After weeks of off-the-record comments and interviews, Kim Roberts, the second dancer in the Duke University rape scandal, provided her first public interview. Unfortunately, her comments did little to change the opinions of the growing number of doubters and left many of the accuser’s supporters desperate for the expected “secret weapon” of District Attorney Nifong.

“I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can’t say a rape occurred – and I never will,” she told reporters. Nevertheless, she continued, “In all honesty, I think they’re guilty. And I can’t say which ones are guilty … but somebody did something besides underage drinking. That’s my honest-to-God impression.”

Although Roberts attempted to offer support for her friend and colleague, her comments also created more space for the offensive-minded defense attorneys to undermine the accuser’s claims. For example, Roberts admits that she “had doubts” about the rape claim and only became convinced after seeing the defense attorneys’ tactics, which made her “wonder about their character.”

Unfortunately, similar character questions are now being levied against Roberts. Eight days after the party, Roberts was arrested for a parole violation. Last Monday, the same day the sealed indictment against the two Duke players emerged, Roberts received a special favor from Nifong. Apparently, she no longer needed to pay the 15 percent bonding fee. This, according to defense attorneys, suggests that her change in sentiment might be driven by self interest as opposed to justice.

In addition to her alleged shift in testimony –a claim that is likely overstated by the defense– Roberts’ has been placed on the defensive because of her communication with a public relations firm. In the interview, Roberts admitted that she sent the following e-mail to 5W Public Relations:

I’ve found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country. I’m worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage.

To be sure, Roberts will unwittingly accommodate the defense team’s strategy of attacking the character of both women. It is important, however, to examine the recent developments both critically and fairly:

• Roberts’ (alleged) initial doubt should not undermine the accuser’s claims since she admittedly was not in the bathroom where the rape allegedly occurred.

• Her decision to negotiate with the criminal justice system is a standard practice in today’s legal environment. (Note: It’s interesting how people are suddenly annoyed at her decision to “snitch,” or negotiate criminal liability for information. Perhaps these same people will now be able to acknowledge the legitimacy and complexity of hip-hop’s “Stop Snitching” movement.) Besides, why is so much attention being paid to her criminal record and so little being paid to the criminal pasts of the alleged rapists?

• According to District of Columbia Superior Court records, Finnerty and two companions confronted a man outside the Georgetown Inn hotel and verbally abused him. When the man asked him to stop calling him gay and tried to walk away, the threesome attacked him. Finnerty did not enter a plea in the case and was ordered to perform 25 hours of community service in Washington, after which the charges will be dropped. Perhaps the dancers would have less imposing criminal records if they had the resources, power, and privilege to make their cases “go away.”

• Finally, Roberts’ decision to contact a public relations firm is quite prudent. While the move certainly could be evidence of opportunism, it is definitely a wise preemptive strike against the inevitable flurry of character assassinations that will accompany the upcoming trial.