Newly released documents from the New Haven Police Department, published by Gawker early Wednesday, shed new light on the circumstances that led to a stabbing and student suicide in May.

The NHPD’s report on the incident, which took place in the Taft Apartments on College Street in the early hours of May 26, reveals that Tyler Carlisle ’15 was involved in a sexual encounter with two other students, one male and one female, before he stabbed the male student once in the neck and then jumped out of a ninth-story window to his death.

At Yale-New Haven Hospital, the male student who was stabbed, Alexander Michaud ’17, described to police officers the events that had led to the stabbing. Michaud, who was named by NHPD spokesman David Hartman in a May 26 press release, was later declared to be in stable condition and fully recovered roughly two weeks after the incident.

“Michaud, [the female student], and Carlisle had all been drinking,” according to the police report. “Carlisle started to get jealous of Michaud and [the female student]. Carlisle grabbed a knife that was on the nightstand next to the bed. Carlisle stabbed Michaud in the neck area.”

The female student has not been publicly identified in any police documents, and her name was redacted from the report that Gawker published online. According to the report, the female student was too distraught to provide a statement to the police at the time of the incident. Both students remain enrolled at Yale.

After the stabbing, according to the police report, Carlisle went into the living room and paced back and forth, saying “I’m sorry,” while the female student called the police and held a t-shirt to Michaud’s neck to stanch the bleeding. Although Michaud told police he did not see Carlisle actually jump, he told police that he recalled him sitting on the windowsill and saying he was going to do so.

Michaud did not attend Carlisle’s memorial service, held early in June, said Reed Morgan ’17, a friend of the two men.

“He worried that his presence would make it more about the incident and less about Tyler’s life,” Morgan said.

As to making sense of the incident, Morgan said, “some things are beyond understanding and we move on by accepting that.”

Editor’s NoteAfter posting this story Wednesday afternoon, we heard from a number of readers who expressed concerns about the impact of publicizing details of this incident. It is not the News’ intention to cause community members, or anyone, undue pain. Covering this tragedy gives us no pleasure. But the editors decided to move forward with a story, stripped as much as possible of lurid details, to inform readers about newly public information, which helps explain in some small way why this tragedy occurred. Contact the editor at editor@yaledailynews.com.

  • Peter North

    A three-way, huh? Nasty.

  • Ece FNW

    Why is this relevant to the public interest? Why does the YDN think that publishing this contributes to the community more than it detracts from its well-being?

  • free_thinker

    This should not have been published. Good lord, exercise some editorial discretion.

  • parisgeller

    I am disappointed in the Yale Daily News for choosing to publish this insensitive article. I thought that Yale students cared about the mental wellbeing of their peers, but I guess I was wrong. We are a campus in mourning. Many students are still trying to recover and heal from the loss of a friend and classmate and this kind of article hurts much more than it helps.

  • branford73

    Is this a story the News should have reported? Is it something the Yale community, however you define it, needed to know? Do the feeling of members of your community or their families have no weight in the consideration of whether or not to publish?

  • anonymous

    This voyeuristic display of cheap gossip gives me chills. In the internet age, we all knew that the gawker story would spread like wildfire on campus. But to dignify this voyeurism in the oldest college daily? It seems that amateur hour has dawned at the Yale Daily News.

    • jdawg32

      You know that gossip isn’t something that has been proven to actually happen, right? Reporting FACTS, is not “gossip”? How is this difficult for a person going to Yale?

      • Anonymous

        It’s gossip because it might lead to something bad! Can you imaginehow horrible it would be for something bad to happen to that nice white boy?

      • alfalfa

        Gossip is talking about someone’s private affairs. It has nothing to do with what’s true and what isn’t. What is considered “private” is of course up for debate, but OP clearly used the word correctly. Your condescension towards OP is unwarranted because it is you, not he, who is using the word incorrectly.

        Additionally I don’t think you’re very nice, although that’s just my opinion.

  • Bainton

    This is a deeply insensitive article, and I am ashamed that the YDN decided to publish it.

  • ilikemoleskine

    We’re supposed to be a community. Really crappy of the ydn to publish this

    • jdawg32

      Almost as crappy as stabbing your best friend in the neck, surely.

      • Concerned

        Did you even read the article? This guy nearly died, and his trauma and loss of a close friend is being laid out bare for jerks like you to mock.

  • ANON

    YDN — this is absolutely shameful. Not only will Mr. Michaud’s private intimacies be exposed to the entire Yale student body, but also to his professors, his Dean and Master, and any future employer who conducts an Internet search. I’m disgusted — horrified, really — with your lack of discretion.

    • jdawg32

      yep, everyone else’s fault he was having a threesome, not his at all…

      • Anonymous

        Wow are you implying that a man of his social status should be responsible for his actions?

  • jdawg32

    Another great day for Young Conservatives

    • sy

      Young Libertarians, not Conservatives.

  • guest1239875

    Yet again the YDN publishes a character attack against a fellow student…

  • morsestudent1

    Just because people are upset this article was published does not mean it is unethical. In fact, it is deeply important as it finally clarifies unsettling uncertainties. The only thing the YDN did wrong was not requesting the documents themselves and getting scooped by Gawker

    • morsestudent2

      I would say it is a deeply unethical piece of journalism. It at best quenched our curiosity without proper regard to the effects it could potentially have on the victims and those most closely affected by the incident. It did not exemplify the heightened sensitivity required by journalists dealing with victims in sexual situations. And it unnecessarily exposed the private life of ordinary students without giving due consideration to their own privacy (despite, pehaps, that the documents were legally obtained).

      • morsestudent1

        Required by whom? The journalism police? You will find no journalism resource with some fact sheet reading “do not write about people who die during threesomes because it might make people sad.” Nor will you find one reading “expose every threesome that occurs on a college campus regardless of its mortality rate.” The whole point of journalistic ethics is that many decisions come down to a subjective weighing of the value of a story vs. its more negative consequences. for example, i think it was completely messed up the new haven independent published a recording of the 911 call in this incident, which was unnecessarily voyeuristic. comparatively the ydn’s coverage of this story has been actually pretty mild.

        I think reasonable people could probably disagree about whether to publish if the YDN were the first mover in this story. but that isn’t the question at hand. this isn’t a piece of journalism, really; it’s a largely a work of aggregation. the question the editors had to answer was “should the ydn publish *already widely publicly available material* that’s attracted a lot of public attention and shed light on something of interest to readers?” and in this case the answer seems pretty clear.

  • guest

    Trashy of the YDN to post this article

  • georgeschwimmer

    Yes the YDN should publish this. It is a national story that made national headlines back when it happened and again today after gawker got the police report. (Newsflash, there are thousands of other news outlets reporting this story in the same detail as published here today). Michaud’s name was published in all of these other accounts, so yes, if future employers google his name, they will learn about this incident. And I am quite sure that the NY DAILY NEWS version will pop up higher than the YDN in a google search. And the Deans, professors, etc all read stories about Yale that get published in non-Yale papers etc. Browsers pick out stories and post them prominently once the browser “knows” that a given person tends to read Yale stories.

    As a general rule, I wish that all victims of violent crimes could keep their names out of the media if they prefer, just as sexual assault survivors have that choice. But that is not the situation in this country, except in very unusual circumstances. I am guessing that Michaud would have chosen to remain anonymous to the media if he had been given the choice. The young woman involved has properly not been identified, as she is a witness and not a victim. But from day one, those of us in the know were aware that there was a young woman at the scene, in addition to the two men, and that she was at least a witness.

    • branford73

      Six out of the first five comments on this story were against it being published and I am sure that those came to their own conclusions without knowing others would react the same way. I say that because I was one of the five and when I posted no comments had yet been published.

      I don’t argue it was unethical. Most newspapers need to sell their product and salacious stories accomplish that. But I didn’t think YDN needed to make a profit. There was no official wrongdoing or coverup to reveal. One could argue I suppose that there is some value in reminding readers that sexual encounters sometimes start as fun, joyous and loving but jealous rage can turn them into dangerous violence. Earlier this week the Raw Story site ran a story of out Florida of a man who killed his girlfriend by disembowelment when she called out the name of her ex-husband during sex. That probably increased their click rate.

      But YDN doesn’t need the extra sales salacious would bring and the the story didn’t need to be published. Or at least it didn’t need the salacious details. Plus, the paper had the right to publish the name of victim, but where is the need to identify him further than had been done in other outlets?

      You’re not the New York Daily News. Have some mercy. Have some taste. You can afford it.

    • Yale1984

      If the woman had been stabbed in this assault and the man were the witness, would the press have redacted her name? Both survivors are victims of assault, perhaps of sexual assault. Both are entitled to privacy.

  • trollalert

    This is news, and the YDN reported it as such. End of story.

    • anonymouse

      Yep. Simple: the “Why” was missing from the WWWHW equation. Reports at the time left a hole in the story you could drive a tank through. Not to follow-up would have been bad practice.

  • river_tam

    Republishing Gawker tabloid trash is a new low for the YDN.

  • eli1143770312

    Voyeuristic? Insensitive? Shameful? Unethical? It is a follow up to a very disturbing news story involving the death of a member of the Yale community. No explanation needed. If anything, the News erred on the side of discretion. Take a look at the Washington Post or the New York Daily News stories today. They exercised less discretion than the tame version published here.

  • anubis

    This is the most disingenuous “correction” I have ever seen from any group that claims to be a legitimate news organization. It really should read “Editor’s Note: We’ll be replaced by next year’s editorial board in about a week now, so *shrug*”. A shameful dereliction of duty.

    Even Gawker itself, the people to whose low the “Yale” “Daily” “News” is currently stooping, corrected course and retracted/apologized for its article about Dan Geithner. Geithner was the CFO of a major corporation. It is dismaying in the extreme to see that three young people who had yet to make their mark in the world, none of whom exceeded the age of 22, didn’t merit the same basic decency.

    You *know* that your classmates and friends are still grieving. In all honesty: why should they — why should anyone — continue to read (or comment on) this publication?

  • Ece FNW

    OK, I concede there’s a case that a responsible paper should have run some kind of story about the release of the documents. But nothing about the way the YDN has handled this gives me faith that they have been remotely responsible in how they have considered the impact and importance of this story. The minute they could slap something out, they did, including absolutely every “lurid detail” in the Gawker piece and running it as a publicized “BREAKING NEWS” piece with Facebook and Twitter promotion. They played up the sexual details and personal dynamics to the maximum extent possible given the facts they had. These choices never indicated that anyone involved with the writing or editing of this piece had any grasp of or interest in the emotional impact or personal nature of the story.

    The fact that their paper is read, naturally, by morbid rubberneckers who were guaranteed to eat this story up does not render its publication good journalism. Of course people asked questions. Of course people were hungry for more juicy information. It was a story involving death and sex. Journalistic standards, though, exist based upon the premise that more information is usually but certainly not always responsible journalism, and that just because something can be made public doesn’t mean it necessarily should be.

    Responsible journalism weighs the damage done by disclosure of personal and traumatic details against the value the information can contribute to a meaningfully informed public. It’s certainly possible for the latter to outweigh the former. But essentially none of the specific information herein contributes meaningfully to our community’s understanding of this tragedy. Are we a better informed public for knowing “threesome” instead of “sex” or instead of “jealousy” or even instead of “personal emotional dispute”? We probably are substantively better informed by information that lets us classify the crime that shook our community: information that shows us that it was a personal altercation, a crime of passion, the product of individuals’ interactions rather than a coordinated conspiracy or something more sinister. That is a substantive journalistic contribution, and there, I think, lies the credible case the the YDN should have run some version of this story. But to feed the hungry masses more than that, to decide that information this detailed is what the Yale community is entitled to, is a grossly, recklessly irresponsible journalistic choice.

    It’s not a matter of bad search results for the people involved. It’s a matter of dignifying the muckraking, bottom-dwelling “reporting” at Gawker with its inclusion in the paper of note (for better or for worse) of our academic community, and of deliberately spreading said muckraking systematically throughout that community, where it damages not just the victims but also the rest of us. What disrespect. What callousness. What lack of care for us all.

    • morsestudent1

      are we reading the same article? the headline of this piece is “new documents shed light on death” — this hardly qualifies as a salacious, clickbait headline. the word “sexual encounter” is used, not threesome. and “jealousy” appears in the actual police report, it wasn’t used by the writers here.

  • lnk15

    The writers of this article and the editors who allowed it to be published should be ashamed of themselves for inflicting even more pain upon those in our community who are grieving. Screw whether or not this counts as news – a good person would not intentionally harm members of their own community just to satisfy the prurient interests of the most callous subset of our campus.

  • trollalert

    I knew Tyler very well, but that doesn’t stop this from being news. No one is forced to read this piece. A quick search of this story brings over 30 new hits with many more coming.

    This was the community that was affected most by this incident. The WHY of this story is very relevant. For the YDN to not write about it would be irresponsible. These reporters were faced with a tough story and gave the facts to a grieving community who now better understands what happened.

  • tc16

    This is disgusting, unnecessary reporting, and everyone involved should be ashamed.

  • http://batman-news.com One Fish

    Gawker was the outlet that filed a FOIA request, obtained the police incident report, and first broke the story. The debate here isn’t about whether Gawker’s actions were ethical (though they were legal).

    The real question: Just because YDN could have published this information, does that mean that YDN should have? It doesn’t matter that Gawker or other outlets had already published the story—just because someone else does something unethical doesn’t justify you doing something unethical.

    However, YDN didn’t do anything unethical. This article provides relevant new information about a violent campus incident and is written with appropriate restraint—for instance, using the language “sexual encounter” instead of “threesome.” The article also quotes the police report without editorializing: “Carlisle started to get jealous of Michaud and [the female student].” There are no lurid sex descriptions or further speculation about what may have happened.

    Also consider that it is impossible to report on the cause of the incident without including the above two details. The original article only states a stabbing/suicide occurred. A watered-down version of this article stating that the two men had a “personal emotional dispute” is simply disingenuous and unethical reporting given the facts at hand.

  • Mulberry Field

    I can’t believe that college kids want their newspaper to be censored as if this was North Korea. People are crying that it upsets them to have this story shoved down their throats when the reality is that it is all over the national news. If it is so upsetting for certain sensitive people to read what a newspaper publishes when it prints the news than why are they even reading the articles! Is it because they too want the gory details? Hiding the human errors made by young college kids is not necessarily good for the community either. Sometimes I wonder if the students think that they should be given special treatment when they break the law because they feel that it is beneath them to be exposed to the same laws that other people experience all the time. I don’t see anyone whining about any other stab victims having their names published or the criminal reports of any New Haven residents being available to the pubic. It’s better to be accused of sensationalizing a story than it is to be accused of sitting on stories in order to preserve an image. P.s. I think we are all glad to hear that the victim seems to have recovered. The guy was in a coma I myself was worried.