When it looked like the second dancer had changed her assessment of what might have happened to support the prosecutor's case, those who call this case a hoax said she wasn't credible for a variety of reasons including greed. Unless those reasons were a sham, she's no more credible if she makes the defendants look innocent without being required to be under oath.
After everything those who call this case a hoax said about the second dancer, how can I trust that she isn't being compensated for making the alleged victim look like a liar?
This quote from a preview of the interview caught my eye: "She obviously wasn't hurt . . . because she was fine," Roberts said.
"Fine" doesn't mesh with the evidence that the alleged victim was unconsious at the grocery store parking lot and unable to respond to the security guard's questions.
If the allegations are true then everything these defendants are moaning about were caused by their own actions and their PR efforts are designed to help them escape the consequences of those actions.
If the allegations are false then at this point there is so much spin out there that the taint the defendants complain about will only be removed by having juries find them not-guilty.
Technorati tags: rape crime Duke lacrosse sexual violence sexual assault Duke rape