Right but here is what I think it takes to drop the case:
1. Day one: Read Mangums various statements. [That should be sufficient, but they will want to do more leg work.]
2. Day two: Read the DNA results and the physical evidence gathered in the search, the SANE report, the transcript of the line up, the various cell phone data and pictures and the transcipt of the witnesses including Bissey, Robert [aka Pittman] and the various uncharged lacrosse players.
3. Day three: Read the defense evidence including Seligmann's alibi and the defense motions offered in the case. Meet with the defendants or their attorneys. Listen to the Finnerty alibi if offerred.
4. Day four: Meet with Mangum. Make go through her story again and ask her about inconsistencies.
5. Day five: Call a press conference announce that there is no evidence beyond Mangum's claim that has changed greatly. Explain that the pictures and Seligmann's alibi makes all her IDs suspect. Announce this makes the AG's office unwilling to contest the defense ID motion. Announce that the DNA from other people and the lack of DNA from any Duke lacrosse player or other party goer combined with Pittman [aka Roberts] seeing nothing makes it very unlikely a crime other than underage drinking was committed at the Duke lacrosse team party. Announce that in the interest of justice the charges have been dropped.
You really have laid out most of it. The conclusion is inescapable...THIS IS NOT A VIABLE CASE. These two State Prosecutors - no matter what their past - know that, if we and almost the entire world know that. They will not prosecute this case.
While I agree that the new prosecutors have to review the state's evidence to confirm that the physical evidence is indeed 100% exculpatory, I'm not sure the prosecutor would have to review all the defense evidence. Given the complete lack of physical evidence, the only "evidence" the state has in the case is the identification by Precious. At best, she is so totally confused about events and so inconsistent in her statements of who did what that even if she were attacked there would be no reason to believe she hadn't confused her attackers for other partygoers.
I can't really see anything the state could bring to the table to challenge the motion to suppress the ID; some of the changes in Precious' statements suggest strongly that she's been coached. If the new prosecutors don't want to be seen as dropping the case, they could simply wait until the Feb. 5 hearing, wait for Precious to make a fool of herself on the stand (I think the defense goes first, since the hearing is to consider their motion), and then say "enough is enough". I'd suggest arranging for video of the hearing if possible (to be kept under seal for as long as the judge deems appropriate). Depending upon how things go, releasing video of "Precious" on the stand could be priceless for showing people--even liberals--what a farce this case is. To be sure, that would only really work if the defense attorneys took a low-key approach, but the December version of events is so farcical that I can't see Precious being able to respond reasonably to even the mildest of questioning.
Nice summary, JLS! I like it! my only concern with turning it over to the AG is that his office will want to read the reams of paper that have been generated for this case. There are literally 1000s of pages of who-knows-what that are in the file. Will he have the sense to see that without a credible victim and no physical evidence, there is no case?
The first thing they should do is ask Crystal Gail Mangum to take a polygraph exam. They need to stand way far back when they hook her up because sparks will be flying from the machine.