I have to say that after reading this article, plus all the other stuff I’ve read on the case, the second dancer, Kim Roberts, strikes me as a completely unreliable wittness. Apparently Roberts has characterized the case differently to different people.
On March 20, when police first contacted her a week after the alleged attack, she called the rape allegation a “crock” and said that she was with the woman for all but “less than five minutes.”
[snip]
A month later, in an Associated Press interview, she indicated that she believed there had been an attack.
“I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can’t say a rape occurred — and I never will. … In all honesty, I think they’re guilty. … Somebody did something besides underage drinking. That’s my honest-to-God impression.”
[snip]
Then, on June 14, in an interview with National Public Radio, she said she was “unsure” of how much time had passed when the alleged victim got out of her car and went back into the house to get her purse.
“I can never say a rape did or did not occur. That’s for the courts to decide. I didn’t see it happen, you know? But what I can say is that there was opportunity, and it could have happened.”
So let me see, first we have the “It’s a crock,” follwed with “I don’t know, but I think they are guilty,” and then “I don’t know, but there was an opportunity.” Coupled with the new revelations that the accuser was behaving very erratically and when Ms. Roberts tried to get the accuser out of the car she said, “Go ahead, put marks on me. That’s what I want. Go ahead.”
I’m no lawyer, but all this waffling and nonsense strikes me as bad for the prosecution and good for the defense. Ms. Roberts is now starting to look like an attention seeker, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she tried to get some sort of book deal or some other money making nonsense.
Fairstein told ABC News she was shocked to learn last week that Nifong had yet to interview the accuser.
“That is just against the progress that’s been made in this very specialized field,” she said.
“It belies anything a prosecutor would do before making charges. There was no need to rush to the charging judgment in this case. … This whole train should have been slowed down and everybody interviewed before charging decisions. To have witnesses appear on a media program revealing information that the prosecutor doesn’t know is stunningly inappropriate,” she said.
Of course, Ms. Fairstein is right, but what she is leaving out of her calculus here is that Nifong was facing a tough primary and still if facing re-election. It looks very much like Nifong has used this case to help his re-election bid. As I noted, I’m not an attorney, but this whole thing looks so smarmy it is unbelievable.
