The DA Nifong now admits in his court filing that: "there is no scientific or other evidence independent of the victim's testimony that would corroborate specifically (a rape charge), the state is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense." But he's keeping charges of "kidnapping" and "sexual offense" even as the accuser Magnum has changed her story once again: "In dropping the rape charges, Nifong filed court papers that said the accuser told an investigator Thursday that she is no longer certain whether she was penetrated vaginally with the men's penises, as she had claimed earlier."
Magnum originally "said three men raped her _ vaginally, anally and orally _ while holding her against her will in a bathroom... The men are still charged with kidnapping, for allegedly holding the woman against her will, and sexual offense. Under state law, a rape charge requires vaginal intercourse, while sexual offense covers any sexual act. In dropping the rape charges, Nifong did not specify what sex acts prosecutors now believe occurred."
Recall that his original filing, demanding DNA tests from all the players, would "identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent." Even after the testing found zero matches for any of the players, but did find matches for "several" other men, he proceeded, despite the accuser Magnum claiming that three of the players brutally raped her without a condom and ejaculated.
What has made Nifong finally reach this obvious conclusion after all this time? Though new evidence against Magnum's claims have never stopped trickling out, enough already existed at the time of the charge for any sensible DA to drop the case, if not initiate a new one against Magnum, for filing a false police report.
Incredibly, but not surprisingly given , Nifong has decided to keep the charges of "kidnapping" and "sexual offense." Why? Presumably because such charges can't be contradicted by evidence, and Nifong his hellbent on upholding his original, pre-evidence assertion that these guys raped Magnum. Yet whereas claiming you got brutally gang-raped by three condomless, ejaculating men *must* leave DNA traces -- especially if you host semen DNA from "several" other men with whom you had consensual sex at times more distant from the testing than your contact with the accused -- charges of "kidnapping" and "sexual offense" as alleged here necessarily implies no concrete proof that can test the charge.
But there remains unambiguous proof that Magnum has lied about several linchpin aspects of her allegation, the DNA exoneration falsifying her claim of rape standing paramount. When defense attorneys demonstrate beyond doubt that she lied about getting raped, what sensible person will believe that she did tell the truth about "kidnapping" and "sexual offense"?
I do shudder to think how Magnum could have gotten away with this if she had just constructed consistent, untestable lies. And if she can get away with it, anybody else can. But maybe we gain from this the deserved shattering of the myth that "women don't lie about rape."