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..
"After the exchange, Wilson told Eyewitness News that he had personally read all 1814 pages of discovery documents and has not read that the victim changed her version of the story."
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4299691
He doesn't mention the 20 v. 5 distinction at all.