The Accidental Outcry Witness, '60 Minutes' Style

Kim Roberts Speaks, Patrick Baker Spins

In August, when it was revealed that the accuser’s description of the alleged assault, contained within her written statement to police, included the version where she was forcibly pulled away from the second dancer, Kim Roberts, while three additional accomplices restrained Ms. Roberts, we noted that someone should have informed Ms. Roberts that she was the "accidental outcry witness."

The Accidental Outcry Witness:

“The biggest contradiction, however, appears to be with none other than Nifong’s star date rape drug hinter, Kim Roberts. It is with great anticipation that we wait for the spin on how Ms. Roberts being outside really meant inside but outside the bathroom door and how Ms. Roberts waiting in her car for one or two of the Lax players to help a passed out on the back porch dreamer really equates to helping Adam the Short carry the accuser to the car after helping to dress her.”

“To learn that Ms. Roberts is now an accidental outcry witness is perhaps the biggest surprise. Someone really should have told Ms. Robert’s that she would be starring at trial as the first outcry witness before she gave all those interviews saying she “can’t say a rape occurred - and never will.”

Courtesy of this morning's Herald Sun , we know now what that anticipated spin is. According to Patrick Baker, Durham City Manager, Kim Roberts told one thing to police but another to '60 Minutes'.

“Baker said he will be interested to see what new details the show brings to light, but he doesn't believe the Durham Police Department's work on the case should be second-guessed if new statements contradict previous ones.”

"If the dancer says one thing to our officers and another to '60 Minutes,' it raises questions about her credibility and the credibility of the entire case," Baker said. "The Police Department is at the whim of the evidence given to them. ... If people have given the Durham Police Department the wrong information, it's certainly going to affect the DA's ability to prosecute the case."

“But, he cautioned, "Keep in mind these men were indicted by a grand jury. ... It wouldn't be the first time an indictment has occurred based on information that is later proven to be false. I think justice needs to be served. I don't want anyone to go through indictments when they're innocent. If the witness or the victim is not telling the truth, that's going to come out."

What is most odd, and terribly transparent, about City Manager Baker’s weak attempt to pass the buck, and make Ms. Roberts the scapegoat of the investigation, is that it appears that nothing Ms. Roberts said to '60 Minutes' contradicts her written and oral statements to police. To the police, she stated that the accusation was a “crock.” To '60 Minutes', Kim may not have used the “crock” word, but certainly set the record straight that the details given by the accuser are untrue as they relate to what she reportedly witnessed.

If Ms. Roberts is being truthful when she states that the questions from Ed Bradley represent the first time she heard that, in the accuser's version, Kim was a witness to the start of the alleged assault, and to the immediate aftermath, it can only mean that Kim was never presented with, nor questioned about, the specifics of the accuser’s written statement to police. It is shameful for Mr. Baker to lay blame upon Ms. Roberts for the investigators' failure to confirm what she may have NOT witnessed by asking her the same questions Ed Bradley did. It is also shameful for Mr. Baker to claim Kim told one thing to police, and another to ’60 Minutes,’ as there is nothing in Kim’s written police statement to support the accuser’s version of her and Kim being separated by 6 men, or Kim helping the accuser dress afterwards.

As we suspected, Kim Roberts didn’t know she was an “accidental outcry witness.” As remarkable as it seems, nobody informed Roberts about the accuser’s claims regarding Kim’s supposed role in the event. Until Ed Bradley sprung the news on her, Kim had no idea of her role as the "outcry witness." A role that was assigned to her by the accuser.

“In the show, to be aired Sunday, CBS correspondent Ed Bradley asks Roberts, "In the police statement, [the accuser] describes the rape in this way: 'Three guys grabbed Nikki.' That's you," in reference to Roberts' dancing name Nikki."

"'Brett, Adam and Matt grabbed me. They separated us at the master bedroom door while we tried to hold on to each other. Bret, Adam and Matt took me into the bathroom.' Were you holding on to each other? Were you pulled apart?"

"Nope," said Roberts, who also said it was the first time she had heard this account of the event." MSNBC: Roberts says alleged victim wasn't raped by lacrosse players

“Roberts also denies the accuser's statement to the police that after the alleged rape, Roberts came into the bathroom and helped one of the rapists dress her.”When pressed by Bradley about whether she saw signs of rape from the accuser, such as complaining about pain or a mention of an assault, Roberts says, "She obviously wasn't hurt ... because she was fine." 60 Minutes Teaser

It is beyond disturbing to learn that the spin from the City of Durham, by way of City Manager Baker, is:

"If the dancer says one thing to our officers and another to '60 Minutes,' it raises questions about her credibility and the credibility of the entire case,"

Unless Ms. Roberts has given the police an additional, amended statement that contradicts her only known written statement to police, and unless that additional statement confirms the details given by the accuser, details which Ms. Roberts now tells Mr. Bradley she is hearing for the first time, there is absolutely no merit in Mr. Baker’s insinuation that Ms. Roberts' responses to Mr. Bradley contradict her statements to police.

Perhaps Mr. Baker can enlighten the public on when Ms. Roberts told police that she was restrained by three players, when she told police that she saw three other players pull the accuser into the bathroom, and when she told police that immediately after the alleged assault she helped one of the attackers dress the victim. Absent the existence of these statements which Baker implies exist, there is no excuse for his attempt to make Ms. Roberts the scapegoat for the police failures and the District Attorney’s false prosecution.

Contrary to Mr. Baker’s assertion, this failure to interview the "outcry witness" about the accuser's fantastical tale is exactly the reason to second guess the investigation. Consider that after two suspects were indicted, a third remained only 90% identified, with a mustache he never had. With an unidentified “suspect” and an "outcry witness" who supposedly saw the event begin, the police never inquired with her, “Who was the third guy?” Consider that with a woefully weak case, DA Nifong never once sought to bolster his case with confirmation from the witness who supposedly saw the event begin?

Mr. Baker would have us believe that the false prosecution is Ms. Roberts fault for giving false information to police. It would appear, however, that she did not give false information to police in her written statement nor her phone interview as noted by Inv. Himan. It would appear further that, as incredible as it may seem, Ms. Roberts was never asked by police, or the District Attorney, the questions asked by Mr. Bradley. Yet, Mr. Baker would prefer that the readers of the Herald Sun falsely think that Ms. Roberts said one thing to '60 Minutes' and another to police officers.

Perhaps Mr. Baker should have read Ms. Roberts statements to police before he issues a statement informing the public that she said something different to '60 Minutes'. And maybe Kim should have been reading LieStoppers. Then, the news sprung on her by Ed Bradley wouldn’t have come to her as a shock.

Note to Mr. Baker: If the dancer did not say one thing to police officers and another thing to '60 Minutes', it calls into question your credibility and the credibility of the entire case. (Sir, your dump AND your pants are on fire.)

Additional Reading for Patrick Baker:

KC Johnson: Roberts' Bombshell (her statement, not her makeover)

TJN on Kim Roberts

Kim Roberts Statement to Police

Inv. Himan's Notes of Kim Roberts Statement