Replies

"Joseph Kennedy, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, said that the accuser's Dec. 21 interview with an investigator, in which she changed several key details in her description of the attack, is also a concern.

Among the changes, the accuser offered a new timeline that put the attack outside of the apparent alibi window established by Seligmann's attorneys. She also said she could no longer be sure that she was penetrated vaginally by a penis, which could have helped Nifong explain to a jury why there was no DNA evidence.

"It's just troubling that ... nine months after the event, there's an interview and the interview reveals this fact, which minimizes the importance of the evidence they didn't turn over," Kennedy said. "

This analysis leaves me almost speechless. Nevermind that she's changed her story countless times. Nevermind that her credibility is totally tanked. Kennedy's opinion is that these changes strengthen Nifong's case . . . if only he had turned over the lab evidence more quickly.

Typical lib professor!

The way I read it, Kennedy seemed to be troubled about the 'convenient' change in the story, 9 months after the fact, that neatly negates the DNA evidence and leaves nifong with the remaining charges that he could pursue simply on the word of the woman.

The author seems to be thinking nifong may be guiding her 'story arc' to fit whatever possible charges he thought he could salvage after the DNA cleared the players, and her story changed to 'fit' the known facts.

She also said she could no longer be sure that she was penetrated vaginally by a penis, which could have helped Nifong explain to a jury why there was no DNA evidence.

No penetration no rape. A "law professor" should know that. He should have reasoned it out from the lack of DNA evidence before she changed her story.

Regards,
GtG

PS Inquiring minds want to know if "the boys" were tested for STD's? Just curious.

Typical lib professor!

Libs have such trouble with cause and effect. She now says she was not penetrated because the DNA evidence showed that these young men did not. The very DNA evidence that was withheld that has now come to light caused the effect of her changing her story (i.e. lying) once again with another story. Professor Kennedy, it does not strengthen the case it totally discredits the case.