Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Cooper Ad

Few political leaders distinguished themselves in the lacrosse case, but one of the heroes of the affair was Attorney General Roy Cooper. His office conducted an impartial investigation, free from political pressure, and allowed the facts to dictate the outcome. He was, in short, the model of a "minister of justice."

Cooper's campaign is up with an ad reminding voters of his actions in the case.

While, I suspect, Cooper won't poll well among the Group of 88, I hope that all DIW readers in North Carolina will vote for him on November 4. Donations to his campaign can be made here.

Monday, September 29, 2008

September Events in the Case

September was a light month legally; here are the case-related highlights:

As the new chairman of its African-American Studies Department, Duke has hired a professor best-known for his anti-Israel screeds and as an apparatchik focused on enforcing campus political correctness.

Declining to bow to reality, Duke professor Tim Tyson stands by everything he said about the case. Could the anti-lacrosse extremist have been unaware that his most embarrassing statements were caught on tape?

New “scholarship” on the case: Kansas professor Barbara Barnett, who received her M.A. degree from the Group of 88-topheavy Duke English Department, posits that the rate of violent crime on college campuses is around 2.5 times higher than the rate of sexual assault, murder, armed robbery, and assault combined(!!) in Detroit, the U.S. city with the highest murder rate. This assertion paves the way for her thesis: that Duke’s response to the case was overly favorable to the lacrosse players—and that Duke needed to show more sympathy for Crystal Mangum.

Speaking of the false accuser, another month has passed, and her promised Mangum Opus has yet to appear.

Eleven Group members—highlighted by none other than Wahneema Lubiano—suddenly discover civil liberties, not by admitting their errors in the lacrosse case, but by signing a statement wildly claiming that a prosecution against a New York “Muslim American” for allegedly aiding Al Qaeda “threatens the First Amendment rights of others.”

In July, in naming Duke Board of Trustees chairman Bob Steel as its new CEO, Wachovia declared that “he is an ideal choice for this time of turmoil.” This morning, the bank was acquired by Citigroup—at a firesale price of $1/share. [Update: It seems as if Steel's bet on Wachovia worked out no better than his misguided approach to the lacrosse case. Reports Bloomberg, Steel "bought 1 million shares of Wachovia stock for about $16 million two weeks after arriving at the company. Steel wasn't available for comment."

The Liestoppers discussion forum has a comprehensive summary of the Moez Elmostafa civil suit.

The Erick Daniels case provides more insight into the corrupt world of Durham criminal justice—and into N&O columnist Barry Saunders’ willingness to use any issue to assault the lacrosse players’ character.

The civil suits have thus far cost the city of Durham more than $750,000. Perhaps the city is reconsidering its refusal to enter into good-faith negotiations about a settlement?

Meanwhile, in a letter to the Herald-Sun, Ed Rickards reports that Duke's legal bills skyrocketed from $4.32 million in the 2004-2005 academic year to $10.2 million in the 2006-2007 academic year. Rickards adds, "Heavy litigation did not set in until after this. Duke added lawyers like Jamie Gorelick of Washington, whose firm typically bills $800 an hour for partners' time. There is no certainty that the hoax led to these increased legal costs, because Duke will not help interpret the numbers. But I can identify no other reason. Across the full spectrum of the university, the denial of information is a hallmark of the Brodhead years, and it is disintegrating the ability of students, alumni and faculty to effectively monitor and participate in university governance."

And Mike Nifong’s guitars will go up for auction.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Matory to Duke

Here’s how Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz reacted to the news that J. Lorand Matory is leaving Cambridge: “I think it’s the best thing that’s happened to Harvard in a long time. Privately, there’s a real sense of exhilaration and relief that this man is no longer a blot on our community.”

As a Harvard graduate (B.A. and Ph.D.), I echo Dershowitz’s sentiments: Matory’s damage to Harvard was incalculable.

The African-American Studies professor’s campuswide claim to fame came in his sponsorship of the resolution to censure former president Larry Summers. Summers’ sins, according to the resolution that Matory originally penned? (1) The president correctly termed the divest-from-Israel movement “anti-Semitic in effect if not intent”; (2) The president demanded that then-University professor Cornel West produce scholarship, rather than rap records; (3) The president stated, in widely condemned remarks, that—if only to disprove the point and silence conservative critics—scholars should consider whether cognitive differences between the genders, and not discrimination, might explain the disparity between men and women among the ranks of tenured science faculty.

After the faculty revolt succeeded in forcing Summers’ resignation (with critical assistance from Harvard Corporation member Nan Koehane), Matory fumed to the Boston Globe that Summers’ support for Israel represented “one among a variety of issues on which Mr. Summers seemed to advocate the rights of the privileged.” Did Summers’ success in pushing through guaranteed free tuition for lower middle-class students constitute one of the other issues on which he stood up for the “rights of the privileged”?

Matory continued: “Because of his extremely vocal support of Israel, he essentially shut down the national divestment movement.” So, in other words, Summers was worthy of censure not only because of what he said, but because he was effective in saying it. Prof. Matory offers an intriguing model for a university president.

(A point worth recalling: Summers--who served as Treasury Secretary to Bill Clinton and is now a key economic advisor to Barack Obama--was far too conservative for Matory and his faculty allies.)

Matory’s ramblings about Israel were embarrassing and contradicted the spirit of evidence-based inquiry upon which higher education should be based.

What institution has taken Matory off Harvard’s hands? Duke, where he will become the new chairman of the African-American Studies Department, as of July 2009. In Durham as in Cambridge, Matory will doubtless use his considerable talents to uphold the position of advocates for the status quo on campus. In Durham, he should find the Brodhead administration far less likely to challenge him in any way than was Larry Summers.

One of the administrative low points of the lacrosse case came when the Duke trustees unanimously elevated African-American Studies to departmental status (citing its “admirable commitment to advanced research, teaching and outreach activities”), despite the weak level of scholarship from many of its faculty, its scant number of undergraduate majors, and the fact that its most recent “outreach activity” had been sponsorship of the Group of 88’s statement.

Matory will become the fourth chairman of AAAS since 2006. His immediate past predecessors?

Charles Payne, the chairman who violated Duke rules in using department funds to pay for the ad, and who further violated procedure by placing the ad on the AAAS website for 183 days.

Charlie Piot, whose definition of what constitutes “scholarship” is almost laughable.

Thavolia Glymph, one of three figures on an April 2006 panel lamenting about how “since the [negative] DNA results were returned Monday, we [have been] moving backwards.”

Quite a distinguished record. Matory should fit right in.

---------

Matory certainly will find an ally in Group of 88’er Karla Holloway. In this week’s Chronicle of Higher Education, Holloway proposes a “diversity” crusade targeting units of the university whose “diversity” performance the 88’er deems insufficient.

Says Holloway about Duke’s record in “diversity” hiring, “There has been growth in arts and social sciences [the departments which produced 85 of the 88 members of the Group], and medicine, but in some ways that growth has arguably allowed other schools or divisions not to work as aggressively with this effort.”

The target, according to the article? The Law School(!)—the one “school or division” whose performance in the lacrosse case did not embarrass Duke. Only in the world according to Karla Holloway would the law school—and not the groupthink-dominated departments in the humanities and (some) social sciences—require new personnel policies.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Group Members Discover Civil Liberties

Wahneema Lubiano. Her authorship of the guilt-presuming Group of 88 statement (something “happened” to Crystal Mangum; “thank you” to protesters carrying “castrate” signs; the signatories would hold firm “regardless of what the police say or the court decides”) didn’t exactly identify her as a friend of civil liberties.

Based on their attitudes and actions since 2006, Lubiano and her Group colleagues would be about the last people expected to stand up for due process or the rights of the accused. Yet this self-described “post-structuralist teacher-critic leftist”—who views part of her job as “engaging in politics (including strategizing)”—has found a new crusade to occupy her time. In 2006, a former Brooklyn College(!) student named Syed Fahad Hashmi was arrested in Britain on charges of providing material assistance to Al Qaeda. At the time of his arrest, Hashmi sought to travel to Pakistan, carrying with such items as a large amount of cash, night vision goggles, and sundry military apparel. Hashmi is currently awaiting trial in the United States, which is holding him without bail.

Lubiano’s not the only faculty member going to the barricades for Hashmi. A petition from a group calling itself “Educators for Civil Liberties” has attracted the signatures of more than 500 professors. While denying that their words take a position on Hashmi’s guilt, the “Educators” maintain that the U.S. government has denied the civil liberties of this citizen of Pakistani descent, who the petition curiously describes as a “Muslim American.” (I guess that the new standards of political correctness dictate calling me not an Irish-American but an “Agnostic-American.”)

Given the Bush administration’s record on civil liberties in terrorism-related cases, it’s possible to believe that Hashmi has suffered improperly. Yet the petition’s presentation of the case is so one-sided—and its comments about the case’s effects on the academy so off-the-wall—as to make any undecided reader less, rather than more, likely to embrace the signatories’ position.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, a non-partisan, non-ideological journal that covers college and university issues, produced an article that appropriately described the case against Hashmi as “murky.” No items in the Chronicle article, the few other publications on the case, or any public statements by the signatories point to even one specific violation of Hashmi’s civil liberties.

Nonetheless, the signatories confidently affirm, “The prosecution’s case against Hashmi, an activist within the Muslim community, threatens the First Amendment rights of others. While Hashmi’s political and religious beliefs, speech, and associations are constitutionally protected, the government may attempt to use them as evidence of his criminal intent.”

Well, yes: at trial, for instance, the government may point out that Hashmi’s praise of John Walker Lindh (the “American Taliban”) provides insight into his state of mind in allegedly seeking to aid Al Qaeda. Similarly, in the 1960s, it was perfectly appropriate for federal prosecutors in trials of KKK members to use their (constitutionally protected) racist statements or memberships to provide insight into the Klansmens’ mindsets. There isn’t anything unusual about such a trial strategy, and it’s absurd to say that such an attempt “threatens the First Amendment rights of others.”

(By the way, I assume that each of the “Educators” supports repeal of all hate crimes laws—since such legislation is based on the premise of using “constitutionally protected” “political and religious beliefs, speech, and associations . . . as evidence of . . . criminal intent.”)

Accoding to the “Educators,” Hashmi’s civil liberties also have been violated because “under a plea agreement reported in the media, [alleged Hashmi confederate Junaid] Babar will receive a reduced sentence in return for his cooperation.”

It’s true that (based on what we know from press reports about the evidence), the government’s case aggressively uses testimony from Hashmi’s former confederate. And it’s possible—as with every criminal who enters into a plea bargain—that Babar is lying. But it’s very strange indeed to claim that all testimony obtained as a result of a plea bargain automatically violates the civil liberties of a suspect. If the “Educators” really believe this point, however, perhaps they should petition the court to overturn convictions of such figures as Martha Stewart, Enron executives, or WorldCom executives. After all, each of those cases (like the Hashmi case) involved testimony obtained from plea bargains.

The statement’s two authors stretch credulity even further when they discuss the case’s alleged effect on the academy.

Brooklyn professor Jeanne Theoharis: “It’s particularly significant in a moment when we are seeing the criminalization of Muslim students. I think that he is a devout and practicing Muslim who is very political. If he can be treated like this, it sends a message to other young people, particularly other Muslim young people, that you know you are not protected. I think it is crucial in terms of students thinking they can be who they want to be and espouse the politics that they want to espouse.”

Brooklyn professor Corey Robin: “The classroom is supposed to be a kind of sacred space where students can express their beliefs, and faculty are obligated to push them. It’s chilling to me to think that that whole process, which is the essence of what it means to be an educated person, could suddenly become an item of scrutiny in a court of law.”

The signatories present no evidence that the government has even investigated Hashmi’s utterances in the “sacred space” of the “classroom,” or that the government intends to make the classroom “an item of scrutiny in a court of law.” Nor do the signatories present any evidence to suggest a pattern of “the criminalization(!) of Muslim students.”

That hundreds of professors could sign a statement associated with such claims says more about the rush-to-judgment attitude of the academy than any violations of civil liberties by the government. More remarkably, Lubiano isn’t the only Group member to have suddenly discovered civil liberties. In fact, the list of “Educators for Civil Liberties” includes no fewer than eleven members of the Group of 88.

It’s not clear what has caused Lubiano’s sudden interest in due process. I would have asked her directly, but Lubiano previously had instructed me not to e-mail her.

Joining Lubiano as “Educators” members are Group of 88’er Rom Coles (Political Science)—perhaps best known in the case as husband of the infamous Kim Curtis—the Literature Department’s Michael Hardt, Ariel Dorfman, and Walter Mignolo; English professor Priscilla Wald; and Caroline Light of Women’s Studies.

Likewise, Group of 88 historians Pete (“floating phallus”) Sigal, Irene Silverblatt, Jocelyn Olcott, and Claudia Koonz all have apparently become born-again civil libertarians. Here’s how Koonz’s website describes her research agenda: “How does it happen that citizens who consider themselves deeply moral can believe that some of their fellow citizens embody a danger so lethal that they must be eliminated? . . . I am less concerned with fanatics’ hate speech than with the subtle prejudices common in generally liberal milieus.”

A naïve person might wonder if the Lubiano cohort learned from the Mike Nifong case. Having not only remained silent during the highest-profile modern case of prosecutorial misconduct but joined in an effort that even some signatories (privately) conceded mirrored Nifong’s viewpoint, Lubiano, Koonz, and the other eight Group members might have decided to stand up for due process rights whenever and wherever possible.

A less charitable—if more realistic—person might suppose that, as in April 2006, the civil libertarianism of Lubiano & Friends begins and ends with the limits of their race/class/gender worldview.

[Parts of this post originally appeared, in a modified form, at Cliopatria.]

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Words To "Stand By"

As noted below, when asked about his inflammatory remarks on the case, anti-lacrosse extremist Tim Tyson recently announced, "I stand by every word of it." Four clips of the words that Tyson stands by, in his own voice, are below.

First, Tyson recalled his time in the potbangers' March 25, 2006 candlelight vigil, outside the lacrosse captains' house. His participation in this event almost certainly violated Duke's anti-harassment code; no record exists that he was ever punished for his actions.


Then, Tyson lionized the false accuser, Crystal Mangum. (The photo in the below came from the same evening--march 25, 2006--that Tyson participated in a candelight vigil for Mangum outside the lacrosse players' house. Earlier that day, Mangum had gone to UNC Hospital unsuccessfully trying to get prescription medication for the pain she claimed her "attackers" had inflicted upon her.)


Then, Tyson outlined a remarkable conception of due process and civil liberties, as he hailed the leadership of Richard Brodhead.


Finally, Tyson played to Durham's race-baiting mob.


Reflecting on all these statements earlier this year, Tyson congratulated himself "that a person as impassioned and opinionated as me would have the presence of mind to consistently remind people to withhold judgment."

Monday, September 15, 2008

Tyson Hunkers Down

The coach that Duke saw fit to fire (before an investigatory report concluded he had done nothing wrong) was recently honored by the lacrosse community. Mike Pressler has been named head coach of the U.S. National Lacrosse team for 2010. Said the chair of the selection committee, “We were certainly very impressed with Mike’s professionalism and more importantly, his excitement and enthusiasm for the position. He can’t wait to get started and has put a lot of thought into it already.”

---------

An item from Duke News shows that the University has changed its attitude in at least one respect—and in a commendable fashion—from the lacrosse case. The University-run site highlighted the efforts of Gunther Peck, the Fred W. Shaffer Associate Professor of History and Public Policy Studies, “to make voting more convenient for the Duke community” by helping establish a polling place on campus (as already exists at NCCU). Peck acted after he was “concerned by low student turnout in May’s primary.”

Peck’s efforts deserve the strongest praise. That said, it’s hard not to notice the dramatic change in the University’s approach between 2006 and 2008. In 2006, of course, University security officers suppressed an attempt to register students outside the football stadium. And Group of 88 member Grant Farred denounced the voter registration drive as racist.

Farred, who now teaches at Cornell, didn’t respond to an e-mail asking if he considered Peck’s effort to be racist as well.

---------

At least Duke was willing to recognize the errors of its ways in this one respect. The true believers among the faculty have shown little willingness to consider any item about the case revealed after Mike Nifong went silent, in early April 2006.

The most recent example: anti-lacrosse extremist Tim Tyson, one of two Duke faculty members who publicly confessed to participating in the March 25, 2006 candelight vigil outside the captains’ house. Tyson held his candle at about the same time that the vigil’s honoree, Crystal Mangum, was videotaped dancing—in a most limber fashion—at the Platinum Pleasures Club.

Tyson was recently interviewed by the Wilmington Star-News, which asked him if he regretted his inflammatory comments about the lacrosse case. Responded he,

I have lived to regret being understood so selectively. The sentence I said about what we have to remember is the investigation is still underway. I was reminding people that the defense might not be guilty. I think it frustrates my critics greatly. I stand by every word of it. [emphasis added] There was a racial incident in that house that was ugly as hell.

Among the “every word[s]” Tyson continues to “stand by”:

  • “I think the spirit of the lynch mob lived in that house on Buchanan Street, frankly, and I think that we prefer to think of white supremacists as ignorant, pot-bellied, tobacco-chewing sheriffs and Ku Klux Klan members from Mississippi, but here we have the sons of power and privilege, the wealthy and well-educated among us, who are acting out this history.”

  • Duke students not talking to Sgt. Mark Gottlieb outside the presence of their attorneys “may be illegal” and constituted a “terrible moral miscalculation.”
  • The neighbors who have no ax to grind in this, presumably, seem to confirm the charges of the women that there were a lot of racial insults thrown.” [emphasis added; there was one racial taunt from Kim Roberts, followed by one racial slur from a Duke student]
  • “I wouldn’t let this team continue to exist until the police get some cooperation from them.”

And what of Tyson’s vaunted “reminding people that the defense might not be guilty,” which he believes “frustrates my critics greatly”? Here’s what he actually said, according to Tyson himself: “It is important for us to remember that an investigation is pending, and the police are the only people qualified to figure out what happened in that house altogether, and we have to support [the police] as they do that dirty job of trying to figure out what kind of ugly things unfolded there.”

That’s the same “police” investigation that among other things: never interviewed the doctor who conducted Mangum’s medical exam . . . ran a rigged lineup that violated the department’s own procedures . . . and produced the Gottlieb memo, the transparently contrived after-the-fact “notes” designed to fill in the many holes in Nifong’s case. That’s the “investigation” that Tyson believed “we have to support.”

This same figure who publicly asserted that a named suspect refusing to talk to a corrupt cop without presence of his lawyer might violate the law(!!) is now lecturing on race relations in Wilmington, invited by the Wilmington district attorney.

Astonishing.

Monday, September 08, 2008

New Case "Scholarship"

The latest academic publication on the case has appeared, courtesy of Barbara Barnett, who earned her M.A. degree from Duke’s Group of 88-topheavy English Department. The University of Kansas professor produced an article in Communication, Culture & Critique, in which she advances the all-but-incredible thesis that Duke’s official response to the case was overly concerned with such issues as due process and right to a fair trial. Oblivious to how much of the media, most Duke faculty, and the Brodhead administration itself initially approached the case, Barnett contends that the University’s actions insufficiently employed the race/class/gender framework.

Barnett identifies herself as a true believer almost from the start of her article. “20%–25% of college students report that they have experienced a rape or attempted rape,” declares she—thereby suggesting that college campuses have a rate of sexual assault around 2.5 times higher than the rate of sexual assault, murder, armed robbery, and assault combined in Detroit, the U.S. city with the highest murder rate. For those in the reality-based community, FBI figures provide a counterweight to Barnett’s theories: not 20%-25% but instead around .03% of students are victims of rape while in college. Duke’s 2000-2006 figures, which use a much broader reporting standard than the FBI database, indicate that .2% of Duke students “report that they have experienced a rape or attempted rape.”

Having portrayed the Duke campus as a veritable Wild West, Barnett identifies the context through which the University should have approached the case: the “ongoing discussions about rape and rape myths, masculinity and violence, sports and brotherhood, and the role mass media play in shaping norms of female and male behaviors. Central to these discussions were [sic] notions of power and privilege and the role that sex, race, and class play in shaping contemporary society’s views of authority and entitlement.” Barnett also devotes considerable attention to feminist legal theory regarding the boundary between consent and rape (including date rape). The relevance of these questions in this particular case is unclear, since not only did the players never raise a consensual-sex defense, their attorneys, from their first press conference, explicitly ruled out such a defense.

While critical of what she terms Duke’s “victimization strategy”—the University’s alleged focus on the anguish of the falsely accused players and the harm to its reputation—Barnett argues that Duke did need to show sympathy for one person: the false accuser.

University “materials,” writes Barnett, “failed to acknowledge that [Crystal Mangum] might be going through some anguish.” Why should Duke have done more for Mangum? Because “Duke was being bombarded by challenges that it may not have protected the safety of an [sic] North Carolina Central student.” That these “challenges” were based on a false premise seems of little concern to Barnett. The Kansas professor criticizes Brodhead’s April 2007 post-exoneration statement for not having “considered whether the lacrosse players and the woman who leveled the accusations of attack were both victims of a zealous prosecutor.” In the world according to Barbara Barnett, it seems, Mangum deserved sympathy from Duke because Nifong was unethical enough to believe her lies. This standard is quite extraordinary.

In researching her article, Barnett analyzed each of the (88, believe it or not) statements by Brodhead or a member of his administration through the announcement of a settlement with the three falsely accused players. Barnett does find a few things in Duke’s conduct worthy of praise. The University, she writes, used the episode to commit itself to additional “recruitment of women and minority faculty,” for instance. (Of course, it was already so committed, and aggressively so.) But overall, she laments, while “Duke public relations materials stressed that rape was indefensible, they also explained that the university had an interest in protecting(!!) the accused students.”

How did she reach this startling conclusion? According to Barnett, 27 percent of Duke’s statements addressed the evils of rape, but a comparable 21 percent stressed the importance of due process. To get a sense of the meaningless nature of these statistics, consider three key statements in Barnett’s data set: Brodhead’s first (March 25, 2006) remarks on the case; his April 5, 2006 letter to the Duke community; and his summer 2006 response to Friends of Duke University.

Brodhead’s March 25 and April 5 statements would count as documents that both mentioned the evils of rape and mentioned due process. Yet regarding the former: the N&O and AP ignored the President’s pro forma reminder of the presumption of innocence, and quoted his condemnation of rape; the Herald-Sun also quoted the rape section, while summarizing the due process material. And the April 5 statement? It opened with five paragraphs on the evils of rape—and mentioned due process only in its sentence asking people to avoid making up their minds until the authorities acted.

As for Brodhead’s response to Friends of Duke, that document seems to count as among the 21 percent of statements explaining “that the university had an interest in protecting the accused students,” while not among the 27 percent stressing “that rape was indefensible.” In fact, far from “protecting the accused students,” the Brodhead response explicitly undermined them—stating, as it did, that the University would not publicly demand that Durham authorities treat Duke students with the same due process rights as those granted to all other Durham residents.

Only through such manipulation of the data can Barnett sustain her central thesis. I have omitted the internal citations but otherwise quoted in full, to provide the feel of Barnett’s argument:

Duke’s rhetoric mirrored the discourse of Enlightenment philosophers—there is an objective and universal foundation of knowledge, knowledge acquired from the right use of reason will be “true,” and grounding arguments in reason will abate conflicts among knowledge, truth, and power. Duke’s frame of reason encouraged its publics to be thoughtful and careful in their judgments; to believe in the integrity of authorities—the university, the police, and the legal system; and to assume that justice would prevail. Underlying Duke’s arguments was the incorrect assumption that justice will necessarily emerge from a police investigation and courtroom trial; it is an ideal but not always a reality. Additionally, Duke’s framing of its response as calm and logical could be read as a reinforcement of Western patriarchal norms, which equate reason with the disciplined male mind and emotion with illogical female thinking. From the perspective of Duke’s administrators, an emotional response was an undesirable one; however, this point of view ignores the fact that it can be difficult to talk about rape and violence against women in a sterile, dispassionate way.

This thesis leads to a remarkable interpretation of how Duke handled the case. “The University,” she writes, “failed to speak in depth about the larger issues in the case, including sexual objectification of women, the risks of sexual violence on college campuses, and the perceptions of privilege in U.S. college athletics. In a case that involved allegations of rape, there was surprising little discussion on the issue of rape itself . . . Rape seemed to be a secondary issue in Duke’s public relations materials. Information about Sexual Assault Prevention Week and campus services for victims of sexual assault came from a statement by Student Government leaders, not university administrators . . . Duke did not suggest education about rape and sexual assault . . . The university might have moved beyond defending itself and tried to educate its staff and its publics about sexual violence, including the notion of rape cultures, the relationship between alcohol abuse and sexual coercion, and the effects of hypermasculine cultures that privilege violence and abuse of women . . . Sexual violence is a serious matter, and organizations that find themselves confronting such charges, even charges they suspect may not be true, need to speak clearly and strongly to the issue of rape itself.”

To reiterate: no rape occurred in this case. Overwhelming evidence appeared in the public domain almost from the start to suggest that no rape occurred in this case. But, again, guilt or innocence appears not to matter to Barnett: the fact that a mentally disturbed woman made a false allegation against a University’s students was enough, in and of itself, for the University to try to reprogram its students’ behavior according to an extremist agenda championed by the fringe of the academy. And parents could get all this for only $50,000 a year in tuition and fees.

Apply Barnett’s standard to the mirror image of 2006-7 events in Durham—the Scottsboro Boys case. In the Barnett framework, institutions of higher learning should focus not on the dangers of race-based injustice, or the need for due process, or the importance of facts, and not passion, dictating judgments. Instead, when universities recall the Scottsboro Boys case, they should speak about the “sexual objectification of women”; ensure that rape is not “a secondary issue”; increase “education about rape and sexual assault” and “sexual violence, including the notion of rape cultures, the relationship between alcohol abuse and sexual coercion, and the effects of hypermasculine cultures that privilege violence and abuse of women,” so as “to speak clearly and strongly to the issue of rape itself.” After all, the Scottsboro Boys case accusers made a claim of rape.

For Barnett, intellectual analysis starts and ends with the race/class/gender paradigm. In a version of events that few who followed the case would recognize, she writes that “Duke seemed oblivious to its position of power in the community. In American culture, whiteness and wealth guarantee privilege, a fact Duke also did not publicly recognize. Duke’s public relations efforts might have acknowledged racial and economic discrepancies between the accused and the accuser and considered how those differences might have been perceived rather than pretending they did not exist.” In other words: Brodhead should have officially endorsed the Group of 88’s statement.

What more should Duke have done? Echoing an earlier complaint of Wahneema Lubiano, Barnett chastises Duke for not seeking out additional guidance from “feminist scholars on its faculty or staff.” Of course.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

August Events in the Case

I know that a good number of people drop in only from time to time to check up on events in the case: here is a summary of what occurred in August.

Attorneys for the unindicted players filed responses to Duke; Duke Hospital; and various Durham figures.

Group of 88 stalwart Houston Baker, now at Vanderbilt, is running a faculty seminar . . . on "Evidence-Based Teaching." This is the same Houston Baker who demanded in March 2006 that Duke immediately expel all the lacrosse players, based on the "evidence" of two days' press coverage; and who speculated, without citing any evidence, in June 2006 that other lacrosse players had committed other, unpunished rapes.

The true believers reappeared: Victoria Peterson circulated a "Justice for Nifong" survey; and Crystal Mangum announced publication of a memoir--in a press release riddled with spelling, grammar, and factual errors.

Duke lacrosse player Zack Greer transferred to Bryant, where he will play for Coach Mike Pressler.

Duke continues to refuse to confer about discovery matters.

More questions emerged about the role in the case played by former City Manager and current City Attorney Patrick Baker.

And Kristin Butler is back with a weekly column for the Chronicle. President Brodhead refused an interview request from her, on the grounds that such an interview was not "in the University's interest."

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Cooper Response: Durham Filings

Chuck Cooper, joined by Durham attorney Bill Thomas, also filed briefs opposing the motions to dismiss of Durham and various Durham employees (including ex-DA investigator Linwood Wilson). A summary is below.

The Thomas/Cooper brief regarding Durham’s motion to dismiss opens by commenting on the intriguing tendency of each party to concede that wrongdoing occurred but to blame someone else for it. Citing a 1980 case (Murray), which held that “the defendants should not be permitted to ‘get off the hook’ by merely pointing the finger at each other,” the Cooper brief recapitulates the blame game of Duke and Durham defendants. “Durham Police officer Himan points at Nifong, as does the City of Durham. Durham Police officers Gottlieb and Addison point their fingers at Duke University and Nurse Levicy. The Duke SANE Defendants point at the Durham police and Nifong. All of this finger pointing indicates that this case is not suited for resolution on a . . . motion to dismiss.”

Some of the points echoed the briefs filed in response to Duke. For instance, Durham, like Duke, preposterously claimed that the March 23, 2006 non-testimonial order would have occurred even absent Tara Levicy’s false and misleading statements.

After observing that Durham defended “the NTO with the remarkable assertion that the standard for issuing an NTO satisfied the Fourth Amendment under the circumstances,” even as Durham didn’t “even try to argue that the NTO was supported by probable cause to believe that Plaintiffs had committed the alleged crime,” the Thomas/Cooper brief uses Mike Nifong’s words to undermine the Durham position:

“When Nifong took over the investigation a few days after the NTO was issued, Gottlieb and Himan briefed him on this overwhelming mass of exculpatory evidence— precisely the same evidence that was in their possession when they applied for the NTO. Nifong’s assessment was an angry complaint: ‘You know, we’re f*cked!’ When a prosecutor as cavalier about the truth as Mike Nifong concludes that you have no probable cause that a crime was committed, you know you are in trouble. The Durham Investigators had no probable cause to believe that there had been a crime and therefore the first element of the NTO test was not met.”

Durham, like Duke, also defended the propriety of Duke handing over FERPA-protected student keycard information to Durham, and then neither Duke nor Durham attorneys admitting this transaction to the court when Nifong (unsuccessfully) subpoenaed the keycard information in summer 2006.

Cooper and Thomas describe the behavior thusly: “When they scripted and performed their subpoena charade for Judge Titus and Plaintiffs, Nifong and his team plainly knew that they already had the data. And the Duke Defendants (having improperly given the data to Durham) also knew it. Yet both groups of Defendants acted their part to mislead the lacrosse players and Judge Titus, each side fully aware that if it failed to do so, or if the other side failed to do so, they would both be exposed.”

The response brief also, correctly, points out that “despite having already lost the debate about FERPA’s privacy guarantee in the North Carolina court before Judge Titus, Durham devotes a lot of energy to arguing that Plaintiffs could have no expectation of privacy in key-card information that had, by its very nature, already been transmitted to and shared with Duke.”

The Cooper/Thomas briefs are particularly effective at using the Durhamites’ words against them. Some examples:

Cooper and Thomas observe that the “stubborn insistence” of Durham supervisors (Patrick Baker, former Chief Chalmers, etc.) that the Police Department’s performance “amounts to nothing more than ‘negligently inflicted harm’ and ‘unwanted police questioning,’ and that there is nothing the least bit ‘shocking’ in government efforts to frame innocent people for non-existent crime is itself shocking.”

The lacrosse players’ attorneys take note that Durham’s response appeared to concede that ex-Sgt. Mark Gottlieb had a vendetta against Duke students—even though the city then bizarrely suggested that the vendetta applied only to minor crimes, not serious ones. Yet “if a policeman is willing to break the law and violate the Constitution to add a piddling alcohol bust to his list of collars of Duke students, who knows how far he would go to get credit for rape and kidnapping arrests in a case that is in the national spotlight?”

Responding to the city’s motion to dismiss, Cooper and Thomas note, “Durham contends that the allegations in the Complaint do not, as a matter of law, plead ‘extreme and outrageous conduct’ sufficient to make out claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The City insists that falsifying evidence, suborning perjury, tampering with witnesses, and inflaming racial animosity in order to prosecute innocent college students for a crime that never happened is not ‘extreme and outrageous conduct.’ Simply stating that proposition is enough to explode it.”

Responding to the Gottlieb brief, Cooper and Thomas assert that “Gottlieb contends that the Complaint fails to allege that he ‘engaged in the requisite extreme and outrageous conduct.’ This boils down to the frivolous proposition that conspiring to frame innocent students for a crime that never happened is not outrageous. Gottlieb’s arguments that he was just doing his job and that he believed in good faith that he had probable cause.”

On another front, the brief has little trouble disposing of Durham’s absurd allegation that because Nifong wasn’t supposed to be supervising the police investigation, the city shouldn’t be sued for the fact that he was, improperly, supervising the inquiry.

Finally, items from briefs filed by David Addison and Linwood Wilson generate especially sharp replies.

Cooper and Thomas observe that Addison “protests that he is given short shrift in the Complaint, being named (he says) in only one cause of action and mentioned (supposedly) in no more than five of 398 paragraphs. We are unsure where Addison is going with this argument, because he identifies no legal principle justifying dismissal of a given claim on grounds that more pages are devoted to pleading additional claims against other defendants.”

“Finally, in a truly stunning display of chutzpah, Addison actually seems to want some credit for the exoneration of Plaintiffs. He argues that the claims should be dismissed on policy grounds, for otherwise criminal miscreants would enjoy ‘constitutional immunity from being investigated for an alleged criminal act when it later develops that the charge was baseless. This should be particularly true in this case when the State recognized the charges had no merit and, not only dismissed the charges, but declared the charged individuals as being ‘innocent.’ The Plaintiffs were, of course, exonerated only when District Attorney Nifong and the Durham Police were removed from the case and replaced by the State’s Attorney General, Roy Cooper. General Cooper’s investigation, far from endorsing the work of Addison and his Durham police brethren, concluded that there was no evidence to justify their year-long witchhunt.”

And Cooper and Thomas make short shift of the Linwood Wilson brief, put together by none other than amateur attorney Linwood Wilson. They note that the brief prepared by L. Wilson, Esq. claimed for him absolute immunity as an employee of the DA’s office, citing Hoover v. Keith. Yet Hoover, as the Cooper brief points out, applied to an assistant district attorney, not a non-lawyer employee of the DA’s office who was conducting investigatory duties.

In his brief, they speculate, “Wilson may be confusing this case with another.”

---------

Finally, two points in the response to Duke that might have been overlooked given the (appropriate) attention received by former SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy’s dubious conduct.

1.) Levicy’s “diagnosis” was confirmed, publicly and inaccurately, by her supervisor, Theresa Arico.

2.) When the report of Duke Police Officer Christopher Day appeared (Day correctly reported overhearing Sgt. Shelton pass along Crystal Mangum’s wholly non-credible report of being raped by 20 people), Duke went out of its way to discredit Day’s document.

In the response to Duke, the unindicted players correctly pointed out that Duke possessed copious exculpatory information that it declined to make public. But it’s worth remembering that—in addition to Richard Brodhead’s guilt-presuming April 5, 2006 address—with the Arico statement and the handling of the Day report, Duke went out of its way publicly to make it seem as if a rape occurred.

Monday, September 01, 2008

Paperback Source Notes

Chapter One: (pp. 1-15)

p. 1:

Author interview with Devon Sherwood.

p. 2:

Devon Sherwood interview.

“Indeed, more than one sorority hired . . .” : “Only Race Matters: A Duke Woman Speaks,” Liestoppers, 25 Jan. 2007.

“Emulating the movie Old School”: USA Today, 25 Jan. 2005.

Tom Wolfe, I Am Charlotte Simmons (New York: Picador, 2005).

p. 3:

“All fighting to get rammed . . .”: http://dukeobsrvr.livejournal.com/2508.html, entry for 14 Feb. 2006.

“Men and women agree the double standard persists . . .”: Report of the Steering Committee for the Women’s Initiative at Duke University. In one of its most famous lines, the report claimed that women at Duke were pressured to obtain “effortless perfection.”

“Duke was best summarized by . . .”: author interview with Duke alumnus.

“In the order of the social universe . . .”: Peter Boyer, “Big Men on Campus: The Lacrosse Furor and Duke’s Divided Culture,” New Yorker, 4 Sept. 2006.

“They’re fun. And they’re hot.”: Janet Reitman, “Sex & Scandal at Duke,” Rolling Stone, 1 June 2006.

p. 4:

“ . . . an extreme amount of arrogance”: Chronicle, 17 April 2006.

“The lacrosse players didn’t become . . .”: author interview with Chris Kennedy.

“Credited with helping to transform Tailgate”: Chronicle, 17 April 2006.

“A student later recalled the tradition . . .”: author interview with 2006 Duke graduate.

p. 5:

“Brodhead was there . . .”: author interview with Dan Flannery.

“fraternities ‘bigger problem’ . . . ”: Sports Illustrated, 22 June 2006.

“We bond over athletics”: author interview with Seyward Darby.

“Sense of shame”: Peter Wood to dean of faculty, 2004, cited in Report of the Ad Hoc Lacrosse Review Committee.

p. 6:

“Most academics support racial and ethnic diversity”: see, for example, amicus briefs, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

“Deserving African American and other applicants . . .”: Herald-Sun, 15 Sept. 2006.

“The ‘culture’ of sports . . .”: Karla F.C. Holloway, “Coda: Bodies of Evidence,” Scholar & Feminist Online.

p. 7:

“Pressler put together a dossier . . .”: Mike Pressler interview, Dan Flannery interview.

“Number of student athletes on financial aid . . .”: Athletic Policy Manual of Duke University.

“Tendency to think of Duke . . .”: Chronicle, 13 Sept. 2002.

“Chosen to settle . . .”: Chronicle, 31 Oct. 2002.

“The humanities are dominated by far-left politics . . .”: “In the Land of Unintended Consequences, Part II,” Forty Questions, 9 Jan. 2007.

p. 8:

“Strutting lacrosse players are a distinctive and familiar breed . . .”: Newsweek, 1 May 2006.

“I watched kids I grew up with . . .”: Diamondback, 31 Jan. 2007.

“I received nothing but love . . .”: Devon Sherwood interview.

p. 9:

“This class of 2006 seniors . . .”: author interview with Sue Pressler.

“A more mixed but on balance . . .”: Report of the Ad Hoc Lacrosse Review Committee. When police finally spoke to the neighbors of 610 Buchanan—which didn’t happen until a year after the party—they told Ben Himan that the lacrosse players’ most grievous offense was an inability to park cars correctly(!); “The Linwood Wilson Deposition,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 9 July 2007.

p. 10:

“No choirboys”: Newsday, 9 April 2007.

“I remember seeing a guy . . .”: author interview with Duke alumnus.

“Data from Duke’s Judicial Office . . .”: “Putting that Duke Lacrosse Team party in Context,” Renew America, 14 March 2007.

“Herding to get everyone on the same page . . .”: Sue Pressler interview.

p. 11:

“Duke is loaded this year . . .”: Face-Off, 2006 edition.

“That was devastating . . .”: Sue Pressler interview.

“Evans ‘plays big’ . . .”: Devon Sherwood interview.

p. 12:

“Unusually mature, serious, thoughtful . . .”: author interview with Rob Bordley.

“Dave was always a joy to have on board . . .”: author interview with Bill Moulden.

“Sweet-tempered, shy, considerate kid . . .”: author interview with Yani Newton.

p. 13:

“Collin literally has no temper . . .”: author interview with Jess Harman.

“Collin’s deeply sensitive creativity”: author interview with Bradley Hammer.

p. 14:

Crapo—“If I had a son . . .”: New York Times, 16 July 2006.

Hayes to Reade Seligmann, 12 Dec. 2003.

p. 15:

“This kid can be a freight train . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“If I was having a bad day . . .”: Yani Newton interview.

“You know what I’m here to talk to you about . . .”: Devon Sherwood interview.

Chapter Two: An Ugly Scene: Duke Meets Durham (pp. 16-29)

p. 16:

“Now we look ahead . . .”: New York Times, 30 March 2006.

“Dan Flannery did an online search . . .”: North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Summary of Conclusions.

p. 18:

“Duke is a shining city on a hill . . .”: author interview with Joe Cheshire.

p. 19:

“Venerable group in Durham . . . ”: N&O, 18 Sept. 2005.

For background on Mangum, we used N&O, 13 April 2007; interviews with defense attorneys; and relevant documents from the discovery file. Our attempts to reach Mangum for an interview were unsuccessful.

p. 20:

“It was just constant . . .”: “Duke Hoax: Day 207,” Johnsville News, 11 Nov. 2006.

“We were able to track down . . .”: Liestoppers, discussion forum, 13 April 2007.

“We drive around . . .”: Jarriel Johnson statement to Durham Police, 6 April 2006.

p. 21:

“We were all playing Beirut . . .”: Flannery statement to police, 16 March 2006.

“Screaming at the top of their lungs . . .”: New York Times, 31 March 2006. For Trinity Park residents’ attitudes toward Duke students, see “Party Haters,” Matter, 2005.

p. 22:

“It seems to me . . .”: N&O, 17 May 2006.

“Nothing short of an . . .”: Chronicle, 1 May 2006.

pp. 23ff:

Our account of the party is taken from author interviews with several lacrosse players, including all three accused players; the police statements of the three captains, Kim Roberts, and Jason Bissey; the Summary of Conclusions offered by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office; material from the discovery file (including time-stamped photographs of the evening and cell-phone records); and Kim Roberts’ interview with Ed Bradley.

p. 27:

Dave Evans told police that Flannery had later returned $260 to him and he had handed $100 of it back to Flannery because he had paid extra (presumably when he slid money under the bathroom door). The remaining $160 was later found by police on a table. It is unclear how much money was taken from the bathroom and not entirely clear how much Flannery slid under the door.

Chapter Three: So Many Stories, So Few Injuries (pp. 30-35)

p. 30:

“I . . . push on her leg . . .”: “Good Morning America,” ABC, 30 Oct. 2006.

“Passed-out drunk”: Shelton report, discovery file. Because he remained skeptical of Mangum’s story/stories, Shelton would be subjected to an internal affairs inquiry by the DPD, coordinated by Nifong investigator Linwood Wilson.

“ . . . Roberts later admitted”: Kim Roberts, statement to police, 22 March 2006.

p. 31:

Shelton decided . . .”: North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Summary of Conclusions.

“While being interviewed at Duke . . .”: Sutton official report, discovery file.

“Some of the guys . . .”: Shelton official report, discovery file.

p. 32:

“She was claiming . . .”: Day official report, discovery file.

“Brett knew the deal . . .”: Jones official report, discovery file.

“Manly later said . . .”: Manly interview with Doug Kingsbery, 10 Oct. 2006.

p. 33:

“A strong feminist . . .”: “Understanding SANE: Tara Levicy,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 9 Jan. 2007.

“Edema, diffuse or otherwise . . .”: “Understanding SANE, V,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 17 Nov. 2006.

“Down there . . .”: SANE report, discovery file.

p. 34:

“Matt said I’m getting married . . .”: Levicy notes, SANE report, discovery file.

For Levicy’s changing stories, see “Levicy and Law Enforcement,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 3 May 2007; “Levicy and Linwood,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 4 May 2007.

p. 35:

“Due to the patient’s . . .”: UNC medical report, 15 March 2006, discovery file. This report was delivered to police, after a subpoena, in early April. When asked about it in his March 2007 deposition before the State Bar, Sgt. Gottlieb—astonishingly—stated, “This is not a report that I have had time to review.” “The Gottlieb Deposition,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 24 June 2007.

“I’m going to get paid . . .”: H.T. Thomas interview, 60 Minutes.

Chapter Four: Police: Building a Case without Evidence (pp. 36-49)

p. 36:

“They told the Chronicle . . .”: Chronicle, 11 Sept. 2006.

“Medical records and interviews . . .”: Ben Himan affidavit, 23 March 2006.

p. 37:

“One of the worst things that’s happened . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 15 June 2006.

“Coach Pressler got an urgent message . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“Flannery clearly recalls . . .”: Dan Flannery interview.

“That same night . . .”: Zash e-mail, discovery file. Evidence presented in Nifong's ethics trial revealed that the same team member--Matt Zash--also sent two racially offensive text messages on the evening of the party

“She seemed shaken . . .”: Ben Himan, handwritten and typed notes, discovery file.

p. 39:

“This is harder than I thought”: Michele Soucie notes, discovery file.

“Is this the person . . .”: The form, which Mangum and Clayton signed, was associated with General order 4077, the DPD’s procedure for photo lineups.

“Crystal’s father . . .”: Emery Delasio to Kammie Michael, 28 March 2006, e-mail, discovery file.

p. 40:

“Such evasions and violations . . .”: Fact Sheet, Death Penalty Information Center.

For background to the Gell case, see this N&O series.

For background to the Honeycutt case, see N&O, 25 Nov. 2005.

p. 42:

Crystal’s mother . . .”: Kristin Zook, “Accuser’s Mother Meets with Famed Attorney,” Essence.

The events of the search are taken from author interviews with Dave Evans and Dan Flannery.

p. 44:

“The case should have ended . . .”: William L. Anderson, “Duke and Durham, the Cover-Up Continues,” lewrockewell.com, 16 Feb. 2007.

“Kennedy said that the captains . . .”: author interviews with Chris Kennedy, Dave Evans, and Dan Flannery.

p. 45:

“When he called his father . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“Upon Dean Wasiolek’s recommendation . . .”: Chris Kennedy interview. Due to an editing error, the hardcover text erroneously asserted that Dean Sue Wasiolek had once worked for Wes Covington.

“Evans, Flannery, and Zash . . .”: Dave Evans interview, Dan Flannery interviews.

“Wasiolek used the same phrase . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“Evans’ parents reached . . .”: author interview, David and Rae Evans.

p. 46:

“None of those who . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“After the game . . .”: Dave, Rae, and David Evans interviews; author interviews, Bruce Thompson, Everett Flannery.

“The way to go . . .”: Bruce Thompson interview.

“She stated that . . .”: Himan typewritten notes.

“He gave Pressler the impression . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

p. 47:

“Now, she gave Gottlieb the records she had created . . .”: “Supplemental Case Notes of Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb,” discovery file.

“Levicy would later state . . .”: Levicy interview with Doug Kingsbery, 15 Nov. 2006.

“Defense attorney Doug Kingsbery later speculated . . .”: author interview with Doug Kingsbery.

p. 48:

Covington also warned . . .”: David and Rae Evans interviews; Thompson interview.

“I knew it in my heart when I finished . . .”: author interview with Bill Thomas.

“Larry Lamade, whose son, Peter . . .”: author interview with Larry Lamade.

“We were awful . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

p. 49:

“If you have faith in the system . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“That night at 10:50 . . .”: Larry Lamade interview.

“A few hours later, at 1:30 A.M. . . .”: author interview, Ben and Tricia Dowd.

Chapter Five: Cops Ignite Firestorm, Duke Runs for Cover (pp. 50-76)

p. 50:

“On March 20, when Dan Flannery . . .”: author interviews, Bob Ekstrand, Stefanie Sparks; Dan Flannery interview.

p. 51:

“After Danny left, Stef asked Bob . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview, Stefanie Sparks interview.

“The danger was compounded . . .”: In his 2007 deposition before the State Bar, Gottlieb admitted that, despite his promise to Covington, the DPD intended to “see if they [the players] would allow DNA. See if they would allow photographs, et cetera.” “The Gottlieb Deposition,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 24 June 2007.

p. 52:

The material on this page comes from the Bob Ekstrand and Stefanie Sparks interviews.

p. 53:

“Gottlieb’s crackdown on Dukies . . .”; N&O, 9 Sept. 2006.

“It was to appease neighbors . . .”: Herald-Sun, 12 Sept. 2006.

“ . . . reign of terror”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

p. 54:

“Even in this atmosphere”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

“Gottlieb’s behavior in this incident . . .”: Chronicle, 11 Sept. 2006.

“In my judgment . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

p. 55:

“Larry Lamade arrived . . .”: Larry Lamade interview.

“Tricia Dowd, who had taken . . .”: Tricia Dowd interview.

“It was not fear of the evidence . . .”: Larry Lamade interview.

p. 56:

“Pressler felt caught in the middle . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

Covington acknowledged to Lamade . . .”: Larry Lamade interview. Covington did not respond to a request for an interview from Stuart Taylor.

“On the way out, Dowd . . .”: Tricia Dowd interview.

“Within hours, Himan went to . . .”: Ben Himan testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, 16 June 2007.

p. 57:

“Himan also conducted . . .”: Kim Roberts, statement to police, 22 March 2006, discovery file.

“Durham defense attorney Alex Charns . . .”: N&O, 24 March 2006.

p. 59:

“What the hell is a non-testimonial order . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview, Larry Lamade interview.

“Ekstrand thought the order . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

“As for Pressler . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“Dave pulled Covington aside . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

p. 60:

“Kyle Dowd called his mother . . .”: Tricia Dowd interview.

“Tony McDevitt told himself . . .”: Chronicle, 19 July 2006.

“The coach took Devon aside . . .”: Devon Sherwood interview, Mike Pressler interview.

“Stef Sparks intercepted some of the players . . .”: Stefanie Sparks interview.

“A Duke official later said . . .”: author interview, Duke official.

“Inside the crime lab . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

p. 61:

“Lacrosse player John Walsh recalled . . .”: Chronicle, 19 July 2006.

“The first sign of how big a deal . . .”: N&O, 24 March 2006. Our wording of the sentence discussing this article could be misinterpreted. We did not mean to suggest that the N&O story had portrayed the event in a sinister light because of reporters' bias or improper journalism; instead, we wanted to make the point that an accurate portrayal of the "perp walk" was sinister. The clause should not be in any way construed as casting doubt on the quality of the article.

“Ekstrand thought that hiding . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

p. 62:

“Meanwhile, when Sue Pressler told . . .”: Sue Pressler interview.

“While silent in public . . .”: Dave Evans interview, Dan Flannery interview, Mike Pressler interview. Chris Kennedy remembers Trask speaking not of a “faculty-student privilege” but of protected records under FERPA.

“But the captains were still reluctant . . .”: Dave Evans interview, Dan Flannery interview, Mike Pressler interview; Chris Kennedy interview.

p. 63:

“On his way out, Flannery shook . . .”: Dan Flannery interview.

“Paul Haagen, chairman of Duke’s Academic Council . . .”: N&O, 24 March 2006.

“Also on March 24 . . .”: “Supplemental Case Notes of Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb,” discovery file. For the DPD chain of command, see this DPD flow chart.

“Brutal rape . . . occurred”: ABC, 26 March 2006.

Really, really strong physical evidence”: Herald-Sun, 26 March 2006.

p. 64:

“All of the players had ‘denied participation . . .’”: Herald-Sun, 25 March 2006.

“The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting . . .”: N&O, 11 April 2006.

“When I saw Addison quoted . . .”: author interview with John Burness.

“Every day there was some new thing . . .”: Burness interview.

p. 65:

“The N&O’s five-column . . .”: N&O, 25 March 2006.

“The article concluded . . .”: author e-mail with Paul Haagen.

p. 66:

“Williams later justified the omission . . .”: “Headline Saturday,” Editors’ Blog, 22 Dec. 2006.

“A Duke professor name Faulkner Fox . . .”: “From the ‘Wall of Silence’ to Community Uproar to a National Story,” Liestoppers, 13 Nov. 2006.

p. 67:

“Alleva appeared without warning . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“Many of the senior parents . . .”: Tricia Dowd interview.

“As the women’s lacrosse team returned . . .”: author interview with Kerstin Kimel. Khanna subsequently denied intruding on Kimel's meeting; Kimel stands by her recollection.

p. 68-69:

Our account of the March 25, 2006 meeting comes from interviews with David and Rae Evans, Stefanie Sparks, Bob Ekstrand, Ben and Tricia Dowd, Phil and Kathy Seligmann, Bruce Thompson, Larry Lamade, Mike Pressler, and Steve Henkelman. Larry Moneta did not respond to a request from us for comment; Sue Wasiolek said that she would defer any comment to John Burness.

p. 70:

“Physical coercion . . .”: “Statement by President Richard H. Brodhead on Duke Men’s Lacrosse Team,” 25 March 2006.

“That was the day . . .”: lacrosse parent e-mail, copy in authors’ possession.

“Horrible feeling . . .”: Tricia Dowd interview.

p. 72:

“I and President Brodhead were somewhat alone . . .”: John Burness interview.

Burness—“players had been in contact with the police”: “Rape Controversy Tarnishes Duke Campus,” Scarborough Country, MSNBC, 29 March 2006.

“The best gauge of what did not happen here . . .”: author interview with Kevin Finnerty.

“That same evening . . .”: “From the ‘Wall of Silence’ to Community Uproar to a National Story,” Liestoppers, 13 Nov. 2006.

p. 73:

“The protesters moved on to a nearby residence . . .”: author interview with William Wolcott.

“Another protest . . .”: “From the ‘Wall of Silence’ to Community Uproar to a National Story,” Liestoppers, 13 Nov. 2006.

“I’m not sure I understand the ‘innocent until proven guilty . . .’”: “When the Potbangers Were Riding High,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 14 Feb. 2007.

“There is a sense that Duke students need to be protected from Durham . . .”: CSTV, U-Wire, 27 March 2006.

p. 74:

“At the time, these and other protests . . .”: “From the ‘Wall of Silence’ to Community Uproar to a National Story,” Liestoppers, 13 Nov. 2006.

“Tell them to confess their sins first”: author interview with Bob Wellington.

Sherwood—“I was like, whoa . . .”: ABC, “Good Morning America,” 31 Oct. 2006.

“You know what happened that night . . .”: author interview with Bo Carrington.

p. 75:

“Samantha, what do you want from me?”: author interview with Samantha Ekstrand.

“Bell complained publicly . . .”: N&O, 28 March 2006.

“We wanted desperately to be able to . . .”: author interview with Adam Chandler.

“We know you know . . .”: N&O, 27 March 2006. After the case collapsed, Sheehan issued an unequivocal apology for this column: N&O, 23 April 2007.

Chapter Six: The Most Dangerous Power: Enter Nifong (pp. 77-89)

p. 77:

“The prosecutor has more control over life . . .”: Robert Jackson, “The Federal Prosecutor,” 1 April 1940.

“Not to win a case, but that justice shall be done . . .”: Berger v. United States 295 U.S. 78 (1935).

North Carolina’s Rules of Professional Conduct are available at this website.

p. 78:

“I have . . .”: “mikenifong.com,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 27 July 2006. The Nifong campaign website was taken down after the election, and no listing for it exists at the Internet Archive.

p. 79:

“Nifong spent a lot of time . . .”: author interview with Patsy McDonald.

“Nifong wanted to be a prosecutor . . .”: N&O, 1 Oct. 2006.

“Poultry . . . It was about winning . . .”: N&O, 1 Oct. 2006.

p. 80:

“The first, in 1989, involved a 21-year-old . . .”: “Another Durham ‘Gang Rape’,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 18 Dec. 2006.

“Results of DNA testing exclude the defendant . . .”: “Nifong: DNA ‘Excludes’ (Except When It Doesn’t,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 21 Dec. 2006.

p. 81:

“Publicly funded ‘semi-retirement’ . . .”: Peter Boyer, “Big Men on Campus: The Lacrosse Furor and Duke’s Divided Culture,” New Yorker, 4 Sept. 2006.

“Working with Mike, you never knew . . .”: N&O, 1 Oct. 2006.

“I’m the chief asshole . . .”: Don Yaeger, with Mike Pressler, It’s Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case and the Lives It Shattered (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2007), p. 46.

“In return, Nifong promised Easley . . .”: N&O, 3 Feb. 2007.

“I’ve known Mike Nifong for twenty-seven years . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

“Kind of cocky . . .”: N&O, 1 Oct. 2006.

p. 82:

“He told associates . . .”: author interview with Jackie Brown.

“To enjoy a full four-year term . . .”: These statistics come from the Durham County Board of Elections site.

“Between January 1 and February 19 . . .”: These statistics come from the North Carolina State Board of Elections site.

p. 83:

“You have to remember when there’s a murder . . .”: Durham News, 30 Dec. 2006. A correction to the text: this audience was majority black, but not all-black.

“His wife tended to focus on peripheral . . .”: Jackie Brown interview.

p. 84:

“Nifong was ‘probably sold a bill of goods . . .’”: Bill Thomas interview.

p. 85:

“Talks about what this community stands for . . .”: For a full listing of Nifong’s early statements, with references, see this site.

“At a March 27 meeting . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

“I wanted to give them the confidence . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

p. 86:

“Brodhead would later explain . . .”: Stuart Taylor, Jr. interview with Richard Brodhead.

“What was the basis for . . .”: In his 2007 deposition to the State Bar, Nifong stated that during his time speaking out about the case, “I wasn’t really involved in reviewing written documents.” Indeed, Nifong confessed that he never read the report of Sgt. Shelton, the first officer to come into contact with Crystal Mangum. “The Nifong Deposition, Part I,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 26 June 2007.

“He told Dan Abrams . . .”: “The Abrams Report,” MSNBC, 28 March 2006.

p. 87:

For direct links to these quotes, see this site.

p. 88:

“When police officers arrived . . .”: Herald-Sun, 28 March 2006.

“There was something very strange . . .”: Adam Chandler interview.

p. 89:

“The caller was not the woman . . .”: Kammie Michael to Brianne Dopart, 28 March 2006, e-mail in discovery file.

“If a prosecutor gets up . . .”: author interview with Peter Lange.

“In the early days of this story . . .”: Richard Brodhead interview.

“You know, we’re fucked”: Ben Himan testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, North Carolina Disciplinary Hearing Committee, 16 June 2006.

Chapter Seven: The Defense Fights Back (pp. 90-102)

p. 90:

“He was just talking to us . . .”: Rae Evans interview.

“Joe is simply the best leader . . .”: author interview with Jim Cooney.

p. 91:

“During the second Alan Gell murder trial . . .”: Jim Cooney interview.

“I built my career . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“His basic message was . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

p. 92:

“Brodhead, sweeping his hand around the room . . .”: Bob Ekstrand, Dave Evans, and Dan Flannery interviews.

“The main thing I told the students . . .”: Richard Brodhead interview.

“Ekstrand felt . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

“Dan Flannery, also holding his tongue . . .”: Dan Flannery interview.

Absolutely nothing happened . . .”: Bob Ekstrand, Dave Evans, and Dan Flannery interviews.

p. 93:

“In an interview months later . . .”: Richard Brodhead interview.

“Sincere regret over the lapse in judgment . . .”: “Statements from Captains of Duke University Men’s Lacrosse Team,” press release, 28 March 2006.

“Sports have their time and place . . .”: “Brodhead: ‘It Is Not the Time To Be Playing Games,’” press release, 28 March 2006.

p. 94:

“As Bob Steel later said . . .”: Peter Boyer, “Big Men on Campus: The Lacrosse Furor and Duke’s Divided Culture,” New Yorker, 4 Sept. 2006.

“Wholly inappropriate to the values . . .”: “Brodhead: ‘It Is Not the Time To Be Playing Games,’” press release, 28 March 2006.

“The Herald-Sun editorial page . . .”: Herald-Sun, 28 March 2006.

“Well before the end of the interview . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

p. 95:

“I raised Dave Evans twice in my family . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“Brad Bannon was a harder sell . . .” : author interview with Brad Bannon.

p. 96:

“Racism and its hateful language . . .”: “Statement by President Richard H. Brodhead on 911 Tape,” 29 March 2006.

“On March 29, the district attorney proclaimed . . .”: For direct links to these quotes, see this site.

“But that afternoon . . .”: Jennifer Leyn testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, North Carolina Disciplinary Hearing Committee, 17 June 2006.

p. 97:

“The odds are tiny to zero . . .”: N&O, 24 Dec. 2006.

“The DNA results will demonstrate . . .”: Herald-Sun, 29 March 2006.

“How does DNA exonerate you? . . .”: N&O, 30 March 2006.

“I would not be surprised . . .”: New York Times, 31 March 2006.

“We were just stunned . . .”: Brad Bannon interview.

“The victim was examined . . .”: “The Early Show,” CBS, 30 March 2006.

“Cheshire and Bannon decided . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview, Brad Bannon interview.

“He has basically announced . . .”: Cheshire and Bannon to State Bar Grievance Committee, 30 March 2006, copy in authors’ possession.

p. 98:

“I came to the decision . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“The playbook was thrown out the window . . .”: Brad Bannon interview.

“We believe that the DNA will show . . .”: AP, 30 March 2006.

“Each and every one of those young men . . .”: Chicago Sun-Times, 31 March 2006.

“When you see lawyers this experienced . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

p. 99:

“I’ve never been in a case . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

“His response to Brown’s concern . . .”: Jackie Brown interview.

“In 33 years . . .”: Joe Cheshire to Mike Nifong, 31 March 2006, copy in authors’ possession.

p. 100:

“Nifong had never had anybody . . .”: Brad Bannon interview.

“The next day came three . . .”: For direct links to these quotes, see this site.

“Section 3.8 of the North Carolina Code . . .”: North Carolina’s Rules of Professional Conduct are available at this website.

p. 101:

“Simeon later invited Nifong to speak . . .”: Newsweek, 1 May 2006.

“I will be there . . .”: Newsweek, 1 May 2006.

“In the second ballot . . .”: Jackie Brown interview.

“I think that Nifong pandered to the black community . . .”: “60 Minutes,” CBS, 15 Oct. 2006.

p. 102:

“Lose the plaid shirts . . .”: Newsweek, 1 May 2006.

Chapter Eight: Academic McCarthyism (pp. 103-117)

p. 103:

“I chose Duke to be my home . . .”: “60 Minutes,” CBS, 15 Oct. 2006.

“Is this going to be a team of rich white men . . .”: New York Times, 31 March 2006.

“The university is cultivating and sustaining . . .”: “Brodhead Calls on Students to Learn from Lacrosse Controversy,” 29 March 2006.

“If you were at a university . . .”: “Brodhead Calls on Students to Learn from Lacrosse Controversy,” 29 March 2006.

p. 104:

“I completely support this event . . .”: Chronicle, 30 March 2006.

“I’m so outraged by how heinous the crime . . .”: espn.com, 31 March 2006.

“The day those [wanted posters] appeared . . .”: author interview with Michael Catalino.

“I don’t think I’ll ever forget it . . .”: author interview with Tony McDevitt.

“It was scary . . .”: author interview with Bo Carrington.

“McFadyen tried to laugh it off . . .”: author interview with Ryan McFadyen.

“It felt like we were betrayed by the students . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview.

“People on the team had the real story . . .”: Bo Carrington interview.

“The faculty were a hell of a lot worse than the students . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

p. 105:

“More comical than consequential . . .”: N&O, 29 Dec. 2006.

“I think people just go about their business . . .”: author interview with John Burness.

“It took less than twenty-four hours . . .”: Chronicle, 25 Oct. 2006.

p. 106:

“This white male athletic team . . .”: Houston Baker, “Awaiting the Restoration of Confidence: A Letter to the Duke Administration,” 29 March 2006.

“Baker provided a window . . .”: Houston Baker e-mails, in possession of authors.

p. 107:

“The chair of Vanderbilt’s English Department . . .”: Vanderbilt University press release, 25 May 2006.

“A veritable omnium gatherum . . .”: Terry Teachout, “Houston Baker, Jr.: Another Sun Person Heard From,” New Criterion, Sept. 1993.

“Many Duke students . . .”: Adam Chandler interview.

“Giving priority to unnecessary athletic commitments . . .”: Herald-Sun, 2 April 2006.

p. 108:

“Lacrosse players on campus . . .”: New York Times, 31 March 2006.

“White slave masters . . .”: William Chafe, “Sex and Race,” Chronicle, 31 March 2006.

p. 109:

“Chapter Six of the Duke . . .”: Duke Faculty Handbook.

“Sam Veraldi . . .”: Dan Flannery interview, William Wolcott interview.

“Rhonda Sharpe . . .”: Dave Evans interview, Tony McDevitt interview, author interview with Kyle Dowd.

“History professor Thomas Robisheaux . . .”: Dan Flannery interview, Bo Carrington interview.

p. 110:

“One was Reeve Huston . . .”: Ryan McFadyen interview, author interview with Jay Jennison.

“Down the hall from Huston’s class . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview.

p. 111:

“Deutsch subsequently asserted . . .”: Sally Deutsch to KC Johnson, e-mail, 12 March 2007.

“Yet another History professor, John Thompson . . .”: John Thompson to Collin Finnerty and Dan Loftus, 27 March 2006, copy in authors’ possession.

“Well-off white women . . .”: Elizabeth Chin, “Out of Their Worlds,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 May 2006.

p. 112:

“Lubiano later said . . .”: Thomas Bartlett and Sara Lipka, “One Ad, 88 Professors, and No Apologies,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 Feb. 2007.

“I have a responsibility to all of my students . . .”: Herald-Sun, 14 Dec. 2003.

“Model for being engaged . . .”: “Edward Said Set Intellectual Example, Duke Professor Says,” Duke press release, 26 Sept. 2003.

p. 113:

“Houston Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy . . .”: Grant Farred, Phantom Calls: Race and Globalization in the NBA (Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2006), pp. 48.

p. 114:

“In a 2007 essay . . .”: Richard Bertrand Spencer, “Rotten in Durham,” American Conservative, 26 Feb. 2007.

“Post-structuralist-teacher-critic-leftist . . .”: Wahneema Lubiano, “To Take Dancing Seriously Is to Redo Politics,” zmag.org.

“The Black Cultural Studies webpage . . .”: http://www.blackculturalstudies.org/lubiano/forthcoming.html.

“Lubiano’s official Duke University . . .”: http://web.archive.org/web/20041121062306/http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/Literature/faculty/wah/cv.html.

p. 115:

“Western rationality’s hegemony . . .”: Wahneema Lubiano, “To Take Dancing Seriously Is to Redo Politics,” zmag.org.

“Mercy of racist, sexist . . .”: Wahneema Lubiano, “The Postmodernist Rag: Political Identity and the Vernacular in Song of Solomon,” New Essays on Song of Solomon, Valerie Smith, ed., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

“Many whites . . .”: Wahneema Lubiano, “To Take Dancing Seriously Is to Redo Politics,” zmag.org.

Heather MacDonald, “Underdog & pony show: The Left convenes at Hunter College,” New Criterion, June 1992.

“Sabotage has to be the order of the day . . .”: Wahneema Lubiano, “Class Issues.”

“Whether I’m thinking, teaching, or engaging . . .”: Wahneema Lubiano, “To Take Dancing Seriously Is to Redo Politics,” zmag.org.

p. 116:

“One example was . . .”: Chronicle, 10 March 2006.

“The interesting thing about the United States . . .”: Jack Langer, “Durham, We Have a Problem,” New Sense Magazine, 8 March 2004.

“If, as John Stuart Mill said, . . .”: “Playing Dumb About Intellectual Diversity,” Critical Mass, 10 Feb. 2004.

p. 117:

“The biggest surprise for us . . .”: Ed Bradley interview, WRAL, 13 Oct. 2006.

“The haste and vehemence with which scores of Duke professors . . .”: Thomas Sowell, “A Deep Moral Rot,” National Review, 30 Jan. 2007.

“Asked why, in an interview . . .”: Richard Brodhead interview.

Chapter Nine: Politically Correct Sensationalism (pp. 118-128)

p. 118:

“The flier being distributed . . .”: USA Today, 30 March 2006. A copy of the “wanted” poster is in the book’s photo section.

p. 119:

“The lacrosse players are giving a whole new definition . . .”: USA Today, 30 March 2006.

“An awful performance, an embarrassing time . . .”: “Reliable Sources,” CNN, 21 Jan. 2007.

“We know you had this party . . .”: “John Feinstein, and the Unbearable Lightness of America’s Sportswriters,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 5 June 2007. Readers can listen to the audio clip of Feinstein at DIW.

p. 120:

“Bruce Thompson, and his attorney . . .”: Bruce Thompson interview.

“Having problems with the editors . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

“Screaming at the top of their lungs . . .”: New York Times, 31 March 2006.

p. 121:

“Bonded in Barbarity . . .”: New York Times, 31 March 2006.

“The media has scooped up this case . . .”: Ben Himan e-mail, 31 March 2006, copy in discovery file.

“Despite the passionate commitment . . .”: “Selena on Diversity,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 27 March 2007.

p. 122:

“Turning the paper into a laughingstock . . .”: Jack Shafer, “The Fishy Memoir of Howell Raines, Press Critic,” Slate, 18 May 2006.

New York magazine media critic Kurt Andersen . . .”: Kurt Andersen, “Rape, Justice, and the Times,” New York, 10 Oct. 2006.

“Morality play . . .”: Charlotte Allen, “Duke’s Tenured Vigilantes,” Weekly Standard, 29 Jan. 2007.

p. 123:

“The authorities were leading the lynch mob . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“Stoked the image of the lacrosse team . . .”: U.S. News & World Report, 6 Aug. 2006.

“What was coming to our door . . .”: Sue Pressler interview.

p. 124:

“There’s really no good reason why . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 31 March 2006.

p. 125:

“Guaranteed front-page coverage . . .”: Chronicle, 3 April 2006.

“When this case first made national news . . .”: N&O, 31 Oct. 2006.

“Imagine if the woman were white . . .”: “Race, Rape, and the American Media,” Modern Tribalist, 15 May 2006.

“If the tables had been turned . . .”: Independent, 2 May 2006.

“If it was a Duke student . . .”: cbsnews.com, 6 April 2006.

For a summary of the other cases, see “Facile Assumptions,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 31 Jan. 2007.

Chapter Ten: Richard Brodhead’s Test of Courage (pp. 129-151)

p. 129:

“From our point of view . . .”: “60 Minutes,” CBS, 15 Oct. 2006.

“It was like he’d never been . . .”: author interview with Duke alumnus.

For background on Steel and Brodhead’s arrival at Duke, see Peter Boyer, “Big Men on Campus: The Lacrosse Furor and Duke’s Divided Culture,” New Yorker, 4 Sept. 2006.

p. 130:

“We don’t see it as very useful . . .”: “Duke Activists Promote Israel,” hillel.org.

“At its core, this decision . . .”: Duke press release, no date.

p. 131:

“Being a university president . . .”: Richard Brodhead interview.

“We had to worry things might blow . . .”: author interview with senior Duke official.

For Brodhead and the 2003/2005 incidents, see “Sounds of (Selective) Silence,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 11 Sept. 2006.

p. 132:

“In early April, a lacrosse team parent called . . .”: author interview with lacrosse parent.

“Burness, asked by one of the authors to respond . . .”: John Burness e-mail to Stuart Taylor, copy in authors’ possession.

p. 133:

“Duke effectively gave Nifong . . .”: Bruce Thompson interview.

“The university, I believe, has done pretty much everything they can . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 31 March 2006.

“Defense lawyers representing members . . .”: N&O, 30 March 2006.

“You had a district attorney coming out . . .”: “Abrams Report,” MSNBC, 19 April 2006.

p. 134:

“Ekstrand’s notes for a meeting . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview.

“While Brodhead shunned any and all . . .”: Herald-Sun, 30 March 2006, 31 March 2006.

Richard Bernstein, The Dictatorship of Virtue: How the Battle over Multiculturalism Is Reshaping Our Schools, Our Country, and Our Lives (New York: Vintage, 1995), p. 110.

pp. 134-135:

Our accounts of this faculty meeting come from interviews with Stephen Baldwin and another professor who attended, who passed along his contemporaneous notes of the meeting.

“Initiating a pattern . . .”: Chronicle, 30 March 2006.

p. 136:

“WHAT IF JANET LYNN WERE NEXT?”: Chauncey Nartey to Mike Pressler, e-mail, copy in authors’ possession.

“You need to investigate . . .”: Chronicle, 30 March 2006.

“Young black men approached the Dukies’ car . . .”: Chronicle, 3 April 2006.

p. 137:

“Threats of ‘drive-by shooting’ . . .”: Chronicle, 31 March 2006.

“Raising the temperature . . .”: Kim Curtis posting to Durham Responds Yahoo! Group, 1 April 2006, copy in authors’ possession.

“Disappointed, saddened, and appalled . . .”: Peter Lange to Houston Baker, “Provost Responds to Faculty Letter Regarding Lacrosse,” 3 April 2006.

“The day begin inauspiciously . . .”: New York Times, 5 March 2006.

p. 138:

“Day of hysteria . . .”: Sue Pressler interview.

“They released Ryan’s e-mail . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

p. 139:

“Sickening and repulsive . . .”: Richard Brodhead, “A Letter to the Community from President Brodhead,” 5 April 2006.

p. 140:

“Stacking the CCI with critics . . .”: Chronicle, 19 Jan. 2007.

“This episode has touched off angers . . .”: Richard Brodhead, “A Letter to the Community from President Brodhead,” 5 April 2006.

p. 141:

“You wonder why they . . .”: Bruce Thompson interview.

“Pressler jotted down later . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

p. 142:

“Guys, our darkest hour has come . . .”: Mike Pressler interview; interviews with multiple lacrosse players.

p. 143:

“If I had a son . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“Outside, the media . . .”: Tricia Dowd interview.

“When Pressler got home . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“Urinated on people’s houses . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 5 April 2006.

p. 144:

“I don’t understand how somebody . . .”: “Rita Cosby Live & Direct,” MSNBC, 5 April 2006.

“I was entitled to do this . . .”: “Scarborough Country,” MSNBC, 5 April 2006.

“When the last friend had left . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“None of the departments officially voted . . .”: “The Group of 88: Non-Endorsement ‘Endorsements,’” Durham-in-Wonderland, 25 May 2007.

p. 145:

“Asking, “What does . . .’”: A copy of this document is in the photo section.

“Lubiano gave colleagues a deadline . . .”: Thomas Bartlett and Sara Lipka, “One Ad, 88 Professors, and No Apologies,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 Feb. 2007; Ronald Butters to English Department faculty, e-mail, copy in authors’ possession.

“The Duke administration is getting the point . . .”: Wahneema Lubiano, “Perfect Offenders, Perfect Victim: The Limitations of Spectacularity in the Aftermath of the Lacrosse Team Incident,” New Black Man, 13 April 2006.

p. 146:

“This absurd ad . . .”: Chronicle, 12 April 2006.

“This is but one example of the instances . . .”: Chronicle, 13 April 2006.

“We have removed any safeguards . . .”: “O miseri mortali, aprite gli occhi,” Blog of Convenience, 15 Dec. 2006.

“Who comprised the Group . . .”: “Sunday Review,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 26 Nov. 2006.

p. 147:

“The social status of the lacrosse players . . .”: William L. Anderson, “Duke and the Death of Academe,” lewrockwell.com, 14 Oct. 2006.

“Argues that unless we attempt . . .”: Antonio Viego website, Duke University.

“Not merely military mobilization . . .”: “Miriam Cooke: Crusade! I Mean Democracy! You Know: Women!,” Duke press release, 3 April 2003.

“Urban-based gay male, lesbian, and mixed-gender sexually radical communities (such as leather and/or S/M groups) . . .”: Kathy Rudy, “Sex Radical Communities and the Future of Sexual Ethics,” Journal of Lesbian Studies 3 (1999).

p. 148:

“Critiquing animal rights . . .”: Kathy Rudy website, Duke University.

“Brodhead and Alleva told . . .”: author interview with Kerstin Kimel.

“I absolutely know . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“Rumors . . .”: Chronicle, 19 July 2006.

“It doesn’t seem right or fair to me . . .”: Kerstin Kimel interview.

p. 149:

“Weak gesture . . .”: Bo Carrington interview.

“Several pairs of siblings . . .”: Kerstin Kimel interview.

“It was good to keep . . .”: Bo Carrington interview.

“We couldn’t talk to anyone else . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview.

“Evaluate and suggest improvements . . .”: Richard Brodhead, “A Letter to the Community from President Brodhead,” 5 April 2006.

p. 150:

“Do we need legal counsel here . . .”: Mike Pressler interview.

“At the risk of arousing the wrath . . .”: Chronicle, 17 April 2006.

“Duke University abandoned these three . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

p. 151:

“The ‘Group of 88’ Duke professors . . .”: Michael Barone, “Of Victims and Virtues,” Real Clear Politics, 16 April 2007.

Chapter Eleven: Politics Trumps Law (pp. 152-172)

p. 154:

“On March 31 . . .”: Ben Himan testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, 16 June 2007; “Supplemental Case Notes of Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb,” discovery file.

p. 156:

“Memory doesn’t get better with time . . .”: N&O, 8 Oct. 2006.

“The planned lineup also deviated . . .”: “North Carolina Norms,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 13 July 2006.

pp. 157-8:

The transcript of the lineup is contained in “Supplemental Case Notes of Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb,” discovery file.

p. 158:

“At the same time . . .”: In his 2007 deposition to the State Bar, here was how Dr. Meehan described the manner in which his lab was hired to conduct DNA tests in the highest-profile criminal case in North Carolina history: “There was phone calls being made between the detective and Nifong to determine if they would want us to do the work and if the price was right and dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, back and forth.” “The Meehan Deposition,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 29 June 2007.

“Mike Nifong stated . . .”: Michele Soucie notes, discovery file.

p. 159:

“Meanwhile, also on April 4 . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

“The next day, April 5 . . .”: Michele Soucie notes, discovery file.

“Police did interview . . .”: Jarriel Johnson police statement, discovery file.

“It was also on April 6 . . .”: Crystal Mangum police statement, discovery file.

p. 161:

“Defense lawyer Joe Cheshire . . .”: Joe Cheshire to Mike Nifong, 7 April 2006, copy in authors’ possession.

p. 162:

“Deliberately closed his eyes to what otherwise . . .”: Bernard J. Ebbers v. United States of America, On Petition for a Writ Of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Brief for the United States in Opposition, No. 06-590.

“No DNA material from any young man tested . . .”: WRAL, 10 April 2006.

“He seemed to be waffling there . . .”: N&O, 10 April 2006.

p. 163:

“Unbeknownst to the defense lawyers . . .”: Brian Meehan testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, 17 June 2007. In his May deposition before the State Bar, Nifong dismissed the significance of this meeting, stating that “it would probably just have been an introductory meeting and nothing about the case would have been discussed.” “The Nifong Deposition, Part II,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 27 June 2007. Meehan offered a very different recollection of the meeting in his deposition: Meehan said that “we very carefully went over this data,” which included results that the DNA of multiple unidentified males was found on Mangum’s rape kit. Meehan recalled going over the profiles “in detail” with Gottlieb, Nifong, and Himan. Since he considered this information “critical,” he was “absolutely” certain that he discussed it with Nifong on April 10. Indeed, Meehan stated that Nifong asked him to try to work on the specimens with the unidentified male DNA to see if better resolution could be obtained. Meehan said that he felt “it was important that [Nifong] understood—and I believe he understood” that there were unidentified male DNA profiles.” “The Meehan Deposition,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 29 June 2007.

“The equivalent of telling a detective . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

“The absence of DNA . . .”: WRAL, 10 April 2006.

“DNA day was a huge turning point . . .”: Adam Chandler interview.

p. 164:

“We were all elated . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“Reporters Duff Wilson . . .”: New York Times, 11 April 2006.

“Anything about any of the details . . .”: (look up email)

p. 165:

“Duke’s lacrosse members . . .”: New York Times, 12 April 2006.

“What seems to be a concerted effort . . .”: “Paula Zahn Cracks the Case,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 14 Jan. 2007.

“What they did was clam up . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 10 April 2006.

“Have been, according to neighbors,” “The Situation with Tucker Carlson,” MSNBC, 11 April 2006.

“I never, ever met a false . . .”: “The Situation with Tucker Carlson,” MSNBC, 5 June 2006.

p. 166:

“Wild speculation . . .”: For a summary of these quotes, see “The Wendy Murphy File,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 31 Dec. 2006.

“As she was feeling him up . . .”: Crystal Mangum police report, discovery file.

p. 167:

“Since the DNA results were returned . . .”: Chronicle, 13 April 2006.

“Demand for perfect evidence . . .”: Wahneema Lubiano, “Perfect Offenders, Perfect Victim: The Limitations of Spectacularity in the Aftermath of the Lacrosse Team Incident,” New Black Man, 13 April 2006.

“Pursuit of knowledge and learning . . .”: N&O, 12 April 2006.

p. 168:

“What disgusts me . . .”: Chronicle, 13 April 2006.

“Strutting”: Tricia Dowd interview.

“Indeed, Nifong’s office . . .”: “Fun with Numbers,” Liestoppers, 14 Sept. 2006.

For the April 11 NCCU forum, we used a transcript prepared from WRAL’s video of the event. In an August 29, 2006 letter to the State Bar’s Grievance Committee, Nifong defended his remarks at the forum, deeming his appearance necessary to “correct any misunderstanding that might have been engendered in the community by the prejudicially false or misleading statements made by the defense attorneys [in their April 10 press conference revealing no matches from the SBI lab tests], thereby defusing any potential for community unrest that might have resulted from those statements.” Mike Nifong to Katherine Jean, 29 Aug. 2006, copy in State Bar Disciplinary Hearing Committee file.

p. 170:

“Because he told us they did it . . .”: Tricia Dowd interview.

“Whether it happened or not . . .”: Newsweek, 1 May 2006.

“Pep rally for an indictment . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

“I had to turn it off . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“A reverse O.J. Simpson . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

p. 171:

“She stated that she felt bad . . .”: Ben Himan typed notes, discovery file.

“She looked like she was going to . . .”: transcript, 27 October 2006 hearing.

“The victim and District Attorney . . .”: “Supplemental Case Notes of Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb,” discovery file.

“The reason that I took this case . . .”: Herald-Sun, 13 April 2006.

p. 172:

“Do you want to live . . .”: Herald-Sun, 13 April 2006.

“With what?”: Ben Himan testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, 16 June 2007.

Chapter Twelve: Blind Injustice: Indicted after Proven Innocent (pp. 173-194)

p. 174:

“The reason you should vote for me . . .”: N&O, 13 April 2006.

“We’re on your side . . .”: Chronicle, 19 July 2006.

“The next day, Himan tried . . .”: Bob Ekstrand interview. In his testimony before the DHC, Himan contended that these initiatives came from his own concerns about the possibly improper indictment of Reade Seligmann—although, since Nifong already had made the decision to indict, whatever exculpatory evidence Himan did find would have been irrelevant.

“Bill, in your wildest . . .”: author interview with defense attorney.

p. 175:

“Felt like Russian Roulette . . .”: “60 Minutes,” CBS, 15 Oct. 2006.

“He looked at us . . .”: Bill Thomas interview; Wade Smith and Butch Williams had similar recollections of the conversation.

p. 176:

“That Easter weekend . . .”: Larry Lamade interview.

“Something happened . . .”: Jesse Jackson, “Duke: Horror and Truth,” Black News, press release, 13 April 2006.

“My son is being pursued . . .”: author interview with MaryEllen Finnerty. Events of Easter weekend from author interviews with Kevin Finnerty, MaryEllen Finnerty, Collin Finnerty, Jess Harman.

“Lax Environment . . .”: Los Angeles Times, 16 April 2006.

p. 177:

“Would not be proceeding with this case . . .”: “Paula Zahn Now,” CNN, 17 April 2006.

“The Finnertys spent Monday morning . . .”: Kevin Finnerty interview, MaryEllen Finnerty interview.

“How can this happen . . .”: MaryEllen Finnerty interview.

“I know that a grand jury indictment . . .”: Baltimore Sun, 18 April 2006.

p. 178:

“A vigor I have never before seen . . .”: Susan Estrich, “Why Would Accuser in Duke Rape Case Lie?”, foxnews.com, 23 April 2006.

“The grand jury can actually open up the floor . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 18 April 2006.

“Knowing what I know now . . .”: “Good Morning America,” ABC, 6 Feb. 2007.

p. 179:

“Phil and Reade Seligmann . . .”: Events of Easter weekend from author interviews with Phil Seligmann, Kathy Seligmann, Reade Seligmann, Ann Jandl.

“We needed someone . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“They’re absolutely innocent . . .”: author interview with Kirk Osborn.

p. 180:

“Reade and Collin . . .”: Phil Seligmann, Kathy Seligmann, Reade Seligmann, Kevin Finnerty, MaryEllen Finnerty, Collin Finnerty interviews.

p. 181:

“Mr. Nifong says . . .”: Kirk Osborn interview. In his State Bar deposition, Nifong remarked that he was “not sure that I would say that it’s my obligation” to look at such evidence if a defense attorney offered it before indictment. Indeed, reminisced Nifong, he never had done so in any case that he prosecuted. “Nifong Deposition: Personal issues,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 28 June 2007.

“The Seligmanns went from the courthouse . . .”: Phil Seligmann, Reade Seligmann, Kirk Osborn, Stefanie Sparks interviews.

p. 182:

“Oh my God, what has this man done?”: Tricia Dowd interview.

“All the photographs . . .”: “The Wendy Murphy File,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 31 Dec. 2006.

“To see my face on TV . . .”: “60 Minutes,” CBS, 15 Oct. 2006.

p. 183:

“He took it very hard . . .”: MaryEllen Finnerty, Jess Harman interviews.

p. 184:

“The Finnertys drove east . . .”: Kevin Finnerty interview.

“I assume you’ve got a mother . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 18 April 2006.

“The ax falls at Duke . . .”: “Scarborough Country,” MSNBC, 18 April 2006. The guest host of the Scarborough Country program mentioned on this page was Pat Buchanan.

“We are all being spun . . .”: “The Wendy Murphy File,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 31 Dec. 2006.

“There are hundreds of convicted rapists . . .”: “Duke Lacrosse Case More Complex Than It Looks,” cnnsi.com, 18 April 2006.

“You don’t see many alibis . . .”: “The Defense Can’t Rest,” cnnsi.com, 19 April 2006.

p. 185:

“Ironically, in Munson . . .”: “Lester Munson, Legal Expert,” Liestoppers, 11 March 2007.

“The media . . .”: MaryEllen Finnerty interview.

“This man and his family . . .”: “Good Morning America,” ABC, 18 April 2006.

p. 186:

“If you had to pick two people . . .”: Yani Newton interview.

“He is such a gentle soul . . .”: author interview with Eileen Cornacchia.

p. 187:

“All of a sudden . . .”: Bo Carrington interview.

“Do anything for you . . .”: author interview with Taylor Price.

p. 188:

“They came from a world of hushed golf greens . . .”: N&O, 19 April 2006.

p. 189:

“I live near three country clubs . . .”: Phil Seligmann interview.

p. 190:

“You hate yourself . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“Every day was a bad day . . .’: David Evans interview.

“That someone such as Crystal Mangum . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

“ . . . whatever they did was bad enough”: WRAL, 20 April 2006.

p. 191:

“A moment to look at things . . .”: Chronicle, 21 April 2006.

“thugniggaintellectual”: “Hip-Hop: Not Your Pop’s Culture,” Duke Magazine, July-August 2006.

“Regardless of what happened . . .”: Mark Anthony Neal, “(White) Male Privilege, Black Respectability, and Black Women’s Bodies,” Duke African and African American Studies, 13 April 2006.

p. 192:

“The second dancer has come out in support . . .”: Newsweek (web exclusive), 18 April 2006.

p. 193:

“In all honesty, I think . . .”: Topeka Capital-Journal, 28 April 2006.

“Corroborated some of the accuser’s . . .”: New York Times, 25 April 2006.

p. 194:

“Ejaculation has occurred . . .”: Jay Jennison interview.

“Gottlieb, who was downstairs . . .”: Jay Jennison interview.

“He told them that the DNA . . .”: Meehan also stated that Dave Evans’ DNA—and that of 2 percent of the rest of the U.S. adult male population—could not be excluded from a DNA mixture found on Mangum’s false fingernails in Evans’ trashcan. Gottlieb, however, struggled to understand what Meehan was saying, and thought the doctor had stated that there were “one in 900-some trillion” odds of the DNA belonging to someone other than Evans. “The Gottlieb Deposition,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 24 June 2007. Nifong offered, if anything, a more peculiar interpretation of DNA. When asked by Bar prosecutor Doug Brocker about whether he found it odd that Mangum had DNA from multiple unidentified males but none from lacrosse players, the DA replied, “Not specifically, because as I said, the SBI lab had said that there was no ejaculation from that . . . suggesting that I was aware that the victim that night had been in—she came in one car. She left in a separate car. She was in a police car. She was at the access center. She was at Duke Hospital. There were a lot of places where a fractional amount of DNA could be picked up from something that she was sitting on.” In other words, Nifong didn’t consider it odd that Meehan’s tests suggested that the “victim” might have picked up stray DNA from the cars in which she traveled to and from the party, but had no DNA on her from anyone who attacked her in a 30-minute violent assault. “The Nifong Deposition, Part II,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 27 June 2007.

Chapter Thirteen: Nifong Defeats the Evidence (pp. 195-206)

p. 197:

“Racing back and forth to undisclosed locations . . .”: Kristin Zook, “Nowhere To Turn,” essence.com.

“Basically fair, I think . . .”: New York Times, 23 April 2006.

“Privileged white kids who play lacrosse . . .”: Washington Post, 25 April 2006.

p. 198:

“Had no one she could trust . . .”: Michele Soucie notes, discovery file.

“Wanted me to have . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“It’s not me who is trying the case in the media . . .”: WRAL, 25 April 2006.

p. 199:

“I pressed him to do it . . .”: Phil Seligmann interview.

“Neglected his duties . . .”: Kirk Osborn, “Motion for Recusal of District Attorney,” 1 May 2006.

p. 200:

“Try cases in the media . . .”: WRAL, 1 May 2006.

“I’m going to keep that . . .”: Bill Thomas interview.

“I had to defend Kirk . ..”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“It was those motions . . .”: Phil Seligmann interview.

p. 201:

“Defense attorneys lie . . .”: “The Situation with Tucker Carlson,” MSNBC, 1 May 2006.

“Conventional wisdom . . .”: Jim Cooney interview.

“We’ve got a sound strategy”: Herald-Sun, 17 April 2006.

p. 202:

“In his April 22 article . . .”: N&O, 22 April 2006. Melanie Sill's proper title is executive editor and senior vice president of the N&O; she is the top news editor for the paper. Also, Michael Biesecker conducted the interviews of both Keith and Nifong mentioned in the discussion of this article.

p. 203:

“Blacks and whites have not always gotten . . .”: Herald-Sun, 28 April 2006.

“As I would go through the black community . . .”: N&O, 6 May 2006.

“The Duke lacrosse case . . .”: N&O, 6 May 2006.

p. 204:

“Within the African-American community . . .”: N&O, 28 Feb. 2006.

“We would have ended up with the same . . .”: N&O, 6 May 2006.

“We had a lot of irate . . .”: N&O, 3 May 2006.

“I really felt like I was . . .”: N&O, 3 May 2006.

“Controlled by standards of fairness . . .”: N&O, 4 May 2006.

“If the Duke lacrosse players . . .”: Kansas City Star, 4 May 2006.

p. 205:

“I’m not familiar with the North Carolina . . .”: “The Abrams Report,” MSNBC, 18 May 2006.

p. 206:

Quotes on this page come from “The Insights of Georgia Goslee,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 23 Jan. 2007.

Chapter Fourteen: Experts Vindicate Laxers, Duke Harasses Them (pp. 207-218)

p. 208:

“Coleman provided structure . . .”: author interview with Jim Coleman.

“I have given over five thousand speeches . . .”: author interview with Thom Mayer.

p. 209:

“Jim Coleman was kind, gracious, and fair . . .”: Thom Mayer interview.

“The committee issued its . . .”: Report of the Ad Hoc Lacrosse Review Committee. Quotes from 209-210 come from the Coleman Committee report.

p. 210:

“The only one who did . . .”: “Scapegoating,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 4 Aug. 2006.

p. 211:

“Pack men . . .”: Sun-Times, 3 May 2006.

“Duke University lacrosse team members . . .”: New York Times, 3 May 2006.

“Says they are model citizens . . .”: WRAL, 2 May 2006.

“With the exception of self-described feminists . . .”: Janet Reitman, “Sex & Scandal at Duke,” Rolling Stone, 1 June 2006.

p. 212:

“I’m sitting here . . .”: Yani Newton interview.

“We are conducting an independent investigation . . .”: N&O, 28 April 2006.

“As an institution . . .”: N&O, 28 April 2006.

“This is a hate crime . . .”: N&O, 2 May 2006.

“Duke police ‘quietly’ asked her . . .”: Duke Police incident report, 1 May 2006, copy in discovery file.

p. 213:

“I’ll tell you one of the things . . .”: Richard Brodhead interview.

“When the president took questions . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview, Bo Carrington interview, Dan Flannery interview, Ryan McFadyen interview, William Wolcott interview, Michael Catalino interview, Brad Ross interview, Jay Jennison interview.

p. 214:

“Brodhead could have made history . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview.

“Our confidence in anyone . . .”: Bo Carrington interview.

p. 215:

“Instead of sticking to that assignment . . .”: William G. Bowen and Julius L. Chambers, “The Duke Administration’s Response to Lacrosse Allegations,” 4 May 2006. Quotes from pp. 215-216 taken from the report. Bowen declined to respond to four requests from KC Johnson, one of the authors, about items in the report that were contradicted by later revelations.

p. 216:

“Sick in the mind . . .”: Chronicle, 19 July 2006.

“Makes me wonder . . .”: Kim Curtis posting to Durham Responds Yahoo! Group, 29 March 2006, copy in authors’ possession.

“With these words . . .”: Material in these two paragraphs taken from “Dowd and Duke,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 6 Jan. 2007.

p. 217:

“We did hear rumors . . .”: Chronicle, 19 July 2006.

“Celebrating the ‘playfulness’ . . .”: William Chafe, “Opinion: What Next at Duke?,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 May 2006.

“Made a very bad decision . . .”: Stuart Taylor, Jr., “In Duke Case, A Rogues’ Gallery,” National Journal, 20 May 2006.

p. 218:

“I was speaking what I believed . . .”: Kerstin Kimel interview.

Chapter Fifteen: “Fantastic Lies” (pp. 219-235)

p. 219:

“Joe Cheshire tried one last time . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“Mr. Nifong wanted to know . . .”: Ben Himan typewritten notes, discovery file. In 2007 depositions before the State Bar, Durham authorities offered contradictory explanations on the nature of the Elmostafa arrest. Nifong said that he had directed Linwood Wilson to conduct a background check; Wilson found the misdemeanor warrant; and Wilson presented it to Nifong, Ben Himan, and Mark Gottlieb; Gottlieb denied any knowledge of the arrest at all; Himan said that Wilson found the warrant on his own and gave it to Himan and Officer Clayton at a meeting that Nifong had left, after which Wilson pressed the officers repeatedly to arrest Elmostafa; Clayton’s notes mentioned no such meeting; and Wilson’s less-than-credible version was summarized by the witty crew at Liestoppers: “Anonymous or unknown tipster from within DA’s office or maybe the Clerk’s office leads Wilson to warrant by suggesting that Elmostafa may have written a bad check(!). He presents warrant in meeting with Gottlieb, Himan, Nifong, and Candy Clark. Alternately, he or Nifong hands warrant to Himan or Gottlieb. Wilson didn’t expect Himan and Gottlieb to serve the warrant themselves.” “Neff, Liestoppers, and Bad News for the DPD,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 1 July 2007.

p. 220:

“The detective asked if I had anything new . . .”: N&O, 17 Aug. 2006.

“Touchdown for the state . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 11 May 2006.

“Tissue found under . . .”: Herald-Sun, 11 May 2006.

p. 221:

“It all looked bleak . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 11 May 2006.

“Human flesh found under her . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 15 May 2006.

“Multiple contributors . . .”: SBI report, discovery file.

“Excluded as a contributor . . .”: Dr. Brian Meehan report, 12 May 2006, discovery file.

“Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan . . .”: Ben Himan testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, 16 June 2007, Brian Meehan testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, 17 June 2007.

p. 222:

“After looking through the report . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview, Brad Bannon interview.

“Retard when it comes . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“Dave Evans had been calling . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

p. 223:

“Is this good or bad for us?”: Joe Cheshire interview, Brad Bannon interview.

“Leaked by the district attorney’s office . . .”: N&O, 13 May 2006.

“Imagine what the effect . . .”: Brad Bannon interview.

“I want to throw something out . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“Then, I find myself . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

p. 224:

“If you even crack a smile . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“It was a very long weekend . . .”: “60 Minutes,” CBS, 15 Oct. 2006.

“That Monday morning . . .”: N&O, 16 May 2006.

“Cheshire came on the scene . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

p. 225:

“I carry a little bit of a cross . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“I follow Joe and Brad . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“I want to thank you all . . .”: N&O, 15 May 2006.

p. 226:

“You nailed it . . .”: David Evans interview.

“Gottlieb shook my hand . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“An NBC reporter . . .”: Rae Evans interview.

“That was an awesome thing . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

p. 227:

”That speech was . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“He was a captain . . .”: Sue Pressler interview.

“That was one of the most . . .”: Jim Cooney interview.

“How would he know . . .”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 15 May 2006.

“He said, ‘It did . . .’”: “Nancy Grace,” Headline News, 15 May 2006.

“Evans’ preppie-looking . . .”: New York Daily News, 16 May 2006.

p. 228:

“Physically worried . . .”: Rae Evans interview.

“I believe it is important . . .”: Herald-Sun, 16 May 2006.

“Three guys grabbed . . .”: Crystal Mangum police statement, 16 May 2006.

p. 229:

“On May 18, the Evans . . .”: David Evans interview, Rae Evans interview.

“I came within a quarter of a second . . .”: author interview with Rich Preyer (to whom Osborn had told the story).

“Case is not going to jump . . .”: Herald-Sun, 19 May 2006.

“The judge thinks they’re guilty . . .”: Kirk Osborn interview.

p. 230:

“This was classic . . .”: author interview with defense attorney.

“As a criminal defense lawyer . . .”: Kirk Osborn interview.

“The medical records . . .”: Kirk Osborn interview.

p. 231:

“Please don’t take this personally . . .”: Kirk Osborn interview.

“You got something to say . . .”: Taylor Price interview.

“He was physically there . . .”: Taylor Price interview.

p. 232:

“It was one of the most . . .”: Taylor Price interview.

“The Duke case . . .”: Washington Post, 24 May 2006.

p. 233:

“Coach Kerstin Kimel mentioned . . .”: Kerstin Kimel interview.

“The lacrosse gals . . .”: New York Times, 26 May 2006.

“Stupid, spoiled little girls . . .”: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 26 May 2006.

p. 234:

“By saying so clearly . . .”: Kevin Sweeney, “Duke Women Not Innocent,” salon.com, 26 May 2006.

“I never believed the day would come . . .”: Philadelphia Inquirer, 28 May 2006.

“Reporters didn’t seem to think . . .”: Kerstin Kimel interview.

“Team-inspired and morally slender . . .”: Karla F.C. Holloway, “Coda: Bodies of Evidence,” Scholar & Feminist Online.

p. 235:

“The Duke witch hunt . . .”: New York Times, 28 May 2006.

Chapter Sixteen: Lacrosse Reinstated, With Disrespect (pp. 236-243)

p. 236:

“Unlike at least some . . .”: “The Arrogance of Starn,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 17 Sept. 2006.

“Extremely vulnerable . . .”: Robert Bliwise, “A Spring of Sorrows,” Duke Magazine, May-June 2006.

“To suggest they were well-behaved . . .”: “The Situation with Tucker Carlson,” MSNBC, 5 June 2006.

p. 237:

“As you probably know . . .”: “Statement by President Brodhead on Resumption of Men's Lacrosse,” 5 June 2006. Other Brodhead quotes on this page also come from this letter.

p. 238:

“In their back and forth . . .”: Bo Carrington interview.

“Promote pride, unity, and confidence . . .”: “Mission Statement Duke Men’s Lacrosse,” 5 June 2006.

“The fundamental rule he should have imposed . . .”: New York Daily News, 7 June 2006.

“This has not been . . .”: New York Times, 11 June 2006.

p. 239:

“Heavily outspent in a tough . . .”: New York Times, 11 June 2006.

“Growing perception that the case . . .”: New York Times, 12 June 2006.

“Up to now, virtually everything that Nifong has done . . .”: N&O, 13 June 2006.

p. 240:

“You’d better be right about this . . .”: Brad Bannon interview.

“In an interview later . . .”: New York Times, 23 June 2006.

p. 241:

“It is possible, almost three months later . . .”: Newsweek, 29 June 2006.

“None of the ‘facts’ that I know at this time . . .”: Newsweek, 29 June 2006.

“I suspect race and money and access to the media . . .”: washingtonpost.com, 27 June 2006.

p. 242:

“Catch a glimpse of your inner racist . . .”: Hal Crowther, “Sympathy for the Devils?,” Indy, 28 June 2006.

“Cynical, arrogant . . .”: Hal Crowther, “Sympathy for the Devils?,” Indy, 28 June 2006.

“When Reade’s mother pressed . . .”: Kathy Seligmann interview.

p. 243:

“Jackie Brown coordinated . . .”: Jackie Brown interview.

Chapter Seventeen: Nifong Defies Gravity, with Help from Friends (pp. 244-268)

p. 244:

“These facts were conceded . . .” pretrial papers filed by prosecution, in possession of authors.

The facts of the case are taken from an author’s notes of the trial testimony of several witnesses; arguments, factual concessions and stipulations of counsel; police reports; and court papers.

“It was an argument between two young guys . . . .” statement by U.S. Attorney spokesperson Stephanie Bragg Lee, explaining why this was no hate crime, quoted in Washington Blade, 20 April 2006.

p. 245:

“Finnerty wanted to plead. . .”: interviews with defense sources who requested anonymity.

“Demonstrated history of picking on disenfranchised . . .”: “Rita Cosby Live & Direct,” MSNBC, 25 April 2006.

“Put Finnerty under a pretrial curfew . . .”: interviews with Finnerty family and lawyers.

“Had authorized Finnerty to spend the night . . .”: court papers in possession of author.

p. 246:

“Something called Wonkette . . .”: “Collin Finnerty Trial Judge: Blog Fan?”, rawfisher, 10 July 2006.

“Maybe you want to go up on . . .”: MaryEllen Finnerty interview.

p. 247:

“Herndon had told a police officer . . .” Herndon trial testimony.

“Both Herndon and Bloxsom had consulted lawyers . . .” Herndon trial testimony; Charlotte Observer, 22 April 2006.

Our account of Judge Bayly’s comments and rulings comes from his statements from the bench, of which an author has the official transcript.

“Strong, homophobic overtones . . .”: Herald-Sun, 17 Oct. 2006.

“Beat up a gay man . . .”: Houston Baker to Tricia Dowd, 31 Dec. 2006, e-mail.

p. 248:

“Find[ing] fun in tormenting the innocent . . .”: Washington Post, 13 June 2006.

“It looked sometimes over the course . . .”: Herald-Sun, 18 July 2006.

p. 249:

“Jury free of partiality . . .”: N&O, 18 July 2006.

“We were making Nifong look bad . . .”: author interview with defense attorney.

“Praise God . . .”: Wilmington Journal, 26 July 2006.

“Most other lawyers, including myself . . .”: Wilmington Journal, 26 July 2006.

p. 250:

Quotes from pp. 250-252 from “Nifong Tarnishes the NAACP,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 16 Aug. 2006.

p. 252:

“Both sides . . .”: N&O, 19 Jan. 2007. In August 2007, the state NAACP removed the memorandum of law from its website.

p. 253:

“Chance to engage . . .”: Jim Coleman interview.

“African-American cook named Rene Thomas . . .”: N&O, 25 July 2006.

p. 254:

“We believe that the Duke administration . . .”: FODU open letter, 19 July 2006.

“Use all its influence . . .”: FODU open letter, 19 July 2006.

“The University does not have direct access . . .”: Richard Brodhead to FODU, 26 July 2006.

“On July 27 . . .”: Kevin Finnerty interview, MaryEllen Finnerty interview.

p. 255:

“I’ll tell you why . . .”: Richard Brodhead interview.

“Hours after Cheek’s announcement . . .”: author interview with Beth Brewer.

p. 256:

“Beth Brewer, a Durham resident . . .”: Beth Brewer interview, Jackie Brown interview.

“The people of Durham do have an option . . .”: “Anybody But Nifong,” campaign flyer, 27 July 2006.

“Obviously there were some things that we hoped . . .”: N&O, 29 July 2006.

p. 257:

“At the end of the day . . .”: N&O, 29 July 2006.

“I realized that their concern . . .”: N&O, 29 July 2006.

“Durham’s district attorney . . .”: N&O, 29 July 2006.

“Since it is apparent that many of you . . .”: N&O, 1 Aug. 2006.

p. 258:

Quotes on this page from “Eyes Wide Shut,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 27 Aug. 2006.

p. 259:

“It would tend to support . . .”: Herald-Sun, 1 Aug. 2006.

“The prosecutor’s case . . .”: N&O, 19 June 2006.

p. 260:

“To get warrants . . .”: N&O, 6 Aug. 2006.

“The memo appeared to have been typed . . .”: In his deposition for the State Bar, Gottlieb admitted that he typed the critical portions of the memo—Mangum’s alleged descriptions of her “attackers” in the March 16 interview—sometime in early July. His excuse for failing to take contemporaneous notes? He said he did so—on a dry-eraser board, and was unaware that the board wasn’t photographed each day before being erased.

p. 261:

“This is a pristine, white . . .”: New York Times, 25 Aug. 2006. The material from pages 261-263 is all from the discovery file, including Gottlieb’s supplementary report.

p. 263:

“Bannon and Cheshire spent hours . . .”: Brad Bannon interview, Joe Cheshire interview.

“More careful . . .”: Duff Wilson to Brad Bannon, 25 Aug. 2006, e-mail.

The quotes from page 263 through page 267 all come from the Wilson/Glater August 25 article in the New York Times.

p. 268:

“Newsy . . . largely consistent . . .”: author interviews with defense attorneys.

“The thrust of this August story . . .”: Kurt Andersen, “Rape, Justice, and the Times,” New York, 10 Oct. 2006.

“It isn’t a witch hunt . . .”: Kurt Andersen, “Rape, Justice, and the Times,” New York, 10 Oct. 2006.

Chapter Eighteen: Turning the Tide (pp. 269-284)

p. 270:

“The DA should drop the case . . .”: “Duke Lacrosse: No Players’ DNA on the Accuser’s Body,” TalkLeft, 10 April 2006.

“The unforgivable flaws and omissions . . .”: “Enough from Duff,” Liestoppers, 25 Aug. 2006.

p. 271:

“The other dancer, Ms. Roberts . . .”: New York Times, 25 Aug. 2006.

“Editorial on the front page . . .”: “The Situation with Tucker Carlson,” MSNBC, 25 Aug. 2006.

“The Wilson-Glater piece . . .”: Stuart Taylor, Jr., “Witness for the Prosecution: The New York Times Is Still Victimizing Innocent Dukies,” Slate, 29 Aug. 2006.

“A bit Grassy Knoll-ish . . .”: N&O, 17 Aug. 2006.

p. 272:

“Try to pressure . . .”: N&O, 30 Aug. 2006.

“The reason . . .”: Kirk Osborn interview.

“Why are they here?”: N&O, 30 Aug. 2006.

p. 273:

“A little fun at the bloggers . . .”: N&O, 31 Aug. 2006.

“Principles of due process . . .”: Duke Students for an Ethical Durham, mission statement.

“Kim Brummell, who had written . . .”: “Who Is Kim Brummell?,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 28 Sept. 2006.

“I was pleased . . .”: Chronicle, 30 Aug. 2006.

p. 274:

“Come to work dressed one day . . .”: “Nifong’s Strange Bedfellows,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 4 Sept. 2006.

“It was totally different . . .”: Michael Catalino interview.

“They know they were wrong . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview.

“Students who did return . . .”: Material in this and the following eight paragraphs taken from “Mobbing Duke Students,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 13 Aug. 2006.

p. 277:

“Devon wished they were . . .”: Devon Sherwood interview.

“As the summer was winding down . . .”: Kevin Finnerty interview, MaryEllen Finnerty interview.

“Our response was that we all . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview.

“To present a good image . . .”: Ryan McFadyen interview.

p. 278:

“Deeply psychologized . . .”: Ryan McFadyen interview.

“What have you and the administration . . .”: Jay Jennison interview.

“A great judge . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

p. 279:

“Probably took about five minutes . . .”: N&O, 23 Sept. 2006.

“When something really awful is happening . . .”: N&O, 23 Sept. 2006.

“The Finnerty legal team had suspected . . .’: Doug Kingsbery interview.

p. 280:

“So his report encompasses it all?”: transcript, court session, 22 Sept. 2006.

“When defense lawyers spoke . . .”: N&O, 23 Sept. 2006.

“Just screw it . . .”: Bo Carrington interview.

“Registering voters . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview.

p. 281:

“Voice your choice . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview.

“Then Mike Sobb . . .”: Tony McDevitt interview, Bo Carrington interview, Michael Catalino interview, Jay Jennison interview.

p. 282:

“Joe Neff published another bombshell exposé . . .”: N&O, 8 Oct. 2006.

“Among the highlights . . .”: Quotes in this and the following four paragraphs come from “60 Minutes,” CBS, 15 Oct. 2006.

p. 283:

“People whose profession is dedicated . . .”: Arizona Republic, 22 Oct. 2006.

“Mean-spirited, petty . . .”: Chronicle, 24 Oct. 2006.

p. 284:

“The faculty who publicly savaged . . .”: Chronicle, 24 Oct. 2006.

“Political science professor . . .”: Kerry Haynie to Steve Baldwin, 24 Oct. 2006, e-mail.

“The language of lynching . . .”: Chronicle, 25 Oct. 2006.

“This assertion was false . . .”: “Duke Case: Yes, Please Tar and Feather Them,” Johnsville News, 26 Oct. 2006.

“Insensitive and inappropriate . . .”: Chronicle, 26 Oct. 2006.

Chapter Nineteen: Nifong’s Phyrric Victory (p. 285-300)

p. 285:

“Brad Bannon . . .”: Brad Bannon interview, Brad Bannon testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, 18 June 2007.

“He’s hiding . . .”: Kathy Seligmann interview.

“The Seligmanns were . . .”: Phil Seligmann interview, Kathy Seligmann interview.

p. 286:

“Everything you’d want in a teacher . . .”: Jim Cooney interview.

“Bad closing argument . . .”: Jim Cooney interview.

“Additional intellectual . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“Some fancy-ass golf club . . .”: Brad Bannon interview.

p. 287:

“The first day . . .”: Brad Bannon interview, Jim Cooney interview.

“The defense team . . .”: Jim Cooney interview.

“Accepted Mr. Nifong’s . . .”: transcript, court session, 27 Oct. 2006.

“That’s interviewed the victim . . .”: Herald-Sun, 20 Oct. 2006.

“Man of integrity . . . traumatized . . .”: transcript, court session, 27 Oct. 2006.

p. 288:

“Put himself in a position . . .”: transcript, court session, 27 Oct. 2006.

“The N&O’s Ben Niolet . ..”: N&O, 3 Oct. 2006.

“Belies anything a prosecutor would do . . .”: “Good Morning America,” ABC News, 30 Oct. 2006.

“Any prosecutor with any sense . . .”: transcript, court session, 27 Oct. 2006.

“Other than a rude response . . .”: transcript, court session, 27 Oct. 2006.

p. 289:

“Rather stunning . . .”: transcript, court session, 27 Oct. 2006.

“Wilson’s record . . .”: N&O, 8 Feb. 2007.

“Ministry through Gospel music . . .”: “Spokesmen Quartet,” official website.

“Nifong refused comment . . .”: N&O, 8 Feb. 2007.

“Jason Trumpbour . . .”: Jason Trumpbour memorandum, copy in authors’ possession.

p. 290:

“If Nifong were corrupt . . .”: Jason Trumpbour memorandum, copy in authors’ possession.

“Even though it is not fair . . .”: Jason Trumpbour memorandum, copy in authors’ possession.

“I met with Mr. Trumpbour at his request . . .”: author interview with Bob Steel.

“Affluent kids violating the law . . .”: New York Sun, 27 Oct. 2006.

“In a heartbeat . . .”: Chronicle, 7 Nov. 2006.

“I signed the statement because . . .”: Chronicle, 7 Nov. 2006.

p. 291:

“Any one of the people . . .”: Chronicle, 7 Nov. 2006 (comments section).

“Secret racism . . .”: Herald-Sun, 29 Oct. 2006.

“Displace the problem of racism . . .”: Herald-Sun, 29 Oct. 2006.

“The vulnerability of black bodies . . .”: Herald-Sun, 29 Oct. 2006.

“Obscure what is really at stake . . .”: Herald-Sun, 29 Oct. 2006.

p. 292:

“Chilled me to the bone . . .”: “Good Morning America,” ABC News, 30 Oct. 2006.

“We know we have a bond for life . . .”: “Good Morning America,” ABC News, 31 Oct. 2006.

“I’ve been stereotyped . . .”: “Good Morning America,” ABC News, 31 Oct. 2006.

p. 293:

“Nifong may have made mistakes . . .”: “Just One Case?,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 21 Nov. 2006.

“Not fit to be our district attorney . . .”: Chronicle, 3 Nov. 2006.

“Assault on our peers . . .”: Chronicle, 6 Nov. 2006.

p. 294:

“A D.A. who will do anything . . .”: Chronicle, 6 Nov. 2006.

“Treated equally under the law . . .”: Duke Basketball Report, 6 Nov. 2006.

“For most of the campaign . . .”: “Paging ‘Senator’ Ashcroft,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 21 Sept. 2006.

“Referendum on the Duke lacrosse case . . .”: N&O, 30 Oct. 2006.

p. 295:

“If a case is of such significance . . .”: N&O, 4 Nov. 2006.

“The future of Durham’s in the balance . . .”: AP wire, 30 Oct. 2006.

“Threat to their sense of entitlement . . .”: Nifong e-mail, 4 Nov. 2006, copy in authors’ possession.

p. 296:

“We’ll see if we can . . .”: Bo Carrington interview.

“I might have prejudged him . ..”: “I Might Have Prejudged Him,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 7 Nov. 2006.

“You’ve got to be nicer than that . . .”: WTVD, 7 Nov. 2006.

“Hope you lacrosse players . . .”: Bo Carrington interview, Michael Catalino interview, Stefanie Sparks interview.

“This goes to show . . .”: Chronicle, 8 Nov. 2006.

“The precinct-by-precinct . . .”: “Nifong and the Black Vote,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 9 Nov. 2006.

p. 297:

“If at any time he loses confidence . . .”: N&O, 12 Nov. 2006.

p. 298:

“Have had the effect . . .”: N&O, 12 Nov. 2006.

“What we don’t do in this country . . .”: N&O, 12 Nov. 2006.

“Many more voters than we suspected . . .”: Herald-Sun, 9 Nov. 2006.

“Shocked and dismayed . . .”: Chronicle, 10 Nov. 2006.

p. 299:

“Admirable commitment to advanced research . . .”: “The Board Takes Its Stand,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 2 Dec. 2006.

“The thirteen core faculty members . . .” After the Board’s action (and the public criticism), AAAS reorganized its website to list four full-time faculty and four joint lines. No explanation was given for the redesign.

Chapter Twenty: The Conspiracy Unravels (pp. 301-316)

p. 301:

“There is no such thing . . .”: Jim Cooney interview.

“Frankly stunned . . .”: Jim Cooney interview.

“Brad Bannon had spent . . .”: Material for this and the next three paragraphs from Brad Bannon interview, Joe Cheshire interview. For more details about the defense attorneys’ work with the DNA evidence, see “Bannon on the DNA Process,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 28 July 2007; “Cooney & Bannon on DNA,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 31 July 2007; “Jim Cooney on the Dec. 15 Hearing,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 4 Aug. 2007; “More from Bannon on DNA,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 7 Aug. 2007.

p. 302:

“Meanwhile, on December 12 . . .”: Walter Jones press release, 12 Dec. 2006.

p. 303:

“Premature and inappropriate . . .”: “Price’s ‘Puzzling’ Position,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 4 Aug. 2007.

“In a sixteen-page joint motion . . .”: This and the following five paragraphs come from Defense joint motion, 13 Dec. 2006.

p. 304:

“The second hammer blow . . .”: This and the following two paragraphs come from Defense joint motion, 14 Dec. 2006.

“The third hammer blow . . .”: This and the following three paragraphs come from Defense joint motion, 15 Dec. 2006.

p. 306:

“The night before . . .”: Phil Seligmann interview, Kathy Seligmann interview.

“I knew it could have been me . . .”: Michael Catalino interview.

“The DA avoided eye contact . . .”: Bo Carrington interview, Ryan McFadyen interview.

“On November 9 . . .”: Doug Kingsbery interview.

p. 307:

“The first statement from the judge . . .”: Doug Kingsbery interview.

“I just, in terms of . . .”: Court session, 15 Dec. 2006, transcript.

“This move took defense lawyers . . .”: Brad Bannon interview, Joe Cheshire interview.

“As attorneys debated . . .”: Brad Bannon interview, Joe Cheshire interview.

p. 308:

“You could see Brad’s pant legs . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“Cheshire leaned over . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“Bannon thought to himself . . .”: Brad Bannon interview.

p. 309:

“Watching Brad pull the truth out . . .”: Dave Evans interview.

“One of the prouder . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“Meanwhile, the contrast . . .”: Both co-authors attended the December 15 hearing.

“Seeing Nifong’s disorganization . . .”: Michael Catalino interview.

“Let me ask you . . .”: Court session, 15 Dec. 2006, transcript.

p. 310:

“Asked by a defense attorney . . .”: Los Angeles Times, 16 Dec. 2006.

“Nifong ‘looked ashen . . .’”: N&O, 16 Dec. 2006.

“Final conclusive report . . .”: Court session, 15 Dec. 2006, transcript.

“It is true . . .”: Court session, 15 Dec. 2006, transcript.

“Redemptive feeling . . .”: Bo Carrington interview.

“Staring at Nifong . . .”: Ryan McFadyen interview.

p. 311:

“Needed to go through . . .”: Court session, 15 Dec. 2006, transcript.

“The hearing’s Perry Mason moment . . .”: Court session, 15 Dec. 2006, transcript.

“We were trying to . . .”: N&O, 16 Dec. 2006.

p. 312:

“The more you hear about . . .”: N&O, 16 Dec. 2006.

“What Dr. Meehan has admitted to . . .”: “Forensic Scientist Scorns Dr. Meehan’s Behavior,” Forensics Talk, 16 Dec. 2006.

“As the story turned . . .”: Richard Brodhead interview.

p. 313:

“I’m not sure what more . . .”: Chronicle, 25 April 2007.

“The duo didn’t even tell . . .”: Ben Himan testimony, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong, 16 June 2007.

“According to Wilson’s . . .”: This and the information in the following eleven paragraphs comes from Defense joint motion, 11 Jan. 2007. In a 2007 deposition conducted by the State Bar, Wilson later claimed that the interview’s sole purpose was to clear up “some discrepancies between what Kim Roberts had said and what Crystal Mangum had said,” as well as between Mangum’s various versions of events and the time-stamped party photos broadcast by MSNBC’s Dan Abrams. The “interview” moved in different directions, according to Wilson, when Mangum, who was having “flashbacks,” “just started talking” about them. After the “flashback” session ended, Wilson said that he decided to show Mangum some of the party photos. But as he opened his briefcase, he happened to have the photos from the April 4 lineup (which were then the subject of a suppression motion). And, further, he happened to have Dave Evans’ photo in plain sight—which allowed Mangum to note that Evans had a 5:00 shadow, not a mustache, on the night of the “attack.” “Linwood Wilson Deposition,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 9 July 2007.

p. 316:

“No media . . .”: N&O, 12 Jan. 2007.

“End of a bad mystery novel . . .”: Chronicle, 12 Jan. 2007.

“Mooning the system . . .”: N&O, 12 Jan. 2007.

Chapter Twenty-One: Defendant Nifong (pp. 317-331)

p. 317:

“Given the certainty with which . . .”: “Brodhead, Finally,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 22 Dec. 2006.

“They had a long piece . . .”: author interview with New York Times insider who requested anonymity.

p. 318:

“A draft of the new Times piece . . .”: author interview with New York Times insider who requested anonymity.

“Close to the investigation . . .”: New York Times (web), 22 Dec. 2006.

The Times did a much less . . .”: This and the following five paragraphs come from New York Times, 23 Dec. 2006, 24 Dec. 2006.

p. 319:

“So basic a misunderstanding . . .”: Emily Bazelon, “Prosecutorial Indiscretion,” Slate, 26 Dec. 2006.

“The moment that may have changed . . .”: New York Times, 24 Dec. 2006.

p. 320:

“You know, it’s not the only case . . .”: New York Times, 24 Dec. 2006.

“What is clear is that Nifong . . .”: Los Angeles Times, 26 Dec. 2006.

“Mike Nifong has demonstrated . . .”: Wilmington Star, 27 Dec. 2006.

“We want our law enforcement officials . . .”: Herald-Sun, 28 Dec. 2006.

p. 321:

“Engaged in conduct involving dishonesty . . .”: North Carolina State Bar complaint against Michael Nifong, 28 Dec. 2006.

“In a rambling, eight-page letter . . .”: This and the next four paragraphs come from Michael Nifong to State Bar Grievance Committee, 28 Dec. 2006.

p. 323:

“People’s Republic . . .”: N&O, 12 Oct. 2006.

“I don’t feel I’m part of the problem . . .”: WRAL, 2 Jan. 2007.

“The guy who set the barn on fire . . .”: N&O, 6 Jan. 2007.

“Could get back to work . . .”: News 14, 2 Jan. 2007.

p. 324:

“Outpouring of support . . .”: Seligmann family press release, 4 Jan. 2007.

“Cited as prejudicial . . .”: Economics faculty open letter, 4 Jan. 2007.

“Especially just before a critical judicial decision . . .”: Diverse Online, 10 Jan. 2007.

p. 325:

“Holloway dramatized her resignation . . .”: “Let’s Play Telephone,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 16 Jan. 2007.

“The ad said that we faculty . . .”: N&O, 5 Jan. 2007.

“Many black students . . .”: N&O, 5 Jan. 2007.

p. 326:

“Appalling power dynamics . . .”: N&O, 5 Jan. 2007.

“Right-wing blog hooligans . . .”: N&O, 5 Jan. 2007.

“Borderline psychotic . . .”: Cathy Davidson mass e-mails, 7 Jan. 2007, 10 Jan. 2007, copies in authors’ possession.

“When Durham police . . .”: N&O, 14 Jan. 2007.

p. 327:

“Potentially unethical statements . . .”: “Abrams Report,” MSNBC, 19 April 2006.

“Said ‘no’ but wasn’t . . .”: Linwood Wilson notes, 10 Jan. 2007m discovery file.

“Oh . . .”: Doug Kingsbery notes, interview with Levicy, DATE, copy in authors’ possession.

p. 328:

“I have come to understand . . .”: Susan Thorne draft essay, enclosed in Susan Thorne to Danny Flannery, e-mail, 18 Jan. 2007.

“My voice wouldn’t count . . .”: Susan Thorne to Danny Flannery, e-mail, 18 Jan. 2007.

p. 329:

“I do not give quizzes . . .”: Thomas Bartlett and Sara Lipka, “One Ad, 88 Professors, and No Apologies,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 Feb. 2007.

“Get a freaking life! . . .”: Kerry Haynie to KC Johnson, e-mail, 23 May 2007.

“Public calls to the authors . . .”: “Concerned Duke Faculty: An Open Letter to the Duke Community,” open letter.

“May well end up being the subject of a civil suit . . .”: Cathy Davidson, mass e-mail, 14 Jan. 2007.

p. 330:

“ . . . Drunkenness happened.”: Thomas Bartlett and Sara Lipka, “One Ad, 88 Professors, and No Apologies,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 Feb. 2007.

“Failed to register with me . . .”: Mike Nifong to State Bar Grievance Committee, 16 Jan. 2007.

“Systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion . . .”: This and the three following paragraphs come from State Bar Amended Complaint against Michael Nifong, 25 Jan. 2007.

p. 331:

“If these allegations are true . . .”: AP wire, 25 Jan. 2007.

Chapter Twenty-Two: Disgrace and Exoneration (pp. 332-355)

p. 332:

“Lynching mobs in Durham . . .”: Herald-Sun, 26 Jan. 2007.

“Team’s drunken, perverted party . . .”: Wilmington Journal, 18 Jan. 2007.

p. 333:

“After all, as a Democrat . . .”: Wilmington Journal, 18 Jan. 2007.

“Disturbingly extensive experience . . .”: Herald-Sun, 2 April 2006.

“Set aside the criminal charges . . .”: “Barber, Wells, and the Sins of Denial,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 29 Jan. 2007.

“Nifong owes the alleged victim . . .”: Herald-Sun, 27 Jan. 2007.

“It was a cover-up . . .”: Newsday, 1 April 2007.

“I don’t want to be a Nifong . . .”: Greensboro News-Record, 1 Feb. 2007.

p. 334:

“Prosecution run amok . . .”: United States of America v. Humberto Fidel Regaldo Cuellar, U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Docket No. 05-10065, 2 Feb. 2007.

“The desire to pander . . .”: Billy Slagle v. Margaret Bagley, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Docket No. 04-3490, 2 Feb. 2007.

“Probably [his] poorest appointment . . .”: N&O, 3 Feb. 2007.

“The rapists were making jokes . . .”: “The Edwards-Marcotte Fiasco,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 2 Feb. 2007.

p. 335:

“What if Mary had taken Plan B . . .”: “Pandagon Goes Undercover,” Pandagon, 14 June 2006.

“Will continue to enjoy their aristocratic . . .”: New York Post, 23 March 2007.

“They are used to controlling the scope . . .”: Jason Trumpbour memorandum, 5 Feb. 2007.

p. 336:

“ . . . Mike Nifong acted properly . . .”: FODU open letter, 8 Feb. 2007.

Chronicle reporter Lysa Chen . . .”: Chronicle, 12 Feb. 2007.

“Conspiracy . . .”: Chronicle, 8 March 2007.

“Current of criticism . . .”: “Shut Up and Teach?” flyer, 12 Feb. 2007.

“Read with astonishment . . .”: Chronicle, 14 Feb. 2007.

p. 337:

“Weintraub’s words . . .”: This and the following three paragraphs come from “Condemned to Repetition,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 16 Feb. 2007.

“It is through [their] inarticulateness . . .”: Richard Bertrand Spencer, “Rotten in Durham,” American Conservative, 26 Feb. 2007.

“Shut up and teach . . .”: “Condemned to Repetition,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 16 Feb. 2007.

p. 338:

“A signatory to both . . .”: “Moving Forward with McClain,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 16 March 2007.

p. 339:

“If Duke wants to remain competitive . . .”: N&O, 4 March 2007.

“Out of context . . .”: Robert Thompson to KC Johnson, e-mail, 23 March 2007.

“The CCI report . . .”: This, and the following three paragraphs, comes from Report of the Campus Culture Initiative Steering Committee, 15 Feb. 2007.

p. 340:

“Knowledgeable faculty advice . . .”: “Statement by President Richard H. Brodhead on Release of CCI Report,“ 27 Feb. 2007.

“Spent the last several months . . .”: Chronicle, 7 March 2007.

“An unmitigated disaster . . .”: Chronicle, 20 March 2007.

p. 341:

“Meanwhile, in the classroom . . .”: This and the following paragraph come from “Group of 88 for Credit,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 1 Feb. 2007.

“Sometimes, in the course of . . .”: This and the following eight paragraphs come from “Double Standards,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 22 Feb. 2007.

p. 343:

“Nifong, Still the DA . . .”: This and the following five paragraphs come from “Nifong’s Continued Evasions,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 8 March 2007.

p. 345:

“The State Bar dismissed . . .”: This and the following two paragraphs come from State Bar memorandum of law, 16 March 2007.

p. 346:

“Embodied the words honor . . .”: Reade Seligmann press release, 25 March 2007.

“Osborn fell just after writing these . . .”: eulogy at Osborn’s March 28, 2007 memorial service by his close friend Rich Preyer; prepared text is in authors’ possession.

“Heartbroken over the death . . .”: Seligmann family press release, 25 March 2007.

“He was one of our warriors . . .”: Herald-Sun, 26 March 2007.

p. 347:

“Osborn’s close friend . . .”: eulogy at Osborn’s March 28, 2007 memorial service by his close friend Rich Preyer; prepared text is in authors’ possession.

“The special prosecutors . . .”: This and the following three paragraphs come from the defense letter and PowerPoint presentations, which were provided to the authors—with the exception of the portions of both items dealing with Mangum’s medical records, which remained under seal.

p. 348:

“Nifong, by contrast . . .”: author interview with defense attorney.

p. 349:

“Provided the defense . . .”: This and the following seven paragraphs come from Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Summary of Conclusions, 27 April 2006.

p. 351:

“I said, for what? . . .”: Newsday, 8 April 2007.

“One public thing you do . . .”: “The Civil War Begins,” Forty Questions, 11 April 2007.

“The timing couldn’t have been worse . . .”: “The Civil War Begins,” Forty Questions, 11 April 2007.

“The result of our review and investigation . . .”: Roy Cooper statement, 11 April 2007.

p. 352:

“We believe that these cases . . .”: Roy Cooper statement, 11 April 2007.

“In this case . . .”: Roy Cooper statement, 11 April 2007.

“Rogue prosecutor . . .”: N&O, 12 April 2007.

“Dave Evans urged . . .”: This and the following six paragraphs come from defense attorneys’ press conference, Lexis/Nexis, 11 April 2007.

p. 354:

“Love yourself, Durham . . .”: Herald-Sun, 12 April 2007.

“Louts . . .”: Boston Globe, 13 April 2007.

“Douchebags . . .”: “Thursday, 4/12 A.M. Quickie,” Dan Shanoff, 12 April 2007.

“Paragons of virtue . . .”: Washington Post, 13 April 2007.

“There are many, many cases . . .”: “Don’t Feel Too Sorry for the Dukies,” Pushback, 12 April 2007.

p. 355:

“To the extent that I made judgments . . .”: N&O, 13 April 2007.

“It may be an apology . . .”: N&O, 13 April 2007.

“I believe in the transforming power . . .”: Note from Scott Campbell to Dave Evans; copy in authors’ possession.

Chapter Twenty-Three: No Isolated Case: From Duke to Death Row (pp. 356-370)

p. 357:

“As Reade Seligmann stated . . .”: CNN transcript, 11 April 2007

“And so are the scientific experts . . .”: See, e.g., Innocence Project, “Forensic Science Misconduct”

p.358:

“In 2004, after the State Bar . . .”: The text of Brad Bannon’s letter to the State Bar is here.

“Nor are such problems confined . . . .”: See, e.g., Angela J. Davis, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor, Oxford University Press, 2007.

p. 359:

“For many years . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview

“Criminal defense lawyers in America . . .”: See, e.g., Alan M. Dershowitz, The Best Defense (New York: Random House, 1984).

“In addition, says a former prosecutor . . .”: Author interview with former prosecutor who requested anonymity.

“A disturbing amount of misconduct . . .”: The Center for Public Integrity Study can be found at http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx.

p. 360:

“Professor Samuel Gross . . .”: See Samuel Gross and Barbara O’Brien, “Frequency and Predictors of False Conviction: The Problem, and Some Data on Capital Cases,” 19 June 2007 preliminary draft, copy in authors’ possession; Stuart Taylor, Jr., “Innocents in Prison,” National Journal, 4 Aug 2007.

“Professor Michael Risinger . . .”: See James R. Gross, “Weeding Out the Innocent,” Los Angeles Times, 11 June 2007; also http://www.innocenceproject.org/results

p. 361:

“Indeed, the word ‘testilying’ . . .”: See Alan M. Dershowitz, “Controlling the Cops; Accomplices to Perjury,” New York Times, 2 May 1994.

“In the early 1990’s, the Mollen Commission . . .”: Testimony of Alan M. Dershowitz to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, 1 Dec. 1998.

“Several former and current prosecutors acknowledged . . .”: Testimony of Alan M. Dershowitz to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, 1 Dec. 1998.

“Every objective study . . .”: Dershowitz, “Police Testilying Must Not Be Tolerated,” Boston Globe, 11 Dec. 1997.

p. 362:

“The advent of DNA evidence . . .”: www.innocenceproject.org/.

“There is also evidence that a handful . . .”: These cases are summarized by the Death Penalty Information Project.

“The strong presumption that verdicts are correct . . .”: Henry Weinstein, “States Resist DNA Tests that Could Free the Wrongly Convicted,” Los Angeles Times, 21 Feb. 2000.

“DNA Testing’s Unique Qualities . . .”: Harvey Silverglate, “A Judge Speaks with Candor About Judicial Cop-Outs, The Phoenix, 28 March 2007. Judge Gertner’s opinion is here.

“Police and/or prosecutorial misconduct . . .”: www.innocenceproject.org; author interview with Eric Ferrero of Innocence Project; Brandon L. Garrett, “Judging Innocence,” forthcoming in January 2008 Columbia Law Review.

pp. 363-366:

The facts of these cases were taken from the Grisham book (in the Williamson-Fritz case) and from summaries on the Innocence project’s website, and were checked with Eric Ferrero of the Innocence project, who in some cases supplied additional facts and court transcripts (in possession of authors).

p. 366:

“The Cruz case was one of those . . . .”: E.g., Ken Armstrong and Steve Mills, “Ryan Suspends Death Penalty,” Chicago Tribune, 31 Jan. 2000; Stuart Taylor, Jr., “The Death Penalty: To Err Is Human,”: National Journal, 12 Feb. 2000.

“A classic example was the Stuart case . . .”: Judge Gertner’s speech is in authors’ possession.

p. 367:

“Vague criminal statutes in the federal system . . .”: Author interview with Harvey Silverglate.

“A liberal is a conservative who has had his child . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

p. 368:

“Almost everywhere in this country . . . .”: E.g., National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), “Federal Grand Jury Reform”; Angela Davis, supra.

“Reporters feed at the trough of prosecutors . . .”: Harvey Silverglate interview.

“Grand juries in most states . . .”: Niki Kuckes, “The Useful, Dangerous Fiction of Grand Jury Independence,” 41 American Criminal Law Review 1 (Winter 2004).

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held . . .”: U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992).

“It’s hard to explain what it’s like . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“What is most hopeful . . .”: author interview of Barry Scheck.

p. 369:

“In New York and some other states . . .”: NACDL, supra.

Chapter Twenty-Four: Presumed Guilty: Feminist Overkill (pp. 371-386)

p. 371:

“The speaker was Catherine MacKinnon . . .”: as recalled by Peter Berkowitz, a member of Yale’s 1990 graduating class.

pp. 371-372:

“To a point, this movement was an overdue backlash . . . .”: A useful summary of the common law of rape and evolving rules during the 20th Century, including rape shield laws, is Susan Estrich, Real Rape (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).

“As the seventeenth-century English jurist Sir Matthew Hale . . .”: 1 Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown 635 (1971).

p. 373:

“The 1987 Tawana Brawley case . . . “ See, e.g., Robert D. McFadden, Outrage: The Story Behind the Tawana Brawley Hoax (New York: Bantam, 1990).

“Meanwhile, as Robert Woodson, Sr. wrote . . . .”: Washington Times, 11 May 2006.

“The presumed-guilty mind-set . . . .”: “The Wendy Murphy File,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 31 Dec. 2006.

“For so long . . .”: Jim Cooney to Stuart Taylor, e-mail, 13 April 2007.

pp. 373-374:

“Indeed, Professor Dershowitz was once accused . . .”: as reported in interview with Harvey Silverglate, a close friend of Dershowitz; various web sites.

p. 374:

Linda Fairstein, “Why Some Women Lie About Rape,” Cosmopolitan, November 2003.

“FBI statistics say . . . .”: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States 1996, Section II, p. 24: The average of unfounded complaints for all Index crimes was 2 percent.

pp. 374-375:

“Forty-one percent of 109 . . .”: The Kanin studies are both here.

p. 375:

“‘Any honest veteran sexual assault investigator. . . .’”: Silverman’s quotations are at http://www.glennsacks.com/kobe_bryant_ruling.htm

“Fraudulent rape complaints were perceived as a problem . . . .”: Elaine Donnelly, “Sex, Lies and Rape,” Center for Military Readiness (membership required), 4 Sept. 2006: “According to a report of the Defense Department Inspector General released in 2005, approximately 73% of women and 72% of men at the military service academies believe that false accusations of sexual assault are a problem. But military officials keep pretending that the problem does not exist.”

“One in four rape reports was unfounded . . . .”: Stephen Buckley, “Unfounded Reports of Rape Confound Area Police Investigators, Washington Post, 27 June 1992: “Police departments in seven Washington area jurisdictions use a standard identical to the FBI when dismissing rape claims as unfounded. In the last two years, women in those jurisdictions filed 1,842 rape reports, and police concluded that 439 were unfounded.”

pp. 375-376:

“‘Every year since 1989 . . .”: E. Connors et al., “Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial,” U.S. Dept. of Justice Research Report, June 1996, at xxviii-ix. (Scheck and Neufeld are quoted here.)

p. 376:

“That is a powerful justification . . . .”: Chronicle, 6 Feb. 2007.

“Indeed, 60 percent of rape and sexual assault victims do not report . . . .”: see here.

p. 377:

“Tom Vaden, the public editor . . . .”: N&O 28 Jan. 2007.

“This view, wrote Butler, . . .”: Kristin Butler article, supra.

“Tara Levicy, for example, made it absolutely clear . . . .”: Tara Levicy interview with Doug Kingsbery, 26 Feb. 2007.

p. 378:

“Tara Levicy’s stridency . . .”: Joe Cheshire interview.

“For them, ‘bad news is good news,’ . . .”: Donnelly’s testimony is here.

“If accusers are asked to take polygraphs . . .”: Mandy Locke, “Lie Detector Tests Randle Victim Backers,” N&O 23 May 2006.

p. 379:

“As Durham minister Carl Kenney demanded . . . .”: “March Madness, II,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 19 March 2007.

“The relevant section from the North Carolina general states . . .”: § 15-144.1 of the criminal procedure code, “Essentials of bill for rape,”: quoted in “Discretionary Daily Double,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 5 Sept. 2006.

p. 380:

“Oliver Jovanovic . . .”: e.g., Cathy Young, “Excluded Evidence: The dark side of rape shield laws,” Reason, 1 Feb. 2002.

pp. 380-381:

“And in a 1997 case, sportscaster Marv Albert . . . .”: Cathy Young, “Excluded Evidence: The dark side of rape shield laws,” Reason, 1 Feb. 2002.

“The danger of such miscarriages . . .”: The Law Lords decision is summarized here.

“But North Carolina attorney general Roy Cooper . . .”: e.g. N&O 12 April 2007.

pp. 381-382:

“A leading example is the case of Kobe Bryant . . .”: See, e.g., Kirk Johnson, “The Bryant Trial: Anatomy of a Case that Fell Apart,” New York Times, 3 September 2004.

p. 382-383:

“The same forces that took the treatment . . . .”: E.g., Dorothy Rabinowitz, No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our Times (New York: Free Press, 2003).

“The excesses of those prosecutions were epitomized . . .”: Boston Globe, 22 June 2006.

“They showed, according to Harvey Silverglate . . .: Harvey Silverglate to Stuart Taylor, e-mail.

“A heartbreaking article . . . .”: Ashley Cross, “I Fell for a Man Who Wore an Electronic Ankle Bracelet,” New York Times, 14 Jan. 2007.

pp. 383-384:

“A twenty-year-old Brandeis junior, David Schaer . . .”: The facts are best summarized in the parties brief in Schaer v. Brandeis University, 432 Mass. 474, 735 N.E. 2d 723 (2000) (in possession of authors).

p. 384:

“The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled . . .”: Id.

“This amounted to judicial encouragement . . .”: Wendy Kaminer’s comments are here.

pp. 384-385:

“An assistant professor of religion . . .”: The facts of the Ramda Lamb case are detailed in Melanie Thernstrom, “Trouble in Paradise,” George, September 1999.

pp. 385-386:

“Cathy Young described the trend . . .”: Cathy Young, “Harsh Punishment at Harvard,” Boston Globe, 11 March 1999.

Chapter Twenty-Five: The Assault on Excellence (pp. 386-401)

p. 387:

“As when armed militants occupied . . .”: See Donald Alexander Downs, Cornell ‘69: Liberalism and the Crisis of the American University (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.)

“Blur the line historically drawn . . .”: Wahneema Lubiano, “Black Studies: Knowledge as Dissent,” 12 Feb. 2007.

p. 388:

“In a nation whose future depends . . .”: Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate, The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses (New York: The Free Press, 1998), pp. 210.

“As it happens . . .”: This and the following nine paragraphs from Shadow University, chapter one.

p. 390:

“Check your history . . .”: Alan Charles Kors letter, 2002, copy in authors’ possession.

p. 391:

“The water buffalo case . . .”: See Foundation for Individual Rights in Education website.

“The cohort of people . . .”: Chronicle, 18 Sept. 2002.

p. 392:

“In the era of political correctness . . .”: Richard Bernstein, The Dictatorship of Virtue: How the Battle over Multiculturalism Is Reshaping Our Schools, Our Country, and Our Lives (New York: Vintage, 1995), p. 110.

“Anti-Semitic in effect if not intent . . .”: “The Long Winter of Mr. Summers,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 Feb. 2005.

“Right-wing critics . . .”: Lawrence H. Summers, “Remarks at NBER Conference,” 14 Jan. 2005.

“Coalition of angry feminists . . .”: New York Sun, 14 April 2005.

p. 393:

“Sounding more like a prisoner in a Soviet show trial . . .”: Ruth Wisse, “Gender Fender-Bender,” Wall Street Journal, 21 Jan. 2005.

“Summers loses his job for the crime . . .”: Washington Post, 19 Feb. 2005.

“Mental Maginot line . . .”: Stephan Thernstrom, “Comments Made at the March 15, 2005 Meeting.”

“The modern university is the culmination . . .”: Harvey Silverglate, “Say It Ain’t So,” Boston Phoenix, 28 Jan. 2005.

“You might think that the presidents . . .”: Donald Kagan, “As Goes Harvard . . .,” Commentary, Sept. 2006.

p. 394:

“In some way promote the diversity goals . . .”: Scott Smallwood, “Columbia U. Will Spend $15 Million to Increase the Diversity of Its Faculty,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 Aug. 2005.

“Scholars and feminists engaged in these studies . . .”: “How Not to Diversify,” EphBlog, 25 Jan. 2006.

p. 395:

“Take Marquette . . .”: Inside Higher Ed, 14 Oct. 2005.

“Conduct research and contribute . . .”: “‘Diversity’ Clusters and the ‘Fichtner Principle’,” Cliopatria, 21 Jan. 2004.

“Cultural competence . . .”: Inside Higher Ed, 31 May 2005.

p. 396:

“Any college has a limited resource . . .”: Chronicle, 31 Oct. 2002.

“In at least one case, a department chair . . .”: “Debating Parity in Faculty Population,” Duke Magazine, May-June 2004.

“As colleges and universities embedded . . .”: “Intellectual Diversity and the Teaching of U.S. History,” U.S. Senate, Education and Labor Committee, Hearings, Is Intellectual Diversity an Endangered Species on Today’s College Campuses?, 2003.

“No need for more emphasis in Western studies . . .”: Daily Tar Heel, 7 March 2005.

p. 397:

“Working class, poorer blacks, and other minorities . . .”: Daily Tar Heel, 3 March 2005.

“Fearing encounters with the stranger . . .”: Richard Guarasci, “Developing the Democratic Arts,” 1999 address.

“Perfectly logical criticism of the current society . . .”: Chronicle, 10 Feb. 2004.

“According to a study . . .”: Rothman, Lichter, Nevitte, “Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty,” Forum 3(2005).

p. 398:

“When I see how agenda-driven . . .”: “Our Collective Voice—A Duke Mom Responds to Stuart Rojstaczer,” Liestoppers, 27 Nov. 2006.

“The absence of true diversity of opinion . . .”: Inside Higher Ed, 24 Feb. 2006.

“Not just outside, on some congressional . . .”: Stephan Thernstrom, “Comments Made at the March 15, 2005 Meeting.”

“Chilling effect caused by the dominance . . .”: Brown Daily Herald, 2 Feb. 2005.

p. 399:

“Many conservatives may deliberately choose . . .”: Rocky Mountain News, 29 July 2005.

“Successful career in academia . . .”: “An Academia Balancing Act,” Centricity, 22 Nov. 2004.

“Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good . . .”: “The Democrats and ‘Values’,” Discriminations, 24 Nov. 2004.

“At least in the humanities and the social sciences . . .”: Mark Bauerlein, “Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 Nov. 2004.

p. 400:

“Some fields’ very constitutions . . .”: Mark Bauerlein, “Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 Nov. 2004.

“People think that the collective opinion . . .”: Mark Bauerlein, “Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 Nov. 2004.

“I did not hear from one colleague . . .”: Thomas Bartlett and Sara Lipka, “One Ad, 88 Professors, and No Apologies,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 Feb. 2007.

“Faculty political culture is self-perpetuating . . .”: Gary Tobin and Arye Weinberg, A Profile of American College Faculty—Vol. 1: Political Beliefs & Behavior (Institute for Jewish & Community Research, 2006).

p. 401:

“It would be absurd . . .”: Gary Tobin and Arye Weinberg, A Profile of American College Faculty—Vol. 1: Political Beliefs & Behavior (Institute for Jewish & Community Research, 2006).

“A university without a larger . . .”: Harry R. Lewis, Excellence without a Soul: How a Great University Forgot Education (New York: Public Affairs Press, 2006), pp. 73.

Epilogue: (pp. 403-430)

p. 403:

“In an open letter to Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans . . .”: Jemele Hill, “Apology to Duke Lacrosse Players Not Enough,” espn.com.

“Sportswriter John Feinstein . . .”: “Feinstein: ‘They’re Probably Guilty of Everything But Rape’,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 7 May 2007.

“Andrew Cohen ungraciously conceded . . .”: “The Smartest Thing They Said About the Duke Case,” washingtonpost.com.

p. 404:

“Wendy Murphy, meanwhile . . .”: “More Murphy,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 2 May 2007.

In a subsequent interview with American Journalism Review: Rachel Smolkin, “Justice Denied,” American Journalism Review, Aug.-Sept. 2007.

“He dismissed the lacrosse case . . .”: “Araton: No Apologies,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 24 April 2007.

“Byron Calame, in his final major column as “public editor” of the Times . . .”: New York Times, 22 April 2007.

“Executive editor Bill Keller later lashed out . . .”: Smolkin, “Justice Denied,” American Journalism Review, Aug.-Sept. 2007.

“Board of Trustees chairman Bob Steel released a statement . . .”: Bob Steel e-mail, 11 April 2007.

p. 405:

“In an interview with the Chronicle, William Chafe conceded . . .”: Chronicle, 30 April 2007.

“Each of the dozen or so bloggers . . .”: “Chafe’s Conspiracy Theory,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 3 May 2007.

“Farred told a Williams College audience . . .”: “Friday with Farred,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 11 May 2007.

p. 406:

“Gushed English Department chair Molly Hite . . .”: “Path Not Taken,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 13 Sept. 2007.

“Outraged Cornell alumni . . .”: “More Big Red,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 28 Sept. 2007; Bruce did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

“Describing the lacrosse team as ‘a semi-criminal youth gang’ . . .”: “Mindboggling,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 10 April 2007. After this book went to press, Potter—without explanation—removed her post from her website. It is, however, cached here.

Syracuse professor Bryce Watkins . . .”: “Still Foolish,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 23 June 2007. After this book went to press, Watkins—without explanation—removed the post from his website.

American University professor Greg Ivers . . .”: “Suppose the Jena Six Played Lacrosse,” PoliScope, 21 Sept. 2007.

p. 407:

“According to Francis, too many African-Americans believed . . .”: “Only the ‘Right’ Girls Matter,” New Black Man, 13 May 2007.

“Solomon Burnette openly called for race war and black vigilantism . . .”: Campus Echo, 18 April 2007.

“In response to heavy outside criticism . . .”: Campus Echo, 2 May 2007.

p. 408:

“Unlike many in the academic world . . .”: Quotes in this and the following five paragraphs come from the Baker-Chalmers Report, 11 May 2007.

p. 409:

“As Brad Bannon noted . . .”: Herald-Sun, 12 May 2007.

“Chalmers . . . ‘Investigators hoped this [procedure] would develop some leads’ . . .”: Baker-Chalmers Report, 11 May 2007.

“Catotti complained about chiefs of police from “competing” and “rival” cities . . .”: Herald-Sun, 29 May 2007.

“’This case,’ explained Catotti, “raises so many race and gender issues’ . . .”: Herald-Sun, 2 June 2007.

p. 410:

“Gottlieb effectively confessed . . .”: The quotes in this and the following paragraph come from Gottlieb deposition, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong.

“Himan, the only Durham police officer . . .”: Himan deposition, Bar v. Michael B. Nifong.

p. 411:

Wilson also provided a far-from-credible explanation . . .”: The quotes in this and the following two paragraphs come from Wilson deposition, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong.

“Nifong rationalized in his own deposition . . .”: Wilson deposition, State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong.

p. 412:

“The encounter energized the former co-captain too . . .”: Interview with Dave Evans.

“Whitlock . . . the “program and its players were demonized’ . . .”: Kansas City Star, 29 May 2007.

“The Chicago Tribune’s Philip Hersh . . .”: Chicago Tribune, 28 May 2007.

“Added the Baltimore Sun’s Roch Kubato . . .”: Baltimore Sun, 27 May 2007.

p. 413:

“The Washington Post’s Mike Wise . . .”: Washington Post, 26 May 2007.

“Mark Purdy of the San Jose Mercury . . .: San Jose Mercury News, 28 May 2007.

pp. 413-417:

All quotes in these pages come from coverage of the hearing at Durham-in-Wonderland.

p. 418:

“Hodge . . . ‘you guys in the media’ . . .”: N&O, 7 July 2007.

“It is in the best interests of the Duke community to eliminate the possibility of future litigation’ . . .”: N&O, 13 April 2007.

p. 419:

All quotes on this page come from coverage of the criminal contempt trial in Durham-in-Wonderland.

p. 420:

Former City Councilor Sandy Ogburn . . .”: “City Council Hears from the Not-Based-Reality Crowd,” Right Angles, 19 Sept. 2007.

Coleman: “When the city acts in ways . . .”: N&O, 13 Sept. 2007.

p. 421:

“But in November, Coleman dramatically revised his opinion . . .”: Chronicle, 14 Nov. 2007.

“Termed Coleman’s behavior ‘way off-base’ . . .”: Winston-Salem Journal, 22 Nov. 2007.

Durham spokesperson Beverly Thompson . . .”: N&O, 7 Oct. 2007.

p. 422:

“Brodhead offered a limited apology at a Duke Law School conference . . .”: Chronicle, 30 Sept. 2007.

p. 423:

Bilas “thought it was appropriate that President Brodhead would apologize . . .”: N&O, 30 Sept. 2007.

“Statement revealed both personal courage . . .”: Chronicle, .30 Sept. 2007.

Starn . . . “By speaking only of his own supposed mistakes . . .”: Herald-Sun, 3 Oct. 2007.

Piot: the Group’s ad “was never about the lacrosse . . .”: Piot, “KC’s World,” Transforming Anthropology, fall 2007; for a response, see “Reflections on the Piot Principles,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 20 Oct. 2007.

“Paula McClain quoted Nelson Mandela . . .”: Chronicle, 19 Oct. 2007

p. 424:

“Victor Goode summarized the argument . . .”: “What if the Duke Lacrosse Players Were Black?,” Alternet.org, 31 July 2007.

“NYU law professor Derrick Bell . . .”: BET.com, 21 June 2007.

p. 425:

“Group of 88 stalwart Karla Holloway . . .”: Jena statement, 19 Sept. 2007.

“In fact, the Jena case . . .: Charlotte Allen, “The Case of the Amazing Disappearing Hate Crime,” Weekly Standard, 21 Jan. 2008.

p. 426:

“Justice Department spokesperson Peter Carr . . .”: N&O, 5 Dec. 2007.

Blue: “We think he has articulated a compelling . . .”: Chronicle, 10 Dec. 2007.

Butler: “heavy reliance on out-of-court settlements . . .”: Chronicle, 15 Jan. 2008.

p. 427:

Cline fantastically told the Herald-Sun . . .”: Herald-Sun, 10 Oct. 2007; for Cline’s record, see “Cline: The Nifongesque Choice,” Durham-in-Wonderland, 3 May 2008.

p. 428:

“Mangum, in a cap and gown . . .”: N&O, 12 May 2008.

Butler: “It seems anyone . . .”: Chronicle, 15 May 2008.

Moneta: “Not really a topic I’m interested in talking about”: Durham-in-Wonderland, 20 May 2008.

“The faculty whose professional expertise . . .”: Lubiano, Hardt, and Weigman, “In the Afterlife of the Duke Case,” Social Text 25:4 (2007):1-16.

p. 429:

“Often a full examination of the facts . . .”: Robert Mosteller, “The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, and False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure To ‘Do Justice’,” Fordham Law Review, vol. 76.

Williamson: “In addition to this being a deterrent to any prosecutorial misconduct . . .”: for the video of these remarks, see here.