Thursday, 6 April 2006

Continuing to work on the timeline

Ralph Luker links a NBC 17 story from last Friday that includes some quotes from an attorney representing one of the leaseholders on the 610 house that I hadn’t seen before (most interesting part bolded):

Meanwhile, defense attorneys continued on Friday to question the allegations of wrongdoing, including a 911 call made shortly before the alleged rape was reported.

In that call, a distraught woman said men in the house where the lacrosse team party was being held shouted racial slurs at her outside. Attorneys pointed out some discrepancies in the caller’s version of the incident and in the timing of the call.

“I listened to that first call, and I thought, ‘You called 911 because someone said something offensive to you?’ That’s just weird,” said Kerry Sutton, who represents lacrosse team member Matt Evans.

Evans is one of three captains of the team and lives at the Buchanan Boulevard house where the party was held. Sutton said Evans cleared out the house and locked it up when the party got too raucous.

“I believe my client. He says he didn’t do anything, and he believes nobody else did anything,” Sutton said. “No matter how this turns out, it’s a terrible thing for somebody.”

That explains why everyone disappeared from the house, although it doesn’t explain why nobody (including the nosy neighbor) seems to have witnessed it.

This raises the need to better pin down the timeline. Team member Ryan McFadyen’s email is apparently one of many sent in the period after the alleged rape went down, but the only one we have evidence of to this point. Duke’s email system records timestamps on every message passed through it, and all emails sent or received via the Duke email system require a username and password—so where’s the subpeona for all these records? Is it hiding somewhere under seal along with the search of McFadyen’s room, which only came to light because a student witnessed Durham police entering Edens 2C?

There were laptops and wireless cards siezed at the party—were there emails sent before, during, and after the entertainment? Not to mention timestamps on digital camera photos and call records and GPS locations of players’ cellphones—the latter of which would at least be able to show who (or whose phones) were there.

I’m not asking for a lot of Charlie Epps rocket science here… just the basics. Use the technology help to figure out what the hell actually was going on here, and cut out the nonsense.

6 comments:

Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.

Chris,

I wonder what’s Nifong rationale for possibly not revealing DNA results before the trial? But the lawers for players said that they would made them public anyway. Looks like they are certain that tests would be negative.

Another question that is not often raised – if tests are negative, what about the sperm that was found on her (otherwise what they compare the players’ DNA with?) Where did she get it? Would that be a question that prosecutors should be interested? If there are signs of rape? But the article you provided link to says that it is difficult to say if sex was consensual or not. Interesting.

 

I don’t think it’s been established that any semen was found; there are other things (blood, hair, skin cells, etc.) that DNA could also be present in that they may have found, or they may have found nothing—beats me.

Interesting article; I haven’t seen any NCCU reporting, but it may not be online and/or showing up in Google News. Worth looking for.

 
[Permalink] 4. Curious wrote @ Thu, 6 Apr 2006, 4:44 pm CDT:

I’m confused about the house itself. Is it owned by the university and leased to students? It it owned by a private landlord? By a fraternity? If they are paying a monthly lease, to whom is the check made out?

 

Curious: at the time the students leased the house, it had a private owner. The university purchased this house, and about a dozen other properties, in February, honoring the existing leases (which mostly expire this summer, although I think a few lease extensions for 2006–07 had been signed by the existing owner) but not signing new ones.

The university plans to add covenants to the deeds restricting them to single-family occupancy and then resell the properties (perhaps after some renovations). See here for details.

 

Chris, I am not sure if racial solidarity won’t prevail (in case of Durham residents and NCCU reporter).

 
Comments are now closed on this post.