many of which were communicated before the assumed suggestive procedures. It bolsters the reliability of the identifications. See, e.g., Biggers, 409 U.S. at 200, 93 S.Ct. at 383; Goodman, 797 F.2d at 470. Lemon evidently gave detective Mook a description of the driver about one week after the offense, but that description is not in the trial record. Our inability to ascertain the accuracy of this prior description obviously prevents this fact from weighing in favor of the reliability of Lemon’s identification. However, it is also important to note that since it is an omission rather than an affirmative inaccuracy it does not cast doubt on other evidence supporting the reliability of the identification. Cf. United States ex rel. Hudson v. Brierton, 699 F.2d 917, 925 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, as the district court cogently noted,
holding that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in accepting  expert testimony  on the issue of reliability and rank order scoring that happened to include a component reliability estimate holding finding of reliability not clearly erroneous despite lack of prior description holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding bankruptcy courts finding of proximate causation not to be clearly erroneous holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record