From the date of the indictment until the present, the District Attorney’s Office continued to conduct a comprehensive and wide-ranging investigation into the defendant, the complainant, and the facts of this case. That investigation has included the results of physical examinations of the complainant and the defendant, and scientific testing of forensic evidence obtained from both of them and their clothing. Police officers, detectives, civilian witnesses, medical personnel, forensic scientists, and medical experts were interviewed. Documents, records, and other evidence have been gathered and analyzed, including records of electronic communication carriers, financial records, business records, medical records, video surveillance recordings from inside the Sofitel Hotel and other locations, police department records, and records of other law enforcement and governmental agencies.
Because credible testimony from the complainant was necessary to establish the crimes charged, prosecutors and investigators interviewed the complainant repeatedly regarding her personal history, current circumstances, and the details of the incident itself. During interviews conducted from May 14, 2011 to june 7, 2011, the complainant provided prosecutors and investigators with detailed information about the incident, her personal history, and her current circumstances. On june 7, 2011, the complainant’s attorney alerted prosecutors that the complainant had not been truthful in recounting her personal history, including her account of an alleged prior rape. In further interviews conducted on june 8, june 9, and, june 28, 2011 n1On june 9, 2011, the complainant’s attorney called prosecutors and halted an interview with his client. From that point until june 28, 2011, the Office negotiated with the complainant’s attorney to resume the interview, without success. On _lune 28, 19 days after the interview had been stopped, the complainant returned to resume the interview., the complainant herself admitted that she had been untruthful with prosecutors about aspects of her personal history and current circumstances.
In the june 28 interview, in the presence of her lawyer, three prosecutors, and an investigator, the complainant also admitted not just that she had been untruthful with prosecutors about her activities in the immediate aftermath of the charged incident, but also that she had lied in the grand on this important point. In a letter dated June 30, 2011, the Office disclosed comp1ainant’s false statements and other potentially exculpatory information to the Court and defense counsel.
From july 1, 2011 to the present, the Office continued its investigation of the case, including interviewing further witnesses, scientists, and medical experts; seeking and reviewing additional records; examining additional forensic results provided by OCME; and evaluating additional informa tion provided by the complainant’s lawyer and defense counsel. Prosecutors also met with the complainant one additional time, on July 27, 2011, at which time the complainant again significandy altered her account of what had occurred in the time immediately after her encounter with the defendant.