York firm that specializes in “crisis communication,” distributed an e-mail signed “The 2nd Dancer,” and Roberts confirmed she sent it after learning the AP knew her identity.

“I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country,” she wrote. “I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage.”

Ronn Torossian, 5W's president, said he replied, but got no response.

“If this person is indeed who they say they are, I would be happy to speak with her,” said Torossian, whose firm has represented the likes of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Ice Cube and Lil' Kim.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/national/main1526321.shtml

[jberryhill]

20. That's only because Seligmann looked like this at the party:

Worst case of 5 o'clock shadow I've ever seen.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Or perhaps Seligmann looked like this

[jberryhill]

23. Impossible

They weren't allowed to wear berets.

(okay, don't bait me on "silly")

[IndianaGreen]

24. Here is Seligmann without the mustache

[Kingshakabobo]

25. Absent attorney client privilege, don't they have a civic duty to....

come forward if they believe someone is trying to "spin" a criminal case, and their testimony, to their advantage?

The better solution, I guess, would have been to hand the email over to the defense attorney. Either way, it would still end up in the media.

[jberryhill]

26. I'm not talking about duty...

It's just plain bad manners to release an email that someone sent you in confidence, attorney or not.

And, no, they don't have such a duty. She was seeking help in dealing with the publicity, and she could use that help. IMHO, it reflects poorly on the firm for releasing it (aside from the fact that she owns the copyright in that email, btw, which IS up my alley).

[Kingshakabobo]

29. Not even a civic duty??

I'm talking right and wrong here-not the law. :P

Does she have a copyright if she doesn't put one of those disclaimers? Which I doubt she did if she was using some run of the mill public email like yahoo or AOL.

[jberryhill]

31. Right and wrong

I don't see a public good served by their disclosing it. They hold themselves out to the public as being a firm engaged in managing people's reputations. They received an inquiry from someone interested in those services, with the hope and expectation that they could help her manage her reputation, and possibly even make a few bucks from her media exposure. In that context, what they did seems a whole lot more "wrong" than "right". She approached them because they apparently work for a celebrity whom she admires, and they threw her under a bus. If they thought there was a "civic duty" involved, then they could have quietly sent it to the prosecutor, not Fox News.

On the copyright issue - presence of a notice, or the type of service used, doesn't matter. The copyright in an original work of authorship is owned by the author when the work is fixed in tangible form. Using AOL or Yahoo doesn't assign your copyright to those services, and much less to the recipient of your email.

[DubyaSux]

28. Just out of curiosity...

...but do you discriminate against all "rich" (going to Duke hardly makes you wealthy) white people? No offense, but you seem to be defending the accuser only because of her skin color.

My point is, white people have rights too. To date, there is not one shred of evidence pointing to their guilt while alot of evidence exists vindicating them.

Not trying to pick a fight, but in reading your posts, your stance seems to be based on skin color.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Suppose the accuser was a rich white coed at Duke

and the accused were African-American students at North Carolina Central University.

Those that support the Duke accuser by virtue of their empathy with her class, race, and gender, would now be siding with the NCCU students and would be accusing Nifong of prosecutorial misconduct and rush to judgment. The North Carolina NAACP comes to mind.

Those that support the Duke players by virtue of their empathy with their class, race, and gender, would now be siding with the Duke coed and be demanding Nifong's scalp for failing to prosecute the NCCU students. Sean Hannity comes to mind.

As to the rest of us, we would still be here questioning the apparent weaknesses in Nifong's case, and wondering if Nifong is coercing witnesses and engaging in prosecutorial misconduct.

[chookie]

35. A scenario for your consideration....

The New Black Panthers have been on the scene for a few weeks. It's kinda bugged me, as they are a black nationalist militant hate group -- but my bebuggedness seems to be my own.

But IMAGINE if instead of the NBPP (check out http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=214) -- BTW it's only the opinion of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a well known racist organization :sarcasm: , that the Aryan Brotherhood was the champion of the accuser....

D'ya think Durham would give a green light to white men in paramilitary uniforms with a history of hatred towards blacks, Catholics and Jews, armed with knives, to congregate in their city if white men OR black men had been accused of a hideous rape crime? Would the local DA Nifong meet with this extremist group (aryan Brotherhood, as he did NBPP) to show the evidence he has in the case? D'ya think "liberals" would be cool with this? If the president of Duke U would allow the Aryan Brotherhood to perform a protest on the property of a private university -- d'ya think "liberals" would not be outraged?? Why is this extremist antiwhite, antiSemitic group not given a pass, when a black antiSemitic homophobic nationalist organization is given a pass?

If the Aryan Brotherhood shadowed the accused (white or black) as he walked into court, and shouted "JUSTICE WILL BE DONE, RAPIST!! as he walked into the courtroom-- doncha think more liberal panties would be in a twist? The NBPP did as much, and sat in the court room at the hearing. Any liberals disturbed that they have requested that the accused be turned over to them to receive AB justice, when its okay to turn it over to a militant black nationalist group? Why would the militant racist asshole group Aryan Brotherhood be excluded, if freedom of speech is SO darned protected for paramilitary black groups?

I am quite baffled, and bothered, why the NBPP are being given consideration in this case. (They hate gays, Jews BTW, not only white devils. Or Duke Blue Devils. Don't believe me? Look at http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Black_Panther.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=Black_Panther)

They also advocate blowing up Israeli children and old ladies) Comfortable with that? Happy to have them on "our side, defending the accused?

IMHO -- racist bullshit is a two way street.

As I have remarked constantly in my 6 years at DU -- extremist assholes -- however polarized -- seem to have a great deal in common. If they could only sit down together and share their hopes and dreams -- WOO HOO! -- they would find that they share the same goals. BTW -- count me out....

[struggle4progress]

39. Gotta link on Nifong meeting with NBPP? Claim smells bad to me.

[struggle4progress]

41. Duke did NOT allow NBPP on campus. So what's the point of your ..

remark, 'If the president of Duke U would allow the Aryan Brotherhood to perform a protest on the property of a private university -- d'ya think "liberals" would not be outraged??'

[jberryhill]

32. There are "shreds"

Part of the problem in the various discussions is picking through various, and sometimes biased, sources of information to try to sieve out what "facts" there might be.

On "one shred of evidence pointing to their guilt" there are a couple of things:

1. A SANE report of which we know virtually nothing - a handful of vague verbiage from a search warrant affidavit, and a cherry-picked defense leak of dubious value. Nonetheless, there were symptoms which nobody disputes the SANE report said were consistent with the victim's claim. The debate on that point revolves around the extent of the consistency and whether the exact findings, which nobody knows, may have been consistent with other behavior.

2. The victim's own claim. Always relevant. Credibility is a jury question.

3. The victim's photo-ID. Possibly inadmissible because of the way it was conducted. Maybe admissible for various purposes, including by Evans' defense who might want it IN.

4. Analysis of other physical evidence we haven't seen. A slew of cell phones, cameras, and stuff was seized from the house. While there's been a lot of hoopla over some DNA tests, there really hasn't been much info from either side about what, if anything, resulted from the analysis of that stuff.

5. The partial DNA fingernail match. And here one is compelled to recall that relevant evidence is something that makes a given proposition to be more or less likely, though not being dispositive proof of the proposition. She says she fought the attackers. A false fingernail of hers was found in the bathroom trash from which a partial match to Evans' was made. Of course it is Evans' own bathroom, and contamination in his own bathroom trashcan must be considered. But that is a question of "weight", not "relevance". The fingernail is definitely coming in.

6. A rootless white male pubic hair. It's not clear where this was found in association with the victim. Because it is rootless, it is not useful for DNA testing purposes. See point 5 on "things you can pick up in a bathroom".

Just about everything else is circumstantial - Bissey, Roberts, the cabbie, the "American Psycho" email, Finnerty's DC assault charge, a fat lot of the discussion revolves around things which are pretty much just atmospheric.

The SANE report is really going to be key, of the things which are known to exist thus far. If the SANE report details injuries that are recent, and inconsistent with whatever other consensual behavior may have occured prior to the party, then in combination with the victim's claim, hey, the injuries had to come from SOMEWHERE. Unfortunately, that only goes as far as demonstrating a likelihood she had been raped, but says nothing about whether the named defendants did it. And if you can't tie those three guys to those injuries (or any one of them), then they walk.

A lot of hope seems to be in a toxicology report, for reasons I don't quite get. While GHB is rightly called a "date rape" drug, it is also used recreationally and, again, doesn't ID the rapist(s). Interestingly, "pills" were seized from the house. Of course, various "player sided" claims have the victim in the bathroom voluntarily for a period of time. I'm not going to go into how much you can learn by medicine cabinet snooping in other people's houses, but suffice it to say, I don't think a tox report is going to be a "make or break" thing no matter what it says.

And, I should point out an obligatory "bias" notice. I personally am skeptical that the prosecution will get a conviction on the limited information available thus far. My bet is that this will likely never go to trial, which will leave everyones' points of view intact.

There is enough data, and enough non-data, to have a reasonable opinion either way.

[superconnected]

7. I can't wait till this gets to trial.

What do we have to wait, a year?

Edited to clarify - I mean the whole duke lacrosse case. Not this womans probation case.

[Up2Late]

27. Hey, that sounds like one of my former Girlfriends!

Don't ask.

I just hope the girl doesn't turn up dead somewhere.