3 points.
1) There are many things that also point in the direction the first rape did not occur. The Police & DA did not investigate the crime - so, a judgement was made regarding the likelyhood it occured. She did not provide info the investigating authorities asked her to provide. She stated it happened at an undisclosed location. She said it went on for a continuing time. And her Father plainly stated in a recorded interview that "they didn't do anything to her". He did indicate they held her against her will.
2) If we use criminal records to indicate the likelyhood
of whether this first group guys (when she was 14) raped her, then the 2nd dancer could be a suspect. The accuser's ex-husband has a criminal record (he admitted it to a reporter). I'd be willing to bet the accuser's current boyfriend has a criminal record. The accuser was charged with, what, 8 felonies. A criminal record, in of itself, doesn't help us with what happened between those 4 when she was 14. And, I think her ex-husband doesn't have any credibility or believability. He has a criminal record and
the entire community in that area supports the accused.
3) Most importantly, IF she was beaten and gang-raped by 3 men for a continuing time at an undisclosed location that doesn't really help the prosecution. There's the phenomena of PROJECTION. Someone projecting hate, anger, or blame at another person based on their past experiences and relationships. I knew a guy and, out of the blue, a neighbor reported him for repeatedly raping his 9 year old daughter. She said he had done it continually and even after the investigation was launched it was still going
on. He was removed from the household at that point. The daughter denied it vigorously and two extensive forensic rape exams showed absolutely nothing.
With being kept out of his house and being treated like a criminal, of course, he hired a lawyer. The lawyer hired a Private Investigator. They found that the woman had reported another man, in another state, with the exact same charges. Further investigation revealed the woman had been raped by a family member in her childhood and she was projecting this on other families when she saw an unhappy girl. The girl was seen unhappy for a short time by this neighbor after the girl was grounded. The woman seeing the unhappy girl was convinced she knew what was going on in the house and contacted authorities. The initial report was made anonymously. When the authorities interviewed neighbors, the woman said YES, I have seen things that made me suspicious when her suspicions dribbled out, it became apparent that this was the reporter - even to the authorities.
In the SF Bay Area when the "spanking is child abuse" Nazi's were making the rounds on everything "media", no child could being having a tantrum without some "projectionist" calling the police. It was a nightmare for the police and the people being "accused".
Legally I can see this shaping up as a battle of psychiatric experts, if this gets to trial.
Absent some clear evidence not yet known, the 1993 rape accusation basically comes down to a they said/they said, and I think a trial judge will rule that the evidence supporting the interpretation of that event as a false accusation of rape, which the NC appellate courts have ruled is an exception to the NC rape shield law, is not strong enough to be allowed in on that theory.
However, it may come in through a back door. A critical issue for the defense will be whether the AV's history of mental disturbances will be allowed into evidence, specifically the week of her recent mental breakdown and then the year of counseling following the 1993 event, as well as anything similar that may come to light. Defense psychiatric experts will argue that her history of mental disturbances is relevant as an explanatory factor for why she would be inventing or fantasizing the rape in the bathroom by the lacrosse players. Prosecution psychiatric experts will argue that her psychiatric therapies are not relevant and would be prejudicial to the accuser. How the trial judge rules on this will be key.
If the trial judge allows the evidence of her mental disturbances, then the 1993 rape allegation may come in by way of background to the earlier psychological trauma. There is an exception in the NC rape shield law for "evidence of sexual behavior offered as the basis of expert psychological or psychiatric opinion that the complainant fantasized or invented the act" charged. The 1993 event may be deemed relevant to an understanding of the 1993-1994 psychological disturbance, and it is possible that a trial judge will allow the evidence under the exception to the NC rape shield law I described.