- The interview with the accuser. Which story did she come up with now--her March 14 version of Kim Roberts as a robber and accomplice to rape? Or her April 4 version of Dave Evans with a mustache? Perhaps her April 6 tale of three (unindicted) accomplices to rape, who tore Kim Roberts away from her at the bathroom door? Or her December 21 tale, with the magic towel that wiped away some people's DNA but not others, and in which, for the first time, one of her alleged attackers (Reade Seligmann) did nothing, while a second (Collin Finnerty) was neither Bret, nor Adam, nor Matt?
- The review of the defense motions. How could the state of North Carolina justify moving ahead with a case based solely on a lineup in which a discredited DA instructed the police to violate their own procedures and confine the lineup to suspects?
- The DNA file. While it is obviously true that the absence of DNA in general is not definitive proof that a crime did not occur, in this particular case, given the type of attack alleged by the accuser and her traveling immediately to hospital after the alleged attack, it is simply inconceivable that there could have been none of her attackers' DNA but that of multiple males uninvolved in the case.
- The review of police files. Is it customary in North Carolina for the then-lead investigator to produce a report months after the fact, typed and undated? Or for all law enforcement officers to travel to Burlington for a critical meeting with a lab director and have none of them take any notes?
Two possible explanations:
(1) This was a photo-op, designed to create the impression of a hands-on AG;
(2) The investigation has confirmed that it all was a hoax, and having reached a clear-cut, rather than murky, verdict, the AG now feels willing to be associated with it publicly.
Let's hope (2) is the explanation. In not-for-attribution comments to the H-S, defense attorneys stated that they were impressed with the quality of the AG inquiry to date.