There is a very interesting and thought provoking post on the TalkLeft message board. It's by new member, momtothree, who is trying to answer some straightforward questions about the Duke case:
Recently, I’ve been researching back in old posts, transcripts, documents and commentary about a particular crotchet of mine, which is the original naming of the perpetrators as Adam, Matt and Bret. One of the first things I have been trying to determine is how early do these names appear in the case – most importantly, were any of the names used at the hospital or in the initial statements the AV made to police officers?momtothree concludes:
The shift away from Bret to Adam and Matt in the first search warrant and the introduction of the notion of players using each other’s names to confuse things (which first appears in the March 27 McFayden search warrant), suggests that LE caught on to the Bret problem very early on and then stepped in (with or without Nifong’s encouragement) to mold the description of the crime so as to broaden the range of possible suspects. I think it is strongly indicative that at least some in the DPD were willing collaborators in reworking the AV’s story to overcome some of its immediate problems.
Shocking, Crystal Gail Mangum making inconsistent statements and the Durham police fudging the investigation. Have we played this song before?
The Mystery of Bret [forums.talkLeft.com]
Application for Search Warrant, March 16, 2006 [TheSmokingGun.com]
Duke Lacrosse Search Warrant for Ryan McFadyen's dorm room, March 27, 2006 [TheSmokingGun.com]
Duke Lacrosse Rape Timeline [TJN]
Reporting Officer Narrative - Durham Police officer G.D. Sutton [TJN]
Duke Lacrosse Rape: The Faulty Lineup [TJN]
'The Abrams Report' for June 20 [MSNBC]
Duke Lacrosse Case [TJN Archives]