“The physical, scientific and other evidence establishes that the defendant engaged in a hurried sexual encounter with the complainant, but it does not independently establish her claim of a forcible, nonconsensual encounter,” the motion says.

It describes her statements about the day as “shifting and inconsistent,” and that prosecutors could therefore not be certain about what took place in the Sofitel room that day…

“She has not been truthful, on matters great and small, many pertaining to her background and some relating to the circumstances of the incident itself,” the motion said.