Recall Nifong leader Beth Brewer:
Did Mr. Marcus read the Coleman report on the LAX team? Did he purposely avoid saying anything positive? Despicable ... these young men have been falsely charged with rape/sexual assault for over a year now. Does Marcus have no shame? “Whatever they did was bad enough” Brodhead needs to be thrown under the proverbial bus himself. He’s not man enough to apologize.
These truly are despicable comments. On one side, we have some young people who had a party where there was drinking -- hardly a surprise in today's college atmosphere.
On the other side, we have evidence of massive lawbreaking by prosecutors and police. We have individuals falsely accused of rape, and we have families forced to pay millions of dollars to fight against false charges.
So where does Mr. Marcus direct his ire? He directs it at the people who had the party. Apparently, he has no problem with representatives of the City of Durham and the State of North Carolina literally attempting to destroy the heart of a system of justice by using lies. That, apparently, is OK.
If it is Newsday's position that some 20-year-olds drinking beer is worse than an entire state justice apparatus being used to railroad people with false convictions, the God help this newspaper.
I won't even go into Mr. Marcus' slanderous comments about Mr. Pressler, except to say that Mr. Pressler (and the Duke Three) are much better people than Mr. Marcus ever could hope to be.
Case expert Bob in
Having gone to college in the late sixties and early seventies I can attest that students back then played music loud. Having also served in the military I can testify that men who drink beer, and that category would include both students and soldiers, may urinate behind a bush when a bathroom wasn’t handy. In fact, I would venture to say that young men who never get a college education, even without benefit of paying $40,000 for tuition at Duke, may have urinated without benefit of a toilet. Even choir boys have on occasion publicly urinated.
As I recall Duke’s Coleman Report, which came out last year, cited that the last lacrosse player to be cited for public urination was four or five years ago. And what a member of a team may or may not do does not mean that a teammate, or someone who plays on that team years later, should be castigated for it. The report overall was quite positive of the lacrosse team. Funny that Mr. Marcus missed that.
These silly side arguments are the best that can be made to distract from the fact that the local DA, using a mentally ill sex worker, filed false charges against three innocent men in order to get himself reelected. At the time campus groups led by professors with an agenda used the false charges to demonize the players.
I don’t suspect that the three accused would ever go back to Duke. But after the remaining charges are dismissed I suspect their lawyers will, to file a civil suit against the university, as well as the city of
Given the gross miscarriage of justice perpetrated against the three Defendants in the Duke Lacrosse incident, I am amazed at the venom that continues to be spewed against them. Facing an indictment for a year for crimes that clearly were not committed is more than enough punishment for the minor offenses the three defendants may have committed. Indeed, with respect to Reade Seligmann (who as continued his education, is doing charitable work and is coaching), whose disciplinary record at Duke is clean, the continued venom can reflect only a deep and abiding prejudice. Although Reade may not be a choirboy (whatever the standards for being a choirboy may be in a culture that has so few rules or guides to behavior), I have yet to see any reasonable basis for the venom and censure that people still heap on him. My guess is that people like Mr. Marcus are angry that he was not the demonic rapist that he was made out to be.
A Duke J.D.:
Who is the unnamed “one administrator” who said that “they are no choirboys”? When did he say it, and to whom? If that’s a quote from a year ago, that’s one thing. But if Duke administrators are still badmouthing their students in the press now, they’re idiots.
It is clear Marcus hasn’t got a clue about the real issues of the Duke rape hoax and the true character of the LAX players. Duke, Brodhead and the group of 88 aided and abetted the false charges against their own students and tried their best to help Nifong and the DPD deny due process to the defendants. Burness, Brodhead and the trustees of Duke will beg to settle when the federal civil suit discovery proce ss begins. Duke can not face a public institutional review of the role it played in this hoax.
This article would be laughable except for the chance that someone who has read as little as Mr. Marcus apparently has might actually believe it. The reason Duke has fallen in reputation over the past year is not because a non-revenue sports team hired strippers for a spring break party, but because lead administrators of the university abandoned their students when they came forward, took responsibility for and apologized for what they did do, and steadfastly denied the allegations of an accuser who had little credibility with the police officers with the accuser when the accusations were first made. It is the university administrators and a large group of faculty members who have brought the real shame on the university.
A small point, Mr. Marcus, but it proves you have read little about the case: one of the three defendants graduated from Duke last year and has no reason to return. The other two have said they would not make a decision until the legal case is resolved. If your quotes from Mr. Burness are accurate, they now have another reason NOT to want to return.
The timing of the decision by Duke administrators to return to the spring/summer 2006 party line and publicly denounce the lacrosse players mystifies me. I am even more mystified by the apparent decision to go after Reade Seligmann as well--an approach not taken by any Duke administrator since the April 20 comments referenced by Beth Brewer.
It is difficult to see how such a strategy serves either Duke’s short-term or long-term interests.
[Update, 9.54am: A thoughtful commentary from DBR, noting that the time has come for a hard look at alcohol policy.]