This is a partial transcript from “Hannity & Colmes,” May 2, 2006, that has been edited for clarity.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: The race has been called in Durham, North Carolina, and District Attorney Mike Nifong has, indeed, won re-election. Now, this was the Democratic primary. And because there were no Republicans running, well, he will remain district attorney.
And with more on this developing story, we continue now with FOX’s own Megyn Kendall. And we’re also joined by the accuser’s former attorney, Woody Vann is back with us. And also the host here of “The LineUp” on the FOX News Channel, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and FOX News legal analyst Lis Wiehl.
I want to go back to the new evidence that came out to tighten up the time line because I believe that, unless there is some major development here, Kimberly, Reade Seligmann has an airtight alibi.
That is: We have an eyewitness to the arrival of the girl at 12:00. From 12:05 to the time he calls the cab company at 12:14, there are nine phone calls recorded on his cell phone. At 12:19, five minutes later, he’s in the cab a block and a half away. 12:24, he’s in the ATM machine. And then at 12:41, he’s back at his dorm.
How could he have possibly committed that rape with that time frame?
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, “THE LINEUP” HOST: Well, it conflicts and contradicts directly what the prosecution and the accuser is saying, based on the facts we know right now, because it’s alleged that a 30-minute rape took place.
I think that that is the most compelling evidence to come forward to exonerate him that’s exculpatory, but what I don’t understand is: Why is he still bearing the label of rapist in this case? Why hasn’t his attorney come forward with this information to the D.A. or to the judge, because there is presently a grand jury indictment, ask that that be dismissed, because an hour, a minute, a day, all is too much time for this man to still be accused of these charges if he’s innocent.
HANNITY: Megyn Kendall, because you can answer Kimberly’s question, and answer it in this context, that apparently the defense attorneys tried to speak with the district attorney who was unwilling to do so.
KENDALL: Yes, of course, they had no opportunity to present their case when this case went before the grand jury. That was a one-sided argument alone, Nifong in there with the grand jury, period.
They had tried to speak with Nifong after that grand jury indictment to present to him some of this evidence. He would not take their calls. He would not have a meeting with them.
HANNITY: Lis, you know what, Lis? Unless something new comes out — if you have an eyewitness to the arrival, you’ve got the phone records, the ATM records, and you’ve got the taxi cab driver, you’ve got the behavior…
LIS WIEHL, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: The ATM records, if true, don’t lie. That’s right. You’ve got a picture of them there and the time.
HANNITY: We got it. Put it up on the screen.
WIEHL: The missing link here is the eyewitness…
HANNITY: The phone records don’t lie, either.
WIEHL: … time line, and we don’t exactly — and, well, no, I’m not quibbling with the phone records or the ATM records.
HANNITY: But that’s the time the rape’s supposed to happen.
WIEHL: What I am saying is that the alleged victim here could be mistaken. She could be wrong as to the time that she was raped.
HANNITY: Wait a minute. But we have an eyewitness that saw her arrival, saw her leave after a few minutes, and then we…
WIEHL: Says the defense. That’s the problem we have with everything what you’re saying right now, Sean. You are taking wholesale what the defense has put forward.
HANNITY: All right, you give me — then do me one favor. Do our audience one favor. You give us one solid piece of evidence, beside the fact that this woman made the accusation and they say injuries consistent with rape, give me one piece of evidence that shows that these men did this.
WIEHL: You just pointed out — and the identification that she made — you pointed out the three pieces of evidence that we all know about.
HANNITY: That’s not evidence. It’s an accusation.
WIEHL: But we weren’t sitting there in the grand jury when the grand jury…
COLMES: Hey, I have a great idea.
WIEHL: … indicted both of those two.
COLMES: I have a great idea, Kimberly. Let’s not have a trial. Let’s do it right here on “Hannity & Colmes.”
GUILFOYLE: Well, that’s what’s happening.
COLMES: You know?
(LAUGHTER)
GUILFOYLE: Because as Lis points out correctly, we really only have one side. And let me tell you something: This indictment can be thrown out by the judge if the D.A. refused to acknowledge and accept any exculpatory information.
COLMES: Right, let me go to Woody…
GUILFOYLE: There’s case law, because they’re allowed to bring that information forward, and the D.A. has an obligation…
COLMES: Let me go to Woody Vann. You represented her under what circumstances? And what’s your take on it, Woody?
WOODY VANN, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR RAPE ACCUSER: You mean in regard to the — yes, Alan, in regard to what happened, what we’ve learned today?
COLMES: Yes.
VANN: I apologize. I didn’t quite understand your question.
COLMES: Well, what is your take on this woman? You know her. Do you trust her? Do you here believe her story?
VANN: Oh, I’m sorry, yes. Well, I would give her the benefit of the doubt, based upon the information I have and the contact I had with her four years ago.
Again, I found her to be very credible in regard to my dealings with her. And, of course, that was approximately 3 1/2 years ago, but she was very forthcoming, very straightforward. And, in that case, she was a defendant, and admitted a wrongdoing, and provided me information upon our request that corroborated information that I used to help her…
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: Why were you representing her? What were the circumstances?
VANN: Well, about four years ago, she was involved in taking a cab driver’s vehicle, taking it on a joy ride, basically getting in a chase with the police, and eventually coming to a stop and, at one point in time, in the interim, almost hitting a police officer when he approached the car and she turned around.
She was charged with various felonies and misdemeanors, including driving while impaired. And we negotiated a plea to misdemeanors.
COLMES: And, Megyn, I’m guessing this has very little relevance to this, just as the defense will claim that whatever charges against their clients, one of whom is up on charges of assault in D.C., are irrelevant on their side of the case, correct?
KENDALL: That will be a whole another battle, to see whether her criminal history comes in.
One thing I wanted to point out though, that we did learn in those documents that is potentially big for the defense, is previously we knew that they were going to challenge the identification, because they said it was unfair because it only showed Duke lacrosse players.
We anticipated the argument by Nifong would be: So what? We knew that there were only Duke lacrosse players at the party, so who else was I going to show her?
These papers that he filed yesterday, that the defense lawyers filed yesterday, suggest that there were a few non-Duke lacrosse players at that party. That’s going to be a problem for Nifong when he’s defending this investigation.
HANNITY: That’s going to be a big problem. We’re also going to get into the accusation against her former husband when we get back, what relevance that will have here, and her accusation of a prior rape, and the issue of whether or not she had this nervous breakdown. We’ll get into that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLMES: This is a FOX News alert.
As we told you just a few minutes ago, the race has been called in Durham, North Carolina, where Mike Nifong has won re-election as district attorney. With all the precincts reporting, the unofficial reports show Nifong with 45 percent of the vote and his nearest challenger with about 42 percent.
Again, this was the Democratic primary. And because there is no Republican challenger, Nifong will remain district attorney.
We now continue with tonight’s legal panel, FOX’s Megyn Kendall, the accuser’s former attorney, Woody Vann, host of “The LineUp” on FOX News, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and FOX News legal analyst Lis Wiehl.
But let me go back to Woody. You know Mr. Nifong. What’s your take on him? Is he appropriately approaching this case?
VANN: I think he did. Now, except for, I think, a large amount of interviews — 70 — that he shouldn’t have done, I think how he approached this case was exactly as he should have in regard to, you know, letting the investigation take its course.
Considering the absolutely large number of potential defendants that were there, he could not have immediately gone out and issued arrest warrants. And, at the same time, you know, he let information come to him.
Now, whether or not you agree with it or not, you know, the information, he at least let it come to him before he took it to the grand jury.
COLMES: Kimberly, those who want to throw this woman down the stairs and crowing about something like a time line that could be off because, for one thing, certain moments of those time lines could be off, the time she entered the house could be off, besides the fact it’s possible that there could be other people involved who have not yet been arrested, not been charged.
So there’s a lot we don’t know. And I’m guessing the prosecutor, Mr. Nifong, has information that, since he’s been quiet, Lis, he is not sharing with the public.
(CROSSTALK)
GUILFOYLE: … he has no obligation, nor is it proper for him to divulge anything that’s in his case file.
Sure, he came out on top in the beginning, going over everything, saying he was for sure going to file these charges. He didn’t handle that right. But, again, he’s the district attorney.
I want to give him at least the benefit of the doubt that he might have some information that we are not privy to. Right now, we have defense attorneys telling us things.
I’m definitely impressed by the photos. But other than that, I’ve been told too many stories by defense attorneys in the past to buy the whole thing.
COLMES: Right. And you’re innocent until proven guilty, Lis, so these gentlemen deserve the benefit of the doubt, as well.
WIEHL: Absolutely, it goes both ways, right.
COLMES: But also, if this woman is claiming a rape, we have to take that claim very seriously…
WIEHL: Of course.
COLMES: … because we don’t want to not do due diligence here for other women who have may have similar…
WIEHL: Exactly. And if Nifong hadn’t gone to the grand jury and presented what she had and any other evidence he had, he would have been derelict in his responsibilities as a prosecutor. And what a terrible message that would have sent to women who are already afraid of coming forward on rape allegations.
GUILFOYLE: And you’re not supposed to go forward with someone because they have a little bit of a checkered past or they may have some credibility issues? That doesn’t mean a rape wasn’t committed…
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: Let me set the record straight for both of you.
GUILFOYLE: … unless she’s the biggest con artist in the world, conning the D.A., the nurse and the doctor…
HANNITY: Hang on. You mean the one that was found guilty of — oh, what was the crime again? Oh, let me see.
GUILFOYLE: Oh, I’m sorry, and what about Collin Finnerty?
WIEHL: Joyriding.
GUILFOYLE: Collin Finnerty with a case pending…
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: It was a stolen car.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: Hang on. Hang on. Let me throw all of your games off here, because this is what you’re not factoring in. There’s an external corroboration to the time line.
Let me go through it. You have a neighbor that corroborates the time of the arrival. You have a taxi cab driver that corroborates the time of the pickup. You’ve got phone records, you’ve got ATM records, you’ve got an appearance at a burger joint, and you got dorm entry records here. This is about as ironclad as you can have, in terms of an alibi.
(CROSSTALK)
WIEHL: Unless the accuser is wrong on the time, which is certainly possible.
HANNITY: But here’s the problem — she arrived at a certain point, and everybody agrees to that. That’s not in dispute, Lis.
WIEHL: But, Sean, you know, I hate to get graphic, but a rape could have taken place. She said 30 minutes. She could have been way off on that. It could have been two minutes.
HANNITY: How many minutes can you be off, two minutes?
WIEHL: It could have been — a rape…
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: A hundred percent identification could be off? A hundred percent…
WIEHL: … and it could have seemed like a lifetime to her.
GUILFOYLE: She’s not sitting there checking her watch or taking photographs of her…
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: She’ll be able to overcome in court that she identified 100 percent the perpetrators and that she…
WIEHL: I don’t think we’re saying that. I think we’re saying: Give it a chance. Let it play out in the court system, because we don’t know what…
HANNITY: All right, let me ask you both this question, and I want to get back to Megyn. I want to know what impact will the allegation of a prior rape and what impact will it be when her husband gets on the stand and has to admit, “Yes, she lied about me?”
GUILFOYLE: That’s something that’s relevant, that’s credible to cast out on her credibility, for sure. But you have to wait and see what evidence, if any, is going to come in.
HANNITY: Will be admissible.
GUILFOYLE: Exactly.
WIEHL: Right. Right.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: But don’t you think it should be admissible? I think it should.
GUILFOYLE: Because there’s a rape shield law, too, and you can’t just have everything thrown in against her.
HANNITY: I agree, but should…
GUILFOYLE: Why? It’s not fair.
HANNITY: Why shouldn’t it be admissible?
GUILFOYLE: Why would anyone come forward on a rape…
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: Why could a woman make accusations in the past and particularly against her ex-husband?
WIEHL: Well, let me parse the two. The ex-husband, that information probably will come in. And if he takes the stand…
HANNITY: I agree.
GUILFOYLE: The false accusation.
WIEHL: … and says, “She falsely accused me,” then the jury has to weigh her credibility and his. The rape allegation, unless the defense can prove that it was false, it’s not coming in.
GUILFOYLE: It’s not coming in.
HANNITY: Let me tell you something: She has — Megyn, we’ll give you the final word here — unbelievable credibility issues in this case. And the D.A. in this case has a lot to overcome. And I think what happened is he rushed to judgment; he went out in the public. And I’m not sure, unless there’s new evidence, that he’ll be able to defend this.
KENDALL: Well, there are serious problems with her credibility, as we’ve discussed, and that may be one reason, Sean, why her father told me that she told him she wishes she had never made this allegation.
HANNITY: Including a nervous breakdown, which we haven’t brought up, that her family brings up, and financial problems. You’ve got motive, don’t you?
KENDALL: Well, I don’t know about that. I mean, that’s what the defense lawyers claim. I can’t confirm that myself.
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: None of this has anything to do with whether or not she was raped, though.
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: We thank you all very much, Megyn, Kimberly, Lis, Woody, thank you all.
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