Duke Rape Suspects Speak Out
60 Minutes' Ed Bradley Talks To The Accused Lacrosse Players, Who Have Never Before Been Interviewed
-
Play CBS Video
Video
More From The Duke Players
Only On The Web: The three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping an exotic dancer talk to Ed Bradley about the pain and grief caused by the case and the ensuing media attention.
-
Video
Brodhead On The Duke Case
Duke University President Richard Brodhead speaks to Ed Bradley about how the school handled the alleged rape case involving three Duke lacrosse players.
-
Video
Duke Lacrosse Players Speak
"60 Minutes" correspondent Ed Bradley talks to the Duke lacrosse players accused of raping an exotic dancer. They profess their innocence and discuss how the case has put their future plans on hold.
-
-
Photo
David Evans, left, Reade Seligmann, center, and Collin Finnerty (CBS)
-
Photo
Kim Roberts (CBS)
-
Photo
The accuser says the alleged rape happened inside this house in Durham, N.C. (CBS/AP)
-
-
Photo Essay
Duke Lacrosse Case
Duke lacrosse players were charged with sexual abuse in high profile case that caused tension in Durham, N.C.
-
Timeline
Duke Lacrosse Allegations
Track events in the case of team members accused of sexually abusing a dancer hired to perform at a team party.
In an instant, the image of the players went from athletes to accused criminals, in the form of mug shots. The Duke lacrosse players had been big men on campus – top students and favorites to win a national title. But it all came crashing down after the players held their annual team party.
The party was at a house on March 13th during spring break at Duke University, located just off campus. It was rented by three captains of the Duke lacrosse team who lived there.
The party that afternoon started about 2 p.m. and as the day wore on, the players were in and out of the house. What is not in dispute here is that there was drinking and two exotic dancers were hired to perform that night. By the time the dancers arrived after 11 p.m., 35 players from the lacrosse team were at the party.
"I'd say at least half of them were tipsy or better. Tipsy or better," says Kim Roberts, the other dancer paid to perform that night and a central witness in the case.
Roberts went by the stage name “Nikki”, and has consistently maintained that she never witnessed a sexual assault in the house. But she has wavered in her opinions and recollections about the case. At first she said the allegations by the accuser, known as “Precious,” were “a crock.” And then later she believed “they were guilty.” Now, she says she just wants to stick to the facts.
"I’m not a detective, I’m not the D.A. I'm just a girl who was there. So honestly, what needs to happen is you hear my version, you hear their version, put it together. Sift through the bull. And hopefully come out with as much truth as possible," Roberts tells Bradley.
Roberts gave 60 Minutes a detailed account of what she witnessed at the party that night. She says the dance got underway just around midnight, as seen here in a time-stamped photograph taken by one of the players.
"We were doing, you know, things that strippers are supposed to do," Roberts recalls.
Asked how the players were reacting, she says, "They seemed happy, you know? They seemed eager. They were really ready for us to come. When we came out, they hooted and hollered. I thought they were getting a good little eyeful."
The smiling and the cheering didn’t last long. The dancer known as "Precious" soon began stumbling and falling on the floor of the living room. "Precious" later told the police that she had been drinking that night. She was also taking Flexeril, a powerful prescription muscle relaxant.
"At some point you said that she seemed intoxicated," Bradley tells Roberts.
"Yeah, something was going on, you know, where we were stumbling over each other, falling against each other, maybe almost tripping each other. So it started to get a little uncomfortable," she replies.
What happened next would alter the outcome of the entire evening. The women danced for a few minutes until one of the lacrosse players asked them if they had any sex toys. That player then followed up with a provocative comment about a broomstick.
"He asked about the sex toys. I was not offended about that question. Didn't bother me at all. I told him 'Didn't have any. Good idea though fella. You know, that would've, you know, eaten up some time,'" Roberts recalls, laughing. "But as soon as I said that, he said 'Don't worry, don't worry, we'll just use this on you.' And I started to think, 'What if they did really want to use a broomstick?' What if, you know?"
Asked if she felt threatened or intimidated by the broomstick, Roberts tells Bradley, "Definitely. All of that. Not necessarily completely threatened that he might use that actual broomstick but threatened that if he would say that and I've only been on this dance floor for ten minutes, what's the next step? You know what I mean? What's next? What's the next thing they might say?"
At this point, Roberts says they stopped dancing.
After that, David Evans says that his teammates, who had paid the women $800 for a two-hour performance, felt cheated.
"When they stopped, a lot of, there was a lot of confusion in the room, you know. Guys thought that we might have been hustled when they said they were leaving. We paid $800 and they were there for five minutes. And, naturally guys got upset," he says.
A photograph shows the dancers leaving the living room at 12:04 a.m. Shortly after, they locked themselves in the bathroom. The players began to argue with them through the door, insisting that they come out and continue dancing.
"We were pretty much crouched behind the door. And the boys are knockin'. The boys are knockin'. The boys are knockin' and she is worked at this point, too. She's yellin' and screamin', 'Just leave us alone. Just leave us alone, leave us alone.' So I didn't really know what to do. It wasn’t you, know, cajoling or it wasn’t sweet. It was they were coaxing us but in their own boyish, rude way," Roberts explains.
Produced By Michael Radutzky and Tanya Simon
© MMVI, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.


- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 245 CommentsSOMEONE CHECK AND SEE IF THIS PROSECUTOR HAS BOUGHT TICKETS FOR A SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRY WITH NO EXTRADITION.
Yeah. Right.
If you are poor, and a stripper, you must be immoral.
At what income bracket are you a decent , honest person?
How about Justice?
Katie Couric should be ashamed.
Ed Bradely seems to be going wherever the evidence takes him.
Thank you
I am not saying who I feel is guilty but just remember that money talks and I do wonder if Ms. Roberts may of been financially compensated for her statements. I know a man who lives in the same area and he has been doing some research on this matter. He knew OF the two ladies and wanted to see if Ms. Roberts was still "working" and guess what? She is no longer "for hire" for anything other then public appearances. Makes me wonder how she is making a living now!!
Just think about the comments about this all happening because the boy's are "little rich white boy's" and the accuser wants money because they could do no wrong. There are a lot of young people, regardless of skin color, out there that have access to too much money and feel they deserve what ever they want and nothing will ever happen to them because they are rich.
But, I seem to remember a female candidate for Vice President who's son was a "little rich boy" and he sure did something wrong in the park one night. Oh yeah, he denied doing anything too!!
I am not saying who I feel is guilty but just remember that money talks and I do wonder if Ms. Roberts may of been financially compensated for her statements. I know a man who lives in the same area and he has been doing some research on this matter. He knew OF the two ladies and wanted to see if Ms. Roberts was still "working" and guess what? She is no longer "for hire" for anything other then public appearances. Makes me wonder how she is making a living now!!
Just think about the comments about this all happening because the boy's are "little rich white boy's" and the accuser wants money because they could do no wrong. There are a lot of young people, regardless of skin color, out there that have access to too much money and feel they deserve what ever they want and nothing will ever happen to them because they are rich.
But, I seem to remember a female candidate for Vice President who's son was a "little rich boy" and he sure did something wrong in the park one night. Oh yeah, he denied doing anything too!!
I am not saying who I feel is guilty but just remember that money talks and I do wonder if Ms. Roberts may of been financially compensated for her statements. I know a man who lives in the same area and he has been doing some research on this matter. He knew OF the two ladies and wanted to see if Ms. Roberts was still "working" and guess what? She is no longer "for hire" for anything other then public appearances. Makes me wonder how she is making a living now!!
Just think about the comments about this all happening because the boy's are "little rich white boy's" and the accuser wants money because they could do no wrong. There are a lot of young people, regardless of skin color, out there that have access to too much money and feel they deserve what ever they want and nothing will ever happen to them because they are rich.
But, I seem to remember a female candidate for Vice President who's son was a "little rich boy" and he sure did something wrong in the park one night. Oh yeah, he denied doing anything too!!
You appear to have a strong bias against "rich" people. Do you personally know these three young men? Because it sounds like you are playing a dangerous, unfair game of stereotyping based on your own preconceived notions, not on the actual merits of this case.
If you assume any one of the identifications is in error, you have to assume all of them may be, absent specific evidence that the person was involved, *other* than the identification.
One of the accused has evidence that he left *before* the alleged incident. The taxi driver confirms that he picked him up, took him to a fast-food place, and then took him home. He has a receipt from the fast-food place, and his ID was used to enter the dorm building.
So either the taxi driver *and* the other dancer are *both* lying, *and* this was sufficiently pre-meditated to cause one (but only one) of the players to arrange in advance for an alibi, or this one player was not involved.
Once you reach that conclusion, you can't convict either of the others for the crime of not leaving early, unless you're going to convict *all* of the Duke players who stayed at the party.
Add in the other questions (the other dancer says it never happened, this isn't the first time the accuser has claimed that she was raped by multiple men, and her father says that the earlier dropped accusation was false, she claimed no condoms were used, but the only DNA present was not from a Duke lacrosse player, etc...), and I really have to wonder why the prosecution is still going forward.
I also didn't have a publicist when I was a senior in college.
I guess things are just different for these "innocent" lads.
The implication that anyone who dissents from popular opinion is on the take is particularly nauseating. If this is the standard for justice, are we not a nation in trouble regardless of the color of one's skin?
By the way Ms. Sindy, when was the last time you beat your child?
I believe the police officer involved in writing up notes months after the alledged incident
was Sgt. Mark Gottlieb not Sgt. Shelton
The Lacrosse team does not get a spring break because it is Lacrosse season. I read on a blog that the tradition was for the team to go to one of the dance places in Durham or Raleigh.
The age for admission was 18. It was changed
to 21. So they hired the dancers.
This seems pretty harmless to me.
As I said I read this on a blog so I can't
confirm the accuracy, it seems like a plausable explanation.
2. In March photo array, the accuser identified Reade at the party (but not attacking her) with 70% certainty.
3. An Alibi so good that it alone refutes all question of probable cause.
4. Accuser having made a false claim of gang rape by three men in the past. She has also made a false claim of attempted murder in the past.
5. Accuser only crying rape when she was about to go to the drunk tank, providing a motivation for her to create the hoax, and talks with civil attorneys establishes a motive to continue the fabrication.
7. Accuser's claim is completely rejected, point-by-point, by the other dancer at the party. The other dancer said the accuser was "fine."
8. In police reports, the accuser claimed 0 rapists, then 15-20 rapists, then 5 rapists, then 3 rapists. Then she identified 4 rapists. Oh, and she also said the other dancer assisted in the rape in one of her police statements.
9. The Rape nurse examination found no bleeding cuts, abrasions or tears in the genitals, although the accuser claimed a 30-minute violent rape and beating by three well-conditioned, in-season athletes. The examination only revealed mild swelling, which could be explained by her boyfriends *** (which was found) or the *** toy show she admits doing before going to the Duke party.
Pick any one above, and that equals a not guilty verdict. Pick any two, and there is no probable cause to suggest a crime even occurred. Add them all together and the probability of rape is less than zero.
It's not black and white. Don't follow the color, follow the evidence. There is great hope that CBS and Ed Bradley will. If so, mucho props to them.
***
I guess I am not the typical rape victim. I remember in great detail to this day the event that happened to me, though it was 32 years ago.
OR
she's a just liar. Perhaps attempting to shakedown Duke and the players.
Bottomline, that DA is more guilty, and a bigger peice of ***!!!! What he should remember is, what comes around goes around....I think we've all seen a large number of garbage politicians lose everything for these things...
Also, to those who are vilifying this woman without knowledge of all the evidence, what if she is telling the truth? How can you be so inhumane towards someone who in some way has definitely been severely hurt in their life?
My fiancie was raped more than once and was only able to successfully prosecute one of the rapists. She was %u201Cfortunate%u201D that he beat her face to a bloody pulp because at least that way people could believe she was the victim of a crime. Yet still, the defense attorney tried to discredit her using some of the same tactics seen in this case. The ignorance perpetuated in this blog and society at large only seeks to discourage people from reporting rape. Don%u2019t think that some rapists aren%u2019t smart enough to avoid certain actions that will increase the physical evidence against them. My fiancie%u2019s first, second, and third reports to police were drastically different from what actual happened during the rape. It was a terrifying process to sort through what happened. Not all rape victims respond that way, but many do.
Thanks
The young men and their families are in our prayers. I hope Nifong loses his law license over this.
Yes, I think she's liying, and yes, I think she's the worst liar in the world. Unlike you, however, I don't find this to be proof that she's telling the truth. It's proof that she's an idiot (something that is backed up by her career choices).
While I do not agree that the Duke University men should have been having a wild party like that, and I do believe that they were throwing around racial remarks and repeating things from a movie (I've been around, I know how young, conceited males act), I do not believe that they committed this crime. At the risk of sounding racially discriminitory and stereo-typical, the woman allegedly raped by these men is a stripper and a prostitute. She probably got raped and hurt before she got there...then used her bias towards women and her status as a minority to try to pin it on them. I've seen it over and over again. The young men should be ostracised, but certainly not charged for the crime. It should be understood that college men do crazy things and then go on with their lives and careers. We need these men as leaders. A public apology should be necessary for the wild party. That's it. Then move on.
2. Accuser has made 2 prior false accusations (1 involving a 3-man rape).
3. Accuser failed to identify anyone until she was told everyone at the party was in the photo lineup.
4. Accuser said 0 people raped her, then 5, then 3, then she identified 4.
5. Accuser's account blasted by second dancer.
6. Reade Seligmann's airtight alibi.
7. Accuser claiming injuries from violent gang rape, then videotaped "pole" dancing at a strip club shortly thereafter.
Any one of these is sufficient to defeat proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Pick any two, and you have conclusive proof nothing occurred.
Thank you Ed Bradley! There is indeed prosecutorial misconduct involved.
for doing your homework and reporting this
story on Primetime TV.
I have been following this case for quite awhile.
Many stories have been written about the Duke
players that have simply not been true.
As a result of apathy, agenda or being ill-informed many of the other media outlets have fallen abysmally short in accurate reporting. 60 Minutes tonight was able capture the true essense of this story.
Bravo!
In the beginning of the segment you mentioned that you and 60 minutes obtained medical records. This is what I'm worried about. Medical records are not public records. Medical records are protected health information (PHI). They fall under federal HIPPA laws. If your comments suggests that you didn't obtain a proper medical release in getting someones medical records, then you have violated the law. Circulating medical records without consent from the patient is a felony. There are no open releases allowed under the law. This means if you got consent and filled out the release from the patient, the release is only good for that one viewing, and cannot be given to another person, without filing another release. No verbal releases are acceptable under the law. The court has no sympathy for people who are ignorant of the laws, and just do what they want when they want. Make sure your corporate counsel reviews what you say before you admit on national television.
Personally I don't feel the suspects are not guilty, but that's not my decision to make.
Have a nice day.
James
If they couldn't handle all of the problems from their plans then plan a better party.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 245 Comments