Wednesday, May 31, 2006

General topics 23 - Full

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


At 7:50 AM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a little more information about Wes Covington, who was apparently chosen by Duke to be the "facilitator" at the meeting between the DPD and the lacrosse team soon after the rape allegations. (This meeting was subsequently cancelled by the parents of the team when they found out about this meeting). On the web site,

is the following statement regarding Mr. Covington: "For a number of years prior to joining the firm, Mr. Covington was an Assistant District Attorney in Durham County"

At 9:27 AM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read the link about Mr. Covington. Why would an attorney who practices medical malpratice or scuba dives be needed here, except that Nifong's case is under water?

At 12:02 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: This just doesn't smell right. Let us continue digging more, we may find more.

At 12:40 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liestoppers has an excellent piece today. Summarizes very well some of the heated debate on this board last night about Brodhead and the 88.

At 1:08 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Cash didn't think the 60 Minutes story was "fair."
No surprise there. He didn't seem to like that the FODU link was provided on the CBS website (without other websites with opposing viewpoints.)
He wanted the "criminal records" of the Duke 3 and Kim to be aired and he wanted more info on the money that was paid. (Where is he going with that one?)

I didn't expect 60 Minutes to change some people's views---a trial won't, either.

At 1:17 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: Can you provide a link to Cash's article you have mentioned? Thanks.

At 1:55 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Cash...

At 3:05 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more I read, the more I wonder, why stop at Recall Nifong. Perhaps, we should recall Brodhead too.

At 3:15 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Cash's article was fairly balanced--his criticisms of the "60 Minutes" piece are not harsh and he seemed to present most of his analysis without editorializing--although I think if they had disclosed the criminal records of everyone (including the AV) it would only have helped the boys. There really wasn't much discussion of the "other side" in the "60 Minutes" piece, although it's hard to present two sides when one side has no facts to support it.

I think the money IS an important issue. The AV says she did not come away with her $400--if they could find that cash (and the shoe), it could explain a lot and possibly be the final piece to bring the story down. It's a missing piece that has always bothered me.

At 4:08 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have always thought that Kim Roberts stole the accuser's money, but Nifong didn't want to go there.

How do you provide "balance" in a story on prosecutorial misconduct and a rush to judgment?

At 4:52 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to 4:08 re: balance
That's my point (and I think was "60 Minutes" point.) But unfortunately, while many in the U.S. now understand this was a hoax, probably a lot of people are still wondering what the prosecution's side is. It is very hard for many to believe that those who are charged with carrying out justice could so easily abuse their power. And the court of public opinion is very important for these boys.

At 5:05 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re 9:08 p.m. post yesterday on the last page--
I can't let this comment slide: "The agenda driven crowd always wants tolerance."

I'm not sure what that is directed to, but it strikes me as completely wrong. The agenda driven crowd (often) wants purity of thought and action and are intolerant (often) in achieving the agenda. The Group of 88 fits that statement. Some of us who want the charges dismissed have strayed into intolerance by condemning any but the purest in thought and heart.

Regarding Covington's prior service in the DA's office. There is nothing nefarious about that fact alone. It is QUITE common for criminal defense lawyers to have worked in a prosecutor's office before going to the defense side in private practice. Most people think it is an advantage to have a lawyer who knows how the opposition thinks and works.

At 5:07 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"d" is me. I continue to lobby for folks to adopt an alias for posting here so we don't have to go back and record the times of posting to identify the posts we are responding to.

At 5:20 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On another board, Cash Michaels said that Victoria Peterson should have been interviewed on 60 Minutes.

Maybe he is sensing that the Black PAC will back Nifong?

At 6:34 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An open letter to Sgt Mark Gottlieb

This is the police officer who has been putting Duke students in handcuffs. He needs to be restrained. From one officer to another, I think he is not honest and fair. I have seen this from other officer before.

Where did you go to school for the job as an investigator? I can't believe the line up you showed to CGM, in the Duke case, to finally get the three defendants indicted. I also find your memory absolutely amazing and your timely submission of reports, without credibility. I thought you were in charge of the investigation, not a subordinate of the DA. As a retired police officer, I find it amazing that you have no "chain of command" within your police department. Where were you on the "60 Minutes" expose, last night? I know the lawyers are all gagged in the case, but not the witnesses. Have you been out to the go-go bar where CGM is now dancing, to see how much pain she is in? She has been there since the end of March. As an honorable retiree from the Marine Corps reserve, I find your actions intolerable and in no way honorable.
You sir, give all police officers and especially those in the Durham Police Department, a bad name. I can't believe that you did not even interview the defendants in this case, even if they had a lawyer, you may have had a better feel for the case. I mean, at least one offered, to take a polygraph test and you, nor anyone else accepted his offer.
Speaking Cop to Cop, I wanted to add, I spent 4 years on active duty 26 in the reserves, in the Marine Corps and 25 years in a police dept. I have spent some time in go-go bars, and met many a dancer. The dancers I met were strong willed and would not take garbage from anyone. I watched Kim Roberts and she reminds me of those dancers -- strong willed and of tough character. I think the same of CGM, since she recovered within two weeks of the event and was dancing in a bar again. Entertaining men seems to be her full time job. Working for an escort service is not something that a frail female would do.
Have you ever checked out the escort services that CGM worked for? Check out there are her age females there who tout they work in Raleigh or Durham area. What do you think they do in a hotel room for 200 to 300 dollars an hour, dance? You should have been attending the same dance parlor that "60 Minutes" found CGM and watched her, just as part of your investigation. You failed to do that.
I would have thought a police officer with your experience would have more street smarts then what your actual performance has been. When I was stationed in North Carolina, Jacksonville and Havelock, both had lots of, what we called, go-go bars, with lots of dancers. I for one was counting on you to LEAD the investigation, not to turn it over to Mike Nifong! In New Jersey, he would not be in my chain of command. Someone should have secured, that house, that night, so a proper search could be conducted, early that morning. If you are really a good cop, you would come out with the facts and tell us about Mike Nifong and how he politically twisted this case to get those indictments.


At 6:48 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke09Parent: I have good news for you. We will be moving to a new discussion board next week (just the General topics section of this site), where we will all be forced to choose a name. It does not have to be a real one, any name will do. I think you will be a lot happier there. I will post the details and the advantages of the new board tomorrow. For those who are curious, below is the link. You may visit that site or even register whever you like.

FODU discussion board

There will be much more on this tomorrow.


At 8:44 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is he serious? Cash Michaels actually wants Victoria Peterson on national television? What a great idea. It would remove all doubts about the rogue Nifong and the kind of support he has in Durham. Surely Cash can't be serious about Victoria having any meaningful information to contribute to this case. I can't think of a better person to put the final nail in Nifong's cofin.

At 9:09 PM, October 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder why Cash did not demand 60 Minutes interview cousin Jakki?

At 12:50 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So I just watched the 60 minutes interview.

My impressions (note--not facts, just impressions):
1) Nifong is a snake
2) Brodhead is a snake
3) Kim Roberts comes across very well, much smarter and more poised than I had thought she would be based on what I've read.
4) Reade Seligmann comes across as earnest and honest.
5) Dave Evans seems honest and angry.
6) Colin Finnerty seems like he could get really angry and snap at times.
7) Nifong is a scum-sucking bottom dweller.
8) Coleman is very smart and one of the few Duke officials to make a stand.
9) The grand jury must have been dumb as rocks to indict these players (sorry).
10) Nifong just seems to ooze slime, doesn't he?

As I said, these are just impressions, not facts.

At 8:01 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the previous post:

"6) Colin Finnerty seems like he could get really angry and snap at times."

I honestly can't see how in the world you could come to that conclusion -- he was so quiet and soft-spoken in response to Ed Bradley's quesitons it seemed obvious that he was nervous, shy and completely perplexed as to how he could be in this position. As he said (only slight paraphrase), "we were happy to give our DNA because we were told that would clear us...[That night] They went into the bathroom, I left, and I never saw them again." Every thing I've read about him keeps saying how he's the one most shaken by all of this mess -- that's what came across to me. Judging from the other comments I've read here since the show aired, I'd say that others feel the same way.

At 8:15 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly. Collin looked scared and confused.

At 8:44 AM, October 20, 2006, Blogger Quasimodo said...

Colin Finnerty seems like he could get really angry and snap at times.

Perhaps this impression comes from the (as it seems to many) 'rigged' conviction he was given in DC?

For those in DC who maybe thought that a little misdemeanor conviction 'wouldn't really hurt him', while letting them avoid criticism in a difficult case (think Cynthia McKinney for a reverse example of political manouvering by the DC justice officials) I think the answer would be, Yes, that little misdemeanor conviction could and did imperil him;

because public perception is very important, and besmirching someone's reputation is no small thing (as Shakespeare noted); and deliberately branding someone as potentially violent right before they have to face a criminal rape trial can only result in polluting any future jury pool and rendering a fair trial for that case much more difficult.

At 10:36 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Coleman speaks:

Editorial made rape case about race, class

At 10:44 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What continues to be conveniently ignored by the Cash Michaels of the world is the strict NC discovery law. Nifong has NOTHING ELSE. By law he is not allowed to save back key pieces of evidence for gotcha at trial.
Additionally, on Brodhead- colleges are extremely PC environments. Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't been paying attention. He was faced with what looked like a terrible crime. The media was going nuts. The DA was confidently professing his belief in the FA. Heck, the entire country thought the boys were guilty. My own personal impression was that there had probably been consenual sex and now she was crying rape.
At any rate, this PC crowd who make up the faculty and administration of all top colleges (and most of the other, too) is the same group that would have us talk to Kim Jong Il. Their world is just different from the common sense world that in which the rest of us live. I'm not saying that Brodhead gets a complete pass for his actions but it has gotten ridiculous on this and other blog boards calling for his head on a platter.

At 11:35 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: You may be right. But, I have a feeling Brodhead will not survive this one way or another. Colleges (just like large corporations) favor clean slates! That will cost Brodhead his job whether he deserves it or not. Think about it. The university is bleeding right now; people are hurting pretty badly. Whether the administration’s statistics support it or not, we know from anecdotes there is a great deal of anger and dissatisfaction among the alumni about how Duke handled this case.

Given this, there cannot be any healing as long as Brodhead is the president. He will have to go; Duke will start with a "clean slate" and perhaps a healing process will begin. But, that process is not going to be easy or fast. Too much damage has been done to the university. The damage done by 1) the attitude of the Group of 88 and 2) the attitude of the Durham police towards Duke students is a lot greater than we realize. These two things will resonate with the future prospects deeply and good students will stay away from Duke in the coming years. Who would want to send their kids to such a place? If you keep Brodhead there too long, you make the situation even worst. So, he will have to go one way or another. I suspect he knows this and he may be bitter about it. I would not blame him entirely if he was.

So, we have two men, Nifong and Brodhead, who in addition to everything else are fighting for their jobs. I would say this fact alone gives them enough incentive to do the things they are doing. What a huge mess! And to think that Brodhead could have prevented it all if he had only stood his ground in the beginning and showed true leadership. Now, it is too late. Frankly, what Brodhead does, or does not do, going forward does not make much difference. He has got to know that too. After all, he is a smart man.

I predict “clean slate” will rule the day eventually.

At 11:59 AM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it really about being PC? Or is it about having a total lack of faith and trust in your students?
Is it about choosing to believe the worst of them? Even after they (the captains) looked you in the eye, apologized, and said "nothing happened?" Even after the parents of the lacrosse players asked to meet with you?

(Somehow the Headmaster and teachers at Delbarton have managed to fight off any fears and attest to Reade's character.)

Being PC would mean that Brodhead felt he needed to be neutral on the issue. He was not neutral...and it remains that way. Even on "60" he still criticized the boys. They are looking at 30 years in prison and he is talking about a "night of highly unacceptable behavior?"

Brodhead may very well be the nicest guy in the world and an excellent President. But this happened on his watch and if Pressler took the fall, so should Brodhead.

I agree with the "clean slate" view above. I think the flurry of civil suits will also speed up Brodhead's departure.

At 12:03 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the poster above: I completely agree with you. I think Brodhead will have to go in the end.
What has not been mentioned here are some of the very positive things that Brodhead has accomplished in his short tenure:
1) He secured $75 million from the Duke Family Foundation to use for scholarships for students who could not otherwise attend Duke. 2) He asked the faculty when he first arrived for the names of individuals who, in their dreams, could be brought to Duke to teach. He got a list of about 15 names. He then went out and got every one of them to come to Duke. As a parent of a current student, that is meaningful to me. Am I mad at the gang of 88? You bet! My son already had one of them (Rosenberg) and wasn't at all surprised to hear his name was on the list. I have instructed him to steer clear of the others.

At 12:12 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree about Brodhead's PC mentality. His nature compels him to support the poor black girl against the white, affluent athletes. That mixes a powerful combination of PC rules- black is always suppressed by white, athletes are arogant boors, rich oppresses poor, etc.

At 12:30 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Were any of the new hires by Brodhead among the Group of 88?

At 12:31 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imagine the effect if Brodhead had said something akin what Donna Shalala said (her words below, slightly amended to fit the situation) :

"I believe that the young men we have recruited for our lacrosse team are young men of great character, but they did a very bad thing...

"It's time for me to say publicly that I believe in them, that I believe that they did something awful, but that I want them to continue at Duke. And it's time for me to say to the community and to those that have been sending me e-mails that this university will be firm and punish people that do bad things.

"But we will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the university. I will not take away their scholarships. . .

"It's time for the feeding frenzy to stop. These young men made a stupid, terrible, horrible mistake (by hiring strippers) and they are being punished. They are students, and we are an educational institution and we will act like an educational institution, not like a PR machine trying to spin and restore an image that we worked so hard to put in place."

Contrast this with Brodhead's "even if there was no rape, what they did was bad enough" statement.

At 12:51 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Btw, who is this "poor black girl?"

$2,000 X say, 50 weekends= $100,000
Plus, no doubt, welfare benefits;
Minus 0 taxes;
Plus low Durham cost-of-living;
=Nice comfortable income.

The accuser may very well be making more than a lot of Duke parents...

At 12:54 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those interested in reviewing a bit of Brodhead history, go to the Expired Documents section of FODU and locate an article entitled "Forget the Facts" written by Michael Rubin, National Review Online, dated 6/6/06. It is a story of incompetent policing and a PC university.

At 1:34 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with 8:01am too. Collin seemed quiet and shy. He seemed more sad than angry and he didn't strike me as having a hair-trigger temper. I felt like if I poked him with a pin, it would take him 5 minutes to say "ouch".

I suspect the original poster's comments are the legacy of the Georgetown incident, hence the need for a good jury consultant - if this winds up going to trial.

At 1:57 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too disagree with the 12:50 poster. I don't want to go the word angry at all. Collin had the least to say. He has the the toughest road ahead because of the prior "polical conviction". His comments were the most down to earth. He admited he was scared. Who wouldn't be in his situation? Reade was obviously upset with how Duke has treated him and said he couldn't imagine going back there. If I were his mother, I wouldn't let him go back.

I agree with the poster who said Nifong and Brodhead are fighting for their jobs. Brodhead will have to go so the sake of Duke in the long run. It's a question of which group will force him out. Not the head of Duke Alumni Assoc. He's just a mouthpiece for Brodhead.

I've asked this question before, and have yet to hear an answer. Why was he selected? He was a Dean and a poet. Weren't there more experienced candidates?

At 2:03 PM, October 20, 2006, Blogger Quasimodo said...

I've asked this question before, and have yet to hear an answer. Why was he selected?

If they had selected Donna Shalala instead, how much different would the response of Duke have been (even granted that her response in Florida might well have been influenced by what happened at Duke)?

At 2:10 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you, Another Duke Mom, for providing some balance to this board. I agree with you that there is a lot of good that Brodhead has done (and his Financial Aid Initiative is still ongoing--the target is even much higher than the $75mm already committed.) And I agree that the comments have gotten a little ridiculous, and, IMO, only detract from the effort to help the boys.

As to the comment by anonymous that there is considerable anger among alums--certainly there is among alums who post on this board. But I am both an alum and a parent, and have had contact with quite a few of my Duke friends over the last 6 months as part of reunion work. The vast majority of the people I've spoken with still do not have a strong opinion about the administration's actions, although most believe now that the accusation is false. Most don't even know many of the details, and probably learned a lot from the "60 Minutes" expose. I know a few alums who thought the university should have been much tougher on the lax team immediately (they, like many in the country, thought the DA was telling the truth that a rape definitely occurred.) Of over 50 alums that I have spoken with since this happened, only a couple are angry with the administration.

I would like to see Brodhead and the administration reassess their position and issue some statement of support for the boys. I would like to see them review (or adopt) their policy for protecting the civil rights of students. I would also like to see a full-blown effort to either defeat Nifong in the election, or have a special prosecutor appointed (James Coleman's intelligent proposal.) Coleman does not advocate dropping the case--he acknowledges that, even with the disclosure laws there could be information of which the public is unaware. But a special prosecutor could look at the state's evidence with an objective eye, and then make a decision that hopefully the public could support. I think there are many ways to accomplish these things without wasting our time bad-mouthing Brodhead, or withholding contributions that are helping other students (including lax players, other athletes, and well as non-athletes.)

At 2:18 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone really think Donna Shalala's response was appropriate? I don't! It was a vicious brawl, seen by a national audience and documented on tape. A one game suspension is totally inappropriate for many of the players (a review of the tape would allow them to identify the most vicious and the most aggressive.) Yes, especially in hindsight and especially now, The duke administration should have been more supportive, but Miami's reaction should be highly criticized for the opposite reason. If I were a Miami alum, I'd be embarrassed and angry.

At 2:46 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To: Duke parent x 2

So you say the alums and parents you have spoken to aren't angry at the adminstration. (unlike many on this board who have followed and analyzed the case) Yet, you admit many of the people you spoke with don't even know the details of the case and probably learned a lot by watching 60 minutes. (My daughter was also surprised by how many of her friends had little knowledge of the facts when she watched 60 minutes.) My point is it should not be surprising for someone ignorant of the details to not be outraged. I am sure the adminstration is praying that most alums and parents don't take the time to dig into their handling of the case.

At 2:49 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Duke parent X2:
Yes, I've had the same experience in talking to friends and alum here in South Carolina. I think they didn't want to believe either that the students could have done what they were accused of doing -most couldn't use the word "rape," but they believed the DA. Now they're thinking twice which is good. We need them particularly because they want to like Brodhead. We, and now they, have seen the truth. As with our friends in Durham who have defended Dave, Collin, and Reade, we need to encourage them to join our effort. This story is no longer about race or classism. As Professor Coleman pointed out, it's about the rights of the individual against the power of the government and those who would abuse that power to their own ends. This case goes to the heart of our system of laws, to the reason that for 200 years, we have been a haven for those who have faced governmental abuse. America is a great country for individual citizens. We need to continue to support 3 in particular.
Mom form SC

At 4:22 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Coleman does not advocate dropping the case--he acknowledges that, even with the disclosure laws there could be information of which the public is unaware."

Yes, Coleman does not advocate dropping the case, but when did he acknowledge there could be information of which the public is unaware? What he said is he wants a special prosecutor to review the case objectively because Nifong is not capable of doing so. It does not at all mean he acknowledges there could be some information the public is unaware of.

At 4:30 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Mom from SC. We do need more Duke alums to learn more about this case, and get more involved. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see the anti-Brodhead rhetoric toned down on this board--I think it can scare people away. I understand the emotions, and I understand the anger many direct at the administration--not that I completely agree. But I do think we need more alums to learn about this--that can only help the lax players, and it can only help in efforts to affect change in the way the administration approaches these types of issues. I've referred several of my friends to this site--some of them made a point of telling me they were put off by the vitriol directed at the duke administration. And I think that undermines our efforts.

At 4:58 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps the opinions of the Duke alums who currently have no children attending the school would understandably lack the passion of current parents toward the Administration. I truly believe that if the Administration had taken an appropriate posture supporting the lax players and the three accused, this case may very well have been over already. Their silence empowered Nifong to conduct the criminal prosecution of three innocent young without ojection from the Administration, except for Professor Coleman, inspite of overwhelming evidence of innocence. For that Duke alums should be angry and ashamed.

At 6:30 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A better response by the administration would not have derailed Nifong's prosecution. I think 4:58 overestimates the university's clout in Durham's legal system. Some people will never forgive Brodhead and others for not supporting the players completley from the beginning. Brodhead could largely redeem himself by issuing a statement that said something like this immediately following the November election,whoever wins:

"I would like to address the pending rape prosecutions of three Duke students. I have not wanted to be perceived as trying unduly to influence the electoral process by expressing these views before the election. Now that the voters of Durham have expressed their will in the recent election, however, I can do so without causing that misconception.

I have previously criticised the poor decisions made and actions taken by some of the members of the Duke lacrosse team on the evening of March 13th. I stand by those criticisms. I have otherwise maintained a neutral stance regarding the prosecutions and consistently advocated presumption of innocence of the criminal charges in dispute. Since the prosecution's case has been released under this state's open discovery rules, it now appears that there is substantial doubt that any sexual assault took place by any Duke students that evening. Some of the actions I and others in the university community took in relation to the lacrosse team were in retrospect rash and prejudiced and may have contributed to an assumption by observers that some players were guilty of these charges. I apologize personally and on behalf of Duke University for the hurt caused by those actions.

Several procedural anomalies in the prosecutor's handling of the case have come to light over the past several weeks. These raise questions in reasonable minds of whether the District Attorney's motivation throughout his handling of the case has been in the pursuit of truth and justice. I now call upon the Durhham District Attorney Michael Nifong immediately to recuse himself from further involvement in this matter in favor of a special prosecutor who can review the available evidence for any credible reason to proceed with the case. If there is none, then the matter should be dismissed so that Dave Evans may resume his career path and that Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann may return to their studies and athletic pursuits here at Duke without further delay."

At 6:43 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I checked the calendar for the Duke case and there was suppose to be a court date today, does anyone know what happed? Was it canceled? I know they have to be in court on the 27th.

At 6:46 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Brodhead defenders: No other decisions this man has had to make at Duke were as important as the ridiculous ones he made last spring.

Just following the information in the local paper, one knew right away that the anonymous 911 caller who wanted the police to come (because she had been called a name) was no other than the second stripper,Kim. Right then, one could see the kids were being set up! That was last April!

This case was one of entrapment. Did the administration not have experience with entrapment earlier in the year when the "sting" was set up by Durham's "finest" to catch underage drinking? Those cases were thrown out of court! Were the police, the Trinity Park Rotweilers, and Nyfong all sore losers? Did they want to get even with Duke kids over their undercover fiasco and the egg on their face?

What did the accuser mean when she said,"There was more money to be had" and re-entered the house? Was prostitution on her mind? Or, blackmail? Did she already know she had a policeman in her back pocket? Or, others?

My kid was there at Duke last spring, and it was miserable for him living in Trinity Park. I, too, am an alum and also a donor for over 30 years. I have spoken with many alums, and the INFORMED alums feel that Duke has let down its students and its alumni.

Brodhead had his shot! He missed. Bench him.-- Better yet, transfer him. And tell him to brush up on King Lear!-- No excuse for Brodhead's m.o.----jc

At 6:56 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 6:46 poster, that is exactly what she had in mind when she said "there was money to be made". I went to a similiar party about 20 years ago and that what the dancers did, there.

At 7:36 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My son was also living in Trinity Park last year--very very close to the lacrosse house. He had to deal with pot bangers every weekend and with the threats of drive-by shootings (which were made directly to him and his friends.) He could not move out, as many students, including the lacrosse players, did. He was afraid, and it was hard to sleep or study. I did not blame the university then or now. I blame the AV, Nifong and the police (with a hand slap to the lax team for holding the party to begin with.)

At 8:23 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 7:36PM poster:
You blame the police for leting someone have a party in a private home. Where did you live before moving to the United States? Have you ever had a party at your home? Maybe we should advise the police when you have a party. The police hands are tied, they are not permitted to tell people that they can't have a party at their homes. Again, what police state did you live in before moving to the United States? The Police should have been locking up the pot bangers on a noise complaint, but remember these pot bangers were the same one's teaching your child.

At 8:41 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the Duke 09 parent: Your contemplated Brodhead statement is perfectly stated. We only wish he would deliver such an address today. There is no need to wait until after an election. In fact, that statement could have been made already before the new school year began. The sentiment is simply not in him.

At 8:53 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 7:36PM poster:
No one called the police on the day of the party, until well after midnight and that turned out to be the second dancer. So what is it you expect the police to do, go around, Knock on doors and break up all the parties in Durham. Maybe we should send the police to your house, knock on your door just to see if you are haveing a party.

At 9:05 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am the 7:36 poster. To those who insult me, please reread my post and check the location of the parentheses--I did not say I blame the police for not breaking up the party. I said I blame the police, the AV, and Nifong for the hoax, and for all the repurcussions felt by students living in Trinity Park--referenced by another poster as well. I blame the boys for the party--but I said that was a "hand-slap" because I think that's what that mistake in judgment warranted. for Pete's sake, there's no reason to throw insults at me.

At 9:51 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:05 above: I am sure there was an innocent misunderstanding somewhere. Thank you for clearing it up.

Actually I read your message as you just described it. But, since more than one person got the same wrong impression perhaps, there was something there. Anyhow, this is really not worth getting excited over. Every now and then we all misunderstand or misstate things. It is only human.

At 10:51 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look who showed up at KC Johnson's Durham in Wonderland - a senior campaign advisor for Steve Monks: - 8:47 PM post:

He wrote this guest column in the Chronicle. Advice to Monks: drop out and get behind Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek.

At 11:34 PM, October 20, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New piece from KC Johnson:

Media Panel Update October 20, KC Johnson

At 1:51 AM, October 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: the 'Brodhead's done this good thing and that good thing, he's not all bad,' etc.

A wonderful doctor once said to me, 'There are tests in life.' Well, Brodhead had one of those tests, and he failed it. Whatever else he may be good at, he's failed this one Very Important test.

At 10:39 AM, October 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry I'm not tech-friendly, but I just read an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, Oct. 18th, by Peter Robinson (fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and Dartmouth Trustee) that peripherally bears upon what we are talking about at Duke- alumni participation. I read the hard copy, so someone who is able to find the article online may want to post it.

"The alumni are coming. But they won't sack your institutions, just reconnect them with American life."

Texas Mom

At 10:57 AM, October 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saw this on KC's site. Posted by someone who claimed to have been at the media forum:

"Durham DPD truly hated the Duke LAX team. TV reporter Darla Miles (local abc affiliate) told the panel she was told by the DPD they will get the criminals.....doesn't matter whether its the bloods, the crips or the Duke LAX team. (interesting company they are associated with!)"

A very concerned Duke Mom

At 2:44 PM, October 21, 2006, Blogger Quasimodo said...

If not Brodhead, would any of the Duke faculty or Duke Law faculty be willing to sign an open letter to Gov. Easely, with just the following excerpt from Duke09Parent's suggestion?

Several procedural anomalies in the prosecutor's handling of the case have come to light over the past several weeks. These raise questions in reasonable minds of whether the District Attorney's motivation throughout his handling of the case has been in the pursuit of truth and justice. I (We) now call upon the Durhham District Attorney Michael Nifong immediately to recuse himself from further involvement in this matter in favor of a special prosecutor who can review the available evidence for any credible reason to proceed with the case.

At 11:08 PM, October 21, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chin and Starn ride again

Today, two of the most repellant faculty at Duke,
visiting professor Elizabeth Chin (who studies barbie dolls) and tenured tyrant Orin Starn, have again taken to the press to spew their poisonous attacks against their own students.

Chin, who exploited the case for her own crass career purposes last spring...and is documented to have harrassed and berated students in her own classes if they disagreed with her (woefully wrong) prejudgment of the lacrosse case, is now publicly insisting that the falsely accused students should not return to campus if acquited.

Apparently so as not to remind her and the rest of the 88 leftist vigilantes on the faculty of the evils of rank bigotry and stupidity they committed last spring.

Starn, ever the weasel, pretends his month-long malicious attack on his students in interview after interview never happened.

Profs Chin and Starn, we haven't forgotten. You have
nothing to teach anyone.

Expect to be reminded of that for the rest of your careers.

Sun article

At 1:48 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In this article, Joe Alleva clearly violates Duke University policy in discussing publicly the status of students Finnerty and Seligman

Duke lacrosse coach: Players could rejoin team if acquitted

For this, and for many other incidents over the last year, it is time for Mr. Alleva to go.

At 2:11 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A letter to the Prez on the topic

President Brodhead:

In an article today in the Herald-Sun, Joe Alleva is
quoted making comments that flagrantly violate Duke
University's policies on discussing publicly current
or possible discplinary action against students who
have not been convicted of any crime. Or who have not
undergone any formal discplinary process within the University.

As I am sure you are aware this is an incredibly
serious violation of your University's privacy

I expect we will see swift and immediate disciplinary
actions against Mr. Alleva.

As you know this is the latest in a long string of
mistakes and poor judgment calls by Mr. Alleva.

It is long past time that Mr. Alleva was fired for his
disgraceful actions over the last 6 months.

"Moments after the football team's 20-15 loss to
Miami, Duke athletics director Joe Alleva said that if Finnerty and Seligmann were cleared of the charges, it first would be up to the university to decide their fate.

"If they get reinstated back into school -- that would be the first process -- then we will reconsider their status with the lacrosse team," Alleva said. "It all comes back to them being reinstated into school first, and then we would consider it.

"The key word there is 'consider.' "

At 8:30 AM, October 22, 2006, Blogger Quasimodo said...

"If they get reinstated back into school -- that would be the first process -- then we will reconsider their status with the lacrosse team," Alleva said. "It all comes back to them being reinstated into school first, and then we would consider it.

"The key word there is 'consider.' "

Yeah, that is exactly what I figured the "official" stance of Duke would be--sickening.

They are innocent, but still to be punished.

Dankowski has the only right attitude :

"If they're students in good academic standing that were acquitted of any wrongdoing, what would be the reason for holding them out?"

At 8:40 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

2 out of 3 PACs back Nifong.

At 8:47 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope the alumni and the parents all get informed (via handouts?) of the attitude of Alleva--it shows just how little Duke is in the "kid" business.

At 8:50 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

2 out of 3 PACs back Nifong.

The corrupt income of the powers-that-be in Durham require that the status quo be maintained. And that requires a DA who won't look into the missing $35 million, or the police ties to protected prostitution, racketeering, etc.

At 9:17 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: Alleva's comments

Is a hung jury considered to be "cleared?"

At 9:50 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If DPD corruption isn't enough try this: Duke University has offered the City of Durham $2 million to cover a shortfall for Durham's new performing arts center in exchange for timely consideration of Duke's redevelopment plan on Central campus. This was reported in The Charlotte Observer, Sat. Oct. 21, 2006 entitled "Duke to Donate $2 Million to Durham for Favor". Wake up folks!

At 10:20 AM, October 22, 2006, Blogger Quasimodo said...

Duke University has offered the City of Durham $2 million to cover a shortfall for Durham's new performing arts center in exchange for timely consideration of Duke's redevelopment plan on Central campus.

In other places, that's what's called a shakedown.

I don't know what they call it in Durham--realism?

At 10:29 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I imagine they call it business as ususal.

At 11:06 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The link above for Chin and Starn does not work. Can someone provide a proper link? I want to see what those two horrible ones are saying. Thanks.

At 11:08 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's called "bribery".

At 11:12 AM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This makes me sick.

This comes right out of today's News&Observer. It's so short I'll type the whole thing.

Get-out-the-vote rally set for today

Durham- The Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People will host a got-out-the-vote rally at 6 p.m. today.

The rally at Mount Vermon Baptist Church, 1007 S. Rroxboro St, will feature speaker Joe Leonard, excutive director of the Washington, D.C.-basced Black Leadership Forum.

The committee voted Saturday on its endorsments for the upcoming state, local, and national elections, backing Democrats in every partisian race.

Their endorsements include District Attorney Mike Nifong, who has been criticized for his handling of the Duke lacrosse rape case.

I propose that all anti Nifong people in Durham march on over there and make as much noise as they can. We do it with the immigration rallys, and with other election races in this country.

At 12:30 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In case you missed it, JinC has a very funny piece on his blog.

Duke Hoax dinner specials

Here is a teste:

Liestoppers’ chef de cuisine says it’s a very simple dish.

“Really all we do is take fresh, false statements by Durham Herald Sun Editor Bob Ashley and add some truth. We prepare Bob’s statements just the way he makes them. Nothing artificial is ever added. It’s all natural Bob.

Then we pour our truth glaze - we use only facts - all over Bob and put him in a post. We let him simmer there until a customer orders. Then,‘voila!’ Bob’s ready for serving.”

At 12:41 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's editorial note. The rule is that if Bob praises himself, I demur.

To the H-S team:

By now, we all agree that everything that makes Ashley tick is pathetic.

His self-indulgent egotistical column today documents(as we long ago figured out) that his malicious pro-Nifong crusade of the past 6 months was born simply out of insecurity. A need to suck up to people in power to be liked in his new job

(All his constant talk about "us" in Durham and the idiot didn't even live there. Pretending to know the pulse of a city he knew nothing about but 40-year old drug-addled snippets from college)

As a result, Ashley hid behind one anonymous hateful editorial after another spewing incorrect facts and bigotry while demanding that his writers conform to the party line.

So he could be liked by the Mayor.

There is no words to describe how despicable and pathetic that is.

Elsewhere this week in a panel discussion, Ashley blamed everyone but himself for some of the worst journalism of the decade (Including carping that he didn't have enough resources to do his propaganda right, after himself firing most of his staff a year

No redeeming qualities whatsoever.

At 1:41 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exchange of monies for public/private city projects goes on in every city in the nation. Football stadiums and DT shopping areas are just a couple of examples. Durham has plenty of sketchy dealings but that aspect is not one of them.
On the subject of re-admitting RS and CF, I cannot believe what Alleva said. How could he possibly mean that, if/when the boys are found to be completely innocent?

At 1:42 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the gradual evisceration of this blog by the move of section after section to the "Discussion Board": I've gone to the Discussion Board to follow up on the several sections already moved -- they have virtually dried up since being moved there. It occurs to me that while the hope is that folks will be more "accountable" for their comments by being required to adopt some sort of moniker, however false it may be, that is likely not to be the case. Rather, I think it more likely that posters will simply stop posting, since it's several more steps to get to a much harder-on-the-eyes format in order to make any comment. What a shame that the comments of a few intemperate posters have forced a move that in my view results in an obstacle to free speech, namely, being able to comment anonymously in a much more user-friendly environment on this board.

At 1:53 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In today's H-S: Perhpas Ashley et al. could get Starn and Co. to criticize this exemplary scholar-athlete as just another example of why they think sports at Duke need to go? I'd like to see them try to get away with it. Check out this link to a true profile in courage:

Family, teammates say Duke soccer player who battled tumor an inspiration

It just goes to show the guts, determination and class that so mony of these students have -- I honestly don't think a lot of the faculty and administration down there appreciate these kids and the sacrifices they're willing to make to excel in two fields, academics and athletics, simultaneously.

At 3:20 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the 1:41 Duke mom, yes influence peddling and bribery go on all the time. How is it different if Duke does it. The school was already denied their first attempt at rezoning because the city was concerned that small businesses would be hurt that border the east and central campus. And then along came a mere $2million to help underwrite a performing arts center in order to expedite decision making on the Duke project. Sounds like good old fashion bribery to me.

At 4:29 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They (both Duke and the city) were clear that no quid pro quo was involved. I personally see it as negotiation. If it were secretive, I think it would be entirely different but it has been in all the newspapers. Bribery is a back alley term, IMHO.

At 4:39 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The story of the soccer player referenced by the 1:53 post is truly inspiring. But these types of stories are found among the general Duke population as well--this kind of courage is not limited to athletes. I know of more than one Duke academic student who has faced unbelievable obstacles.

At 5:10 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who is Cliff Brandt, and why is he stabbing the lax players in the back by pushing Monks' candidacy?

At 5:31 PM, October 22, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above: I just put Cliff Brandt through google and he is either a photograper/web designer or a religious leader of some kind.
Here is just one of the links I found him on.

At 10:26 AM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My short-term ain't what it used to be, but wasn't this past weekend Parent's Weekend at school? And, wasn't there a post several weeks ago that mentioned a meeting between some concerned lax parents and President Brodhead?
Is so, are there any reports of how the meeting went?

At 12:05 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above: The parents' weekend is this coming one (October 27/28/29). We are not aware of a meeting between President Brodhead and the lacrosse parents. If you have details, please let us know. Some concerned Duke mothers will be meeting privately over the weekend. If you want to attend please contact us via email for the details.


At 12:40 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John in Carolina published a very important post today. After documenting serious problems/deficiencies in the "Duke lacrosse incident" website, he urges everyone to write to Duke spokesperson John Burness and urge him to revise the website in an effort to eliminate the obviously biased and obviously misleading information from that website.

We agree with John in Carolina and urge all of you to follow his recommendation. Please write to Mr. Burness and point out the serious problems in that website. Here is more on this important issue.

Problems at Duke's lacrosse incident page

At 1:11 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. John in Carolina's post is very important. And for those of you who defend Duke and Brodhead, does it not look like Duke wants Nifong elected?

At 3:21 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not agree that the Duke lacrosse website is evidence that Duke wants Nifong elected--or that they want the boys in prison, as someone has posted on J-in-C's blog. If you look at the list of articles they include in their "related articles" section, it includes articles from every point of view--they have links to Cash, Stuart Taylor, Slate, and the New york magazine. The fact that they have the H-S link for it's post-"60 Minutes" article is surely because the H-S, like it or not, IS the local paper. They haven't included links to KC's blog--but they didn't include links to ANY blogs--just the traditional media. Certainly it is well worth pointing out articles that they should include, as well as any bias that we think their current selection might suggest, but the leap to saying this is proof that they are pro-Nifong or pro-conviction is out of line, IMHO.

by the way, I'd love to see them link to KC's blog--but i wonder if then they'd be criticized for not linking to every Duke lax blog (and there are many!!)

At 3:45 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two questions: Does anyone anywhere have a list of the motions pending in the Duke hoax case and do they expect to settle any of the pending motions in the court appearances on Friday Oct 27?

At 3:48 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

above I have read the motions what do you want to know?

At 5:57 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have heard rumors Nifong and Monks campaigns working together. If Monks stays he takes away RN-VC votes. If Nifong wings ther might be a deal in it for Monks. Only a rumor, but it would not surprise me. Any locals able to follow this trail. Is Monks'law practice thriving?

At 6:39 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know anything at all about Monks law practice. But common sense tells me-if it was thriving, why would he run for DA in a first place?

At 7:41 PM, October 23, 2006, Blogger Quasimodo said...

Does anyone anywhere have a list of the motions pending in the Duke hoax case and do they expect to settle any of the pending motions in the court appearances on Friday Oct 27?

Remember, you're talking about North Carolina, so the answer can only be, Who knows? (Anywhere else this case would have been dismissed as of last April.)

Initially, Judge Stephens should have heard at least the motions to quash the original warrants on the basis that they were based on lies (and proven to be so).

Judge Titus should have heard that motion and the motion to quash the photo IDs.

Judge Smith should hear both of those, and I hope that he will; but if that towel Stephens and Titus used to wash their hands of justice is still lying around somewhere, I'm afraid we might end up disappointed.

At 8:26 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Copied from elsewhere:

1) Where can we get some of those buttons worn by some of the families at the panel discussion -- "Innocent until proven innocent"?

2) Bob Ashley went to Duke -- Trinity '70 -- pathetic.

3) The moderator, Frank Stasio, of WUNC Radio, gives some cause for concern. In the midst of a discussion with audience members about the use of the term "victim" to describe the accuser in this case, Stasio felt compelled to interject his preferred term -- "rape survivor"! He then went on to say "I don't take responsibility for the fall-out of a story...But I do take responsibility for our coverage." How can he possibly reconcile pouring gasoline on a rhetorical fire with his misrepresentation of the accuser with not taking responsibility for the inevitable fallout of this mess? Stasio seems to typify the arrogance of some journalists, who see themselves as the ultimate arbiters of the truth. Get over yourself, Frank. Edward R. Murrow you ain't.

4) And what's with Jerry Footlick, former senior editor of Newsweek? "Footlick said he doubts the case will make it to trial, but added that if it does and Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann are acquitted, he does not think their lives will have been ruined." Maybe he should talk to Richard Jewell, the man who was falsely implicated in the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta 10 years ago. He's still involved in lawsuits trying to clear his name, and he's been quoted as saying that even after the Justice Department cleared him and arrested Eric Rudolph, his life was never the same. His elderly mother never got over it. Does Jerry Footlick not understand that their lives have already been permanently scarred by this travesty? I find it incomprehensible that people can sit by dispassionately and make such off-hand remarks when patently innocent people are being crucified right before our eyes. I doubt he'd say the same thing if he were in their shoes.

At 9:23 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

but added that if it does and Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann are acquitted, he does not think their lives will have been ruined."

If what they have gone through is somehow redeemed and turned into something good, I'm sure it won't be something that Footlick will see reported about in Newsweek.

There are people who have gone through this sort of false accusation and spent years getting over it--even formerly 'strong' people with forceful personalities.

At 9:46 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Footlick's attitude makes the mess the media made out of this non-incident more explainable. To him, it's just a "story" and the idea that he could be affecting the lives of actual people doesn't really enter into the equation. His "if they're acquitted.." remark isn't that different from Kim's "sorry fellas" comment. Both Footlick and Kim are looking to "spin" the story and if they happen to spin into the truth then that's great. If not - oops. Sorry fellas.

At 1:13 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If one ever needed an example of the evil that can follow from a woman lying about being raped....this story should do it.
By SONJA BARISIC : Associated Press Writer
Oct 23, 2006 : 9:45 pm ET

NORFOLK, Va. -- A sailor pleaded guilty Monday to abducting and killing a Marine corporal he thought had been involved in a gang rape. The rape turned out to be a lie, but the truth surfaced too late.

Petty Officer 3rd Class Cooper Jackson, 23, pleaded guilty Monday to premeditated murder, kidnapping, impersonating a Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent and obstruction of justice in connection with the death of Cpl. Justin L. Huff, 23.

In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors agreed to spare him a possible death sentence.

Federal agents had testified at his Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury investigation, that Jackson had been fooled into falling in love with a woman who called herself Samantha and made up a story about being raped by servicemen.

"Samantha" turned out to be Ashley Elrod, a 22-year-old hotel clerk on North Carolina's Outer Banks, who testified that she lied about being raped. She said she "might have" told Jackson that one of the Marines was named Huff or Huffman, and she said Jackson called her after Huff was killed. Elrod has not been charged.

During his court-martial, Jackson told the Navy judge how he posed as an NCIS agent and took Huff to North Carolina to get information about the purported rape. He said he then slit Huff's throat and buried the body to avoid being caught.

"I'd broken several laws and I had a missing Marine with me," Jackson said at his hearing Monday. "Quite frankly, I was scared of the consequences of what would happen, of being caught, more so than I was of the consequences of taking his life."

If the judge accepts the plea, Jackson could be sentenced to life in prison with or without the possibility of parole, said his lawyer, Don Marcari. The sentencing phase was to begin Tuesday.

Huff, 23, of Indianapolis, was reported missing Jan. 2 after he didn't show up for class at the Navy and Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center in Virginia Beach, where Jackson also was a student.

Agents said Jackson, of Boones Mill, confessed when they questioned him Jan. 12. The next day, he led agents to Huff's body in a wooded area in Currituck County, N.C., just south of the Virginia-North Carolina border.

At 6:20 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Must read reply from joan foster to Ruth Sheehan:

At 8:12 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found this on the newsobserver blog pages. everyone needs to read it. It was posted yesterday the 23.

At 8:16 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry I forgot the title of the blog for the above mentioned piece

it is Highly Unaccptable Behavior

At 8:19 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above that is the wrong title the correct one is Duke Lacrosse Forum

At 8:24 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finally a Duke prof speaks out (Baldwin of the Chemistry Dept.)

The administration's mismanagement of lacrosse

At 8:40 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Prof. Baldwin's remarks --

“These kids were abandoned by their university. At least one of the indicted students, perhaps all three, was trespassed from Duke property. They were denied the presumption of innocence, despite the mounting evidence that the case against them is made of smoke and mirrors and is fatally flawed procedurally. They have been pilloried by their faculty and scorned by the administration. They are pariahs. . .

"On the other hand I do not believe that a faculty member publicly describing any student in pejorative terms is ever justified. To do so is mean-spirited, petty and unprofessional, at the very least. The faculty who publicly savaged the character and reputations of specific men’s lacrosse players last spring should be ashamed of themselves.

"They should be tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail and removed from the academy. Their comments were despicable. I suspect they were also slanderous, but we’ll hear more about that later.

"Finally, I urge the Duke community to take a reality check. Speak your minds. Do what you think is right. Tell the administration that you are not satisfied with the way they have handled the lacrosse affair. Demand better.”

At 9:23 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am thinking Prof. Baldwin would be a great candidate to be the next University President!

At 10:09 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just read the full Steven Baldwin letter. Wow!

At 10:46 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need more professors to speak up. If we have 5-10 Duke professors raising their voices, that will make a huge difference. At that point, Brodhead will probably start looking for a place to hide. Perhaps, he can share the same closet where Nifong will be hiding in pretty soon.

At 10:53 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Steven Baldwin's letter in the Chronicle today is indeed well written and expressed but it's getting almost comical around here that anyone who publicly states what we all believe is immediately nominated to be Duke President. Brodhead may not the leader that we all want him to be but it's important to remember that the duties of President encompass more than just responses to the media. His #1 job is helping to secure major gifts to the university. I have no idea how well he has performed in that area.
I am not defending Brodhead but rather pointing out that Baldwin may not be qualified for (nor interested in ) the job of University President.

At 11:23 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How well Brodhead does in securing "major gifts" will be determined next year. This fiscal year the gifts had come in before people saw his "take" on the lacrosse case. I, for one, am not giving this year to the annual fund. I gave three thousand last year. When and if Duke's administration takes responsibility for their part in promoting this hoax, I will again open my checkbook. Yes, Duke programs may indeed suffer from a reduction in funds from the loss of altruism from those who have been "turned off." However, if the way this hoax has been handled is indicative of the reasoning powers of the administration, then I have serious doubts they are good stewards of my money, either.

If folks like the way Brodhead has run the school,then by all means they should send more money than ever! Maybe the Trinity Park neighbors can replace my gift. After all, they did get what they wanted. Maybe Orin Starn can pony up too.--jc

At 11:43 AM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is in Herald Suns Letters section today.
Punish Nifong

Kudos to Ed Bradley and "60 Minutes" for exposing the injustice of the rape allegations against the Duke lacrosse players. Distinguished law professor James Coleman is correct: Nifong played the race card to get elected, among his myriad transgressions, and any possible conviction would likely be overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct. Here is the dilemma for those who are seeking justice in this case: the accuser seems to have vanished. Nifong can drag this out as long as he wants, barring judicial intercession, and when the time for the trial arrives, the accuser might stay in hiding and refuse to testify. Then Nifong might say, "The victim is too traumatized. Sorry, boys, no witness, no trial." The indicted lacrosse players are then left to twist in the wind with no opportunity to "prove their innocence." The short-term solution is for Durham voters to (1) elect Lewis Cheek and (2) have the movers and shakers in the Democratic Party confer with Governor Easley and persuade him to appoint a responsible and responsive district attorney and (3) locate the accuser and have her either swear to testify or, better yet, recant her false allegations. The long-term solution must be punitive toward a public servant who has failed so miserably to serve the public. As Professor Coleman points out: since this prosecutor used his power so recklessly to indict well-to-do white students, what's to prevent him from going after a poor, innocent black man if it should suit his political agenda?

October 24, 2006

At 12:17 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To duke mom- i really can't imagine who you are speaking to?! The only thing i can think of is that you begin your conversations re the duke indictments by saying "brodhead really isn't that bad "and your "friends are too polite to disagree and don't want to confront you with the truth of how they feel about broddehad and the admin. All of my friends are shocked at the way the new duke under brodhead has treated its students and took the word of this girl stripper prostitute over their own students.
I have a growing suspicion that ever since the 60minutes link brodhead has enlisted his friends and those whom he hired in his pathetic admin to write glowing praise on the board. We are not idiots and will not be deterred -- brodhead will "resign" or be fired (if he refuses to resign ) at the end of this - the real duke alumn will demand this !

At 12:45 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suggest writing to the board members. I wrote to one whose name was familiar to me, and she wrote back.---I too believe Brodhead must go.-- Duke Mom and alum

At 3:34 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 12:17 (since you don't use a handle): I started posting here back in May, I think (I looked for it but the early posts were moved to the moderated board and dates were lost). The reason I started was that I thought people were excessively bitter toward Brodhead. I don't think he handled everything well and I recently suggested an apology speech for his delivery after tne DA election. But those of us who think he's not incorrible or unredeemable are not just a post-60 minute phenomenon.

By the way, when I was searching old postings I ran across one which said CF wasn't even at the party and has a time-stamped restaurant receipt.

I also don't believe the boys' lives will be ruined. They will be cleared by the end of this Spring at the latest. CGM and Nifong will have taken a year away from them, will have caused them and their families horrible heartache, and will have cost their families large sums of money. They will be scarred but not ruined.

By all means write to the Board of Trustees demanding Brodhead's ouster if you feel that way and vote with your checkbooks, too. Just don't label others evil who don't go that far.

At 3:51 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duke09parent--I agree with you totally, and also have been posting on this site since May or so. There are others out there who may not think everything was handled perfectly, but don't see the administration as an evil entity.

The national attention is both a blessing and a curse for the indicted boys. Certainly none of us would want our innocent son's name and picture plastered everywhere in connection with a rape allegation. But this attention has also brought these boys a lot of support--support that most who have been wrongly accused don't get. I wonder how many other young men have had their lives torn apart by false allegations of rape--without the benefit of a large group of activists working hard to uncover the truth. I think the boys will rebound from this. Certainly it will define their lives, but they are all strong young men, and I think they will each find a way to move forward. and I think there will be many people willing and eager to help them.

At 5:35 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This notion that - oh, they'll be fine so what's the difference if they got indicted - is something I don't understand at all.

As for Brodhead, his attitude has been a huge disappointment. I won't go into what has been posted here many times but the one thing I will mention is Brodhead's refusal to speak to or meet with the parents of the lacrosse players when they were on campus. I can't understand that and I can't think of any justification for it.

At 5:51 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:45 Did the trustee say I too think Brodhead must go or is that your opinion? Please clarify.

At 5:56 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I've read every comment on this board, and I haven't read any comments that said "oh they'll be fine so what's the difference if they were indicted." Please don't distort other people's comments. You must be smarter than that.

At 6:07 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:35--There is quite a wide gap between "what's the difference if they got indicted" and "their lives are ruined". I never said the former.

I still tear up when I hear Dave's 60 Minute segment on graduation weekend and his courthouse steps statement. I don't know any of them personally, but they seem to be terrific young men. This has been a horrible thing and they should never have been charged.

But whole lives ruined? Assuming they will be cleared, by pretrial dismissal or verdict, that overstates the case. Hell, even Kobe's life wasn't ruined and he HAD sex with that woman.

New question, has anyone heard Jim Brown say anything about this case? You may recall that before he was a pro football star he was an all american lacrosse player at Syracuse. After his pro career he was falsely accused of rape.

At 6:45 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry. My post was confusing and unintentionally misleading.

I was responding to an earlier post by saying I was a "Duke Mom" but one who thinks Brodhead must go. After all, the situation is not as if he has been at the helm for years and years and up until now has proven himself capable in other crises. He is new, for heaven's sake! He is still being judged as to his character. He was given a "trial by fire" last spring. The guy may be a wordsmith, but he is no leader. This job proved beyond his capacities. Perhaps, he should return to professorship. His life is not over! His life is not ruined, either. Brodhead can move on. He simply made a mistake-- a sophomoric mistake in rushing to judgment. He can continue his trade somewhere else-- just as the Duke lacrosse players may choose to do with their education. Brodhead needs a new venue.

I felt the member whom I corresponded with was very sympathetic to the plight of the boys.
-- DukeMom

At 6:47 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't make assumptions about what will happen in this case. The case may be thrown out pre-trial but I wouldn't assume that. And I would never make assumptions about what a jury will do.

I don't think you can say if lives have been ruined or not. I think it's safe to say that lives have been altered forever but it's too soon to reach any final conclusions.

At 7:23 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wasn't Brodhead only in office for a year before the lacrosse party. What was his accomplishments in that year? Alumni funds? Wouldn't those people have donated whether he was Pres. or someone else was in the position?

At 7:25 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In cororate America if you screw up you are either fired or demoted. Why don't they do that to Brodhead? He can be a professor again. Then the 88 can become 89.

At 7:41 PM, October 24, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At this time, they are facing trial that can put them in prison for 30 years. Kind of early to be talking about them moving forward, isn't it?

At 1:27 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Schools are not like businesses. School culture is much more egalitarian. For example(s), they rarely favor merit based pay. They may despise another teacher but if that teacher is fired the entire faculty will rush to their side. There's no such thing as tenure in the corporate world, etc.

Those of us who are accustomed to a business model find this odd but it is the way schools operate.

At 6:06 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This appears on the front page of the Raleigh News & Observer

The story shows early poll results:
NIFONG - 46%
CHEEK - 28%
MONKS - 2%

At 8:25 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New article coming on front page of Duke Chronicle about conference at Duke Law School and the blogs- I just saw it on the pdf of the front page, but the article isn't up yet. The Chronicle has proven itself to be much better than the N&o or any other MSM in covering the Hoax.
Texas Mom

At 8:46 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: The polling results. 24 percent undecided is a substanial chunk to push Cheek up. I am amazed that with 2 percent of the vote (less than the 4 percent margin of error, even) Monks continues his spoiler delusions of grandeur.

I am hopeful that Durhamites like myself can push Nifong out and continue to engage conversation with people on the fence or (groan) supporting Nifong to show them the light. Wish us luck.

Durham Mommy

At 9:19 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good luck and good karma, Durham Mommy. God Bless.
Texas Mom

At 9:28 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope everyone planning to vote for Monks sees how his possibilies are impossible for winning. He should withdraw from the race immediately. That is if he was really a man instead of a political opportunist.

Shame on you Monks!

At 10:14 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New article on the very flawed ID process, at

The article concludes with :

The only crime involved here is allowing anyone to be indicted for rape based on these flawed identifications.

At 10:24 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is sickening. While Monks' campaign has been claiming right and left how much he cares about players, his campaign had been bad mouthing Cheek's campaign while saying nothing bad about Nifong. Thanks to Monks, Nifong doesn't have to say one bad word about Cheek, Monks is doing it for him. Clearly, Cheek is the only one who even has a shot at beating Nifong, yet Monks persists, refuses to drop out, and his campaign continues to bad mouth Cheek's campaign. How truly sickening.

At 10:45 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone needs to read the Chronicle today. There are multiple articles of interest. CCI town meeting, Baldwin apologizing for "insensitive" remarks, Professors blasting Baldwin for racial remarks, diversity hire article, and story about the blogs in the lax case.

At 11:06 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Baldwin apologizing for "insensitive" remarks

Sounds like China during the Red Guard period--there will be a public meeting where the accused is ridiculed, and then he will be made to deliver a 'self-criticism' acknowledging his erroneous thinking.

At 11:33 AM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Chronicle article on the Campus Culture Initiative "town hall" style meeting:

Many faculty members voiced their desire to shape the University's cultural development, even in the face of opposition from students and alumni.

"Do we have leadership and authority at this University? Maybe we don't. If we don't, you should tell us that, and we'll get back to teaching our classes and doing our research," said Lee Baker, associate professor of cultural anthropology and chair of the Arts and Sciences Council.

Several others said they agreed with Baker's belief in increased faculty governance, including Suzanne Shanahan, assistant professor of sociology and chair of the CCI's subcommittee on gender and sexuality.

Those faculty members who want to control the culture despite student and alumni opposition--who do they think pays the bills and their salaries?

I would agree the faculty should have a leadership role in campus culture but not "authority". Sorry Prof. Baker, I'm not ready to give you the reigns.

As a non-alum parent, I only have a stake in this debate for the next 2 1/2 years. For those of you who are alums, I think these issues are more important than whether Brodhead remains president and you might want to express some views on whether you want Prof. Baker and her ilk to dictate campus culture.

At 1:01 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the posters that it would be good if Monks dropped out to boost the chances of Cheek beating Nyfong. However,in fairness to Monks and Republicans, I think it was duplicitous on the part of Cheek and the Democrats to have him run as a write-in and then back out. The Dems want to hold on to the DA office at all costs and no matter which one wins. Shame can be passed around to both parties. Fair is fair.-- DukeMom

At 1:17 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In today's Chronicle article "Faculty Push for Voice in Culture Talk" please pay attention to what the faculty think of you, the alumni. It seems you are "racist" and "traditional" and you need to "get moved along or left behind."

At 1:18 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheek running has nothing to do with democrats wanting to hold office. Nifong is a democrat. Democrats did not need Cheek to run to hold that office. Monks wouldn't be getting anywhere even if Cheek was not on the ballot. Look at Monks poll numbers. 2%.
How do you expect Monks to get elected DA in Durham of all places? He never had a chance, and I think he has to know that full well.

At 1:18 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Teh peopel who believe Brodhead should be given a 2nd chance do not relaize how Brodhead affected this prosecution.....a prosecutor has broad discretion in whether to choose to move ahead..i truly believe that if brodhead had declared the boys innocent til proven guilty and not fanned the fires that the boys would not have been to the people who say he is new he did this once before at his previous admin...he thre the professor to the wolves so as to protect homself ... he is a sniveling wimp and sad excuse for a leader and to duke mom whose son or daughter will be next- would you feel the same about brodhead if it was your son indicted for a crime he did NOT commit ...for fear not, if nfong wins this election and gets even 1 conviction he will not stop there !

At 1:29 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

46% for nfong means 46% of that group will convict the duke players -- quite frightening -however nfong knew all along that if he can get those kids in front of a vindictive duke resenting jury who believes like these durhamites then doesnt matter what the evidence says ....

"If somebody runs over one of our children or grandchildren, we'd want them put behind bars. He's the one to do it."

- Eugene Gordon, 33, Whole Foods employee, says he's undecided but skeptical of the lacrosse defendants.

"If you got money, you can basically buy your way out of anything. Are you going to take a stand for [the accuser] or are you going to stand with the people who have money?"

- Johnny Bush, 65, systems analyst

- Kevin Prosen, 24, office job at Duke University

Prosen is not sure whom he supports, or that he will even vote in the district attorney race.

"I feel like part of the town will back Nifong because he was aggressive with the lacrosse case. ... Cheek is running basically as 'I'm not Nifong.' It's not a substantial race. It's joke politics."

- Carol Troutner, Chapel Hill, supports the concept of the the Orange county ballot measure.

"I like the idea of having everyone represented. People in other areas have different needs than we do."

- Rita Berman, Chapel Hill

"I'm voting for a seven-person board. It would be beneficial for residents to have better representation."

Duke Lacrosse

At 1:38 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the chronicle today--the fact that Steve Baldwin needed to apologize for racially insensitive remarks in his editorial (that some of the faculty should be "tarred and feathered, run out of town on a rail..") really is a sad commentary on the state of our society today. Why must everything be a racist remark???Can't we just take his article at face value--and recognize that he was using a figure of speech to admonish certain members of the faculty (who deserve it)? Do we have to have minority "thought police" who will proofread everything with an eye toward catching every phrase that could possibly be misinterpreted by someone else? How large will this proofreading group need to be--can one minority speak for the feelings of another? And, if we are going to be outraged by seemingly minor remarks, where is the outrage for the white insults? I can certainly differentiate between the provocation uttered by the second stripper and the retaliatory comment made by a lax player (in today's society, the "n" word is simply not acceptable.) But I cannot justify members of the faculty overlooking the words Kim uttered (which many consider to have been a racist "white" slur) while condemning Prof. Baldwin's "tar and feather" comment.

By the way, Wikipedia's description of "tar and feather" says the punishment, intended to humiliate, has been around since the Crusades, and was used in feudal Europe, colonial America, and the American frontier. Capt. William Smith was tarred and feathered in 1766, as were Mass. customs agents in 1767, and Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS church. In 1693 a group of nuns in Spain was tarred and feathered. Yes, the punishment was also unfairly used against blacks by some. But to suggest Prof. Baldwin's reference was a racially insensitive seems far too sensitive! (where is the outrage from the Catholics and Mormons!!!)

I can't find any of the remarks by other professors blasting Baldwin that were referenced by the 10:45 poster. Can anyone direct me to those?

At 1:39 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:18 pm above: I agree with you completely. Brodhead could have made all the difference in the world, but he chose not to. In fact, he position himself against the boys -- a position he still holds.

At 1:44 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eugene Gordon has been playing in the cabbage too long. The lax case is not about standing for one person or another, it's about looking at the facts intelligently and weighing the evidence. If you pull your head out of the vegetable bin long enough, you may figure out the real truth in this case. God help us if ignorants like this are chosen for a jury.

At 1:49 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Almost any language one might use has the potential to strike some as insensitive. Certain groups of people in our culture need to grow up and get over it. I am disappointed that Baldwin felt the pressure or the need to apologize. He said nothing wrong.

At 2:04 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The criticism of Baldwin's original column was in a letter to the Chronicle by Robyn Wiegman, Prof. of Women's Studies and Literature. I'm having trouble posting the link, but look for "Cultivate community of critical thought" in the paper's website and you'll find it. Prof. Wiegman says this is language of lynching, which seems absolutely wrong.

Lynching certiainly has racial connotations, but tarring and feathering does not. See these links:

No one could seriously think Prof. Baldwin was literally calling for tarring and feathering.

This is a reprise of "water buffalo". Since Larry Moneta was involved in that scandal at Penn perhaps he could weigh in on this.

At 2:15 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps, someone could contact a TV news show and suggest an interview with Professors Coleman, Baldwin, and the ladies' lacrosse coach? Or, if they want profesors who feel the boys are guilty, then include three of the 88, too? I think it would be a powerful segment and very telling. How does one go about making the TV contacts?-- DUKEMOM ( not the one who defends Brodhead lol)

At 2:17 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, it was white folks who were "tarred and feathered" for being con men.--DUKEMOM

At 2:53 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks Brodhead is "supportive" of the lacrosse players and their families should see Jason Trumpbour's post at talkleft...

Re: NEWS!! Duke Official: "Considerable Support" Offered to LAX Players
« Reply #9 on: Today at 11:11:21 AM »

I have been monitoring this board since the very beginning. I have never posted simply because I cannot check it consistently enough to keep up with the fast pace of discussions. I am posting here for the first time because the assertion made by Brodhead’s assistant that the Duke administration has been “in regular contact with them and their families and offering considerable support” is so absolutely outrageous that I believe you should know the facts.

Brodhead and the rest of the administration have had no contact with any of the lacrosse players or their families whatsoever with the following three exceptions:

1. Brodhead talked to Devon Sherwood’s family and apologized for what they were going through. Devon is African American.

2. One of the families of a player who was not charged ran into Brodhead at a reception following the dedication of a facility at Duke Medical Center. Brodhead was very cold and uncaring toward them. One of the trustees joined them and was supportive of the lacrosse players. The trustee asked them how to get lacrosse wristbands and he indicated he wanted to get enough for a lacrosse team at the university where he teaches. As Brodhead watched silently, the family members gave him one of their own wristbands, and he put it on immediately. At this point, apparently, Brodhead walked away.

3. Colin Finnerty’s parents contacted Brodhead to ask for permission to transfer credits from other colleges. Both Colin and Reade Seligmann are taking classes this semester at colleges near their homes. However, Duke will not let them transfer more than two courses so they are unable to keep up with their studies while suspended unless they get permission to transfer more. Colin was supposed to do study abroad this semester, but Duke cancelled that. Brodhead refused to meet with them despite several requests. Finally, the person in charge of the annual giving program told Brodhead that, unless he agreed to see the Finnerties, he would resign. Only then did Brodhead agree to meet them. In the meeting, Brodhead remained intransigent and he and Mrs. Finnerty got into terrible argument. The Finnerties walked out because Brodhead started insulting them.

There has not been a single note, card or other expression of kindness from anyone in the Duke administration to any of the three accused students.

By contrast, I received an e-mail from someone close to Reade Seligmann who told me that, the same day Duke suspended Reade, an Ivy League athletic department official called him to tell him how much they believed in him and wanted him to come to their university and play lacrosse. The people there had recruited him out of high school, two years prior, remembered what a great person he was. They that much confidence in him.

Jason Trumpbour
Friends of Duke University

At 3:39 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The description of Brodhead's meeting with the Finnerty's, if accurate, is indefensible.

Jason, can you give us a time frame of when this meeting took place?

At 4:08 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This announcement was made by KC Johnson recently on his website. Those of you who will be in Durham tomorrow, may not want to miss this event.

From KC Johnson:
For those interested, I'll be speaking as part of a panel discussion on the case this Thursday night, sponsored by ACLU@DUKE. The talk is at 7pm, in the Von Canon Center (lower level of the Bryan
Center on Duke's West Campus) . The panel also includes Stephen Miller, whose columns and public appearances helped crystallize Duke student opinion on the case.

At 4:35 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the truth. Jason's post brought tears to my eyes. What is Brodhead trying to prove? How can he be so cold, so callous to the families. Why not allow the transfer of credits on a normal basis, no less given these highly unusual circumstances.

The information about the Ivy League school contacting him was so touching. It is just what I predicted in one of my earlier postings. It had to have been Princton or Harvard, and my guess is Princeton. Reade is from NJ.

As Reade said he probably will not nor should he return to Duke. If it were my kid, I'd say absolutely not esp. as long as Brodhead is there. The Ivy League university can probably give Reade the credits if he can prove he took the courses and show the grades. Perhaps some decent professors can help him with this.

Duke has lost one of its best and brightest forever. What a disgrace!

At 6:25 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

gc Reade was placed on the ACC's honor roll his spring grades. He'll have no trouble going to any school of his chose. I hope he gets the chance to.

At 6:27 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks, this information comes directly from the campaign. Of the 24% undecided, 49% are republicans. There is hope. VOTE and PRAY.

At 6:35 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, a lot of republicans are still undecided. Presumably between Cheek and Monks. Monks got 2 % of votes. He has no chance, but instead of dropping out, his campaigns keeps bashing Cheeks' campaign. It's a disgrace. Why would he do it, if he claims to care about the defendants?
Surely he has to realize he got no chance whatsoever? With 2 % of votes, I mean, come on. Nobody is that dumb to expect they can win with that kind of polling results.

At 6:43 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: Monk. As one blogger noted on a national level, if the Democrats would just shut up, the Republicans would self destruct. But it's a damn close run thing.

At 8:24 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof. Baldwin's letter was great. Why did he apologize today? Check the encyclopedia. Tarred and feathered is a metaphor for humiliating public castigation. That's just what the 88 deserved. Why apologize? Is there something in the water down there? Oh yes, I remember lead.

At 11:33 PM, October 25, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why did he apologize today? Probably for the same reason nobody else in Duke even has the guts to write letters in support of the players in a first place. Pressure from the group of 88, for instance.

At 12:56 AM, October 26, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another article (do my eyes deceive me, or do these seem to be becoming more numerous these days?)

David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann played the wrong sport at the wrong school. Imagine how much less complicated their lives would have been as, say, on the football team at a school such as ... oh, how about Miami, instead of lacrosse players at Duke.


<< Home