Reply #167: You're right, I made a mistake. [View All]

[pnwmom]

I had confused this situation with another one. In this case, the document had not been filed with the court. Legally, that doesn't matter, because there is no gag order in place (that isn't the usual procedure here), but my statement was inaccurate as you realized.

What apparently happened is that after the attorney had been to court to file three other motions, he spoke to the news media there. While he was speaking to them about new discrepancies in the discovery file, he was interrupted by a police investigator, Linwood Wilson, who loudly proclaimed otherwise. Afterwards, Wilson told the media that he had read the entire file and that the accuser had not changed her story. The next day, the defense attorney sent a letter to the investigator pointing out the page in the discovery file that backed up his statements, and copied it to the press. Mr. Wilson spoke again to the press and reiterated his claims.

Thus, it is not only the defense attorneys who have been making public statements. Mr. Wilson, at least, has been making them too.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=4299691

"A bitter exchange that started outside of the courtroom when Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the District Attorney's Office, interrupted a press conference by defense attorney, Joseph Cheshire.

"The interruption came as Cheshire was referencing the discovery documents that indicate the accuser gave conflicting accounts of the alleged rape.

SNIP

"After the exchange, Wilson told Eyewitness News that he personally read all 1814 pages of discovery documents and has not read that the alleged victim changed her version of the story."

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-747034.html

"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."

SNIP

Wilson said in an interview Friday, however, that Cheshire was "trying to twist what I asked him." He said he was questioning the lawyer's reference to 20 alleged rapists, not the reference to five.

"I was upset about the 20," Wilson acknowledged. "There ain't nothing about 20 in anything I've read. I wanted him to show it to me. One of the police officers did say there were 20 people present, but he didn't say 20 people raped this woman.

"We all know she said three," Wilson added. "We all know that because three people are charged. I wasn't questioning the three or the five. I was only questioning the 20."