Wednesday, July 11, 2007

The Herald-Sun of the College Press

Sometimes, it's easy to take for granted the performance of the Duke Chronicle in this case--the first-rate reporting, sterling op-ed commentary from Kristin Butler and Stephen Miller, the on-target, incisive editorials.

A few miles down the road, it appears, we have the college press version of the Herald-Sun. In an editorial out today, the Daily Tar Heel fumes, "The three Duke Lacrosse players who were falsely accused of raping a stripper at a party reached a financial settlement last month with Duke University, which begs a pressing question: What did they have to settle?"

The editorial then answers its own question: "We can only imagine it is for a suspension from Duke when the young men were charged, and to that we must ask what was done wrong . . . Duke owes David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann nothing."

Good reporting--like what we've seen from the Chronicle in this case--might have looked into the matter some, rather than basing an editorial on what "we can only imagine." Had the DTH editors done their job, they might have discovered that Duke's unwillingness to enforce its own Faculty Handbook made a settlement inevitable. Or fear by the administration that a suit would expose embarrassing e-mails from senior administrators or professors. Or a consideration of the legal vulnerability caused by Duke employees, early on, urging the players not to tell their parents or hire attorneys. [Or, as a commenter pointed out, the behavior of Duke Hospital, which put SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy in a position to botch Crystal Mangum's diagnosis and initiate the whole fiasco.]

But the DTH, apparently, prefers to do journalism by imagination. Bob Ashley should be mining the editorial staff for the next generation of Herald-Sun editorial writers.

Duke Basketball Report also takes the DTH to task, noting,

We’ve also argued consistently that normal collegiate behavior (in other words, standards) should be extended to athletes. So when someone drinks underage, as virtually all students do, athletes should not treated differently, and the same should, in our opinion, extend to drug use. If half the campus smokes pot at a party, and isn’t arrested, then the standard should be the same for athletes . . .

As a second point, if you limit your argument to the questions around the party, perhaps there is no further issue for lawyers to discuss. But when you get into the behavior of some members of the faculty, and the prospect of them being put on the stand and being questioned about things like punitive grading, and exactly how the statement by the group of 88 was developed, and players being humiliated in class, then, yes, if those things did happen (and we don’t have any particular insights on that but they have certainly been rumored), then that answers the opening question in the DTH’s editorial: what did they have to settle? The confidentiality clause of the agreement and the shielding of the faculty doesn’t automatically mean there is some there there, but it does make it harder to rule out, and does point out the laziness of this editorial.


Anonymous said...

Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty were subjected to the most egregious civil rights violations of our generation; bar none. Duke was heavily involved in those violations and paid appropriately as they should have; time for DTH to move on.


Anonymous said...

What an odd state of affairs when the Duke Basketball Report has to explain how Duke University was negligent and at fault to the unconvinced editors of The Daily Tar Heel.

Anonymous said...

What do you expect from the newspaper of a school, UNC-CH, whose most famous graduate currently is none other than Nifong?


rrhamilton said...

Outstanding post, KC. And outstanding analysis by the Duke Basketball Report which makes the same point that you did, and the same that I would.

AMac said...

The editorial's penultimate paragraph:

"Duke is getting the short end of the stick on this one. They suffered a major blow to their reputation as a result of this ill-fated party and took the right actions, both when the allegations came to light as well as after it became clear that the young men were innocent of raping the woman."

Duke took the right actions, after it became clear that the young men were innocent of raping the woman.

Such silliness aside, reasonable people can draw reasonable conclusions.


Duke's administration must have feared what the discovery process would have revealed about those "right actions" that university employees took during the Hoax/Frame.

As the depositions and testimony of the NC Bar's process showed, some people are willing to fib under oath, but it's easy to get the plot lines of a multi-part frame and cover-up all tangled. Plus, of course, wrongdoers lie to benefit themselves, not in service to some higher goal.

From what is already clear about the deeds of the Group of 88, senior administrators, potbanger grad students, Vigilante-poster-producing employees, overreaching nurses, and FERPA-disregarding police -- it sure seems that Duke's administrators had their reasons for spending the institution's money on a settlement.

I guess the Daily Tar Heel's editors kind of forgot about all that.

Anonymous said...

I continue to think the "something happened" crowd is pulling my leg. Isn't it obvious that since Duke paid the players, they must have initiated the settlement because they feared what would be exposed if there was a lawsuit? I have often twisted myself into a pretzel trying to understand the logic the enablers and deniers use in presenting their case.( I have also scratched my remaining hair off trying to find a reason why Ms. Lubiano rushed the listening statement to the press before the dna results were revealed.) The settlement, with its undisclosed amount, and its stipulation that the players keep silent about the university and G88, is irrefutable evidence that Duke felt that drastic measures were needed to prevent a "social(i.e. PR) disaster.

Brant Jones

Anonymous said...

This hare-braineed editorial is so ridiculous that it really brings out in me the old Duke cheer:
"Go to hell, North Carolina! Go to hell!"
(And I never went to Duke).

Anonymous said...

K.C.: I note that in your consideration of why Duke might have settled you did not mention Levicy and DUMC. As you know, there has been considerable debate (principally at the Liesstoppers Discussion Board) over whether Levicy and DUMC would have been liable to the three laxers for their actions. Was not mentioning them a conclusion on your part that they were not liable or have you come to no conclusion on the issue?

Ralph Phelan said...

"Duke owes David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann nothing."

So say some college journalists who haven't read the case files or Duke's private records. Duke's high-priced lawyers disagree. Who's more likely to be right?

"I have often twisted myself into a pretzel trying to understand the logic the enablers and deniers use in presenting their case."

Imagine a small boy sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "NAH NAH NAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

"I have also scratched my remaining hair off trying to find a reason why Ms. Lubiano rushed the listening statement to the press before the dna results were revealed."

That one's really pretty simple. She had enough sense to realize that the LAXer's cooperation in giving DNA samples indicated they really were innocent, so if she wanted to achieve her political objectives she had to get the ad published before too many other people caught on.

Your difficulties arise not from problems in logic, but in your basic assumptions about human behavior - you're just not cynical enough.

And when it comes to this case, no matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.

And if you think I'm being too cynical, I've got a proposition for you: If we ever encounter one another in meatspace, I'm willing to bet $100 that sometime within the next ten years Mike Nifong will run for some elective office somewhere in NC and win.

Anonymous said...

Absolute idiocy!!!

With Duke off the list, UNC seemed like a viable alternative for my top-tier teenage white-boy sons (can't help it - they were born that way). If the editorial is indicative of "education" at UNC, then God help us all.

Absolute idiocy!


Anonymous said...

DUMC provided the rape kit and personell to collect the materials. What is their fault? What do they have to pay for? Although, I think the three Doctors who evaluated and basically did not treat Crystal nor obtained a tox screen at 2AM, provided sub standard care. It did not result in any harm to the patient. Dumping Crystal on Manly and Levicy at 7AM appears to be standard in SANE care. The AG said the Manly/Levicy exam proved there was no evidence of rape. How could anyone think with these results, a hospital would have to pay for anything.

Anonymous said...

"Journalism by imagination" an absolutely perfect way to put it.

Haskell said...

Ed 5:02

On the other hand, can't you just hear them at the Dean Dome?

Eighty-eight, clap clap clap
Eighty-eight, clap clap clap

Cameron crazies take that !!

KC Johnson said...

To the 4.51:

Yes, I should have mentioned the DUMC issue as well: obviously, the hospital's putting Mangum in the care of Nurse-in-training Levicy started the whole mess.

Anonymous said...

The families should be paying DUMC for doing such a good job in helping to exonerate their sons.

Anonymous said...

The answer is shallow but the question was a fair one -- one that I have seen raised by commenters here as well.

I understand that Duke had an interest in simply not being sued, and that interest alone must have been worth a lot of money for a settlement to be finalized at the same time that Nifong was disbarred. But if they had been willing to face a lawsuit, what specific legal claims could actually have been pursued to a valid judgment against them, and what conduct would those claims be based on?

I'm a lawyer, and I've been puzzling over this for a long time. Can someone shed some light on this?

Anonymous said...

Every time the settlement is discussed, it is mentioned that the terms of the settlement are not public. I am constantly amazed that in an era when everything from the President's intelligence briefing to pretty much everyone's genitalia are on display, nobody has leaked a copy of the settlement documents.

Duke1965 said...

5:29, like you, I'm also a lawyer who sees very little basis for a suit against Duke, absent very specific activities like grade retaliation..... don't know how many people on this blog have actually read the G88 ad, but it's hard for me to imagine that it could be construed as libelous.... as to individual statements by faculty members, it's an interesting question as to whether their statements could be attributed to Duke under some version of the respondeat superior doctrine..... personally, I doubt it.

I think the settlement was arrived at to lessen additional adverse publicity, protecting the "Duke brand", as they say in the Allen Building.

Mike said...

"What did they have to settle?" Oh dear. It is not uncommon for public entities such as police departments or schools to settle nuisance cases for a few thousand here and there just to avoid the much more expensive process of a full blown lawsuit with the attendant discovery, press releases, demands and counter demands, court appearances, etc. even if that public entity has done nothing whatever wrong. But that is clearly not the case here.

Many of the egregious malpractices of the Duke administration and faculty have been detailed, in detail, elsewhere, so I won't go into them here. Suffice it to say that the settlement was surely not merely a few thousand, and considering the recalcitrance of the Duke administration and faculty to admit to the least misbehavior in this case, it's fair to assume that some actual adults, perhaps the trustees or their attorneys, pointed out that without an immediate and very, very generous settlement, the consequences of a civil suit would have been potentially fatally destructive, not only to Duke, but to all of the ethically challenged pseudo-intellectuals so firmly entranched therein.

Consequences? Imagine years of periodic public revelations of petty, stupid, unethical, even illegal internal communications and actions taken by Duke administrators and faculty. Potential collusion between the police, the ex-DA and Duke administrators and faculty? It's certainly possible. Imagine the damage to the University such adverse publicity would cause in lost prestige, lost tuition revenues, lost donations and alumni support. Imagine too the public howling for the heads, not only of the involved administrators and faculty, but perhaps even trustees who failed to exercise adult oversight. Under such circumstances, heads would certainly have rolled. And how many millions would the University spend to defend the indefensible? I've little doubt that most of the Gang of 88, if they were consulted at all, would have wished to fight to the death, and perhaps, considering their apparent lack of adult integrity, so would some of the administrators, but cooler heads obviously prevailed.

"What did they have to settle?" Please.

Anonymous said...

As a lawyer myself, I think that Duke (as a previous poster in this thread has already pointed out) was terrified of what would come out in discovery. It looks like there is a very high probability that a Duke employee turned over private student files to the investigators early without authorization and without notifying the students. Discovery might easily have confirmed that, and there's your intentional tort for Invasion of Privacy right there, with liability for all subsequent damages including pain and suffering, For many of the actions (such as retaliatory grading and the public incitement of hatred by school representatives) you've got a good case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and that can lead to damages both for the early onset of Type 1 diabetes for one of the fathers (lifetime damages) as well as the early death of one of the players grandfathers - and once you allege wrongful death you've opened the door to exemplary (punitive) damages and the skies the limit!

And that's just a cursory list - there would have been a lot more gold to mine than that. (several breach of contract theories based on the student/school relationship, although the tort claims will always be more lucrative) Even if Duke paid $10 million to settle, they got off cheap.

Just as an aside, I don't think DUMC would have any liability to the 3 players, even though their examination was negligent. They never identified the players, they never had any interaction with the players, DUMC never did anything directly to them - that's too remote a link for the chain of causality to hold up, legally. The actions of the Duke administration, however, ESPECIALLY if they turned over private files (which it looks like they did) directly led to the indictments and thus they are going to be directly responsible for all damages. Not solely responsible, of course, but remember joint and several liability, aka the "deep pockets" rule.

Again, if none of this is true and Duke had nothing to fear in discovery then they should have taken it to court. But their lawyers told them to settle as fast as they could - hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

5:29 here ... my question wasn't about Duke's fear of discovery. That's a given. The question was what are the causes of action that might actually hold up. If Duke was a co-conspirator in whatever civil rights violations were committed by the police and the DA, that seems like a biggie, but wouldn't discovery on that still be avilable through a lawsuit against the police or the DA? I wonder how much protection from damaging revelations this settlement will actually turn out to have bought ...

Anonymous said...

If you write an editorial asking the question, "Why would Duke settle with the players?" and assert the University did nothing wrong, the very premise itself tells you the authors have not researched the case.

The President and Trustees didn't just say hey let's settle this and make a quick decision. Their group of high priced lawyers went over everything and made the decision to pay lots of money. This decision was not reached quickly I am sure.

So for the DTH to assert that Duke had no reason to settle is basically an admission that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Anonymous said...

Dook paid to keep the 88 off the witness stand. If those idiots, and what they pass off as "scholarship", were ever subjected to the light of day (and cross-examined on the record) it would irreparably destroy the "Dook brand." You would be able to hear the shock-waves go across the country when middle class parents, who were up until that minute considering forking over dollars hard earned in trades of consequence (a concept completely foreign to the G88) in order to pay dook's outrageous tuition, who would collectively gasp "THIS passes as a Dook professor?????"

Seriously, who would be willing to pay $40k+ per year to have their kids "taught" by a group of people who look like unrepetent children after getting Dutch-Doored on cross by a Campbell law grad (Bannon)? I might pay $42,000 to be able to watch the videotape of that cross for a year, but I think I will pass on paying one dime to have my child "taught" by that witness. My first question would be, "taught what?"

That the DTH was unable to square itself with reality is of no surprise to anyone who went to North Carolina. Occupied Chapel Hill is so overrun by Communists that no one takes a UNC degree seriously anymore. Lech Walesa wants to liberate that place. As a Carolina alum, I can tell you that if the same thing happened at UNC, there would have been a Group of 1,088; each every bit as unapologetic.

Last week the N&O ran an article about UNC's diversity agenda where some comrad from the admissions office admitted they are using diversity practices in admissions that "pre-date" (!?!?!?!) the Supreme Court's decision in the U. of Michigan case (the non-law school component of that decision). This was apparently not said in jest. That is all you need to know about the level of socialism practiced at UNC. Dook is late to the party (hosted by UNC) of universities that are recognized as relevant because of the students and alumni, and despite the faculty and administration. A modern university, rotten to the core with diversity-at-all-costs, PC group-think although it strains the definition of the word "think") politics, serve as adult-liberal day care facility. It keeps these imbeciles contained and away from the rest of us who would rather do something productive with our lives.

P.S. UNC law's most famous alum is not Mike Nifong. Worse: See Edwards, John.

Anonymous said...

You wrote:

I understand that Duke had an interest in simply not being sued, and that interest alone must have been worth a lot of money for a settlement to be finalized at the same time that Nifong was disbarred. But if they had been willing to face a lawsuit, what specific legal claims could actually have been pursued to a valid judgment against them, and what conduct would those claims be based on?

I'm a lawyer, and I've been puzzling over this for a long time. Can someone shed some light on this?"

I too wonder if Duke settled simply over their legal concerns or if there was any concern over doing the right thing.

Anonymous said...

I am also amazed that someone not gotten the information about the settlement and sold it to the Inquiror.
KC - To say giving the case to levicy after three Doctors and four nurses were involved with her care prior to 7AM, started this mess is just not true. What started the mess was Crystal's claim of rape - DPD was obligated to investigate that claim - the DNA samples was the easiest way to exonerate the team - The lack of team DNA did that- Nifong entered the scene and took off like a rocket for votes and election. How can you write or see this case otherwise? What do you have to say about Kingsbury's 6 to 9 meeting between Levicy and NIfong turning into two. I know you are loyal to these folk, but I think you are biased in this instance. There is no evidence to support Levicy started this mess and it is unfair for you to write that. The medical report never supported the claim. The "statements" from this nurse are hearsay and not supported with any evidence.

Anonymous said...

If the "right thing" would involve facing accountability, then buying their way out of exposure to litigation (and accountability) is exactly the wrong thing.

Anonymous said...

Duke didn't want it publicized that incoming freshman are required to take that Geechee Culture course as part of their indoctrination.

inman said...

There have been numerous cogent and quite interesting analyses on this particular thread. To those who devoted time to memorializing extensive thought based on training and experience, I for one, thank you.

Anonymous said...

5:51 PM

The fact is that you/we don't know, but Duke knows. Duke was complicit in what happened. It was afraid. The irony is that they participate in fear and became fearful themselves. The angry studies prevailed after all, but it harmed, as far as they were concerned, the wrong target. No harm done, they will still benefit. For them it just works that way. They are like carion eaters. They just move on to the next kill.

Anonymous said...

Another stupid newspaper writing stupid things in a very stupid way. Oy vey!

Even minimal research would have disclosed a number of reasons for Duke to settle:

1. Public relations value.

2. Brodhead wants to keep his job.

3. Other Upper-Administration types want to keep their jobs.

4. Duke Police cooperation in providing confidential student information to the DPD.

5. Brodhead's "whatever happened was BAD enough statement."

6. Duke cooperation in providing the student's key cards to DPD w/o a warrant.

7. Duke Police cooperation in allowing DPD access to Edens Dorm to interrogate students w/o their lawyers.

8. Levicy facing possible implication as an enabler to (if not a co-conspirator in) the malicious prosecution of demonstrably innocent kids.

9. Burness providing defamatory triple-hearsay to quasi-journalists in detriment to the players.

10. Obvious grade retaliation, and contract violations for the failure to get the boys back when it became apparent that they were innocent (May 2006 at the latest).

11. Ya'll have seen how hatefull the Gang of 88 are in public -- what do you think is on their office and home computers? Discovery scared the pants of Duke lawyers.

If you use a little imagination, you might see false light, breach of contract, defamation, privacy violations, Section 1983, respondeat superior ad nauseum.

K.C. Johnson is calling you out (if you're stupid). Floyd says "MOO." Gregory

Anonymous said...

Very provocative thread.

Of course the DTH is a very Liberal paper. As we all know, UNC-Chapel Hill--the oldest state university in the country--is a very Liberal school.

Chapel Hill is a quaint and beautiful place filled with every kind of person on the planet; however, there are no bands of disgruntled freaks like those in Durham's Trinity Park who for years had staged an open démarche against any Duke student with a date past 12 midnight......or who might have had a party--Gasp! A party with university students having fun!!!!!!--with something other than cheap jug wine and women dressed in feed sack dresses and Birkenstocks to which the residents of Trinity Park are so accustomed.

The craziness of any university newspaper, its faculty, or even its student body could never have succeeded alone in the kind of railroading that took place with Reade, Collin, and David.

You would need a town like Durham full of residents who so resented the students of a school that they would support such a Hoax by colluding with the police department and making sure Duke students were regularly targeted.

No matter how Liberal a school, it would take a police department and a town to produce what we have witnessed.

There are no such dynamics in Chapel Hill.....and I dare say anywhere in this country.....that would have produced such a Perfect Storm.


Anonymous said...

Enabler is a substantice abuse term. Its adoption as a term related to this event is inappropriate and wrong usage. "Possible malicious prosecution and co-conspirator is all in some folks head." What possible evidence do you have for such a statement. The medical report does not back up this claim and the rest is noise.

mac said...

For those of you wondering why Dook might have settled,
See Michael's post July 10,
(I don't have the link, it's on Liestoppers.)

6:06 pm (this thread) refers to the issue.

It has to do with the apparent collusion between Dook and the DPD with regard to student records and cards.

Anonymous said...

With the key card information out there, why was Duke concerned about discovery. Who was in a position at Duke to give out this information? Was it illegal for them to do so?

mac said...

Re: Levicy.

Read KC's comment.
I agree with him.
Call me a sycophant.

Re-re-rewriting opinions, making opinions based upon faulty logic,
misinformation and personal animus
is definitely in the category of

The evidence wasn't botched; it was collected just fine:
the statements about the evidence (by Levicy) were
could be categorized as "botched."

Obviously, the AG looked at the evidence,
not the semi-professional opinions of Nurse Levicy.

Anonymous said...

Any attorney who can't find a cause of action against Duke, isn't trying.

Is Impersonating an Institution of Higher Learning an actionable tort? Its got to be fraud or a consumer protection violation.

How about a breach of feduciary duties to the boys, and failure to provide a safe environment (didn't one or more of the LAX player's have to sleep in his car for safety?)

These parents are paying $40,000+ a year, there has got to be some breach of contract claims.

What about Broadhead's "whatever they did is bad enough" statement in the midst of a rape investigation? Slander? Negligent infliction of emotional distress? Breach of fiduciary duty?

What about the failure to correct false press claims regarding refusal to cooperate? Wouldn't that be part of the University's duty?

Everytime one of the G88 opened their big mouths, while representing themselves as Duke professors, they are agents of Duke, and Duke should be held liable for their wrongful acts, particulary since it never took any steps to distance itself from the statements. Here is a treasure trove of slander claims.


mac said...

The post I pointed to has an answer to one of those questions, with regard to the specific law that was broken.

Anonymous said...

That is what some of us have posted all along = look at the evidence - like the AG. Forget the hearsay information.

Anonymous said...

9:31 Duke has settled with the defendants - is they need to, they will settle with the rest of the team. As the key card information is out there, maybe Duke is not so interested in keeping things quiet.

Anonymous said...

6:06 The Attorney General of the state of North Carolina does not agree with you that the exam was negilant - in fact, he said "The exam showed there was no evidence of rape,"

Anonymous said...

All the comments are helpful. But no one has mentioned Dean Sue and her affiliation with CrimeStoppers and the vigilante poster. And not removing their pictures from the Duke server, which put them at risk.

Anonymous said...

Right on mac! Levicy was the one who duped Gottleib, duped Nifong, Himan, Broadhead, the 88, every damn one of them!

I would like to see KC do another series on the 'Typhoid Annie' of the Duke Rape Case.

Show us some more of the levicy deposition Kingsbury orchestrated. How she ADMITTED she told Gottleib there was blunt force trauma, and how she was in charge and Dr Manly only helped with the exam!

Please write to us about Levicy, KC.

mac said...

"I wanna be...Tara's..."

You are pathetic: her testimony proved only that she went along for the ride on the Nifong Express.

No one said she was the driver.
Whatta dorp.
Must be from Durhhh.

Anonymous said...

UNC-CH is an extremely liberal school. Liberal implies PC. PC begs sexism/racism/classism.
The Daily Tar Heel is an extension of UNC-CH's liberal faculty. Is there any wonder that they can't see why Duke settled?
It's amazing how dense the fog can be from one side of I-40 to the other.
The two most famous Phi Bea Foola grads of the UNC-CH Law School are John "Breck Boy" Edwards and Mike "Something Happened" Nifong. Need more be said?????

scott said...

It is safe to say that the Duke people who made the decision to "settle" with the lax 3 did so for a reason: that whatever it cost them to do so was less than what THEY BELIEVE it would have cost them not to.

That's the way it always works for the people writing the check(s)
when a settlement occurs.

Fortunately, for Brodhead and Company, it's only OPM. Since it cost them nothing personally, they very likely have learned nothing from the experience.

Anonymous said...

Mac - Does you inability to process new information ever bother you? 10:30 You make a lot of sense and most of the criticizm has come from those who believe the Kingsbury orchestrationt that was dismanted at the bar hearing,

Anonymous said...

No one said "she was the driver?" Kc states "she started the mess" As 10:30 writes, she duped all those PHDs, detectives, the DA and Durham - If you believe that, you believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

Anonymous said...

Hypocritical,to say the least,coming from The Daily Tarheel. From their OWN site....

"UNC men's lacrosse team sees own spell of legal fits"

"Charges in Chapel Hill against UNC men's lacrosse players on the 2006 roster

They have been charged with underage consumption of alcohol, possession of an open alcohol container, slapping the back of a police patrol car while drunk and willful damage to property.

And that's just in the past year.

Eight members of the 43-man North Carolina men's lacrosse team have been arrested or cited in Chapel Hill during the past two-and-a-half years. Two - Billy Staines and Ben Mark - have had more than one incident with local law enforcement."


unc athletes representing their school in a "positive light...."

Anonymous said...

Dear 11:35 Tara Troll:

I used to believe in the so-called "Tooth Fairy." But, my credulity could be reasonably excused by my young age and my then-lack of critical thinking skills.

I should have realized that the "Tooth Fairy" could not possibly have known that I had lost a tooth, unless I was under some type of very discrete, yet comprehensive 24-hour surveillance.

Also, I did not question the fact that the "Tooth Fairy" seemed to have limitless funds. You see, an average of 7 teeth per child x millions of children = Bill Gates to the power of Warren Buffet (in 1967 dollars).

But, I did age, and I got those critical thinking skills. Now, I don't believe in the "Tooth Fairy" and I don't trust a word out of my parents' mouths.

I also believe, when looking at the evidence critically, that Levicy took the mantle of the "Rape Fairy," as she did everything in her power to continue the hoax, throw magic "Rape Dust" on the condom issue, patch up problems with the trauma, wed Mangum's latest story to some type of "rape science," etc....


God created the Earth, then she waited about 10 million years, practicing her art, honing her skills, until she could get K.C. Johnson "just right." -- Fun K.C. Johnson Trivia (Newsweek, July 2007) MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

vegas-please stop with the Tara worship. what is the fascination with her? does she have a talking cunt or something?

er 31yrs said...

Nifong is a double Tar Heel graduate from a small xenophobic North Carolina town. Obviously he has had a visceral dislike of Dukies since childhood. This was a "morality play" for him and fit into his need for election and his hatred of the "out of state" students and what he perceived as the more financially advantaged Dukies. Read some of the Herald-Sun's Letters To The Editors from Tar Holes ranting and raving about students from "New Jersey" who have the audacity to attend a school (Duke) in, of all places, North Carolina. Is "New Jersey" a Carolina code word for Jews?

Anonymous said...

This was about votes and getting elected to DA. It is just that simple. No conspiracy here.
I think not only would a Durham jury have found these guys quilty = no matter what the evidence. Any one counting on a big pay off from a Durham jury in civil suits is sadly mistaken.

Anonymous said...

12:58 - With that trash language, no one will accusse you of being a classy poster. For all you who want to trash Levicy, there are those who do not. Like its a free country.

mac said...

I don't lack ideas, but please, please learn how to spell "accuse."
You always spell it "accusse."
It's one thing to hit a bad key:
it's another to be unable to grasp basic language skills.


"I wanna be..."

mac said...

Perhaps they'll have the suit in Raleigh, where
Durhh will be taken to the cleaners?

I remember similar posts claiming:

1) Duke would never settle
2) The AG would never use the word "innocent"
3) Nifey would never get disbarred

Guess those prognosticators were sadly mistaken.

Simply put: if the tort were held
in Raleigh, Durhh would likely pay large sums of money.

And the comment about "no conspiracy?" May or may not have started as one, but
manufacturing evidence, suborning perjury and intimidating witnesses
perhaps comes a little close to the definition of "conspiracy."

Maybe Watergate wasn't a conspiracy?

Anonymous said...

While I am in the camp that does not believe Levicy and DUMC could be held liable in a civil case brought by the laxers, I totally agree with K. C. that Levicy "started this mess." Her "consistent with a sexual assault" comment was morfed by Gottlieb into his testimony to the grand jury that the exam results were consistent with a sexual assault. Reports of her comment were published and convinced many otherwise skeptical minds that the rape occurred.
As an example that I have published before, I was at a birthday party for one of my daughters the day after the news hit that Crystal had previously accused people of raping her (the Creedmore thing). The parents in attendance were mostly doctors (some from DUMC) and lawyers (one a law professor from Duke law). I gave my analysis of the case, commenting that it was clearly a hoax. I could not convince any of these bright minds that I was correct. In all cases, each parent's response was that the "nurse expert" who did the "rape kit" said that the exam showed there was a rape.
I truly believe that had she just turned over the medical report and kept her mouth shut even Nifong would have had a more cautious approach to deciding to indict on what would have then been only a "she said, they denied case."

C. Thomas Kunz

mac said...

C. Thomas Kunz

Watch out: we'll be hearing from Tara's Troll 'bout now,
claiming that we are "accussing" Tara of bieng the proenitor of all the world's evil.

Good post.

Ralph Phelan said...

"As the key card information is out there, maybe Duke is not so interested in keeping things quiet. "

Only if there's absolutely no more damaging information to be revealed. How likely to you think that is?

AMac said...

Anon 2:33am wrote --

>"This was about votes and getting elected to DA. It is just that simple. No conspiracy here."

True enough, if "conspiracy" means that Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, ADAs, Levicy, Wilson, Brodhead, Moneta, and others must have gathered in a room sometime in late March and, together, devised a plot.

No sensible person is offering such a narrative.

On the other hand, the current, comforting story supposes that "Rogue D.A. Nifong" was the only person who acted in bad faith to railroad three innocent men into prison.

This interpretation is incompatible with the timeline of events. It is now abundantly clear that the Hoax/Frame began in the two weeks after the stripper party--before Mike Nifong involved himself in the case. Nifong is obviously not the culprit for misdeeds that he had no part in.

Other people were.

Nifong and certain individuals aligned their actions (and, later, their reports and testimony), in the service of a common goal. After all, what the lacrosse team did was bad enough--they deserved the bad outcomes that were being served up.

Once the gang rape story rose to prominence, a diverse cast of characters was all too happy to climb aboard this bandwagon, each contributing to the Hoax/Frame according to their talents.

I'm sure some of these folks are Duke's answer to the Flat Earth Society, sincerely reciting "Something Happened." Most, I suspect, know that they should have written their own version of Ruth Sheehan's belated N&O "I'm Sorry" mea culpa. They lack the honor and courage to do. Or they're paying close attention to their lawyers' advice.

I've offered no links in this synthesis. Its highlights have been copiously documented by others. Read K.C. at this blog, or the timeline assembled at LieStoppers, or the posts on the subject at John-in-Carolina, or Stuart Taylor's articles. Etc.

The "Nifong as lone actor" scenario is simply not plausible.

Anonymous said...

A note to those who commented that the laxers would have had a cause of action against Duke for "violating their right to privacy" by giving the lax teams key card records to the police, this is far from certain. FERPA, the Federal statute that says schools which receive Federal monies must keep confidential their students' records, does not provide a student whose recorda are disclosed without his or her consent a private right of action against the school. Or so the US Supreme Court has held. In the absence of a FERPA claim, I am not sure why a cause of action would exist for a school turning over records.

Anonymous said...

The LAX families believed their sons had been thrown under the bus by brodhead's feckless actions and his "leadership" incited others at Duke to libel them, invade privacy, fail in other duties. This the families made clear to brodhead early on in the hoax. (Hence the Bowen report as attempted cover).

In December, right after the AG's declaration of "innocence" the 3 LAX attorneys met with Duke leadership and laid out their claims and asked for a sum of money to compensate the families.
Duke hesitated, the LAX attorneys told Duke something like, "this is a one time offer, if we have to come back later the money will double."

Well "later" was June, within days of the Nifong hearing. I have no idea of the amount...the original one or the "later" one.

Personally, I don't think Duke had a whit more sorrow or shame, brodhead didn't get religion in June. Rather, Duke saw what everyone saw during the Nifong hearings. Watching what could be a dress rehearsal for Duke facing the LAX attorneys. For the first time Duke "got it" ...they were no longer going to hide behind academic claptrap and abusing kids. No the real deal would be facing skilled attorney's like Chesire and Bannon who had real data and facts. Duke might have to actually respond to specific questions. No spin. Close up and personal, and on live T.V.

Brodhead would have to sit in the court room day after day. The family testimony. Dissecting emails, public comments, "don't tell your family," "don't hire lawyers", time lines, who knew what when. It wouldn't have been pretty. Would likely have included testimony from Pressler (not about the truth). Nope an unmitigated PR disaster that would keep Duke from "moving on." Which is Dukes only objective.

So they paid.

Anonymous said...

The AG declared the boys innocent in April, 07.

Anonymous said...

AMAC - Have a lot of respect for you and your opinions. In the two weeks before Nifong started his media attack on 3/28, the police were obligated to investigate Crystal's claim - which they did - poorly to be sure - I think that shows a lack of belief on their part of the claim - The police investigated - the NTO gotten for the DNA - the technology is there and should be used - the "old fashion way " is out of vogue - The lack of DNA cleared the team - I believe Saaks would have dropped the case but Nifong entered the scene - I think it is clear the DPD got out of any investigating very early - No, this is Nifong's baby,

Anonymous said...

Like the Kennedy assination, we shall go to our deaths still arguing this case.

AMac said...

Anon 12:08pm --

> No, this is Nifong's baby,

Read the posts that KC Johnson has put up about Nifong's Gottleib's Himan's, Wilson's, and Meehan's testimony.

I don't see how it is possible to square these accounts with a narrative that focuses only on the ex-DA's misdeeds.

And there is much more evidence pointing towards a "conspiracy"--that's just a start.

For example, the roles of ADAs in Nifong's office remains largely unexplored. None of these actors have been deposed. But at this point, is it possible to construct a plausible scenario where nobody--not Saacks, not Soucie, not anybody--contributed to the Hoax/Frame? I don't believe so. If/when this sees the light of day, I suspect questions will revolve around:

-- contemporaneous misconduct vs. after-the-fact coverup;
-- active versus passive assistance to the Hoax/Frame;
-- routine abuse of procedure vs. special-to-this-Hoax abuses;
-- incompetence vs. malevolence;
-- definitions of a professional's ethical duty to act upon misconduct.

Nifong's baby? More like, "pick your poison."

Anonymous said...

I find everything about SANE-in-training Tara Levicy disgusting.

A typical, straight-from-B-movie-casting of a plain Jane, self-righteous-do-gooder for the women of the world. The facts be damned!

The knowledge that this stale drone participated in a presentation of Vagina Monologues tells me all I need to know about her narrow-mindedness regarding this issue.

I found her deer-in-headlights mug on the stand before the Bar Committee a repulsive ode to the trouble-making, worthless women of the world.

However, her insignificance in this world, otherwise, compels me to suggest that we halt giving her any more attention than is absolutely necessary.


Anonymous said...

I agree that further discussion of Levicy is unwarranted. The theatre folk are taken with the Monologues. We personally know nothing about this nurse and her attitudes.

mac said...


Correct: and will someone remind the no-conspiracy folks that
the young men had bail set
at $400,000...each?

Anonymous said...

What does the bail have to do with conspiracy theories?

mac said...

Have you been keeping up?
Know how much bail usually is
in the Land of Durrhhh?
For murder?

Have you been keeping up,
or are you just prodding/provoking?

Ralph Phelan said...

For those not keeping up, the bail was astoundingly high.

Mac seems to think that this was somehow related to a plan to extort money from rich families, though, though I don't understand the details of how he thinks it worked.

I think it was just part of the Nifong's political campaign. It was a win-win: "Let's screw some white folks!" got him Durham's black voters, and "Let's screw some Yankees!" got him Durham's white voters.

mac said...


No, I don't: I think it was used to get the boys to jail,
where they could be surrounded by "witnesses" to the
young men's confessions - (all made-up, of course.)

That's the (or one) purpose of an unreasonably high bail:
to put the accused in the proximity of those who are likely
to testify for the prosecution.

This is a common tactic, and it shows evidence of conspiracy:
I wasn't explaining the "why"
aspect of the conspiracy,
only pointing out the "what" and "how."

mac said...

This was discussed roundly on
another thread, BTW.
Understandable why it might've been

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
What an odd state of affairs when the Duke Basketball Report has to explain how Duke University was negligent and at fault to the unconvinced editors of The Daily Tar Heel.

Jul 11, 2007 4:19:00 PM
Once in awhile a blogger really comes up with a great insight! I urge everyone to let this statement roll around their heads for a few minutes.


Ralph Phelan said...

Mac - re 8:58. I said I was confused about "how," not "why."

And you explained it very clearly.

There's another common police/prosecutor dirty trick I was previously unaware of. Thanks!