The alleged victim in the lacrosse case told investigators Dec. 21 that Reade Seligmann did not assault her, and she changed several other details given in previous interviews about the March 13 incident, according to court papers filed by the defense Thursday.

In an April interview with investigators, the alleged victim said she was "100-percent" sure Seligmann had forced her to perform oral sex on him.

Last month, however, she claimed Seligmann did not commit any sex act on her and only watched, saying he was getting married the following day, according to the notes of Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the Durham District Attorney's Office.

In previous interviews, the alleged victim had claimed the alleged rape took place shortly before the two dancers left the house close to 1 a.m.

In her most recent account of events, however, the alleged victim said the attack occurred between 11:35 p.m. and 12 a.m., which the defense motion states is contradicted by both the woman's and Seligmann's cell phone records.

The alleged victim conducted four phone conversations between 11:11 p.m. and 11:39 p.m., and Seligmann received a phone call at 11:50 p.m. from his girlfriend.

"According to the accuser's most recent telling, she apparently spoke with someone at her father's home for seven minutes during the time that she was planning her nude dance routine, during the time that she was dancing and then as she was fleeing to the car," defense attorneys stated in the court papers, after having reviewed the cell phone records.

Time-stamped photographs show the two dancers performing a routine between 12 a.m. and 12:04 a.m.

The alleged victim also now says that defendant David Evans, Trinity '06, is the one who "performed a sex act in her face," instead of Seligmann, the motion stated.

Defense attorneys said that because the alleged victim claimed only one person performed an oral sex act, either the identification of Evans or the April identification of Seligmann is "demonstrably false and necessarily unreliable."

In addition, the alleged victim changed her description of Evans.

In April, she said her attacker looked like a picture of Evans but with a mustache. In December, she said her attacker did not have a mustache but a "five o'clock shadow," according to Wilson's Dec. 21 notes.

In the picture of Evans the alleged victim was shown in the line-up, he clearly had a "five o'clock shadow," defense lawyers stated.

They also concluded that the changing description of the alleged assailant makes the alleged victim's April statement "no longer reliable."

The alleged victim also changed her story about the alleged attackers' names.

In the original statement, she said she had been attacked by three men named "Adam," "Matt" and "Brett." She is now stating that both Evans and Seligmann were using these three names, along with "Dan," to identify themselves, and she cannot recall whether the third defendant, Collin Finnerty, had even used a name.

"Since at this point in time, Dave Evans can be one, two, three or even four different attackers, Reade Seligmann can be one or two different attackers-and Collin Finnerty is an unidentified attacker-the accuser is now free to say that any of the defendants did any act or all of the acts that she claimed happened without regard to her previous statements," defense attorneys stated in the document.

In the Dec. 21 interview, the alleged victim said she could no longer be sure she was penetrated by a penis, which prompted Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong to drop the rape charges against the three defendants Dec. 22.

Even though she also said Seligmann did not participate in the alleged attack, Nifong kept in place charges of sexual offense and kidnapping against both him and the other two defendants.

She also used the defendants' real names in retelling her story in December, instead of identifying her attackers as the original Adam, Matt or Brett, according to Wilson's notes.

"The fact that the accuser now knows their real name indicates that she has learned their names from the extensive publicity that this case has received," lawyers said in the document. "The accuser's present recollection of who allegedly attacked her and how, has been irreparably tainted by this publicity and weighs strongly against any in-court identification by her of the defendants."

Following the interview, defense attorneys have called into question "the ability of the witness to see, recall and describe her attacker."

"The accuser's most recent recollection of events demonstrates clearly that she cannot accurately recall and describe her attackers and that any identification made by her is not necessarily reliable," defense attorneys stated.

Neither Nifong nor defense attorneys for the defendants could be reached for comment.

At the next hearing, slated for the week of Feb. 5, defense lawyers will discuss a motion to suppress the alleged victim's photo identification.