In Great Detail

In a motion filed on September 20, District Attorney Mike Nifong states that the Duke Hoax accuser has the “ability to recall in great detail the events prior to and during” her alleged assault. Considering that nearly all of the details she has provided in her police statements, her statements to medical personnel, her “identification” sessions, and her News & Observer interview have been contradicted by her own words, forensic evidence and the statements of other witnesses, it is difficult to imagine on what basis Nifong has concluded that she has the “ability to recall in great detail.”

If DA Nifong is to be believed, neither he, nor anyone else from his office, has asked the accuser to relate her recollections, therefore, the basis for Nifong’s affirmation of the accuser’s great "memory" cannot be his personal evaluation of her sincerity, clarity or credibility with regard to these “details.” It seems absurd that Mr. Nifong would vouch for her “ability to recall in great detail” without ever having heard those details recalled firsthand. His claim also appears to be contradicted by his continual willingness to offer his own contradictions of many of those "details" supposedly recalled.

In great detail, the accuser “recalled” a thirty minute alleged assault yet Mr. Nifong puts forth the theory that the alleged assault took but five to ten minutes. In great detail, the accuser “recalled” the alleged attackers as having used no condoms yet Mr. Nifong put forth the theory that the attackers did use condoms.

In great detail, the accuser “recalled” that one of her “attackers” ejaculated in her mouth which she then spit onto the floor yet DNA testing proved these “recollections” to be false. In great detail, the accuser identified four men that she “recalled” as having been the three men who allegedly assaulted her. In great detail, the accuser “recalled” people who were at the party yet some of the people she recalled as having been present were not. In great detail, the accuser “recalled” David Evans as having having a mustache yet he never has. In great detail, the accuser “recalled” have been assaulted by three, five, twenty and zero men.

In great detail, the accuser “recalled” being subjected to racial slurs shortly after entering the house yet the second dancer disputes that assertion. In great detail, the accuser “recalled” being torn from the arms of Kim Roberts as the assault began yet Ms. Roberts denies that this occurred. Perhaps the only recollection of the accuser that has not been disproved by witness statements, scientific evidence, photographs, electronic records or her own words is the recollection that she danced briefly at the party.

Despite the fact that a point by point refutation of nearly each and every “recollection” presented by the accuser has been available to District Attorney Nifong, and to the police investigators that were ordered to report to him directly as lead investigator of the Hoax, Mr. Nifong claims that he has not yet gotten to the point where he is ready to interview the accuser. It appears that virtually no attempt has been made to clarify any of the inconsistencies in her “recollections” yet DA Nifong states that she has the “ability to recall in great detail.”