Hospital employees who examined her wrote that her injuries were consistent with rape trauma. There is evidence that she got cuts and bruises to her legs before she got to the party, and I wonder if she might have had been physically abused or had "rough sex" with her "boyfriend" or a paying customer. Perhaps she was so drunk she had already fallen down several times. With that in mind, I would have to believe that private investigators are combing the streets to learn who are the other assignments or customers she had contact with that day, as possible witnesses or suspects, and to determine who she was drinking with and who took her to the party. Since she showed up near midnight already possibly intoxicated and injured at the frat party, how many other assignments, or "customers" had she already seen that day? These people definitely need to be interviewed. And because of the nature of the case, the police should be taking the lead to try to locate these people, to rule them in or out as suspects.
Fox is saying something is breaking in Durham...
Investigators certainly need a timeline for Crystol.........where was SHE from approximately 6pm when her dad took her to the store and when she was late to the party and driven there by her boyfriend shortly before midnight. That's approximately six hours that should be documented.
If I am not mistaken, the defense said that according to the DNA results there was no evidence that she had even had sex recently.
The general rule for rape shield laws is that evidence of prior sexual behavior by the alleged victim is inadmissible, but what you're wondering about would fall squarely into one of the exceptions: evidence of prior sexual acts by the alleged victim tending to show that injuries, semen, etc. came from someone other than the defendant are not prohibited by that rule.
I'm not at all familiar with North Carolina's evidence laws, but I'm almost definitely sure that they're modelled off of the federal rules because, well, that's what every other state does. I can't remember which rule in the FRE it is, specifically; it's somewhere in the late 400s, between 413 and 415.