Shock: Duke Rape Hoaxer Giving Prosecutors "Incomplete" Answers About Key Allegations

The second dancer, who's been willing to pour cold water on the accuser's story, isn't talking either.

he woman who accused three members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team of sexual assault is not being forthcoming with special prosecutors, law enforcement sources close to the case tell ABC News.

The accuser has met at least twice with prosecutors from the North Carolina attorney general's office, which took over the case from Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in January.

In those interviews, she gave incomplete answers when asked about the alleged assault and the events surrounding it, according to sources.

The same sources added that Kim Roberts, the second dancer who attended the March 2006 party, had also refused to speak with investigators and had said she would do so only if subpoenaed. Roberts has spoken to the media about the case, including doing an interview with ABC News' "Good Morning America."

Although neither woman has been forthcoming up to this point, the sources stressed that this could change and that the accuser might still fully participate with investigators.

In the coming weeks prosecutors will conduct further interviews with those involved in the case, leaving open the possibility that the accuser might say more about what she remembers from that night.

The article, by the way, is pretty comical in attempting to spin for the accuser. Lawyers are quoted up and down suggesting she just feels "abused" by the system, that she hasn't gotten to know the prosecutors yet (do accusers usually need to form friendships with prosecutors in order to state their allegations?), etc. No one is quoted suggesting she's giving incomplete answers just because she's lying.

Or that perhaps her former "investigators" were much more, err, helpful in suggesting ways to make a somewhat-coherent story out of her dog's breakfast of contradictory claims, and the current investigators are just asking her the questions and making her do her own story-telling.

Of course this is the easiest escape-hatch for the new prosecutors -- just to claim she's not cooperative and therefore the charges must be dropped. Easy, but it doesn't get to the truth.

I suppose that will have to wait until the civil suit.

KC Johnson... thinks the willingness of Roy Cooper to be visibly associated with the case may -- may -- indicate the state has decided on a clear-cut resolution to the case,

Yesterday, Attorney Roy Cooper assumed a visible presence in the investigation, but in dealing not with these matters but a public tour of 610 N. Buchanan.

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.

Given the alternate explanations the ABC reporter offers up, it seems (2) isn't terribly likely.

Hot Air: has quoted some of the nonsense claims about her needing to "warm up" to the prosecutors. I just didn't feel like quoting such absurdities.

Still, it seems likely that that's the crap the prosecutors were feeding the ABC reporter. (But, that crap being not-for-attribution, she had to find some other lawyer to say the same thing.)

So it seems the prosecutors are taking the easy way out. They'll just drop the charges citing the accuser's unwillingness to go forward (she feels so "abused"!), and avoid actually doing their jobs and getting to the actual truth.

posted by Ace at 02:11 PM

| Access Comments