Linwood now says he was questioning Cheshire's mention of 20 attackers, not 5. Of course, he failed to make that distinction at the time:
http://www.heraldsun.com/tools/printfriendly.cfm?StoryID=747034
thanks for the article, but there's one problem for
LINWOOD WILSON - he is quoted in the NYT as giving an interview after he rudely interrupted Cheshire outside the courtroom, in that interview he said the accuser has NOT changed her story and he has seen ALL the evidence.
Am I wrong? I'll go back and look at the NYT, but I think his response in a subsequent interview (big mistake) he addresses the woman changing her story. 5 or 55, Linwood is a mental midget that thought he was going to affect this story and control the investigation. He's in over his head - sound familar? Who else thought they were going to treat this like all the other cases they strongarm in Durham? It's on the tip of my tongue...
Hmmm..
Whatever Linwood wants to say is great. Didn't he claim she had not changed her story? Wasn't Chesshire repsonding to his claim she had not changed her story?
And again, the more Linwood says the better as far as I can see.
Too bad Linwoody! Your words are memoralized in the New York Times, a long way away from stinkin' Durham. It's a whole new world, Woody !
"Mr. Cheshire's news conference was briefly interrupted by Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the district attorney, who challenged him to show where in the documents the woman had changed her story. In an interview later, Mr. Wilson said he had seen all the evidence and that the woman, a 27-year-old student and stripper, had not changed her story."