This is a partial transcript from “Hannity & Colmes,” April 24, 2006, that has been edited for clarity.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: The woman at the center of the Duke rape allegations had a brush with the law herself in 2002 when she pleaded guilty to four misdemeanors related to a DUI car chase. On that night, after stealing a taxi, she led police on a high-speed chase, eventually slamming the stolen vehicle into a police deputy’s car. Her blood-alcohol level, at that time, was .19.
So does this past incident tell us anything about her credibility now? We continue now with FOX’s Megyn Kendall. She’s in Durham tonight. Also joining us there is the attorney who represented the accuser in that DWI case, Woody Vann. And here with us also, defense attorney Anne Bremner and FOX news legal analyst Lis Wiehl is with us.
All right, Mr. Vann, let me start with you. First of all, that’s two times the legal limit. It’s a very high level of alcohol use. Do you think it’s unfair — certainly somebody who can have a record, somebody who is drinking heavily, somebody who is a stripper can still be raped. I don’t think anybody is going to doubt that.
But if it comes down to “he said-she said” at the end of the day, do past incidents like that impact — should it impact the mind of a juror?
WOODY VANN, FMR. ATTORNEY FOR ACCUSER: Well, it will definitely affect their being able to analyze the credibility of the witness, just in any situation like that. But they would have to take that in the context of what happened that evening, and then what happened after that evening, in regard to what she did to make up for the crimes that she had committed that night.
HANNITY: Try and bring us — give us some insight into what you think about this woman. Obviously, you represented her, so you can’t share, you know, personal information.
But when’s the last time you’ve had contact with her? Do you tend to believe her story here? Do you have any problems with the time line or any of the other information that’s come out here before?
VANN: Well, I haven’t had a great deal of contact with her since these cases back in 2002. I did a little work for her in the summer of ’05, but that was just a traffic ticket. And then I talked with her about three weeks ago.
My opinion of her is she is, she is — was credible when I dealt with her. She was believable. She’s very straightforward. I found her to be, you know, to be as good a client as I could have, considering the situation.
In that particular case — again, any time I needed something from her, she produced it, she delivered, she brought forth the information that supported what I needed to know to help her in that case.
HANNITY: But you would admit that any discerning individual, with what we know now — granted, we might find out new information about this case — but we have a neighbor that identifies they arrive about midnight, they leave the house a very short time thereafter.
There’s this little window where we discover, for example, a discrepancy. We know that Reade Seligmann was calling his girlfriend, called a cab at 12:14. The cab arrives at 12:19. He’s at an ATM at 12:24, and he’s back in the dorm at 12:41. Do you see problems with the time line, sir?
VANN: Well, I do see problems with it, but what we don’t know yet is what is her actual, detailed statement that she gave to the officer or to the attending…
HANNITY: She said a rape went on for 30 minutes and she identified these two men 100 percent.
VANN: Well, that’s not what she said that night. I think the identification came later, but, you know, but we don’t — when does she say 30 minutes? Is it exactly 30 minutes? Could it be 20 minutes? So there is a lot of question about the time line, but…
(CROSSTALK)
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: But also — let me get Anne Bremner in here. And, counselor, welcome.
(CROSSTALK)
VANN: We just don’t know.
COLMES: Let me go to Anne Bremner and get Anne in here. We also have information that it might have been a third party involved, there could be other parties here. For all we know, the digital camera could have had the time off on it. We don’t know that there wasn’t windows of opportunity for people involved.
So there are all kinds of mitigating circumstances, plus the D.A. now suggesting to DWI, and so on, so — I mean, both sides are going to try to sling the mud. And there’s a little bit — as with any case, the truth lies someplace in the middle, probably.
HANNITY: Megyn, I want to go back to what we started this program with tonight, and that is you spoke with the accuser’s father. Now, I think everybody on this panel is going to agree, if she’s not testifying, this case is over. Any more insight into that interview with the father?
KENDALL: Yes, it was actually very interesting, Sean. You won’t be surprised to hear that he believes his daughter, that — he did say: Listen, I can back up the fact that she was bruised, and swollen, and appeared to be badly beaten the very day after this alleged attack, and that she looked fine the day before, thereby perhaps undermining the theory that the day before, at least during the day, she was injured. But she did say…
HANNITY: But are their time-stamped photos showing the injuries? That’s going to be key here.
KENDALL: Yes, there absolutely are. The other thing, Sean, is that, you know, she left that party with the second dancer around 1:00 a.m. They didn’t show up at that grocery store until 1:22. That leaves the defense a lot of room to argue: What happened in those 22 minutes?
HANNITY: All right. Let me ask Lis Wiehl here. Now, this other women, Kim Roberts, who wrote to the P.R. firm, also was on probation for embezzling $25,000 from a company she worked for. She had been arrested for violating her parole. She posted bond. Now, this guy, Mark Simeon, has political connections to the prosecutor and he just got an easy ride on that. Should that concern people that…
WIEHL: That could be all be very interesting, if she were coming forward and saying, “I saw the rape.” But she didn’t do that, did she? She didn’t do that.
HANNITY: But now she’s saying — she denied believing her. Now she believes her.
WIEHL: Beliefs can change, but the point is she’s not going to able to take the stand and say, “I saw the rape”…
HANNITY: But her credibility is impeached by that e-mail to the P.R. company.
WIEHL: Sean, I agree, but who cares? She didn’t see it. Her relevant testimony is: She arrived. Her friend and her arrived, and the friend was in a certain state, and a different state when she left. That’s what’s critical.
COLMES: We’ve got to run. We thank you. We thank Anne. We thank Woody. And we thank Megyn Kendall.
Watch “Hannity & Colmes” weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!
Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2006 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user’s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC’S and Voxant, Inc.’s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Leave a Reply