Well Mike Nifong turned over 536 pages to the defense and it turns out there are even more inconsistencies in the accuser’s story. She’s said there were 5 rapists. She’s claimed there were a total of 4 dancers at the house that night. She’s claimed all of the “5″ had intercourse with her during the alleged rape. There is no toxicology report, one of Nifong’s investigators has shoved his own foot way to the back of his mouth and the defense is saying they are not going to make any plea deals. Also the defense says they’ve never offered the accuser any money. That was said in response to claims that some Duke alums offered the accuser $2 million to walk away from the case.

See all the details below.

The defense says no plea deals and no payoffs.

…
Cheshire said after Thursday’s hearing that the suspects never would plead guilty and never would offer money in an attempt to squelch the rape charges.

“These boys are innocent,” the lawyer said. “No money has been or ever will be offered in this case. … There never will be a plea in this case either. You don’t plead innocent people.”
…

More about the 5 rapists claim.

And she claimed there were other dancers there.

The new documentation also quotes the accuser as saying she and three other dancers performed at the lacrosse party.

All previous references to the alleged attack included only one other dancer. Time-stamped photographs made at the party showed just one dancer in addition to the accuser.

The photos are in the hands of defense lawyers and were displayed to several reporters earlier.

In addition, a co-dancer at the party — Kim Roberts — mentioned only herself and the accuser in a statement to authorities, recently made public in a court filing. Roberts also branded the rape allegation as “a crock.”

Near the bottom of the page released Friday, Sutton acknowledged that the accuser had given contradictory stories.

“While being interviewed at Duke [Hospital], her story changed several times,” Sutton wrote. “At one point she said that she had not been raped.”

The Sutton report was dated March 14, the day of the alleged rape, but a time stamp indicated it wasn’t printed by police until June 14 — last week.

Nifong did not reply to a request for comment.

One of Nifong’s investigators has made a fool of himself.

In releasing one page of the latest documentation, Cheshire was responding Friday to questions raised a day earlier by Linwood Wilson, Nifong’s investigator.

The questions came up as Cheshire gave a news conference in the county courthouse, noting the various numbers of alleged rapists mentioned by the accuser: 20, 3 and most recently five.

“Pick a number,” said Cheshire.

Wilson interrupted to ask the defense lawyer where he got his information.

Cheshire replied Friday in a letter faxed to Wilson and copied to selected attorneys and reporters.

It said in full:

“Dear Mr. Wilson:

“Yesterday in front of the press you questioned my statement that the false accuser in the Duke case had stated she had been sexually assaulted by five people, as shown in newly released discovery. Since you are the District Attorney’s Investigator, the press could have assumed — falsely, as it turns out — that you had actually read your file. You also asked to be directed to the page about which I commented. As a result, I enclose page 1304 of your office’s discovery for your edification.

“I can only assume your motivation in questioning my assertion was simply ignorance. A simple reading of your file might solve that problem in the future.

“Since you raised your accusatory question in front of the media, I am sending them a copy of this letter and its enclosure. I am sure they would be glad to question you as to this matter.”
…

Even someone who says rape victims often have conflicting stories seems to have doubts about this case.

…
“Victims in these cases often may very well say something somewhat inconsistent immediately afterward and might still be telling the absolute truth,” said Stan Goldman, a Loyola Law School professor and former Los Angeles County public defender.

“But … I’ve never seen a case go to trial with this many inconsistencies in the victim’s sequence of events,” he said.
…

A case full of doubt.