Today the News & Observer attempts to explain an apparent discrepancy in the story of the alleged victim of a rape at a Duke lacrosse house. As I noted earlier, she said her father came to the hospital the night of the attack, but he later said he didn't learn about the rape until contacted by a reporter.
As it turns out, he says that he thought she had been assaulted and was not told of the rape until the next day:
The father of the woman who said she was raped at a party near the Duke University campus said in an interview Tuesday that when he saw her the day after the party, her eyes and face were swollen, her arms were scratched, and she was complaining about her leg.
She told him she thought some part of her leg had slipped out of joint, he said.
The woman told her father that she had been dancing at a party and that someone had hit her. It wasn't until the next day the woman told her father she had been raped, he said. "I think she was ashamed. ... I just felt numb, angry," the father said.
...In an interview March 25, the woman told The News & Observer that she hesitated to report her story to police but that thinking about her father helped her make the decision.
"I knew if I didn't report it that he would have that hurt forever, knowing that someone hurt his baby and got away with it," she said in the interview.
...The father said Tuesday that early on the morning of March 14, he went to Duke Hospital with his son and waited more than two hours to see his daughter. Doctors wouldn't say why she was there, he said.
The father went home and waited for word from his daughter. Later that morning, she came to her parents' house with her boyfriend.
"After she came home, that's when I knew she had been beaten up," her father said.
His daughter had kept private several details of the attack, he said. It was only through reporters and articles that he learned his daughter told police she had been threatened with assault with a broomstick and that fake nails police say were ripped off the victim's fingers during the attack were found in a police search March 16.
Again, though, if "[i]t wasn't until the next day the woman told her father she had been raped," why did this story report that "The retired trucker who lives in Durham said he saw his daughter the day after the reported attack, but she didn't say anything was wrong."
In addition, there is a discrepancy in terms of the victim's ability to identify her attackers. According to today's N&O, "The father said his daughter can identify the men she says attacked her. 'She said ... 'I'll never forget those faces,' he said." But if that were the case, why are 46 DNA tests needed?
A Herald Sun report casts further doubt on this claim:
The alleged victim's father told The Herald-Sun last week, and said again on national television this week, that his daughter did identify the assailants.
But a lawyer representing one of the Duke students, asking not to be named, quoted Nifong on Tuesday as saying he had not received reports of such an identification from the Police Department.
Absent a positive DNA match, identification by the victim, or some other piece of convincing evidence, this case may not even go to trial. And why is the father going on national television?
Update 4/5 1:20 PM: The author of today's N&O story replied to an email I sent her, saying that the father told her that the Knight Ridder story (which came from the Charlotte Observer) was incorrect. I'll check with the author of the original story.
In addition, it turns out the Charlotte Observer ran a story yesterday with more details:
In an interview with MSNBC's Rita Cosby aired Monday night, the accuser's father said his daughter had positively identified her three attackers as members of the lacrosse team.
Father: "And she ID'd them through the mug shot."
Cosby: "Was she able to ID all three?"
Father: "Yes."
Cosby: "Positively?"
Father: "Yes."
Cosby: "No doubt in her mind it was those three?"
Father: "No, no doubt in her mind, she says those were the three that did it."
Cosby: "Were all three members of the lacrosse team?"
Father: "Yes, I think they were."
When an Observer reporter talked to the father last week, he discussed seeing his daughter the day after the alleged attack and noticing bruising, saying she wouldn't tell him what was wrong.
In the MSNBC interview, the father said his daughter's face was bruised and swollen so badly that she could barely open her eyes, she was scratched and her leg was injured so badly she couldn't get out of the car.
It's hard to know what to make of all this. As I've said, discrepancies in eyewitness accounts are to be expected, but if the victim could identify the three attackers, then why take DNA from 43 other people? If that were true, it seems like those people would have grounds to sue the district attorney.
Update 4/5 2:09 PM: I heard back from the Charlotte Observer. They are standing by their reporting of what the father said. So we're at an impasse.
Update 4/6 11:48 AM: I've added a question mark to the title to reflect the uncertainty about who is correct - the Charlotte Observer or the victim's father.