ping
Thanks for the ping.
So let's see:
1) The NYT seems to be arguing on behalf of the prosecutor that because the hooker was in pain a few days later, she must have been raped.
2) Similarly, the mention her bruises that are now appearing but later mention that when Sgt. Shelton got her out of the car, she fell, which is a likely explanation for her bruises.
3) I loved the line about how "except for her initial accounts with police", she told a consistent story. Oh, yeah. Now that she sobered up a few hours later and realized she'd better get her act together.
4) She initially told Sgt. Shelton she was groped but not raped.
5) The hooker told police she'd had sex with her boyfriend a week before the party but his is the only DNA taken from her body. And the boyfriend has lied about when they had sex.
6) The hooker denies other physical assault but later tells docs she was kicked and punches. Oh, yeah. That's a consistent story, which the NYT keeps telling us she told.
7) The hooker gave physical descriptions that don't match the defendants. Given 4 chances on different days weeks after the party to identify the players? Sheesh.