Monday, June 04, 2007

Overlooking Brad Ross

When matters turned to the field and not the legacy of Mike Nifong’s misconduct, most of the media attention during Duke’s run to the national championship focused on the team’s two leading scorers, Matt Danowski and Zach Greer. But in both the semi-final win against Cornell and the one-goal loss to Johns Hopkins, junior midfielder Brad Ross stood out. Against Cornell, his goal gave Duke its first lead (4-3); he also netted the team’s first goal in the fourth quarter. Against Johns Hopkins, he scored two goals and was robbed of a third as time expired.

Ross also was a key figure in the lacrosse case. He was the only team member that Crystal Mangum twice remembered, with 100 percent certainty, seeing at the party. Indeed, in the April 4 “witness” lineup, Mangum even described what Ross was doing—standing outside, she said, chatting with Kim Roberts.

There was, of course, a small problem with Mangum’s recollection: Ross not only wasn’t at the party, he wasn’t even in Durham that evening. As Iowa State’s Gary Wells noted, the flawed identification of Ross placed Mangum “in the questionable category of eyewitnesses who [are] capable of being positive and wrong. That’s a red flag.”

The Baker/Chalmers report recently claimed that the indictments of three factually innocent people without probable cause had to go forward because defense attorneys didn’t give the DPD exculpatory evidence. But Ross did just that—to no effect.

In early April, just after President Brodhead canceled the season, Ross assembled cellphone, dorm keycard, and other forms of electronic evidence showing that he was in Raleigh from 3.00pm on March 13 through 1.00am March 14 and establishing (through his dorm keycard) that he returned to Durham only well after the party ended. His attorneys presented this material to authorities—thereby proving, essentially before the legal case even began, that Mangum was an unreliable witness, that the flawed procedures used by Mike Nifong and the DPD had yielded flawed results.

A reader of the Baker/Chalmers report might have believed that authorities would have welcomed Ross’ exculpatory evidence. At the very least, it should have slowed down the rush to indictments. Instead, the Ross evidence was ignored. The DPD, it seems, was far less interested in exculpatory evidence than the Baker/Chalmers apologia claimed.

---------

Brad Ross is from Darnestown, Maryland; he was an All-American lacrosse player as a senior in high school, and captained the football team as well. At Duke, he played every game as both a freshman and a sophomore, until last spring’s season was canceled.

In the two weeks after the party, Ross assumed that he couldn’t be a suspect—but, as we all have learned, Durham justice works differently than what a logical person might expect. So after the cancellation of the season on April 5, 2006, he and his girlfriend, who attends North Carolina State, tried to track down any security-camera video of him in Raleigh that night. They couldn’t find any, but it turns out they didn’t need it; triangulation technology from his cell-phone calls established his location.

Ross compiled this material; it was presented to authorities, along with that of a few other players (such as Adam Langley) who also were not at the party. But this proof of Mangum’s unreliability as a witness made no difference to the Durham Police or to Nifong. Neither ever followed up with Ross about his exculpatory evidence. Instead, much as they did with Reade Seligmann’s more highly publicized ATM video and cellphone records, the Nifong/DPD team ignored Ross’ unimpeachable electronic evidence, since it contradicted their preferred theory of the “crime.”

Last spring, then, Ross was in an all-but-unique position: while publicly identified by Nifong as a suspect and thus (at least) partygoer, he hadn’t even been in Durham on the night of March 13. Yet on instructions from the defense team, he couldn’t publicly reveal this information. It was, he remembered, a “scary” time; until mid-May, the possibility of his being the third player indicted remained. Seligmann, his best friend on the team (and scheduled 2006-2007 roommate), was suspended from school. And he had to endure the same treatment that all other lacrosse players received: he remembers a fellow student spitting at him as he got off a campus bus, and he walked out of one class after a professor started railing against the team. This, like all allegations of in-class faculty misconduct from last spring, was never investigated by any Duke official.

-----------

With the resumption of school in the fall, Ross was in the public eye for the first time: on October 8, in one of the most important articles of the case, Joe Neff revealed both Ross’ alibi and the fact that Mangum had twice, inaccurately, identified him.

His friends already knew he hadn’t been at the party, so Neff’s scoop wasn’t news to them. With the attitude on campus having grown more supportive, Ross could focus again being a student—he majors in Sociology with a minor in Philosophy—and returning to lacrosse. Moving into the starting lineup, his preseason goals were simple: establish himself as a scoring threat, solidify his position as a starter, and provide leadership from a junior class decimated by the absences of Seligmann and Collin Finnerty.

The highlight of his regular season came on April 16, when the ACC named him Men’s Lacrosse Player of the Week. In the first game after AG Cooper publicly declared the three falsely accused players innocent, Ross scored three goals against Virginia—including the game-winner in overtime—in a contest that clinched the ACC regular season title. Then, in Duke’s NCAA quarterfinal game against UNC, he scored the goal that stopped an early six-goal UNC run, setting the stage for the comeback that transformed a 6-1 deficit into a 19-11 victory.

The team’s co-captains took note of Ross’ impressive performance. Matt Danowski described him as “unbelievable” and the team’s “X-factor,” someone whose “dedication to the game and to improving is what kind of sets him apart from everybody else.” Eddie Douglas added, “A lot of our offense is triggered by guys like Brad.”

Before the Final Four, Ross got a call from Seligmann, who told him to ignore the media hype about the team winning a national championship as redemption for the falsely accused players. They should win it, Seligmann said, for themselves. Ross took the advice, he said, while at the same time sad knowing that Seligmann would never again suit up for Duke.

Ross took the same approach in the run-up to the Final Four as he did throughout the regular season. He expected both Cornell and then Johns Hopkins to overplay Danowski and Greer, and knew that he and the team’s other midfielders would have to step up their performance—as they did.

Just as Ross is a highly inconvenient figure to the Baker/Chalmers argument that the investigators eagerly sought exculpatory evidence, so too does he present an obstacle to critics of the NCAA’s decision to grant this year’s sophomores, juniors, and seniors an extra year of eligibility.

UVA coach Dom Starsia fumed, “You feel like they have suffered, but are they being rewarded for what happened? Even without making any judgments about the players, all of us in lacrosse took a little hit here.” (Starsia took less of a “hit” than most: UVA won the Duke-less 2006 national championship, after Duke had crushed Virginia in their previous meeting.) To the N&O, he again used the “rewarded” theme, suggested that it was appropriate to punish the players for holding the party, and criticized the NCAA for “going back and sort of re-examining the level of punishment.”

Of course, some players were punished—the 2006 seniors did not receive another year of eligibility. And if Starsia is claiming that holding a spring-break party is sufficient to justify losing a season of play, how would he rationalize denying the extra year to someone like Ross, who never attended the party?

So now, with two years of eligibility remaining, there’s a real possibility that Ross could face Seligmann on opposing sides of the field. Asked how he would handle the situation, Ross replied, “The same way that Reade would for Brown—do everything I can to win for my team.”

In the last 15 months, first Nifong, then opposing lacrosse teams, and now the defenders of the Baker/Chalmers report have overlooked Brad Ross. Those who have done so have come to regret their error.

62 comments:

rrhamilton said...

KC said, "Starsia took less of a “hit” than most: UVA won the Duke-less 2006 national championship, after Duke had crushed Virginia in their previous meeting."

So it seems that the faculty monsters cost the lacrosse team TWO national championships, as it is not far-fetched to say that if team veterans Finnerty and Seligmann had played in the 2007 championship final, the team would have overcome the one-goal lead of JHU.

I think the team shouldn't be called "the DUKE lacrosse team" anymore, just "the lacrosse team".

Anonymous said...

How did Crystal come
up with the names
Adam, Matt and Brett?

Matthew said...

12:20, one theory is she picked three common names because she is likely that in a group of 47 guys, there is a matt, brett, and adam.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12:20 said...

...How did Crystal come
up with the names
Adam, Matt and Brett?
::
We have been through this several times but that is ok.

People who want to take down a group of white college guys are trained to 'tell the police that their names were Adam, Matt and Brett (sometimes Dan) and ...you will get at least one of them.'

Isn't that knowledge a great way to start your Monday? Makes me furious every time I type it.
::
GP

rrhamilton said...

anonymous @ 12:19 AM asked, How did Crystal come up with the names
Adam, Matt and Brett?


If I can channel Grant Farrad for a moment: If we look at the names, Adam clearly asks for something to be "'ad'ded", specifially, "add 'am'"; the last the letters of Matt's name "att" are eluctive of the corporate name "A-T-and-T" -- again, suggesting something be repeated just like the "T" in "Matt" or "AT&T"; then in "Brett" the "double, added 't'". Additionally "et" in "Brett" is Latin for "and".

Now we look at the first letters of all three names: B, A, M. -- "BAM". And when we "add" and "and" "BAM" with itself, we see the true answer: Crystal was using subliminal messaging to invoke the image of "Bam-Bam", the thugish, loutish and very white child on "The Flintstones" cartoon series.

Has Grant himself ever written anything more sensible?

R.R. Hamilton

Anonymous said...

GP -

Yes, the training --
can you reference that.

She got FIVE out of 46.

Anonymous said...

As I have always thought, Nifong pushed this thing for his own agenda. The cops stopped investigating when Nifong became lead investigator. Nifong needed no help from anyone except Meeham. Good luck to the Ross guy, Ryan and the team.

Gary Packwood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Why is Chalmers still the police chief?

Anonymous said...

His attorneys presented this material to authorities—thereby proving, essentially before the legal case even began, that Mangum was an unreliable witness, that the flawed procedures used by Mike Nifong and the DPD had yielded flawed results.


This very clearly shows that this was a naked frame from the outset, something that far exceeds "flawed procedure", although there is something to be said for understatement and this hasn't been placed into the realm of fact by a court or anything like that. Wouldn't want to libel Nofing!

If you have any doubt, view the video of the non-lineup lineup, where this ID was passed right over (because it was known to be impossible). On top of Travis Mangum stating (on video) that Precious had made a positive ID of three suspects the day before it happened and the non-ID ID of the fourth (really the first, in the order it was made) suspect, there are many more things that show that this was a frame, not an investigation or a misguided prosecution.

This really cries out for a criminal investigation. Counting the days until the 12th...


The transcript can be found here: .

Anonymous said...

Sorry, transcript here.

Anonymous said...

Brad Ross was a tremendous asset in the Final Four!! It was so great to cheer these guys on this year--and the Cornell game in the semis was incredible.

Brad--you should be proud of how you have handled this horrible, and outrageously unfair, hoax. You all have done a great job taking care of business on the field this year. I am looking forward to next season!!

duke2009mom

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 12: 46 said...

GP -

...Yes, the training --
can you reference that.

She got FIVE out of 46.
::
Several people here jumped into the feminist Blogs months ago and found that little piece of training that they give to each other. Several instances in fact.

Later today I will look again and see if I can find a current Blog entry from the extreme feminists.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Yes, this does cry out for a criminal investigation. Governor Easley and attorney general Cooper are the two North Carolina officials with the clout to push for this. And where are the lethargic feds?

james conrad said...

gee wiz, and the hits just keep on commin.....whats striking here is the fact that not one person in authority from either DPD or DAs office came foward to blow the whistle on this frame. durham isnt wonderland, its a cesspool of corrupt gov officials and a univ thats become a laughingstock of the entire nation

Anonymous said...

And once again with this info about Brad Ross we see yet another reason why Crystal is nothing but pathetic no good liar. This woman's kids need to be taken away from her and she deserves to be behind bars. And Nifong and many in the DPD need to join her.

bill anderson said...

We were expected to believe that Brad Ross was magic: he could be in two places at the same time.

Keep in mind that had Crystal picked him as an assailant, Nifong would have indicted him and there would be faculty members at Duke and "rape crisis" people like Wendy Murphy who still would be insisting that he was a "rapist." And the notion that police were looking for exculpatory information is a lie, which means that Baker and Chalmers by putting out a false document have committed at least one felony.

Yes, a number of crimes were committed in Durham; it is just that they were committed by police and prosecutors and others, not the LAX players.

And for the VIRGINIA coach to criticize ANYONE for having parties truly is hypocritical. I can recall no university in the country that has the party reputation of UVA, and lest we forget that, all we have to do is remember the words to the UVA "fight song" in which the first lines go:

"From Rugby Road to Vinegar Hill, we're gonna get drunk tonight."

james conrad said...

hey, what about this...durham & duke are basically shakedown artists whose main targets are upper middle class white boys from the east and this particular scam got a little out of hand?

Anonymous said...

Just when I thought I was at the end of the story along comes another story of this sorry mess at Duke and Durham. This was a lynching nothing more, nothing less. It was facilitated by a group of corrupt academics. It puts to shame many of the stories these people use to justify their own studies the purpose of which might be to teach others and themselves not to behave in this manner. It is sick. It is also interesting how thse people can avoid indignation at so many other truly vile things that happen in Durham and elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

This seems to have been a lynching enabled from the start by a group of corrupt academics and police.

Anonymous said...

This is Durham-in-Wonderland stuff for sure.

emmy said...

Excellent post, KC...Brad Ross is a true good teammate and friend...he suffered with the team, instead of getting his alibi out there early on...all that crap, and he wasn't even in Durham on the night in question. An MVP,Brad Ross is!

"Even without making any judgments about the players, all of us in lacrosse took a little hit here.” (Starsia took less of a “hit” than most: UVA won the Duke-less 2006 national championship, after Duke had crushed Virginia in their previous meeting.)"

Poor, poor Dom Starsia...yes, the entire Lax community took a hit...never mind the hit the Duke guys took, with their season cancelled (Dom spun that to his advantage, didn't he?!), thousands of dollars in the hole for their families, Reade, Dave, and Collin's lives in turmoil for over a year...poor Dom Starsia and the rest of the community took a hit...they were the innocent victims of Duke's decision to have a stupid party...I'm certain that Dom's team doesn't ever throw parties, right?!

emmy said...

12:20, I don't think it's rocket science...even though Crystal was likely in a stupor that night, some sounds broke through...perhaps she heard the names, Adam, Matt, and Brett...it wouldn't be a stretch, since there are men on the team with those names (three Matt's, in fact, which increases the odds that she did indeed hear that name)...she was smart enough, I suppose, to attempt to use those names to her advantage (lend credibility to her bogus accusation by using real names)...and the guys had no reason not to use their real names, notwithstanding the pathetic, desperate, "false names" theory...

KT said...

Professor Johnson,
Day after day, week after week, and month after month, we readers of your blog have been blessed with your gifted commentary and keen observations of this Hoax. I just wanted to take a moment of my time to thank you for what you have done. Your efforts were, I think, of critical importance in deconstructing the myths of the Hoax for many. Your voice of reason and logic contrasted so starkly with that of the Duke and Durham communities last Spring. I hope that somehow, eventually, Durham and Duke, as well as other cities and universities, will take this opportunity presented to them (us!) to root out the corruption and political correctness that has become so pervasive in our communities.

I hope that you have a wonderful time in Israel! Please keep in touch!

KT

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Every time I think this case couldn't get more corrupted, it does.

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson--
A technical point, maybe, but how have Baker and Chalmers committed a felony by lying in their report? It wasn't sworn testimony, was it?

That being said, obviously lying to your boss (the mayor and city council) in an official report might be grounds for being fired.

Anonymous said...

I realize there was an ambiguity in my last post. When I said "obviously lying to your boss" I meant "lying to your boss in an obvious way," not that it was obvious that lying to your boss would lead to being fired.

Michael said...

For those that want to criticize the lacrosse players, it seems that there is plenty of ammunition left to make you look like fools.

Anonymous said...

The report that "Starsia took less of a “hit” than most: UVA won the Duke-less 2006 national championship, after Duke had crushed Virginia in their previous meeting" is absolutely WRONG!

U-VA was undefeated last year - hence, KC is wrong to say that Duke "crushed" U-VA in their previous meeting.

Of course, KC may be referring to the 2005 season - but I have too much respect for KC for him to stoop that low as to compare the teams in two different seasons.

Pat Wilkie

KC Johnson said...

Duke didn't play UVA in 2006 (the game was scheduled for April 15, after the season that was canceled.) That's why I used the adjective "previous" in the post. My apologies for any confusion.

Anonymous said...

Again, KC:

Any word regarding Brodhead's reception (from fans, players) at the LAX finals? Did he interact with the players? Just wondering the dynamics of that (I can't believe he showed up).

ED

Anonymous said...

Nobody wants to investigate this because it leads directly to the local NAACP leaders pushing this investigation for a result they wanted. The Durham City Council is investigating what some on that council already know.

It is that simple.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious to know who the professor who railed against the team was. What did he say that caused Brad to walk out, and what were the reactions of the other students in class?

John Kaiser said...

I am amazed when I encounter people online who still find Mangum to be a credible witness. Some people will believe anything I guess.

Anonymous said...

1) Starsia has a bit of a point. It was Duke that cancelled the season last year, and to my knowledge after enough games that a redshirt wouldn't otherwise be given. You can't blame a coach for frustration knowing that if a player on his team was injured at the same time Duke cancelled the season he would not be given a redshirt, but effectively the NCAA is allowing a redshirt (and thus letting Duke off the hook) because of a voluntary action by Duke. If we care about the lacrosse players being treated unfairly, I'm fine with the NCAA giving them an extra year of eligibility---if they transfer to another school.

2) Generally speaking, some people need to lay off UVA, and need reminding that in UVA's championship game last year Matt Ward wore a DE sticker (DE standing for Dave Evans) on his helmet. This was at the same time people were criticizing the Duke women's team for their support, so it took some guts for Ward to do that. And I note that not only did the Starsia let Ward show his support, but also the UVA faculty members managed to keep their mouths shut.

Anonymous said...

KC, your post today illustrates how important it will be to have a panel investigate DPD who are not bring to the table their own biases and agenda. That the Durham
City Council is hung up on diversity rather than quality makes me suspicious that nothing much will come of this investigation. This post alone shows how corrupt the rape investigation was when Reade had as substantial alibi as Brad Ross and was indicted anyway. There is criminality all over this case and Mayor Bell should go one step further and admit that the activity of DPD was criminal and seek to identify the guilty.

Anonymous said...

Lets see a show of hands from the bloggers here, who lied to their boss, obviously or not, got caught and did not get fired.

mac said...

The UVA coach might not remember
the October, 1982 event, where 64
members of a UVA fraternity
wrecked their truck, killing
2 and injuring 60, and also
tipping over onto a VW Beetle.
They were on their way to a
party at RMWC.
(source: Darrell Laurant, Newsadvance.)

If Starsia wants to get picky about
parties - (others who've joined in
with those criticisms, too) - then
he/they can go throw flowers on
the graves of the two students who
died.

Certainly he's right about Duke
University's faculty/administration
not deserving to be let off the
hook.

Anonymous said...

My goodness, don't say X-factor or the Group88 will begin to write myriad and wonderous papers about the meaning of it all.

Anonymous said...

Just when you think no more outrageous facts could possibly emerge from this hoax, KC delivers another bombshell!

How many of the persecuted, including Brad Ross and the 3 indicted players kept their wits about them during this ordeal is a testament to their upbringing and their intestinal fortitude.

The maddening thing is that no one has paid any price for this white male witch hunt, and I'll be shocked if anyone does. Perhaps I'm wrong, and the June 12th hearing will trigger the beginning of a cloudburst of true justice. I'm not betting the ranch on it, though.

Great work KC, as always!!!

Anonymous said...

BTW here's another article discussing Starsia's sentiments in the Duke lax case.

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/04/17/MLacrosse/Lacrosse.Community.Speaks.Of.Lessons.Learned-2846248.shtml

Very sympathetic to the Duke players and program. Not sure why KC is so quick condemn Starsia when he's been solidly behind Danowski.

Again, any other coach would be just as put off by the NCAA's ruling. As fair as it may sound to Duke supporters, its just as unfair to other programs that lose players to injuries or other issues that don't get another year out of it.

Anonymous said...

I went to the regular season Hopkins/Duke game (Duke won) and was extremely impressed with Brad Ross. Brad went to Bullis Prep (my cousin's sons go there) and was excellent at face-offs as well as middie. This kid never quits on or off the field - a typical Duke student/athlete. His hometown, Darnestown, is where my brother now lives. I told my 12 year old middie son, who aspires to play at Duke one day, that Ross is an excellent role model and the other coincidences make it that much easier for my son to identify with him.
By the way, my older son attends Duke, but doesn't play lacrosse.
As a Duke parent, I have posted often here and obviously have mixed feelings about Professor Johnson's findings, but I think he and other bloggers will push Duke to a better place.
Dean Parker

Anonymous said...

11:26--
You make some good points. Starsia has been candid and, as candid people usually do, he has thus risked (and received) some pretty negative interpretation of his remarks.

But ultimately he is a coach, and he is understandably a little annoyed that, as a coach, he may have to face a lot of excellent Duke players again when he would not get the same dispensation for an injured UVA player who had completed as many games as the Duke team did last year.

This waiver is really unprecedented, and while it's easy to see it as fair and appropriate when applied to the individual players, from a sports point of view it does raise some fairness considerations for opposing teams. The solution proposed by some commenters of extending eligibility only if players don't stay at Duke would mitigate those considerations but not eliminate them (imagine, for example, if Matt Danowski, Casey Carroll, Nick O'Hara, Tony McDevitt and Dan Loftus all arranged to play a year for the same non-Duke team).

I'm not saying the waiver shouldn't have been granted, just that it's a more complex situation than some seem to recognize--one in which it's impossible to find an outcome that would please everybody.

11:52--I see your point, but what if the boss wants to be lied to? (It seems that wasn't the case here, but it certainly could have been.)

Anonymous said...

KC, excellent post on the facts, but I am afraid you miss the Baker report's biggest flaw: it wasn't that they were factually incorrect (i.e., that there were bits of exculpatory evidence that were produced by the defense), it is that the report is legally and Constitutionally incorrect (by implying that the burden ever shifted to the defense to prove innocence). If that is the position of the DPD, then the county and city of Durham should have their charters suspended by the State.

It is not newsworthy that the DPD came to a conclusion because the defense attorneys held something back (or if they didn't). That does not matter. It is newsworthy that the DPD thinks the defense has an obligation to come forward with information. What better abdication of responsibility for finding out the truth could there be?

THIS IS THE LIVING EMBODIMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF "UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT."

The report seems to suggest that the DPD went on a fact-finding mission, found just enough facts to make the suspicious, and waited for the defense to rebut their conclusions. In the absence of rebuttal, they pressed forward with seeking indictments.

In short, wrong.

emmy said...

I agree that the Duke admin shouldn't be let off the hook...but to me, the players who were screwed out of a year of playing lacrosse take precedence...I'd rather see them get that year, even if it means that the admins are let "off the hook". I only wish that last year's seniors could also get a year back somehow...

bill anderson said...

Bill Anderson--
A technical point, maybe, but how have Baker and Chalmers committed a felony by lying in their report? It wasn't sworn testimony, was it?

That being said, obviously lying to your boss (the mayor and city council) in an official report might be grounds for being fired.

Jun 4, 2007 10:27:00 AM


If there are no investigations at all, then you are correct. However, if there ARE any investigations going on (such as from the feds), then the document could be construed as obstruction of justice.

Granted, that is a reach on my part and my post has a bit of hyperbole, but I also want people to know I take this stuff seriously. The Durham police and others are nothing but a bunch of criminals in blue uniforms and badges. We have the ones who actively tried to frame these young men, and then there are the rest of the people on the force putting up the Blue Wall of Silence.

mac said...

KC,

It would be nice if someone could
compel - (under oath) - the Grand
Jury to talk about the "evidence"
that led to their decision to
proceed with the charges against
the players.

Apparently, the Grand Jury is under
explicit orders not to discuss the
case.

Who says such an order can't be
countermanded by another person
in authority, such as the AG?

Anonymous said...

I think the three names were picked when a media guide was in the captain's house somewhere with the team captains names on it. Dan can look like Adam from far away and well the other names were clearly on the cover. Media guides are very commonly found in lacrosse players common areas.

Anonymous said...

People who want to take down a group of white college guys are trained to 'tell the police that their names were Adam, Matt and Brett (sometimes Dan) and ...you will get at least one of them.'


Where the hell do you people come up with such nonsense?

All the current Duke lacrosse players were born in the 1980s. According to the Social Security Administration, the 4 most popular male names given to children born in the 1980s were Michael, Christopher, Matthew and Josuha.

Daniel was 7th, Adam was 22nd and Brett was 77th.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/decades/names1980s.html

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 4:10 said...

'People who want to take down a group of white college guys are trained to 'tell the police that their names were Adam, Matt and Brett (sometimes Dan) and ...you will get at least one of them.'


...Where the hell do you people come up with such nonsense?

...All the current Duke lacrosse players were born in the 1980s. According to the Social Security Administration, the 4 most popular male names given to children born in the 1980s were Michael, Christopher, Matthew and Josuha.

...Daniel was 7th, Adam was 22nd and Brett was 77th
::
Point taken. Thank You

'People who want to take down a group of white college guys are trained to 'tell the police that their names were Mike, Chris and Matt (sometimes Josh) and ...you will get at least one of them.'
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Brad was a volunteer in my wife's school in Durham when all this happened. He told her last March, "I promise you, Mrs. Ham, everything is going to turn out fine. I promise." He even wore his Duke lacrosse shirt to the school (which is located in Trinity Park) last spring when it was dangerous to do so.

Brad's initial optimism was during the time when everyone was awaiting the first DNA tests. When they came back negative and Nifong still pursued the case, perhaps his optimism took a bit of a hit. But, in the end, he was right. Thank goodness.

By the way, my wife says he was a great volunteer and a truly nice kid. No surprise to me.

Jon Ham

Anonymous said...

They get this info on the grassy knoll through their tinfoil hats...

Anonymous said...

This Ross thing is just more evidence that this whole case was a frame-up. The complaining witness is 100% sure Ross was there in multiple line-ups and she was 100% wrong and they knew it.

Then factor in that the complaining witness can't tell the same story twice, the DNA doesn't match anyone on the team and she can't pick anyone out of a line-up with the instruction that the people she's seeing may or may not be suspects.

If you're a detective or a DA wouldn't you at least pause? But no, they don't pause. They go ahead and indict people using as the only evidence this line-up which they now admit was flawed and supposedly not intended to be used as evidence and knowing full well that their complaining witness was dead wrong on at least one ID she claimed to be 100% certain of. If she's wrong on Ross what reason is there to believe she's right on Finnerty, Seligmann or Evans given her multiple contradictory stories and the total lack of any incriminating evidence. Especially since she previously saw Seligmann and Evans and didn't ID either as attackers. How does any of this add up to probable cause? It doesn't.

The Ross ID proves that Crystal's 100% certainty was 100% crap and Nifong and DPD had to know it.

Anonymous said...

8 days (I think).

Jack said...

james conrad @ 5:58 am:

"durham & duke are basically shakedown artists whose main targets are upper middle class white boys from the east and this particular scam got a little out of hand?"

More right than wrong.

Anonymous said...

I still say there are better than even odds that GCM was pressured into making the false ID by Nofing et. al. If she had really wanted to take this all the way (rather than just save herself from lock-up and get some free meds), she would have probably attempted an ID at the first chance she had.


We can see that she was so messed up that she couldn't even ID who was at the party, but this didn't change between her first try and the non-lineup lineup. Someone was at least encouraging her when she was unwilling to make an ID, or at least, admittedly unsure enough to do so.

Add in the statement by her Dad on the day before she went in for the non-lineup lineup, and it is really hard to believe that there wasn't some really underhanded garbage going on -- as I've said before, from the outset.

Nifong's hat trick said...

CONFUSED:
Is Ross' alibi exculpatory because it introduces doubt about the accuser's story?

If so, the prosecution chose to ignore this exculpatory evidence, correct?

That means the prosecution had to know about it in order to ignore it, correct?

Going forward from there, isn't it true that the prosection had the responsibility of informing the defense and the accused of this exculpatory evidence and not the other way around?

Oh, I forgot...it's Durham.

Anonymous said...

Mac - Lets hope Nifong does not fail us at the last minute.

mac said...

11:36
Wondering whether ther're
Michelins or Goodyears on the
Nifong Greyhound.

I suspect that the DPD/Baker report
was a tactical maneuver: to appear
so slow as to avoid revealing any
hand at all - (until June 12.)

Fighters often set a slow pace -
(just like pitchers) - and then
throw the Big One, the on that's
most devastating.

Heir to the Throne said...

Yet on instructions from the defense team, he couldn’t publicly reveal this information.
I except Wendy Murphy and her ilk to yell "See the defence was hiding evidence" at this

UVa Grad said...

Professor Johnson,

As previously pointed out by Pat Wilkie, UVa was undefeated in its 2006 National Championship year. But he didn't mention (nor did you) that Duke suffered two defeats in 2006 prior to cancellation of the season. So any characterization that the cancellation of Duke's season "gave" UVa the title is quite unfair.

Mac--citing a 1982 accident as an indication of UVa's coach's alleged inability to comment on the Duke lacrosse team's situation is also unfair for a variety of reasons. The most salient one is that Coach Starsia wasn't at UVa in 1982. He came to UVa in 1992, so he wouldn't "remember" an incident from 10 years before, although he probably has heard about it. Another point is that 1982 was 24 years prior to the Duke scandal (and had nothing to do with any athletic team--it was a fraternity roll. The driver was sober, which was the whole idea of renting the U-Haul van. The lack of judgment of piling so many people in the back of a moving van, most of them undoubtedly drinking, is a separate issue). Also, Coach Starsia was very supportive of the Duke team through the scandal. His comments stem from the NCAA's decision to allow redshirts for all Duke players. Whether the NCAA should have made up for Duke's rash decisions and failure to support the team, its coaches, as well as the indicted players is a debatable point.

Hugh

mac said...

Hugh,

You're correct: I was being unfair -
intentionally.

To compare the Duke students -
whose lives were ripped apart
in a very real sense, by people
who should know better - to a
single individual who failed to
redshirt? Starsia surely sees
that the whole team was punished,
and for nothing!

I was using the accident purposefully.

How about if we suppose that
the UVA lacrosse players did the
same thing as Duke's? - (that is
to say, nothing; nothing.)
And let's steal their season,
stolen from them by a rogue
prosecutor, a lying "victim," a
compliant press and a University
seemingly full of Hoax
collaborators?

I was also pointing out - in the
truck incident - the fact that students do things that at second
glance might not appear to be so
wise. In the case of the
accident, it became clear
only because of the tragedy that
ensued. In the case of the
Lacrosse players...well, there's
no comparison: they didn't do
anything unusual for students,
whether they're athletes or not.
Not unless you go to the University
of Tehran.