Friends of Duke University

Jim Cooney Representing Duke

2008-08-06T22:50:00.000-04:00

No, I have not given up on the front page. I have just been busy with other projects this summer. I have some more time now so do keep checking here on your way to the media page.

Yesterday, it was announced that Jim Cooney who so ably represented Reade Seligmann during the criminal case would be representing Duke University in an unrelated suit against it by golf team member Andrew Giuliani. Some have worried that Mr. Cooney has gone over to the dark side.

That Jim Cooney was hired by Duke does not, by itself, trouble me. The right of all persons and entities to have the effective assistance of counsel is a fundamental norm of the profession and an indispensable feature of an adversarial system such as ours. The duty of lawyers to supply such representation unless actually unable to do so or prevented from doing so by a conflicting interest or duty is part of this norm. Because Reade settled with Duke, there does not seem to be a present, direct conflict. Indeed, from the administration’s perspective, it is a smart move. The administration is either getting wiser in its choice of legal representation (something I want to explore in a future update) or it fancies its chances in court and wants to try and fight a case on the merits for a change.

I am, however, troubled by some things Mr. Cooney had to say in two articles in yesterday’s Herald-Sun, here and here.

Here is a quote from the first article:

Charlotte attorney Jim Cooney shed some insight Tuesday into Duke President Richard Brodhead's involvement with one of the university's three lacrosse players falsely accused of rape in 2006.

Brodhead "personally assisted Reade [Seligmann] in transferring" to Brown University after the players' exoneration, by going "out of his way to contact the right people," writing letters of support and doing "everything he could to make sure Reade landed at a good school," Cooney said.

I heard early on that Reade was contacted by the coach of an Ivy League school (not Brown) shortly after he was indicted. He remembered what a great kid Reade was from the recruiting process and indicated that he would be interested in having him once his legal problems were over if Duke did not want him. Largely from just getting to know him, the coach seemed to assume that the charges were bogus. This was at a time when Duke kicked Reade off campus and pretended not to know him. We know what a great person Reade is. Do not forget that he was also an outstanding student and a formidable athlete. The idea that Reade would find it difficult to land a place at another good university is far fetched. Also keep in mind the tremendous mutual animosity between the lacrosse families and Brodhead. I cannot imagine Brodhead writing anyone on Reade’s behalf without a gun to his head. If he did so, it was either as part of the settlement or for his own self interest.

This situation seems analogous to the extensive lobbying Brodhead did with the presidents of the other ACC schools to get an extra year of eligibility for the team members from the NCAA. Was that effort made out of the goodness of his heart or because of his concern for the players? No, it was purely an exercise in mitigating damages in the anticipated lawsuits. Brodhead was the one who cancelled the season in the first place with full knowledge that the charges were bogus. Indeed, Brodhead’s actions after the hoax ended resembled the old slapstick comedy routine where a character knocks over a priceless piece of art in a museum and then franticly and futilely scrambles to put the pieces back together before anyone notices.

If Brodhead had such good things to say about Reade, why did he not say them at the beginning of the case when his words might have made a difference? If he had spoken up sooner rather than later, perhaps Reade could still be a student at Duke University and not Brown. Brodhead did not just remain silent as Reade was slandered. He actually went out of his way to condone the actions of some of those who were doing the slandering.

The article also states,

The school, beyond saying OK [for him to represent Reade], encouraged him to help Seligmann because officials there thought the youth "needed the strongest representation possible," Cooney said.

Again,one has to keep the context in mind. The statement ignores the fact that the case should have never reached the prosecutorial level in the first place and should have been dismissed after it did. Yet, not only did the administration refuse to speak out against the injustice being perpetrated against its students, it actually worked to keep the case on course for trial. That is not my conjecture, the administration said as much. You can read all of Duke’s press releases and public statements and see for yourself. Bob Steel was gambling that Reade, Collin and David would be acquitted. In that case, the administration could have it both ways. It could avoid angering certain narrow constituencies whose it approval it valued and it could say, “See. Everything turned out okay!” (a projected $5 million or more in attorney’s fees later). The perverse thing about the situation was that, the more the revelations revealed how false the charges were, the more the administration seemed encouraged not to do anything. Yes, the administration probably did want Reade, Collin and David to have the best counsel available, but first and foremost because it solved a problem for the administration.

What if Reade, Collin and David did not end up being acquitted? The administration was positioning itself for that eventuality as well. Remember the key talking point asserted by both Brodhead and Steel: “I believe in the system.” Think about the full implications of that statement. Think also about President Brodhead’s repeated assertions that only a jury could say what the facts of the case were and that no one else, including himself, was even entitled to an opinion on the matter. Had they been convicted, the administration would have turned on Reade, Collin and David and called them rapists. Given the extent to which the jury pool had been tainted, not only by Nifong, but also activists Duke whose favor Duke was soliciting, there was a very real danger of that happening. The results of polling done by the defense were quite disturbing. Indeed, Jim Cooney drafted the Motion for a Change in Venue. Convicted or acquitted, the one thing the administration was never going to do was say anything that might anger one of those narrow constituencies.

I am also taken aback by Jim Cooney’s words because they eerily seem to correspond to the administration’s current public relations strategy. Based on what I have been hearing and seeing, Duke is concentrating all of its efforts in protecting Brodhead and isolating him from the actions taken by other members of the administration. I hope Mr. Cooney is merely speaking off the cuff and from another set of the University’s ham fisted talking points. Any participation by him in Duke’s spin machine concerning the lacrosse litigation is above and beyond his duties in the Giuliani case. I also hope that he is simply misinformed about what Duke actually did and did not do during the lacrosse hoax.

In the second article there is this:

Cooney said Tuesday that he's "honored to be representing Duke," his undergraduate alma mater, in the Giuliani case.

"Duke as an institution has always tried to do its best," Cooney said. "There are times when it doesn't. But that doesn't mean it's not always trying to do the best it can. Trying to represent an institution that's trying and that has learned from issues in its past is exactly what I ought to be doing."

The facts adduced at trial in the lacrosse civil cases will show otherwise. The administration’s actions were always about their individual personal needs and desires and nothing else. They were certainly not about Duke University's interests. For his own sake, Mr. Cooney would be better served confining his efforts to defending Duke in the Giuliani case and leaving the lacrosse situation to speak for itself. A connection between the lacrosse litigation and the Giuliani case is not one he really ought to invite.

I have tremendous respect for Jim Cooney. As a concerned alumnus and lawyer, he is more than welcome to join us in throwing tomatoes at the administration when he is done with the Giuliani case.

As for the Giuliani case, I do not know the merits of it. However, regardless of whether or not Andrew Giuliani should be a member of the golf team, showing that Duke did not give him a fair hearing should be fairly easy for him to do given the way the University conducts its internal procedures. The Chronicle exposed many of these problems in a devastating series of articles last year. If the administration had really learned anything from the lacrosse case, the Giuliani case would have never reached the litigation stage and it probably could have been settled in a manner consistent with everyone’s best interests a long time ago.

Thank You!

2008-05-24T21:22:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to both the Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse teams for outstanding seasons and consecutive Final Four appearances. Thanks once again for representing the University so well and making us all proud!

Durham District Attorney Election

2008-05-06T04:09:00.002-04:00

Today is election day in North Carolina and voters will choose the next District Attorney for Durham County. The Herald-Sun, the great defender of the status quo, predictably endorsed current Assistant District Attorney Tracy Cline. In doing so, it presented a variation of the Durham government party line that Mike Nifong and Mike Nifong alone is to blame for the Lacrosse Hoax stating, “[Nifong’s] actions did not reflect deep flaws within the DA's office.” On the contrary, the Lacrosse Hoax revealed some very deep flaws within the District Attorney’s office indeed.

Tracy Cline’s problems are well known. She was Nifong’s second chair in the lacrosse case and would have helped him try the case had it gone to trial. In October, however, she claimed that she had very little role in the hoax. According to the Herald-Sun,

Some suggested during the lacrosse meltdown that Nifong’s assistants dropped the ball by not reining in their boss, halting the scandal in its tracks.

Cline agreed last week that attorneys have a duty to report unethical conduct among their colleagues.

But she said she lacked insights into what Nifong was doing.

“I didn’t have any personal information about what went on in the lacrosse case, other than what the media reported,” she said. “My job was to keep the courtrooms running. That is what I was focused on.”

First, the assertion that she did not know the facts of the case is almost certainly false. Having worked as second chair, I can tell you that the second chair knows as much about the case as the lead attorney and often knows more. In fact, in the normal course of things, the second chair handles the day to day chores and basic prep work. Evidence presented at Nifong’s bar hearings suggests that was the case here.

More importantly, Cline did not need to know one thing about the Lacrosse case to know that Mike Nifong was an unethical attorney and that he should have been reported to the bar. From the very beginning of the hoax, I tried to make the distinction between Nifong’s conduct and the facts of the case. Even if one could plausibly claim not to know all of the facts of the case, all of Nifong’s misconduct took place in public for all to see. Anyone with a television set could watch him do it.

North Carolina Rule or Professional Conduct 8.3(a) states,

A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the North Carolina State Bar or the court having jurisdiction over the matter.

It is no exaggeration in the least to say that every single lawyer in the District Attorney’s office is an unethical attorney. Mitchell Garrell, another assistant district attorney who is running against Cline tried to make an issue of Cline’s involvement in the hoax at a candidates forum. However, Garrell has some explaining of his own to do.

In any event, the problems with the assistant district attorneys during the Lacrosse Hoax go beyond a passive refusal to report Nifong to the bar. Many actively supported his bid for election and worked on his campaign. They did so with the full knowledge that he was an unethical and corrupt attorney. At a polling place during the 2006 general election, Nifong supporters who claimed to be attorneys in his office were falsely claiming that Nifong had a “smoking gun” that he would reveal at trial. That night, when the results were announced at the courthouse, an assistant district attorney taunted Duke students who were there to support Lewis Cheek saying, “poor little Duke kids didn’t get your way.”

Even after Nifong was disbarred, assistant district attorneys continued to support him and defend his actions. ADA Stormy Ellis pronounced herself “shocked that he has been tainted as a ‘rogue prosecutor.’ It scares me to think that one case can mar you for the rest of your life.” At Nifong’s contempt hearing, I heard a male voice behind me mutter, “Objection!” to a prosecution question it evidently did not like. I did not see who said it, but moments later David Saacks, who is now the acting District Attorney, stood up from directly behind me when he was called as a witness. At this same hearing, ADA Jan Paul, who had come to the hearing to support Nifong, refused to speak with investigative reporter Joe Neff of the News and Observer because she blamed him for Nifong’s downfall.

I do not endorse either of the remaining candidates, Freda Black or Keith Bishop. I just hope the people of Durham can find someone who is willing to provide ethical leadership and surround his or herself with ethical people.

While the ethics and moral outlook of assistant district attorneys might not seem that important, consider that the Lacrosse Hoax was not the work of a criminal mastermind. Instead, it was what happened when a venal and small minded career assistant found himself in a situation that tested his character. Consider also, that he likely developed the habits and attitudes he displayed during the Lacrosse Hoax working in that office for 27 years and who knows what other misconduct he might have committed before his actions became subject to public scrutiny.

Unfortunately, the best chance for positive change in the Durham County District Attorney’s Office was when Governor Easley had the opportunity to appoint Nifong’s successor. What Easley needed to do was appoint someone from outside the Durham legal community who would go into that office with an eye toward firing most of the people there. Instead, he turned Jim Hardin, Nifong’s predecessor back into the office apparently with an eye toward stabilizing the current situation there.

LieStoppers Message Board

2008-05-02T00:29:00.001-04:00

Last weekend, the LieStoppers message board was hacked and taken down. Thanks to an incredible amount of work and resourcefulness by the LieStoppers team, their message board is back in business in a new and (hopefully) more secure format and it is now open to the general public again.

Follow up on Duke's Motion and Two Other Items

2008-04-22T22:48:00.005-04:00

The Administration's Motion Denied

As predicted, the judge in the civil suits denied the Duke administration’s motion to sanction opposing counsel for an alleged violation of Rule 3.6. (See previous post.) Here are details from the News and Observer and the Chronicle.

I wrote a letter to the Chronicle in which I call the actions by Duke’s counsel unprofessional. Understand that this motion was not a request for relief from any alleged harm. The administration’s lawyer denied in court that the motion was a request for a gag order. The motion was solely an attack on the integrity of Charles Cooper and his colleagues and, as I suggested in the previous post, one that had no basis in law. A bar complaint is a very serious matter touching on both the character and professional qualifications of an attorney. It should not be made lightly and certainly not to try and score a rhetorical point.

The administration’s motion is also a mean spirited cheap shot against the players who were also specifically targeted. Although Rule 3.6 only applies to attorneys, the motion requested that the court make a finding that “Plaintiffs and their counsel” violated Rule 3.6 and the local rule incorporating it. It accuses them of violating one of the same rules that their tormentor and the administration’s erstwhile codefendant, Mike Nifong did.

While the administration’s attorneys were rummaging through the Rules of Professional Conduct, perhaps they missed Rule 3.1:

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) has a similar requirement.

It is hard to see the administration’s motion as a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. Interpreting a statute or rule is a matter of reading the text, which is entirely controlling, and there was no suggestion that the language used is vague or ambiguous. Duke’s argument that the spirit of the rule was violated, even if it were true, is utterly beside the point. Moreover, Rule 3.6(b)(2), the public documents exception, appears specifically intended to operate as a safe harbor rule for lawyers trying to comply with the general rule stated in Rule 3.6(a). Finally, even if the court did announce a new rule, it could not give it retroactive effect.

What we are left with the administration is attempting to try the case in the media under the guise of upholding the exact opposite principle. For the administration, appearances have always been the only thing that mattered. Still, this is a new low.

Elmo a Citizen

Congratulations to Moezeldin Elmostafa, or “Elmo” as he affectionately came to be known to supporters of the accused players, who recently became a US citizen. He was also recently named “Hero of the Year” by Reader’s Digest magazine. Durham needs more citizens like him.

Elmo was the taxi driver who picked up Reade Seligmann from the party and was able to help document Reade’s alibi. After Reade’s alibi came to light, Mike Nifong sent two detectives working on the lacrosse case to arrest Elmo on a stale warrant. When they arrested him, they asked him if he “had anything new to say about the lacrosse case.” When he said no, they then took him to a magistrate. He was eventually found innocent at trial.

I hope that the recent renewed publicity will focus attention on one loose end that remains in making Nifong fully accountable for his conduct. Attempting to alter the testimony of a witness is obstruction of justice. While Nifong’s ethical misconduct was addressed by the North Carolina Bar, he has never been made to account for his criminal conduct. Also suspicious was Nifong’s conduct in relation to another witness, the second dancer Kim Roberts. The same day that Nifong personally intervened to have her bail reduced on an unrelated criminal charge, she started giving an account that contradicted her earlier statement to police that no rape had occurred.

Elmo’s case also should be instructive to those who saw Nifong as some sort of champion for social justice because he was targeting affluent or supposedly affluent people. As an immigrant looking to become a citizen, Elmo was one of the most vulnerable people in our society. A criminal conviction of any kind could have resulted in his deportation and permanent exclusion from the United States. Yet, Nifong was as willing to maliciously prosecute him for his own purposes as he was Reade, Collin and David. Indeed, given the fact that Elmo refused to change his story when pressured by police, Nifong’s decision to prosecute him anyway was purely vindictive.

Amended Complaint

Bob Ekstrand who is representing three of the players in the civil suits recently filed an amended complaint which contains additional allegations and information. It also contains embedded audio and video exhibits. Warning! It is a huge file (121 MB). Such is the extent of the misdeeds of Duke and Durham’s leaders.

Duke's Motion

2008-03-04T02:01:00.005-05:00

It has been a while since I updated the front page. Between the holidays and my other commitments, I have had to take some time to get caught up with my other affairs. However, FODU is still very much in business. I hope you have noticed that our Moderator has been continuing to keep the media links page updated everyday. I also hope you have been reading the excellent DSED blog, which has done more than fill any gap left by my absence. I will try to update more frequently and I want to do a larger post to get caught up. In the meantime, I just wanted to share my thoughts about Duke’s motion to shut down the informational site http://www.dukelawsuit.com/, which is maintained by a publicist for the players and their lawyers. Duke's caim is that it violates North Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, the same rule that was among those Mike Nifong was disbarred for violating.

Well, I must say that I am glad that, after two years, Duke has finally discovered Rule 3.6. When Mike Nifong was out in front of the cameras violating it hourly, they did not want to know one thing about it. As late as September 2006, Bob Steel tried to argue with me about whether Nifong was actually doing anything wrong. Now, if they could only understand it . . .

First, Rule 3.6 only applies to lawyers. It does not apply to parties such as the players and their families. Although not unqualified, parties have a First Amendment right to say whatever they want about a case that is much broader than what is allowed to lawyers. Rule 3.6 certainly does not apply to the heartfelt statement lacrosse parent Steven Henkelman gave at the press conference.

Second, Rule 3.6 allows lawyers to comment on matters in the public record, which includes court filings.

Here are the relevant portions of Rule 3.6:

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or
litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer
knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public
communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing
an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:

(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and,
except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

(2) the information contained in a public record;

* * *

At the press conference linked on the site, attorney Charles Cooper did nothing more than summarize the contents of the complaint, which was being filed as he spoke. He appeared careful to so limit his remarks. The memorandum of law in support of Duke’s motion conceded this point. It tried to make a “spirit of the law” argument that the complaint itself was inflammatory and thus no public reference should be allowed to be made to it. Here is the crux of Duke’s argument from the memorandum of law accompanying the motion:

Plaintiffs will almost certainly argue that these statements are fully permitted by Rule 3.6(b)(2), which allows an attorney to comment about “information contained in a public record.” Many of these statements are direct quotes from the Complaint, while others are slight paraphrasings of the Complaint. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 3, 11(a), 11(b), 11(c).) When a complaint contains such incendiary language, an attorney should not be permitted to hide behind the language of the complaint and make a statement to the press that strings together paragraphs that are highly prejudicial. Such an action is contrary to the very intent of Rule 3.6, “materially prejudices an adjudicative proceeding,” and should not be allowed.

This is not a legal argument. Indeed, the fact that it is not a legal argument is also why they cannot offer one shred of legal authority to support it.

Mike Nifong violated Rule 3.6 by commenting on the evidence, lying about the evidence and inviting antipathy toward the accused. This was conduct squarely prohibited by the rule and manifestly prejudicial. Comments 5 and 6 accompanying the rules give a fuller explanation.

Others have noticed the hypocrisy of Duke criticizing dukelawsuit.com while at the same time maintaining its own informational site about the case which contains dishonest and self serving accounts of the administration’s handling of the Lacrosse Hoax. It is worse than that. Duke was anticipating lawsuits from the very beginning. Remember Mark Simeon, Nifong’s political ally, was lining up the Mangum family for a suit and brought Willie Gary to town in furtherance of that goal. If you will recall, Duke’s site initially linked media accounts that were mostly negative toward the players and ignored accounts critical of the investigation. As the tide started to turn, and Duke’s own misconduct became apparent, Duke began to anticipate suits from the players, instead.

In fall of 2006, Bob Steel made an offer to at least one of the families to pay their legal expenses in exchange for singing an agreement not to sue. Despite the desperation of their situation, they refused. Bob Steel and Richard Brodhead also had a meeting with the families to try and sort out their differences that went nowhere. Duke has known that the present suits were coming for a long time and the twisted apologetics contained on its own informational site were created with that prospect in mind. This strategy reminds me of the famous advice a rugby manager gave to his players before a game: “Be sure and get your retaliation in first!”

What is particularly telling to me is that, while Duke’s motion complains about prejudice caused by dukelawsuit .com, it does not ask for a specific remedy other than asking that the website and its contents be declared violations of Rule 3.6. It does not ask for a gag order. Motions for gag orders to avoid pretrial publicity are not uncommon and Duke could have made a much stronger argument for one by simply pointing to the harm pretrial publicity might cause. It would not be an availing argument, mind you, given its own attempt to take its case to the public, but a better one. By misframing the issue as a legal ethics and Rule 3.6 issue, it decided to forgo a stronger argument in order to try and score a rhetorical point. Duke is falsely attempting to create the appearance of similarity between the conduct of the plaintiffs and their nemesis Mike Nifong. In other words, Duke is attempting to try the case in the media while at the same time purporting to uphold the opposite principle. But then again, Duke signaled how it intended to fight this suit when it hired a lawyer, Jamie Gorelick, whose principal skill set is not federal civil rights litigation, but political infighting.

DSEDuke's new blog and Stuart Taylor

2007-11-06T20:54:00.000-05:00

Duke Students for an Ethical Duke has a new blog. Be sure and check it out.

They also have a link to video of Stuart Taylor’s excellent speech at Duke on Friday. The video is low resolution and they are working on putting up one with a higher resolution. However, Stuart’s speech is good enough that you might not want to wait.

Stuart Taylor at Duke

2007-11-01T21:42:00.000-04:00

Reminder:

Stuart Taylor co-author of Until Proven Innocent will

be speaking at Duke on Friday, November 2.

Book signing at 6:00 pm
Lecture at 7:00 pm

Details and directions are here.

Some Announcements

2007-10-25T04:33:00.000-04:00

President Brodhead’s Review

Just a reminder that you still have a couple of days to send your comments regarding President Brodhead to the committee conducting his performance review for the Board of Trustees. The deadline for submitting comments is October 29.

If you do not have enough time to write a letter, send a postcard or send an e-mail. Make your voice heard.

Tell them that Duke can do a lot better.

In formation on how to participate is here.

Another group has taken the lead in rallying the Duke community to participate in the comment phase for President Brodhead’s review. They are called Friends for a Better Duke or FABDU and they want a Duke to be a fab place once again. You can check out their website here.

Stuart Taylor

Our other friends at Duke Students for an Ethical Duke have are hosting a book signing and lecture by Stuart Taylor, the co-author of Until Proven Innocent at Duke on November 2. The book signing will be at 6:00 and the lecture will follow at 7:00. Details, including directions to the venue, Love Auditorium are here.

Stuart is an excellent speaker and his lecture will be every bit as interesting and informative as KC Johnsons’s a few weeks ago. Incidentally, DSED informs us that Stuart originally signed on to debate any of the book’s critics who wished to come forward. However, there have been no takers so far so he will give a lecture instead.

Too Little Too Late

2007-10-04T13:44:00.000-04:00

by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

In an address to a conference at the Law School on Saturday, President Brodhead apologized for several aspects of the administration’s handling of the lacrosse case. The text appears here.

Apologizing to the players was the right thing to do. However, I cannot help but feel that, once again, circumstances forced his hand. After all, the administration had been belligerently insisting that they had gotten things more or less right and have clung to that position up until this speech. Now, there is the prospect of imminent lawsuits by the unindicted players and a review of President Brodhead’s first three years in office is underway. Just as the revelation that Mike Nifong was hiding evidence forced him to speak out in December, we see President Brodhead reacting rather than leading.

His apology also is incomplete. It is inevitable that mistakes would be made in trying to deal with such a bizarre and unprecedented situation. No one would have expected different. That mistakes were made is not really the problem.

What President Brodhead really needs to take responsibly for and has yet to do so are the selfish motives that drove the administration’s policies. The administration wanted the case to go to trial. It believed that, if the case were dismissed before trial for whatever reason, people would say that Duke used its influence to have it dismissed. Robert Steel, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees told me that a year ago. That is also why President Brodhead, despite being savagely maligned for doing so, clung to the concept of Reade, Collin and David “proving themselves innocent.” That was not just an isolated, unfortunate choice of words. President Brodhead repeated this formulation only a few days ago. Dismissal is the proper procedure in the case of weak or baseless charges. Indeed, prosecutors have an affirmative legal and ethical duty to dismiss such charges where they are not based on probable cause or where they do not themselves believe in the guilt of the accused. However, the administration pretended not to know anything about these concepts.*

If Reade, Collin and David had to be exposed to the risks associated with a trial by a corrupt, unethical prosecutor who had done everything he could to inflame the jury pool, that was just the way it had to be. Steel told me that it did not matter if they were convicted because all the problems with the case would be sorted out on appeal. That is not the way the appeal process works and I told him that, but that was still his plan.

The most disturbing outgrowth of this policy was that the administration not only did not want to speak up itself. It did not want anyone else doing so either. Administration officials would privately bad mouth the players to reporters and anyone else who expressed doubts about the charges or the fairness of the procedures used. I know. I heard this garbage myself. They were still doing it after the Attorney General’s report came out to justify their actions.

In the end, the administration’s policies were never about ignorance of the facts or credulity concerning the motives of public officials. The facts were irrelevant. It was all about keeping up appearances. Moreover, the views of some groups carried more weight than others. It is the same policy that lead to Ryan McFadyen being suspended, Mike Pressler being fired and Kim Curtis going unpunished.

President Brodhead, as he did in May, reckons that he has things figured out now. However, a recent series in the Chronicle detailed how the administration has been modifying the University’s judicial code to eliminate most of students’ procedural rights and how the administration punishes students on the mere accusation of Durham police officers without further proof despite well documented abuses by the Durham Police department. If the lacrosse case has taught us anything, it is that procedure matters. Unfortunately, it appears that the administration has learned absolutely nothing at all.

Duke needs and deserves strong leadership. In making his apology, we find President Brodhead doing precisely what he has been doing all along: embracing and conforming to whatever the prevailing understanding is regardless of its validity. It is gratifying that people finally understand what was actually going on. However, nothing has changed at Duke.

Throughout this entire ordeal, we have criticized the administration, but, unlike a number of other critics, we did not call for President Brodhead to be removed. Instead, we tried to support him and give him the courage he needed to be a leader and to do the right thing. We tried to engage the administration in a respectful dialogue about the issues. We have nothing to show for those efforts. I am glad that FODU could help the public understand the extent of Mike Nifong’s misconduct. However, that satisfaction is tempered by the fact that we spent a year doing someone else’s job for them.

It has long been our position that the administration’s words must be matched with deeds. Unfortunately, the time for action has come and gone. Last May, I wrote President Brodhead asking him to appoint a commission to look at the administration’s response to the lacrosse case. He appointed one to look at the first couple of weeks. Why not the other eleven months or so? We could not have changed the past. However, could have made sure that the same mistakes and moral failings are not repeated in the future. That is what we wanted and that is what most of the families, despite the wrongs done to them, really wanted. President Brodhead gave us the brush off. That was his last possible opportunity to actually do some tangible good. He has made his choice. It is time to look somewhere else for leadership.

President Brodhead is now undergoing a performance review to determine whether his contract should be renewed. Information on how to participate is here. I know what we will be recommending.

In criticizing President Brodhead, it should be kept in mind that he alone is not responsible for the University’s official policies and conduct. Indeed, those above him and below him bear greater culpability and their status needs to be addressed as well. Robert Steel, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees bears the greater responsibility for Duke’s official policies regarding the lacrosse case. Getting rid of him is a bigger priority for me than getting rid of Brodhead. Many of those below President Brodhead carried out these policies in the manner described above and with far too much enthusiasm. President Brodhead often simply appeared to be there in the middle. However, that in and of itself is a huge problem.

*[Edited for clarity]

Video of KC Johnson's Duke Lecture

2007-09-18T22:33:00.000-04:00

The video of KC Johnson's lecture at Duke is now up. It is on the website of Duke Students for an Ethical Duke, one of the cosponsors for the event. Here is the link.

While you are over there consider making a donation to DSEDuke. During the lacrosse case, the students as a group were the only ones consistently showing any leadership or initiative on campus. Now that the crisis is over, the students are once again leading the way by making sure that the appropriate lessons are learned and that Duke can once again be a place of mutual respect and concern among all members of the community.

[Update: new link provided]

Its Out!

2007-09-04T13:21:00.000-04:00

Until Proven Innocent, Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson's definitive account of the Duke lacrosse case is out today. Be sure and get your copy. And then go and see KC Johnson speak at Duke on September 11, 2007. (See the last post for details.)

Another Follow Up to Duke and the Police

by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

Speaking of the growing library on the Duke lacrosse case, I realized that I forgot to mention in my last post an item from Mike Pressler and Don Yaeger's book, It’s Not about the Truth that I thought was rather interesting. That post and the one before it dealt with the Duke administration's violation of federal law by releasing protected student information to Durham police without a subpoena. In It's Not about the Truth, News and Observer columnist Ruth Sheehan, an early critic of the lacrosse team who had based her criticism on the false information being disseminated by Nifong and the Durham Police Department, recounted a conversation she later had with John Burness:

I did have a conversation with [him] about the university's role in the case at some point and asked why when all of this was coming out that they [the university] didn’t help us understand the truth, why they did not spin the other side to us. They could have helped us, that’s for sure. One thing he did say to me at the time, which is a convenient excuse but also true, was that they also have to be really careful about how they handle student information.

Yes, one cannot be too careful.

I am sure that Until Proven Innocent will add more insights such as this one into the Duke administration's thinking. I greet that prospect with both eagerness and trepidation.

Announcements and a Follow Up

2007-08-30T19:31:00.000-04:00

KC Johnson to Speak at Duke University

Professor KC Johnson, Durham in Wonderland blogger and

coauthor of Until Proven Innocent, will speak in

Duke’s Page Auditorium on September 11, 2007 at 7:00.

This event is cosponsored by Duke Students for an Ethical Duke and

the Program for Values an Ethics in the Marketplace.

by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

DSEDuke

One of the groups sponsoring KC Johnson’s address, Duke Students for and Ethical Duke (not to be confused with the equally estimable Duke Students for an Ethical Durham) is a new group dedicated to making sure that the appalling treatment of certain Duke students by the administration and a few of their professors is not forgotten and does not go unaddressed. They are pledged to “defend the dignity and the academic and legal rights of Duke students, both individually and collectively, whether threatened by other students, faculty, or administrators alike.” Here is an article from the Chronicle.

This is a very encouraging development. The fact that the number of groups focusing attention on these issues is growing and not decreasing with time should indicate to the trustees and administration that these issues are not going to go away. It is also good that the students themselves are getting involved. We at FODU are certainly concerned for Duke as an institution. However, most of all, we have done what we have done for the students. Those of us who are alumni want present students to enjoy what we enjoyed while at Duke: a university committed to the care, nurturing and dignity of ALL students. Those who are parents want these things for their children.

Follow up to Duke and the Police

First, a Duke official contacted me after I posted the last update and took issue with two statements I made there. I repeated information that had been told to me personally and which had also been widely reported. However, this official says these two statements are inaccurate and offers an alternative view. As the other bloggers in this case have done, I reproduce this person’s comments below in order to allow a fair opportunity to reply. I also appreciate this person’s willingness to respond and engage us in a dialogue, something lacking among Duke officials up to this point.

1) No one in the university “hired” Wes Covington. In fact, I was the unfortunate agent who brought him into contact with the players. When I met with them on March 17th and first learned of the police search, I was surprised and concerned that they had neither told their parents about it nor retained counsel. I told them to call their parents and consult with them about a lawyer. I said that I would also find out if there was anyone locally who could help them. I then asked Sue Wasiolek for a recommendation and she pointed me to Covington. I was the one who passed his name along to the four captains. They met with him at least once that I am aware of but to the best of my knowledge, he was never formally retained by any of them. I would be surprised if anyone in the administration other than Wasiolek knew anything about this until much later. By 3/24 (the day after the NTO was served) he was entirely out of the picture as far as I know.

2) The persistent rumor about “student/teacher privilege” is somewhat inaccurate. This came up in a meeting between the captains and Trask, Pressler [and] Alleva . . . on 2/24. By then, the players had all retained counsel and been advised not to speak about the matter without the presence of counsel. Trask had been sent down to athletics (I think) to assess the situation and report back to Allen Building. When he asked the players to tell him everything that had happened, they responded that they had been advised not to speak (in fact, they were dying to tell anyone who would listen what had (or hadn’t) happened). Trask responded that they could call their lawyers to come over and that he would wait for them. The players (specifically, David Evans) then said they would go ahead without representation. At that point, Trask said “We could argue that it (their account of the evening of 3/13) is a protected educational record. We might lose that argument.” The players then went on to detail what had happened at the party. Incidentally, it was clear . . . that Trask was absolutely certain that nothing had happened and that the players were innocent; I’m not sure that he played much of a role in what ensued in the following weeks.

Either way, my larger point remains unchanged. Officials of Duke University--and, in a couple of cases at least, I do think genuinely--were indicating to the players their belief in their innocence at the same time that the University was surreptitiously passing protected personal information about them out the back door to police officers with questionable motives and disputed integrity.

The problems with Mike Nifong and his conduct were manifest as I mentioned in the last post. However, Duke had every reason to be very suspicious of the motives of the police as well. Before that interview with the victim occurred, the original police investigator assigned to the case spoke with Sergeant Mark Gottlieb and they agreed that he would take over the case. As detailed last September in both the News and Observer and the Chronicle, Sergeant Gottlieb had been the subject of numerous allegations involving the violation of the rights of Duke students and use of thug-like tactics against them because of some particular animus he had against Duke students. Days before the lacrosse case incident, Durham Police Department officials had moved Gottlieb from patrol to investigations in District 2 apparently in response to these complaints. Duke officials had been notified of the complaints against Gottlieb no later than February. Now Gottlieb was back chasing Duke students, having in his own words “adopted” the lacrosse case. And into Gottlieb’s very hands, Duke personally delivered this protected information without a subpoena.

Second, in the comments, someone asked why turning the key card data over to the police was prejudicial to the players. Sure it was illegal, but how did it harm them? A good investigator will gather as much information as possible and then form a theory. However, that is not how it is always done. Some police investigators unfortunately do not go wherever the evidence takes them. Instead, they make up their mind what happened and then go out and try to find evidence that supports their theory while ignoring all else. Sometimes they will even make up evidence. Even “good” cops sometimes do all this. No better illustration of these problems can be found than the way Durham police actually conducted the lacrosse case investigation.

Let me be clear. There is nothing inherently sinister about police. Most police officers are dedicated, honest professionals who want to make a difference in the community. As in every human organization, there are some who do not live up to these ideals. In the middle are a bunch of people who see police work as just another job. Even under the best circumstances, the role of a defense attorney, as with any other type attorney, is to protect against the worst case scenario. They do that by forcing police to establish probable cause and preventing opportunities for fishing expeditions.

In investigating an alleged crime, the police must establish two things: whether a crime occurred and who did it. In the context of the lacrosse case, the police had skipped over the first step and were already trying to find three people to indict. This was despite their initial skepticism about the accuser’s story. In fact, throughout the entire case, they specifically avoided looking for corroborating evidence to test the accuser’s claims, evidently afraid of what they would find. Remember that the application for the Nontestimonial Order sought by police stated that the dna evidence would “immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are. . . .” Yet, the police did not wait for the results of the DNA testing to come back before inducing Duke to give them the keycard information. The keycard data helped police establish who was at the party and, more importantly, who was not. As described in the Pressler/Yeager book, the police were afraid that the accuser would pick someone out of the lineup who was not at the party and that is exactly what she did.

It is not that information protected by FERPA can never be obtained by police. All police have to show is that they have some particular need for the information, i.e. that it would be helpful to them in their investigation. That is a very low threshold, yet the police and Nifong were unable to make that showing with regard to the key card data. That they were unable to do so demonstrates that no legitimate reason existed for them to have this information.

Duke and the Police

2007-07-19T22:53:00.000-04:00

by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

Duke and the Police

I have been keeping a low profile recently and that is deliberate. Mike Nifong had tried to make an issue of FODU’s efforts to call attention to his misdeeds. Now that the relevant authorities have taken the matter up, I am content to let them handle it. I will have much to say about the bar hearing, removal proceeding and contempt hearing in due course. In the meantime, I want to call attention to some disturbing information brought to light by the folks at LieStoppers concerning Duke. See also this timeline and the hearing transcript.

If you will recall, last May Mike Nifong requested the court issue a subpoena to Duke University to provide records of card key activity by all members of the Duke lacrosse team and also provide their home addresses. This information is protected by a federal statute called the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act and cannot be disclosed without a showing of need. Nifong’s request was patently overbroad, but Duke University refused to challenge it. Instead, Duke told the lacrosse players that it would comply with the request and that, if they did not like it, they could do something about it themselves. Attorneys for the lacrosse players challenged the request on their own and a hearing was held in July. The judge then handling the case, Kenneth Titus denied the request. It turns out that Nifong’s request was a complete fraud on the court because, as LieSoppers discovered, Duke University had already turned these records over to police months earlier in March evidently in violation of FERPA.

This new information is disturbing as it relates to Duke on several levels.

First, the Duke administration chose to supply personal information about its students to a manifestly unethical and corrupt district attorney in connection with a politically motivated investigation. Do not be fooled by the administration’s story that they did not know what to believe or that they instinctively trust public officials. Duke had been told by the police that the case was bogus and the file would likely be closed after the police had interviewed that alleged victim. How the police later came to aggressively investigate the case is an interesting story. I will have to tell it to you sometime, but not now. Suffice it to say that these circumstances were an additional reason for them to be very suspicious of the motives of Mike Nifong and the police.

Second, the principle beneficiary of this bit of theater would not have been Mike Nifong. He already had indictments against three defendants and he could have subpoenaed their records with no difficulty. Nifong had no need to use the records of the other players at trial, because his position at that point in time was that they had been exculpated by the April 4 lineup. Nor would there have likely been any repercussions for him or the police for merely soliciting a violation of FERPA. The real beneficiary would seem to be Duke University because it would provide a legal fig leaf to cover its apparent violation of federal law. Worse, Nifong’s apparent willingness to cover for Duke shows that Duke, through its own misconduct, had found itself entangled in Nifong’s malicious prosecution to the point that its interests had started to overlap with those of Nifong.

Third, even if the leak of personal information had not been illegal, it was extremely prejudicial to the players. Judge Titus found that Nifong had failed to show any legitimate reason for the police to have this information. Indeed, just as with the Ryan McFadyen e-mail, police used it to as part of a fishing expedition.

Finally, and probably most disturbing of all, this surreptitious leak of private information occurred at a time when Duke was pretending to support the players, had encouraged them to talk to Duke officials citing a totally fictitious student/teacher privilege and had even hired a local attorney who they offered to the players in an ambiguous relationship meant to approximate that of a defense attorney. Now we see what kind of “help” Duke was providing the players. No person truly acting in the role of defense counsel would have volunteered this information without a subpeona.

For those who insisted that our criticism of the Duke administration for its lack of public support for its falsely accused students was unfair because Duke was probably concerned about its students and was probably working behind the scenes to help them, guess again. For those who have insisted that speaking out against the conduct of Mike Nifong might work against the University’s interests and expose it to unacceptable risks, look at the risks the administration was willing to take in order to further the interests of those working against the players.

Speaking of the Ryan McFadyen e-mail, the claim by Sergeant Gottlieb in his post dated notes prepared in July that the police received a copy of the Ryan McFadyen e-mail through a Crimestoppers tip always sounded suspect to me. The affidavit in support of the search warrant application recites that “On 3/27/2006 Sgt. Gottlieb was contacted by a confidential source. The source provided Sgt. Gottlieb a copy of an e-mail sent by email address. . . .” The Ryan McFadyen e-mail was widely distributed because, aside from being tasteless, there was need to conceal its contents. It is possible that some private individual unconnected to the team came across a copy of it. However, the only other people who had access to the e-mail and its chain of replies were Duke University employees. Is Sergeant Gottlieb’s new version of events in July 2006, which characteristically contradicts an earlier document produced by the police, one supplied to a judge no less, an attempt to conceal another surreptitious leak of private information by Duke officials? In his deposition for the bar hearing, Benjamin Himan indicated that, on March 27, 2006, he, Sergeant Gottlieb and Nifong met and among the topics discussed was obtaining “e-mails and stuff like that.” However, we do not see the police or Nifong actually making a formal request for the e-mail records of the players.

I do not believe that the administration actually wanted to help frame its own students. There is some indication that members of the administration initially believed the charges based on their own personal prejudices rather than objective facts. However, the one common denominator present is that there was always some other priority for the administration that was greater than the welfare of its students. They wanted to be on the right side in the eyes of the public regardless of the facts or law. They wanted to maintain their cozy working relationships with local officials. They wanted to appease small, vocal constituencies within their faculty. They did not think the lacrosse players deserved their help.

People, particularly lawyers, keep asking me, “Doesn’t Duke have access to legal advice?” They are puzzled at how a major university with its own legal staff and a top ten law school on campus could continuously make such horrible mistakes and seemingly lack any appreciation for what was going on in the lacrosse case. Duke does have access to plenty of legal advice. The reality is that the administration does not care. I found this out first hand. In settling with several of the players, particularly in the Dowd case, the Duke administration essentially used University resources to pay for the privilege of doing whatever it wanted. They were not mistaken about the consequences of their actions. It was never going to be any other way.

It is impossible to defend the administration’s motives in violating FERPA as somehow a well intentioned attempt to further the cause of justice as it understood it to be at the time. If the administration had truly been committed to justice, it would have pursued it without regard to where it might take them and which side it might be found to lay. Yet, when the time came for speaking up for the due process rights of its students, the administration was silent and remained silent until late December. No, there was never any commitment by the administration to seeing justice done in the lacrosse case at least through December and certainly not in March. In the absence of such a commitment, there was only self interest and playing favorites.

Collin Leaves Duke as Well

In other news, Collin Finnerty has announced that he is transferring to Loyola College. As with Reade Seligmann, it is disgraceful that Duke has not done more to retain a student who suffered because of his Duke affiliation and did so with dignity and character. Reade, Collin and David represented the University well and made us proud.

I live not too far from Loyola College. It is an excellent school with a top notch lacrosse program (they beat Duke last year). The people there are glad to have him and I am sure that they will take good care of him in a way that the Duke administration was unwilling to do. Welcome to Baltimore Collin!

Joan Collins

I do not want Joan Collins’s latest article to be overlooked by bumping it from the top place with this update so, after reading this, keep reading below. I would just like to add that it is not surprising to me that faith was important to all of the lacrosse team members, their families and the Presslers and that it helped them through their ordeal. The deep faith she describes them having was certainly apparent to me by their conduct all along, especially that of Reade, Collin and David. I am sure that there were many, many moments of despair for them. However, they did not give up. They did not let themselves be paralyzed with self pity. They did not give in to hatred. They never lost the ability to see beyond their own concerns and now want to use their experience to help others in similar situations.

St. Louis de Montfort, in his Letter to the Friends of the Cross, described the proper way for people to confront and even embrace the vicissitudes of life, which provide opportunities for spiritual growth and a closer, more uncomplicated and uncluttered relationship with God. To suffer setbacks without hope and without faith is to suffer as the damned do. However, to suffer with hope and with faith is to suffer as Christ and the holy martyrs did. What the three families went through was horrible and they are still suffering materially for it. However, not only were they not destroyed by the experience, as Joan points out, they are better people for it. St. Louis emphasizes that there is nothing meritorious about suffering in and of itself. Recently, someone wrote a letter to the Herald-Sun complaining about all of the legal actions against Mike Nifong and compared him to Jesus. I wish I were kidding. However, to suffer for an evil or unjust cause is to be a martyr not for God, but for Satan. If Mike Nifong would only embrace the, in his case, just suffering he brought on himself, as the penitent thief at Christ’s side did, he too could be a better person for this experience and actually would be like Christ.

While we are on the subject, this was the thought for the week during Mike Nifong’s bar hearing on a site run by Irish Jesuits called Sacred Space:

Jesus urged us not to swear at all: “All you need say is ‘Yes’ if you mean yes, ‘No’ if you mean no.” Only constant honesty with ourselves can make us really sincere. The world knows an honest person. Many would not tell a downright lie, but few, even of the pious, always tell the truth. It was the truth in Jesus that devastated his enemies. In proportion as we live a recollected life, with Jesus as model, we attain a simplicity and lucidity of character which has less and less need for untruth.

I thought the coincidence was remarkable. That should be the lesson for all of us in the lacrosse case, not just Mike Nifong.

Faith and the Duke Lacrosse Case

2007-07-16T20:29:00.001-04:00

Below is a special letter written by our good friend Joan Collins. The letter was written at the request of Rae Evans based on their recent communications and it looks at an aspect of the Duke Lacrosse Case that, so far, may have been overlooked: faith. Indeed, we find through communications with the lacrosse families that faith was a great source of strength to them and guided them through this most difficult period of their lives.

We would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to and honor a very distinguished lacrosse grandparent who is no longer with us: Raymond Forker. Mr. Forker was a most devoted and proud grandparent of David Evans. He passed away almost a year ago without seeing his grandson declared innocent. May this loving grandparent rest in peace with the knowledge we all have that Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann had been falsely accused! They were the victims of some ‘fantastic lies.’

We extend our best wishes to the Evanses, Finnertys, Seligmanns and Presslers as well as all the other Duke lacrosse families. We are greatly relieved that their ordeal is finally over. These families showed endless courage, patience and hope throughout the lacrosse controversy and came out of it stronger than ever before.

Moderator

Faith and the Duke Lacrosse Case

Some supporters became interested in the Duke Lacrosse Case because of ties to Duke University or lacrosse. For others it was thoughts that this could be their son, brother or grandchild. For many it was concerns that with the best justice system in the world how could this happen in our country. As for me, it was faith that brought me to this case.

Several players on the Duke Men’s Lacrosse Team were from my hometown. After hearing some of the media reports, I wanted more information, so I began reading the Court TV message board. I had never before read or posted on a message board or blog.

On April 25, 2006, a photo of Collin Finnerty with a priest appeared in the media. I soon learned that Father Peter LeJacq had devoted his life to serving as a missionary in Africa. In addition to being a Maryknoll priest, Father LeJacq, is a physician who has opened hospitals and trained doctors in Africa. He attended grammar school with Kevin Finnerty and has known Collin Finnerty his entire life. When some posters began referring to the priest as a rent-a-priest, I could no longer remain silent. My first post was “What better time for a family to be drawn to their faith than in a time of crisis!” Little did I know that post would draw me into a case that would consume me for more than a year.

On May 15, 2006, Dave Evans gave an inspiring and courageous speech to the press on the steps of the Durham County Courthouse, flanked by seniors of the lacrosse team, with his parents, David and Rae, standing proudly behind him. For me, Dave Evans epitomized Hemingway’s definition of courage namely ‘grace under pressure’. Convinced Evans was being truthful and that he, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were innocent of all charges, the thoughts of his speech remained with me for months.

On the morning of August 20, 2006, I decided to put my thoughts into words and wrote “Profile of Courage - Dave Evans”. I had no idea why, but I felt this sense of urgency to post it immediately. It was posted as a letter to Friends of Duke University (FODU) on August 22, 2006 after which I left on vacation. Upon my return on August 31, I learned that Evans’ grandfather, Raymond Forker, had passed away on the morning the profile of courage about his grandson was written and was posted on the same day as his obituary. The timing was an uncanny coincidence, but I was pleased that it had provided some comfort to the family as they prepared for the funeral.

Whether one believes in miracles or not, if ever a case needed a miracle it was the Duke Lacrosse Case. I decided to pray to St. Raymond Nonnatus, the patron saint of the falsely accused, asking that the case be dismissed. In the spring of 2007, I wrote to Mr. Evans that St. Raymond was the patron saint of the falsely accused. It was another coincidence that Rae Evans and her father, Raymond, shared the same name as the patron saint of the falsely accused. Later, I was touched by Mr. Evans’ testimony at Mr. Nifong’s trial about Raymond Forker and how the family had embraced the patron saint.

Well educated, Raymond was born to a noble Spanish family in 1204. His father had planned a career for him in the royal court of Aragon, but Raymond was drawn to a religious life ransoming Christian captives in North Africa. When his funds were exhausted, he surrendered himself up as a hostage to free another. Imprisoned and tortured, he converted some of his guards. To prevent him from preaching, his captors pierced and padlocked his lips. Raymond remained in jail for eight months until he was ransomed. He became cardinal, although he continued to live as a monk. Raymond died in 1239 and was canonized a saint in 1657. His feast day is August 31.

Over the past year, I encountered remarkable, resolute people in the search for truth and justice in the Duke Lacrosse Case. Their research, writings, poems, videos and cartoons energized us to continue. It was a privilege to meet and speak with some of the lacrosse players, their families and the Presslers. Their courage inspired me. The common theme of the conversations was faith and how it had sustained them, provided them hope, and at times carried them through some of their darkest days. When their university turned its back on them, when the media spewed vile things about them, when our legal system did not seem to be working, what remained were family, friends and faith.

Today I met Rae Evans for the first time. She was wearing a St. Raymond pendant and she gave me a special gift of a St. Raymond medal. Faith has taken me on a journey from that first post on Court TV about faith, to writing the Dave Evans profile of courage on the morning of Raymond Forker’s death, praying to the patron saint of the falsely accused and receiving the medal. The St. Raymond medal reminds me that with faith all things are possible.

None of us will forget the Duke Lacrosse Case. We must move forward and learn from the experience. The Duke Lacrosse team will become better and stronger men, sons, husbands, and fathers because of the case. This is not the end, but the beginning for there is still much work to be done. Hopefully, the players and their many supporters will follow in the generous footsteps of St. Raymond, so that something like this never happens again.

Reflecting on the events of the case, its effect on all those involved and looking to the future, the poignant words of Father Bob Joerger, a mission priest who spoke of the story of Lazarus at my church during the past Lenten season seem most appropriate:

"What seems like weakness becomes strength, what seems like failure becomes new growth, what seems like the end, becomes the beginning, what seems like ultimate depravity, becomes redemption, what seems like powerlessness, becomes power, and what seems like death, becomes the seeds of a new life."

Joan Collins
Garden City, NY

Updated: Pressler Book Signing

2007-06-22T08:45:00.000-04:00

Updated on June 22, 2007
Congratulations to Coach Mike Pressler and Dan Yaeger for making the New York Times bestseller list. Their book 'It's Not About the Truth' made it to the bestseller list yesterday. Here is more media coverage of Coach Pressler and Dan Yeager.

Pressler gets to 'The Truth' Newsobserver

Pressler says police used coercive tactics Herald Sun

Former Duke Lacrosse Coach Signs Books, Reflects on Case WRAL

Posted on June 11, 2007
Congratulations to Coach Mike Pressler and Dan Yaeger on the publication of their book "It's Not About The Truth." If you have not purchased the book yet, click here to order a copy: It's Not About The Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case and the Lives It Shattered.

Coach Pressler will be signing books from 5:30 to 8 p.m. at the Lax Hut on 4161 Merrick Road in Massapequa, Long Island, on Friday, June 15th. Matt Zash, one of the co-captains of the Duke Mens Lacrosse Team in 2006, is a part-owner of the Lax Hut.

Coach Pressler will also be at Mitchell Field, Uniondale (Long Island), NY on Saturday, June 16th to sign copies of his newly released book. He will be there from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The Long Island Lizards will host the Philadelphia Barrage at the same place. Their game time is 1:00 p.m.

Books may be purchased at both events.

Related reading:
Ex-Coach Discusses Duke Lacrosse Case
On the Bookshelf
A Conversation with Susan Pressler
Scapegoating

Nifong Suspended

2007-06-19T17:28:00.000-04:00

Two days ago, Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong was found guilty on 27 of 32 ethical charges brought against him by the NC State Bar in handling the Duke lacrosse case. As a result of those findings, Mr. Nifong was disbarred on Saturday. Earlier today, Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson suspended Mr. Nifong ending his career immediately as a district attorney.

Beth Brewer, a courageous Durham resident, should be congratulated and praised for providing the legal mechanism for the judge to issue Mr. Nifong’s suspension today. If not for the petition that Beth Brewer filed several months ago to remove Mr. Nifong from office, the suspension today might not have been possible. Thank you Beth Brewer, for being a good citizen!

Here are links for more details on today’s developments:

Nifong Served With Suspension Order WRAL

Judge suspends Duke rape DA immediately Associated Press

Judge to suspend dallying Nifong today Newsobserver

To read more about 'good citizen' Beth Brewer:

Profile in Courage - Beth Brewer by Joan Collins

Thank you, Beth Brewer John in Carolina

INNOCENT: Thanks again, Beth Brewer John in Carolina

Duke Settles With Indicted Players

2007-06-18T15:33:00.000-04:00

Breaking News: The Chronicle is reporting that Duke University reached a financial settlement with formerly indicted lacrosse players. Here are more details:

Duke University, Three Lacrosse Players Announce Settlement Duke University

Duke announce settlement with indicted laxers The Chronicle

Duke reaches settlement with players Associated Press

Duke and Three Families Settle KC Johnson

Nifong Trial Verdict

2007-06-16T14:51:00.000-04:00

Breaking News: Durham DA Michael Nifong was found guilty on 27 of the 32 ethical charges brought against him by the NC Bar. An AP report indicates the following:

Mike Nifong broke numerous rules of professional conduct during his disastrous prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape, committing "deceit and misrepresentations," a disciplinary committee ruled Saturday.

Selected Videos:
David Evans Sr. State Bar Testimony
Mary Ellen Finnerty State Bar Testimony
Nifong Says He should Be Disbarred
Disciplinary Board Disbars Nifong
Duke Lacrosse Defense Attorneys News Conference
Selected articles:
Comments of Disciplinary Panel’s ChairmanThe New York Times
Bar Accepts Nifong's Offer to Surrender Law License WRAL
N.C. panel disbars Duke prosecutor AP
Former Duke Prosecutor Nifong Disbarred June 18, ABC News
Bar strips Nifong of his law license Newsobserver
Findings KC Johnson
Duke prosecutor: He should be disbarred AP
Nifong Accepts Disbarment KC Johnson
Committee: Duke prosecutor broke rules AP
Verdict KC Johnson

DA Michael Nifong Resigns

2007-06-15T16:01:00.000-04:00

Breaking News: Durham DA Michael Nifong just announced that he will resign his post. This is something we had hoped for. We are glad to hear that Mr. Nifong finally reached that decision. Below are links to selected media coverage on this topic.

Articles:
Law Expert: Cleared Player's Testimony Devastating for Nifong WRAL
Reactions to Nifong's resignation Newsobserver
Embattled Nifong Says He'll Resign WRAL
Nifong resigns KC Johnson
Nifong says he'll quit as district attorney Newsobserver
Duke prosecutor says he will resign Associated Press
Videos:
Reade Seligmann Full Testimony
Nifong announces he is resigning
Nifong’s testimony ‘Extraordinary’ lacrosse attorney says

Fundraiser Event - Final Update

2007-06-07T07:50:00.000-04:00

About a week ago, an important fundraiser event was concluded by Ethical Durham in support of the lacrosse legal defense fund. Through that effort, a Chevy Tahoe 2007 was raffled off and $66,300 was raised for the defense fund. This was a major undertaking and it required a lot of coordination and effort by many individuals. Even the legal status of Ethical Durham had to be changed to be able to carry it out. All those hurdles were successfully crossed. Today, I would like to acknowledge major contributions made to this important fundraiser by several individuals and thank them. Without their contributions, the raffle would not have been possible.

First and foremost, our thanks go to Robert and Sally Fogarty for donating the Chevy Tahoe 2007. Their generosity is much appreciated by the beneficiaries of the legal defense fund. In fact, words are not enough to thank them properly. Many thanks for Ethical Durham as well! They worked tirelessly to make this a successful fundraiser. This was the group’s first serious fundraiser and they had to learn every step of the way. Despite that, they handled the event like professionals. Our hats are off to Ethical Durham and Stefanie Sparks in particular. Last but not least, thank you Mrs. Susan Wolcott and Mr. George Jennison for handling the overall coordination and logistics. Without your guidance and leadership the raffle would not have been a success.

This brings me to the next group of people who deserves a big thank you. That’s you, all the supporters and friends who purchased the raffle tickets. Thank you for purchasing those tickets. You could not have spent $100 per ticket for a worthier cause. Your support is much appreciated by those who will benefit from the defense fund.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the lucky winner of the raffle. I truly hope you will use your Chevy Tahoe in good times.

Thank you!

2007-05-29T09:49:00.000-04:00

Breaking News: Reade Seligmann to attend Brown University.

We are sorry that Duke is losing such a fine young man and the embodiment of all that is good about Duke students. However, we understand completely and want only the best for him. We know that other excellent schools reached out to Reade even while he was under indictment. It is a disgrace that his own school, Duke University, did nothing to try and keep him even after he was exonerated.

Thank you

Congratulations to the Duke Men’s and Women’s lacrosse teams for outstanding seasons! It was not a Hollywood ending, but we hope with time you can look back and appreciate all you accomplished this season. It was something amazing.

We love you and have always been proud of the success you achieved as people in the things that matter most: confronting the overwhelming challenges presented to you by life itself. The success you achieved on the field was equally remarkable and just icing on the cake, very sweet icing indeed.

Thank you for a thrilling ride this season!

The State of Things

2007-05-22T12:55:00.000-04:00

by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

ATAF Fundraiser

First, a reminder. Tickets remain for the Tahoe Raffle to benefit the defense fund. Click here or scroll down for information on how to order tickets. The proceeds support a very good cause you know you want that Tahoe! The number of tickets is limited and the drawing is on May 28th. Get yours before it is too late.

The End, the Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning.

Now that Reade, Collin and David have finally been exonerated, it is time to think about the future of FODU. Obviously, our number one priority was ending the hoax and getting Reade, Collin and David from out of harm’s way and that has been achieved. However, our approach was originally premised on the fact that Duke should be a part of that process, not only for the sake its falsely accused students, but for its own sake. That objective has yet to be realized. Together, with many others, we changed the world around Duke for the better. However, Bob Steel’s most recent letter and the News and Communications Office’s recent attempts at history show the University still singing exactly the same tune it was a year ago.

When FODU first began operating, a friend of mine who is an alumnus was excited because he thought FODU could become an alternative to the University’s official, administration run alumni organization that would be more responsive to the concerns of alumni. Something like that has already happened as the FODU bulletin board has morphed into the Duke Community Forum and will likely live on beyond us. For my part, I have always hoped that the need for our group would be temporary. Unfortunately, the legal case is over and here we all still are.

At some point, the administration will have to come to terms with the lacrosse case. It is not going to go away. The incident will be relived countless more times as the many books about it are released. The story is not going to get any better for Duke with each retelling--indeed, quite the opposite. Hopefully, the administration will engage in some self reflection and soul searching so that, if the past cannot be changed, the future will. The University will have opportunities to do this in the near future. Settling the Dowd case fairly was a small step in the right direction. We are not going away yet and will watch events in the coming weeks.

Celebrations!

Last week, I had the distinct pleasure of attending not one, but two celebrations. The first was a luncheon, hosted by our moderator for FODU members and parents in the Washington area. David Evans and his family were the guests of honor. The second was a dinner hosted in New York by the Wolcotts in honor of last year’s graduating seniors on the lacrosse team. It is a tradition to have a dinner each year for the graduating seniors, but circumstances prevented last year’s seniors from getting theirs.

Over the course of the last year, I have had a chance to get to know many of the player’s families. I never fail to be amazed at their ability to conduct themselves with grace and dignity and even good humor throughout their ordeal. I have also been impressed by their ability to remain charitable toward people who have wronged them and to vigorously pursue justice without malice and with an eye toward everyone’s good, not just their own. They are remarkable people and it was thus a joy to share these two moments of great happiness with them.

However, the real pleasure in these celebrations was finally meeting some of the players themselves and speaking to them. I knew they were basically good kids and not miscreants and libertines as the hoax enablers tried the paint them. Nevertheless, I was quite impressed with them. They were polite, thoughtful, sincere and straightforward young men. They thanked me profusely and I assured them that I stood in for the many, many people who contributed to their cause in large ways and in small, both through FODU and alongside us. I now pass their thanks on to all of you and offer you their worthy lives rescued from ruin as reward.

It is worth noting that, to date, the players are the only actors in the entire saga who have expressed any genuine regret for inappropriate behavior on their part and who have been willing to examine themselves with an eye toward improvement. They are better people for this experience and will use what they have learned to make a difference in the world. Who else in all this can say that?

For those of us who love Duke, the dignity with which the players, especially Reade, Collin and David, conducted themselves throughout their ordeal showed Duke students in such a positive light and gave us all something of which to be proud. Let us also not forget the character, fortitude and resourcefulness shown by the women’s lacrosse team in standing up for what was right.

I got involved with this case because of the issues it presented, not the people. Good, bad or ugly, none of the players had committed a crime and neither they nor their families deserved the terrible ordeal to which Mike Nifong subjected them. Neither did they deserve the unfair vilification of them by those who either wanted to enable the hoax or who wanted to rationalize their inaction. No one is safe in a society that allows manifest injustice such as the lacrosse case to go forward. No institution dedicated to knowledge and social betterment can look the other way when something like it occurs.

In the end, however, the people were what made this experience so truly rewarding. We could not have asked for more worthy beneficiaries of our efforts than the players and their families, especially Reade, Collin and David and their families. For that, I and my colleagues at FODU are most grateful to them.

Roy Cooper

I have to commend Attorney General Roy Cooper and the Special Prosecutors for the professionalism and leadership they demonstrated during their investigation. You may recall that, when the Attorney General’s Office took over the case I had this to say:

Roy Cooper and his attorneys have a real opportunity to restore confidence in North Carolina’s legal system. Furthermore, in doing so, they have a real opportunity to educate the public about the proper role of prosecutors in our legal system and how the legal system is supposed to resolve criminal matters. They can do these things by scrupulously executing their duties and exercising their discretion according to the requirements of law. Where Nifong allowed political considerations to influence his actions, they can embrace the rule of law. Where Nifong, abdicated his duties, they can embrace them. Where Nifong mislead the public as to the appropriate legal standards and his proper role, they can be honest. The public there and all over the world will be following their every move. Let us hope that they seize this opportunity and make the most of it. Roy Cooper, Jim Coman and Mary Winstead did all these things and what a difference it made. Not only was justice done, but the way they conducted the investigation and the transparency with which they shared its results ensured that everyone, aside from a handful of narrow minded ideologues, would accept their findings. I am also grateful to Attorney General Cooper for going one step further and stating his conclusion that Reade, Collin and David were completely innocent. That he felt compelled to do so shows that he truly is a man of integrity.

We have had various letter writing campaigns asking our public officials to do something to help Reade, Collin and David. It is only fitting that we recognize them when they do something right. Please consider writing to thank Roy Cooper and his assistants for a job well done.

Final Fours

Finally, congratulations to the Men’s and Women’s lacrosse teams for advancing to the Final Four. That both teams could successfully overcome all of the enormous challenges presented by real life and also play lacrosse at the highest level is perhaps the final wonder of this whole saga.

A Conversation with Susan Pressler

2007-04-23T07:50:00.000-04:00

Today, we are sharing with you another 'profile in courage' written by our friend Joan Collins. In her latest profile, Joan writes about a selfless and inspiring woman. A woman who not only stood by her husband and family and supported them through extraordinarily tough times but also stood by 46 other families, Duke lacrosse families, who were devastated by the events that unfolded at Duke a year ago. This woman is former Duke Lacrosse head coach Mike Pressler's wife, Susan Pressler. Thank you Joan, for talking with Mrs. Pressler and sharing your conversation with us.

In a book that will be published soon, there will be much more on the ordeal that Presslers along with 46 other lacrosse families went through between March 2006 and April 2007. To find out more or to purchase that book, use the link below.

It’s Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Case and the Lives it Shattered by Don Yaeger and Mike Pressler

Profile in Courage
A Conversation with Susan Pressler

For some time now, several Duke Lacrosse mothers have spoken to me about Susan Pressler, wife of former Duke Lacrosse Coach, Mike Pressler. They described a woman who not only has supported her husband and children through difficult and painful times, but has continued to be an inspiration to them and their sons. Some of the words used to describe her were “amazing, “a rock”, and “the wind beneath Mike Pressler’s wings”. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with Susan Pressler.

Susan and Mike Pressler met at Ohio Wesleyan University where she was a swim coach, while he was head lacrosse coach. Originally from Illinois, she is both strong and loving. For over 16 years, Susan Pressler stood beside her husband as they made their home in Durham. As head coach, Pressler built Duke Lacrosse into a highly regarded program. Pressler compiled a 153-82 record at Duke, winning the Atlantic Coast Conference championship three times, while leading his team to 10 NCAA tournament appearances as well as the Division I men's national championship game in 2005. Pressler was voted ACC Coach of the Year three times and also was honored as the U.S.I.L.A. National Coach of the Year in 2005. She worked with him in organizing the successful Duke Lacrosse Summer Camp.

The family immersed themselves in the Durham community. Their children were happy. Their two daughters, age 9 and 15, know of no home other than Durham. After her husband’s contract was renewed, they put a large addition on their Durham home, almost doubling its size, making it just the way they always wanted. They expected Durham would be their home for the next 20 years. Everything changed on April 5, 2006, when Mike Pressler lost his coaching job at Duke.

Sadly, Durham became a community Susan no longer recognized. After receiving threats and out of fear for their children’s safety, they sent their eldest daughter to live with friends in another city, while their youngest was sent out of state with family for a time.

Immediately after the players were indicted, she used a labeler to make handmade signs “Innocent #6- Innocent #13- Innocent #45” which she displays prominently on her license plate as she drives around Durham. She proudly wears a Duke Lacrosse wristband with the same inscription. Susan insists she will not remove the wristband, until Reade and Collin each score their first goal and she hears from Rae Evans that Dave is alright.

Although she is the mother of two daughters, Susan considers herself to have hundreds of sons. She spoke in a most loving, motherly way of Coach Pressler’s players, not just the recent team, but of all the players over the last 16 years of coaching at Duke. She estimates that about 200 players have passed through his program. “I am so grateful for the young men my husband has brought into our family. I love every kid,” said Susan. Her youngest daughter refers to the players as “Daddy’s Boys”. I would trust my girls with all 47 boys on the team,” Susan said. Parents of daughters understand what that means.

Several days before the Blue Devils played their first game of the season against Dartmouth, Susan Pressler addressed the team in the locker room, something she had never done before. She told them that Duke is not the administration or professors. She said, “Duke is the students. Once you wear that uniform you are always Duke.” She told the team the Pressler family never blamed them for what happened and that she loved them and they should feel proud again.

About Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann she replied, “I am so proud of these three young men and how they handled themselves in the face of the most unbelievable adversity. As the ones picked, it would ultimately be them and their families that the world would focus on. No one would represent Duke Lacrosse with more class and dignity. After their innocence was announced to the world, they spoke at a press conference, their poise and presence could make every Duke alumni proud again. It showed anyone willing to see, that these are great kids from great families, who were falsely accused.”

Ask to comment on John Danowski as Coach of Duke Lacrosse, Susan responded, “Duke Lacrosse is a great program. We were a big part of building the Duke Lacrosse brand. It is difficult to see someone else in that position, but I am glad it is John Danowski. His purpose is pure. He loves it as we did and he loves the boys.”

In August of 2006 Bryant University in Smithfield, Rhode Island announced Mike Pressler would become their new head lacrosse coach. For the past 8 months Coach Pressler has been working at Bryant settling into his new position, while his family remained in Durham. In the next few weeks, Susan and her daughters will move to their new home in Rhode Island. For the Presslers, starting over will mean many changes. It means a new job, new community, new home, new schools and new friends. Her eldest daughter, a sophomore in high school, plays on a varsity volleyball team, Triangle, which has won 8 out of the last 9 state championships. Unfortunately, she must leave her team which means so much to her.

This past weekend at the Lone Star Classic National qualifier in Dallas, the Presslers eldest daughter, Janet, had a chance to meet some members of her new team, the Rhode Island Blast Volleyball. It was another glimpse for this teenager into what lies ahead. They were scheduled to play in the afternoon pool on court 38, the same court Janet’s Triangle 16-1 team played earlier that morning. Susan Wolcott, mother of a member of the Men’s Duke Lacrosse 2006 Team, was in the stands to cheer Janet and her team. For Susan Pressler, this represented the bridge between the Duke boys and the Bryant boys, which will forever be a part of the Pressler children’s lives.

On the same day back in Durham, younger daughter, Maggie, attended the Duke-Army Lacrosse game where Jimmy Regan, former Duke Lacrosse player and Army Ranger, recently killed in Iraq, was honored in a half time ceremony. Former Duke assistant Joe Albericci, and the Army Captains presented Regan’s parents and fiancé with a cadet sword. The Duke Captains presented his family with his framed No. 10 Duke Jersey. “Jimmy represented and lived the Ranger Creed, extraordinary but not surprising, for a Duke Lacrosse player. This is yet another reason for Duke Alumni to be proud of their lacrosse team again,” she said.

According to Susan, lacrosse in Rhode Island is at a stage similar to North Carolina when they first moved to Duke over 16 years ago. She described a Bryant University community that has been supportive and wonderful in welcoming them. The Bryant parents are excited that their children will have an opportunity to learn lacrosse from a man with the talent and expertise of Coach Pressler. The climate is much colder, so they will be practicing indoors a lot and shoveling snow, however the citizens of Smithfield have warm hearts to compensate for the colder temperatures.

During our conversations, I could not help but think of one of my mother’s favorite expressions, “When one door closes, another door opens.” I thought of all the New England boys who will benefit from another door that has opened.

Susan is optimistic about the future. Bryant has a student body of about 3,500 students. At Bryant’s first game of the season, there were 700 spectators, much more than attended Pressler’s first game at Duke years ago. In the stands were some of Pressler’s former players and their parents.

Susan is excited about Mike Pressler’s soon to be released book, “It’s Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Case and the Lives it Shattered”, which he wrote with Don Yaeger. It was written to fulfill a promise Mike made to the 47 players that he would tell the world the truth at the appropriate time and venue.

Bryant opened the door for Coach Pressler. As they hold the door open for Susan Pressler and her daughters to enter, they will soon learn that the woman entering the door has a heart big enough to love each and every one of Bryant University’s sons.

“Optimism is the foundation of courage,” wrote Nicholas Murray Butler, former President of Columbia University. “My goal is to not let the events of this last year taint my children’s view of the world,” said Susan Pressler. She is a testament to finding the inner strength to recognize the open door in front of you, when one had closed unexpectedly.

One former member of the Duke lacrosse team wrote to me, “I am forever indebted to Mrs. Pressler for what she did for me and my friends”. Heroes inspire us. Susan is an inspiration for us all to rise above feelings of disappointment and watch for our own opening doors.

Susan Pressler is a true hero.

Joan Collins
Garden City, NY

Links to media

2007-04-16T07:00:00.351-04:00

This page contains a list of selected articles on the Duke Lacrosse case. In the lower part of the page, several discussion boards and related websites are also listed.

To propose a new link, post it in the comments section below or send us an email. Be sure to include the exact web address. We will review all suggested links, and add as appropriate. This page is updated many times per day. To make sure you are viewing the latest, click on your Refresh button.

a. Recent Articles:
On Other Blogs Feb 6, KC Johnson
Brodhead, Chronicle Spin Same Take On Duke’s Giving Drop Feb 5, John in Carolina
Duke’s Donations Drop; The Chronicle’s The Same Feb 3, John in Carolina
January Events in the Case Feb 2, KC Johnson
Plaintiffs will question Nifong's press contact before Mar. 27, 2006 Feb 1, John in Carolina
Plaintiffs’ response to Nifong’s latest filing Feb 1, John in Carolina
Informed commentary re: likely Duke/Durham discovery Jan 30, John in Carolina
Who should worry about Duke/Durham discovery? Jan 28, John in Carolina
Tim Tyson, the Raleigh N&O & Whiteys’ Place Jan 27, John in Carolina
SEC Probes Whether Duke BOT Chair Misled Investors Jan 23, John in Carolina
More re: "Duke’s Chronicle Ignores Insurer's Charges" Jan 23, John in Carolina
Duke’s Chronicle Ignores Insurer’s Charges Jan 22, John in Carolina
Insurer: Duke’s “allegations … knowingly unfounded, malicious, frivolous, and in bad faith.” Jan 20, John in Carolina
Duke's $5M Defense? Jan 19, KC Johnson
“Until Proven Innocent” On Law Prof’s Top 5 List Jan 17, John in Carolina
Is Nifong Paying by the Line? Jan 16, KC Johnson
Two question for the N&O’s Saunders & Durham DA Cline Jan 16, John in Carolina
Seigel’s Orlando Sentinel Op-Ed Smeared Laxers Jan 13, John in Carolina
Keohane's "Root of the Problem" Jan 12, KC Johnson
Two Missing Guests at DA Cline's Swearing-in Jan 9, John in Carolina
Cline: Was Nifong Right? Jan 8, KC Johnson
Worst Duke Hoax/Frame-up Prediction So Far? Jan 8, John in Carolina
Duke Trustees Watching Larry King On Apr. 10, 2006 Jan 5, John in Carolina
Attorney Spilbor Proves Duke's Trustees Knew Jan 1, John in Carolina
December Events in the Case Dec 31, KC Johnson
Bill Anderson on the H-S; my response Dec 30, John in Carolina
Duke's Allison Haltom & the trustees Dec 29, John in Carolina
Dec 28, John in Carolina

Yes, Virginia, there is a Police Report

Durham PD & H-S’s big “present” to Duke laxers
Raleigh N&O’s “gift” to the Duke laxers Dec 24, John in Carolina
Alternate Realities Dec 22, KC Johnson
Brodhead to faculty & staff: "Duke’s endowment … has declined" Dec 17, John in Carolina
John in Carolina, Dec 16

Durham’s lax frame contributes to probation problems

Harvard, Duke & Yale report on their endowments

Duke’s endowment, budget reporting trails Harvard’s & Yale’s
Despite Duke endowment's $1B hit, Steel & Brodhead "very, very" positive Dec 14, John in Carolina
Durham's Vanishing Comma Dec 10, KC Johnson
Take a quick Duke quiz Dec 9, John in Carolina
Is the Raleigh News & Observer for sale? Dec 7, John in Carolina
Raleigh N&O’s Pearl Harbor remembrances Dec 7, John in Carolina
N&O again terms Nifong "fallen prosecutor" Dec 6, John in Carolina
An interesting "conversation" re: Duke's National Union suit Dec 5, John in Carolina
Suit against Nifong can go ahead Dec 5, Newsobserver
Judge allows lawsuit against Nifong to proceed Dec 4, Herald Sun
Duke lacrosse suit lawyers scoff at city immunity claim Dec 3, Herald Sun
Atwater pleads not guilty to federal charges Dec 3, Herald Sun
Duke filing against insurer in connection with lax suits Dec 2, John in Carolina
Asking Questions Dec 1, KC Johnson
Duke seeks insurance damage Dec 1, The Chronicle
Crime & Punishment Nov 30, KC Johnson
Duke As Plaintiff: Sues Its Insurance Company Nov 26, KC Johnson
N&O’s “smoke and mirrors” can’t hide circulation losses Nov 26, John in Carolina
N&O finally reports Gattis Street rape suspect’s latest arrest Nov 26, John in Carolina
Duke sues insurer over lacrosse settlement Nov 25, Newsobserver
Gattis rape suspect jailed this month Nov 25, The Chronicle
N&O reporter’s falsehoods undermine editors’ “police report” claim Nov 25, John in Carolina
Amazing Nov 24, KC Johnson
What's Duke Research for? (Post 1) Nov 23, John in Carolina
Making Duke Research a “must read” Nov 19, John in Carolina
Odds & Ends Nov 17, KC Johnson
City wins rounds in lacrosse suit cases Nov 15, Herald Sun
Nifong’s Nov. ’06 election: a Duke role? Nov 14, John in Carolina
Duke this Veteran’s Day Eve Nov 10, John in Carolina
Durham: "State Law Can't Touch Us" Nov 10, KC Johnson
Lawyers seek city lacrosse dismissals Nov 6, Herald Sun
Book Review- The last Dance for grace Nov 6, The Chronicle
You can be sure Mangum hasn't changed Nov 3, John in Carolina
October Events in the Case Nov 3, KC Johnson
Chronicle nabs ACP accolades Nov 3, The Chronicle
Reality therapy for Mangum's handlers Nov 1, John in Carolina
The Least Surprising Endorsement Oct 31, KC Johnson
Mangum’s Last Dance swindle ignores Brodhead Oct 30, John in Carolina
Moving on from Mangum Oct 29, The Chronicle
Agent says memoir not defamatory Oct 29, The Chronicle
Obama Judges & Duke lacrosse Oct 28, John in Carolina
Lax father may pursue legal action Oct 27, The Chronicle
Reflections on the Mangum Opus Oct 27, KC Johnson
Mangum Takes on the Special Prosecutors Oct 25, KC Johnson
Crystal's Many Enemies Oct 24, KC Johnson
The Shird Preface Oct 24, KC Johnson
Mangum maintains assault occurred Oct 24, The Chronicle
Duke rape accuser sticks to her story Oct 24, Herald Sun
Phil Seligmann statement on Crystal Mangum's claim of sexual assault Oct 23, WRAL
What will the Duke false accuser say today? Oct 23, John in Carolina
Publisher talks about Duke lacrosse accuser's memoir (video) Oct 23, WRAL
Lacrosse party dancer still claims assault Oct 23, Newsobserver
Duke lacrosse accuser to promote book Oct 22, WRAL
Record turnout marks first day of general election early voting Oct 17, Herald Sun
The blues just got tougher Oct 16, Newsobserver
Amazing Oct 14, KC Johnson
Did the Raleigh N&O fake “a police report?” Oct 13, John in Carolina
Ekstrand Filings Oct 13, KC Johnson
Raleigh N&O editor terms Ayers “wackily idealistic” Oct 12, John in Carolina
NAACP's McSurely 's letter : So bad it was good Oct 9, John in Carolina
Attorney McSurely Oct 8, KC Johnson
Court orders restraint in Wachovia deal Oct 7, The Chronicle
Mangum's Alternate Reality Oct 4, KC Johnson
Board should be more transparent Oct 3, The Chronicle
Duke honors faculty members Oct 3, Herald Sun
Duke urged to preserve liberal education focus Oct 3, Herald Sun
Policy may limit news on trustees Oct 2, The Chronicle
Annual DUPD report shows few changes in crime Oct 1, The Chronicle
NC's AG Cooper said "Innocent." And Sen. Dole said what? Sep 30, John in Carolina
Nifong's attorney asks for reversal of bankruptcy judge ruling Sep 30, WRAL
Cooper Ad Sep 30, KC Johnson
The Chronicle, Sep 30

Board of Trustees closes door on media access

Markets tumble as bailout fails
Chronicle ignored NC Gov candidate & prof Munger's debate participation Sep 29, John in Carolina
September Events in the Case Sep 29, KC Johnson
Duke stonewalls Sep 29, Herald Sun
The Chronicle, Sep 29

News briefs

Bedeviled no more
Durham's legal bills in Duke lacrosse case hit $1.2 million Sep 24, Newsobserver
Trading places Sep 24, The Chronicle
Matory to Duke Sep 24, KC Johnson
Lacrosse suits so far cost city $729,350 Sep 23, Herald Sun
Anniversary sees progress in Interim Sep 23, The Chronicle
The Chronicle, Sep 22

New AAAS head to join Duke in July

Duke adds voting site to campus
Group Members Discover Civil Liberties Sep 22, KC Johnson
Durham conviction’s tossed. N&O ignores its Duke frame sames Sep 21, John in Carolina
The Raleigh N&O without its mask (Post 2) Sep 17, John in Carolina
Words To "Stand By" Sep 16, KC Johnson
Attorneys respond to Nifong's bankruptcy appeal Sep 15, WRAL
Tyson Hunkers Down Sep 15, KC Johnson
Pressler to coach U.S. men's lacrosse team Sep 12, Newsobserver
God damns independents Sep 10, The Chronicle
Duke paper examines legacy trends Sep 9, The Chronicle
New Case "Scholarship" Sep 8, KC Johnson
Mammoth picks All-America Duke forward Danowski Sep 7, Denverpost.com
August Events in the Case Sep 5, KC Johnson
Judicial affairs still cause was concern Sep 4, The Chronicle
Nifong wants to auction guitars Sep 3, WRAL
Cooper Response: Durham Filings Sep 2, KC Johnson
Unindicted lacrosse players fight attempts to dismiss lawsuit Sep 1, WRAL
Cooper Response: Duke's SANE Brief Aug 30, KC Johnson
Athletes: Duke breached duty to fight charges Aug 30, Herald Sun
Lacrosse suit given a new push Aug 30, Newsobserver
Cooper Response to Duke Aug 29, KC Johnson
Panel to focus on town-gown relations Aug 29, Herald Sun
Players Oppose Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Aug 28, DukeLawsuit.com
Duke students draw more complaints Aug 27, Herald Sun
A Story of Two Mikes Aug 26, William L. Anderson
The Chronicle’s Butler & Rickards are truth-seekers Aug 25, John in Carolina
Q&A Regarding the Mangum Opus Aug 25, KC Johnson
The Chronicle, Aug 25

Gold Devil

Mangum plans release of book locally in Oct.

Pro-Bono publico

Our alma mater dear
My hopes for Duke (Post 1) Aug 24, John in Carolina
Woman in lacrosse case writing book Aug 23, Herald Sun
Local shops plan to stock lacrosse accuser's book Aug 23, Herald Sun
Mangum's forthcoming book: First thoughts Aug 22, John in Carolina
Duke lacrosse attorney hopes accuser admits she lied Aug 22, WRAL
Raleigh N&O's different cuts for different folks Aug 22, John in Carolina
The Chronicle, Aug 22

Lax case slows as attorneys wrangle over words, motions

From 8th to 80th: Duke’s rank varies by publication

University listed 80th best undergrad institution by Forbes.com ranking

Prez backs new debate on drinking

Alpha delt faces hazing complaint
U.S. News: Duke ranked high on list Aug 22, Newsobserver
Councilman opposes lowering drinking age Aug 22, Herald Sun
The Mangum Opus Aug 22, KC Johnson
Duke freshmen get Olympic welcome Aug 21, Herald Sun
Bryant University Announces Contract Extension For Men's Lacrosse Coach Mike Pressler Aug 19, Bryant University Bulldogs
College leaders: Drinking age should be 18 Aug 19, Herald Sun
Thirty-Six Questions Aug 18, KC Johnson
Reader rebukes Saunders, N&O Aug 16, John in Carolina
Nifong seeks protection from lawsuit Aug 16, Herald Sun
Nifong: "$34.99 Is My Final Offer" Aug 15, KC Johnson
Lawyer: Nifong won't pay lacrosse players Aug 15, Newsobserver
Brodhead & Steel's shrinking credibility (a repost) Aug 12, John in Carolina
Airbrushing Aug 11, KC Johnson
Brodhead helped Seligmann? Where’s the evidence? Aug 11, John in Carolina
DA will pursue death penalty for Atwater Aug 11, Newsobserver
Death penalty hearing today for UNC murder suspect Aug 11, WRAL
McClatchy’s N&O’s unbelievable “credible” sources Aug 8, John in Carolina
Brodhead, Brown, & the Seligmanns Aug 7, KC Johnson
Seligmann unaware of Duke help Aug 7, Herald Sun
Jim Cooney Representing Duke Aug 6, FODU by Jason Trumpbour
The Raleigh N&O’s “early coverage” myth Aug 6, John in Carolina
Herald Sun, August 6

Lacrosse lawyers push for city evidence

Duke helped lacrosse player transfer to Brown

Ex-lacrosse attorney now on Duke team
Delaying Discovery Aug 5, KC Johnson
Lawyer on Duke's side against Giuliani Aug 5, Newsobserver
NY Times did not “lead” on the Duke lacrosse case Aug 4, John in Carolina
July Events in the Case Aug 2, KC Johnson

b. Archived Information
Earlier articles 1 (May 2006 - August 2006)
Earlier articles 2 (September 2006 -December 2006)
Earlier articles 3 (January 2007 - October 2007)
Earlier articles 4 (November 2007 - July 2008)
Archived documents 1
Archived documents 2
Archived documents 3
60 Minutes 1 Video - Ed Bradley (October 15, 2006)
60 Minutes 2 Video - Lesley Stahl (January 14, 2007)
60 Minutes 3 Video - Lesley Stahl (April 15, 2007)
60 Minutes Outtakes
Proceedings of April 11, 2007

David Evans Statement

Collin Finnerty Statement

Reade Seligmann Statement

c. Blogs
KC Johnson - Durham in Wonderland
John in Carolina
LieStoppers
The Johnsville News
William L. Anderson

d. Discussion Boards
The Chronicle Message Board
LieStoppers
Duke Community Forum
Free Republic
TalkLeft

e. Other Information:
Lacrosse case timeline The Johnsville News
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
The Truth About False Confessions
Forensics Talk

Jason Trumpbour's earlier posts

2007-04-16T06:30:00.004-04:00

This page contains the earlier (August 2006 to April 2007) comments of our spokesperson Jason Trumpbour on various aspects of the Duke Lacrosse case. His newer comments are found individually listed on the sidebar of this site under the heading Current Topics. To read the older comments captured here, please scroll down to the Comments section below.

Links to Jason Trumpbour's lacrosse case related comments published elsewhere:
Some Legal Insights on the Lax Situation #5 May 15, 2006 DBR
When The Law Is An Ass June 7, 2006 DBR
Duke president offers reply to criticism July 29, 2006 Newsobserver
Duke Official: "Considerable Support" Offered to LAX Players October 25, 2006 TalkLeft
Vote! November 2, 2006 Duke Chronicle
Nifong Rejects Threats of Charges in Duke Case December 18, 2006 ABC11TV
Group to Duke: Join bid for DA inquiry December 19, 2006 Herald Sun
Criticism directed at Nifong and Duke December 20, 2006 Newsobserver
Duke mobilizes to shield its image December 22, 2006 Newsobserver
Nifong dismisses rape charges December 22, 2006 Herald Sun
Some sure, others question whether justice can be served December 23, 2006 Herald Sun
Rape decision turns up the heat December 23, 2006 Herald Sun
Most Duke alumni support lacrosse players January 5, 2007 News14 Carolina
Duke urged to 'look to future' January 9, 2007 Herald Sun
Brodhead responds, calls for Nifong to step down January 10, 2007 Duke Chronicle
Duke President Takes Fire over Lacrosse Case February 2, 2007 NPR
Walk to support former players February 3, 2007 Herald Sun
'Friends of Duke' go after professors Feb 9, 2007 Herald Sun
Ad questions 'Concerned Duke Faculty' Feb 12, 2007 Duke Chronicle
The Clarifiers: "No Comment" Feb 12, 2007 KC Johnson
As lax legal fees rise, groups pitch in Feb 20, 2007 Duke Chronicle
Duke’s Devil of A Mess Feb 26, 2007 Diverse
Nifong Targets FODU! March 1, 2007 KC Johnson
Nifong: Grassroots Groups Trying to Run Him out of Office March 2, 2007 WRAL
WRAL Interview With Friends of Duke University Founder Jason Trumpbour (video)" March 2, 2007 WRAL
Report divides Duke's campus March 4, 2007 Newsobserver
Jason Trumpbour: Impact of blogs (audio) April 5, 2007 Inside Digital Media
A Pulitzer Prize for Dave Winer? April 8, 2007 ZDNet

From moderator

2007-04-16T06:00:00.007-04:00

From May 2006 to April 2007, we used this page as our permanent Front Page. As a result, it contains multiple posts by our moderator and spokesperson. In mid-April 2007 after the lacrosse case was dismissed, we stopped this practice and started creating new pages for each new post. We apologize for any confusion this format change may cause.

Some of our spokesperson Jason Trumpbour's posts which were originally here were moved to a new page: J. Trumpbour’s earlier posts.

Posted on April 16, 2007
On this extremely tragic and sad day, our condolences and prayers are with the families of those who lost their lives at the Virginia Tech shootings in Blacksburg Virginia.

Posted on April 15, 2007
Media Alert: Don't forget to watch CBS's 60 Minutes tonight (7pm). Once again, Duke Lacrosse Case will be featured.

Here are more details:
1. Duke Players Talk To "60 Minutes."
2. The Duke Case: Innocent

At this important juncture, we urge all our friends to consider contributing to the legal defense fund: Association for Truth and Fairness.

Posted on April 12, 2007
Yesterday, we had a picture perfect ending in the Duke Lacrosse Case!

It all started with the press conference held by the Attorney General Roy Coooper. That conference turned out to be everything we had hoped for and more. Thank you Attorney General Cooper for not being afraid to speak the truth and doing it so clearly and so loud.

Later, we were treated by the defense team to a second press conference. In that event, there was a great deal on display. It was almost an event that one could only dream of or see in the movies, except this one was real. We were dazzled by each and every one of the defense attorneys; they were more than impressive. Then, we felt proud, very proud to hear from Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. They too were impressive and very deserving of this picture perfect ending.

There is a lot to be said about the Duke Lacrosse case, but I will close by saying that April 11, 2007 will be a day to remember for many of us. Our warmest congratulations go to Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and their families. We witnessed first-hand their total vindication, and it was magnificently done. We wish them the best as they pick up the pieces of their lives and move on.

Posted on April 11, 2007
Breaking News: AG Roy Cooper: All charges against the lacrosse defendants are dismissed. The defendants are totally innocent of all the charges which were brought against them. Here are more news from media:

Videos:
1. Video of Defense Press Conference
2. Video of AG Cooper's Press Conference
3. Video of Mike Pressler's Press Conference

Articles:
1. Text of Cooper's statement chron.com
2. Collin Finnerty Statement KC Johnson
3. Reade Seligmann Statement KC Johnson
4. Summary of Jim Cooney Statement KC Johnson
5. Wade Smith Summary KC Johnson
6. Cheshire Summary
7. NC AG Cooper Sets Stage For Suing DA Nifong Professor John F. Banzhaf III
8. INNOCENT John in Carolina
9. Statement from Duke President Richard H. Brodhead About the Attorney General Dropping Charges in Lacrosse Case Duke University
10. Reactions to Duke lacrosse case Newsobserver

Various news outlets are reporting that charges against Duke Lacrosse Case defendants will be dropped today. We will list relevant news reports here, as they become available:

1. Duke lacrosse charges to be dropped Newsday
2. Duke charges expected to be dropped AP
3. Coleman and Johnson led the way John in Carolina
4. Duke Lacrosse Charges Will Be Dropped – ABC Professor John F. Banzhaf III
5. Duke Lacrosse Case Charges to Be Dropped ABC News
6. Decision in Duke Lacrosse Case Awaited AP
7. Players in lacrosse case gather Newsobserver

Posted on April 10, 2007
Breaking News: A press conference is being scheduled in Raleigh, for tomorrow, by Attorney General Roy Cooper on the Duke lacrosse case. Duke lacrosse families have been seen arriving in Durham to attend the press conference. Here are more details:

1. Duke Lacrosse Suspect Arrives in North Carolina WRAL
2. Press Conference on Duke Lacrosse Case ABC News

Posted on April 5, 2007
Media Alert: Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson, was interviewed by Phil Leigh of Inside Digital Media www.insidedigitalmedia.com about the impact of blogs on the Duke lacrosse case and how blogs are changing the face of news reporting generally. A direct link to the audio interview is here: April 5 Interview.

You will find today's post from Jason Trumpbour here: Odds and Ends.

Posted on April 3, 2007
It is with great sadness that we learned today the death of another Duke student, Christopher Sanders. Christopher was a junior at Duke. He was found dead in his dorm room this morning. His death is currently under investigation by Duke and Durham police departments. Christopher was from New Haven, Connecticut. He graduated from Notre Dame High School. Our deepest sympathies and condolences are with the Sanders family.

Posted on March 25, 2007
It is with great sadness and regret that we learned today the death of Mr. Kirk Osborn, one of the lacrosse case defense lawyers. Mr. Osborn suffered a massive heart attack last night and passed away early this morning. I would like to offer our heart felt condolences to Mr. Osborn’s family. Our prayers and best wishes are with the Osborn family and his friends and loved ones. Mr. Osborn will be greatly missed.

Here are media reactions to Mr. Osborn's death:
1. Early defender of Duke lacrosse players die
2. J. Kirk Osborn, Attorney in Duke Lacrosse Case, Dies
3. Noted lawyer J. Kirk Osborn dies
4. Kirk Osborn

Posted on March 22, 2007
Fox News is reporting today that the remaining charges in the Duke lacrosse case may be dismissed as early as tomorrow. Report: All Charges Against Duke Lacrosse Players To Be Dropped Soon.

However, Attorney General Roy Cooper's office is refuting that claim. Heightened Anticipation of Duke LAX Decision.

Posted on March 14, 2007
Today is the one year anniversary of the Duke Lacrosse Case. On this occasion and on behalf of every FODU friend and supporter I would like to pay tribute to Collin Finnerty, David Evans and Reade Seligmann.

I want to remind Collin, David, Reade, their families, the rest of the Duke Lacrosse team members and their families that our commitment to this cause remains as strong as ever. We will continue to advocate justice and fairness for Collin, David and Reade and we will not rest until we get it. On this day, we want to renew our commitment to this cause and double our efforts to see justice delivered.

Collin, David and Reade, unlike a year ago, today you are not alone! You have hundreds and thousands of supporters across the country wishing you well and patiently waiting for the day you will be exonerated of the false charges you are accused of. We are hoping that day will arrive soon. Our best wishes are with you. You are in our thoughts and in our prayers.

Posted on March 3, 2007
Here is the link to Jason Trumpbour's interview last night: WRAL Interview With Friends of Duke University Founder Jason Trumpbour (video)

Posted on March 2, 2007
Media Alert: Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson, was interviewed by Julia Lewis from WRAL Channel 5 today and the footage will be shown on their evening news programs. It should also be available on their website tonight.

Comments on Mike Nifong's Response to the NC State Bar
by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

In case you missed it, Mike Nifong named me specifically as his chief tormenter and provided the URL for our site in a letter he sent to the State Bar. Click here for the Response letter. It is on the last page in the third paragraph. He states,

A well-connected and well-financed (but not, I would suggest, well-intentioned) group of individuals—most of whom are neither in nor from North Carolina—have taken it upon themselves to ensure that this case never reaches trial. (And if this seems like paranoid delusion to you, perhaps you should check out websites such as former Duke Law School graduate and current Maryland attorney Jason Trumpbour’s www.friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/, which has not only called for me to be investigated, removed from this case, and disbarred, but has also provided instructions on how to request such actions and to whom those requests should be sent.)First, this is not my site. I am one of six people who run FODU and my colleagues have contributed as much or more to our efforts as I have. Indeed, site really belongs to all of the many people who participate in our activities by writing letters, getting the word out and posting ideas on the discussion board. Second, I am truly flattered and surprised that Nifong singled us out as his principle critics, even ahead of the efforts of KC Johnson, LieStoppers and Ethical Durham. I have to say that I think LieStoppers was the first to post step by step instructions on how to file a grievance with the State Bar and we merely linked to them. It is truly rewarding, however, to know I, personally, am inside Nifong’s head.

It is typical of Nifong's narcissism and grandiosity that he imagines himself confronted by giants. The reality is that we are a bunch of ordinary folks who had to shoulder the burden of speaking out against him ourselves because we got tossed out on our ear at Duke. Our group’s original purpose was to get Duke to speak out in defense of its students and they did not start doing that until late December. We are mostly funded out of our own pockets. We have no experience doing this sort of thing and we are figuring it out as we go along. If Nifong were to recognize these realities, it would be a bitter blow to him. He would then have to finally confront the reality that he is responsible for his own misfortunes. All we have done is shine a light on his actions and invite others to see for themselves the nature and extent of his misconduct.

If you found this link thanks to the free publicity provided for us by Nifong, take a look around and decide for yourself our intentions. I hope the State Bar does as well. Also, look through some of the extensive resources we provide for understanding the lacrosse case. Finally, consider making a donation to the defense fund. The accused and their families have incurred ruinous expenses, $3 million and counting, in defending themselves against these false charges.

Posted on February 25, 2007
Congratulations to Duke's Men's Lacrosse team for winning the Dartmouth game yesterday. It was a great day for the team, their families and friends. The support expressed by Duke students was impressive as well. More on the day's events:

1. Students show support for Duke lacrosse in opener ESPN
2. 'A Relief For This to Be Over' Washington Post
3. Photos from the game

Posted on February 20, 2007
I like to call your attention to an article published in The Chronicle today. The writer, Victoria Ward, describes the heavy financial burden placed on the families of the lacrosse players, especially those who remain under indictment, and the efforts of their friends to help raise funds to pay their legal costs. Below is the link for the Chronicle article along with a link to the ATAF website (the legal defense fund).

As lax legal fees rise, groups pitch in

Association for Truth and Fairness (ATAF)

Posted on February 8, 2007
Today we issued a press release covering our response to the Open Letter posted by “Concerned Faculty” at Duke University. You will find our press release here:

Our response to the Open Letter posted by “Concerned Faculty” at Duke University

Posted on February 5, 2007
We want to thank everyone who participated in yesterday's Walk of Support. Most importantly, we want to thank the organizers who did an outstanding job in organizing it. It was a wonderful event; orderly and dignified as we had all hoped it would be. Here is some media coverage on the Walk.

1. The Duke lacrosse support march Right Angles
2. Walk For Support for Duke LAX Students WRAL
3. Walkers stand behind defendants, lacrosse Newsobserver
4. Marchers support former players Herald Sun

Posted on February 3, 2007

Questions and answers on the Walk of Support

We hope you are all aware that a Walk of Support, organized by Concerned Duke Mothers and Duke Students for and Ethical Durham (DSED), is scheduled for 11am tomorrow morning. The purpose of the walk is to show support to Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, the three falsely accused defendants of the lacrosse case. Below is the latest update on the logistics of the Walk. We present the update in the form of questions and answers. If we missed answering some of your questions or concerns, please let us know. We will be glad to respond to those as well.

1. Who is expected to participate in the Walk?
Everyone is invited to attend. The event is organized by Concerned Duke Mothers, but attendance is in no way restricted to mothers. We urge all our friends, especially those who live in the area to make an effort to participate. A lot of planning went into the organization of this event and a good turn out is very desirable. If you can, please join the Walk!

2. Where and when?
The Walk of Support will consist of two routes – a regular route and a shorter, alternate one. You may choose either route based on your own preference. At the end of the walk, the two groups will come together and merge at Duke’s Koskinen Stadium.

The first route (‘regular’ route) is from Durham County Judicial Building to Duke’s Koskinen Stadium. The Walk on this route will start at 11am. The length is estimated as two miles.

The second route (‘alternate’ route, designed for those who may have difficulty walking the regular one) is from Duke’s Nasher Museum to the Koskinen Stadium. Nasher Museum is located at the corner of Anderson Street and Campus Drive. The Walk on this route will start at 11:15am. The length is estimated as half a mile.

3. Is there a map of the two routes?
Yes, here is link to such a map: Map of the Walk of support routes.

4. Where to park and how to get to the Walk?
If you are participating in the regular Walk, we recommend that you drive to Durham and park at Court House’s parking facility. At the end of the walk, there will be a shuttle bus to take you back to your car at that location. You may consider the parking recommendation for those walking the alternate route, see below, as well.

If you are participating in the alternate Walk, we recommend that you park at Duke’s Bryan Center parking facility. Then, you may catch the shuttle bus that will be running between Duke campus and Durham Judicial Building between 10 am and 2pm and get to your destination and back.

Do not park at the Koskinen Stadium parking lot. There is a Duke basketball game tomorrow at 2pm and that parking facility will not be available for our purposes. If you park there, you will run the risk of getting a parking ticket or being towed.

5. Are there transportation tips?
Yes, as mentioned above a shuttle bus will be running between Duke campus and Durham County Judicial Building between 10 and 2pm. There will be tents setup with a sign “Shuttle Here” on both ends of the bus route. This is how you will identify exactly where to catch the shuttle bus. Please approach those tents and ask about the next arrival or departure time of the bus.

6. Does Duke know about the Walk?
Yes, Duke University is aware of the walk. The University has kindly agreed to make Duke Policy available to direct traffic on campus for the duration of the walk. We expect the traffic situation to be very orderly.

7. Does City of Durham know about the Walk?
Yes, the necessary permission for such a gathering has been obtained by the organizers of the Walk.

8. Signs and banners?
We ask that you prepare and bring your own home made signs. Make sure your signs are respectful of the purpose of the Walk. The organizers of the walk emphasized how important it is that this Walk be carried out in the most orderly and dignified manner.

9. Dress code?
Dress comfortably. If you arrive early, you may be given Lacrosse t-shirts to wear. However, only 35-40 of those will be available, so do not count on getting one. It is especially important to wear comfortable walking shoes.

10. Weather?
The weather is looking good for tomorrow, as best we can tell.

11. Latest information and announcements?
In the event there are last minute announcements or updates on the Walk, you may consult the following thread on FODU’s discussion board. Concerned Mothers Walk – Updates and News.

12. What can those planning to participate in the Walk do to help?
The most important thing you can do is to come out and join the walk. If you can bring friends along that is a plus. Also, try to be as orderly, peaceful and respectful of your fellow participants (and others you may run into) as possible. Bring along thoughtful signs that express the objective of the Walk (i.e. our support of Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans).

13. What can those who are unable to attend the Walk do to help?
Most importantly, make sure you have contacted all your friends who may be able to attend and urge them to do so. It is very important that the Walk is well attended. Aside from this, you may be able to help in two other ways.

First, if you have not already done so, be sure to sign the following petition to show your support to Reade, Collin and Dave. Concerned Duke Alumni, Faculty and Friends .

Second, whether you have already done it or not, you may consider contributing a small amount to the legal defense fund in lie of the Walk that you could not attend. This too is a good way to show your support to Reade, Collin and Dave on this special day. The lowest amount you can contribute to the defense fund through the ATAF website is $50. If that’s too high, you may send a check for a smaller amount (details available on the website). What matters is that you participate in some small way in the spirit of the day and show your support to this cause.

Let us make the Walk of Support a successful event and a positive experience. Let us show our support to Reade, Collin and Dave. Good luck and thank you to all those who are participating in the Walk tomorrow.

Where we stand with the legal case
By Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

I thought I would finally post some thoughts where we are in the case. I have not had anything to say about Mike Nifong’s decision to request a special prosecutor, not because it was not a momentous event, but because I was not sure what to make of it. Now that the case has been continued for three months, I am not sure what to make of that development either.

Having the case out of Nifong’s hands is certainly very good news. For the first time in the case, there is the prospect of someone taking an honest look at the case file.

However, we are no where near the end of the road. Keep in mind that Nifong did not give up the case because he wanted to finally put an end to this farce. If he did want to put an end to it, he could have simply found some pretext to dismiss the case as he did with the rape charges. He can evidently get the alleged victim to say whatever he needs her to say at any given moment. No, Nifong wants this case to continue for the same personal and partial reasons that have always motivated him. And he has a lot of local politicians and activists egging him on behind the scenes. In a rare moment of self awareness, he simply realized that he was no longer capable of doing the job himself. He knew that he was going to be recused from the case by the judge had he stayed on. The same conflicts of interest created by his bar troubles would probably prevent him from turning the case over to anyone else in his office so long as he remains there. Nifong left the case on Roy Cooper’s doorstep in hopes that Cooper would adopt it as his own. Pinned to the blanket was the alleged victim’s pronouncement that she wanted to continue with the case.

The challenge ahead is to make sure that politics does not creep back into the picture. The alleged victim’s supporters have been trying to create support for the position that, despite the fact that the case has no merit, it must or should be taken to trial and given to a jury. And not just any jury. It has to be a Durham jury. There is no legal or moral principle that supports this position. Indeed, there is some very cynical reasoning behind it, the same cynical reasoning that Nifong employed. Nifong’s strategy from early on was to simply get in front of a Durham jury where he seemed to think he could get a conviction regardless of the evidence. From what attorneys in the area have told me, Nifong’s confidence, given his demagoguery, was not misplaced.

My biggest worry is that attorney generals’ offices are not removed from political pressure themselves, far from it. When I worked in the Attorney General’s Office in my own state, there was often a lot of pressure on us to pursue lost causes through the appellate courts as a face saving measure for the local state’s attorneys’ offices when they made fatal mistakes. It looks like something similar may have happened in the Gell case. Jim Coman, who is one of the new prosecutors, took over that case as a special prosecutor after the original prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence in a death penalty case. He decided to retry Gell despite the evidence of his innocence and later defended the conduct of the original prosecutors.

Roy Cooper and his attorneys have a real opportunity to restore confidence in North Carolina’s legal system. Furthermore, in doing so, they have a real opportunity to educate the public about the proper role of prosecutors in our legal system and how the legal system is supposed to resolve criminal matters. They can do these things by scrupulously executing their duties and exercising their discretion according to the requirements of law. Where Nifong allowed political considerations to influence his actions, they can embrace the rule of law. Where Nifong, abdicated his duties, they can embrace them. Where Nifong mislead the public as to the appropriate legal standards and his proper role, they can be honest. The public there and all over the world will be following their every move. Let us hope that they seize this opportunity and make the most of it.

I believe the best thing we can do now is let the new prosecutors have the space they need to do their job. Despite Nifong’s example, I still believe that public prosecutors are entitled to our confidence and should have it until there is reason to doubt them. However, we must make them aware that we are not going to go away and neither is the public scrutiny of the case until it is justly resolved.

If you are going to the rally on Sunday, be positive. Support Reade, Collin and David. Show the world we are still concerned about justice and intend to see it done. Support the other lacrosse team members and Mike Presler. Encourage the Duke administration to continue all the way down the new path it chose in early January. Direct your frustration and anger where it truly belongs: at Nifong. Keep speaking out against him. He is off the lacrosse case, but still in office.

However, reserve judgment on the new prosecutors and give them the chance to reach the right conclusion on their own. Have faith in the defense team to work with them and give them the proper input. Remember, the law and facts are on our side. The new prosecutors are not our enemies. Those people who would apply pressure to them to resolve the case in a partial manner in order to achieve some personal or political gain for themselves are. Those are the people we must be confronting and speaking out against in the weeks ahead whenever and wherever they appear.

Posted on February 2, 2007
Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson, will be interviewed on National Public Radio (NPR) at 4pm this afternoon. The interview will be available later on NPR’s website as well. We will get that link to you, as soon as it becomes available.

Here is the link for the NPR interview (click on Listen for the audio version): Duke President Takes Fire over Lacrosse Case

Posted on January 31, 2007
We issued an update on the logistics of the Concerned Duke Mothers Walk of Support scheduled for February 4. This is the first of a series of updates we expect to post. You may access those updates here.

Posted on January 30, 2007
Duke Basketball Report (DBR) website is holding an auction to help raise funds for the legal expenses of the lacrosse defendants. The proceeds of the auction will go to the Association for Truth and Fairness. KC Johnson has more on this: Duke Basketball Report Auction for ATAF.

Posted on January 25, 2007
Today, the LieStoppers blog has an outstanding article entitled "Only Race Matters: A Duke Woman Speaks About A Disturbing Aspect of the University’s Response to the Lacrosse Scandal." This article is an important contribution to the lacrosse debate; it raises a number of important issues. It is a must-read! Click here to read the article.

Posted on January 24, 2007

Walk of Support
by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

I want to call (more) attention to a very special event. It is the Walk of Support which is being organized by our friends Concerned Mothers for Duke Students. The event is on Sunday, February 4. Details can be found here: Walk of Support.

The purpose of the walk is to show support publicly for Reade, Collin and David, their families, the men’s and women’s lacrosse teams and Mike Pressler and his family. The march will start at the courthouse downtown and end at Koskinen Stadium. The event was originally intended to coincide with the next round of hearings, which are scheduled to start the next day. Now that the case has been taken over by the Attorney General’s Office, it is possible that those hearings may be postponed. However, the walk will proceed as scheduled.

The walk is not meant to attack Duke, but rather to show support for all those who have suffered and are still suffering because of Mike Nifong’s malicious prosecution, especially Reade, Collin and David.

The event is open to everyone. It is not just for concerned mothers. Concerned Mothers is hoping for a big turnout. Please plan on attending and bring a friend. The Attorney General’s Office taking over the case was indeed very good news, but Reade, Collin and David are not out of the woods yet and this is not the time for complacency. Certain groups are trying to pressure the Attorney General’s Office to take the case to trial regardless of its merits. For that reason, it would be great if local residents could join us as well. A show of support for due process by local voters would be invaluable.

Posted on January 22, 2007
1. Our friend Joan Collins added a new piece to her “Profile in courage” series. This time, she documents some memorable moments experienced by 5 Duke lacrosse mothers over the last 10 months. Joan describes it as an “article based on conversations with five courageous mothers willing to share how the hoax has affected them and their families.”

We thank the mothers for sharing their experiences and Joan Collins for capturing and very capably documenting them. Here is Joan’s latest: Profiles in Courage: The Other Duke Lacrosse Moms.

2. On behalf of Concerned Duke Mothers, we are pleased to announce a Walk of Support to be held in Durham on February 4th, at 11am. We urge all of our friends to attend the walk and show their support to Reade, Collin, and Dave. Details of the event are included here.

Posted on January 20, 2007
Today, there is a special post on KC Johnson’s blog Durham in Wonderland. In it, KC Johnson issues the following invitation to his readers:

In addition to commenting, I invite readers to ask their own questions of the (rump) Group of 88 in the comment section. I'll be amending this post throughout the day to include the best additional questions in the main text.We urge everyone to read KC Johnson’s article, Ten--and More--Questions for the (Rump) Group of 88, and contribute to the list which will be compiled. You may post your questions directly on Durham in Wonderland.

Posted on January 15, 2007
Last night, 60 Minutes covered the Duke lacrosse case for a second time. We hope you had the opportunity to watch it. Similar to the first show, the analysis and reviews of this second installment have all been positive.

Here are some links for more:

60 Minutes Eviscerates Nifong, Again

DBR on 60 Minutes

Parents of Duke Lacrosse Players Express Anger at Durham DA

Players' parents rip into Nifong

Nifong made call too late

Posted on January 12, 2007
Newsflash: Nifong asks to be taken off Duke case.

We are pleased to announce the release of a new website by the Association for Truth and Justice. This new site should greatly simplify the process for contributing to the "lacrosse legal defense fund." We encourage all our friends to visit the site and contribute to the fund. Also, be sure to let your friends know about the site. Here is the address: Association for Truth and Justice.

Posted on January 10, 2007

Treading water
by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

President Brodhead published a long letter to the Duke community on Monday that explained in greater detail his actions over the last few weeks in calling for Nifong to be replaced and in allowing Reade and Collin to return to campus. We are happy that he continues to speak out against Nifong’s conduct. We also join his sentiments about restoring the fabric mutual respect and working together to make Duke as great as it can be.

However, we are a little concerned about certain aspects of the letter. First, President Brodhead provides an account of the administrations handling of the case that is long on rationalization and justification, but short on facts. We have been inclined to avoid dwelling on the past, but we do want to be sure that the administration is learning and committed to learning from its mistakes. President Brodhead’s letter really does not show us that it is.

Second, and more troubling is President Brodhead’s defense of the Group of 88. In the past, we have called for him to speak out against the prejudiced and prejudicial assertions made in the “Listening” ad. Instead, President Brodhead used the occasion of his letter to assert that the Group of 88 are victims of unfair public attacks and vicious e-mails and points his finger at the blogs. This is a grossly unfair and inaccurate description of the situation and it serves only to try to obfuscate the fact that there are legitimate concerns with the position taken by the Group of 88.

Anyone who has taken a position one way or the other on the case has been the subject of vilification by extremists and has received hate mail. We have received our share. Why does President Brodhead feel the need to comment on incivility only as it applies to the Group of 88 and their particular viewpoint? As for the blogs, none of the ones that have been primarily following this case have been anything other than civil in condemning the rush to judgment and bigotry represented by the “Listening” ad. Indeed, a few days ago, we reached out to the Group of 88, asking supporters to politely write them and see if they would not join the administration in calling for due process for Reade Collin and David. Our thought was that finding something on which we could all agree would be a step toward the process of reconciliation that we want and that President Brodhead is now advocating as well. The response was underwhelming. Indeed, Houston Baker responded with the sort of e-mail that President Brodhead now condemns.

Worse is President Brodhead’s attempt to equate the Group of 88’s situation with that of Reade, Collin, David and the rest of the lacrosse players. Please! The Group of 88 cannot possibly be characterized as victims for being asked to defend a position they have voluntarily chosen to take publicly. Nor can nasty e-mails be equated to the unfathomable anguish, hardships and vilification endured by the lacrosse players, especially when the Group of 88 itself contributed to that vilification.

I believe that President Brodhead’s actions are speaking louder than his words at the moment and it is not time to panic. His condemnation of Nifong in the letter is receiving nationwide press coverage as we always knew it would. However, his words yesterday are a source of concern. They do not inspire a lot of confidence going forward because they do not demonstrate that the administration has learned much from the last ten months. One of the lessons it should have learned by now is that you cannot please everyone. Indeed, trying to please everyone usually results in pleasing no one. True leadership requires doing what is right regardless of the consequences.

KC Johnson parses Brodhead’s letter in greater detail:
Brodhead's Apologia January 8, 2007
Conflicting Pressures January 10, 2007

John in Carolina has his own take:
Brodhead reveals himself January 8, 2007

Petition

The 19 members of the Economics department who sent that remarkable letter to the Chronicle have shown us the way forward in terms of “making a fresh start,” promoting a “more constructive dialogue and a more charitable atmosphere” and all the other goals President Brodhead described in his letter. We liked it so much we have turned it into a petition. If you agree with the sentiments expressed in their letter go here and add your name: Petition.

This petition also serves another purpose. We want to generate a list of supporters in the event we need to mobilize support for future projects. This is something we have avoided doing up until this point because we have been hoping that the need for our existence is only temporary. We still hope that that is still the case, but this is a good time to show the administration that we intend to see the lacrosse matter and all the issues it has generated through to their proper resolution and are not going anywhere until we do.

The cause that should be uniting us right now

This is a good time to remind everyone, the administration included, that while we quibble amongst ourselves, Nifong is still maliciously prosecuting Reade, Collin and David and has demonstrated that he will continue on his present course until someone intervenes to stop him.

Bill Anderson has not forgotten. He informs me that with his latest article, The gloves are coming off. That’s the spirit! KC Johnson gets most of the attention as the foremost blogger on the case and rightly so. However, Bill has been writing extensively about the case from the very beginning and providing very thoughtful analysis of his own. In fact, back before FODU was created when I was a lone voice in the wilderness, he was the first person to contact me and talk about the case. His articles are necessary reading. A link to his archives is in Section B of our “Links to Media” page.

Posted on January 7, 2007
The letter below was sent to News and Observer by one of our friends. We print it with the author's permission.

Letter to the Editor submitted to the News&Observer on January 6, 2007:

I am writing in response to Cathy Davidson's viewpoint on what constitutes a "social disaster". Since the first news reports I have been following the Duke Lacrosse case with great interest and have been deeply disturbed by the response of both President Brodhead and the 88 faculty members who put their names to an ad in the Chronicle which in essence depicted Duke as a place of prejudice and intolerance.

When you send your son or daughter to a university you expect them to be protected by the administration and the faculty. This has not happened at Duke University. Ms. Davidson states that "the lacrosse players were being elevated to the status of martyrs ". I think not. It is these young men who have had their names and faces splashed across the media, had their lives put on hold, lost careers that they had earned, not to mention the emotional and financial strain they and their families have been put through. Why doesn't this educator believe in the American justice system in which you are innocent until proven guilty. The social disaster is the one in which a university and a community allows three young men to be branded as rapists and have their lives torn apart before the facts are heard. The social disaster is that Cathy Davidson and other Duke faculty members who signed that ad still do not understand the harm they have done to the University itself and to society at large.

The administration and many of the faculty owe an apology to these young men and their families. As an American of conscience this lacrosse story makes me cringe but not for the same reasons as cited by Ms. Davidson. This story has nothing to do with poverty or women's rights as Ms. Davidson would like us to believe. It has to do with a district attorney who wanted to win an election and was willing to use the race card to do it. It has to do with a university president who was willing to believe the worst of his students even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It has to do with a community who bought into the lies and elected him.

One of the happiest days of my life was the day that my son received his acceptance to Duke. He could have attended a number of other universities in the Northeast but his heart was set on going south and becoming one of the Cameron crazies. He spent four wonderful years at Duke and I believe his experiences there helped shape him into the fine young man that he is today. But sadly I do not believe that I would send him to Duke today. I believe that is why admissions are down at Duke. Mothers of young men look at Colin, Reade and David and think that it just as easily could be their sons.

Diane Goldstein Block
Chapel Hill

Posted on January 5, 2007

Latest developments
by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

A lot has happened in the last two days, most of it extremely good news.

By now, you have probably heard the good news that Reade and Collin have been reinstated. This is very positive move by the University on two levels. It sends an unequivocal message to the world that the University supports Reade, Collin and, by implication, David and does not find the charges against them credible. Also, because Reade and Collin’s reinstatement means a great deal not only to them and their families, but to all of the other lacrosse families, reinstating Reade and Collin shows the administration is reaching out to them and, hopefully, starting to mend fences.

Another extremely positive development was a letter sent to the Chronicle yesterday and signed by seventeen faculty members in the Economics Department at Duke. It has not been published yet, but Professor Roy Weintraub was kind enough to send us a copy. The “Listening” ad created a great deal of concern about the attitudes of Duke faculty members toward their students. While we have had every reason to suspect that the Group of 88 were very much the tail wagging the dog and that the majority of Duke professors were neither prejudiced toward their students nor inclined to invite prejudice against them, the fact remained that, as of yesterday, few Duke faculty members had spoken up in support of due process for Reade, Collin and David. The letter sent by the Economics faculty members specifically cites correcting the impression created by the “Listening” ad about Duke faculty members as one of its purposes. It both joins President Brodhead’s call for due process and makes it clear that all students, including lacrosse players are welcome in their classes. Hopefully, seeing others speaking out will encourage more faculty members, including Group of 88 members, to do so.

Unfortunately, yesterday also brought the news that Kyle Dowd, a former lacrosse player now graduated, and his family are suing the University and a professor whom they allege started giving Kyle failing grades in her course after the lacrosse story broke and that she ultimately tried to fail him for the entire course and prevent him from graduating. KC Johnson has the details: The Dowd Suit. This is not the only allegation of harassment by professors of lacrosse players in their classes, but it is the most extreme. It is also a situation the University has been aware for some time and it is unfortunate that things proceeded to the point where players are now forced to seek redress in the courts. We firmly support Kyle in his efforts.

The University administration has unquestionably been moving in the right direction these past few days. This latter news simply serves to remind us that there is still some lingering fallout from the crisis that has yet to be addressed. Another issue is making sure that Duke students are treated fairly and lawfully by Durham Police. Duke has shown that it is now willing to confront the difficult issues generated by the case and do so in a spirit of goodwill. Let us hope that it will approach these remaining issues in the same manner and move to resolve them fairly and amicably and with an eye toward the future. FODU remains firmly committed to ensuring that the University does address them. A great university cannot tolerate unfair and improper treatment of any of its students for any reason by anyone on or off campus.

In any event, the Economics Department faculty members have demonstrated to us that treatment of students such as that alleged in the Dowds’ complaint is very much the exception and not consistent with the values of Duke faculty members. Here is their letter:

Posted on January 3, 2007

Breaking news: Duke To Reinstate Seligmann, Finnerty.

Correspondence with Group of 88
by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

A few days ago, I invited supporters to contact members of the Group of 88 and politely ask them to join the University in calling for due process for Reade, Collin and David and perhaps even reevaluate their own rush to judgment. The early returns are not encouraging.

The mother of an unindicted lacrosse player sent an earnest and polite request for support to Houston Baker, one of the most vocal members of the group who has since moved to Vanderbilt. Baker responded by making a complete ass of himself. KC Johnson has the details. Baker: In his own words.

Alex Rosenberg sent us a copy of a reply he gave to Jeff Chang, a lacrosse coach in California who saw our appeal and wrote to members of the Group of 88. Prof. Rosenberg asked us to post it as his general reply to all such correspondence. We are happy to do so along with Coach Chang’s original message.

Professor Rosenberg accuses us of misreading the “We are listening” ad to which he and the other Group of 88 members subscribed. He disavows any intention of prejudging the criminal case and continues to insist, as he has elsewhere, that he was speaking out against loutishness, unlawful behavior, hiring strippers and underage drinking. Unfortunately, the ad does not make reference to any such concerns. It does, however, refer to “what happened to this young woman” and thanks the protesters “for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.” While Prof. Rosenberg rightly condemns the racist remarks made by a couple of players, his understanding of the genesis of those remarks is wrong. If we are mistaken about the meaning of the ad, other, more disinterested, commentators seem to be as well. Will Duke take a look at itself?

To his credit, Prof. Rosenberg did vouch for the character of Reade, his erstwhile student, on a bulletin board a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, he has nothing to say about the wholesale violation of his rights and those of Collin and David.

I received some criticism for asking our supporters to reach out to the Group of 88. Some have expressed a sentiment that members of the group deserve continued censure and it is hard to simply forgive and forget. We are committed not to forgetting the past, but learning from it and making Duke a better place going forward. The best way to do that is by encouraging the Group of 88 to live up to our best expectations for them rather than our worst and by looking for common ground with them. Also, there is yet a chance for them to make amends by speaking out at this critical time. Let us never forget that the one who has done the most damage to Duke and who has created the divisions within our community is Mike Nifong.

The Group of 88 is not a monolithic body. The various members signed the “Listening” ad with different understandings and different motives. Houston Baker represents one extreme. Prof. Thomas Crowley has shown us that there are faculty members who are open minded and willing to reevaluate their public positions and also consider the impact of their statements. In return, the overwhelmingly positive response he received for his retraction should show the Group of 88 that they need not be afraid of our motives.

KC Johnson has some thoughts of his own on what is at stake. The Absence of Self-Reflection.

Here is Prof. Rosenberg’s correspondence:

From: alex r
To: friendsofdukeuniversity@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 10:29:14 AM
Subject: a letter I would not mind your posting

I am one of the 88 faculty members who signed the statement which so many of your readers have (willfully mis-)read. I attach below a reply I wrote to one of them. (As the original email is a private communication, I would have to secure the permission of its sender, Jeffrey Chang, to reproduce it as well). Instead of sending my reply to the others who have emailed me, I thought it would be more convenient to send it to you. It would certainly be responsible of any "Friend of Duke University" to share it more widely.

Alex Rosenberg
The R. Taylor Cole Professor of Philosophy

Department of Philosophy
Duke University
Box 90743
Durham, NC, 27708

Tel: 919 660 3047
Fax: 919 660 3060

www.duke.edu/~alexrose

Coach Chang,

I guess you just don't get it yet, but if you go back and reread the statement signed by the faculty members you are so eager to tar with David Horowitz's self promoting ($) McCarthyite brush, you would notice that the statement does not presume the students at the Lacrosse player's party guilty of rape, sexual assault, or kidnapping.

I signed the statement in large measure to express my astonishment and anger that these wealthy, white, well educated future investment bankers (some of whom were my students) engaged in behavior contributing to a climate of loutishness, racism, and a general entitlement to flout the law, that they felt the need to purchase sexual titillation to go along with under-age illegal alcoholic consumption, and to emit racist abuse to express their disappointment in the performances for which they did not get their money's worth.

Maybe you think that its just young people having fun, but I expect more of students with the intellectual and material advantages of Duke students. I am quite sure that you have the same problems on your campus, wherever it might be. I hope that if the problems spill over into your community in the same way, you will have the moral fiber to protest, as my colleagues have done.

Meanwhile, surely we have better things to do, such as educating our students, instead of grandstanding on line.

Alex Rosenberg

Coach Jeff Chang wrote:

Dear signatories of the Group of 88 listening statement,

It should be obvious by now that the Duke Lacrosse Rape case, should now be know as the Nifong Non-Sexual Assault Hoax. The actions of the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, Durham District Attorney, Mike Nifong, and the Durham Police department should make all of you think that this case is a replay of the Tawana Brawley Hoax.

A quick review of the case:
1.) No DNA from any member of the team found ON or IN the accuser.
2.) Five unknown DNA samples were found ON or IN her and her panties.
3.) Reade has phone records, eyewitness testimony, ATM receipt, and restaurant receipt accounting for all his time during the time frame of the "attack".
4.) Mike Nifong has at least one publicly release ethics violation charges leveled against him by the NC Bar for actions taken during the first few weeks of the hoax.
5.) The North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys issued a public letter demanding that Nifong recuse himself from the case.

A few questions for all of you:

1.) What happened to the concept in American Jurisprudence, "Innocent until Proven Guilty".
2.) Would your group release a similar statement in the athletes were black basketball players and the woman was a white?
3.) Have any of you read the blog by KC Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center?
4.) Have you read any of the other blogs reporting and analyzing this hoax? John in Carolina, Liestoppers, and the Johnsville News?
5.) Have any of you considered the damage to the School's reputation by the actions of yourselves and President Broadhead? Michael Skube, a former Pulitzer Prize winner and professor at Elon University , states in an L.A. Times op-ed that Duke’s “recovery from a rush to judgment” may be long and painful.
6.) What actions will you, as a group or individuals, take to repair the damage to the School's reputation? For example, a 20% drop in early admission applications.
7.) Are you worried about the reaction of alumni and donors? If they stop donating?
8.) Can Duke's survive another scandal of poorly behaving/reactionary activist faculty which does not produce scholarly work? Remember Stanley Fish? Wahneema Lubiano's soon to be published (in 1997, 1999, or 2003, which was 45 months ago) "Like Being Mugged by a Metaphor" and Messing with the Machine?
9.) Will the group release a new "listening" statement apologizing to David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty?

I may be just an engineer, who went to a lowly state school in California. I am not an Ivy Leaguer, nor a Duke Alumni (self proclaimed as Ivy League of the South), but I was taught critical thinking, something that seems to be lacking from all of you. Many conservatives, like David Horowitz, have been complaining about the overwhelming liberal bias in academia for years and it is usually dismissed out of hand. But the actions of yourselves and the likes of Ward Churchill seem to be proving Horowitz right.

As Spike Lee once said, "Do the Right Thing," and condemn DA Nifong and the accuser. Get your and academias credibility back!

Thanks You,

Jeff Chang

A lacrosse fan from California.

Posted on December 31, 2006
Now that the University has come around, let us see if we can round up some lost sheep. Here is an e-mail address list for the Group of 88. We encourage supporters to write them and politely ask them if they will join the University in calling for due process for Reade, Collin and David and perhaps even reevaluate their own rush to judgment.

It is too early to celebrate as Nifong is not yet defeated. However, it is not too early to start thinking about putting Duke back together and making sure it is put back together right. Finding common ground with the Group of 88 now would greatly help in both regards.

Posted on December 28, 2006
Mike Nifong’s hometown paper asks for his resignation. The Wilmington Star became the first newspaper today to ask for DA Nifong’s resignation. Here is more from KC Johnson:

Wilmington Star Demands Resignation

The Hammer Drops

The Complaint

Posted on December 23, 2006

Good news, Bad news
by Jason Trumpbour

First, the good news: President Brodhead issued a statement that, for the first time, directly and unequivocally criticized Mike Nifong.

This is a very significant and welcome development. Here is a press release giving our response: Our response to President Brodhead’s statement.

Some are expressing the notion that President Brodhead’s statement is too little, too late. I do not agree.

It is not too little. President Brodhead’s statement unequivocally says all of the things we have been asking him to say from the beginning. I hope he will join in the call for the Department of Justice to investigate as well. The statement is a beginning and not an end and President Brodhead’s words must of course be matched with deeds. However, his speaking out is itself significant and will attract attention. President Brodhead’s voice is an important one. Indeed, the premise of our organization has been that his voice is more important than ours.

It is certainly not too late. The case is at a critical juncture. Nifong is a wounded animal, but his desperation makes him dangerous. He is determined to go down fighting and yesterday’s events show that there is still no depth to which he will not sink in order to ruin the lives of three innocent young men. It has taken the efforts of so many people working together in so many different ways to bring us to this juncture. The bloggers, the Recall Nifong effort, the letter writers—each shined a light on Nifong’s misdeeds and allowed the public to see what was really going on. Now more than ever, we need all the help we can get and, with President Brodhead on board, our front is finally united. Let us hope he matches our vigor.

Now the bad news: Mike Nifong’s decision to drop the rape charges against Reade, Colin and David is not what it seems. The media reported this decision as good news for the defense. It is not. Unfortunately, Reade, Colin and David are still in as much trouble as they were before, perhaps more.

Here is why: North Carolina’s code seems to follow a variation of the modern system of categorizing sex crimes. It creates a unitary crime called “sexual offense” that includes just about every possible form of nonconsensual penetrative sexual contact and which is meant to replace an uneven patchwork of separate common law crimes. As with many states, North Carolina, nevertheless, maintains, as a separate crime, rape for nonconsensual penetration of the vagina with the penis even though this crime too could be folded into sexual offense as some other states do. The reason for maintaining rape as a separate crime is purely aesthetic: citizens find it grating when what used to be called rape is now called “sexual offense” and worry about whether it treated with the same seriousness. Under North Carolina’s scheme, the penalties for sexual offense and rape are exactly the same.

Yesterday, Nifong announced that the alleged victim, in the latest of what are now too many different versions of her story to keep track of, is now claiming that, although she was penetrated by objects, she can no longer be certain that those objects were penises. (As the defense team pointed out at its press conference yesterday, that was the one thing about which she had previously been certain in all of her early statements.) Hence, Reade, Colin and David are still charged with first degree sexual offense and kidnapping and thus exposed to the exact same penalties as they were before.

Nifong clearly did not drop the rape charges because he is seeking justice. Quite the opposite. Dropping the rape charges makes his case simpler. Now Nifong does not have to explain to the jury why there is no dna on the victim from a brutal three orifice assault. It is because his new theory is that the defendants, presumably wearing cleansuits, probed her with objects. I guess we can call this new theory the “alien abduction theory.” It is just as plausible too.

Posted on December 22, 2006

To the Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann families:

Today, we share your joy and look forward for the dismissal of the remaining two charges soon.

We are absolutely confident those charges are also false and cannot wait to see them dismissed at the soonest.

You have handled these hard times graciously and won our hearts and admiration.

We wish you a very happy holiday season.

Good news! Rape charges against three Duke lacrosse players were dropped! This is certainly a step in the right direction. What a positive development during this special time of the year! Stay tuned for more news...

Rape Charges Dropped in Duke Lacrosse Case December 22, WRAL

Posted on December 19, 2006

Another Press Release
by Jason Trumpbour

Our press release yesterday provoked a response from President Brodhead. Unfortunately, it was not the response we wanted: Statement by Duke President Brodhead.

In reply to President Brodhead, we have issued another press release today. Sadly, as we make clear, President Brodhead’s statement is a lose/lose situation for everyone. It does nothing for Reade, Colin and David and, indeed, actually hurts their case by understating the gravity of Nifong’s misconduct. It does not help President Brodhead because it shows him to be a timid and ineffectual leader. It would have been better for everyone if President Brodhead had simply said nothing.

Click here to read today’s press release.

Posted on December 18, 2006

Our Press Release
by Jason Trumpbour

Today, we have issued a press release in which we enthusiastically endorse Congressman Walter Jones’s call for an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into Mike Nifong’s misconduct and ask the University to join this call.

The administration’s silence was bad enough in the early days of the crisis when public opinion was unfavorable to Duke. The administration’s acquiescence in the many false characterizations of Duke and its students and its refusal to acknowledge the massive and systematic violation of the civil rights of Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans as it unfolded was simply cowardly.

However, the landscape has changed greatly since then. One prominent elected official has now spoken out. In response, the Attorney General indicated that he will give the matter due attention. The media turned out in full force on Friday to report on Nifong’s latest and possibly greatest atrocity. The tide of public opinion has turned as the rest of the nation learns more. Check out this Saturday Night Live skit: SNL Skit.

What has Duke’s response to the events of last week been? According to the Associate Press: “. . . Friday, officials at Duke addressed the case for the first time in weeks, telling The Associated Press the university continues ‘to believe that the students should be considered innocent until proven otherwise.’” Hey, no kidding! Now, what about Nifong’s misconduct?

Now that it is safe for the administration to speak out, what possible explanation is there for its continued refusal to do so?

Click here to read our press release .

Posted on December 14, 2006

Now we are seeing some action!
by Jason Trumpbour

The past 24 hours have brought significant developments.

Yesterday, Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina’s Third Congressional District released a copy of a letter he wrote to United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking for an investigation into civil rights violations by Mike Nifong against Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans. His letter is here: Letter to A.G. Gonzales.

Today, the defense teams filed a motion to compel discovery which reveals even more evidence of the prosecutorial misconduct that moved Representative Jones to write his letter: Motion to Compel Discovery. Story: click here. Contained in that motion is evidence that Nifong tried to cheat on discovery. The private lab hired by Nifong never reported that it had found dna from numerous males in the rape kit samples taken from the vaginal area, anus and undergarments of the alleged victim. Nifong never turned this information over to the defense, opposed an earlier motion to compel discovery of the records containing this information and has yet to fully comply with that earlier motion. The information is particularly relevant as evidence because it contradicts statements made by the alleged victim and also provides an explanation for the “edema” inside her vagina. Of course it would also fundamentally undermine any argument that Nifong was planning to make that the accused could have committed a gang rape, ejaculated and not left any dna on the alleged victim. The motion also suggests that the private lab was complicit with Nifong in attempting to cheat on discovery. The lab’s owner is listed among the prosecution witnesses. If it is true that the lab owner aided Nifong in attempting to obstruct justice, Nifong would now have to decide if he still wants to call a key expert witness who might have to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights on the stand in response to cross examination. How much more screwed up can a prosecution case get?!

These developments are on top of major articles within the last ten days by KC Johnson, Liestoppers and the News and Observer on the subject of Nifong’s ethical and criminal violations, all occasioned by the news that the state bar has apparently taken up the numerous complaints against Nifong.

For me, the most frustrating thing about this case has been the lack of focus on Nifong’s misconduct. Yes, the subject has come up from time to time. However, the merits of Nifong’s conduct are almost inevitably collapsed back into the larger discussion of the merits of Nifong’s case against the accused. Nifong’s supporters do this deliberately. It allows them to deploy their dilatory tactic of arguing that we must wait for the trial before we can draw any conclusions. Yet, even if they were true that no conclusions can be drawn about the merits of the legal case, Nifong’s misconduct has been apparent for all to see. Indeed, much of it was televised. Live. There are objective standards for evaluating Nifong’s conduct. All one has to do is look at the relevant portions of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and compare the standards set forth there to what Nifong has done.

The ethical issue is the one that first motivated me to get involved with the case. From the very beginning, when I watched Nifong call the players “hooligans” and state that he was certain a rape occurred, I knew that the lacrosse players, whether guilty or innocent (it was not clear at the time), were not getting due process of law and I started speaking out. That is how my FODU colleagues and I found each other.

Now, finally, eight months later, people are starting to face the fact that these ethical violations are serious and that there is the real prospect that Nifong could actually loose his law license or worse for them. The past few days have been good ones for me as they should be for all of those who care about justice.

Similarly, Jones’s letter must be gratifying for all of the friends who, from earliest days, have been writing letters of their own to the U.S. Department of Justice and elected officials around the state. Many thought that we were wasting our time and others simply stopped by the site to mock us. Now, finally, one elected official has chosen to take action and we can be sure that, whatever the Department of Justice does, it will not take his request lightly.

All this took eight months to happen. However, better late than never!

Posted on December 11, 2006
Below are two related articles concerning one of the leaders of the 'Duke Group of 88' professors: Wahneema Lubiano.

1. KC Johnson, Wahneema's World
2. John in Carolina, Faculty "Honor," Puffery & Silence

Posted on December 6, 2006
1. Yesterday, Duke Pratt School of Engineering professor Michael Gustafson wrote a compelling essay on his website regarding Robert Steel's dual roles as chairman of the Duke Board of Trustees and undersecretary of the Treasury. Professor Gustafson's essay Pictures, and Thousands of Words is a must read.

John in Carolina comments further on Professor Gustafson: Duke prof on Steel.

2. A disturbing article appeared in the 'Media Meditations' section of the Chatham County Line last month shortly after the airing of the 60 Minutes show on the lacrosse case. The article, entitled "60 Minutes misses real Duke lacrosse story," was written by R.L. Taylor. Yesterday, Chatham County Line published a letter written to their editor in response to that article. We think both the original article and the subsequent response to it make interesting reading.

3. Below printed is an email we received from a friend, several months ago. The message in this email remains as true today as when it was first written.

During this traditional month of giving and charity, I like to remind everyone who has not yet contributed to the “Lacrosse defense fund” to consider doing it. Even if you have contributed in the past, you may consider doing it again. More information on how to contribute can be found in Defense Fund.

Posted on December 3, 2006
I like to join John in Carolina in thanking Duke Professor Thomas Crowley for retracting his recent statements on the lacrosse case. Those statements were published in Herald Sun on November 14. After the publication of his comments, Professor Crowley received a lot of feedback from well informed individuals who have been following the lacrosse case closely. He soon realized that his statements were not based on facts and contained serious errors. Professor Crowley then did the honorable thing and retracted. Thank you professor Crowley, for doing the right thing! It is never easy to retract, but you showed us how to do it with class and with courage. John in Carolina has more on this Note to Prof Crowley.

Posted on November 30, 2006

More on The Herald-Sun

In response to the previous post, an alert reader pointed out that the Herald-Sun has a new publisher, Geoff Moser, who has only been on the job for about six or seven weeks. In light of the papers plummeting circulation and the problems identified in the previous update, it might be a good idea for people to contact him and politely express their displeasure at the Herald-Sun’s slanted coverage of the lacrosse case and its pro-Nifong editorial policy. His e-mail address is gmoser@heraldsun.com.

Posted on November 19, 2006

The Herald-Sun's Distorted Worldview
By Jason Trumpbour

Today, KC Johnson has a new piece up about the Herald-Sun: Sunday Items. After noting that the Herald-Sun’s circulation dropped 10 percent since its pro-Nifong campaign began, Johnson critiques a recent editorial by Editor Bob Ashley, in which Ashley seemingly disavows the pursuit of justice as a goal in resolving the lacrosse case. Instead, he argues that a trial should be held to “reassure” the public. Unspecified in Ashley’s column is precisely how the spectacle of a corrupt prosecutor soiling the hands of the courts with a malicious and false prosecution will reassure the public. Perhaps going through the pretense of a trial is meant to reassure the public about Nifong rather than the criminal justice system.

On Friday, we received a message from Debrah Correll, a Chapel Hill resident who has a long history of writing op-ed pieces for the Herald-Sun. Her exchange with an editor at the Herald-Sun provides some insight into the true motives of the Herald-Sun in taking the position that it has. She has graciously allowed us to reproduce her message below despite her fears that doing so might adversely impact her ability to write for them in the future. She asked us to introduce her message with the following preference.

Here is Debrah Correll’s message:

Posted on November 14, 2006
Today, our friend, Joan Collins, tells us about her recent meeting with Collin Finnerty and Collin’s mother, Mary Ellen Finnerty, in her "Profile in Courage - My Meeting With The Finnertys." Joan was up close and personal with both of them and generously shares her experience with us. Joan’s letter is both poignant and informative.

Joan Collins, thank you for sharing your meeting with Finnertys. We are grateful that you chose FODU to post this letter. Many of us have been following this case closely and care a great deal about Collin and his family. You opened a small window into their lives and gave us a glimpse of them, which few have been able to do. You have shown us the human costs of this injustice. We will read your letter with great interest and appreciation. Here is the link to Joan’s wonderful letter: My Meeting with the Finnertys.

Posted on November 10, 2006

Comments on Elections
By Jason Trumpbour

We are all disappointed at the results of the election. It did not work out the way we hoped, but it was a truly noble effort and we should not forget the substantial contributions of time, effort and resources that so many people contributed. We should recognize and applaud their efforts.

Foremost, is Beth Brewer who stepped forward to organize Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek and, within a short period of time was able to offer serious opposition to Nifong. There were a number of structural difficulties to overcome: straight ticket voting, machine politics and a candidate who stated that he would not serve. In the end enough people voted against Nifong, and the Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek campaign would have succeeded had a spoiler candidate not split the vote.

The organizers of DSED deserve special recognition as well. By educating and organizing students, they showed the world that Duke does support the three accused students despite the position the administration has taken.

Many have expressed frustration at the people of Durham generally. That is grossly unfair. First, the majority of them voted against Nifong. That many citizens of Durham still supported Nifong is foremost the product of Nifong’s demagoguery. Let us not forget who our true enemy is here. Secondarily, it is the product of the failure of most of Durham’s civic leaders to speak out against Nifong’s misconduct. Worse, the Herald-Sun actively condoned that misconduct and ran interference for Nifong. It has always been gratifying to me is that a number of our supporters are Durham residents who have no direct affiliation with Duke, but who recognize corruption and injustice when they see it and want better for their community. Many of these same people also worked to defeat Nifong during the election.

Much good has definitely come out of the efforts of those who worked on the campaign. They have focused attention on the issues and they left Nifong in a weaker position than he otherwise would have been had his election been a mere formality. Now the burden shifts back to people such as us. FODU remains committed to seeking justice for the accused and encouraging the University to speak out. We can approach those tasks knowing that groups such as Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek and DSED have left us a more substantial base to build upon at Duke, in Durham and in the rest of the country. Thanks!

Posted on November 9, 2006
It is with sadness that we report the death of CBS journalist Ed Bradley today of leukemia. We want to express our condolences to his family and friends along with our deepest respect and gratitude for an impressive body of work he produced during his lifetime. One of the most recent projects Mr. Bradley worked on was the Duke lacrosse case. His expose was widely praised as an excellent piece of journalism that informed millions of viewers about the facts of the lacrosse case. Here is more on Ed Bradley's death. 60 Minutes' Ed Bradley Dead At 65.

Posted on November 6, 2006
Duke Chronicle and Duke Basketball Report both endorse Lewis Cheek for district attorney and urge Durham residents including registered Duke students to vote in tomorrow's elections. Here are the links:

1. If You Live In Durham, Please Vote
2. Cheek for district attorney

Posted on November 2, 2006
Jason Trumpbour responds to an earlier Duke Chronicle article which urged Duke students not to vote on November 7. Jason Trumpbour's advise: Vote!

Posted on October 30, 2006
Yesterday, Herald Sun featured two articles written by two Duke professors. The first of the articles was penned by literature associate professor Grant Farred. Professor Farred appears not to be well informed on the facts of the Duke lacrosse case, and accuses the entire lacrosse team with racism without presenting any evidence to support his argument. We added his article to our Responses to media section and ask that you write to Mr. Farred telling him what your thoughts are on his article.

The second article is by law professor Robinson O. Everett. In his latest comments on the case, Professor Everett repeats his earlier suggestion to DA Mike Nifong to administer a lie detector test to the accuser and if she fails, or refuses to take such a test, to dismiss the case. At the end of his article, Professor Everett indicates he will be surprised if all or any of the accused is convicted at the end of a trial. Below are the links for both articles.

1. Secret racism underlying lacrosse case by Grant Farred
2. What happens next in the lacrosse case? by Robinson O. Everett

Posted on October 24, 2006
You may recall that some Duke alumni recently expressed dissatisfaction with the way Duke administration has been handling the lacrosse case. Several letters and commentary were written on that topic. Now, for the first time, a Duke arts and sciences faculty also joins in and criticizes the administration's handling of the lacrosse affair. Could this be an indication that the chorus is growing? Here is the link for Duke Professor Steven Baldwin's article in today's Chronicle: The administration’s mismanagement of lacrosse.

Posted on October 23, 2006
Today, our friend Joan Collins added a new profile in the Letters from Friends section of our website. This time Joan is profiling a remarkable Durhamite; an exemplary woman full of courage and initiative! A woman who is hard at work, against all odds, to make Durham a better place. The name of this woman is Beth Brewer, the organizer and spokesperson for RN-VC. Beth represents the best of Durham. Here is more about Beth Brewer.

Posted on October 20, 2006
KC Johnson published an interesting commentary this afternoon on his "Durham in Wonderland" blog in response to an article in today's Duke Chronicle: Horrifying.

Posted on October 19, 2006
LieStoppers published a very good article today reflecting the feelings and reactions of a Duke alumnus to the way Duke University handled the lacrosse case. Additionally, the article includes a more detailed account of the recent difficulties encountered by a Duke student group (DSED) in registering students, on campus, to vote in the upcoming November elections. The title of the article is: “Highly Unacceptable Behavior.”

Posted on October 18, 2006
Today, I want to highlight two commentaries on Duke Law Professor James Coleman. First is a tribute to him. Our friend Joan Collins continues with her "Profiles in Courage" series and this time her hero is none other than the professor. In addition, John in Carolina has some interesting analysis on a recent N&O article relating to Professor Coleman. Here are the links:

1. Profile in Courage - Professor James Coleman
2. The N&O's false report on Coleman
3. On Coleman: Chronicle 2 - N&O

Posted on October 16, 2006

Welcome

We welcome those of you who followed the link on the CBS News site to our own. We are very happy that a news program of the stature of 60 Minutes chose to look at the Duke lacrosse case and bring the facts of the case to a wider audience that may not have heard much about the case since it first broke. 60 Minutes also gave us some interesting insights as well.

A little about us: The Friends of Duke University is a group of alumni and parents who are concerned about the welfare of the three falsely accused Duke students. Our original purpose was to encourage the administration of Duke University to speak out against the highly irregular and corrupted legal process to which these three young men have been subject. Because the University has so far declined to do so, this task has fallen to us along with several other groups. We are obviously not an official organ of Duke University.

If you want to know more about the case, we have provided a list of nine articles in our “Defense Fund” section that should bring you up to date and give you a feel for the situation.

If you want to know everything there is to know about the case, we have an extensive collection of links to leading articles on the case in our “Links to Media” section. Also, in that section under “Blogs and Discussion Groups,” are several blogs and bulletin boards on the lacrosse case. KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland blog and Liestoppers, in particular, provide excellent analysis and commentary. Blogger John in Carolina does as well and has mainly done a great job of critiquing the local press and demonstrating how hoaxes like this one get started.

Today, Durham in Wonderland, Liestoppers and the Johnsville News all have significant articles providing an overview of the case.

Case Notes, Durham in Wonderland
Occam’s Razor II, LieStoppers
Duke Hoax FAQ – Part I, The Johnsville News

Jason Trumpbour
Spokesperson, Friends of Duke University

Posted on October 13, 2006
The Duke Chronicle published a letter today, written by a Duke alumnus, on the issue of Duke administrators' interference with efforts to register Duke students to vote. Allegedly, the DSED team members were prevented by Duke officials and Duke police from registering students during the homecoming football game. These allegations, if proven true, are extremely serious. Here is the link to the Chronicle letter: Administrators should not discourage protest.

Posted on October 12, 2006
Tomorrow is the last day of registration in Durham for voting in the November elections. If you have not already done so, please register to vote! There is still one whole day; do not let this opportunity pass by. This is the last call: PLEASE REGISTER TO VOTE.

More on DAA Lacrosse Responses
(by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson)

Today our friend John in Carolina has posted another important article on the questions and answers that were recently posted on the Duke Alumni Association website. What happened at Duke's Alumni site? . He asks the President of the DAA about the provenance of these questions and answers.

In my last update, I noted how these questions seemed to be designed more to defend the administration’s actions than to answer any actual questions alumni or others might have. KC Johnson was the first to call attention to them and there are links to two of his articles there.

It is good to see that an alumnus has his own questions. Let us hope he gets some answers.

It is, perhaps, not a coincidence that this material turns up at roughly the same time as another even more disturbing incident. Before the homecoming football game, members of DSED were physically prevented by security guards from registering voters in the parking lots around the stadium. We will have more to say on this within the next few days.

For now, let us note that it is bad enough that the administration will do nothing to challenge Nifong’s misconduct. Now, by hook or by crook, the administration is actively trying to make students and alumni complicit in its silence.

Posted on October 8, 2006

We’ll ask the questions around here!
(by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson)
October 8, 2006

The Duke Alumni Association website recently posted “answers to frequently asked questions about the lacrosse incident.”

Preliminarily, the page lists a “few key points.” Among them are the following:

The issues raised by the lacrosse event are not unique to Duke. They are societal and widespread on college campuses, and Duke is addressing them honestly.

Duke is a diverse institution. More than a third of current undergraduates, and over 40 percent of this year’s entering class, are students of color. . . . About 40 percent receive need-based financial aid, with their average annual grant exceeding $24,000.

Duke students and faculty, and Duke as an institution, are engaged in countless positive ways with the Durham community. Negative media portrayals of Duke-Durham relations are untrue.

Sound familiar? They should because these are some of the points we asked President Brodhead to stand up and make in response to the unfair and sensationalist characterizations made by the press about Duke at the beginning of the lacrosse case. I am glad that Duke considers them key points. However, to date, I have not seen the Duke administration make any of these points itself. As an alumnus, my first question would have to be, “Why is Duke afraid to speak for itself?” The administration seems to prefer to have alumni start a whispering campaign instead.

The actual questions and answers that follow are something else entirely. Rather than answering actual questions that alumni might have, the questions and answers seem designed to defend the administration’s response to the crisis. Consider this gem:

Sound familiar? Yes, this is essentially the same response FODU received from President Brodhead in response to our open letter. Of course neither we nor anyone else has called upon President Brodhead to declare the accused students innocent. Instead, we have been asking him to speak out against the numerous procedural irregularities and pervasive unethical conduct by the district attorney. In any event, President Brodhead had no hesitation about asking for the charges to be dropped in the case of another Duke student maliciously prosecuted, Yektan Turkyilmaz.

There are others in this vein. However, my favorite is the last set:

One would think that the most effective way to respond to inaccuracies involving the lacrosse incident would be to directly confront them and correct them. However, that is not President Brodhead’s way. No you should turn around and say “something true . . . that is a source of pride.” After all we do not want to offend anyone by contradicting him or her. I guess you get bonus points if your answer involves a quote from Shakespeare. I like this particular question and answer because it neatly encapsulates the timidity and circumlocutiousness of Duke’s response.

KC Johnson has the full details in two articles here:
Justify or Retract
In Denial

In his most recent article KC goes even further and shows how these questions and answers are part of a larger effort by Duke to rewrite history: Laughter and Forgetting in Durham

John in Carolina is incredulous. He seems to think that hackers broke into the Duke Alumni Association website and posted these questions as a sick joke: Duke Alumni Site Hacked?

The work of hacks or hackers? You decide!

Posted on October 7, 2006
Below is a letter from a group named Concerned Mothers for Duke Students. We share the concerns of this group and we fully support their recommendations.

Posted on October 4, 2006
Today, we hear from two Duke lacrosse parents and two Duke alumni in their respective letters to the Duke Magazine.

1. Views from Lacrosse Parents 1 - by Sally Johnson Fogarty
2. Views from Lacrosse Parents 2 - by George K. Jennison
3. Lacrosse Lessons 1 - by S. Boyd Eaton
4. Lacrosse Lessons 2 - by Alan D. Davies M.D.

Posted on October 2, 2006
Our friend Joan Collins continues with her Profile in Courage series. Today, she writes about a very deserving individual: Profile in Courage - Moezeldin Elmostafa.

Posted on October 1, 2006
A recent Duke graduate, Caitlin Donnelly, was seriously hurt Friday night in a hit-an-run accident in front of the Belmont Apartments in Durham. Caitlin was in Durham for the Duke Homecoming weekend. Our prayers are with Caitlin her family and friends. We wish her a speed recovery. Recent Duke grad hurt in hit-and-run.

Posted on September 30, 2006
It was only a few days ago when a Duke alumnus eloquently responded to Duke professor Karla Holloway in a letter. Today, we have the privilege to hear the voice of a Duke junior athlete, Rachel Shack, in her letter to the Chronicle. This is a "must read" letter. After reading it you will agree that Rachel Shack deserves our collective applauds for speaking up, and she deserves our utmost respect and admiration for her message. Athletes Integral Part of University Life.

Posted on September 29, 2006
Today we welcome Duke Chronicle readers who may have seen our letter to the trustees, published in today’s issue, and decided to visit for more information on the Duke lacrosse case. For those who have not seen our letter to the trustees, it reproduces a recent article written by Professor KC Johnson: Where Are the Trustees?

Below are links to two new follow-up pieces on the same theme.
1. Weighing the Scales by KC Johnson
2. Is this year's Chronicle serious? by John in Carolina

Revised on September 26, 2006
1. LieStoppers published an excellent response letter to Duke Professor Karla Holloway's recent essay "Coda: Bodies of Evidence". This letter is beautifully written by a Duke alumnus: Our Collective Voice - Letter to Holloway.

2. Here are links to three sites with very good coverage on last Friday's Duke Lacrosse hearings:

Duke Hoax Hearing, LieStoppers

The D.A.'s Tough Day, KC Johnson

Nifonging the Standards of Justice, Part II, William L. Anderson

Posted on September 22, 2006
Our friend Joan Collins contributed another wonderful letter today. You will want to check it out: The Winslow Boy / The Duke Boys.

Revised on September 18, 2006
1. On September 7, the ESPN Magazine published a very good article on the Duke lacrosse case primarily focusing on the human side of the story. If you missed it back then, the article is now availabe on this site and well worth reading: Months later, unanswered questions haunt Duke .

2. The controversial Orin Starn letter which was published in Herald Sun yesterday but subsequently removed from the publication is now available online: A grand show of arrogance by Duke athletics .

Posted on September 14, 2006
Jason Trumpbour comments on DPD’s treatment of Duke students.

Posted on September 13, 2006
Jason Trumpbour comments on the Yektan Turyilmaz case and President Brodhead's handling of that case. Click here to read those comments.

Revised on September 11, 2006
Reactions to a September 9 article in News and Observer, Detective got tough with Duke students, continue. Today, Duke Chronicle provides more details: Students Criticize Lax Cop’s Behavior. Below are some reactions.

1. Gottlieb the Duke Hunter September 9, LieStoppers
2. War Against Duke September 9, The Johnsville News
3. The N&O finally tells about Gottlieb. So why now? September 10, John in Carolina
4. Sunday News, and Information Request September 10, Robert KC Johnson
5. More Gottlieb info; Brodhead still silent; and the “94% question.” September 11, John in Carolina

Posted on September 9, 2006
We published a second letter today from Joan Collins on her favorite theme: Profile in Courage. Her new letter is about Duke Women Lacrosse Coach Kerstin Kimel.

Posted on September 5, 2006
Jason Trumpbour comments on Patsy McDonald’s letter.

Posted on August 30, 2006
Jason Trumpbour comments on the recent Stuart Taylor article: Click here.

Revised on August 29, 2006
1. John in Carolina posted a very informative piece yesterday: A Nifong campaign disaster. We encourage everyone to read it.

2. Today, John in Carolina published a follow-up on the same topic: When Nifong's campaign head revealed her core.

Posted on August 26, 2006
We added a new article to our "Responses to media" page (item 21):

Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers August 25, New York Times by Duff Wilson

In his latest post, Times and the Blogs, Robert KC Johnson provides a comprehensive list of the commentaries written in response to the above Times article. Our readers will probably find Johnson's list quite useful. Do not forget to add to the list Johnson’s own commentaries on the subject:

The Times Drops the Ball
More Bad Times

Updated on August 23, 2006
1. Here is a letter from a friend worth reading: Profile in Courage. John in Carolina comments on the same topic: At Friends of Duke University .

2. On August 5, the Raleigh News and Observer published an article by John Schwade: By staying on the sidelines, Cheek shows no bravado. To see our spokesperson Jason Trumpbour's response to this article click here .

Posted on August 21, 2006
John in Carolina is reporting today the latest on two blogs: Liestoppers and Durham in Wonderland. Here is the link: Two blogs reporting news today.

Posted on August 20, 2006
Yesterday, Robert KC Johnson published another great article. This time, he presents to us a wonderful essay written by a Duke Lacrosse parent. Here is the link: A Tale of Two Men.

On the same topic, also see the latest from John in Carolina: A Duke lax father speaks out.

Updated on August 19, 2006
Here are three good responses to Newsobserver's Dennis Rogers article Lacrosse is just not my game:

1. First, a letter written to the editor of Newsobserver:

To the Editor:

Dennis Rogers, in his recent column, certainly disavows any aspiration to become the next Emile Zola in connection with the Duke lacrosse case. “I don't have a clue, much less a theory,” he states. As a professional journalist, one might think that Rogers would have an interest, if not have a duty, to learn the facts of any public controversy. However, despite the fact that a corrupt district attorney has tried to game the system at every turn, Roger’s strategy is to let a jury sort everything out and tell him what to think. That’s the spirit!

He will, therefore, no doubt, be surprised to learn that his statement, “The lacrosse players say, nope, they don’t remember a thing,” is wrong as is his assertion that they have been equivocal in their statements.

Rogers expresses disdain for blogs. However, almost all of the information contained in the News & Observer’s recent article about Mike Nifong’s misconduct has been known to readers of the blogs for months. Meanwhile, all Rogers can offer is, “Duh, I dunno.” Perhaps that is why newspaper readership is plummeting while increasing numbers of people turn to blogs for news. Maybe ignorance is not bliss after all.

Jason Trumpbour
Parkton, Maryland

2. N&O columnist makes false statement, slimes players John in Carolina

3. The N&O's Rogers: "I'm Not Smart Enough" Robert KC Johnson

Turning to a different subject, here is the link to a press release issued by the Committe to Recall Nifong- Vote Cheek: Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek

Updated on August 13, 2006
Today, two interesting articles were added to our "Links to media" page:

1. Raleigh N&O’s public editor’s double copout by John in Carolina
2. Quid Pro Quo? by Robert KC Johnson

In addition, we added a new article (see item 19) in our Responses to media page.

Posted on August 9, 2006
You will not want to miss this latest article from Robert KC Johnson: What . . ., and when . . . ?

Posted on August 8, 2006
Raleigh News & Observer reporter Joe Neff's widely praised August 6 story, Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case, exposed actions by DA Mike Nifong and certain Durham police investigators that violated proper investigative procedures and very possibly the N. C. law, although Neff does not say that.

Neff's 3,700 word story contains one small error regarding the date of a memorandum. The N&O today issued a correction. Friends of Duke University supports newspapers when they correct errors; and a correction of the dating error was called for. However, the N&O went beyond that and included in it’s correction an erroneous statement indicating the error undercuts the major thrust of Neff's story.

In a brilliant piece of blog reporting, KC Johnson refutes the N&O’s statement and goes on to demonstrate that with the memorandum’s date now corrected, Nifong’s actions actually look worse than before.

The Soucie Memo by Robert KC Johnson

John in Carolina endorses what KC reports. He says the N&O needs to immediately correct the error it made today. Friends of Duke University agrees. John in Carolina’s post has contact email and blog links to the N&O’s executive news editor and its public editor.

Neff’s story looks even stronger now by John in Carolina

We hope you read KC’s and John in Carolina’s posts; and then decide: "The N&O is going to hear from me."

Something else: The N&O has given a lot of page space to members of Duke faculty’s Group of 88. John in Carolina thinks N&O readers deserve to hear more of ‘the other side.’ He suggests a major N&O interview story with KC Johnson as a start. We’re for that. We hope you mention it in your emails and blog comments.

Friends, let’s be heard at the N&O.

Posted on August 6, 2006
Today a “must read” article was published in Raleigh News & Observer by staff writer Joseph Neff: Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case. This article brings to light the substantial gaps and inconsistencies that exist in Durham District Attorney’s case against the three indicted Duke Lacrosse players. We welcome Mr. Neff’s analysis and the information he provides in his article.

John in Carolina posted an initial reaction to the Joseph Neff story: A "first take" on Joe Neff 's N&O story . We highly recommend this post to our readers.

Updated on August 4, 2006
1. A very informative article was published today by Robert KC Johnson: Scapegoating. The article focuses on the impact of the Duke Lacrosse scandal on Mike Pressler, the former Duke Men's Lacrosse head coach. In our opinion, this article is important enough to justify recreation, in full, on our website. Click here to see the article on our website.

2. Today, Herald Sun published a letter written by FODU spokesperson Jason Trumpbour: Nifong Courageous?.

John in Carolina has further thoughts on the same Herald Sun letter (see link here):

Posted on August 2, 2006
Yesterday, the Durham Herald-Sun published about “previously undisclosed” dna matches in the lacrosse case: Lawyers Haggle over dna Matches. The article is disturbing on many levels. First, the dna matches were disclosed to the media months ago by defense counsel. Second, the article quotes an expert who stated that this evidence was helpful to the prosecution. However, the article failed to mention that this expert has an obvious source of bias. He has been retained by the NAACP to “monitor” the case for them.

Blogger John in Carolina, who has been incisively critiquing the media coverage of the case, has a new article up that gives the full story: Duke Lacrosse: A fake Herald Sun story? I encourage all of you to read it.

An obvious question this article raises is, if this “previously undisclosed” information is just now being disclosed, who is disclosing it? Given the use to which this information has been applied by the Herald-Sun reporter, it is unlikely that it came from a defense source. It is more likely that it came from Nifong and that the story was a plant. If so, Nifong has violated the recently imposed gag order that, among other things, prohibits counsel in the case from distributing information about the case to the media, either directly or through agents.

Jason Trumpbour
Spokesperson

Posted on July 31, 2006
Four interesting articles were added to our "Links to media" page:

Maybe Sherman would have run Charlotte Observer
Charlotte Observer says "a special prosecutor" John in Carolina
Durham DA: Shoulda Kept My Mouth Shut La Shawn Barber's Corner
How dare Judge Titus try to silence the Duke men's lacrosse team! Michael Gaynor

Posted on July 26, 2006
We are pleased to announce that we received a response to an Open Letter we had sent last week to President Brodhead and the Board of Trustees of Duke University. We want to take this opportunity to thank President Brodhead for his response. You will find President Brodhead’s response along with a press release from us in the Press releases section of this site. We look forward to your comments and opinions on both the open letter and the response to it.

Posted on July 24, 2006
Dear Friends, today we turn this corner over to a special guest: John in Carolina.

Duke lacrosse: A support and tribute post

Posted on July 19, 2006
Today, we are pleased to announce the publication of an open letter to the President and Board of Trustees of the Duke the University. The letter is published in the University’s newspaper, The Chronicle (July 19 "sent home" issue). You will find the full text of our open letter along with an accompanying press release in the Press releases section of our site. Please post your comments on the open letter under the same section. We look forward to your feedback on the contents of the letter.

Recently, we made three additions to our site. First, you may have noticed that a new link was added under the Must Visit section: Defense fund . This link provides information for contributing to the Duke Lacrosse Defense Fund. It is no longer necessary to contact us to obtain that information. We hope this new procedure will be more efficient than the old one. Second, we added a “Lacrosse Case Timeline” in our “Links to media” page (see first item in section c). One of our friends recommended from among various timelines that are available on the internet The Johnsville News timeline. So, we are linking to that timeline. Big thanks to our contributing friend! Lastly, we added a new “Site rules” section (see under Must Read). This section documents the rules of our site. We especially urge our new readers to look through those rules. If you have other suggestions, for improving the contents of our site, please let us know. We will gladly consider your suggestions.

Posted on July 16, 2006
If you are going to read only one article today on the Duke lacrosse case, please let it be this one:

As Accusation at Duke Festers, Disbelief Gnaws at Suspect’s Supporters July 16, 2006 New York Times (New York Region Only)

Posted on July 13, 2006
We added four new articles in our Responses to media page (see items 14 - 17). Please write responses to these articles and share them with us.

Revised on July 9, 2006
Three interesting and related opinions were published in the Herald Sun recently as follows.

Let's have a prompt lacrosse trial June 25, 2006
Put lacrosse case on a faster track July 2, 2006
If Nifong had evidence, we would know by now July 8, 2006

Posted on July 3, 2006
Congratulations to Lewis Cheek for collecting close to 10,000 signatures on his petition. We truly hope that Mr. Cheek will decide to run for the DA position. Looking ahead, in the November elections, Duke students will be able to vote. The voter registration form can be downloaded from the link below and must be:

* Postmarked at least 25 days before the election - November 7,or
* Delivered to the local board of elections by 5:00pm on the 25th day before the election.

Download Voter Registration Form
Duke students voting info

Demographics of Durham County voters:
According to the latest voter registration figures, Durham County has 27,070 registered Republicans, 24,566 of whom are white. The county has 86,621 registered Democrats, 46,586 of whom are black. So the demographic bloc supportive of Nifong's behavior formed a majority of the Democratic electorate, while those most likely to be alienated by his tactics couldn't vote in the primary. As the director of the Durham County Board of Elections noted the day after the primary, "We had a lot of irate Republicans who couldn't vote for district attorney." See related article Nifong and the Black Vote .

Posted on July 2, 2006
Please write responses to Duke University Professor Orin Starn's Newsobserver letter entitled Let's talk sports .

To contact Orin Starn, write to:
Email: ostarn@duke.edu
Website: Webpage
To contact Newsobserver: Send us a letter

Posted on June 30, 2006
Today, we are urging our readers, once again, to write to Attorney General Roy Cooper. This time, we ask that you provide a link to AG Cooper for an article, entitled Roy Cooper's Silence . This article explains, in exact terms, what discretions a North Carolina AG has with respect to removing a District Attorney from a case.

Even if you did not write to AG Cooper before, urging him to remove DA Mike Nifong from the Duke Lacrosse case, you may consider writing to him now. The documentation provided in this article makes a compelling case for it. We hope our friends will take this opportunity and voice their opinions on this matter. Remember, we need a lot of letters to be sent to AG Cooper, a few will not do. Please take the time and send your letter. Be sure to include the link to the article mentioned above.

To contact AG Cooper:
Email to NC Attorney General, Roy Cooper

or, send your signed letters to the following address:
Office of Attorney General Roy Cooper
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001

Updated on June 29, 2006
We added three new articles in our Responses to media page (items 10, 11, and 12), as follows:

Sympathy for the Devils? Indy Independent Weekly by Hal Crowther
The Media Rush to Duke's Defense Washington Post by Andrew Cohen
Despite K's comment, race relations need work Herald Sun by Duke Professor Karla FC Holloway

We invite our readers to respond to these articles. Sample response letters are included in the comments section of the same page.

Posted on June 27, 2006
Latest update on the Lewis Cheek petition: All registered Durham voters are eligible to sign the petition. If you are planning to mail your petition to the Board of Elections, today is your deadline. Your form must be mailed by the end of the day. Another option you have is to deliver the form in person to the Board of Elections. The deadline for personal delivery is Friday, 30 June 10:00 a.m. Here is the address.

Board of Elections
706 W Corporation St,
Durham, 27701
Tel: (919) 560-0700

The following letter was published in Herald Sun today. We think there are a lot of Durham residents who share the opinions expressed in this letter. If you have not already done so, please sign the petition for Lewis Cheek and make your opinions count. There is little time left and your signatures are needed for a very worthy cause.

Please forgive me for voting for Mike Nifong

In May I cast my vote for Mike Nifong to provide some continuity at a critical time for the district attorney's office. May God and my fellow citizens of Durham County forgive me for this mistake. We are now faced with repeated evidence that Nifong has pressed forward with the Duke lacrosse case in a manner that suggests he has little regard for proper procedure and his duty to responsibly communicate with the defense teams. He attempted to try the case in the media, probably to assure votes in the primary race. He has placed inexcusable shadings on some public comments. These actions are beyond the pale for an officer of the court. Given the lack of another confirmed candidate for district attorney, it seems that Nifong would be our only choice in November. However, if citizens sign petitions to have a qualified individual added to the November ballot as a write-in candidate, then that name will be present as an alternative in November. Durham County desperately needs another choice for this position.

Please understand I am no fan of the obnoxious minority group of Duke University students. I feel there was a miscarriage of justice when there was not a successful prosecution for underage drinking in 2005. The reported behavior of some students has been without excuse. However, such is inconsequential in comparison to the apparent conduct of our district attorney. Will someone in Durham please step forward? Our county needs you as never before.

ED THOMAS
Durham

Posted on June 26, 2006
The petition form for Lewis Cheek who is hoping to challenge DA Nifong in the November elections is now available on the Duke Basketball Report (DBR) site. If you are eligible to sign the petition, we urge you to do so. This may be the best way to express your disapproval of DA Nifong. To obtain more instructions on this topic, click here .

Posted on June 19, 2006
1. On June 17th, the Herald Sun published an opinion written by a Duke associate professor, Joseph Dibona, entitled Brodhead can't handle it . The opinion is a criticism of President Brodhead for reinstating the Duke Lacrosse team. Furhermore, Mr. Dibona seems to suggest that the entire Lacrosse team should stand trial not just the three who were indicted. We urge our readers to write to associate professor Dibona and express their reactions. Please send us copies of your responses so that we may share them with our readers. To contact Joseph Dibona, use the following email address.

Email: joseph.dibona@duke.edu
Biograph: Joseph Dibona, Duke Associate Professor

2. Congratulations for Ruth Sheehan for finally seeing the truth and expressing her views candidly in her latest article DA ought to hand off case in today's Newsobserver.

Please write to Ms. Sheehan to express your thanks and to encourage her to continue reporting on this case. Her email address is: rsheehan@newsobserver.com.

Posted on June 15, 2006
Do not miss Randall Drain's (a former Duke Lacrosse player and a Robertson scholar) article in the Duke Chronicle today. Here is the link to the article:

Apologies Necessary, June 15, 2006 by Randall Drain

Posted on June 14, 2006
Today, we are publishing another letter to be sent to the North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper. This letter is in the same vein as the one we published on June 12th. We urge you to read and compare both letters and send the one you more closely associate with. Feel free to make changes and personalize either of the letters. As stated before, the volume of letters received by the NC Attorney General will be a key factor in the effectiveness of this campaign. If enough letters are not sent, their impact will be minimal. This is why we need every one of you to contribute to this effort.

--------------------
Dear Mr. Cooper,

I am concerned about the administration of justice in Durham County.

District Attorney Michael Nifong has made major mistakes and miscalculations in prosecuting the so-called Duke Lacrosse incident (North Carolina v. Finnerty & Seligmann, and v. Evans). He is no longer impartial and has become an advocate for the accuser.

I respectfully urge you to appoint a special prosecutor to review these cases and remove Mr. Nifong from the situation. As Attorney General you have oversight over local district attorneys, and what is happening in Durham is improper and a disgrace to the administration of justice in the great state of North Carolina.

Specifically, Mr. Nifong improperly:

1) Gave multiple news interviews stating that a rape had occurred, that lacrosse players were the perpetrators, and that the players were “hooligans.” These statements were made before the investigation was completed and before DNA results were back. These comments were prejudicial and unethical.
2) Conveyed misleading information by implying that condoms were used, that the accuser had been given a date rape drug, and that she had been strangled all of which he should have known were untrue based on reports he had available.
3) Failed to include exculpatory evidence he already had in his possession in his requests for photo-identification.
4) Refused to examine other exculpatory evidence offered by defense attorneys or to discuss this information with them before the indictments.
5) Directed a flawed photo line-up with the accuser by not including fillers and by holding multiple photo identification sessions when the accuser had trouble making identification.
6) Went ahead with indictments based only on the identification of the non-credible accuser and an inconclusive DNA result.
7) Continued to press ahead with this case even though there is no chance any jury would find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt due to faulty identification procedure, alibi evidence, other eyewitness testimony, the lack of credibility of the accuser, the lack of conclusive DNA evidence, and the lack of other forensic evidence that would be expected with a gang rape.

These are but a few of the reasons that Mr. Nifong should be recused and a special prosecutor appointed.

I hope you will consider what is in the best interest of justice in Durham County.

Thank you for reviewing this matter.

Sincerely,
------------------------
Send your signed letters to the following address:
Office of Attorney General Roy Cooper
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001

Posted on June 12, 2006
Dear friends, we urge all of you to follow the instructions provided below and send at least two letters to the North Carolina officials, as soon as possible. Include one specific letter (for one of three indicted players) and a general one on Nifong, as described below. Note that these letters may be the most worthwhile letters you will send to an official and that the lives of three innocent young men hang in the balance. Please, take the time and do it. If you have difficulty copying and pasting, send us an email and we will send you MS Word versions of the sample letters. Here are the instructions:

Friends and family of Reade, Collin and Dave are starting a letter-writing campaign to garner support for the accused and draw the attention of North Carolina's Attorney General, Roy Cooper, to the case. Please take a moment to print and sign one of the following form letters, or feel free to draft one of your own. We are hoping that a very large volume of letters is submitted, so please forward the message on to friends and family.

All letters should have the following address:
Office of Attorney General Roy Cooper
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001

Example Letters:

IN SUPPORT OF A SPECIFIC PLAYER

Dear Mr. Cooper:
I am writing to add my voice to what I hope are ultimately hundreds of voices speaking on behalf of the Duke Lacrosse Team and specifically on behalf of one of the three young men who have been formally ‘and not only unjustly but very likely illegally’ accused. There is no shortage of information in the lay press attesting to the dubious nature of the victim’s claims and the questionable character of those who have come forward to fan the flames for her. But I am writing to attest to the impeccable character of one of the young men? Reade Seligman. I find it simply incomprehensible that he might ever even be considered capable of committing the type of crime with which he has been charged. He is a soft-spoken, intelligent young man who is a faithful friend and committed, monogamous boyfriend who would never harm anyone verbally, much less physically. I beg you to investigate Mr. Nifong’s motives, methods, and actions and to involve yourself ‘with the intent of righting’ what has become, literally, a travesty of justice in Durham.

Sincerely [your name]

GENERAL LETTER PROTESTING NIFONG'S ACTIONS

Dear Mr. Cooper,

I am writing today on behalf of the Duke University students who have been unjustly and unethically charged with sexual assault. While it is certainly necessary to thoroughly investigate any such serious accusations of rape and to take action when action is warranted, Mr. Nifong has grossly abused his authority and indicted three young men without proper evidence or credible testimony. It appears that no action was warranted, yet Mr. Nifong has continued relentlessly and ignorantly in his prosecution of these three men.

In the months that have passed since the supposed assault took place, Mr. Nifong's case has unraveled completely. Reliable and air-tight alibis have been presented, the accuser's own credibility has been called into question, and the only third-party witness initially told police the charges were a "crock." Thus I find it inconceivable that Mr. Nifong not only continues to pursue this case, but does so with unbridled authority. He is making a mockery out of the justice system in Durham, and he is ruining the lives of three young men, their families, and their friends.

It is the duty of the American Justice System to seek the truth, not to cover it up in order to fulfill political and personal goals. I have faith that you embrace this duty, and will do everything in your power to right this wrong.

Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]

On a different note, today we published three letters in a new section titled Letters from Friends. All three letters are quite compelling. We look forward to hearing from many more friends and adding to this collection of letters.

Posted on June 11, 2006
We added three more articles in our Links to media page. Two of these articles represent a significant "change in position": the Newsweek and the New York Times articles. We congratulate these publications for the welcome change in their positions and, as the facts of this matter continue to unfold, we patiently await to see similar changes in other publications.

Jocks and Prejudice June 11, 2006 NY Times, Nicholas D. Kristof
Wow June 11, 2006 Robert KC Johnson
The Duke Accuser—New Credibility Questions June 11, 2006 Newsweek

Posted on June 10, 2006
1. Do not miss today's Washington Post article (also published on the MSNBC website) on the Duke Lacrosse case: Lacrosse Players' Case a Trial for Parents . As stated in the article, the legal costs of the team members, indicted or not indicted alike, are mounting. It is not too late, and we encourage all our readers, to contribute to the defense fund to support these families.

2. Today, a group of concerned North Carolina citizens started an email drive. The name of this drive is Save Durham - Indict Nifong. We urge all of our readers to participate in this drive. To participate, you need to copy and paste the message below and send it as an email or fax to the officials listed below. It will be a great help, if you could forward your email to all your friends and urge them to do the same. This drive can only make a difference if the numbers are substantial. Therefore, we need to make the numbers substantial by spreading the word as widely as possible.

Message to be sent:
------------------------
Subject: Save Durham - Indict Nifong

Dear Sir/Madam:

As tax paying citizens of North Carolina we are asking that Mike Nifong and his office be put under investigation.

Nifong is guilty of bringing incomplete evidence to the grand jury.

Dismissing bail for witness for her parole violations.

Police investigating the Duke University lacrosse team on rape allegations "omitted" notes from a second dancer at the party, who told authorities the alleged victim had been drinking, was acting "crazy" and that her colleague's accusation was a "crock," . Police "intentionally, deliberately and/or recklessly omitted" information from a probable cause affidavit -- information Osborn says would have persuaded the judge not to file felony charges against three of the players.

The 2nd dancer said in a handwritten note dated March 22 that the accuser, to whom Pittman refers as "Precious," wanted to stay at the party and earn more money, even after one of the players made a verbal threat.

There were major discrepancies in the reports of the doctors and nurses who examined the accuser at Duke Medical Center.

Prosecutors and police have said that the accuser was hit, kicked and strangled while she was sexually assaulted anally, vaginally and orally. The accuser told the nurse "that she was not choked; that no condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used during the sexual assault," the lawyers wrote in a sworn statement. The nurse noted that the accuser's arms, legs, head, neck, nose, throat, mouth, chest, breasts and abdomen were all normal, the court filing said. The lawyers filed the accuser's medical records under seal with the court.

These are crimes and there is no denying the fact that he used his position as D.A. to strong arm the evidence he wanted. Not only are these frightening acts, they are illegal. Nifong could get away with this behavior in Baghdad, but Durham?

Where to send the message:
------------------------------

Governor Michael F. Easley
Office of the Governor
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301
Fax: (919)715-3175 or (919)733-2120

Copies to:
NC Representative: paulmi@ncleg.net
NC Senator: Elliek@ncleg.net
Speaker of the house: Jimb@ncleg.net
NC Bar executive: kvaughan@ncbar.org

Posted on June 8, 2006
Yesterday, an interesting editorial was published in the Duke Basketball Report (DBR)on the Duke Lacrosse case. Feel free to disseminate this article to your friends as well. Here is the link: When the Law is an Ass June 7, 2006

We added two new articles to our Responses to media page. Please write responses to these articles. A sample response is posted for each article under the comments section of the same page. Emails of the authors are included in the Responses to media page.

1. What Does it Take to Get an Athletic Program Shut Down by Tom Powers - Pioneer Press
2. Needed: Special Prosecutor for the Duke Case by Susan Estrich

Posted on June 6, 2006
In response to several inquiries we received over the last few days, we want to clarify a possible misunderstanding regarding the recent change in our web address. Our new address does not imply any change in our convictions or goals, far from it. Our convictions and goals remain the same. We urge our readers to continue to stand together on this cause; there is much work to be done. We do not want to lose any support over the address change. If you have concerns or questions, please contact us via email. We will be happy to communicate with you further.

Posted on June 5, 2006
Today, the Duke Lacrosse team was reinstated by the Duke University administration. We congratulate the Duke University for taking this decision. It is certainly a step in the right direction.

Posted on May 28, 2006
Please read the following article written in The Philadelphia Inquirer on May 27th by Stephen Smith. Duke free-falling from grace

We urge you to write to the paper's editor and the author and express your opinions.
Editor: abennett@phillynews.com
Author: ssmith@phillynews.com

Similarly, read the following article: The Duke Case’s Cruel Truth May 24, 2006 Washington Post, Lynee Duke

To respond to this article, write to:
Editor: executive.editor@washingtonpost.com
Author: Lynee Duke

To share your responses with us, post them as a comment under our Responses to media page. Be sure to identify, on the top, which article you are responding.

Posted on May 27, 2006
1. Last night, the Duke Women's Lacrosse team lost the semi-final game in the NCAA championship to Northwestern 10-11. However, the coaches and the players of the Duke team earned a spot in our hearts. In our eyes, they are true winners! We extend our congratulations to coach Kimel and her team for another exemplary season.

2. Please write to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and express your opinions on the Duke Lacrosse case. In particular, from your point of view, list all the things that have gone wrong and urge him to take corrective actions. Our emails may not make much of a difference. But, at least, we will go on the record. Use the link below to contact the Attorney General.
Email to NC Attorney General, Roy Cooper

Posted on May 24, 2006
We are pleased to launch a “Defense Fund” whose goal is to help with the legal expenses of the falsely accused Lacrosse players. Thank you for all those who already contacted us and asked to be included in our “contributors list”. If you have not already done so, please consider contributing to the defense fund . Sadly, it will take a great deal of resources to get justice in this case, if at all, and the families involved can use our financial support. Talk to your friends as well and make them aware of the defense fund.

Posted on May 7, 2006
1. Right now, the most important thing we can do is to reach out to other like-minded people and let them know the existence of this site. We need to reach out to as many friends as possible. There is strength in numbers.

2. Read the posts under Recommendations for action section. If you have any suggestions or additions, post them. We will continuously review those recommendations and act on them when appropriate.

3. If you are a Durham resident, we urge you to write letters to your governor, mayor, and other local officials and express your opinions on this case. You must point out to those officials that “facts” and not “racial prejudices” should determine the outcome of the investigation. Your input and support are crucial. Please take action, if for nothing else, for the sake of your own town and community.

Posted on May 5, 2006
I have been following the so-called "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" closely for about two weeks and I am horrified by the total lack of support shown for the Duke lacrosse players. I am reading with great dismay too many negative comments about these Duke students. They are being portrayed as public enemy number one without any justifiable reason. Today, I read some really ugly and surely unfounded allegations about the lacrosse players. I was quite distressed and decided something has to be done about this huge injustice. Someone has to show some support to these kids who, I think, are innocent of the charges they are accused of.

I am setting up this website in the hope that other people who feel the same way about the lacrosse case may contact me and together we may be able to provide some support to these students and their families who must be going through an extraordinarily difficult time. If you believe in this cause, please send me an email at the following address: friendsofdukelacrosse@yahoo.com

Profiles in courage

2007-04-03T08:00:00.002-04:00

Here, we present a list of the Profiles in Courage series written by our friend Joan Collins. Joan started writing her articles a few months ago because she wanted to document the human aspect of the lacrosse case and the toll it has taken on so many individuals. In all cases, her profiles reflect the courage shown by individuals against adversity and against all odds. We thank Joan for taking the time to write these wonderful profiles and hope to see more of them.

List of Profiles in Courage

1. David Evans, August 22, 2006

2. Kerstin Kimel, September 9, 2006

3. Moezeldin Elmostafa, October 2, 2006

4. James E. Coleman, Jr., October 18, 2006

5. Beth Brewer, October 23, 2006

6. My Meeting With The Finnertys, November 14, 2006

7. The Other Duke Lacrosse Moms, January 22, 2007

8. A Conversation with Susan Pressler, April 23, 2007

9. Faith and the Duke Lacrosse Case, July 17, 2007

You may read more about the former Duke lacrosse defendants here:

David Evans

Collin Finnerty

Reade Seligmann

Below are other selected essays. To read all of the letters sent to us, visit Letters 1, Letters 2, and Letters 3.

1. Views from lacrosse parents, Sally J. Fogarty, October 4, 2006

2. Views from lacrosse parents, George K. Jennison, October 4, 2006

3. Lacrosse lessons, Boyd Eaton, October 4, 2006

4. Lacrosse lessons, Alan D. Davies, October 4, 2006

5. Scapegoating, KC Johnson, August 4, 2006

Letters from friends 3

2006-05-31T06:00:00.000-04:00

This section contains letters and comments sent to us by friends and supporters. If you want to contribute, please email your letters to us. We will review and post them as appropriate.

Letters from friends 2

2006-05-31T05:00:00.000-04:00

This section contains letters and comments sent to us by friends and supporters. If you want to contribute, please email your letters to us. We will review and post them as appropriate.

Letters from friends 1

2006-05-31T04:50:00.000-04:00

This section contains letters and comments written by the Friends of Duke University. If you want to contribute, please email your letters or comments to us. We will review and post them as appropriate.

Messages for players

2006-05-31T00:35:00.000-04:00

This section is for posting messages for the Duke Lacrosse team members and/or coaches. Please do not use it for other purposes. You may also wish to visit the following personalized pages for Dave, Collin and Reade:

David Evans -- Collin Finnerty -- Reade Seligmann

Responses to media

2006-05-31T00:30:00.000-04:00

Listed below are selected articles that appeared in the media and either contained false information or biased content on the Duke Lacrosse case. We urge you to respond to these articles and share your responses with us. To share your responses, post them in the comments section under this page. Be sure to identify, on the top, which article you are responding to. The articles are listed by date, in descending order.

24. In the aftermath of a social disaster January 5, Herald Sun by Cathy Davidson (Professor at Duke University).

Email: cathy.davidson@duke.edu
Email: president@duke.edu

23. Official, but not over December 11, The Duke Chronicle by Shadee Malaklou

Email: shadee.malaklou@duke.edu

22. Secret racism underlying lacrosse case October 29, Herald Sun by Grant Farred (Associate Professor of Literature at Duke University).

Email: grant.farred@duke.edu
Email: president@duke.edu

21. Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers August 25, New York Times by Duff Wilson

Email: public@nytimes.com
Email: Duff Wilson

20. Lacrosse is just not my game August 12, Newsobserver by Dennis Rogers

Write to: drogers@newsobserver.com

19. By staying on the sidelines, Cheek shows no bravado August 5, Newsobserver by John Schwade

Email (editor): drescher@newsobserver.com
Email (author): jschwade@newsobderver.com

18. Has the lacrosse case induced insanity? July 23, Herald Sun by Bob Ashley

Write to: bashley@heraldsun.com

17. Wolves in Blazers and Khakis July 13, 2006 Washington Post by Marc Fisher

Write to: Email Marc Fisher
Copy to: letters@washpost.com
Copy to: executive.editor@washingtonpost.com
Copy to: ombudsman@washpost.com

16. Another Team Rape July 12, 2006 Yahoo News by Susan Estrich

Write to: estrich.susan@gmail.com

15. D.C. Judge Convicts Duke Athlete In '05 Fight July 12, 2006 Washington Post by Henri E. Cauvin

Write to: Comments to Washington Post

14. Duke: Horror and Truth July 10, 2006 BlackNews.com by Jesse Jackson

Write to: comments@blacknews.com
Copy to : Jesse Jackson (please someone, send us Mr. Jackson's email address)

13. Let's talk sports July 2, 2006 Newsobserver by Orin Starn (Duke University Professor)

Write to: ostarn@duke.edu
Website: Biography of Orin Starn
Copy to: Letters to Newsoberver Editor

12. Sympathy for the Devils? June 28, 2006 Indy The Weekly Independent by Hal Crowther

Write to: backtalk@indyweek.com (Letters to the editor)
Copy to: rhart@indyweek.com (Richard Harts, editor)
Copy to: editors@indyweek.com (Hal Crowther)

11. The Media Rush to Duke's Defense June 27, 2006 Washington Post by Andrew Cohen

Write to: letters@washpost.com
Copy to: executive.editor@washingtonpost.com
Copy to: ombudsman@washpost.com

10. Despite K's comment, race relations need work June 27, 2006 Herald Sun, Letters, by Karla FC Holloway (Duke University Professor)

Write to: karla.holloway@duke.edu
Website: Biography of Karla FC Holloway

9. Brodhead can't handle it June 17, 2006 Herald Sun, Letters, by Joseph Dibona (Duke University Professor)

Write to: joseph.dibona@duke.edu
Website: Biography of Joseph Dibona

8. Media Put Accuser on Trial in Duke Rape Case June 15, 2006 National Organization for Women (NOW)

Write to: now@now.org
or visit: http://www.now.org/comments.html

7. Duke team shows lack on integrity June 14, 2006 USA Today, Susan Pons

Write to: editor@usatoday.com
Author: Susan Pons

6. What Does it Take to Get an Athletic Program Shut Down June 6, 2006 Pioneer Press, Tom Powers

Write to: tpowers@pioneerpress.com
Author: Tom Powers

5. Needed: Special Prosecutor for the Duke Case June 4, 2006 Fox News, Susan Estrich

Write to: estrich.susan@gmail.com
Author: Susan Estrich

4. Sex and Scandal at Duke June 1, 2006 Rolling Stone Magazine, Janet Reitman

Write to: letters@rollingstone.com
Author: jreitman@earthlink.net (Janet Reitman)

3. Min. Muhammmad Calls for community to stand with rape victim

Write to: wilmjourn@aol.com
Author: Cash Michaels

2. Duke free-falling from grace May 27, 2007 Philadephia Inquirer, Stephen Smith

Write to:
Editor: abennett@phillynews.com
Author: ssmith@phillynews.com

1. The Duke Case’s Cruel Truth May 24, 2006 Washington Post, Lynee Duke

Write to:
Editor: executive.editor@washingtonpost.com
Author: Lynee Duke

General topics - OPEN

2006-05-31T00:29:00.000-04:00

For ongoing comments, go to FODU Discussion Board.

For earlier comments, use following links:
--01-- --02-- --03-- --04-- --05-- --06--
--07-- --08-- --09-- --10-- --11-- --12--
--13-- --14-- --15-- --16-- --17-- --18--
--19-- --20-- --21-- --22-- --23-- --24--

General topics 24 - Full

2006-05-31T00:28:00.000-04:00