"In an interview conducted on June 28, 2011, in the presence of her lawyer, the complainant provided a materially different account of her actions immediately following the incident in the defendant's suite. At the outset of this interview, she admitted for the first time that she had been untruthful about this key point with prosecutors and had lied about i t in her testimony before the grand jury."
In other words, she started to change her story in June. I can imagine the following scenario: The defendants attorney calling the complainant' or her attorney attorney and says something like "Look you have nothing to gain by going ahead with your rape story. You will be dragged through the mud, and even if the People win the case you get nothing out of it. If on the other hand, you decide to change the story and my client is released, you may be handsomely rewarded, say, half a million? What say you? " She may voice reservations about possible perjury etc, to which the big shot Manhattan lawyer replies "You do not have to recant your story altogether - just give them enough reason to doubt your original story. Here is what you need to do..."
Wojtek
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
>>
>> I have another hypothetical
>> possibility - (4) she changed her mind between May 14 [when] she
>> appeared consistent and credible, and June 7 when she started to be
>> inconsistent, thus undoing her credibility.
>
> If you knew or cared anything about facts you would admit that her
> "credibility" was undone by the information on her card key.
>
>
> Shane Mage
>
> "scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
> that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying attention to"
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>