Ah, you seem to have cut and pasted a bit hastily. You left out the remainder of the quote, which I’m sure you didn’t intend to do. The part that indicates her story perhaps changed significantly, from being in line with the players account to opposing it?
“…From the beginning, she has been cooperating fully with [Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong] and the police, and she looks forward to testifying truthfully at the trial.” Thomas replies, “She has given us several statements, so I don’t see any room for her to change her story now simply because she has a lawyer speaking for her.” Nifong could not be reached for comment.
Interesting, that while you call for restraint and withholding judgment, you choose to omit a part of a quote which points to the real (and potentially ominous) possibility that the story has changed, and also choose to point to the defense as the ones possibly not telling the truth.
Yes, you covered nicely with the “somebody’s not telling the truth”, but why did that not “confirm” just as much for you that the woman has changed her story? In fact, reading the full quote, I find it entirely reasonable, and perhaps even likely, to conclude that her story changed rather than the defense is obfuscating. A smart lawyer - and Mr. Thomas is a smart, skilled, respected attorney - won’t generally tip cards of this nature if he or she doesn’t have them. Why not? You look like an ass. “I never even spoke to them” etc.
Believe me, as a Durham resident, the cops are not an uninterested party either. There is tremendous pressure for an arrest and conviction. If you think they, and the district attorney, are objective and withholding judgment, you’re misguided. They are certainly not equally interested in all sides. One of our local media outlets reported that the defense attorney’s offered to show Mr. Nifong the pictures alleging to show the alleged victim’s injuries present prior to the alleged attack (a significant bit of evidence, you must agree, as you have pointed to her injuries to support her claims). Mr. Nifong declined the offer. See WRAL story Draw your own conclusion.
GHB or Rohypnol? FYI, GHB can’t be detected, so a tox screen wouldn’t help one way or the other; Rohypnol can be. Certainly possible that she was drugged, and I’m not aware of any reports of a tox screen. The security guard , there is some indication, stated he did not smell alcohol (see above WRAL story). But, I’m not sure a grocery store security guard is your best investigative source for such things. Certainly doesn’t rule it out, but if we’re going to engage in this sort of speculation we may as well explore it from all sides. Since we’re witholding judgement and all (while we’re also raising the spectre that she was drugged). Even though we have no indication that the alleged victim made any claim like “They say I showed up drunk, but I was stone-cold sober until I drank that umbrella drink they gave me them whammo!”. Especially since there is indication that the strippers were served some sort of beverages (again, see WRAL story). Of course, the fact that they were served beverages yet no mention of possible drugging has arisen is perhaps telling by its absence. Though pure speculation on my part (in keeping with the spirit of this topic), I have no doubt that Mr. Nifong would have trotted that out weeks ago if there was any such indication. Built-in justification for inconsistencies; he may yet stumble on this line of reasoning.
Though let’s hope it is not as late in coming as, apparently, the ID is. From ESPN.com
Raises the whole 46 player DNA sampling, no? One would assume if she can ID now, she could immediately after, and one’s memory tends to get worse over time, not better, no? So why compel DNA from the whole team when she could ID all 3 attackers with at least “90 percent certainty”? Nor is it surprising she can ID some players from the party, since she was there. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that she was not able to ID at the time, but can now. This is, of course, troubling. I saw one web site put up in the days after the incident with pictures of the lacrosse team – individual head shots (I’ll not link to it for obvious reasons, and I’m not even sure it’s up. If this omission is deemed inappropriate, I’ll gladly dig up the URL and share it with a mod for vetting). Such resources – and I’m sure there are more – certainly open the door to question the ID. One wonders if she didn’t have a few names of players initially - perhaps those who were instrumental in hiring her? - and later was able to use such reasources to link names with faces. I’m not saying she did, just that an ID and a 46 player DNA sample doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps smarter and more learned people can offer additional reasons, but I come up with either no ID at the time, or bungling (at the least) on the part of the prosecutor. Again, a later ID is problematic for this case (as is procecutorial ineptitude), and a reasonable person questions the presence of an early ID given that 46 players were compelled by court order to provide DNA samples.
The whole drugging question you raise is interesting. Where did that come from? Certainly not the statistics regarding college-age rape and the use of date rape drugs? For one can’t use past statistics to predict or weigh the likelihood of a given single event, right? 
(In all seriousness, that last was just a friendly pull at your leg. I’m not great with stats, and I’m sure someone will point out it’s apples and oranges).
Jake