Unbelievable. According to an early police report describing an interview with the accuser in the duke lacrosse alleged rape case, the accuser said she was groped but not sexually assaulted.

It was not until the police decided to involuntarily commit her that she changed her account.

There also was an earlier lineup one week after the incident in which she failed to identify Dave Evans.

In 1,278 pages of discovery, there is only one reference to how the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse player's alleged rape case described her attackers to police. Yet DA Nifong says he has turned over his complete file. How can that be? The defense isn't buying it and Reade Seligman's attorney filed a motion today requesting the DA turn over her descriptions.

"At some point in their interviews and investigations, one or more of these officers asked (the accuser) to describe the men who she claims sexually assaulted her, and (she) provided some answer to that question," the motion filed by lawyers Bill Cotter and Wade Smith said.

Her "response to that question is critical to the defense of the case and the state may not withhold that evidence from the defendant."

The Herald Sun reports on a new round of attacks on the Duke lacrosse accuser's credibility in the alleged rape case.

For example, three defense sources, who asked not to be identified, said a forensic examination of the alleged victim found no tearing, bleeding or other injury associated with a sexual assault. Instead, the exam detected only swelling in the accuser's vagina and tenderness in her breasts and lower right body, the sources said.

Durham County DA Mike Nifong has hinted for over a month that a toxicology report may show the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse players' case ingested a date-rape type drug.

When the case first broke in the press, Prosecutor Mike Nifong, a white
man who is running for election in a racially mixed county, hinted to
Newsweek that blood and urine tests of the woman would reveal the presence
of a date- rape drug.

Last week, the DA turned over more than 1,200 pages of discovery. Guess what? No toxicology report was included.

With over 300 comments on Friday's thread, it's time for a new one. This is for all topics related to the rape accusation against the three Duke Lacrosse players or the legal proceedings . What's in the news? I like Joanna Spilbor's take at Findlaw on the D.A. refusing the defense's attempt to provide evidence.

I can't help but believe that, were any of these defendants to assert that they had proof that a crime was indeed committed, this district attorney would be all ears. Suppose, for instance, that Seligmann or Evans were to turn on Finnerty, to try to save themselves - surely Nifong would happily hear them out. So how can the prosecutor justify, then, turning a blind eye to evidence of any of the accused's innocence?

Our last Duke thread on this week's court hearing is full. Here's a new one for all topics related to the Duke lacrosse player's rape case.

Accused Duke Lacrosse player Reade Seligman has a hearing at 2:30 ET this afteroon. So do 9 other defendants. Seligman's lawyers want to raise some discovery issues, and it's not clear whether there will be enough time to battle over what they are entitled to.

In other case news, lawyer Mark Simeon, who reprsesents Dancer #2, Kim Roberts and may come to represent the accuser, is asking that the accuser's family lay off their media appearances so they don't hurt her case.

by TChris

People who are injured by the design or neglect of another are entitled to seek redress in civil court, but most crime victims wait for the criminal prosecution to resolve before they consider civil remedies. Eyebrows raise when an alleged crime victim is eager to pursue civil remedies. The prospect of a cash settlement can be a powerful incentive to embellish or fabricate a criminal accusation, and questions about the credibility and bias of a complainant who has a financial stake in her accusation are sure to arise.

The mother of the accuser in the Duke case says she is "very interested" in retaining a high profile civil litigator for her daughter. This story says the lawyer in question is playing the role of "family adviser" and hasn't spoken to the alleged victim.

With 232 comments on yesterday's post with news of Dave Evan's indictment, it's time for a new one. Just remember to put urls in html format so they don't skew the site. Instructions are in the comment box. And please, keep the dicussion civil.

Duke Lacrosse team co-captain Dave Evans was indicted today for forcible rape, sexual assault and kidnapping by the Durham grand jury in the Duke alleged rape case.

Evans is represented by Joe Cheshire. I know Joe, and he is a great attorney.

Press Conference: An absolutely compelling denial. [Update: Video here.]

Live blogging:

Dave is here to surrender, he will bond out today.

David wants to make a statement. He won't take questions. Joe will then make a statement and take questions. All seniors on Duke lacrosse team are present. They are there to support the three charged players as they know no crime was committed on the evening in question at that house. They won't answer questions either. Evans' parents are there. Evans has been wrongly accused.

The defense lawyers wouldn't say it, but ABC News has no such reservation: The DNA found on the vaginal swab of the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case belongs to her boyfriend.

I've been told (and this may be common knowledge, I have no idea) that the boyfriend drove her to the party and went to see her in the hospital the next day. What wasn't known when I got the information was whether the boyfriend went back to pick her up that night and whether he saw anything at the house.

So....score another point for the defense. Nonetheless, DA Nifong is expected to indict a third player Monday.

Lawyers for the Duke Lacrosse players held a press conference yesterday to respond to reports of new DNA testing implicating one or two of the players. You can view it here. Here's more from WRAL today:

The nail was found in a bathroom trash can at the off-campus house where the party took place, and was among items -- such as Q-Tips and Kleenex -- that defense attorneys suggested might have contaminated the nail."Does it absolutely exclude all of the Duke lacrosse players with absolute certainty from this one fingernail? No," Cheshire said. "Does it say that any of the Duke lacrosse players' DNA is conclusively on this fingernail? No."