On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> 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..."
She would be dragged through the mud only if the story had been revealed to be a fabrication. Her original telling won the sympathy of prosecutors and would probably win the sympathy of a jury too. A history of getting raped isn't the same as a history of being a slut, mud-dragging-wise.
I don't think her lawyer was anything like a Manhattan big shot, either.
Doug