I'm sure some will see this as proof that the alleged victim is a liar, however it also reveals that the alleged victim did not leave the scene of the (alleged) crime with the intent to get revenge on innocent lacrosse players by yelling "rape" as many false allegation theorists have stated.
It also raises questions about why some of the so-called impartial timelines added a note that the grocery store was 2 miles from the site of the alleged crime while the police station was only 1 mile away. Maybe the impartial lists of facts that seemed to discredit the alleged victim were carefully crafted to do just that.
Another interesting fact is a statement by defense attorney Kerry Sutton that the alleged victim arrived "way beyond where you would put somebody behind the wheel of a car." Really? If she was injured and this drunk when she arrived, why did one of the team members give her money so she'd dance for them? And how could she dance when later, with less alcohol in her system, she couldn't get herself out of someone else's car?