[JLS]

That's my point. Mangum said it, not Kim. So how does Wiehl claim Kim has changed her story? She's spinning.

Exactly, Roberts has said:

1. The rape allegation was a "crock."

2. She did not see a rape.

3. She thought more than underaged drinking went on, but she did not see a rape.

4. Mangum was lying when she said that the two of them were holding on to each other and pulled apart by six men.

5. Mangum did not appear hurt or harmed or in anyway like she had been raped when they left the party.

None of these statements are in conflict. As far as I can remember, none of them conflict with what she said in her original statement either. She did not mention point 4 which she surely would have had it actually happened.

[Jezebelle]

The fact that the opinions Kim has offered differ from what the facts she reports would logically support are easily explained by the disagreements that occurred between her and the boys that night, as evidenced by the 911 call claiming the "N" word was shouted at them when, in fact, Bissey does not report hearing that - just the cotton shirt remark. In other words, she can opine that more than underage drinking went on because she has a grudge against them over money and name-calling, but nothing in the facts she actually reports support that opinion.