“Today, one supporter of the woman, whose identity has not been revealed, said she still believes her.”“I think when a woman has been sexually assaulted and sexually abused and she can’t explain everything, when you have had three men attacking you, I can understand if she wouldn’t know if she was raped by a penis or other item,” said Victoria Peterson, who is active in the black community in Durham and is a friend of the accuser’s family.
“When she was interviewed on Thursday by an investigator from the district attorney’s office, the woman said she was penetrated from behind while she was bent over with her face toward the floor, but did not know with what, according to a person close to the investigation who would only speak on condition of anonymity.”"With the absence of D.N.A. and her not knowing what was going on, it’s the right thing to do and it probably makes the rest of the case stronger," the source said.”
“But Irving Joyner, a professor of law at N.C. Central University, said Nifong's decision to drop the rape charges actually could strengthen the case for sexual assault and kidnapping because it will de-emphasize the importance of DNA results that failed to provide evidence of rape.“In North Carolina, the criminal penalties for first degree rape and first degree sexual assault are the same, he said, meaning the accused men are in no less peril.“If her [the accuser’s] testimony is that she was moved from one part of the house to another against her will and there was sexual touching, then he [Nifong] can build a case on those charges,” said Joyner, who was been monitoring the lacrosse case on behalf of the state NAACP.
“But Joyner, who said this week that Nifong should consider recusing himself from the case, said that defense attorneys probably will use the accuser’s confusion about whether she was raped to undermine her credibility in the eyes of jurors.“The ability of the state to prove its case is going to be burdened by the inconsistent statements. No doubt about that,” Joyner said.”
“The document said that in an interview with investigator Linwood Wilson, “the victim in this case indicated that while she initially believed that she had been vaginally penetrated by a male sex organ (penis), she cannot at this time testify with certainly that a penis was the body part that penetrated her vagina.”“Since penetration of the vagina by a penis is one of the elements of this offense that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and since there is no scientific or other evidence independent of the victim’s testimony that would corroborate specifically penetration by a penis, the state is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense.”
"Matt then raped her vaginally from the front," she wrote in one of her