Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Duke To Reinstate Seligmann, Finnerty

Citing the "unwarranted harm" that continued leave would impose on the falsely persecuted young men, Duke University has invited Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty to return to the University for the spring semester as students in good standing. The invitation follows last week's call from President Richard Brodhead for District Attorney Mike Nifong to recuse and explain himself.

In a letter to Reade Seligmann, Duke University Vice President for Student Affairs, Larry Moneta writes:

January 2, 2007

Dear Reade,

On August 3, 2006, your status at the university was changed from that of Interim Suspension to Administrative Leave of Absence. I am writing to tell you that you may return to Duke in good standing for the 2007 spring semester.

As circumstances have evolved in this extraordinary case, we have attempted to balance recognition of the gravity of legal charges with the presumption of your innocence. Now with the approach of a new term, we believe that circumstances warrant that we strike this balance differently. At this point, continued extension of the administrative leave would do unwarranted harm to your educational progress. For these reasons, Dean Thompson and I, with the support of President Brodhead, have decided to lift the Administrative Leave. Your status may be revisited upon final resolution of the criminal charges.

Dean Rasmussen will serve as your undergraduate dean and will work with you to develop an academic plan for your remaining course choices and requirements. We recognize that your housing options will be of concern to you and will work with you to identify appropriate residential options either on or off campus, as you would prefer.

Reade, it is my sincere hope that you will choose to return for the spring semester. Please let me know how I may support you during this time.


Larry Moneta, Ed.D.
Vice President for Student Affairs

“We feel that this is a very important moment,” Finnerty’s lawyer Wade Smith said. “This announcement speaks to Duke’s integrity as an institution, to its mission, and to its belief in Collin Finnerty’s innocence.”

“By now it should be plain to any person who has any objectivity that the charges against Reade are transparently false,” the Seligmann family said in a statement Wednesday."
Update: KC Johnson

"The symbolism of this move cannot be missed: with the decision, the Duke administration is formally saying that the presumption of innocence no longer can be ignored and strongly implying--through its deeds--that no one in the upper levels at Duke any longer believes in the credibility of Mike Nifong's allegations. Coupled with Brodhead's repeated demands that Nifong recuse himself, this act signals a dramatic, and welcome, shift by the administration on the case, and a statement that from here on out, Brodhead will stand on behalf of due process."
"Duke officials have offered to reinstate Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann for the spring semester, President Richard Brodhead confirmed Wednesday afternoon.
"The decision, which could allow the two to graduate with their class and make them eligible for the upcoming lacrosse season, comes nearly two weeks after Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong dropped charges of rape against all three indicted members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team.

"We have decided that the right and fair thing to do is to welcome back Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty to resume their studies at Duke for the spring semester," Brodhead said in a statement. "Although the students still face serious charges and larger issues require Duke's collective attention, the circumstances in this case have changed substantially, and it is appropriate that the students have an opportunity to continue their education."

"In a memo to Brodhead Jan. 2, Larry Moneta, vice president for student affairs, said that although the charges against the two are still unresolved and very serious, the "totality of circumstances" has changed in such a way that the University now feels the two should have the chance to resume as students in good standing.

"Finnerty's father, Kevin Finnerty, told The Chronicle Wednesday afternoon that Collin had been reinstated and that Collin and his family will not make a final decision on Duke's offer until all charges have been dropped.

"We are hopeful for successful resolution to these charges ASAP so Collin can move on with his life academically and athletically," Kevin Finnerty wrote in an e-mail. "We need to focus all of our attention to attain the right [innocent] outcome to these false accusations."

"Moneta, who called Finnerty to announce the University's decision, said that he believes Finnerty is now leaning toward returning to campus for the spring semester.
Seligmann was not immediately available to speak about whether or not he will return. Moneta said Seligmann and his family were still tyring to weigh the consquences and implications of returning.

"There would be no question as to their eligibility," said Chris Kennedy, senior associate director of athletics."

Update: Statement from Brodhead

“We have decided that the right and fair thing to do is to welcome back Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty to resume their studies at Duke for the spring semester. Although the students still face serious charges and larger issues require Duke’s collective attention, the circumstances in this case have changed substantially, and it is appropriate that the students have an opportunity to continue their education.”

Update: Moneta Memo to Brodhead

“In response to your question about what is appropriate regarding the status of Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, after consulting with Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Robert Thompson and Provost Peter Lange, I recommend that these students should now be allowed to return to Duke and continue their education. While the legal situation they face is not yet resolved and the students still face serious charges, the totality of circumstances has changed in a way that makes it appropriate for us to remove the barriers to their returning and resuming their student careers.

“In the practice of Duke and many other universities, students are typically separated from the university when they are charged with behaviors involving violence. This interim suspension is imposed in recognition of the risks to the community and to the students themselves if they were allowed to remain. Interim suspension is not a disciplinary measure or judgment of guilt. Rather, it is a way to deal with the interim before such charges are resolved.

“Our two students were placed on interim suspension when they were indicted last spring. In late summer, Duke modified the suspension to an administrative leave, which allowed the students to continue to make academic progress while not present at the university. Both have completed their coursework from last spring and are currently in good academic standing.

“Our measures to date have attempted to fit a wise and prudent general policy to the facts of an extraordinary case. As circumstances have evolved, we have attempted to balance recognition of the gravity of legal charges with the presumption of innocence, and concern for the well-being of the community with the students’ needs to continue their education. As we approach a new term, I believe that the circumstances warrant that we strike this balance at a different point.

“As you noted in your statement on December 22, circumstances have clearly changed. At this point, further extension of the students’ leaves would do unwarranted harm to their educational progress. For this reason, I recommend that the administrative leave be lifted and they be allowed to re-enroll for the spring term.

“Needless to say, the students would remain subject to further disciplinary action should they be found criminally responsible for any of the charges pending.

“Vice Provost Thompson has discussed this proposed change with Dean Michele Rasmussen, who helped craft the new administrative leave policy, and she is supportive of this change in their status. Dean Rasmussen would remain the academic dean for these students through the re-entry process.”


Anonymous said...

A bit late at this point, don't you think? They would be crazy to go back. Hofstra, Loyola (MD), any decent private school with a decent lacrosse team will do. I fear for their safety in Durham to be quite honest.

It's up to them, but I would give the old "thanks but no thanks, and please change my academic record accordingly" speech and attend college somewhere else.


Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer: My first reaction is "too little, too late". But after reflecting a few minutes, my reaction now is "better late than never". At least, these young men have more options now.

Anonymous said...

Thank God this ordeal is finally nearing an end for them. I will still continue with my support and prayers. God bless the Seligmanns, Finnertys and Evans.

Kevin said...

Finally! An offer of support (the last sentence) from the Duke administration!

Anonymous said...

This is what we call an attempt to mitigate damages in legal jargon.

Anonymous said...

As Sherlock Holmes once said, "It is better to learn wisdom late than never to learn it at all." (from 'The Man with the Twisted Lip.') So two cheers for the Duke administration.

Incidentally, you'd have thought that the Seligmanns' attorneys would have learned the correct spelling of Brodhead's name by now.

Anonymous said...

Great news for the two young men. whether they attend or not, I think this publicly expresses that Duke University says: "Not Guilty!"

Anonymous said...

Exactly, 3:31. Duke would not be going against its own policies if the people there still thought there was a chance of trial and conviction.

This is a positive step, and we are that much closer to this thing being over. However, there are going to be lawsuits in the future that will keep this going for awhile. Also, there is a certain district attorney who will be facing some legal problems.

Anonymous said...

Larry Moneta and Dean Sue still need to be fired. Their failures early in the case put the students and the university at great risk.

Anonymous said...

Personally, if I were them, I would not return. I am sure they would be able to put their transfers in for an equally reputable school...Reade apparently got accepted to every Ivy League school when he applied from high school...and with all the publicity, I doubt (pending the boys grades/lacrosse is decent)any school would turn them down...UVA, Hopkins, Maryland, UNC-All viable options I'd believe.

I wouldn't return fi I were them. Not only did the school show them no support, but I can guarantee that there are tons of student's on campus (black apologists, for example) like our friend Shadee who have distain for the laxers and find this a good excuse to hate them and voice their opinions even louder. Not worth it. Why would you want to attend a school run by administrators who showed you no support, professors who banded against you and tried to paint you as a racist male elitist, and a student body who protested for days against you? Thanks, but no thanks. This case said a lot about Duke. I wouldn't want to go back.

Anonymous said...

3:43- I have to agree, I am glad Duke has FINALLY done something right, but now that they are students in "good standing" I would transfer my ass right out of there. It also sounds from the tone of the Seligmann's statement that they are "loaded for bear" and I don't blame them, I would be after someones hide!

Anonymous said...

Folks: Don't get too happy here. There are serious financial considerations at work in this offer, and it was definitely calculated. Duke has liability problems, and they are wide open for suit by the three falsely accused players in light of the school's statements from their agents (i.e., the Group of 88). Slander and Libel, false light, objects of scorn in the community at large, all of these things have swayed this decision to ask the two young men back to school. Duke is trying to mitigate damages, which are large just for missing one semester.

To the Duke alums, I'm sorry, but Duke is going to get sued IMHO, and they richly deserve it for what they did to these students. The only good that can come out of this is that any school, including Duke, will think long and hard before sanctioning students and issuing press statements condemning them for alleged crimes devoid of proof.

[u]What I would like to see come out of this is the following:[/u]

I want universities to stop setting up kangaroo courts to search out oppressors on campus. The result is an unfair, unjust process rife with PC sentiment, devoid of controls and safeguards. This is what causes innocent people like these players to get stoned by the screaming, pot bashing, unshaven protestors. This activity, most noteable at "elite" colleges, is an affront to justice and common decency. Further, these activities have been allowed to go on with the actual and/or implied consent/approval of the school's administration and faculty. I can only pray that such activities will be tamed when Duke writes a big fat check.


Anonymous said...

Then again, as Collin's dad said in an interview recently, at least the people at Duke understand the case's nuances and he wouldn't be "that rapist" on campus (excepting the wacko lefties, that is).

Anonymous said...

It is a win/win for Duke in attemptingto mitigate the damages in the lawsuit that will surely be filed. If the boys return to Duke (not gonna happen) Duke argues in the civil suit that the plaintiffs could not have been that angry with Duke. If they reject the offer, Duke argues that the offer is the terminus point for damages related to suspension.

Anonymous said...

how on earth did duke "sanction" or "condemn" these students besides suspending them (which is university policy for anyone charged with a felony)? "condemning" and "not outspokenly defending" are not the same thing.

and given that tenured faculty members can get away with saying pretty much anything, I'm not sure how you think the administration will be held responsible for their statements. my dad is a member of a faculty that includes some of the looniest academics you'll ever meet... and they all have a right to express their crazy opinions. just like we have the right to disagree with them.

Anonymous said...

Duke is trying to spin, But...

What parent is going to send their kid to a town, where there have been threats made against them (dead man walking, etc)?

A town with a police dept that helped framed them (Line Up)?

A town with a run away DA?

A school with the Duke 88 running around?

A school with "lets bang pots before we know what happen" student body?

If they go back, they are foolish.

Anonymous said...

While faculty members do have free speech rights, it was NOT free speech to put the lacrosse team pictures on wanted posters across campus, and hold signs demanding castration, and the like. Faculty members are employees of Duke University, and there is vicarious liability at work here.

Look, the Maryland Esquire is correct; Duke WILL be sued by lacrosse families. Trust me, it is going to happen. Duke told its most loyal alumni basically to go to hell, and now there will be hell to pay. I would look for settlements and the like. Someone or something is going to cover some legal fees for the accused, as well as other items that will be negotiated.

Duke has serious fence mending to do, and I will bet that a lot of people are happy that the Satanic Houston Baker is at one of my least favorite universities, Vanderbilt. Sooner or later, that guy will wear out his welcome there, just as he wears it out everywhere else he has been.

Anonymous said...

who is dukes most loyal alumni... bring me up to speed....I feel I have missed something

drew said...

If I were either of the two "reinstated" students, I would reply to Duke's offer as follows:

Thank you for your generous offer to return to Duke; however, I could only consider such an offer following Duke's removal of the entire list of the faculty who voiced their "sentiments" that I and my fellow students were guilty in this matter. Failing their removal from the faculty, I would have no other alternative but to sue the University for its "rush to judgement" in this matter. I would gladly offer a settlement equal to 4 years' worth of the full amount of tuitions collected by the University, and the written apologies of all faculty and administration members who are now trying to pretend that "they did the right thing" when in fact what they did was patently wrong.

Then I would proceed to do just that -- sue the endowment right out of the University. Its faculty and administration soiled its name last year, and I have nowhere else to go to get (my) reputation back.

Anonymous said...

While most of Duke's actions related to this case are despicable and unexcusable (the Group of 88's statement for a prime example), I don't think Duke can be blamed for suspending the players. What if a couple of Duke students did actually rape a girl? Should the University allow them to continue taking classes, living in an on-campus dorm, etc. up to point of an actual conviction, based on a presumption of innocence? What if they raped another girl in the meantime? Imagine the outrage (and liability).

Given what the DA was saying at the time about injuries, etc. -- and at that point, there was no reason to know he was making stuff up -- how could Duke have responsibly done anything but suspend them until the truth came to light? Had Duke expelled the boys, it would be a different story...

Anonymous said...

I don't think Duke can be sued for anything (most of the grounds people seem to think they should sue under are extremely fanciful), and I think living on campus at Duke the boys would be as safe as they can be anywhere (you better believe that the administration will be motivated to ensure their security).

I don't know that I'd go back to living off campus if I were either of them, however.

Anonymous said...

4:01 - Correct. This is clearly a mitigation tactic.

4:10 - You still haven.t grasped the full implications? Take a walk with counsel down liability way.

Firstly, and this is more of a classic legal hypothetical that can make case law, Duke accepts federal funds, and is therefore a state actor (Section 1983). They are bound by federal restraints. Does that policy you cite comply with federal requirements?

However, and this is definitive, if you would like to know what every lawyer has known for some time (and I can assure you, so do the players' lawyers), a faculty member is an agent of Duke as his employer, tenured or not. If he makes statements that the individual knew or should have known were demonstrably false, and cast the object of that statement in a false light and/or as a subject of scorn in the community at large, that person (or 88 of them) are liable for slander/libel (nice little conspiracy theory here as well). However, the statements, made in the course of employment, makes Duke University liable under the concept of Respondeat Superior.

Thus, freedom of speech is limited, be one a whacky professor or not. But buck up, because I can tell you right now CNN is going to get sued (Nancy Grace) and probably a few more news outlets/commentators as well.

On the flip side, that being Mike Nifong, the players have causes of action for violation of their civil rights under color of law (42 USC Section 1983). Mike Nifong, in a moment of galling stupidity, decided to make himself the lead investigator on the case. The reason this is ridiculously stupid is because as a prosecutor, Nifong enjoys absolute immunity. However, as a police officer, and his role was primarily that of a police officer when he named himself chief investigator, that immunity falls to qualified immunity. Thus, if the players can prove malice (and they have that), Nifong, the police officers involved, the City of Durham and the County can all be held liable for damages.

Finally, because the accused players are residents of different states, they can (and will) bring their claims in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (for the common law torts, the federal claims have venue there in any event). Thus, the NC machine will not be guarding Duke, its profs, the police, the city, the county, and Nifong. A federal judge will roast all of these individuals and entities over a stove. In short, and based upon my experience in the 4th Circuit, he will hate them. Further, the Federal system allows for discovery that one never receives in state court, and everything will come out, from e-mail communications to conspiracies to hide evidence.

I hope that helps you understand what is at play right now. Nifong is keeping two charges alive to save his own skin, hoping against all hope that they survive long enough to keep him away from bar counsel, and to save him from civil liability. He wants the accuser to say she does not recognize the players because he sees that as another way to save his own skin, and to lay the blame on her feet. All of these tactics you are seeing now, which are odd, are merely ways in which different individuals and entities are trying to mitigate their risk and damages.


Anonymous said...


Next fall my daughter may apply to Duke. If a student is accused of a serious crime including rape, that student can rightfully be removed from the campus. To a lesser degree than Liefong, but in reality quite damaging, the Duke administration enabled the false accusations to be perpetuated to the detriment of the accused. I want a safe campus for my child, but I also don't an unwelcome campus where any student is denied due process and fair treatment.

Anonymous said...

Bill at 4:16,

LOL at "one of my least favorite universities, Vanderbilt." OK, let's do our SAT analogies--

Duke is to UNC as Vandy is to ???

Answer: Your alma mater U of Tenn.

Seriously, the reason I doubt a suit against Duke would be successful is that one needs to prove not only wrongful actions (plenty) but damages CAUSED BY THOSE WRONGFUL ACTIONS. Duke's best defense would be that it was Nifong's wrongful actions which caused their damages. Consider also that the venue for any suit would have to be Durham.

A suit would not likely be tossed out on its ear, though, so I would expect Duke to make accomodations quite comfortable for Collin and Reade if they choose to come back. Some of the dorm rooms are being renovated to create faculty apartments. Suites for lacrosse players anyone? (All in the name of security, of course.)

Anonymous said...

4:45 - Venue would be in the US District Court under diversity of citizenship. No, it would be a bad thing. Further, defamation and libel require damages to the reputation, not economic damages, and the fact that you are merely repeating what someone else said is not a defense.


Anonymous said...

Anon 4:30pm can you say with 100% certainty? that Collin and Reade's lives would not be in danger from the other student that wrote articles in the school paper over the past 10 months. One student said how he would use his own form of justice on them.

If I were both Collin and Reade I wouldn't return knowing that. I have copies of those stories from the Duke Chronicle. Duke can be sued for so much money it isn't funny.

Anonymous said...

I have been asking for this since it first started to look like the charges were false. They should have done this so long ago. I have loved Duke so much since I graduated in 1995 and watching Duke's reaction to this unfolding situation has really hurt me and many other alums who think the admin acted with no sense of mission or right or wrong. They simply tried to read public reaction and cater to it--I assume this is more of the same behavior.

Anonymous said...

Maryland Esquire,

I'm not far across the Potomac from you. Maybe we can bend elbows over a couple of beers to brainstorm liability.

I'm no expert in 1983, but can a university (even a state university much less a private one) be considered to be acting under color of state law? Can defamation come under 1983?

I have a little trouble with scope of employment of the Group of 88's signing the witness statement, too.

You're right on about the liability of Nifong. It fits in the latest Supremes's opinion on exceptions to prosecutorial immunity. What about resources to pay, though? Does Durham have to pay for his liability when he steps out of his proper employment scope?

Baker sure made some defamatory comments, both in his letter and afterwards. It would be fun to dig into his past actions at Penn and Duke to learn about what malice he has against white students. Lucky for Duke that an administrator rebuked him in public for his letter, since that would help in saying Duke did not ratify his wrongful act.

Virginia Esquire

Anonymous said...

I still find it hard to believe that any college or university would hire a nitwit like Houston Baker. His racist screeds read as if they were written by an illiterate moron who does not even have enough sense to know how to use a spell check. Most fifth-graders can write better than this man, and almost all of them can spell better. Houston Baker is a great example of why affirmative action is a foolish idea. People should be granted admission to colleges, and hired as faculty by colleges, based on merit alone -- and not on the color of their skin.

Anonymous said...

Md Esq - The issue with a libel/slander claim against Duke is proving actual or constructive knowledge that the statement was false. It's not enough that they ended up being false.

Anonymous said...

VE: No, not far at all across the divided and warred over Potomac.

It would have be a Monell claim, and whether the jurisdiction has policies, practices and customs that allowed this to happen. I would say that Durham, which appears to have no safeguards whatsoever, is in very serious trouble. Further, state law normally requires a jurisdiction to pay for any award against its employees acting in their official capacity. I can only assume (and hope) Durham has insurance coverage.

As for the school, SCOTUS also stated that when schools accept federal funds, they are required to abide by federal laws given as a condition for receipt of those monies (military recruitment). The question can only be answered fully with a Nexis search, and neither you, nor I, are going to do one (I know my Section 1983 cold, but not education law). However, and you know this too, David Evans's DC counsel certainly will. That should fully address the issue, and we'll know when the Section 1983 claim gets captioned.

Baker has problems, I agree.

This should be full professional entertainment, BTW.


Anonymous said...

5:07 - "Should have known...."

Juries normally decide that particular issue. It is a defense, however.


Anonymous said...

Md Esq -

Yes, "should have known" is usually a question of fact left up to juries. Nevertheless, the complaint has to allege that they should have known their statements were demonstrably false. Based on what? The fact that the DA was saying the same things?

Though I think it's a little scary what some of the professors have said, I think they actually believed it -- not that they deliberately made false statements. And, perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt there is evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that the families of the three boys have paid enough in legal fees to turn around and pay more in order to file a lawsuit where there is little to no chance they will be able to prove a key element of their claim.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Esquires in MD and VA,

I am a few hours away in the mountains, so maybe I might swoop down to consume a few beers myself. I'm planning on coming to the Duke-Maryland lacrosse match on March 3 at College Park. My assumptions that injustice58 and the resident pot bangers won't be there.

The "Times Malice" standards apply to public officials and public figures, and they apply to news organizations, not universities. Putting the "wanted" poster around campus, hoisting "castrate" signs, and calling the lacrosse players "racists" in the press -- and worse -- is something that goes beyond free speech, at least where a university's responsibilities toward students is concerned.

We are dealing with contratual relationships, and we at universities are not free to break them. Just because the students had parties with strippers does not absolve Duke of its contratual duties, as the lacrosse players can point out the basketball team having strippers, as well as other organizations.

Believe me, Duke has some real liability problems here. My sense is that the action today both signifies that this will not come to trial (the charges will be dropped before then) and that Brodhead finally is taking charge of things.

Anonymous said...

5:34 - About all 47 team members?

Don't you see what they did? Hasn't it occurred to you yet that not only do the three accused have a cause of action, the entire lacrosse team that are white have a cause of action as well.

Could any reasonable person think that they all gang raped this woman? That they are "all" rapists? That they are "all" racists? That they are "wanted" in a poster for sharing these alleged commonalities?

And which story had come out? Was it three guys? Ten guys? Twenty guys? No guys? Does the school have the obligation to see if what they are alleging is in fact true when compared with the accuser's stories, which changed by the hour?

They have a solid cause of action. I would not hesitate in bringing this matter in Court.


Anonymous said...

Hey Bill. Stay warm, it's cold up there.

As for contract, true. I hadn't even thought of that, but you are correct on that score as well. That includes an implied convenant of safety and habitability.


Anonymous said...

Hello Duke...anyone home? Better late than never, but you guys are slower than the government.

Anonymous said...

It is generally difficult to make out a section 1983 claim for defamation. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (Rehnquist, J.) (holding there was no constitutional remedy for reputational harm where defendant police circulated flyers stating plaintiff was a shoplifter).

This case, however, is readily distinguishable from Paul v. Davis: the libelled players were factually innocent; there was no rational basis for the libel against the players; the seriousness of the libel was much greater.

Duke's belated invitation to the kids probably limit Duke's liability for the suspension, but they had no liability for that anyway. Duke will argue as to damages from defamation (for the gang of 88 poster and so on) that even if they did libel the students, their damages should be limited to actual damages for the time before the students were invited back.

Anonymous said...

Bill and Md. Esq.,

I have the Md/Duke game on my calendar. I'll keep in touch with Bill by email (he has mine).

"This should be full professional entertainment, BTW." I absolutely agree. Now that I feel much safer about the outcome of the criminal prosecution, I can enjoy it a little more. As I posted elsewhere, I know the case isn't over but the light at the end of the tunnel is awfully bright.

Anonymous said...

5:52 - Don't mix your causes of action. I made that mistake precisely once in Federal Court, never again.

They would sue under Monell (policies practices and procedures) against the City/County, and by extention each of the individual actors (Nifong and police), for deprivation of civil rights (particular the 4th, 5th, 6th, 11th and 14th Amendments) under color of state law. The slander/libel claims would be separate and on their own.


Anonymous said...

WHERE is the apology???? From the President on down Duke University not only failed to support its students, but also was actively (and happily)involved in hanging them out to dry. As the parent of a D-1 lacrosse player I wouldn't let my child go within 100 miles of Durham, N.C.

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

Should they be frightened of harrassment from the Durham police if they return to Durham?

Anonymous said...

Ms. Ward, Esq., (sorry, don't know the proper form of address), I think they do have significant cause to be concerned about harassment from the Durham police. I say this not only in light of this case, but also in light of how the Durham police has interacted with Duke students in the past. I certainly wouldn't want anyone I cared about to go there.

As for the Duke-Maryland game, I'm pulling for Maryland. Oh, and Brodhead isn't what I'd be calling the president of Duke University, though the word "head" would be involved.

Anonymous said...

I think they should request to have the building that houses the new AA studies department named after them in their settlement.

Anonymous said...

The only lacrosse player/family, from the 2006 Duke lacrosse team, that received an apology was Devon Sherwood. That was back in the spring of '06.

Anonymous said...

I managed the mens lax team at maryland two years ago when i was a really excited for the game...march 2nd if anyone wants to go! cheer on both teams. L))

Anonymous said...

i am really upset that you guys think bill anderson has power to get these guys off the hook. bill is nothing but a racist jerk & you are enabling him. duke may have extended the invitation to have the duke 3 back but their stay will only be for a moment b/c this case is still pending. what will you look like if they are found guilty of the other charges. now, who is rushing to judgment? shadee m. gave the readers an eye full about the lax. why would you want to condone bad behavior. some of the players have even showed up in their class drunk and some professors let it slide. rewarding
drunkeness is beyond me. from what i've heard, one professor was tired of their behavior and went to higher-ups to stop it. you are only doing this because the woman is a stripper, poor and just happens to be black. you are disgusting and mean spirited.

Anonymous said...

I hope you all have a great time at the duke/maryland lax game!!

Anonymous said...

I hope Broadhead and the racist gang of 88 is forced out by Duke alumni.

Kemper said...

heh, number one son returns, says flat out Reade going to Yale and Collin not coming back, if he knows, surely Brodhead knew too.

Makes Brodhead's statement look like, TOTAL BULL SH*T.

They are not coming back so let's invite them anyway we get some good PR. Alumni love it I get to keep job, NOT.

I smell PC RATS.


Kemper said...

Did I mention number one son rooms near Reade's girl friend. I'd say more but then Duke PC police would come to see him.

I know co ed dorms are hard for me to understand too.

Just the fact, Brodhead is a Dickhead.


Anonymous said...

Good for Reade. It's good that he has so many options.

I hope Collin has those options too. LIke I said, Hopkins, UVA, Maryland, UNC, I'm sure all of those schools are options, with UVA, Hopkins and Maryland being prominent players in the lax program area.

He should pick Maryland.....just on my opinion ;)

Anonymous said...

Damn! I had no idea you were enabling me.

As for the charges, they soon will be gone. Before he advocated trial and conviction "even if they are innocent," Chan Hall predicted that at the end, it still would be "Duke up, Central down."

Don't forget that NCCU was a major force in this hoax. It students and faculty invested plenty in the lies, and now that it is falling apart, they are throwing fits and going into a rage.

I guess they figured that even though they knew it was a hoax, everyone else was too stupid to figure it out. Guess Hall was right, after all.

And since I believe like the other Central students -- that Crystal was lying all along -- I guess that makes me a racist, according to 9:07. Of course, if I am held to that standard, then the rest of the people at NCCU are racists, too. After all, they knew Crystal was lying, and so does 9:07 and his little friend, jackass58.

Anonymous said...

Duke may be doing the right thing, but I wonder if they are doing it to mitigate the damages they have done to these students?

After all, to everyone but Wendy Murphy these students are innocent. They are wronged. They have suffered damages. And they are already cocked and loaded with teams of lawyers.

Duke should want to mitigate damages; but I hope it doesn't work. Duke deserves to lose a lot.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else spot the telling statement in the Menato memo linked? "Totality of the Circumstances" is a legal parlance that is linked to a string of cases providing police officer probable cause to effectuate a legal, warrentless arrest/detainment/search. Obviously, 4th Amendment cases.

No laymen wrote this memo.

Just a short FYI for readers for them to ingest.


Anonymous said...

History proved that your sources are reliable, but I'm surprised. Yale's lacrosse team is near the bottom of the Ivies and can't compete with Princeton there. Rumors say he's interested in switching to football and Yale's better there (tied with Princeton for the league title), but they've got a running back (Reade's high school position) who is a sophomore now and who, unless he gets hurt, will eclipse all career rushing marks there. It's not truly competitive nationally in much of anything sportswise except polo and squash. I love the place and he will too, but it's Division I in name only.

Anonymous said...


chan hall predictions is shit compared to mine MF. wayyyyyyyy wrong MF. the dukes will be convicted in a court of law. you're reading too damn much into mike's press conference. you racist dog think a black woman's word mean nothing. you're nothing more than a rotting loser with no confidence. wag your tail because you are what you are. bow wow

Svolich said...

Ms Ward -

If it were me, I wouldn't spend 5 minutes in that jurisdiction without an armed guard and a camera crew.

Even when Nifong is gone, Gottleib will still be there. How long before he pulls over one of the boys for a broken tail light suddenly notices alcohol on his breath, and has to shoot him when he resists arrest?

My money says 5 days.

Welcome to Durham.

Hey said...

svolich: everyone involved in this travesty is going down, hard.

Gotleib is GONE, like Simi Valley's Finest's friends of Rodeny King gone, Mark Furman gone. He engaged in a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of all the LAX players under color of law. Buh bye. Say hello to your cellie!

Everyone that participated in that "lineup": gone. Likely getting cellies.

Meehan: going for a long stretch, will be fun to see what a LAX team can do with a defunct DNA lab. He's also jeapordised every case he ever worked on. Duke LAX are only the first, most aggressive lawyers that are going to come calling. Jail won't be bad, since he's going to be in depositions and hearings for a good long while.

Liefong: solitary for protective custody. Somehow DA's aren't appreciated in prison. Plus he just screwed every case he's ever been on. He should watch out for the Warden, the Governor, and everyone else on down trying to shiv him, since he has made their lives a living hell and has given an innumerable number of criminals grounds to overturn their convictions. Thankfully he spent most of his time on traffic court with no real cases. Wonder how the LAX team will redecorate his house?

To anonymouses: dude! I've got this great waterfront land in Florida. Cheap! It's a great investment! There's also this bridge!

Hey said...

Yeah the Ivies aren't really D1 in athletics. But Duke and Stanford are the only schools that have Ivy reps with good teams. These boys won't be going to athletic schools with ok academics: they're going to great schools with decent athletics. Which means the Ivies, likely something close to home just in case. So it's Yale/Princeton/Columbia, and I can see Yale as the best option... some freedom and space from home, but close enough to get back when he needs to.

The major thing these kids need is some good advice on a private banker/wealth management service to handle their settlements. It will be nice to own a nice apartment in NYC when you're starting work as an I-banker, but you'll want a full suite of services. Should help the hiring process to know that you're a potential client as well as employee!

Anonymous said...

From the WRAL web site: Larry Moneta, vice president of Student Affairs at Duke, said the university has no regrets looking back or moving forward, even though the criminal case is not resolved.

"I think we've been perfectly appropriate," he said. "Dr. Brodhead is very clear that the court activity should be separate from the university decision-making."

So the official university position is that it has "no regrets". That says it all.

Anonymous said...

In response to the person who called me an MF, from what I gather, the prosecution tells us not to believe Crystal, either. We are supposed to believe the IDs, but we are not supposed to believe her when she gives very detailed descriptions of what these young men supposedly did to her.

I believe Crystal is lying because of the evidence which accompanies her accusations. Her descriptions of things would have given us DNA evidence. Her race has nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, the person who accuses me of racism says that I am supposed to ignore all science in a case like this. That being said, does he also tell us that the Innocence Project is flawed, since it is able to get people convicted of rape and murder exonerated because of DNA evidence? Many of those who have been freed are black, but if you have your way in this case, more blacks will be wrongfully convicted and not be able to be exonerated.

My guess is that the person accusing me has not thought that far. It is a purely racial issue with him and others, which also tells me even more that this was a bogus case driven only by race. So, Durham 2006-07 = Scottsboro 1931. Somehow, I don't think that is progress.

Anonymous said...

Bill: What the innocense project has revealed is the following:

1. Rape based on identification alone without corroborating evidence is inherently flawed and leads to false convictions;

2. Bi-Racial identification is inherently flawed and leads to false convictions. There have been numerous studies in this area, and all studies agree that victims in the vast majority of cases cannot positively identify a member of a different race as an assailant.

The fact is, and you correctly point this out, that traditionally, the vast majority of those falsely accused and convicted of rape have been Black. The reasons for this are many, and include the fact that the accused are most often poor, and do not have access to counsel and resources to truly counter a bald allegation. Public defenders, while many may know the law, are limited in the experts they can provide for a Defendant in a particular case.

Thus, Mr. Nifong's fall back position that rape rises and falls on the identification by the accused harkens to the dark ages of law in my mind. Setting aside the myriad problems in his prosecution, the fact that the identification crosses racial lines should have provided him with pause at the very outset of this case. Any decent prosecutor would have then turned to physical evidence to corroborate such an identification in deciding whether to bring the matter before the Grand Jury.


Anonymous said...

Nifong of course wants to try these cases the "good old way". Perhaps he meant trial by ordeal

My favorite was the notion that by dunking women you could tell whether or not they were witches. If they floated they were guilty. If they drowned they were innocent.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting, then, that I am called an "MF racist dog" because I believe that if evidence exists that does not corroborate a personal ID, then we need to seriously question the ID. It is too bad that people take a position out of race, period. That is what happened in Scottsboro, and that is what is happening in Durham.

Anonymous said...

This whole thing gets wierder.

Precious gave birth today.

Poor child.

Anonymous said...

Speaking the truth is not racist. Collecting and evaluating ALL of the facts in a logical and dispassionate context is not racist. Coming to the same conclusions as a growing throng of people of all races and backgrounds is not racist. Standing up against a glaringly obvious and inexcusable injustice is not racist. Defending the Constitution of the United States of America from a rogue prosecutor is not racist. Therefore, Bill Anderson has provided no evidence of being a racist. The only ones who have proven themselves to be racists are those who fall back on that accusation when they have nothing else to back them. It's a sign of lazy or nonexistent thought and deep intellectual dishonesty, and it cheapens the suffering of those who have experienced legitimate racism. Bigotry is not a strictly Caucasian mindset.

Anonymous said...

Just in case there are new readers here who might give any trace of credence to racism charges against Bill Anderson, I have been reading here and on other blogs and most of what he has written on this case since May.

Nothing I have read of his is racist in any way. There have been racist postings on this blog and the others, from both whites and blacks. Bill has spoken out against these pretty consistently.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.