Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 16 - Full

This page is full. Please go to General Topics - OPEN to continue with your comments.


At 4:35 PM, September 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Grandfather Saying Is:

Better to be friends in battle than enemies in peace.

At 4:49 PM, September 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all come to this site because of our common belief in the innocence of Reade, Dave and Collin. We must understand that while we may have differing opinions about procedures, our objective is to give support and encouragement to the families and players of Duke Lacrosse. Let us remember that they read this blog and we should measure our words carefully so that they feel supported, not criticized.

At 4:58 PM, September 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone have any "inside" information on how the "Governor" is taking this? Seems to me like he might be thinking he may have made a mistake in annointing "King Nifong" and how it may negatively impact his run for the senate. Just wondering.

At 5:29 PM, September 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:49 PM, September 7 post: Thank you. I second it.

At 12:33 PM, September 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Chronicle is conducting a poll on Brodhead's LAX performance. Feel free....

At 1:00 PM, September 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yesterday's chronicle had an article about Pres. Brodhead that stated that his press was "good to great in most of the 30,000 lacrosse related articles." the article itself described his performance as receiving "all-around praise." And so far the survey cited in the 12:33 poll indicates that most who have responded agree. While the poll is certainly not scientific, it is interesting to me that the respondents, most of whom are probably students or others close to the university, seem to support Brodhead's handling of the lacrosse incident. Also, in today's Chronicle there is an article stating the the university is NOT going to implement a specific code of conduct for all athletic teams, even though the lacrosse team has "voluntarily" committed to one. They say they are going to tighten up the existing rules. While the lacrosse team may want/need a formal code of conduct for political reasons, I think all athletes at Duke (and other schools for that matter) should be subject to the same rules.

At 1:43 PM, September 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope that one of the procedures corrected is that low level administrators who find out about any sport's players' brushes with the law let the team's coach know about them. That would be better info than Mike Pressler had.

At 1:56 PM, September 08, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the rules is that all players need to inform their coach of any infraction within 48 hours. I think it's still up to the player, but the consequences are pretty sever if the player doesn't do it.

At 8:34 AM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is the link to a letter by Joan Collins:

Profile in Courage

At 9:00 AM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

KC Johnson's latest: Michaels Asks Questions

At 10:14 AM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Detective got tough with Duke Students. This is in Today addition of the N&O

At 2:47 PM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 3:02 PM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The article above states that Gottlieb is on leave but the Durham PD won't give the explanation.

What's Gottlieb up to?

Prepare for the coverup?
Trying on hairpieces?
Getting his GED?

At 4:19 PM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Friends, please visit LieStoppers web site and read another fantastic piece from Joan Foster: "Three Amigos Sing an Aria for Nifong"

You do not want to miss this great work!

Duke07 Mom

At 7:39 PM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading the attachments to the recent motions filed by the defense attorneys, I have some questions for those who have all the info on this case. The AV was in her see-through red negligee with no undergarments, according to officer Shelton, when he picked her up at the Kroger. Kim says in her statment that the AV showed up at the house in her performing clothes, and didn't need to change. Did she wear the see-through negligee to the house? In the picture of the AV on the back porch looking into her bag, she doesn't seem to be wearing a see-through outfit, as Shelton describes. Was she in the negligee when she performed? If so, when did she change into the clothes she wore on the porch? How did she get into the negligee if she didn't seem to have it on when photographed on the back porch? Am I missing something?

At 7:50 PM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above: I remember reading that the driver that brought her to the party, said she had the nigligee on under her dress, because she was getting ready at his house. She asked him which outfit "Neigee" to wear that night. As for the rest sorry I can't help you out there.

At 8:02 PM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry I needed to break up my post the story you should read is from the
New&Observer Dated May 27, 2006
Accuser seemded OK early on, driver says.

This might answer the rest of your questions. I hope this helps

At 8:55 PM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks K.P. Your memory is very good. Still don't know when she got into the outfit that looks like shorts in the back porch photo (did they change when they locked themselves in the bathroom?), or how/when/why she then got back into the negligee (if my impression of the back porch outfit is correct...)

At 10:23 PM, September 09, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is just pure speculation. Does anyone know if any of the city council members, the town manager, the police or Nifong himself has purchased the services of CGM(precious) in the past. That would be a real inside story and also something a married man would not want revealed. Maybe that's why the investigation is so misguided. I would have thought that the lawyers would have hired private investigators to check out their backgrounds. As a retired police officer,I would not want that hanging over my head. I could only imagine how CGM,could use that, during this investigative process. Perhaps this is another reason for Gottlieb, to type a report that fills in the DA's holes

At 12:27 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for a client of CGM's, I'd put my money on Durham city manager Patrick Baker

He sprung into action the day after the party and has been (strangely) interfering in the police investigation ever since.

He has also been caught on several occasions posting (under his first name and also anonymously) rants against Duke on message boards about this case.

Hard to explain his actions, otherwise.

At 1:11 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is one of the most perplexing aspects of the North Buchanan hoax.

Sure CGM lied about being raped because she didn't want to be committed to a psychiatric facility by the Durham police.

And Mike Nifong used race-baiting, media manipulation and a false prosecution to aid his election campaign.

And the lefties on the Duke faculty banged their pots in a prefrontal orgy of stereotyped outrage.

By why did Sergeant Mark Gottlieb of the DPD invest so much time in energy in manipulating lineups, intimidating witnesses and faking his reports to try and get the Duke lacrosse players?

Well, courtesy of the Wilmington Journal and NandO’s reporting, we know now.

It turns out that Gottlieb REALLY, REALLY hated Duke students.

Hated them enough to subvert his police career for the entire last year to arrest and jail students for minor violations while essentially letting all serious crime in his district go unpunished.

Hated them enough to arrest students on charges that were repeatedly thrown out of court.

Hated them apparently enough, to engage in obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, writing inept fake police report and who knows what else.

Now, Gottlieb is on leave, facing discipline for his role in a racist assault in July in Durham.

And the Herald-Sun is nowhere to be found on the story.

A racist police sergeant’s self-destructive flameout would seem to be newsworthy.

But not to our balding, white weasel Bob Ashley, whose slavish support for Gottlieb and company’s illegal tactics was a convenient fit for the Ashley agenda of butt-kissing Durham's politicians.

Who would have guessed when this whole saga began that Cash Michaels would turn out to be the paragon of honesty and good journalism.

And the Paxton group's liberal, lightweight and Durham cheerleader Bob Ashley would turn out to be a corrupt, malicious worm incapable of telling the truth.

That’s how it went down, though.

At 1:55 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks to Michael Biesecker, the highly impropable injustice of the Duke case now has mathematical precision.

Using the reported numbers of arrest from May 05 to Feb 06 in District 2:

Dukie 20
Non-Dukie 8
Other shift supervisors:
Dukie: 2
Non-Dukie: 62

The statistical odds that Gottlieb's arrest of more Duke students than the other supervisors in his district was not due to random chance (i.e. he was intentionally targeting them) is:

p < 0.000000000007

That would be considered highly statistically significant.

Like Albert Einstein, Megamillions statistically significant.

If I were each of those 20 student arrestees (and the parents of those students), I would immediately file a class action lawsuit against the City of Durham, City Manager Patrick Baker (who apparently dreamed up this illegal action), each of the City Council members who supervise Baker and most especially baldo Mark Gottlieb himself.

And sue them all into eternity x 8E-12.

At 2:13 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In order to take a look at the photo of Sgt. Gottlieb's desk, visit the following web site: Photo of Sgt.Gott-Lies Desk-Microsoft Internet Explorer.

At 8:26 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I a few have a legal questions.

Can the Durham PD or FBI open an investigation into all of the cases of Sgt. Gottieb? Even the ones not involving Duke students.

If it proven that the officer targeted only Duke student's can they get any and all charges wiped of the arrest record, even thou they might have been tossed out of court for lack of evidence?

Can Officer Gottieb be charged or even fired from his job?

At 8:46 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can Officer Gottieb be charged or even fired from his job?

In Durham he'll probably be promoted...

At 10:16 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Think about this. When this case goes away after the election, the False Accuser can still make some "easy money" by suing the college where she is attending. It is highly unlikely that she gave that college permission to disclose that she is registered there. Could there be a violation of the FIRPA (Federal Individual Right To Privacy Act)?

At 10:28 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the 9-7 H-S letters to the editor -- Deborah Correll follows up on an earlier letter in support of the Duke defendants by responding to an ill-informed critic:

They Didn't Do It

Nice letter!

At 10:34 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I completely forgot to conlude my previous message with my point. My point is this. With another avenue for legal action, the false accuser may be more inclined to drop this hoax. The fact that her college disclosed her registration is public and highly provable.

At 10:42 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:16 am --Usually colleges are careful about such matters. Do you suppose NCCU did that without the consent of CGM? That would surprise me a great deal. Perhaps, they asked her and she gave her consent. Maybe she wanted the world to know that she is doing all right.

Also, I would not think she can get much out of NCCU from such a law suit. If she wants to make money, and I think she does, she should sue the City of Durham for forcing her to provide false information and carrying on with these false accusations. Nifong and Co must have coerced her to do or say a lot of things that were not authentic. All she needs is one of those, and she is rich. That is where the money is. Frankly, I do not see any money coming to her from anywhere else. I see a lot of trouble coming to her once the case is dismissed. If her friends wanted to serve her well, this is what they would recommend her to do. It is a sure winner; it is a no-loss proposition. Having said that, I doubt she has any true friends around her. She must be surrounded with people who see this as an opportunity to advance their own agendas and interests. What she needs is a “true friend” and those are real hard to come by.

At 10:46 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In yesterday's H-S:

Official explains bond foul-ups

According to the article, the number of mistakes Durham magistrates make in setting bond for criminal defendants are the result of inadequate staffing and outdated computer software. The litany of repeat violent felony offenders being given as alow as $10,000 bond has me shaking my head once again. How is it that the same system could insist on bond of $400,000 in the Duke case for three individuals without the type of rap sheets described in this article, including murder charges, crimes involving guns and known gang affiliations, while these other defendants are given what have to be considered minor bail requirements? What a corrupt system.

At 10:47 AM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In yesterday's N&O:

Detective got tough with Duke students

All about Gottlieb -- sounds like he has the same bulldog, obstinate personality as Nifong does, as well as the same antipathy toward Duke students -- two peas in a pod.

At 12:00 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:46 post, the excause that they "Durham" courts have out- dated software, is must likely not true. It only takes one hour if not less to get into the main system and download a new updated version of the software. The outside world does it all the time.

Maybe the reason the Duke 3 had such high bail in my opinion is because they are from out of town and the judge wanted to makes sure they returned.

Reading everything that I have, CGM and the Kim Roberts cooked up a story in order to make fast money. Remember CGM has done things like this in the past and now she CGM might have something on someone in Durham, that they don't want to have get out. That is probably why Nifong will not drop the charges.

At 12:35 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moved from elsewhere
Interesting Seminar scheduled to be held at Syracuse University on Tuesday , 19-Sep. 2006. Those in the area should find it enlightening. The specifics are:

"Lacrosse Justice." Did politics and publicity railroad the Duke Lacrosse defendants? Or were their accusers treated unfairly? A Constitution Day discussion with Dahlia Lithwick about justice, media responsibility, and race and gender politics in the courts. Presented by the Institute for the Study of the Judiciary, Politics and the Media at Syracuse University (IJPM) and the Carnegie Legal Reporting program at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.

4 to 6 pm at Public Events Room, Eggers Hall, SU.


At 12:41 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An important followup in today's NandO on Gottlieb: Lead investigator has "issues"

I would now be concerned about Gottlieb's wife and kids.

A thug like this guy's likely response to his career collapsing will be to lash out at his own family.

I hope I'm wrong.

At 1:16 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what is interesting and pathetic about the Syracuse symposium is that it is being held in NEW YORK.

Not Durham

The cowardice of Presidents Brodhead (Duke) and Ammons (NCCU) knows no bounds.

At 2:06 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the Syracuse forum will be interesting. I hope someone who posts here can go and report on it.

Lithwick wrote on the case back in April, after tne first round of DNA tests came back but before the prosecution discovery occurred. The article didn't say much other than commentators who knew nothing of the people involved jumped to conclusions based on their own experiences and prejudices.

I don't get 1:16 poster's comment that a symposium being held at Syracuse is pathetic or is further proof of cowardice of Brodhead and Ammons. Syracuse is in New York, so that's why it's being held there. Brodhead and Ammons aren't involved.

At 2:26 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't be intentionally obtuse.

The Duke hoax is, as Nifong likes to say, a "Durham case with a Durham solution"

Having a symposium on this case in upstate NY (actually, come to think of it, having _anything_ in upstate NY) is a waste of breath.

At 2:48 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above: That depends on your expectations. If you expect that as a result of this symphosium something will change, probably you are right. Nothing will change. But, if you expect to hear some good and interesting discussions around the case, where those discussions are held is not important. I do not see any problems with a Syracuse location.

At 2:58 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

N&O is reporting that Sgt. Gottlieb is on leave. Perhaps it does stem from the internal investigation of his racist remarks in July. What make me think this is that it was reported the The city council has voted to release the report to the public, by an overwhelming vote. How could they vote to release something that they did not see. So we have to assume that the city manager and city council have seen something to vote on. Perhaps this report is the basis for Gottlieb's leave of absense.

At 3:29 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above not really, they said that because of what the officer's did and the lacrosse case that it would be appropriate to release the report to the public, I do agree he must have been found that because he is in charge he did not stop what was going on.

At 3:44 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm, sounds like Nifong wants Gottlieb to take the bullet on the Duke Hoax. If he can connect CGM to Gottlieb, he can hang them both out to dry and say they engaged in a conspiracy to hoodwink him and use him to further CGM's civil lawsuits against Duke and the players. He was "just an innocent victim" of a bad cop and a woman of questionable morals. Works for me! Wonder if Gottlieb has anything to cover himself with Nifong. If not, he'd better start looking...

At 4:12 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can bet that the _only_ Gottlieb has is a long line of fraudulent police work probably going 4 or 5 years back.

When a corrupt cop goes bad there isn't just one misdeed but hundreds of them.

(and the full knowledge of his colleagues and usually his supervisors)

This is only the beginning of revelations about the Durham PD.

At 4:32 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:44 post if CGM and Gottieb are in it together CGM just lost any civil suit she may have had.
Because any connection she might have, that can and will be used in the civil trial.

CGM also will not be able to hide behind any rape shield laws. Here past is coming back to haunt her big time.

At 5:50 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I could believe Nifong jumped, prematurely, on this case for political reasons and then couldn't back away, or possibly that Gottlieb hates Dukies and therefore was sucked into the AV's story and felt the need to fabricate evidence later to support his actions. I can believe that the AV put forth a lie when faced with the possibility of involuntary committment to a psych ward. But I think it's way over the top to suggest that Gottlieb and the AV are in this together--that there is some calculated plot. And I think some of these fantastic theories actually hurt the credibility of the FODU.

At 6:05 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 5:50 post
I think you are dead wrong. I think it would be in the best interest, for the defense, to look into all possiblities. I certainly hope you are not in law school, because you will have a hard time finding clients. You must think that all police officers are squeky clean and if you think that you are mistaken.

At 6:13 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:05: please don't insult me. I happen to have a different opinion than you on some issues, but we are on the same side. And, if you actually read what I wrote, you should know that I certainly do not think that all police officers are squeaky clean--in fact I think Gottlieb did fabricate evidence. As others have said before me, there are many times when I almost don't want to come back to this site because of the vitriol that some can't avoid. If we drive away others, it would be a shame.

At 6:36 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re:5:50 poster-I don't think Gottlieb and CGM are conspirators, I do think that Nifong is looking to get out of the mess he's finding himself in. I think that, early on, he anticipated a plea bargain; after the unequivocal "no sex of any kind" and successful election, Nifong thought the media attention would go away and the charges could be dropped for one reason or another. He's found himself in a mess he didn't anticipate. Gottlieb may look like a good fall guy to him. Everyone on the prosecution's side in this hoax is looking for someone else to blame- they're all looking for cover- Nifong, Gottlieb, Broadhead, N&O (Melanie, Ruth and Vaden), DPD, etc. Plausible deniability seems to be the order of the day in Durham.

At 6:39 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Broadhead is really going to need that PR firm. I just read the WSJ weekend edition, and there's a front page article entitled "How Lowering the Bar Helps Colleges Prosper." It is not a pretty description of development admissions at Duke.

At 6:55 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 6:39 poster: Can you cut and paste the WSJ article here for non-subscribers?

At 7:02 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 6:13 Post
I am on your side, but when you have a cop that stretches the truth, as much as Gottlieb did, then I want to know his motivations. After being a P/O for 25 years, I was know in front of my judge as "candid". I probably could have stretched the truth or downright lied, submitted, falseties in a report and gotten away with it, but did not. I just felt that with the police interaction with this accuser, she was well known by many members of the police department. Combine that with her occupation at the time of this alledged rape, who knows how many people had interactions with her. The news reports say there are contradictions, between what Nifong stated in court and what Gottliebs report states. This is all thanks to the NY Times story. A case this important, with the lives and futures of three inocent Duke students on the line, should be investigated fully. A 15 year member of the DPD, would most probably have known the accuser, but not the gentlemen involved. DA Nifong claim "work product" nothing about the case was discussed, in meeting Gottlieb and Nifong and other had with CGM. Gottlieb said they were discussing the case in those meeting, therefore not work product. What would motivate the head investigators report, to conflict with what the DA, stated in court. All I am saying, is that being in the DPD for 15 years or more he may have had some interaction with CGM and that if he did it should be looked into by the defense. Even Himans, written notes, of the suspects descriptions, differ from what Gottleib put in his report and that was done by memory, only after the arrest of the Duke three. Gottlieb had no written notes of the descriptions, from his interview with CGM, Himan did. I just wondered how Gottliebs report is different from Himans notes and Nifongs, statements in court. So if someone is not being candid, who is it, you tell me.

At 7:06 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If anyone can attach the WSJ article mentioned above, that would be great. I can't access it without a WSJ account.

At 8:55 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WSJ article:

How Lowering the Bar
Helps Colleges Prosper
Duke and Brown Universities Rise in Prestige
In Part by Wooing Kids of Hollywood, Business Elite
A Debate Over Michael Ovitz's Son
September 9, 2006; Page A1

Twice a year, after reviewing applicants to Duke University, Jean Scott lugged a cardboard box to the office of President Terry Sanford. Together, Ms. Scott, director of undergraduate admissions from 1980 to 1986, and Mr. Sanford pored over its contents: applications from candidates she wanted to reject but who were on his list for consideration because their parents might bolster the university's endowment. Ms. Scott won some battles, lost others and occasionally they compromised; an applicant might be required to go elsewhere before being taken as a transfer.

"There was more of this input at Duke than at any other institution I ever worked for," says Ms. Scott, now president of Marietta College in Ohio. "I would have been very pleased to have the best class as determined by the admissions office, but the world isn't like that."

Over more than 20 years, Duke transformed itself from a Southern school to a premier national institution with the help of a winning strategy: targeting rich students whose families could help build up its endowment. At the same time, and in a similar way, Brown University, eager to shed its label as one of the weakest schools in the Ivy League, bolstered its reputation by recruiting kids with famous parents. While celebrities don't often contribute financially, they generate invaluable publicity.

Admissions policies are just one ingredient affecting a school's resources and reputation. Having a championship basketball team, a standout academic department or an innovative curriculum, for example, may also boost applications and donations. Moreover, the influence of parental wealth and renown on university admissions is not a new phenomenon. Traditionally, universities have relied on gifts from alumni, who are rewarded with "legacy" preferences for their children.

What makes Duke and Brown, among other institutions, stand out, is the way in which they ramped up and systematized their pursuit: rejecting stronger candidates to admit children of the rich or famous, regardless of their ties to the university.

Both schools had a behind-the-scenes power broker, a go-to man for prominent parents seeking to fast-track their children's applications. Duke had Joel Fleishman, 72 years old, a wine connoisseur who sits on boards of companies run by Duke donors and the parents of Duke students. At Brown, the contact was the late David Zucconi, a barrel-chested ex-football player with a bone-crushing handshake, a booming Bronx accent and a resemblance to actor Jason Robards.

In the world of higher education, children of the rich and famous are known as "development cases," pursued by presidents and fund-raisers often to the dismay of admissions staffs. Duke landed the children of fashion mogul Ralph Lauren and other corporate titans. Some of them became major donors, helping boost Duke's endowment from 25th in 1980 ($135 million) to 16th in 2005 ($3.8 billion).

Brown raised its profile by enrolling children or stepchildren of politicians and celebrities, including two presidents, three Democratic presidential nominees, two Beatles and seven Academy Award winners. A particularly controversial case was the son of Hollywood superagent Michael Ovitz, whose application sparked a debate within Brown.

Celebrity students generally lag behind their classmates in academic honors. But their prominence -- and that of their parents -- helped transform Brown into a top destination for students with a creative or artistic bent. Brown accepted just 13.8% of applicants for this year's freshman class, the lowest percentage in its history, as the number of applications rose sharply. Its endowment has risen from 29th nationwide in 1980 ($123 million) to 26th in 2005 ($1.6 billion), although it remains the lowest in the Ivy League.

This success, however, carries a cost. As the number of applicants has soared in recent years, premier schools admit as few as one in 10 students, a far more selective rate compared with a generation ago. To make room for an academically borderline development case, a top college typically rejects nine other applicants, many of whom might have greater intellectual potential.

Some colleges have been known to accept all applicants from a given high school to conceal the development admit, and thereby avert criticism from rejected students. Known in the trade as "considering context," the practice shortchanges worthy applicants from other high schools who might otherwise have made the grade.

Duke has acknowledged the existence of development admits. University spokesman John Burness says the ensuing donations help the university fund facilities improvements and financial aid, among other areas. He says the donations "frequently do not fund" Duke's endowment, whose rise is "principally related" to a successful investment strategy.

Brown's dean of admissions, Jim Miller, says the school wouldn't comment on the credentials of any particular student, citing confidentiality rules. In general, he says, "all students at Brown are admitted because the university believes they are qualified, can meet the rigorous demands of our academic program, and will be active and contributing members of our community."

When Mr. Sanford (1917-98), a former North Carolina governor, assumed Duke's presidency in 1970, he found a university with a budget deficit and alumni too young to make bequests any time soon.

"Terry said: 'What we need is some first-class funerals,' " recalls his biographer, Howard Covington.

To increase donations and help make Duke a top-tier school, Mr. Sanford turned to an old friend, Croom Beatty, a teacher and fund-raiser at a North Carolina boarding school. Now retired, Mr. Beatty recalls Duke's student body in the early 1970s being dominated by middle-class public-school students from Northern and mid-Atlantic states. They were admitted largely on the basis of high SAT scores. After graduating, they "didn't connect with Duke," and their giving was insufficient, he says.

At Mr. Sanford's urging, Mr. Beatty scoured the nation's prep schools for applicants whose families could enrich Duke. "I handled the private schools," he recalls. "I basically kept a list of people whom it would be in Duke's best interest to have them come." For these applicants, Mr. Beatty says, a subpar SAT score was not necessarily a barrier if they showed what he called "other areas of leadership."

Duke's recruiting also involved raiding wealthy families traditionally associated with other top universities, especially Yale. The Mars candy-bar clan, the Kohlers (Wisconsin makers of plumbing fixtures) and the Wrigleys of chewing-gum fame started sending their kids to Duke.

Texas oil magnate Robert Bass, a Yale graduate, and his wife Anne, a Smith College alumna, donated $10 million to Duke in 1996, three years after their son enrolled, and another $10 million in 2001. Anne Bass joined Duke's board in 2003. Through a spokesman, the Basses decline to comment.

Word spread in private-school circles that Duke was hunting for development cases. "I would say to the parents, 'Duke is a long shot. I would recommend a less competitive school in the South,' " says Mary Anne Schwalbe, college counselor at Manhattan's Dalton School from 1979 to 1985. "The parents would say, 'I've been in touch with somebody there and it's looking good.' "

Texas entrepreneur Milledge "Mitch" Hart III, co-founder of Electronic Data Systems Corp., didn't know anyone at Duke in 1981. But after his daughter told him it was one of her top two choices, Mr. Hart called a former Duke dean he knew who promised to introduce him to the right person: Joel Fleishman.

Mr. Fleishman has held numerous titles at Duke, from senior vice president to professor of law. His power at the university stemmed in part from a long association with Mr. Sanford, which dated to the president's days as governor. Mr. Fleishman's résumé also includes a variety of affiliations with nonprofit foundations and companies.

What it omits is his role at the vortex of development and admissions. Mr. Fleishman, who served as chairman of a 1983-92 fund-raising campaign that raised $221 million, courted potential donors and pushed to admit their children.

Ms. Scott, the former admissions director, recalls having conversations with Mr. Fleishman about candidates. Harold Wingood, a senior associate director of admissions from 1986 to 1992, says Mr. Fleishman would "call either me or the president's office" to advocate for development cases.

Mr. Fleishman wrote a wine column for eight years for Vanity Fair magazine and cultivated Duke donors with vintage selections. "Joel used to give very expensive bottles of wine and put them on his university expense account," recalls former president Keith Brodie, who succeeded Mr. Sanford in 1986 and sought to restrict the practice of development admits. "Because they were millionaires, you had to buy an expensive bottle." Mr. Fleishman, now a professor of law and public policy at Duke, declines to comment.

Mr. Fleishman met the Hart family at the airport and escorted them to the house of the Duke president, where the family stayed for three nights, Mr. Hart recalls. His daughter enrolled at Duke -- followed by three more of his children. In 1986, after Mr. Hart pledged $1 million to a fund-raising campaign led by Mr. Fleishman, Duke established the Hart Leadership Program, which teaches students leadership skills.

Mr. Hart says all four children were "competitive academically" and that no one at the university, including Mr. Fleishman, solicited a donation. "I had to offer him," Mr. Hart says.

At the same time, Mr. Hart acknowledges the role wealth can play in admissions. "Do I think money can make a difference... . Yeah, sure," he says. "Human nature is going to be human nature."

Mr. Fleishman's friendships with Duke donors gave him a valuable entrée into businesses far afield from academia. Take, for example, Ralph Lauren. Two of the famed designer's children, David and Dylan, graduated from Dalton School in Manhattan in 1989 and 1992 respectively and enrolled at Duke while Mr. Fleishman ran the fund-raising campaign.

A person familiar with their Dalton records describes David as a "B-plus" student with SAT scores in the 1100s. Dylan had better grades and SATs in the 1200s. In that era, Duke's average SAT score was close to 1350.

Sondra Feig, then Dalton's college counselor, says the Laurens had earlier "learned an important lesson" when Brown turned down their older son. Andrew had a B average in high school with an SAT score lower than that of his siblings, according to a person familiar with the records. He enrolled at Skidmore College and later transferred to Brown.

For David and Dylan, Ms. Feig says, the Laurens hired an experienced, independent college counselor. "They learned who to go to and how to do it. That's what did it for Duke."

Phyllis Steinbrecher, the Laurens' independent counselor, says she has dealt with Mr. Fleishman on development cases, although she declines to identify the students. Mr. Fleishman and Ralph Lauren were certainly familiar with each other: According to Dr. Brodie, the designer was a regular guest at dinners Mr. Fleishman hosted for parents of students he'd helped.

Mr. Lauren has pledged a six-figure gift to Duke. In 1999, Mr. Fleishman became a director of Polo Ralph Lauren Inc. As of the company's most-recent filing, he was earning $35,000 a year as a director plus $7,500 as chairman of its compensation committee and $2,000 per meeting. He also owned or held options to buy 37,500 shares of Ralph Lauren stock, worth at least half a million dollars, public filings show.

A Polo Ralph Lauren spokeswoman says Mr. Lauren, the company and David Lauren decline to comment. Andrew and Dylan also wouldn't comment. There's no evidence that Mr. Fleishman's directorship or Mr. Lauren's donation to Duke was tied to admitting the Lauren children.

Mr. Fleishman also sits on the board of Boston Scientific Corp., whose chairman, Duke alumnus Peter Nicholas, is one of Duke's biggest donors. His three children graduated from the university.

Mr. Fleishman sits on more corporate boards "than a lot of people, especially nonpresidents," says J. David Ross, a former vice president at Duke. Mr. Ross says he believes the directorships weren't payback for admissions. Duke spokesman Mr. Burness says Mr. Fleishman "is a person of considerable distinction and accomplishment, and it's no surprise that a number of leading nonprofit and corporate organizations have invited him to share his wisdom as a member of their boards of directors." Boston Scientific declines to comment.

In 1969, Brown eliminated requirements compelling students to take classes across the academic spectrum, part of a broad revision of its undergraduate education. The "New Curriculum" had an unintended side effect: expanding Brown's appeal to Hollywood celebrities whose children hoped never to open another math or science text.

Brown's lack of requirements was "a huge part of what made me want to go there," says Tess Curtin Lynch, 23, daughter of comedian Jane Curtin. As a student at Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, her grades were "brought down by math," she says. The first time she took the math SAT, she says she scored 550 out of 800. Her college counselor at Harvard-Westlake told her she would need at least 600 to be competitive at Brown. Her family hired a tutor, who helped lift her score to 660 (along with a 700 verbal mark).

Not only is Ms. Lynch's mother well-known, but her father is a Brown alumnus, giving her "legacy" preference. Brown alumna Nancy Josephson, an influential Hollywood agent, wrote her a letter of recommendation.

"I'm willing to admit I had the best possible set of circumstances," says Ms. Lynch, who graduated from Brown in 2005 with a degree in art history. "I was very lucky. I don't know what my situation would have been without these steps up."

In 1979, Brown cemented its rising stature by enrolling the late John F. Kennedy Jr., who was widely expected to follow his father, grandfather and sister Caroline to Harvard. But Mr. Kennedy wanted to escape his family's shadow. After graduating from Brown in 1983, he enrolled at New York University law school.

"The greatest advantage to Brown I was able to achieve was the admission and matriculation of JFK Jr.," says James Rogers, admissions director from 1969 to 1988. "People began to talk about Brown. If somebody who had as many admissions options as he had would choose Brown, there had to be some reason."

In 1989, Brown installed a president known for his fund-raising prowess and celebrity friends: Vartan Gregorian. As president of the New York Public Library, Mr. Gregorian remade a stodgy institution into a chic place for charitable donations.

Keenly aware that Brown's endowment was only one-tenth of Harvard's, Mr. Gregorian corralled the son of billionaire Gordon P. Getty. William Paul Getty graduated in 1989 from the Groton School. Mr. Gregorian was a trustee of the J. Paul Getty Trust and a friend of William's mother, Ann Getty. She joined the board of the New York Public Library in 1985 and donated $1 million to the institution.

"I wanted Gordon Getty's children to come to Brown," Mr. Gregorian recalls. "I told admissions, 'The Gettys' son is applying and I know them very well.' "

Mr. Gregorian says he didn't expect a financial quid pro quo and that he recommended five other colleges for William Getty to consider. The former Brown president says he would not "compromise his integrity for wealthy individuals."

William Paul Getty "dropped out in six months," Mr. Gregorian says. He described William as a "good student but not serious." The Gettys didn't make a significant gift to Brown. Reached at his California home, William Getty declined to comment.

Mr. Gregorian, now president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a philanthropic organization founded by Andrew Carnegie, acknowledges facilitating admissions -- including of another student who left after a short period -- but says intercessions on his part were rare. He says the children of the famous flocked to Brown not because they got an admissions edge, but because of their anonymity on campus, the flexible curriculum and the student body's "esprit de corps."

Parents looking for a contact at Brown invariably came across the name David Zucconi. Mr. Zucconi held various titles in 44 years as a Brown employee, but one job remained the same: behind-the-scenes liaison to the rich and famous, a role he took on with unusual gusto. The 1955 Brown graduate drove a large white Cadillac convertible and invariably dressed in a blazer and university tie.

Mario Zucconi says his brother's name was passed between Brown alumni in the know. "He was out with Walter Matthau. He had drinks with Walter Cronkite. They wanted to get their sons or daughters in."

Mr. Cronkite says he doesn't recall meeting Mr. Zucconi. He says his son enrolled at Brown but dropped out.

"I spoke to Zucconi several times about some of my development cases," says Bruce Breimer, director of college guidance at Manhattan's Collegiate School. "He would interview the kids, write a report, pave the way, let the admissions office know the prominence of the family. The buzz was, 'He's the guy to go to.' "

Mr. Zucconi helped Vanessa Vadim, the daughter of actress Jane Fonda, navigate the application process, according to William Nicholson, a former Brown admissions officer. He recalls that Mr. Zucconi and Ms. Fonda had lunch at Brown's faculty club, he recalls. Mr. Nicholson says Ms. Vadim "did not need a lot of push" and would have been a strong candidate anyway.

Stephen Rivers, a longtime friend and publicist for Ms. Fonda at the time, confirms Ms. Fonda knew Mr. Zucconi. "He dealt mostly with Debi, Jane's assistant at the time, and I met him and spoke with him several times as well."

Although he embodied Brown to alumni and celebrities, Mr. Zucconi had detractors within the administration who felt that the onetime Brown halfback specialized in end runs around their authority. Besides the usual list of candidates, Brown admissions officers often had to swallow a separate "Zucconi list."

"He got some kids into Brown, pushing, one way or another, who should never have been there," recalls Mr. Nicholson, the former Brown admissions officer. "Usually they were children of great wealth or alumni. I would try to accommodate him. Sometimes the kids whom he referred were God awful. I'd call him and say, 'Dave, you've got to do some screening.' "

Mr. Gregorian says trustees, alumni and other notables used Mr. Zucconi as an unauthorized back channel, something he says shouldn't have happened. "I established a process that no case can go directly from Zucconi to admissions," he says. "Zucconi didn't think anybody that applied to Brown should be turned down."

In January 2003, at the age of 69, Mr. Zucconi died of cancer. At the funeral, Mario Zucconi recalls, "at least a dozen people said to me: 'If it wasn't for your brother, my son or daughter wouldn't have gotten into Brown.'"

In the late 1990s, the son of the man often called the most powerful in Hollywood applied to Brown, prompting an intense internal debate over how far the school should bend its rules for a development case.

Brown president E. Gordon Gee was enthused when Christopher Ovitz, son of superagent Mr. Ovitz, sought to enroll. Mr. Gee, who had recently arrived at Brown after presiding over three public universities, felt hamstrung by its endowment. Mr. Ovitz had a track record of educational philanthropy, and Mr. Gee believed he might also open doors to a vast array of Hollywood entertainers and executives.

Chris Ovitz's academic credentials, however, were below Brown's standards. Thomas Hudnut, headmaster at Harvard-Westlake private secondary school, says Chris "was very socially mature and got along well with adults. He was physically and academically immature. That's a very tough combination for a boy to have."

Mr. Hudnut says he encouraged the Ovitzes to send Chris to boarding school, where he would be under less of a microscope, but "they weren't ready to do that." Instead, Chris transferred to Crossroads School for Arts and Sciences in Santa Monica, an arts-oriented school that caters to Hollywood children.

Of five Crossroads classmates who enrolled at Brown, four were inducted into the Cum Laude Society, signifying that they ranked in the top 20% of their high-school class. According to a copy of the class yearbook, Chris was not in the honor society. Says Erin Durlesser, one of the four: "He definitely was not academic in my opinion. ...The ones who also applied to Brown felt it was inappropriate competition."

Michael Goldberger, then Brown's admission director, balked at Chris's lack of credentials. According to people familiar with the situation, he cautioned Mr. Gee that accepting Chris would damage Brown's credibility with high schools in southern California.

The president pressed the issue and they compromised, according to former Brown officials. Chris was admitted as a non-matriculating "special student" allowed to take classes at Brown. If he proved his mettle, he would be granted status as a regular student. The school hoped that would jolt him into performing better, according to a person familiar with Brown admissions. Mr. Goldberger declines to comment.

James Ellis, a lawyer for the Ovitz family, defends Brown's admission of Chris. "If diversity in terms of background and experience that kids bring to a college campus has any meaning at all, having spent time with Chris and [his sister] Kimberly...these kids have perspectives and experiences and backgrounds that I just think are tremendously valuable and unique and would be a benefit to any campus," Mr. Ellis says.

Chris Ovitz left Brown within a year and later obtained a bachelor's degree in history from UCLA, his father's alma mater. According to Mr. Ellis, Chris is now director of business development for an Internet startup. President Gee left Brown for Vanderbilt University in 2000.

Chris's admission fostered a relationship between his family and Brown. In 2002, his sister transferred there from New York University. Michael Ovitz has hosted a reception for Brown President Ruth Simmons at his Brentwood mansion as well as speeches on campus by director Martin Scorsese and actor Dustin Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman himself is the father of two Brown undergraduates.

At 10:31 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

no there there in the WSJ story.

I think (actually I know) that Mr Golden has a chip on his shoulder

Brown has a long tradition of this sort of celebrity mongering. Duke is just trying to catch up.

This case probably set Duke back about 50 years in trying to get Hollywood types to attend.

Now _that_ is what a social catastrophe looks like.

At 11:45 PM, September 10, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:50 pm poster - you write:

And I think some of these fantastic theories actually hurt the credibility of the FODU.

May I remind you that this is an open board where people are exchanging ideas -–often times opposing ideas-- and discussing all sorts of topics. If you disagree with a specific comment made, that is perfectly reasonable. You may respond to THAT comment and express your disagreement with it. You may even explain why you disagree with it. Instead, you are suggesting that such comments will hurt the credibility of FODU. Why should that be? FODU is not accountable for each comment made on this board. Individuals posting here are responsible for their own words. Aren’t you stretching this a little too far?

Remember there are always two sides to every argument. If FODU disallowed every comment made here that someone might find objectionable, there would not be any comments. We would have an empty board! There is no way around this; we must learn how to live with disagreements and opposing views. Please, let us keep our objections to specific comments and specific issues and not make blanket statements.

At 12:28 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

KC Johnson's latest:

Peter Wood's Distorted Campus Culture

At 1:41 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For all those on this board who think Brodhead has done an admirable job, I will reinforce what KC wrote:

The 3 faculty appointed to head the campus culture committee are

1. Peter Wood, an academic failure, who only scholarly output in the last year has been slanderous attacks on his own students.

2. Anne Allison, one of the premiere purveyors of Duke-stype PoMo joke schlolarship on barbie dolls and Pokemon, who published a defamatory articles against Duke students on her departmental website.

3. Karla Holloway who claims she is the victim of the lacrosse case because she has to serve on extra committees.

The only culture that these 3 are qualified to discuss is vigilantism.

There's Brodhead for you in a nutshell.

At 8:26 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Friendly disagreement good. Even chess players disagree as to who best player.

At 8:37 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 11:45P poster:
"Let us keep our objections to specific comments....and not make blanket statements."
I did object to a specific comment. I hope I am entitled to express my opinion, too. And my opinion was that a comment that I interpreted as suggesting that the AV and Gottlieb planned this together was far-fetched. Just my opinion, and I may be proven wrong in the end. I hope this board serves not only as a discussion forum, but also as an educational tool for those who are even just now beginning to question the facts of the case. So while I agree all points of view should be welcome, I also am concerned about maintaining credibility. And it seems to me that the nastiest retorts (and there are some) come when anyone dares to question some of the wilder conspiracy theories.

At 9:15 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re 1:41 am -- Yes, Brodhead finally makes it crystal clear where he stands. We also learn, without any doubt, how he feels about the Group of 88. These questions may finally be put to rest.

At 9:33 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 8:37 Poster, I'm the person who suggested the AV/Gottlieb connection. I meant it as a ridiculous way that Nifong will try to blame someone else for his pursuit of this hoax- not as a REAL possibility. It seems that Nifong, Gottlieb, et al are trying to find scapegoats as the hoax comes apart.

At 10:32 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now do your believe me?

RACIST, ROGUE Cop Mark Gottlieb is headed for a lifetime of hurt

Right about now.....

Students criticize LAX cop's behavior

Gottlieb's partner in crime R.D. Clayton's career should also be over.

As I said, never the first time for a rogue cop.....this goes way, way back for Mssrs. Gottlieb and Clayton.

At 11:11 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re above -- I just read the Chronicle article. This is scary stuff! Every Duke parent should be worried about the well being of their kids in Durham.

But the one who needs to worry the most is President Brodhead. Who is going to send their kid to Durham when there are so many good choices for colleges all over the country? Yes, that PR firm should come in handy. But, there some fallings that even the best PR firms cannot clean up. The falling in Duke is one of those. It will only be cleaned up after Brodhead is removed and a sensible new president is brought in. I give the trustees a few more weeks to start thinking about their alternatives.

At 11:24 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gottlieb is a scary cop. Certainly, if he is a witness for the prosecution (as he almost must be, right?) his credibility will be challenged and he will be impeached based on these anti-Duke incidents as well as his suspiciously late report. But Durham is not the only town with cops who have a bad attitude about college age kids. I know of similar situations in other college towns and one in which a kid had to plead guilty to something he didn't do because the cop lied, and the attorney advised him to avoid a jury trial where it would be the cop's word against the kid's. It shouldn't have taken the lacrosse incident to bring Gottlieb's actions to the surface. there are many who should have questioned his behavior sooner, like other cops, the DPD, the Herald-Sun, the Chronicle and the Duke Administration.

At 11:39 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There should be a concerted effort to take Gottlieb out of the police force. He does not belong in the police force, harassing and intimidating Duke students. He belongs in jail. If enough students come forth with their experience with him and document his harassments, he can be taken out. This type of behavior cannot and should not be tolerated anywhere.

At 11:45 AM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm in agreement with all of the above posts. GOOD JOB to the reporters and editors at the Chronicle. The kids at Duke have a lot more courage than anyone in the administration. No PR firm can spin what's been going on in Durham directed at the Duke students. I'd be afraid for my son or daughter to leave the confines of the campus.
Texas Mom

At 12:00 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wood heading the subcommittee on athletics and campus culture is a bad development. Wasn't he the lone dissenter on the committee which gave a favorable report on the lacrosse team culture?

I thought in reading that report that putting Wood on that committee was a great move because it effectively marginalized him. I guess it didn't.

At 12:11 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The evidence against Gottlieb has been slowly mounting, but the existence of a substantiated anti-Duke attitude is relatively new information--first uncovered by Stuart Taylor, I believe. "The Chronicle" has now given us real testimonials of Gottlieb's bias. The important thing now is to make sure "60 Minutes" has this information. While they seem to do a great job of uncovering these kinds of things, I wouldn't want to leave it to chance, especially since this information seems to be just coming out. What is the best way to make sure they get this info? Email a copy of today's Chronicle??? And to whom???? Any ideas?

At 12:20 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above Post: You can go to there website and send them an Email, Send registered Letters from the students themselves, and hit all of the radio stations. I believe some of the DJ's can help find a more direct way to send the information to them. I do agree that 60 minutes needs to be told of this and anything else the students can think of.

At 12:46 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to do two posts, I did the research for all of you there is the address for 60 minutes is:

60 Minuntes
524 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019

The website Address is:

I hope this helps in any and all ways.

At 12:57 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, KP. I have already sent the Duke Chronicle article to the website, but suggest others may want to do so, too. One email may get overlooked.

Can anyone tell me exactly how Gottlieb was assigned to be the lead investigator in this case? He wasn't the first on the scene, and there are other detectives that cover Trinity Park besides him. Is he the highest ranking officer, did he volunteer, was it just by chance???

At 1:17 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To bad Gottlieb wasn't out on sick leave that evening

At 1:43 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of you reported during the past few days that Durham City Manager Patrick Baker has been posting anti-Duke statements on various discussion boards, both under his name and anonymously. Does anyone have links to such posts? If you do, please post them here or notify the moderator through email. This needs to be done quickly before such comments are deleted from the boards involved.

At 2:47 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know if anyone want's to send Mark Gottlieb or any other DPD investigators an mail ie:Get Well Not here is there e-mail format.

To send email to any Department employee, please use the following format:

At 4:05 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was a front page article in USA Today this past Wednesday, I believe, about the gang violence in Durham. Did anyone see this? When this Friends of Duke Lacrosse Site site first opened, one of my messages was pulled because I had said that Duke kids were not safe in Durham. I had offended "Durham Mommy." I stick by that claim-- Durham is not safe, according to black ministers in Durham who try to save black kids by getting them plane tickets out of Durahm. Read USA Today.

People can take umbrage too quickly. I agree with the folks who say,"Be careful what you censor."--- Duke Mom (who is very well acquainted with Durham)

At 4:14 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to city manager Patrick Baker, gang violence is not a priority.

Cracking down on parties in the Trinity Party Neighbor is the first priority.

At 4:32 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr.Baker should be run out of town, if he things that neighborhood party's are more important than gang violence, no wonder they have cops like Gottieb, and Clayton.

At 4:37 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the folks who say,"Be careful what you censor."--- Duke Mom (who is very well acquainted with Durham)

Right. Those who support the Duke Three as innocent of the pending felony charges are the kind of people who think for themselves instead of yearn to be programmed.

Censorship generated suspicious instead of support.

At 6:49 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rather amazing that the Duiki wiki entry on the Duke case has nothing on the abysmal conduct on the duke faculty itself.

That should certainly be corrected.

At 9:29 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that Nifong is salivating over this opportunity to scapegoat Gottlieb, and skate free.

The decision has already been made from Baker, Chalmers and Nifong on down to sacrifice Gottlieb.

What amazes me still is the colossal sense of entitlement and stupidity of Gottlieb himself.

Even months after it was clear that his past was going to come back to haunt him, he still produced a fraudlent report that may in the end land him in a jail.

If anyone can explain how anyone (even a racist, rogue thug cop) could be so stupid I would love to hear it.

At 9:44 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is the link someone was trying to post earlier.

N.C. has no speedy trials law September 10, The Free Press

At 10:03 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks above: I just finished typing out the article and sent it to the Mod. Thanks for the help.

At 10:25 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

N.C. has no speedy trials law

Either the Constitution trumps NC law, or it doesn't. A year wait for a trial is not speedy.

And all the lawyers and all the king's men in NC can't make it so.

At 11:32 PM, September 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On speedy trials, see this link for a not too long and good explanation of the constitutional requirements on state courts. Apparently presumptions of violation of the requirement start at one year.

At 1:13 AM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a few late night notes:
Re the WSJ article: JFK Jr. also applied to Duke. Duke accepted him, but some in admissions held their breath and hoped he didn't accept because his prep school grades were . . . well, they matched his NY law board scores. He was smart enough, but not a good student.

Not only this case, but Duke's handling of it will not go unnoticed by future applicants. It won't be Brodhead's outward response that will matter. Instead, the result of his tacit support for a group of out-of-control extreme leftist professors that will make the difference.
The next factor will be the incredible curruption within the Durham PD and Bordhead's pandering to them and the "hate everybody" segment of the community. It doesn't look good when Durham police arrest students and not murderer - Durham has one of the highest crime rates per capita in the country.

Which leads back to the WSJ case: Duke Endowment, not just a few rich parents, will carry Duke in the future.

Still, I wonder when Bob Steel and the rest of the board of trustees realize that it's time to cut their losses and start standing up for their students.

At 6:50 AM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those who thought I was too hard on the Lacrosse team for symbolically throwing their ex-teammates under the bus in a rush to "forget about last year"...

I present Exhibit A from an article in yesterday's Herald-Sun about a Duke athletic rally last night

"But the meeting was also about showing how actions can speak louder than words and underscoring that the alleged actions of a few shouldn't drown out the many."

And this from Coach K: "What this situation this spring did was that people wanted to put a cloud over all of athletics and specifically lacrosse, and I don't think that's fair, quite frankly, because we have so many great kids. If somebody did something wrong, then hold them accountable, but don't indict everyone. So tonight was about saying to the rest of the student-athletes, 'Hey, y'all are good. Have a great year. Let's keep pursuing excellence.'"

I say: With friends like Coach K who needs enemies.

And I repeat, this will be the media's story line from here out.

The message: the guilty have been indicted; time to move on.

In his rush to impose the cone of silence, Coach Danowski and _all_ of his players have furthered the perception that the guilty have been identified.

And further harmed Reade, Collin and Dave in the process.

Way to go, Coach. Way to go, team.

At 6:55 AM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will add one other thing.

This case is about many things, but one of the fundamental ones is the insatiable human need to scapegoat.

At its base, that rally was about just that.

Scapegoating 3 innocent players so that rest of the players could feel good about themselves.

Not a pretty sight.

At 9:13 AM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good article at Durham-in-Wonderland

Mysteries of the McFadyen E-Mail

At 9:19 AM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Attendees received Nike-designed T-shirts with a logo featuring the word "excellence" surrounded by the rest of the words -- respect, integrity, diversity, sportsmanship, commitment and loyalty

Well, I hate to state the obvious, but clearly they're not showing much of any of those ideals to their indicted (and persecuted) teammates.

Wouldn't a few words have been in order about their innocence? And maybe having their names read off
as "present in spirit" with the rest of those assembled?

I think everyone walked out of Cameron today feeling real good about being a Duke student-athlete.

If being a Duke coach or a Duke athlete means you don't stand up for your wrongly accused friends, what good is it?

At 9:23 AM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, I'll admit there is a certain "They're gone. Let's forget it. It's Miller time" undertone to some of those remarks.

Still, I find it hard to believe that anyone on the lacrosse team has forgotten what is happening to their former teammates. They've all been scarred by this experience and Collin, Reade and Dave have been hurt the most. I think they know that. Just because they're practicing again and going forward doesn't mean they don't think about them. Matt Danowski said they still consider Collin and Reade part of the team.

There's no question that many people at Duke have scapegoated Collin, Reade and Dave but I haven't seen any of their teammates do it and I doubt they ever would do it. They know what it feels like to be scapegoated. Duke scapegoated the entire team last semester.

As for the media, they've had this story 100% wrong from the get go. They reduced the team to a ridiculous stereotype and fell in behind Nifong because they felt the case could help them pursue their "agenda" - if you know what I mean. Now that it's clear that the case is not what they thought it was alot of them look pretty foolish.

At 9:27 AM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pretty nauseating to say the least. I guess the Administration has completely whitewashed those fine examples of "integrity", "excellence","accountability", etc. with the Joe Alleva boating accident this summer. I can't remember reading anywhere on line or hearing on any news reports any references to this event by the Administration

At 10:15 AM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As with everything in life, good intentions don't matter. Action does.

Danowski's and the team's action has been silence. Doesn't get any more damning than that.

At 11:05 AM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree with those who are criticizing the lacrosse team as well as the athletic "rally" because they don't think they are supporting the three indicted players. I know for a fact that the lacrosse team members are doing things to help the three indicted players--like working on voter registration. Does anyone who criticizes them know for a fact that they are not calling those boys and helping in many other ways? Does anyone actually know what Coach K has done to support Pressler? If everyone is basing their judgment on an article in the paper, that's a little hypocritical--actions do speak louder than words and most of us don't actually see the players' or Coach K's actions.

Let's not misinterpret Coach K's words. His statement "if someone did something wrong" doesn't mean he thinks the boys are guilty of rape. Holding the party was in fact something wrong, and if one puts aside the false charges for a second, the athletic department still has to address that conduct. (And, by the way, a couple other athletes "did something wrong" during the same time period, so K's statement could refer to several things.) I think that was part of the purpose of the rally--to reenforce the values by which all athletes should live. The fact that the charges are still pending puts the athletic department in a difficult situation in terms of public comments. Remember, the real bad guys are the ones who are perpetuating these charges, even though it is their job and their duty to the people to seek truth justice.

I know everyone will jump on me because you all believe the university should come out and say that the boys are innocent, and that the whole thing is a hoax. I'd like to see that, too, but since I am not in their shoes, facing the issues they are facing (including many organizations who hold different views), and since I have not spoken to the university lawyers, who also might advise them on public comments, I will withhold judgment.

As far as Danowski goes, he came into this situation after the fact. While he may have known some of the boys through his son, for him to speak out on behalf of the three indicted players who he has never coached would be a little insincere. And I certainly don't know what he has done behind the scenes--does anyone who is criticizing actually know?

Yes, we should try to keep the pressure on Duke to make stronger statements of support for the three players, and we should do everything possible to spread the evidence that this was a hoax (there are many, many across the country who still don't know that, thanks to the media) but remember all the lacrosse players, athletes and other students were affected by this to some extent, and let's not misinterpret every thing we read as evidence of apathy.

At 12:39 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i guess well see if nancy grace and the media is all over this one- i doubt it

At 1:14 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the athletic rally was a good idea and a first step! Coach K is no fool; he knows the boys are innocent. However, it would be unproductive for him to announce that! And who knows, there may be some student-athletes who might think that a crime happened. After all, a significant number of students were pot-bangers so some of the athletes might wonder about the allegations. All Coach K said is that if anyone did a crime, that person should be held accountable. True. Obvious. He has to hold his cards close to his chest. And, so does the lacrosse coach! It is a mine field they are treading!

I say that this is a first step for Duke to stick out its chest and say, "I'm proud to be a Duke student-athlete." It was like a pep rally! It was reaffirming! Coach K was rallying the troops.

These athletic students shouldn't act like mangey dogs with their tails between their legs-- they need to take their stand as top dog! I feel that this was the point of the rally. I am sure that the 3 innocent boys are on all their minds! Coach K has to be careful not to polarize. And if he came out and said that the 3 boys were innocent and the whole thing a farce, how would that make Duke's President look? Silly? Stupid? Weak? And how would that make his boss Alleva look? Hypocritical? Would that be in Coach K's interest to do that? Would it be in the interest of the lacrosse three to do that? There are things everyone knows who follows this case. It is best to be indirect in public comments that the press is publishing. Coach K is no fool. This rally only helps the cause of the three wrongly accused guys! I think Coach K did the right thing and much more the smart thing! ( It also marginalized Brodhead without directly offending him.) -- Duke Mom

At 1:34 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the university lawyers, who also might advise them on public comments

Never let a lawyer's advice deter you from doing what you know to be right.

You can suffer the legal consequences much more easily than you can the damage to your conscience.

At 1:39 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Totally agree with the poster above.

The time is LONG, LONG, LONG, LONG, LONG past for this team to speak up.

At 1:41 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that we can't judge what's going on just from a news article, which is only covering one aspect of this story. But, that said. . .

And who knows, there may be some student-athletes who might think that a crime happened.

If they still think that, after all the evidence that has come out,
they aren't smart enough to be Duke students (hey, they aren't even smart enough to have graduated grammar school).

All Coach K said is that if anyone did a crime, that person should be held accountable.

OK, well-intentioned but poorly put (given the context). But we all make mistakes, so let's give him a pass on that part of it.

It is a mine field they are treading!

If a lynching were taking place,
I'd want someone to barge boldly in and try to stop it--not tip-toe cautiously.

And if he came out and said that the 3 boys were innocent and the whole thing a farce, how would that make Duke's President look?

That is Brodhead's problem. Brodhead STILL has the chance to go to bat
for some of his students--their innocence now is beyond question.
He could help rally the media.
So why is he keeping quiet?
I'm really interested in what sort of excuse he can offer.

At 2:02 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While we are waiting for the team to get the courage to open their mouths, let's get back to Mikey

When we last left Nifong he was claiming he had no choice but to let murderers out repeatedly on $10,000 bail. Just doing his job.

Today he and Bushfan shift the blame to the citizens of Durham because these murders and armed robbers are "black and poor" and nobody is giving them money so they have to kill and steal to get it.

Bail system has its limits, officials say

Guess old Mikey's becoming addicted to playing the race card.

I see "Gee, Officer Krupke" still works in Durham.

At 2:37 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Nifong and the judges should come up here to Massachusetts and learn how to check the backgrounds of frequent flyers. Here we can check the entire state in a matter of minutes.

We don't need to enter county by county. I guess the legal system in Durham has nothing better to do, if it needs to check the background of a person, by entering a code for each county.

Durham and N.C. for that fact should up date there system fast, one day they will let the wrong person out on bail "bond".

But our Duke 3 they were more than happy to slap a $400,000 bail, talk about backwards.

At 3:29 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scapegoating may be a natural human phenomenon, but so is the tendency to see anyone who doesn't support your side 100% as the enemy.

As to the atheletic rally, don't forget there is a faculty cultural subcommittee on athletics headed by Prof. Wood which will be evaluating the Duke athletic culture. I don't see anything wrong with giving a boost to Duke athletes and an encouragement to continue to act with integrity.

"Never let a lawyer's advice deter you from doing what you know to be right.

You can suffer the legal consequences much more easily than you can the damage to your conscience." ??????

Quite a silly statement. You would have Dave and Colin (assuming the judge would let them) give long interviews to Main Stream Media setting out their whole defense. Of course, that could make them vulnerable to false innuendo at a trial since the prosecution could figure out a way around the exculpatory evidence, but the defendants shouldn't care if they spend 15 years in prison, at least their consciences would be undamaged.

Oh, and I suppose that all Duke athletes and administrators should loudly and persistently attack all people in Durham who ever believed CGM, no matter what resentment that could cause in the jury pool for the trial. Hey, the jurors might use jury nullification to put these boys away for being on the same team with someone who used the word nigger or made an off color joke about a cotton shirt or sent a foul parody out by email. But the consciences of everyone would be undamaged, even though the defendants' jury pool would be contaminated against them.

At 3:34 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can suffer the legal consequences much more easily than you can the damage to your conscience." ??????

Quite a silly statement.

If Brodhead and the entire Duke faculty are keeping to a vow of silence because they are afraid
of lawsuits, then I think they
are way off course morally.

You would have Dave and Colin (assuming the judge would let them) give long interviews to Main Stream Media setting out their whole defense.

Nope. I think they should keep quiet. But their friends ought to be shouting their heads off about the injustice of this case.

At 4:10 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I posted this once long ago.

Although Lacrosse has become ever so popular and is growing by leaps and bounds - it is still NOT a money maker for any university. Heck, the pro players don't get paid much and need to work a full time job.

My point is this. That is the reason Duke has left these three out to dry. If this were one of Coack K's boys, we might have the same media frenzy, but I believe the administration would have played a different tune. Look at big time football - let's say a Notre Dame, for example. There have over the years been many scandals (in the 70s and huge gang rape by African American football players and a white girl) She left and the players (two of them brothers) went away and came back shortly to play football again. I believe if those lax players brought big, big money in, they would have been treated more favorably by Duke.

At 4:18 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke09 parent--I agree completely with you. And I don't know why some think Duke students are not speaking out--not everyone has to do it a certain way. There are many who have been speaking out on campus and in other ways. And i think the 6:50 post is off base. How many that are criticizing the Duke student body and the athletes themselves have been on campus and know exactly what is being said. And by the way, disagreement is not censorship. Choosing one's words carefully when speaking is not censorship.

At 4:29 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not trying to censor anybody. I just don't think it's morally bankrupt to follow legal advice or to keep quiet as a practical tactic, advised by lawyers or not. You guys are free to advocate whatever you want. When the subject of Duke comes up in conversations with me (usually "what are your kids up to" kind of situations") I find a way to say the lacrosse kids are a victim of a hoax. I'll give more information if asked, but I don't grab their coat lapels and make them hear the whole story.

Extremism in the defense of liberty may be no vice, but it didn't get Barry Goldwater elected to the white house. I'm sure he had a clear conscience, however.

The studied neutrality stance of Brodhead may be motivated by many things, though I doubt it's lawsuits. People on this forum and elsewhere think there is already a basis for such suits. I've had an exchange with him in which I suggested he speak out asking at least for a quicker trial date and he said he feels any effort by him to influence the Durham legal process would be counterproductive. I don't agree but I don't live there so he may be right.

At 4:42 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well said, Duke parent09!

At 4:47 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But yet Brodhead thought influencing the judicial system of Armenia was going to be productive?

What kind of example of courage does that set for your students?

Please, Brodhead is Hamlet, we all know that.

At 4:48 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:50 and 6:55am -- No way, coach K is an honorable man. He would not hold a rally to scapegoat anyone; he just isn't that type of a man. Coach K and others are trying positively to do what they can to bring some normalcy to the lives of these athletes. What is wrong with that; why do we have to attack them?

If it makes MG happy to think he is the only moral being left on earth, let him think that. I do not buy it. I have all the faith and trust in Coach K and the teammates of these students. I am sure the teammates of Dave, Collin, and Reade are thinking of them every moment of the day. I know they do. Why is this poster (whoever MG is) so desperate to turn us against each other? Does he gain from it? If this guy thinks he is a friend of the Duke 3, he should get his head examined.

He said it himself “with friends like Coach K who needs enemies?” No, that is no how it goes; this is more like it: “with friends like him (6:50 and 6:55 am poster) who needs Nifong?” I suggest we collectively ignore this guy. His rhetoric is not difficult to recognise. Let us just ignore him. He is not adding any value to our discussions anyway.

At 5:00 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:47 pm: What this comparison (the Armenian incident vs. the Durham incident) shows us is very important. Basically, Brodhead has weak personality and does what he is told to do by other more powerful personalities around him, such as Orin Starn. He did not do what he did in Armenia case because he thought of it. He did it because Orin Starn told him to do it. Similarly, in the Lacrosse case, he is not "not doing" what he should by choice. He is following the advice of Group of 88. They told him not to do anything and he is not doing it. It is as simple as that. In short, Duke's presidency is currently vacant.

At 5:07 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the issue of the team speaking out in support of their three teammates, I have to admit there's a part of me that wishes they would. When some players were interviewed after their first practice I wish someone had said that they support Collin, Reade and Dave and that they're behind them one hundred percent. On the other hand, they did say that they still consider Collin and Reade part of the team and I doubt they would say that if they didn't support them.

All the players on the team have been the victims of a modern day witch hunt. I think the administration at Duke abandoned them and worse, some of the faculty and members of the student body vilified them. The media vilified them too. I haven't walked a mile in their shoes so I'm very reluctant to judge them. I don't know any of them so I don't know what they're doing behind the scenes. I don't know what advice they're getting from attorneys either.

When Kevin Cassese was made interim head coach he stated that he supported all three players. I thought that was admirable. I don't think that statement hurt anything. In fact, I think it helped.

At 5:28 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with your comment about Kevin Cassese. He made some excellent comments, but then he had coached the 3 lax players.

At 5:30 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We hear a lot of comments about Brodhead, pesonally I think he has no backbone.

But where are the trustees 1n all this? Asleep at the wheel?

At 5:47 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to clarify my 5:07PM post, I didn't mean to imply anything against Coach Danowski when I mentioned Kevin Cassese's comments. Danowski came in to this after the fact and that puts him in a very different position than Cassese. I was just thinking about what the players could say that could help their former teammates and wouldn't get them into trouble with Titus' ridiculous gag order. They are potential witnesses in the case but I don't think a statement of support would hurt anything.

At 5:49 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I were Coach K, I'd be more willing to entertain offers from pro basketball this year after his season ends- the handwriting is on the wall for all of Duke athletics, as long as Broadhead is president.

I believe Broadhead to be a coward. He is not an educator, in the old fashioned meaning of the word. I might feel less vitriolic towards him if I were ignorant of his performance at Yale after the death of a co-ed there. Unfortunately, Broadhead is very typical of many college presidents. Most have three priorities:

1) Increase the prestige of the school- the basketball team has been instrumental in this by increasing Duke's national visibility and producing more applications for admission, which then results in an increase in selectivity and an increase in yield.
2) Increase the endowment
3) Decrease liability- make sure underage drinking is driven off-campus so that any lawsuits are not directed at Duke. Ask the new general counsel if Duke acts "in loco parentis"- the response will probably be "absolutely not." Check your contracts, parents, and see what the responsibilities of your sons'/daughters' colleges really are. I am certain that there are plenty of disclaimers of liability in the Duke contracts- and some sort of generic "behavior clause" for dismissal of a student- usually a "community standards" clause.

Being the president of a major university is an extremely high paying position (say $800,000), often with tenure for a spouse, and lots of perks- house, car, travel, corporate board positions, speaking engagements, etc. Broadhead does not give a flip about the students; he cares deeply about his job- see 1., 2., and 3.

At 5:58 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After this post I think I'll go back to my life, at least for a day. I'm rising to the bait again, though, for now.

Comparing the Armenian situation to this Durham case is like comparing apples to aardvarks.

I googled it and found this article, which described the case of the Duke scholar arrested in 2005 in Armenia for trying to take books out of the country, which he found out was illegal.

The article includes a Q&A with the scholar involved. Brodhead, among others, wrote to the president of Armenia to ask him to intervene. The scholar thanks Brodhead and others but particularly thanks Bob Dole.

Here's the letter Brodhead wrote on 8/1/05:

I had suggested to Brodhead on the lacrosse case that Duke as the largest employer in Durham had the right to ask that the matter be given special attention to move it along faster. I thought such a request could still be thought of as neutral, since such a request did not suggest a particular outcome should be reached. His read of the situation, and this was before the special judge was designated, was that even such a public request would be seen by Durham as an arrogant attempt by Duke to throw its weight around to interfere with a process that was Durham's, not Duke's. I still disagree, but I don't find that argument cowardly or unreasonable.

For some of you nothing he does now will ever redeem his prior conduct.

At 6:04 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I predict he will not do 1. 2. 3. well if he continues with his current stance. And, before you know it, he will be a liability to Duke. He may find himself out of an $800,000 salary soon enough.

At 6:53 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

His read of the situation...was that even such a public request would be seen by Durham as an arrogant attempt by Duke to throw its weight around to interfere with a process that was Durham's, not Duke's.

Yet Sarn went to sit in the courtroom in Armenia; has anyone from Duke gone to sit in the courtroom for the lacrosse hearings?
Even a legal counsel? Just as an observer?

And Duke contributes far more to Durham than it gets. And it certainly has the duty to insure that its accused students get justice, and not a railroading.

At 7:02 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

an arrogant attempt by Duke to throw its weight around

He certainly threw his weight around when he went to UNCC and gave a speech apologizing for the 'rape'. (Did Durham find that arrogant?)

to interfere with a process that was Durham's, not Duke's

It's gratifying to find that everyone in law and the administration seem to have read the New Testament (even if they have drawn the wrong lessons and made the wrong figures their models :

"When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere and that a riot was imminent, he took a basin of water and washed his hands in full sight of the crowd, saying, "I'm washing my hands of responsibility for this man's death. From now on, it's in your hands. You're the judge and jury."

I think the new Duke counsel said much the same thing--it's not for her to comment on it now.

It seems nobody at Duke has any responsibility at all for anything that happens in the lacrosse case--not the faculty, nor the law school faculty, nor the law students, not the athletic dept.--not anyone at all.

And if there is a railroaded conviction--well, it's all too bad, but they couldn't do anything about it, their hands are clean. They just washed them.

At 7:54 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Duke09Parent - if you're in contact with Brodhead could you ask him about a statement he made that has been bothering me?

Two days after Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were indicted, Brodhead attended a Durham Chamber of Commerce meeting. He was quoted by WRAL as saying "If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough".

I don't necessarily have a problem with the first part of that statement. If someone commits a rape, that is appalling. There's no question about it. It's the second part of the statement that bothers me - "If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough." What does Brodhead think Seligmann and Finnerty have done? He seems to think they are guilty of something. What is this something? And this something is "bad enough". Bad enough for what? It's all very vague and I wish he'd clarify it.

I should say that although I agree with Brodhead's statement that a rape, if one occured, would be appalling, I myself feel absolutely certain that Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans are innocent of the rape, sexual assault and kidnapping charges. Few things in life are as certain as that is. I don't believe any rape or assault occured that night.

The entire issue of Brodhead's statement has been discussed on KC Johnson's blog on August 23rd which is what alerted me to the statement. I've been confused about it ever since.

At 7:57 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Duke09's of this board are losing the argument as evidenced by their insistent name-calling and their lumping together a number of different posters who oppose their anything-that-Coach-K-does-must-be-correct

The team needs to speak up. Just as Cassesse- strongly, clearly and often.

And they need to do start now.

Brodhead needs to take his vacillation and indecision elswhere, maybe Armenia.

At 8:12 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 7:54 poster: I believe Brodhead's statement that "whatever they did was bad enough" referred, not to Reade, Dave and Collin as they had not yet been indicted, but to the team as a whole, and to the fact that they held a party at which there was underage drinking, they hired strippers and racial slurs were used. I believe he meant that these things alone warranted disciplinary action against the team.

At 8:15 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't noticed the "duke parent09's" calling anyone names--those postings, to me, seem to respect different opinions, while disagreeing with them. (that's okay, right? this is a discussion vboard where we are allowed to express our opinions.) In fact it seems to me that those who are anti-brodhead have been doing the name-calling.

At 8:27 PM, September 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 8:12 - No. Brodhead's comments were made on April 20th which was two days after Seligmann and Finnerty were indicted. So it seems his comments were directed towards them.

This is from the August 23rd post "Dissembling" on KC Johnson's blog. I think Johnson is very reliable and I tend to think he's got the dates right.

At 12:12 AM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An email sent today to Mike Nifong and 500 of his closest friends in town, just so he doesn't feel ignored.

To the lists:

Below is an outsider's view of the damage that Mike Nifong has done to the community of Durham.

It has nothing directly to do with the Lacrosse case but has been revealed to all of us who have been watching that hoax unfold in slow motion.

It regards instead the sad state of the justice system in your community, and it is now a widely shared opinion by those following developments and comparing it to what operates in our own communities.

Indeed, even more than Nifong's notorious procedural violations, abysmal ethics and inappropriate conduct, this story is the _most_ deeply disturbing aspect uncovered by the Lacrosse fiasco.

The obvious truth is that Mike Nifong and Jim Hardin before him having been running a glorified patronage racket out of the DA's office for years.

A system where repeat dangerous felons are let loose on low bails, and given endless court delays in return for the support and campaign contributions of the DA’s favored defense bar, folks like Woody Vann, Kerry Sutton and Mark Edwards.

Naturally, this system benefits Nifong (and Hardin before him). Both politically and in that little narcissistic thrill Nifong seems to get from knowing he has bought-and-sold allies.

But the people of Durham are the losers in a big way; repeatedly preyed upon as the arrested but paroled murderers and armed robbers roam the streets for months and years committing a long series of additional crimes while on bail for trials that never come.

With the urging the blogosphere, the News Observer has begun to cover this blockbuster story. Publishing articles detailing Nifong’s endless excuses and shifting of blame to obscure the intentional Hardin-created patronage system he now oversees.

Just today, Nifong and District chief judge Elaine Bushfan even attempted to blame the citizens of Durham themselves for this corrupt revolving door system by saying that it was the citizen’s fault for not
educating poor men and thus _forcing_ them to murder and thieve.

And he, Nifong, has "no choice" but to let them roam free.

Over the years, the local newspaper, the Herald-Sun, has been more than negligent in overlooking this story. It is appears that in some cases, the Sun has been _actively_ complicit in hiding the Hardin-Nifong con game.

For example, Herald-Sun court reporter John Stevenson was for decades a corrupt insider, running a PR newsletter that curried favored with DA and favored defense lawyers alike at the same time he worked for the newspaper.

Ignoring this patronage system in his reporting at all costs.

In truth, Stevenson represents the worst possible example of a small town reporter on the take; one who is too blasé to even notice the stench of corruption around him.

And my loyal readers will be all too familiar with H-S Editor Bob Ashley's role as willing stooge for the Durham political class since arriving in town last year. Eager to please in exchange for dinner invitations and honorary degrees.

One of the best operating principles of life is that things don’t turn bad overnight.

Through the person of Mark Gottlieb, the Duke case revealed yet again that racist thuggery is alive and well in the Durham Police Department, abetted by an absent Chief and a deeply incompetent and immature City Manager, Patrick Baker.

And through the actions of Mike Nifong with regards to the cases of Ms Lisa Hawkins (the 112-time arrestee and cabbie shoplifter), Kim Pittman (the PR-savvy dancer-embezzler), and Crystal Mangum herself (of _misdemeanor_ stolen cab/cop assault/dropped drug charges fame), the cover was lifted on a DA-defense bar protection racket that has been operating undisturbed for years.

Y'all think the national media is being unfair to Durham?

Then boot Mark Gottlieb and Mike Nifong to the curb where they belong.

Then we can talk.

At 1:10 AM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you guys think it wise that the team speak publicly, you are mistaken, IMO. Every one of those boys who attended the party are going to be called as witnesses. The last thing the Duke 3 need is 40+ guys talking to the press. Everything they said would be dissected and analyzed - and then used against the Duke 3. Do I wish they could speak out publicly? You bet! But they would be foolish to do so and likely harm the defense.
I have also not seen whether the court ordered gag order applies to team members. It certainly applies to the Duke 3 which explains their silence.

At 2:15 AM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was distressed by Mr. Gaynor's statement that I attacked him, so I wanted to respond. I certainly believe that his writings have been quite good and valuable in people's perception of this whole affair. I also admire his writing ability, in his style and volume.

I have disagreed with him occasionally but never thought these were attacks or meant them to be. I referred to him by name once on this forum (9/7) as having written columns advising Finnerty to declare his innocence publicly more than he has. I said then he was "wrong" but hopefully such disagreement over tactics doesn't comprise an attack.

It was my post Mr. Gaynor quoted extensively in his 7/25 column in which he took me to task (rightly) for lumping Collin and Reade in the generally acknowledged poor behavior of some of the boys that night. Most of my post there was about boys being aware of the social context of activities they become involved in.

The strongest eptithet I have used since I started posting was "silly" (3:29 p.m. 9/12) and this was directed at the idea of ignoring legal advice to do what one "knows" is right and ignoring legal consequences in favor of a clear conscience. But I didn't just leave it at silly, I expressed what following such a course could result in. Plus, despite what someone thought, I didn't think that idea had been expressed by Mr. Gaynor (who is, like me a lawyer and probably hopes that his clients follow his advice).

I've recently been accused of calling people names (thanks for the support of someone who didn't see it that way), of being an apologist for Brodhead, of being a censor and of having acolytes (that one made me laugh!). I'm a bit mystified by it but OK, I can take it.

I first started here when I thought people were being too hard on Brodhead and had unrealistic expectations of a university president in this situation. After my first anonymous post I felt I should identify my perspective and continuing persona with my handle. I have not wanted to give my real name because as a dad I do not wish to embarrass my son or hold back for fear of doing so.

Michael, I do join you in your support of Cash Michaels. He is both a reflection and a herald of the black community on this issue. His turnaround makes me think the ABN campaign might succeed.

I am acutely aware that my son could quite easily have been where Collin, Reade and Dave are now. I think about them every day. I sent their defense fund money. I hope this nightmare is over for them soon. I want to go to the first home lacrosse game and cheer my head off.

Go Duke.

At 8:03 AM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A News & Observer Editorial today lambasting Mike Nifong (and the defense bar and judges) for their _intentional_ incompetence in the zoo that is the Durham courts

Courting crime

"Durham's legal community has let such inequities

This is what Bob Ashley's Herald-Sun publishes in
response, a defense of racist thug cop Mark Gottlieb

Policeman who arrested students was doing his job

At 9:06 AM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding M. Gaynor's earlier posting. I appreciate much of your work, but I believe you are dead wrong on certain points.

The 3 indicted lacrosse players should continue to follow the advise of their legal counsel and not you. That's what their attorneys are paid for. Mr. Evans was the best person to make a speech. He was captain of the team, he had graduated the day before and was about 23 years old. Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were none of the above. By Collin keeping his mouth shut, Mr. Nifong (and all of us) still don't know the details of Collin Finnerty's alibi, which causes a bit of a problem for Nifong's case.

Susan Lucci is a star, but also a private citizen. She deserves her privacy. Some of the newspapers printed her address. Why would you suggest she get up and speak about Finnerty? Do you think his parents want or expect that? Ms. Lucci hasn't known Collin his whole life. The Finnerty's only moved into their house about 5 years ago. Please don't write things you know absolutely nothing about.

At 9:21 AM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dukeparent09: I would not worry about offending Michael Gaynor. Have you seen some of his latest articles? He has been doing nothing but criticizing the Duke 3, their parents, their lawyers, and their friends. He does not seem worried about offending anyone, why should you? And what about the incredible attacks on this site? No, I would not worry about offending him. Frankly, I stopped reading his articles long ago. There are terrific articles coming out everyday now, thank god! Who needs to read him and his endless attacks on just about everybody?

At 11:16 AM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just got out of a meeting and I am quite disappointed to see so many off-topic comments on this page. I removed a few of them but need to do more clean-up.

May I remind everyone that an Open Board was setup for all off-topic discussions. The comments I removed just now and the ones I am about to remove should have been posted there. I will appreacite your cooperation on this matter.


At 11:17 AM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 9:21, 9:52, 10:24 and 10:53-- thanks, I feel better today.

It could be that because there is so little progress on the case these days, we are turning against each other more than we should.

Unless the new judge starts ruling on pending motions, we probably won't have any meaningful news on the case until the election in November.

The rumored "60 Minutes" report will give us opportunities to inform friends and acquaintences of what has really gone on in the case. I plan on preparing for the show by reviewing the timelines and the significant evidentiary revelations which have occurred. Past experience suggests they will get some things wrong. That show loves to skewer public officials so I am hopeful it will get the gist of the story right.

At 11:23 AM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Further to my earlier message, I will move all these off-topic comments to the Open Board under a new topic. If anyone wants to pursue this topic, it will have to be done on that board. This site is not for discussing personalities; it is for discussing the Duke Lacrosse case.


At 12:21 PM, September 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe it's time for another letter to Brodhead from FODU--thanking him for his earlier response, and clarifying the FODU request that he speak up for the students' right to a fair trial, that he ensure that the lacrosse players are treated fairly by faculty, etc. You could cite the Armenia situation (altho as earlier post said, it really is a very different situation) as a precedent. My suggestion would be to make the letter as brief as possible, so the specific requests do not get lost. If you want to revisit the injustices that have occurred so far, i would make that an attachment to the letter to keep it brief and to the point.


<< Home