Himan, they say, also left out statements from the nurse that the woman told her she wasn't choked and that no "condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used the during the alleged sexual attack."

Until we see the actual complete reports of the hospital exams and police interviews, and not just choice pieces taken out of context that bolster the defense's stance, there is plenty of room for huge amounts of spin.

I would not expect the players to push for charges to be pressed against her. It's not in their interest to swap seats with her.

Durham Police Investigator Benjamin Himan failed to note that exotic dancer Kim Roberts Pittman submitted a handwritten statement in which she said the rape accusations by her dance partner were "a crock."

to all of you wondering why this case has gone on, in spite of the clear lack of any substantiating evidence, i offer a simple answer: DA nifong is using other people's money, to prosecute this case.

The accuser told the nurse that Roberts assisted players in the alleged sexual assault and that the second dancer stole her money and property, the motion said.

5. Attached hereto ... While the Defendant believes the complainant has waived any privacy rights she may have under any state or federal law, in an excess of caution the Defendant tenders them to Court under seal and requests that the Court issue an order unsealing them.

It must have been post-traumatic stress disorder.

Of course in the same statement, Roberts describes the AV as "uncontrollable at this point" while they are in the bathroom. The AV was again talking about trying to "get more money" (how did she plan on making more money, BTW?). Of course, she was also yelling at the players on the other side of the door. It sounds like the AV was losing it (a non-technical term, I know) even before the alleged rape could possibly have occurred.

Why isn't Roberts up on charges for assisting with the rape? If the da believes the av's story about being raped by the players wouldn't he believe the av's story about Roberts?

PTSD which does not reflect past psychological states.

According to Roberts (in her handwritten statement), the only time the AV was alone in the house was when Robert's first went out to the car.

noname posted:

According to Roberts (in her handwritten statement), the only time the AV was alone in the house was when Robert's first went out to the car.

Actually, in the handwritten statement, Kim states that AV came back to the car a first time, then left the car "because she felt there was more money to be made," then came back to the car a second time - this second time she was helped by one or two boys.

Alan, I have trouble imagining that any attorney voluntarily would take on a civil case against a prostitute with a mental condition who obviously has few assets

Alan, I have trouble imagining that any attorney voluntarily would take on a civil case against a prostitute with a mental condition who obviously has few assets

I'm not thinking about the AV as sole or even principal defendant.

However, as has already been said, Roberts/Pittman has the AV saying that she wanted to go back in and make money after the times she was alone in the house.

beenaround:

However, as has already been said, Roberts/Pittman has the AV saying that she wanted to go back in and make money after the times she was alone in the house.

There is no need to assume the AV was actually in the house when she went back. Wasn't there a defense story about her returning and knocking on the door to get in only to be turned away? She then could have been helped back to the car (at which point she tries to convince Roberts to come with her and try again).

And she told one medical staffer she drank at least 44 ounces of beer, and told another she took a powerful muscle relaxant and drank beer before going to the party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on March 13

On the point of the trips in and out, what about those pictures of the AV, standing alone on the porch, and allegedly smiling. Was that the second entrance?

However, as has already been said, Roberts/Pittman has the AV saying that she wanted to go back in and make money after the times she was alone in the house.

Besides, it seems incredulous to me that the AV would say she wanted to go back in again after being carried to the car. I think she was too far gone at that point.

She was being helped out of the back yard and into my car. At this point, she did not have the bag that I saw her come with and I asked her if she had the most important thing, her money. She told me yes but she did not seem coherent. She then told me that we should go back to the house because there was money to be made there.

Forgot to mention that the first time Precious came back to the car, she left because she felt there was money to be made. It was after then, that the boys helped her to the car. They carried her by throwing her arms over their shoulder and assisting her walking to the car.

Would the state take her kids if that [i.e., involuntary commitment for apparently dangerous state of mind due to substance abuse or mental illness] happened? That is a good motive to invent a story.

To TL, Sharon, LocalOne, and others: As I am not an attorney, could you briefly discuss what happens with the motions that have been filed by the defense. For example, I assume there is some sort of meeting within the judge's chambers with the DA and the defense attorneys to discuss the merits of the motions. Also, in your experience, have you seen a situation that resembles what now seems to have happened (and is happening) with this case? Thank you.

In no way am I disputing the (lack of) evidence here nor Precious' motives to fabricate such a story.

These aspects of the motion have been discussed to an extent. Personally, I was drawn to Kim's written statement instead of these equally important subjects only because it was the only part of the motion involving a first-hand description of that night. I would be more willing to discuss the medical report, for instance, if I could see the original as opposed to the defense attorney's or police' second hand account of what it says.