The rape case against the Duke University LaCrosse players looks crazier by the day. If these defense claims are true, the prosecution has a huge problem:

DURHAM -- The exotic dancer who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of gang-raping her was drinking while taking medication that night, and had sex with at least four men and a sexual device in the days immediately leading up to the off-campus party, according to court papers filed Thursday.

And despite what Durham police have contended, a medical examination showed no signs of the sort of sexual or physical attack of which the dancer complained, according to the motion filed by defense attorneys for Reade Seligmann.

Among other previously undisclosed details, the motion says the woman at one point accused her female dance partner of helping the lacrosse players rape her and of stealing her money.

And she told one medical staffer she drank at least 44 ounces of beer, and told another she took a powerful muscle relaxant and drank beer before going to the party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on March 13.

Lawyers Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner contend in the motion that police Investigator Benjamin Himan and the Police Department illegally and deliberately withheld those and other details that were damaging to their investigation.

For example, they say, Himan knew but did not mention in a probable-cause affidavit that two examining physicians said the dancer complained only of vaginal rape, even though some charges in the case are linked to allegations of oral and anal penetration.

Himan also neglected to note that the accuser told one doctor she was not hit and did not complain of any pain, or that she told the sexual assault nurse examiner she was not choked, according to the documents.

That conflicts with statements from police that the woman was kicked, strangled and beaten while being sexually assaulted.

Police officials wouldn't respond Thursday to questions about the documents.

On top of this, it now turns out that the second stripper had originally characterized the victim's rape allegations as "a crock":

DURHAM, N.C. — A second stripper in a rape case that rocked the prestigious Duke University told police early in their investigation that the alleged victim's allegations seemed untrue, according to court papers.

The statement by Kim Roberts about a March 13 lacrosse team party was cited in a filing Thursday by lawyers for Reade Seligmann, 20, one of three team members charged in the case. In the statement, Roberts said the accuser was out of her sight for only five minutes.

According to a March 20 statement written by a police investigator, Roberts "stated that she heard that (the accuser) was sexually assaulted, which she stated is a 'crock' and she stated that she was with her the whole time until she left."

The defense lawyers argue that prosecutors omitted that statement when they got court permission in March to obtain photographs and DNA samples from team members.

District Attorney Mike Nifong's office declined to comment Thursday on the defense allegations.

I am reminded of Dorothy Rabinowitz's famous book, No Crueler Tyrannies. From the Amazon review:

Americans tend to put great faith in their justice system but, despite the legal doctrine of the presumption of innocence, they also tend to assume that persons accused of crimes are in fact guilty. This book deals with the power of accusations, in combination with dubious expert testimony, to undermine a person's right to a fair hearing and result in the incarceration of innocent individuals. It focuses on some of the most public sex abuse prosecutions during the 1980's and 1990's and shows how justice was subverted by a combination of overzealous "experts," unfair limitations on the defendants' ability to present exculpatory evidence, and the vagaries of the appeals process. These cases, and particularly the Wenatchee prosecutions, are about as close as American justice has come to the Kangaroo courts of the former Soviet Union.

Much of the inflammatory hype seems to stem from the illogical but stubborn idea that there can be such a thing as inherited racial guilt, and from a related desire to get even with past lynchings by means of a proxy role reversal. However, I think that's only a partial explanation of what's going on in Durham.

When egos -- and power -- are at stake, the Dreyfus phenomenon tends to kick in. In the Dreyfus case, French officials saw the innocence of Dreyfus (a Jewish officer convicted on phony evidence in a shrilly anti-Semitic climate) not as a legal issue but as a dire threat to their power. Thus, they systematically covered up the evidence which exculpated Dreyfus, and it was only because of the intervention of outsiders like Emile Zola that the fraud was finally exposed.

Might prosecutors and others with careers at stake in Durham be similarly unconcerned with whether the Duke La Crosse players are actually innocent? Might their motivation be altogether different from seeking justice?

Far be it from me to say "J' accuse!"

Hell, I don't even speak French.

(I'll just stay tuned.)

UPDATE (06/11/06): "I can't begin to imagine how the DA hopes to skate past all this at trial," says Tom Maguire, who also links to a report that the DA has decided to postpone the trial for an entire year!. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Unbelievable.

Be sure to read Darleen Click's comment below:

If Nifong has one shred of obligation to his oath as a lawyer, he would have rejected the case from the moment of the blown photo-line up, or at worst, when the first DNA tests came back negative.

Like the "one bad cop spoils it for all" scenario, Nifong is a huge embarrassment for the honest DDA's who are tasked with evaluating cases for filing on daily basis.