Reply #54: The inverse is why you wouldn't find the story remotely credible?

[BrownOak]

You have three possibilities here:

1) The Duke cop did not hear it and made the report up.
2) The Duke cop did hear it and the Durham police officer was reporting inaccurate information.
3) The Duke cop did hear it and the Durham police officer was reporting accurate information.

To eliminate the last two options you are relying on the comments from the Durham City Manager Patrick Baker who clearly also has a vested image in mitigating the perception that the city police questioned the AV's story that night. You think Baker wants to see all those people who were protesting in front of 610 N. Buchanan St. hanging out down at his office because the police failed to fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation at the onset? Think he's not putting some spin into this situation? Think about these statements from your own posts:

From the News and Observer:

"Baker said he has never received any indication that the woman said she was raped by 20 men or that she changed her story.

"I have no idea where that came from," Baker said. "I've had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case and with officials at Duke, and at no time did anyone indicate the accuser changed her story. If that were true, I'm sure someone would have mentioned it to me."


and also


The sergeant made a call, and Day overheard him "say something to the effect of the witness had changed her story and he didn't think there were going to be anything other than misdemeanor charges filed," Baker said.

OK, which is it. Has Baker had a lot of conversations with people and never heard that the AV changed her story or has he heard that the sergeant in question did tell someone something to the effect of the witness had changed her story? Those two statements don't seem to work well together.

But more importantly, if Baker is saying that he's never heard the AV had changed her story, and he's also saying he's had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case, then how does he explain this story from WTVD: Police Report: Alleged Victim Changed Story

To be clear here, there is no third party verification of the possibility of her changing the story from 20 men to 3 men, but there is a clear indication that she did change her story from no rape to rape. Now that doesn't really mean a whole lot to me either way because just as someone who is going to make a false allegation may vacillate so too is it possible for an actual rape victim to go back and forth.

However, it's clear from what's come out since both the release of the Duke report and the response from Durham City Hall that the City Manager's response is pure damage control to minimize the fallout from his own officer's deplorable behavior at the time. (This guy's initial opinions of the case show an insensitivity toward dealing with sexual assault victims.)

We already know for a fact that the AV did change her story, despite the reaction from Baker. We don't know for a fact, but the defense is leaking the claim that she also at one point claimed 17 attackers. That's the only fact that is unknown at this time. So why, if you are going to be cynical about what the defense is saying, wouldn't you view Baker's comments in the same light; especially since it's clear that he wasn't fully truthful in his statement.