|In what might be the least surprising development of the case, ABC's Law & Justice Unit is reporting that the accuser, in the words of correspondent Lara Setrakian, "is not being forthcoming with special prosecutors," and in two interviews with special prosecutors, "gave incomplete answers when asked about the events surrounding the alleged assault, according to sources."|
The AG's office responded with a carefully worded non-denial denial, in which Roy Cooper said the accuser had been "cooperative" and had shown up for meetings, but didn't say whether she had answered questions.
So, we have an accuser who had no problem hurling charges from the veil of anonymity provided by the N&O and had no problem in giving myriad mutually contradictory stories to Mike Nifong&Associates, but now is refusing to deal with prosecutors who might ask her hard questions. How, then, can this case even still be alive?
The article also continues the sorry pattern of "victims' rights" spokespersons raising serious questions about their objectivity.
Said Leah Ottinger,
She probably feels very beat up by the system. If you don't have a sense of trust in the system, then you're certainly not going to be forthcoming. Even just with the vicious attacks on the Web and her picture on TV. … The trauma, the lack of trust that anyone's going to be there for you, fear of being alone -- all of that could contribute to someone's reluctance to talk."Beat up by the system"? This is an accuser who had a district attorney commit so many procedural violations on her behalf that he's likely to lose his license to practice law.
[Assault victims] don't clearly remember the event right away. It's not unusual and it doesn't mean they are lying. When people have been through a trauma -- a car crash is a good analogy -- it can take them time to reconstruct the facts in their minds. Plus, sexual assault is uncomfortable for anyone to talk about.
And so, apparently, when massive physical evidence contradicts an accuser's story, when the accuser herself changes her story repeatedly, it's par for the course for an accuser to be allowed to "reconstruct the facts" one year after her initial allegation, and conveniently reconstruct those facts to fit the new evidence?