News-Record.com

Doug,

All the answers you seek have just been posted on thesmokinggun.com.

And, by the way, the cloud of suspicion wouldn't be hanging over all 46 players if just one of them did the right thing and told the truth about the reprehensible behavior of all of those who were in the house that night.

Thanks, Norskar. The police investigator's warrant application provides information in disgusting detail.

Duke President Brodhead's response was to cancel the rest of the lacross schedule and to immediately accept the "resignation" of coach Mike Pressler. Good moves.

However, it does not answer all the questions I posed, most importantly: If the victim can identify her assailants, why have police not charged them?

You're hinting that police are leaving the cloud of suspicion hanging over all 46 players in order to pressure 43 to testify against three. But it's my understanding that all team members weren't present - at least, Brodhead has said that. How can those who weren't there provide information about what happened?

All who were there were guilty of bad behavior, but not all were guilty of rape. Those who can be dismissed as rape suspects should be. Those who can be identified should be charged immediately.

Norskar, your solution to this problem is for one of the "suspects" to let the media force him to abandon his 5th Amendment rights in order to satisfy the race-baiters?
Does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" have any meaning to you?

Thank you jaycee, I guess the judge and juror system is dead in this country, we will let the media,try people from now on. I ask this question again, if this hot dog DA has all the facts he claims to have why no arrest???? This guy has played the press like a 5 string banjo.
If someone on this team is guilty so be it. Let a court of law do it.

Doug Clark:

I have to disagree with your assessment. Many times a criminal investigation of a sensitive nature takes a very long time to come to a head. I feel your public call to rush to charge to clear those not guilty is part of the problem. Let the investigators do their job.

It will be hard enough for the law to convict fine, white boys from New Jersey of raping a black girl in North Carolina who is working as a stripper, why not let the system take its time so the prosecutors and investigators can present the best case possible.

Anyone who reads the affidavit attached to the search warrant and does not demand true justice be done has a serious problem.

If 43 men know which three went into the bath with the woman, 43 men should tell the truth. Everyone who refrains is not a man, but a coward, no matter what the 5th guarantees.

Mr. Sykes, the search warrant affidavit gives one side of the story, that of the prostitute "victim." I'm sure there is another. We'll hear both sides in time.
As a journalist, I'm sure you're aware that not every cry of "rape" turns out to be true.
Don't be so quick to condemn 46 men on the word of a prostitute who went there to have sex with them for money.

Jaycee:

I think you may want to back off those comments. Are you saying a prostitute deserves to be violently raped against her will, even if money is involved?

I sure hope not.

I also believe the facts we know so far is that the woman was a student at NCCU working as a stripper. Do you have any sisters, daughters, female cousins or friends that are women?

I once covered the case of a freshman girl who was raped by two star football players at a university. She backed off her story very fast once the attention hit.

In addition to covering police and courts extensively as a reporter, I also worked as a magistrate in Forsyth County and know that cops are usually right on target with the facts they put in an affidavit for a search warrant.

I'd trust the cops in Durham any day over some NJ punks at Dook who think they can have their way with women for a fee.

JC:

BTW, all journalist have feelings, emotions and bias. Any journalist that tells you they do not is lying to your face.

I have never considered myself a journalist or gone around labeling myself one.

I am a writer who found a job as a reporter and spent some years working in newspapers. Nothing more, nothing less. A living.

Mr. Sykes, I have 25 years of law enforcement behind me. I know how prostitutes lie, and I've investigated far more "rapes" that later turned out to be BS than were real.
My point, as you know, is that the police used the allegations of the prostitute ONLY as a basis for the search warrant. That's a onesided story, and not proven fact. I've drawn over 250 search warrants myself, I know how it works. Nothing is fact in a criminal case until it's proven in court. If you rely on the basis of the search warrant as irrefutable fact, you're extremely naive.
The integrity in a court of law of a prostitute that takes money for sex then complains about it is zilch, nil, nada, worthless. If this case ever gets to court, the prosecution will face a bevy of defense witnesses who've paid the woman/women involved for sex before. Credibility-zero. I've seen it happen, it ain't pretty.
Nothing that I said in any way indicates that a prostitute can't be raped. Just that too little facts have been presented, and the defense is categorically denying that the incident took place the way the prostitute says it did. There is another side to the story, but the accused have a right not to discuss it. If they did, they'd be playing into the hands of the vulture media that would twist this story up so badly that nobody would recognize the facts.

Jaycee,

I'm afraid we have are a couple of fundamental disagreements. First off, what you see as "abandoning one's 5th amendment rights due to media pressure," I see as simply doing the right thing: Reporting the full facts of an awful crime.

I also don't jump to the conclusion that someone described as an exotic dancer is a prostitute. I see her as a victim, a daughter, a sister, a mother.

You must be a pretty big Dook fan to excuse what's clearly some pretty awful behavior.

Thanks for the discussion.

I agree with Norskar that describing the victim as a prostitute is unfair. There's no evidence she is a prostitute.

I don't accept jsykes' assertion that it will be especially hard to convict "fine white boys from New Jersey of raping a black girl in North Carolina." What's the basis for that view? Do white boys from New Jersey typically get away with raping black girls in North Carolina? When's the last time that happened? It seems that, in this case, police and prosecutors are working pretty hard to put together a strong case. Will a Durham jury disregard facts and render a prejudicial verdict in favor of the accused? I would not expect that.

I remain unconvinced that there's a good reason to delay charging the three suspects if the victim can identify them. What other information is needed from 43 other lacrosse players, especially those who did not even attend the party?

You must be a pretty big Dook fan to excuse what's clearly some pretty awful behavior.* Norskar

If they did, they'd be playing into the hands of the vulture media that would twist this story up so badly that nobody would recognize the facts.* jaycee

Stick to your constitutional guns jaycee. You got it right!

Norskar and Mr. Clark, have you ever heard of "escort services?" Do you know what services they provide? They're prostitutes.
More than 10 years of my police career was spent doing narcotics enforcement, I know more about "dancers" and "escorts" than anybody ought to know. I make my judgement based on experience and plain common sense. "Escorts" are prostitutes. They get paid to "date" men and have sex for money.
Have either of you ever been to a real down-and-dirty bachelor party for a group of testosterone-charged college athletes? They weren't drinking tea and eating cookies to watch a "dancer" in a costume pop out of a cake.
This whole thing smacks of a dispute over payment for services. Or perhaps the hookers saw dollar signs in their future from a group of white boys they thought they could force into paying them off if they raised enough stink.
Any suspect who waives his right to remain silent and makes a statement to the news media about a pending criminal case is an idiot.

Doug:

My basis for the "hard to convict" statement is summed up in Jaycee's comments. His comments are indicative of what I have heard most men saying about this case. It also demonstrates the line of attack most rape defendants use in court.

Sometimes it works, which is a sad commentary on our system of justice.

Jaycee:

Did you miss the part about the forensic nurse's examination of the victim?

I'm glad you aren't a cop anymore if you have your mind made up in general about categories of people as demonstrated by your logic in describing the victim as a hooker.

I can't believe this guy sent something like that on his university accounty. duke.edu.

More and more lately, I'm realizing how many eyes can peep into this little world we're creating online that documents our thoughts and daily habits.

That's a good observation, mrfab.

The general lesson is never email something that would embarrass (or incriminate) you if it came to light.

In this case, the email supposedly sent by Ryan McFadyen is so twisted you'd have to suspect he was heavily under the influence of something when he wrote it. And it has gotten him in deep trouble, even if he did not commit any crime. The warrant to search his room lists "conspiracy to commit murder" as one of the crimes under investigation. The only evidence for such a conspiracy that we know about is McFadyen's email. Did that constitute a conspiracy to commit murder? No murder was committed or even attempted. The content of the email is a disgrace to Duke, and the fact that it was a Duke email account more than justifies McFadyen's suspension. Was it criminal? That seems to be a stretch, but who knows where this story will end up?

One other point to ponder regarding how long it's taking to file charges (if any are going to be filed): Rape isn't the only potential crime being investigated. The affidavit lists some others: the possible theft of some of the complainant's money and "kidnapping," meaning that some people in at the scene might not have sexually assaulted the woman but might have helped to prevent her from leaving. (Of course, some might have done both.) There's also the issue of underage drinking and who might have provided the alcohol.

So it's not just a matter of using DNA to reduce a list of 46 possible suspects to three.

I also wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the entire team is stonewalling. One of the recipients of McFadyen's e-mail, for example, turned it over to police. Who would be among the most likely recipients, particularly of an e-mail signed with McFadyen's uniform number?

Excellent points, Lex.

If team members other than those who may have participated in an alleged rape could be charged with other offenses, would they be stonewalling if they declined to talk to police or invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination?

Mr. Sykes, no medical expert can determine whether a sexually related injury was incurred during consensual or non-consensual activity. They can only document the injury itself. Anything beyond that is mere conjecture. Anal intercourse can cause injury regardless of the mental state of the participants.
If you don't know the purpose of an "escort service" then I'd submit that your depth of knowledge in this matter is too shallow for you to participate in a knowledgeable conversation about it.

Doug: I'd say it depends on how you define "stonewalling." FWIW, I don't consider taking the Fifth to be stonewalling. I consider otherwise refusing to answer questions, or lying, to be stonewalling. If someone at that party was guilty of no crime yet refused to tell police what he knew (assuming that what he knew > 0), I'd certainly consider him a bad citizen, but I don't know if he'd be guilty of obstruction, or of the less formal stonewalling charge. ;-)

DNA results are in, no DNA from the Lacrosse team.
This case is going down faster than Teddy Kennedy's car in the Chappaquidick.