Friday, March 16, 2007

The Uncooperative Accuser

In what might be the least surprising development of the case, ABC's Law & Justice Unit is reporting that the accuser, in the words of correspondent Lara Setrakian, "is not being forthcoming with special prosecutors," and in two interviews with special prosecutors, "gave incomplete answers when asked about the events surrounding the alleged assault, according to sources."

The AG's office responded with a carefully worded non-denial denial, in which Roy Cooper said the accuser had been "cooperative" and had shown up for meetings, but didn't say whether she had answered questions.

So, we have an accuser who had no problem hurling charges from the veil of anonymity provided by the N&O and had no problem in giving myriad mutually contradictory stories to Mike Nifong&Associates, but now is refusing to deal with prosecutors who might ask her hard questions. How, then, can this case even still be alive?

The article also continues the sorry pattern of "victims' rights" spokespersons raising serious questions about their objectivity.

Said Leah Ottinger,
She probably feels very beat up by the system. If you don't have a sense of trust in the system, then you're certainly not going to be forthcoming. Even just with the vicious attacks on the Web and her picture on TV. … The trauma, the lack of trust that anyone's going to be there for you, fear of being alone -- all of that could contribute to someone's reluctance to talk.
"Beat up by the system"? This is an accuser who had a district attorney commit so many procedural violations on her behalf that he's likely to lose his license to practice law.

She added,

[Assault victims] don't clearly remember the event right away. It's not unusual and it doesn't mean they are lying. When people have been through a trauma -- a car crash is a good analogy -- it can take them time to reconstruct the facts in their minds. Plus, sexual assault is uncomfortable for anyone to talk about.

And so, apparently, when massive physical evidence contradicts an accuser's story, when the accuser herself changes her story repeatedly, it's par for the course for an accuser to be allowed to "reconstruct the facts" one year after her initial allegation, and conveniently reconstruct those facts to fit the new evidence?



Anonymous said...

AG Cooper's latest statement and Lifong's latest brief requesting dismissal of State Bar charges filed today.

Michael said...

I haven't seen the filing posted anywhere but given his past filings, it should make for more fodders to trap him in lies.

[Also Friday, Nifong filed a brief to support his request that the State Bar complaint be dismissed. He cited various cases to support his claims that he complied with legal rules in turning over evidence, and he argued that he wasn't required to turn over notes from conversations.]

Nifong files for dismissal

Anonymous said...

It is a crazy article. It is a total time warp, recycling the same stuff. I can't even get outraged anymore.

Also, why haven't the sp's interviewed the false accused yet? Anyone know.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how long the defendents need to wait for CGM's memory to clear up. Some one needs to point out to Leah Ottinger that the event in question happened a year ago. That's not even considering the detailed statements CGM made a year ago.

Anonymous said...

I apologize for the thread drift, however, the IWF video is up of the Duke Lacrosse panel from yesterday featuring Christina Hoff Sommers, Stuart Taylor and others.

(KC if you want to just use this link and info in a better place please feel free to use it as you wish and delete this post)

Anonymous said...

"In the coming weeks prosecutors will conduct further interviews with those involved in the case, leaving open the possibility that the accuser might say more about what she remembers from that night."

The show go on for weeks! Only in Durham. Cooper really want to have a trial and black votes in 2008. This is clearly easy case and would take about 2 days to dismiss charges for any mediocre prosecutor. Cooper seem also be violating civil rights of the accused (speedy trial) etc. Shouldn't bar investigate Cooper as well?

Anonymous said...

and more thing: Cooper is clearly giving midleading and false statements to public. Is this allowed? Standard practise in NC?

"Cooper: Lacrosse Accuser Cooperative'"

Anonymous said...

Maybe, that cross-examination at the suppression hearing is really going to happen.

That's what's so funny about these reports--everyone knows there's NFW she gets through that one.

Anonymous said...

These victims' rights advocates seem to have no shame. If an alleged victim tells the same story consistently, that's proof that she's telling the truth. If she tells a bunch of different stories, that's also proof that she's telling the truth (because she's been traumatized).

I realize these people are "advocates" and are trained to always advance the side of the alleged victim, but it appears to me that they are not doing real crime victims any service by advancing the specious arguments they have made in this case -- where the "victim" is clearly lying through her teeth.

Anonymous said...

sums it up!

Anonymous said...

Sounds pretty transparent to me. Here is the end game: The accuser is no longer cooperating with authorities so the AG has no other choice but to drop the charges. The accuser just could not take the public spotlight any longer and all the hate mail and threats that she has been receiving. So under great distress, she has decided not to cooperate any longer and is in seclusion. Even though the AG has decided to drop all charges, this should not be construed as an admission that something didn't happen to the accuser. Cooper will of course thank all his left wing supporters and the like minded people who sought justice and promptly announce his bid for Governor within the month.

Anonymous said...

The case is winding down the SP comments should be interpreted as a pre-announcement that the charges will be dropped. I can understand the reasons for this.

As far as Leah Ottinge’s comments go I’m hoping that she is not following the case and just gave some generic comments about rape victims as opposed to this case specific. Still if I were going to be quoted by the national media I would do my homework. Which raises the questions is Leah Ottinge lazy or just plain dumb?

Anonymous said...

OK, that's it. I surrender. I'm white. I'm male, therefore I am guilty. Of what you may ask? Who cares. I'm white. I'm male.

Please direct me to the nearest re-education camp so that I can be shown how my privilege and my whiteness have seriously harmed every other goddamned living thing on earth.

Please don't waterboard me. I admit it, global warming is my fault.

The fellow who was shot in NYC? My fault.

Free Mumia? Ok, it's my fault he gunned down a Philly cop, so I'll do the time.

Hillary Clinton won't get elected because she's viewed as a polarizing figure? My fault.

Duke basketball lost in the first round (chuckling gleefully)? Must be a conspiracy of white racists such as myself.

Scooter Libby was convicted... oh wait, he's white too, so he deserves jail.

The failing levees? My fault, please sentence me to do time in Nawlins.

Jet Blue canceling every flight it has ever scheduled for the rest of eternity? That's because of the terror threat that me, as a white man, poses to the rest of the free world.

Crappy Hollywood movies? Again, my fault (I do live in California) so I obviously deserve prison time.

Fatty foods? Yup, my fault.

Spoiled milk in the grocery store? that too is my fault (I do live near an awful lot of dairy farmers).

I surrender, because even if I can establish my innocence for any of the above, we all know that "something happened."

Unknown said...

First of all, the AG DID say that she "has been cooperative in answering questions and providing information," according to the article.

Second, I don't think people are pointing out causes for rape victims' varying memory or reluctance to talk necessarily to defend this specific accuser. I think they just say that to remind people that other complaining women might not be consistent on facts even though their accusations have merit.

Keep up the good work though :)

Anonymous said...

Ken, I agree with you that real rape victims may have some difficulty recalling with specificity exactly what happened to them. I think everyone understands that when a person is being assaulted, that person's attention is focused on their own survival (as it should be), and not on details of their assailants' appearance(s) or position(s). And we all know that only liars tell the exact same story the exact same way every time. However, there is a world of difference between a victim's inability to recall some details of her assault, and Crystal Mangum's many contradictory statements in this case. To cite just one example, Crystal Mangum claimed (in one version of her story) that Seligman forced oral sex on her and ejaculated in her mouth. In a subsequent version, Crystal Mangum claimed that Seligman declined to participate in sexually assaulting her, telling the other assailants that he couldn't do it because he was getting married. That kind of massive contradiction cannot reasonably be attributed to trauma; the only explanation that makes sense is that this alleged "victim" is either lying, or crazy, or both.

Anonymous said...

I also think this 'leak' was a prelude to the case being dropped. Although I'm a bit surprised by the public denial right after the leak that had to come from the special prosecutor's themselves.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Humboldt Blue!

It's almost St. Patrick's Day!

And so is Sunday!

Here's to you, my friend...


Anonymous said...

Ugh...I read the article earlier in the day"

While the article mentions the accuser changed her story, the rest of the article is feeling sorry for her. Not ONE SINGLE MENTION of how the lives of a certain three might have been thwarted in the past year...just sickening.......

Anonymous said...

Kilgore, thanks for the link to the IWF video.

Christina Hoff Sommers described women's studies programs as a steady diet of anti-male hate and anger. She estimated that 10-15% of women get whacked out by this stuff.

I might be mistaken, but I believe she compared these women's studies programs to the madrasahs in the Middle East. Apologies if I misheard her comments but the analogy seems appropriate.


Anonymous said...

You know, reading this story makes my blood boil.

It just *infuriates* me the way Nifong handled this case and the NERVE of him to attempt to destroy three innocent lives when EVERYTHING points to a hoax.

As an American - as a human being, this sickens me to my core.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that the prosecutors were starting to politely grill Ms. Mangum about her contradictions, the impossibilities of her stories vs the evidence and she got upset, humiliated, clammed up, became defensive, etc.

Maybe then she realized for the first time that the jig is up.

"Oh no", she suddenly realizes, "If I tell the truth, it might be ME who is going to jail??"

Just imagine what the special prosecutors discussed amongst themselves once she left the room.


Anonymous said...


Ceadh mille failte, slainte!

And for everyone else, it's almost Guinness time.

Anonymous said...

SAVANT - Christina Hoff Sommers is a 10 in my book. I think she described the Duke case as a "Legal lynching in slow motion." Pretty much covers it. Stuart Taylor was also excellent pointing out that the 88 were actually involved in hating. What a breath of fresh air to see these two intelligent and articulate people publically call the cards of those involved. KC should have been there!

Anonymous said...

7:40 wrote: Which raises the questions is Leah Ottinge lazy or just plain dumb?

There's a third possibility. Maybe she's evil.

Anonymous said...

one year after her initially allegation

KC - prolly meant "initial" allegation.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

re: Anon 6:50 and micheal

I just finished reading Nifong's latest brief. It is basically, I am not guilty because I was caught too soon to have committed an ethical violation. I doubt that sells to the ethics committee.

Nifong just does not understand that he is no longer an insider in the system but the jerk that caused all sorts of pressure on the NC system. Technical legal defenses are not going to do him any good.

Anonymous said...

"An accuser's reluctance to tell her story may not necessarily mean her alleged attackers are innocent"

Huh? So now we assume guilty until proven innocent.

This article is an outrageous sham. They're playing the same politics as Nifong. Its called the Race Card.

So now that black-on-white crime is acceptable, I'm going to buy a gun.

Michael said...

I'm watching nightline tonight and they're showing a segment on hookup-culture from the female point of view. Pretty shocking to me as a dad of a near-adult.

Michael said...

re: 10:46

It's not even guilty until proven innocent. It's just plain guilty. You can't clear your name if you are accused.

If dismissed, the prosecution and police didn't do their jobs. If found not guilty, the prosecution didn't do their job or the defense was really, really good or it was a dumb jury.

If the accuser forgets, that's because rape victims can forget. If the accuser remembers, then that must be the way it happened.

If multiple memories, then that happens to rape accusers too.

It's like being accused of ordering black strippers and getting called racist. If you say you asked for white strippers, then that proves that you're racist.

They just have to be called on their fallacies every single time.

Anonymous said...

Said Leah Ottinger, "...[Assault victims] don't clearly remember the event right away.
It's not unusual and it doesn't mean they are lying. When people have been through a trauma -- a car crash is a good analogy -- it can take them time to reconstruct the facts in their minds. Plus, sexual assault is uncomfortable for anyone to talk about."

Ms. Ottinger:
Are you saying the FA doesn't feel uncomfortable HAVING sex, just TALKING about it? This is a woman who, on a daily basis, sells her body for sex. Being uncomfortable "talking about" her sexual escapades would be like you being uncomfortable talking about your duties as a victims' rights spokesperson. In all fairness to the FA though,she really might have difficulty talking about it, but only because she can't keep her LIES straight! She can't tell the difference between one sexual encounter and another, and this was especially evident last March when she was found to have DNA from 5-7 men in her vagina, none of which belonged to any of the Duke Lacrosse boys whom she claims assaulted her. So many men, so little time!

Anonymous said...

Nofing coached the FA to not speak to the SPs and I would not be suprised if they aren't playing along with this part of the sham -- it suits their purposes. Also, when this sort of thing makes it into the press in this way, you can bet it was a deliberate leak.

Anonymous said...

With respect to the statement of the rape victim advocate, if I recall correctly the accuser made an unfounded allegation of rape in the past. While the court may not allow that tidbit to be used by the defense, it is certainly needs to be accounted for by anyone who would claim that CGM fits the profile of a traumatized rape victim.

becket03 said...

If Precious pulls out, it may result in Cooper dropping the case, but it will not restore Precious to status quo ante. She'll still have to deal with Rae Evans and the other parents. Given the seriousness of their resolve to vindicate their sons (serious people with serious resolve are a fearsome thing), it's a very good bet Precious will find herself on the witness stand within a few years, no matter what Cooper does.


Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Kilgore! Thank you so much for that link! All three of the commentators did a wonderful job but, for me, Christina Hoff Summers nailed it when she described the Angry Women's Studies on campus as 'madrassahs' teaching hate.

Anonymous said...

Denying the credibility of a witness in NYC's Sean Bell case, here's what a lawyer for Bell's parents said today:

"There is a word for an individual who tells two different stories on two different occasions about the same event. I believe that word is a liar".

Honest Al Sharpton, spokesman for the Bell family, was right there, nodding approval.

Maybe Sharpton and that Bell lawyer could explain the correct designation for an individual like CGM, with her dozen or more versions of the same incident.

When she blew past "liar" she was still accelerating.

Anonymous said...

Early on, I saw a womens advocare from Durham on TV. She said " she did not care about the facts of the case and totally supported the FA's claims" I think FA has been trying to get out of this since day1 - Nifong, family, enablers would not let her. I doubt she would have ever shown at Court.

Anonymous said...

You are welcome Carolyn. I apologize again for being off topic but I thought people would want to know. Taylor/Sommers were a great pair.

It's interesting to see them try to use a car crash analogy. Anyone who has worked with people who have been through traumatic car crashes will tell you that there is data that people don't remember for some time. Some of the memories are simply too difficult and will slowly find their way into their consciousness. However that is as far as the analogy goes. What she didn't tell you was that people who have been in severe car crashes almost never forget or have trouble remembering the basic scenario of the crash. i.e. "We slid on the ice and hit a red car on the side and then rolled over." They might not be aware of little details around the crash but they most assuredly remember the basics of the event and don't alter that basic memory.

CGM's performance would be like a person from a serious car crash saying "We slid on the ice and hit a red car on the side and then rolled over." Then a moment later change her mind and say, "We were rear-ended by a big truck." Then in the next breath say "The brakes failed and we slid into a concrete wall and burst into flame." Her basic story of the actual events changed DRASTICALLY and this is very different from those who may suppress specific memories from a traumatic experience in cars, at least it is radically different from those I have worked with.

In my mind it is underhanded to invoke a therapeutic template to explain away what are obviously lies. It exposes the invoker's desperate need to have this woman be right no matter what. The invoker is joining the accuser in a massive denial.

Anonymous said...

As a former Soviet prosecutor I am happy to see America has finally come closer to the enightened view that charges should only be filed after the alibis are reported.

Anonymous said...

Ottinger is scary. Why bother with an investigation or a trial? An accuser can tell any number of stories and change them around any time she feels like it - if she feels like telling them at all. If she doesn't feel like telling her story then that's fine too. Just be sure to lock up the supposed suspect - for life.

Anonymous said...

With respect to the statement of the rape victim advocate, if I recall correctly the accuser made an unfounded allegation of rape in the past. While the court may not allow that tidbit to be used by the defense, it is certainly needs to be accounted for by anyone who would claim that CGM fits the profile of a traumatized rape victim.

Do the rape shield laws apply in a civil case?

If this case is that the AV caused great harm by lying about being raped, then surely all her past behavior becomes available?

If that is so, she has a lot to be afraid of, and so does the DPD, it seems to me because they knew her well.

Anonymous said...

One of my favorite examples of how the "traumatized" Ms. Mangum can't accurately recall all the details of her "rape" is when she says (in one of the early versions she gave to police, I think) that just before the "rape," she and Kim were near the bathroom door, standing together holding onto each other tightly and crying, when six men (three on each woman) brutally pried them apart from each other. After Ms. Roberts goes on national t.v. (60 Minutes) and says nope, nothing like that ever happened, we get Ms. Mangum's "new and improved" version, in which she and Ms. Roberts are "somehow" separated while inside the house, but Ms. Mangum can't quite remember how it happened.


Anonymous said...

What if she is constipated when she is being questioned. Pehaps it was snowing outside the window when she was being asked questions. Maybe a bird flew by or a rocket was fired into the heavens or a monkey broke wind, and she didn't feel like talking. Well, it's understandable.

Anonymous said...

Or maybe she was trying to be cooperative . . . but then she passed out, or crawled under a table, or started crying uncontrollably (due to all the "trauma" that her false allegation has caused her to suffer)....

Anonymous said...

As Nancy Grace said in the SNL spoof, "OK Duke LAX team, you won this one, what with you not having done anything wrong, But I am still going to get you."
Sounds like the spoof is the real script for the lefty's who don't want to give it up.

Anonymous said...

It is fairly easy to show that Nifong did not believe that CGM was too traumatized to accurately identify her "assailants". The give-away is that he was entirely un-receptive to the offer from defendants lawyers to view alibi evidence. Because if one or more of the accused could be virtually ruled out that should HELP the prosecution refocus their investigation on the real perps. Because, after all, a traumatized witness can be an un-reliable witness, right?
But of course, Nifong was not by then looking for any kind of help conducting a legitimate investigation because he already knew the case was built on a lie.
If anyone has another way of interpreting this, I would love to hear it.

Anonymous said...

4:23 I think it is clear that this is Crystal's respone to getting "caught ".