Monday, August 27, 2007

Whichard Committee in Jeopardy?

ABC-11's Tamara Gibbs is reporting that a threat from the city's insurer to terminate the policy might lead to the suspension of the Whichard Committee, which was charged with investigating the DPD's mishandling of the lacrosse case.

Gibbs:
Sources tell Eyewitness News the insurance company, which would pay for a potential lawsuit settlement, threatened to suspend the city's policy if it didn't reconsider the Duke Lacrosse Investigative Committee. We're told the company sent its request by fax last Thursday. The city's policy would cover up to $5 million in the event of a lawsuit.

Of course, had the committee's inquiry not moved at such a glacial pace, this threat would be irrelevant.

91 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe if the insurance company had had a discrete discussion with Durham leaders seventeen months ago, they wouldn't need to quash the investigation today.--Buddy

Michael said...

What's the name of their insurance company?

I guess they're thinking that if too much comes out, they will be on the hook for more to cover so it's better to hush things up so that the DPD can do this all over again and get sued again.

It certainly is Wonderland.

Anonymous said...

The insurance company must be run by the DukeGroup88. The whole Duke-Durham crowd need clean under-ware. Put them in charge of New Orleans and the Katrina boys.

Debrah said...

And this is how it goes.

If they disband the Committee, it will be an admission that Durham---along with their disgraced and disbarred former district attorney---is a rogue town.

Anonymous said...

It would seem to me that Durham needs an investigation that will let the chips fall where they may. What is known about the Durham Police Department's role in all of this is relatively little. There is a culture there that can't tolerate the light of day. It would be good for the city's future. The paltry 5 million policy is almost beside the point. The negoiation of a new, larger policy has already begun.

inman said...

Looks like the Insurer does not like the idea of open discovery prior to actual litigation.

Of course, this is an admission (of sorts) that nothing good could come out of the committee's investigation of the DPD, or at the least, the bad would be greater than any good.

Either way, I wonder if the fax to the city is a public record?

Also, the news report implies that a settlement, if any, would not exceed the insurance company's exposure (whether that exposure is $5 million or $15 million is yet unclear). This is ludicrous. Durham may well have substantial liability over and above the insurer's exposure.

Frankly, I think a $100+ million dollar settlement, with $85+ million plus being put into a trust or foundation devoted to justice would be consistent with the gravity of Durham's egregious enabling of despicable behavior. I suggest the notion of a foundation only because I'm confident that the families and the victims are not profiteering, but truly want to address, going forward, the implications revealed in this HOAX / tragedy to the American constructs of "justice for all" and "innocent until proven guilty". There would also be substantial poetic justice in Durham having to write such a large -- and significant -- check to such a foundation / trust -- and the amount would sting enough that the city would most certainly would be motivated to clean its own house.

Anonymous said...

My suspicion is that the insurer wants to make certain that any findings of the commission do not further damage any chance the insurer has of limiting the City's (and, thus, the insurer's) liability to the players. If the commission report turns out to be another whitewash, particularly in light of the information presently available to the commission members, it would potentially inflame any federal (i.e., Greensboro) jurors who would be sitting in the case.

The city is getting an long overdue lesson in the First Rule of Holes - when you're already in one, stop digging.

drewski

One Spook said...

At the risk of dislocating my own elbow patting myself on the back, this is what I posted on 05/25/07 at 6:49PM:

If you want to talk about the Whichard committee, why don't you probe their schedule and why they haven't met?

Given the information we've read here about potential lawsuits against the City of Durham, do you think that has any bearing on the Committee's activities and schedule?

Do you think the City of Durham might have realized that by continuing to meet and uncover facts about the activities of the DPD, they're about to shoot themselves in the head, if not the foot?


The reason I posed those questions is because I think we could see this action of the City's Insurer coming ...

One Spook

Anonymous said...

It'll come out in discovery otherwise when the civil lawsuits start flying.

inman said...

One Spook @ 3:16

Nice call! But why would the insurer have waited this long to intervene?

Could additional information have surfaced that is particularly troubling? Recall that the accrediting review gave DPD a clean bill of health. Perhaps something has surfaced or, maybe, someone in the conspiracy (if any) has decided to discuss the "dogfights" (so to speak).

Anonymous said...

"...you will pay every day for the rest of your life." Rae Evans

How's things working for you in Durham now, Mikey? Scared yet, Mikey? You're next, Mikey. Got Money, Mikey?

Anonymous said...

There must be a lot more than just this one lawsuit that the insurance company is worried about. There must be 5 million insured per inncident. If the Whichard committee found liability with a number of individuals in the DPD they could be paying about a whole lot of money. I would guess that even Duke could sue over the wanted posters. In this case, silence is golden for the insurance company. If the city council and city manager baker had any cojones (even little ones) they would fire those involved,for surely they know who is involved. Then, Mr Bell, as the mayor or Durham I would fire baker. Yep, even the tiniest cojones would let me do all that.

Anonymous said...

I love the way that $5 million can be characterized as "a paltry sum." I guess everyone has a different baseline of comparison! If I were the insurance company I would fight tooth-and-nail to avoid cutting a check for $5m.

And could the city actually pay off on a $100 million verdict as someone guessed above? What is the annual budget of the city? Wouldn't they declare bankruptcy?

Anonymous said...

I would rather they just disband the Committee, and honestly state the reason, than to come out with a phony report dictated by the filthy scum of the insurance industry.

Michael said...

[Eyewitness News has learned that some city employees, including members of the police department, have been told to save all correspondence related to the Duke Lacrosse Case.]

I'm sure that the insurer won't want Addison on the stand.

Anonymous said...

The insurance company is doing what it should do to protect its interests, which are not the same as either Durham's or the players. Shame on the company if they have not done their due diligence on Durham. However, they also need to determine whether the affected activity is covered by the policy. I think the poster above is correct--fear that another whitewash will inflame a jury, or at least a judge who might have to rule on a summary judgment motion. That said--ain't this fun!--Buddy

Anonymous said...

There are clauses in most liability policies that require the insured to cooperate with the insurer in case of a claim. Cooperation can be construed (easily construed in my opinion) as requiring the city to terminate the commission if the insurer believes it is in their interest to do so. Much depends on the language in the policy, which is probably accessible to the public in Durham. I would be interested in seeing a copy posted.

Having a city manager fire culpable employees now would be stupid to do on their part. It would be an admission of wrongdoing.

I am surprised at the tolerance people here have at a five million dollar payout! Whether the payout is five million or fifteen million, the insurance company will contest it! They will only roll over quickly IF they can find someone else to lodge a claim against. If they are the end of the line they will fight to the death. Been there - done that.

Anonymous said...

The committee would have most assuredly produced a white wash report anyway.

I've no knowledge re. insurance policies for municipalities; do any DIW readers know if there is a way the insurer can deny coverage, i.e., the DA, Addison, etc. were acting outside the scope of their duties by engaging in, what could perhaps be called, an intentional and conspiratorial frame up? I couldn't imagine that the insurer could refuse coverage without a claim of bad faith, but still wondering . . .

mac said...

3:56
Bankruptcy for a municipality is basically disincorporation. It is infrequent, but if the suit gets more than the locality can bear, it may be Durrhh's only option.

When a municipality disincorporates, it basically subjects itself to the law of larger bodies, which would amount to a kind of receivership for and by interested parties.

inman said...

Durham's 2007-08 City Budget

The city might have to tighten its belt a bit, but a structured settlement over a thirty year period, based on a 7% interest rate would require an annual payment of $8.1 million (approximate). That would equate to raising revenues by 2.8% -- or general property taxes by 7.6%.

That would surely galvanize Durham residents to clean up the city's act.

And I do like the notion of a thirty year term....there's something internally consistent about that number.

Ralph Phelan said...

"If they disband the Committee, it will be an admission that Durham---along with their disgraced and disbarred former district attorney---is a rogue town."

If admitting what everyone knows already limits their financial exposure, it's the rational thing to do. Which means the Durham city government won't do it, of course.

Anonymous said...

inman said...
One Spook @ 3:16

Nice call! But why would the insurer have waited this long to intervene?

Why? Because the insurance company probably did not know!!! We're all in tune with the issue because we follow it. Some insurance company with tens-of-thousands of policies wouldn't know squat. Recall that it is up to the insured to alert an insurer that there is the possiblity of a claim. One way that insurance companies weasel out of coverage, usually only partially, is to claim that they were not provided with adequate notice and unable to mitigate damages.

Ralph Phelan said...

"And could the city actually pay off on a $100 million verdict as someone guessed above? What is the annual budget of the city? Wouldn't they declare bankruptcy? "

And wouldn't it be a victory if they did? If an outside "reciever" winds up running the place I doubt they'll be interested in maintaining the current system of corruption.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that the city will negotiate a settlement as did Duke? Just wondering...

Ed

Anonymous said...

One of the basic instructions any insured has to follow is NEVER admit liability. The insurance company is no doubt warning the city that admission of liability would be a mistake on the city's part. The city, financially, is working against it's own interest in investigating this matter.

That is why the Attorney General, or Federal authorities should investigate Duke, Durham, and the DA's office. No doubt crimes were committed, regardless of the civil liability.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Recall that it is up to the insured to alert an insurer that there is the possiblity of a claim. "
In other words, when it hit the news Sullivan & Scheck had been in town talking settlement.

I wish I could have heard that conversation, when someone from the city first called up their insurance provider to "alert them to the possibility of a claim."

"They're asking for for how many million dollars? Scheck - that's one of the guys who helped OJ get off, isn't it?" Insuring municipalities must be a business for people with steady nerves.

One Spook said...

inman @ 3:45 writes:

Nice call! But why would the insurer have waited this long to intervene?

Could additional information have surfaced that is particularly troubling?


I'd guess that they haven't waited this long to intervene; it simply has now become public.

Insurance companies have all manner of their own type of "spooks" whom they employ from time to time. Sometimes they're called "Loss Prevention Specialists." These folks read English, look at satellite maps, and gather lots of information and data using various methods, just like real spooks.

They are on this case like white on rice right now, and I'd guess they're paying real close attention and reading a lot now, including this blog and local news, daily.

While this fact might come as a big shock to liberals, insurance companies are in business to NOT pay big claims.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

As a Durham resident and taxpayer, I am interested in this concept of "receivership" mentioned in recent posts. It obviously doesn't sound good, but it might be better than being governed by these current bozos. Could someone expound?

Mike Lee said...

Let's not forget there are at least 43 more potential lawsuits out there. The rest of the players on the team (even though they weren't indicted) were publicly branded as rapists, subjected to threats of violence, forced to give up their DNA, and who knows what else all based on lies told by public officials.

These guys most certainly suffered damages and if I were them I'd be pretty pissed off about it.

Thanks to the statements of David Addison, Mike Nifong, and others the lawyers representing Durham may have a lot more work ahead of them.

Anonymous said...

I can't imagine Durham's having a real insurance policy.

Anonymous said...

And, as a Durham tax payer, let's not leave the "plantation" out of the "Who Pays?" equation. Duke contributed mightily to the frame and the damage to these students and their parents. DIW documents thoroughly the what and the who.
If Durham has to bear the full cost, many services for the needy - no, not the 88 - but the diabled, the poor, and others genuinely afflicted and in need of help, will be reduced to cover the penalty. A pity. JLJr

Ralph L said...

The City of Durham (PD) is still distinct from the County of Durham (Nifong's employer), right? Living in 30 miles away, I should know, but the city has grown to nearly fill the county. If so, can or will the players sue the County for Nifong's misdeeds? It's too bad the city can't tax Duke's property to pay the players.

Debrah said...

The busy-bodies and DPD inflamers who live in Trinity Park should have to shoulder a tax increase on their termite-infested, shoddy, but quaint Durham digs.

No one talks much about these fools anymore. They are partly responsibile for the way the lacrosse team was repeatedly targeted.

bill anderson said...

You know, last year they were feel their oats in Durham. Now they KNOW they are in deep. Maybe that meeting April 11 at NCCU was not such a good idea.

Maybe that Baker-Chalmers Report was not what the doctor ordered, or maybe all of the lies told by police. Maybe setting up the LAX players (and locking the doors to the police office so the players could stand outside and be on news cameras) might not have been such a good episode of judgment on behalf of the Durham Powers That Be.

And maybe listing to people like the Duke G88 or Sam Hummel really was a pretty stupid thing to do. Whatever it was, it looks as though it is time to pay the piper.

I remember last year a woman from Massachusetts writing the Hurled-Scum and telling them that the players were going to "own Durham." It looks as though she knew what she was talking about.

Anonymous said...

This is simply fantastic, another wonderful development. For those of us who have suffered through this Hoax from the beginning (vicariously, obviously), seeing the beginning of Durham's fiscal unraveling makes me giddy.

Anonymous said...

I'm somewhat surprised we haven't seen any civil suits filed yet. Do you think the attorneys were waiting for some of these public hearings to take place? What's the hold up?

And what about Ryan MacFayden? Why hasn't he settled with Duke? Heck, he got tossed out for sending an email and the football player with the DUI only has to sit out a game! This reeks!

Anonymous said...

would members of the G88 be residents of Durham or of a suburb of Durham? It is amusing to think that the G88 who own homes in Durham would be paying a higher property tax to pay off any settlement or judgment to the LAX players.

Anonymous said...

One Spook, 4:48
"While this fact might come as a big shock to liberals, insurance companies are in business to NOT pay big claims."

------------

True, and insurance companies are NOT in business to protect or defend the TRUTH, either.

Any insurance company would endorse a report declaring Hitler an angel on Earth, if they thought it would save the company 10 cents.

Anonymous said...

5:16 (and Durham taxpayer) writes: "And, as a Durham tax payer, let's not leave the "plantation" out of the "Who Pays?" equation. Duke contributed mightily to the frame and the damage to these students and their parents. DIW documents thoroughly the what and the who."

Scorpions in a bottle. What is now beginning to publicly emerge is the finger-pointing b/w Duke and Durham over what will be a truly massive financial hit. I just love it!! Couldn't happen to a better bunch of losers.

One Spook said...

mike lee @ 5:05 writes:

These guys most certainly suffered damages and if I were them I'd be pretty pissed off about it.

Thanks to the statements of David Addison, Mike Nifong, and others the lawyers representing Durham may have a lot more work ahead of them.


Clearly. However, I think there are two things to consider.

First, The City of Durham and the County may well have different exposure and different insurers. It is important to keep those potential issues and entities, separate.

Second, any action by the players not indicted would likely, for a host of reasons, wait until those indicted players exercise their own remedies or not.

The issues with the remaining members of the team are wholly different. It is possible that the unindicted players could bring a class action suit (or not) against the City and against the County, which suit would most likely involve the City/County insurers.

We are all a bit behind the power curve here. If you're really into speculating, it's always a good idea to pursue the sounds of silence. The silence of the unindicted players to date leads me to believe that some manner of negotiation has already taken place, or is taking place with Duke, particularly given the fact that the indicted players have settled.

The silence of Joe Neff on these matters is also notable. A good, cynical reporter would be ahead of the power curve, camping outside the Durham City/County attorneys offices, and looking at the license plates and dealer tags on cars that came to visit, especially noting those from Raleigh.

Remember what "The Godfather" said: "A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more money than a man with a machine gun."

Damn, how I hate to give cool gems of information and intrigue like this for free but, on the other hand, it was your and your parents' tax dollars that were spent to train me ....

One Spook

Anonymous said...

YES. Payback!!

GPrestonian said...

KC:

Of course, had the committee's inquiry not moved at such a glacial pace, this threat would be irrelevant.

The Whichard Comm was smoke & mirrors. AIG's policy precludes Durham from having a 3rd party investigate occurences. Baker & Blinder, et al have been playing the public with this.

Anonymous said...

I can't imagine what good the Whichard coimmittee would do at this point. It is obvious the civil suits will elaborate and give hard evidence of criminal activity and civil rights violations. Did LA convene a special committee to investigate how officers handled domestic abuse cases during the OJ trial?

Anonymous said...

So? Why are not surprised?

Somebody follow the tracks back to the insurance company, please?

Who owns it?

How close is it allied to the BOT cartell?

Anonymous said...

it's all fun and games till the money guys show up!

LOL

Durm thought that the whitewash committee would cover their butt??? those types of dog and pony shows might work with the folks that voted for the Fong, but the rest of the world knows a horse's ass when they see one!

good news tho. after Durm goes bankrupt, they really can become the PRD, People's Republic of Durhamberg

Floyd sez: Residents-call your real estate agent NOW

Anonymous said...

One read of the Neff article in the N & O gives you a delightful glimpse into the panic that is beginning to take hold in Durham. The magnitude of their problem is just beginning to hit home, and you can sense utter helplessness on the part of council members. I think they realize there is no place to hide from the big name lawyers aiming at their balls. I am so loving this for the families.

Anonymous said...

Indulge me a wonderful fantasy. The players win their suit, and a TON of money. Durham gets cleaned out and becomes bankrupt and "FOR SALE"... and who has a lot of money, and wants to buy a city???? THe PLAYERS!!!!!

Oh, such fun. Somebody should write a novel, just so they could make it all go just the way the movie makers would love. A good juicy Southern town, ripe with intrigue, political back streets, and the perennial good vs. evil set-up.

But this time the GOOD GUYS buy the town, fire the idiots at DPD, replace the DUke President and cowardly BOT, and OWN the hueymanitees departments.

Fantasy... but oh, don't wake me up for a few minutes.

Winning is the BEST revenge!

Anonymous said...

Can please ONE Durham resident tell me what the current word on the street is about this impending tsunami of payback, or are people there still in denial about the enormity of the wrong they enabled?

One Spook said...

Anon @ 5:31 writes:

True, and insurance companies are NOT in business to protect or defend the TRUTH, either.

Any insurance company would endorse a report declaring Hitler an angel on Earth, if they thought it would save the company 10 cents.


Now THIS is an "Anon" who is right on the mark, as was 5:22 and Bill Anderson @ 5:21. This is a thread of comment that is going somewhere!

Here we go ...

Duke has a HUGE board. Like most huge boards, they have something like an "Executive Committee" of a few guys and gals who control serious, purse strings. The Board follows the "Golden Rule", to wit: "He who has the gold makes the rules."

The rest of the board gets a free hotel room in Durham with cheap mints placed under the bedspread, a nice dinner, and gets to talk and vote on unimportant stuff at the Board Meetings. Regardless of what anyone says, the big hitters on the Executive Committe (or its equivalent) make all of the decisions. Some of the big hitters don't even talk at the meetings; they don't have to. Some of them smile.

You will note that the Board recently convened a committee to give Brodhead his normal "review" after three years. The PR machine at Duke pumped out the usual sunshine that this is a "normal" procedure, which it very likely is. Please take special note of the makeup of that committee.

HOWEVER, the big hitters KNOW what the legal settlement was and they KNOW what the *real* financial results of Duke are, regardless of what you read from their sunshine pumpers. They will also know what other liabilities are pending against Duke. The rest of the huge board may not know any of this.

Now, if the big hitters are angry, Brodhead has not a snowball's chance in hell of keeping his job, and this "review" will reflect some "errors in judgment" made by the Duke President.

If the big hitters want Duke to do well and prosper, Brodhead will be replaced by a person who has ice in his/her veins and who will render (using an analogy they so cherish) the Angry Studies crowd flaccid.

Watch.

One Spook

P.S. Any of you are free to disagree with me or slap me upside the head and say I'm full of horse manure. I'm a big boy; I can take it. MOO!!!

mac said...

Anon 5 pm,

Receivership is a term used in bankruptcy, receivership and liquidation issues. I may be using the term somewhat inappropriately, but the definition "the state of being held by a receiver," seems to fit, that "receiver in a municipality's case being somewhat like an overlord.

Think "oversight," as both the Legislative and Executive branches of our Federal government were involved in the budgetary operations (and more) in the nation's capital. The Feds took over, basically.

Receivers often function as intermediaries, making sure that business proceeds as usual (in Durham's case, one would hope for something better) and they disperse funds, administer accounts, handle records and accounts receivable etc. Some law firms provide such services. With that, I would expect that someone in that profession could answer your question a lot better than I could, and should be able to give better insights as to what such an arrangement, public or pivate, might mean for Durham if it should come to that.

Anonymous said...

Hey Debrah----
Where's Connie Francis when we need her? "Who's Sorry Now....?"

Bob H. said...

anonymous @ 5:21

To claim that you have suffered through this hoax, vicariously or otherwise, indicates you are disturbed. Get a life.

Anonymous said...

One Spook is entirely correct. A few big names on BOT are in control and are probably increasingly unhappy that national negative attention keeps coming the heck back. Money can make bad things go away. I'm putting my nickel with One Spook.

mac said...

5:58
Hard to see what Whichard was intended to do to begin with - which means that it either was a stopgap to keep the Feds from arriving in black cars with lots of subpoenas, or it was meant to keep the
State of North Korealina from conducting its own investigation.

It's harder to understand what the Baker-Chalmers report was meant to accomplish, other than to prove that the powers in charge were so inept as to be declared incompetent to stand trial.

Locomotive Breath said...

Hey spook. I think you're confused

Don Henley
Gimme What You Got

Baby picks off your plate-yours looks better
And she throws hers on the floor
Here, in the home of the brave
And the land of the free
The first word that baby learns is more
So you're out there floating like a big, puffy cloud
With the pool and the charcoal
and the kids and the wife
'Til the reruns of your dreams are interrupted
And you step out into life
And it's still gimme, gimme what you got
Gimme, gimme what you got
(I want it, I want it)
Gimme, gimme what you got
I said gimme, gimme what you got
(I want it, I want it)
Gimme, gimme what you got
Now it's take and take and takeover, takeover
It's all take and never give
All these trumped up towers
They're just golden showers
Where are people supposed to live?
You can arm yourself, alarm yourself
But there's nowhere you can run
'Cause a man with a briefcase
can steal more money
Than any man with a gun

I said gimme, gimme what you got
Said gimme, gimme what you got
Gimme, gimme what you got
Gimme, gimme what you got
You got the price of admission-
You don't have to ask permission
To take somethin' from another man
You cross a lawyer with the godfather, baby
Make you an offer that you can't understand
From Main Street to Wall Street to Washington
From men to women to men
It's a nation of noses pressed up against the glass
They've seen it on the TV
And they want it pretty fast
You spend your whole life
Just pilin' it up there
You got stack and stacks and stacks
Then, Gabriel comes and taps you on the shoulder
But you don't see no hearses with luggage racks
Gimme, gimme what you got
I said gimme, gimme what you got
I said gimme, gimme what you got
(I want it, I want it)
Gimme, gimme what you got


Maybe you're thinking of Al Capone who said that "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

Gary Packwood said...

JLJr 5:16 said...
...And, as a Durham tax payer, let's not leave the "plantation" out of the "Who Pays?" equation. Duke contributed mightily to the frame and the damage to these students and their parents. DIW documents thoroughly the what and the who.
If Durham has to bear the full cost, many services for the needy - no, not the 88 - but the diabled, the poor, and others genuinely afflicted and in need of help, will be reduced to cover the penalty. A pity. JLJr
::
Concerning your most appropriate reference to The Plantation (Puzzle Palace) aka Duke.

I think I have a pretty good sense of Reade's character now and I am not going to be surprised to learn that he has suggested that Duke could help Durham, Durmites and Duke students by volunteering to bring the Innocent Project permanently to the belly of the beast ...as its new home...@ The Law School...@ Duke University...with designated and permanent funding.

That would be a grand settlement in my mind's eye.
::
GP

inman said...

5:56 says that Durham's insurer is AIG.

6:03 asks if the BOT is somehow 'acquainted' with AIG.

Is the Pope Catholic?

Yes...indeed. AIG is the largest insurance company in the country. They do business with most of the bulge-bracket investment banks...such as Goldman Sachs (Robert Steel '73 was a former vice chairman) or Morgan Stanley where John Mack is current Chairman or Bear Stearns where ...well I've forgotten the name of the Duke grad on the BOT who is quite senior there...

My bet is that each of these people has the telephone number of AIG's Chairman in their rolodex (it used to be Hank Greenberg -- he left or was oustedsome time ago)....at most, there is only about 1 or 2 degrees of separation.

And vice versa. And I'll guarantee that they'd return each other's calls.

Also, they often use the same very high priced attorneys in New York. For example, AIG and Goldman Sachs rely on Sullivan & Cromwell as important outside counsel.

So is there a nexus between the BOT and AIG ... the firm (not yet confirmed) that represents Durham.

You bet!

And the next question, is how careful will the ex parte communications (if any) be?

locomotive breath said...


To claim that you have suffered through this hoax, vicariously or otherwise, indicates you are disturbed. Get a life.


I am a Duke alum who lives in Raleigh and had a H-S lax playing son and was in the position of having to answer questions like "what do you think of your lax team raping that poor woman" and "you don't want your son to go to Duke do you?". To double it up, I was replying that I thought no crime had occured and that the problem was Nifong. In return I was heaped with scorn and derision. I suffered a tiny little bit and it wasn't vicarious. I'm glad I didn't have to find out what it was to be one of the actual targets of Nifong.

Why do you feel the need to spit on someone whose sympathetic reaction caused them to identify strongly with the falsely accused?

Steven Horwitz said...

One Spook at 621's analysis of how University BoTs work is exactly on target. There normally is a small inner group that comprises the real power brokers. He may also be quite right about the nature of the review of Brodhead.

inman said...

GP @ 6:40 --

I like your thoughts on the use of the $85 million. Another poetic justice piece to the puzzle.

______________________________

Regarding some questions about the composition of the Board of Trustees....some time back I posted a comment that provided the Duke graduates on the BOT, their year of graduation and their professional affiliation. I don't know the date, but its on DIW sometime in July / August. Perhaps someone knows how to search the comments and find the list.

Gary Packwood said...

locomotive breath said...
...Why do you feel the need to spit on someone whose sympathetic reaction caused them to identify strongly with the falsely accused?
::
Perzactly as they said in the South long long ago.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

6.26 ungraciously wrote: "To claim that you have suffered through this hoax, vicariously or otherwise, indicates you are disturbed. Get a life."

Oh, I'll get a life alright. Just as soon you Durhamites and trolls tender the proverbial keys to the "Bull City" (to secure the judgment) to the Lax 3. The boys are just going to own you--literally, own you.

And I'll shout-out a "thanks," to locomotive breath for his 6.46 comments. He gets it.

Anonymous said...

Council woman Diane Catotti's re-election signs are up on street corners, weeks ahead of anyone else. With the "something happened" crowd back in the news -this time as enablers of a mega bucks lawsuit - maybe she will "temporarity suspend" the signs.
The sense on the street is racial as alway in Derm. Blacks tolerate whites and whites tolerate blacks. Some people do better than others, some transcend the crap and are to be blessed. Regardless of the 88 and their blather about sex gender and race Durham's racial tensions are constant. The 88 are truly irrelevant to this community. But, unpleasant and at times rude behavior between B&W is not. That's about it. JLJr

Bob H. said...

locomotive breath:

if you can't figure out why it is so distasteful for a disembodied cybernaut to feign some sort of “suffering” over this case, then you, too have lost touch. Do a perp walk in front of cameras, have Black Panthers threaten you, have your teachers and University officials condemn you – that’s suffering.

I am sure, if you are a Duke alum, then you have a legitmate right to feel great disappointment over this incident, only to be dwarfed by the shame and disgrace of being associated with an institution so morally corrupt and disdainful of values most good people hold dear.

inman said...

7:01

Yes, when one is focused on providing the basic essentials of food, clothing and shelter...the nuances of Queer Theory and specieist prerogative simply don't ring any bells.

Gary Packwood said...

For those Duke students who are reading this blog for a class assignment and are looking for those statement that suggest there is an elite group of white males who do or think they do control nearly everything, here are the first four comments so far.

(1) A small inner group that comprises the real power brokers.

(2) If the big hitters are angry...

(3) Only about 1 or 2 degrees of separation...

(4) So is there a nexus between the BOT and AIG.

There will be more later tonight.

And yes, we know. This is why the G88 teach what they teach and write what they write.

Lord, we have met the enemy and they are us.

[Pogo]
::
GP

Anonymous said...

locomotive breath said:


I am a Duke alum who lives in Raleigh and had a H-S lax playing son and was in the position of having to answer questions like "what do you think of your lax team raping that poor woman"


I hope you have since asked them:

"What do you think of that walking sperm bank trying to put those poor boys away for 30 years?"

hman said...

My actual up close knowledge of what it costs to hire lawyers at this level (I mean the plantiff side) is mercifully quite limited. However, it seems like a safe bet that a murder defendant needing B. Shecks undivided services would need 1 million plus up front.
Assuming the LAX legal talent is working on a contingency basis and considering also the need for Sullivan et al to get their normal payday - the typical 30-40% slice of a settlement at the (postulated ) limits of insurance of 5 million does not add up. It seems to me that the plantiff side has signalled a willingness to make a large investment of their own time, talent, and resouces on a much larger scale than what is consistent with a such a small-scale pay-out.
This is not in the least complicated and I am assuming that Durham City Government is feeling that cold chill sensation that sometimes comes over a person even in the hottest part of the summer.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bob H -- are you from the area? If you are not, you have not a clue.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that Durham is starting to appreciate the unintended consequences of employing people who can at best be referred to a simpletons.

Perhaps they are also finding out that piling on is not a good thing to do.

BAW said...

No time to read through all comments right now so I apologize if this is repetitive but...

If the N&O is correct, there is a clause in the city's insurance policy which says there will be "no coverage" if the city elects a third party to "investigate, defend or settle" a claim or suit. That's significantly different from threatening to cancel their policy. Which is something they will probably do after all this, no matter how it turns out.

Anonymous said...

Hope it doesn't violate fair use, but on p. 288 of It's Not About the Truth one sees:

Rae Evans said her phone has been "ringing off the hook" in the last months of the criminal case as civil trial lawyers called offering their "help."

History usually must repeat itself twice to become farce, but this story is already a prime amusement in real time.

-- No, not that Glenn

inman said...

7:59

Is a moron.

How is the abuse of power and the egregious behavior of so many people "amusement"?

7:59 -- You choose not to identify yourself -- even by pseudonym. Be that as it may...I hope and, yes, pray, that you have some potential liability and that you lay awake at night, in a sweat, thinking about your transgressions.

One Spook said...

L B @ 6:38 writes:

Hey spook. I think you're confused

The Godfather (1972) Quotes

"A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns."

The most-quoted line that never appeared in the film!


I think you're right, LB! Hahahaha!

One Spook

Anonymous said...

bob h. @6:26

I take offense at your comment. Go stuff it asshole.

signed
Not the anon guy who posted

Locomotive Breath said...

I hope you have since asked them:

"What do you think of that walking sperm bank trying to put those poor boys away for 30 years?"


Nah, I just look at them and smirk. I need say nothing. Heh, heh, heh.
-----------------------
I agree with spook's analysis of the BOT dynamics, BUT the same power brokers were the ones who hired Brodhead. Some of you may have not seen this

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/04/steel_statement.html

Statement from Trustees Chairman Robert Steel on Lacrosse Situation

"When all of the facts are in, Duke will be judged by how it responded to the challenges before us."

Friday, April 7, 2006

Robert Steel is the chairman of the Duke University Board of Trustees

Durham, N.C. -- The trustees of Duke University have been in active conversation with President Brodhead and the university’s senior leadership since the outset of the controversy involving the men’s lacrosse team. We appreciate the constancy of President Brodhead’s responsible leadership at a time when the facts are not clear and emotions run high.

President Brodhead has spoken eloquently about the challenges our community faces and the values that must guide us in doing so, in addressing the serious issues that have surfaced as a result of this incident. First and foremost, we await a resolution of the facts surrounding the party of March 13, and join in calling for full cooperation with the police investigation. As President Brodhead has consistently stated, the crimes alleged are grave and, if verified, will warrant severe punishment from both the criminal justice system and Duke’s student judicial process. Simultaneously, we must protect the rights of students who have maintained their innocence and not been charged with any crime.

As President Brodhead has noted, we need not -- and will not -- wait on the resolution of this case to address broader issues that range from the social culture of our students to difficult questions involving race, class and Duke’s relationships with its Durham neighbors. We endorse the steps President Brodhead is taking to deal with both the immediate situation and these wider challenges.

The trustees recognize and deeply regret how the current situation has cast a cloud over the many wonderful people who comprise our campus and the larger community of Durham. We are especially grateful to Mayor Bill Bell and Chancellor James Ammons and many others in the Durham community and at Duke for their wise and statesmanlike leadership during this troubled time.

When all of the facts are in, Duke will be judged by how it responded to the challenges before us. The trustees recognize these challenges and pledge our personal and collective support over the coming weeks to ensure that Duke University responds in a manner consistent with the great institution we know it to be.


Then there was this

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/04/steel_letter.html

Letter from Robert K. Steel, Chair of the Duke Trustees, to the Duke Community

The following letter was sent to members of the Duke community Wednesday night

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Durham, NC -- Dear Members of the Duke University Community,

I write to you on behalf of the Trustees of Duke University.

[snip]

Throughout the past year President Richard Brodhead consulted regularly with the Trustees and has had our continuing support. He made considered and thoughtful decisions in a volatile and uncertain situation. Each step of the way, the board agreed with the principles that he established and the actions he took. As we look back – and with the benefit of what we now know – there is no question that there are some things that might have been done differently. However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board.


They doubled down on him. No way they throw him over the side. What'll happen is he'll finish up his normal five year appointment and then he'll annouce he's stepping down "to return to research and teaching". (that's the academic version of "spend more time with the family").

Anonymous said...

OMG....I just heard the expression "nifonged" on the news.

Michael said...

re: 7:15

One could always provide a choice quote from Williamson.

Anonymous said...

okay- 25 grand each.

still way too much for

ham sandwiches.

inman said...

11:42

You are another moron.

25 grand doesn't even pay the cab fare and the caterer.

$100 million is the number. Bank it.

Anonymous said...

to inman at 7.12 and 12.07

I did not have time to read all the posts, but yours are great.

I'm still laughing at your 7.12. Like Maslow's Hierarchy theory preaches, the 88 will have to re-proritize that's really important to the poor and downtrodden.

Of course now they will just label them as rich, white, privileged, and now selfish for taking food out of the mouths of the Durham poor.

cp

Anonymous said...

inman 8:31

History's usual first iteration is tragedy before becoming farce. I didn't say it was amusing then. I was about to comment a few days back about the incivility that reigns here, commenters flaming each other, when it suddenly died back when KC got away from G88 for a few posts. I would have said the existence of that bunch brings out the worst in everyone.

As humans we view others through the lens of our own thought processes. Sadly for you, perhaps, no, I don't "have some potential liability ... and ... lay awake at night, in a sweat" But as you bring it up, one cannot help but wonder, do you?

So far as using a pseudonym, I do not have a popular blog, I do not teach Constitutional Law @ UT Knoxville, but I do happen to be "Glenn." So it's not quite "pseudo." Further, I did once err in signing my real address to an innocuous post on a message board long ago in a galaxy far away and got privately flamed so venomously by one deranged individual that I feared for my own physical safety (Anyone who's not paranoid is crazy.)

-- No, not that Glenn

M. Simon said...

If DPD and the City of Durham did not make an "error in judgment" but some criminal act then the insurance company will defend Durham.

Then when the judgment comes in the insurance company will go after Durham claiming that Durham's actions were outside the terms of the policy.

This will get real ugly.

Ralph Phelan said...

One Spook said...
"I think there are two things to consider.

First, The City of Durham and the County may well have different exposure and different insurers. It is important to keep those potential issues and entities, separate."

Two sets of deep pockets to go after with different causes of action.

"Second, any action by the players not indicted would likely, for a host of reasons, wait until those indicted players exercise their own remedies or not."

And the unindicted players are not a homogenous group. McFayden for example suffered some unique torts.

This is going to be going on for a long, long, long, long, long, long time.

Ralph Phelan said...

I just spotted something really hilarious in one of the news stories about all this:

"There's been wide speculation about a potential lawsuit against Durham's Police Department. The Bull City is preparing for that possibility by hiring civil litigator Joel Craig of Durham to protect its interest. "

They still haven't figured out they're playing in the big leagues!

inman said...

Glenn @ 3:14

Please accept my apology, for I misinterpreted your comments.

Debrah said...

This is going to be going on for a long, long, long, long, long, long time.

Very true.

Which is why KC can't go to Tel Aviv yet!!!

inman said...

ralph phelan --

For purposes of comparison, I offer Brendan V. Sullivan Jr. and Joel M. Craig for review.

I'll not say more.

Anonymous said...

the entire annual budget for the county, not just the city, is just short of $700M. you can see it here:

http://www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/bdmg/Budgets/FY07-08/Adopted/index.html

the city has a general fund of just under $200M, which you can see here:

http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/finance/citizens_fin_report.cfm

the county pays for the durham public schools. which means a settlement or judgement of $100M (which might even be very light, considering there's 47 guys with claims against a whole lot of people in a whole lot of departments) means Durham is screwed.

Anonymous said...

Inman 9:22:

Accepted. This seemed the sort of forum where one could exercise irony and satire and other rhetorical games in good nature. But I've come to sense some things in my old age.

I might not always write as clearly as I should. I may even seem to take a viewpoint opposed to ... "myself."

I'm also no longer so knocked back to encounter those who take themselves too seriously. That's another human judgment. But those folks often detonate at the suggestion, proving the point.

What titillates me here is the delicious thought that justice might eventually be meted out to a few of the malefactors. By now I suspect "It's not the money, it's the principles," might actually be true for some of the principals, if Duke U has, one hopes, bankrolled them lavishly in its rush to hush.

One thing troubles me, though. The attitudes of decision makers who acted so reprehensibly:

-- Nifong acted reprehensibly, nevertheless had an election to win.

-- Brodhead acted reprehensibly, nevertheless had a mandate to smooth this out quickly and quietly. Indeed, his very failure to do that makes his resignation imperative.

-- G88 as individuals and collectively acted reprehensibly, nevertheless may have been true to themselves. I lack words to convey my feelings about that and will say no more.

-- Certain Individuals in the DPD acted reprehensibly, but what did they have to gain? If they were merely trying to please Nifong, THAT IN ITSELF is scary. They're supposed to be working with, not for him.

-- Further, what does Durham have to gain by not identifying and jettisoning those Individuals early on, rather than expose itself to so much more liability risk? Would it not be better poised now, as the high-horsepower lawyers circle like sharks, if it could say, "Look, we're cleaning house?" I'd say whatever private instructions they gave Whichard had misplaced emphasis. He needed to cut deep, clean, and quick, like a doctor amputating sans anasthesia. That rrhamilton dude had an informed-sounding opinion about how it's pissed-off injured people who sue. I must be missing something.

-- No, not that Glenn

Ralph Phelan said...

"-- Further, what does Durham have to gain by not identifying and jettisoning those Individuals early on, rather than expose itself to so much more liability risk?"

I'd guess that many in the Durham leadership are weighing spending someone else's (taxpayer) money against the risk of personally going to prison.