1.) Some people interpreted my post yesterday as suggesting that the Durham CrimeStoppers was being secretive about its board. I hadn't intended to communicate that point, and apologize for doing so.
The Durham Police, on the other hand, have been needlessly secretive about the board, refusing to answer press and bloggers' questions about the board's composition, even though, of course, Cpl. David Addison was fully aware of the board's composition. Addison has refused for months to speak publicly about his actions.
Moreover, the DPD has refused to post the board's membership on the CS website hosted by the DPD, meaning that members of the community have no easy way to see the board's membership.
Dean Sue reiterated--and another board member privately confirmed to me last night--that there was and is no desire on the part of the CS board not to publicize its membership list.
2.) For understandable reasons, there remains a confusion between the "vigilante" poster--the one with 43 of the the players' photos on it, demanding they come forward, the highest-profile campus protest before the Group of 88 issued its statement saying "thank you" to protesters "for not waiting and for making yourselves heard"--and the CrimeStoppers poster, which appeared under DPD stationery in the Trinity Park neighborhood.
The former received much more attention, and blanketed the campus on March 29. I discussed its origins here.
The latter poster identified a house rented by the lacrosse captains as the scene of the crime, and then stated,
The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.Dean Sue said that she had seen the "vigilante" poster last spring, and had been assured by CrimeStoppers (correctly) that the organization had no connection to it. She had not seen the "horrific crime" item previously, and it appears most people on the board had not seen the item.
3.) Dean Sue reports that she has asked this matter be placed on the agenda for the next CS meeting, and that she is "completely motivated to make sure this is adequately addressed."
43 comments:
Well at least she has the stones to communicate with you as opposed to running and hiding like so many other unsavory characters who don't want to answer for their actions.
KC, I'd be interested (and I think many others would be too) in seeing a list of people involved in the hoax who have openly and honestly answered questions and been forthcoming about their roles, and those who have run for cover and gone silent.
I think one of the things that bothers many people in this whole ordeal is that the Group of 88 and others (Cpl. Addison) have hidden themselves away and refused to answer questions or defend their actions. Like you said, only in Durham does a public spokesperson refuse to speak to the public.
How about it, right or wrong, who has at least been willing to talk to you and who has not? Can we see a complete list?
Respectfully,
Mike Lee
Attorney General Gonzales just gave press conference. Apparantly there are alot of Fed Prosecuters either resigning or being fired. Congress is asking Gonzales to resign. Interesting....he hasn't been doning his job.
KC, you wrote:
"Dean Sue said that she had seen the 'vigilante' poster last spring, and had been assured by CrimeStoppers (correctly) that the organization had no connection to it. She had not seen the 'horrific crime' item previously..."
You seem to be saying that Dean Sue told you that she had not seen the CrimeStoppers' "horrific crime" poster prior to your conversation with her today.
Or does "previously" refer to a different event that was referenced in your conversation?
It seems hard to believe that someone who was directly involved in this imbroglio from its earliest days in an official Duke Administration role and who was also a CrimeStoppers Board member could have been unaware of the CrimeStoppers poster, until today.
Or does the statement require further parsing, e.g. "reading the text of the poster online" shoud be seen as being an activity different from "seeing the poster"?
Good work, KC! Is this the 1st time you've talked to Dean Sue, or been able to get in touch with her?
Any chance she'll talk to you about her advice to the LAX players to talk to the PD w/o representation?
Dean Sue reports that she has asked this matter be placed on the agenda for the next CS meeting, and that she is "completely motivated to make sure this is adequately addressed."
Good. It will set a wonderful precedent for someone or some group to stand up and do the right thing!
Carolyn says:
Dean Sue is "completely motivated to make sure this is adequately addressed."
Ahh, Christ! Would it kill any of these people to say yes or no?
KC (and, if you're continuing to lurk on this list, Dean Sue): Please note that even if Dean Sue is, as she describes, "completely motivated to make sure this is adequately addressed," it will in no way, shape, or form insulate CS from liability. At best--and only at the margins--it might help to cap damages.
Moreover, thanks in no small part to Dean Sue, the Group/Gang 88, Broadhead, and many other despicable, venal morons and village idiots that presently run Duke, Duke's endowment will assuredly soon take one heck of a big financial hit.
Although Duke's endowment will likely digest the verdicts, I seriously doubt whether Duke will ever regain its palpably sought-after reputation as a plausible "Ivy League wanna-be," at least during my lifetime and certainly not among serious faculty, parents, and students. Thanks to the Hoax, Duke has now returned to its roots as just another "regional" (and Southern, to boot) university.
I find it strange that since the spring John in Carolina has been trying to find out who Crimestoppers staff and board were and no one would divulge that info. Now that it is uncovered, everyone says that no one was hiding it. Then why weren't JinC's inquiries answered? He didn't ask the board (since he didn't know who they were) but he ask a DPD officer on loan to CS and he asked DPD. It is confusing.
Well at least one member of faculty at Duke is willing to respond to you KC.
Do you have any plans to post about the rest of your conversation with her? Was she, in effect, disowning all of Cpl Addison's actions, or just specifically the 'horrific crime' statement?
As you've reported that there were at least three separate CS press releases regarding the 'Wanted' poster, surely SOMEONE in CS (other than Addison) knew what was going on (and if not, why not)?
Broadhead's Quang Duc
Mike Nifong's small office of third rate investigators could not have known about the 'vigilante' posters and a newspaper ad paid for by faculty condemning their own students.
I also doubt that Mike Nifong knew that he was in the middle of a career advancement agenda for staff members at Duke who had/have a meta-agenda that is all about the broader societal issues of racism and sexism.
That newspaper ad in Durham brought the eyes and ears of the world to Duke just as a similar ad did in June of 1963 when a group of American clergy took out an ad in the New York Times and the Washington Post highlighting the symbolic act of a aging monk - Quang Duc - on June 11, 1963 setting himself on fire on a street corner in Saigon as a statement of opposition to the political climate in South Vietnam.
Instantaneously, the eyes of America were on Vietnam in 1963 and the eyes focused again in 2006 on Duke in Durham when the LAX team nearly set themselves on fire at a party.
The Diem regime in Vietnam had their Quang Duc to deal with just as Broadhead has his Quang Duc to deal with...today.
And...Mike Nifong did not know any of that...and still may not know.
It turns out that the 'burning monk' was a 'set up job' by a group of his colleagues with their own meta-agenda and who probably, drugged him and poured gasoline all over him on that street corner.
Similarly, some group set up the LAX players and enabled them to almost set themselves on fire.
And it wasn't Mike Nifong.
Either way there is still - Quang Duc - to deal with.
The newspaper ad and the 'posters' have been seen and talked about all over the world.
Broadhead is trying a lateral pass of - Quang Duc - towards Nifong and Nifong is just trying to figure out where the fire came from and how to put it out!
If history repeats itself President Broadhead will have his Madame Nhu [Paula McClain?] who won't shut up and the whole house of cards will collapse.
Dean Sue would be well advised to take this modern day 'Quang Duc' to her CrimeStoppers board and put a substantial reward on the heads of those folks who set up the LAX team.
We don't need another Triumph Forsaken.
Reference:
Moyar, Mark. Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965. Cambridge University Press. New York, New York. pp. 220-221 and 458 (Item #69)
GP
The board is not going to enjoy that meeting. Boards of nonprofits have enough problems; looking like intimidating thugs - to say nothing of maybe opening the board to a lawsuit - is not how boards are supposed to operate. Leaving so long between the action and addressing it is even worse.
I wish them joy of it.
Dianna
Sounds like you two had a nice chat. Did you ask her about her admonition to the players not to tell their parents or get legal counsel and that they should talk with Duke's attorney? Can you share anything with us about her recollections or impressions of the Duke administation's 'mission' in those early days?
rl medicine '75
National Review has a new article up about the Duke case:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ3NDY2OGEwODIwZmM4N2Y2MGYxMmFkZTQ4NzQ5NzY
Going to address this item, huh?
It can't be undone. The only thing which can/should be done is some penalty for the people who did it.
Duke is not in the business of inconveniencing anybody but white jocks.
Nothing will happen except, possibly, a statement deploring the poster and all other such stuff, implying there really is other such stuff, probably from the straight, white male community.
How much of being a normal human being do you have to give up to become a college administrator?
I'm sure it will be more than adequately addressed by the Civil suit against the department.
Sure!
I still wonder how the infamous poster got by Dean Sue and everyone. Surely she knew about it, at least after the fact. Did she raise any questions about it?
I wonder if she will also be "completely motivated" to see if the vigilante poster was copied from a Duke copier and the layout done on a Duke computer, all by a Duke employee(s)?
No offense, KC, but I kind of thought you linked, however tenuously, Dean Sue's name to the "Wanted" (not the "Vigilante") poster a little too cavalierly yesterday. Glad to see your clarification today.
If I were to speculate, I would say Addison was looking to make Gottlieb, his senior officer, happy in the days surrounding the production of that flyer. Gottlieb even may have suggested to Addison that the auspices of CrimeStoppers be utilized for the effort, and helped him with the composition. Then better legal minds, at the DA's office perhaps, noticed problems with the language, and the second and third iterations appeared.
In any case, whoever it was, it makes more sense that it came exclusively from the LE/DA side, not from Wasiolek's office, or any other Duke official.
beckett
Dean Sue said the Board would meet to address the matter.
Well, color me a little shocked that she would be shocked about the existence and language of Crimestoppers wanted posters sent to a couple dozen parties and printed and distributed in Trinity Park and on campus pillorying Duke students prior tothe infamous wanted poster. Wanted Posters in circulation from March 28 to April 10th when Addison was ordered to remove the presumption of crime and guilt language from the CS posters.
John in C had blogged about his efforts to find out who authorized the possibly libelous notices and found his road of inquiry stopped last June with Major Russ of the DPD, who said Addison would not be speaking further on the Duke Case. Moreover, he stated to John in C that any communications Addison had done were in his role as Crimestoppers Coordinator, that DPD and the City bore no responsibility.
OK, OK, so here are some questions that I hope the Board of Crimestoppers resolves:
1. Addison sent all his Lacrosse wanted posters out on an elistserve of dozens of interested parties. Obviously the affected local police forces like at NCCU and the Sheriffs and Duke would get each Crimestopper's notice, along with selected (or all) Board members. Surely the Chair, Bob Dean who headed Duke POlice as well got that series of Duke wanted posters.
2. Reviews if any Board member received a request from Charns or other lawyers representing the players to pull down the Posters.
3. Reviews their legal exposure in light of Maj Russ saying the Crimestopper Wanted Posters and potentially tort-creating language was all their responsibility, not the DPD or City's.
4. Understanding that Addison was making defamatory statements intended to escalate the situation that echo'd the remarks and certainty of his then boss, Mike Nifong. That his remarks on the Crimestopper posters of certainty of crime, and certainty of Duke players doing it mirrored his words to newspapers and media on March 28th. For the Board to summon and ask Addison, in light of this, since the Board didn't authorize or know of it - who ordered Addison to make his remarks in public and on the Crimestoppers wanted ads.
The inquiry of their Coordinator is a serious matter because of the issue of Durham Crimestoppers exposure to libel lawsuits.
5. Discussion of the need of the Crimestoppers Board of Directors to issue a public statement on the matter, and what their present position is. It would certainly help if they said they regretted that Crimestoppers name was made part of the media and various groups that issued statements prejudging the guilt of the players, and that is not CS policy, ever.
6. On the need to reaffirm that Crimestoppers did not have anything to do with the altered Crimestoppers poster, the Vigilante One, and the status of the investigation by Duke (if any!) into who was responsible for it's creation and distribution on campus, and whose ISP was logged into the Lacrosse team site for an extended period of time possibly pulling down and pasting photos and names of the players.
And, in the realm of pure wishful fantasy on my part, Crimestoppers declares that they are interested in any tips regarding the possiblity of criminal conspiracy to railroad the Duke players and deprive them of their civil rights. Any tips on who the principals were at the crisis management meetings March 21st-March 23rd regarding Mangum's accusations and who decided who should be placed in charge of managing the crisis and all communications....Not that they are presuming anything about Nifong and enablers, though they are sinking faster than the Titanic.
And have good ol' Addison issue a notice that Crimestoppers is offering a 5,000 dollar reward for anyone coming forward pointing out who created the libelous Vigilante poster.
Well, where is the list of the names of the CS board of directors?
You don't really believe Sue didn't know what the wanted poster said ? You mean no one connected to CS or Sue has ever seen the poster, or saw its contents on this and several other blogs, and then it never ever got back to Sue. That strains credulity.
It's the one year anniversary of that party...today.
Praise for seeking "the other side of the story." This used to be the hallmark of an intellectual. But I only know that because I am a student of ancient history.
Your post begs the question - did Dean Sue tell you the names of all current CrimeStoppers Board members?
You are not in a position to say that Dean Sue did not see the Crimestopper poster. All you can say is that Dean Sue told you that she did not see the poster. After all, there may be civil liability issues and Dean Sue may have valid reasons for not being candid to you.
In Loco Parentis...or Just Loco
"Duke Lumbers on" - Frederick Hess, NRO
"...So much for in loco parentis. Would you entrust your kids to these people?..."
As a former Duke student, I met Dean Sue formally only once (at a hearing on my underage drinking, oddly enough). She was quite decent.
I can imagine her in over her head to some extent from this situation (I think just about every administrator on campus was), but it's much harder to ascribe to her any malicious intent toward the lax players. From everything I knew and heard about her, she definitely liked Duke and Duke students.
The longer it takes to drop the charges the better Nifong looks and the lighter his punishment will be.
JLS says....,
You don't owe the Crimestoppers board any apology. They did not list their board on any website. They made no effort to list their board any place it would be easy for a member of the public to find out who they are. This is not to say they illegally hid the membership, but they most certainly did not make it easy to find out who they are or it would not have taken three websites this long to identify them.
I for a second do not believe that the members of the Crimestopper's board have not heard of JohninCarolina's series on this and did not decide to finally admit who they are and claim they were not trying to hide all along.
There seems to be a group dynamic on this board that favors reading the worst into the actions of the CS board and Dean Sue in particular. Given that the lax case has so amply illustrated the peril of rushing to judgement, I'd think slightly more circumspection might be sensible.
i give a high five to dean sue for calling and trying to set the record straight..from all i understand she believed the boy from day one and sadi so to all her bosses up the line..she has never backed away or engaged in the burness- steel bs about "terrible things going on even if no rape occured" den se stand tall in more ways than one in my book
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Dean Sue really didn't know about the poster in advance (that is at least plausible), one wonders what the point of the CS board is. What procedures and oversight does it provide to prevent potentially libelous material going out in its name? And, having let that slip by (if indeed it did), why has it taken months of pressure to prompt her to put the matter on the CS board's agenda for discussion? Given her links to Duke, surely she had a duty to investigate this matter and not just react when pressured. What's the point of having her on the CS Board as a Duke employee if not to ensure the interests of Duke, its reputation and (last and always least in Duke's case) its students?
I just want to be clear.
Dean Sue hasn't noticed in the past YEAR that anyone wanted to know who the CS board was?
She hasn't noticed in the past YEAR that there was something libelous about the poster that her organization distributed?
She's STILL not saying who the other board members are?
She won't say when the next meeting is?
Is that all correct?
CrimeStoppers Board Members. This is from yesterday.
March 12, 2007
Information about not-for-profit organizations in the USA
Guidestar runs a service where all IRS 990's are listed for up-to-date not-for-profit organizations and the service is free after you register.
http://www.guidestar.org/
There are two levels of premium service that are NOT free however, I have found the premium service has the same information as the 990's. They array the information for you rather than you looking for the information yourself.
The 990's also list the endowments of not-for-profits and investment holdings.
BE SURE AND USE THE ADVANCED SEARCH CRITERIA
CrimeStoppers is one word. CrimeStoppers Durham, North Carolina
Then scroll down to the bottom with the 990's are listed from the last 5 or 6 years. Click on the Adobe Acrobat icon.
GP
Anonymous...8:14 Said...
As a former Duke student, I met Dean Sue formally only once (at a hearing on my underage drinking, oddly enough). She was quite decent.
I can imagine her in over her head to some extent from this situation (I think just about every administrator on campus was), but it's much harder to ascribe to her any malicious intent toward the lax players. From everything I knew and heard about her, she definitely liked Duke and Duke students.
******
I think you hit the nail on the head.
She was in WAY over her head and that is why I asked why a Duke administrator would be on the CrimeStoppers board, in the first place.
What do she know about crime? There sure is not much hard crime on the campus of Duke University. We checked.
"You seem to be saying that Dean Sue told you that she had not seen the CrimeStoppers' "horrific crime" poster prior to your conversation with her today.
......
Or does the statement require further parsing, e.g. "reading the text of the poster online" shoud be seen as being an activity different from "seeing the poster"?"
AMac, nicely put. Dean Sue is asking us to believe that she hasn't seen some of the fundamental publications of the frame-up.
I can't remember - what is the definition of 'is', anyway?
Addisons statements appear timed to not only mirror Nifong's, but reinforce them. Is it more likely that a young low-ranking corporal had driven all public remarks in a high profile national case and the "Man in Charge" was just following his lead and the Police Brass just milled about with their thumbs up their ass as Addison did his own little campaign ---with Nifong following HIS lead? Or is it far more likely that Addison was ORDERED to say what he said??
Liestoppers Administrator#1 sagely noted in commenting to this:
On March 28, Addison distributed the first Crime Stoppers poster. The day before, Nifong stated:
QUOTE
"As you get additional information through Crimestoppers or through other witnesses, there are leads to follow up on the possible identities of some of the suspects," Nifong said.
To me, the Nifong quote confirms that a pile of high-ranking people had privately met on the crisis, who would be agreed to to have what roles, lines of command and control, and a media strategy.
That indicates Nifong was aware of the Crimestoppers media route as a tool he could employ, and knew it was coming (and likely the exact words on the Poster he agreed to or suggested that reinforced his "one voice, everyone is on the same page" message.)
For JohninCarolina and others that kept the Wanted/Vigilante Poster alive there is no escaping the centrality of the decisions of this as yet unknown inner circle that between March 20th and 27th - A. Established the resources to make the case big, B. put Nifong in charge....C. Set up the early media campaign that Addison and Nifong did.
That Nifong-Addison media campaign presumed guilt and certainty of horrific crime with iron conviction. It was defamatory. It declared guilt for horrific acts rested in the group of 46 white Duke students, and the only thing left was to confess who did it.
That enabled:
1. Legal cover for the mass media lynching of the white students. They only had to repeat the words of the cops, Crimestoppers, the DA/Head Investigator.
2. The Group of 88 to safely, they thought, exploit an opportunity to attack white males of privilege.
3. Other campus groups, external parties like the NAACP, their own teachers and fellow students - to denounce and pillory the 46 Duke students.
Anyone with half a brain knows that a low-ranking corporal in police does not spout off on his own on a nationally prominent case, particularly when his words only blow it up bigger. Major Russ of DPD said police and City had nothing to do with authorizing Addisons remarks, Crimestopper Posters, or ordering him about - in the Duke case.
The Crimestoppers Board appears to not have met and authorized Addison's Crimestopper posters.
So it could be that we are very, very close to Addison revealing who ordered him to publically issue statements that presumed guilt, presumed rape - and with Nifong, create the planned firestorm. And all the libel that Nifong thought he was immune from, along with his henchmen as assigned to him....
Nifong running everything Addison did?
Well, one more issue for the Bar, SP, and all the tort lawyers that will emerge soon to deal with.
=====================
Anonymous 3:14PM Please note that even if Dean Sue is, as she describes, "completely motivated to make sure this is adequately addressed," it will in no way, shape, or form insulate CS from liability. At best--and only at the margins--it might help to cap damages.
It depends. I have the logos of several organizations and corporations on my computer. Some of which I am actually associated with! I could put out all sorts of wild shit under their name. That does not make them liable for my words. In the case of Crimestoppers (Durham) their insurers would seek to establish they did not know about Addison's actions (proving they did is tough), that Addison violated Coordinator rules and protocols --and actually inflicted damage as an agent of the stage ordered to do as he did by ____________(fill in name of person with authority over corporal, what high-ranking official of City or State put him in charge).
Addison, as well as CS Board of Dorectors, may escape legal responsibility if he establishes he followed orders while protesting the propriety of them.
As a class of 98'er, I can assure you that Dean Sue is one of the few "good" college administrators, and does truly have students best interests at heart.
I agree that she may have since learned about that CS flyer, but I seriously, seriously doubt that any and every CS flyer goes by the board, and that she therefore saw it initially. I'm also glad for KC's clarification, and equally glad that Dean Sue responded at all. Anyway, most of you here are in business or academics. You know that executive boards don't bother themselves with anything approaching day-to-day involvement, and flyer creation and posting clearly falls in that category. They are there for oversight, so I'm going to believe Dean Sue on this one and at least wait to hear what comes out of the CS meeting. If it's even a "sorry", that's infinitely more than from the G88 and would be most welcomed.
To 9:26:00.... I think you are making the assumption that this situation is on the radar at Duke, and that administrators and educators are concerned enough to be taking some action. I don't believe that it is. I frequent this and related blogs on a daily basis, and frankly, all I do is read about it and have not done anything proactive. What about people who are detached from the issue? I don't think that they know how enraged some people are. Could we be in our own sheltered community here and kidding ourselves that there will be a positive outcome?
Regards to KC and all the people that have taken time to comment. This case is my first exposure to blogs and I have learned a lot.
MacD says...
I believe that the members of the CrimeStoppers board are well intentioned and upstanding citizens.
The DPD has said that Addison was acting under their authority. Board members have said "Nope, we didn't know about it".
So, either Addison has been a loose cannon acting indepentently, or he's been someone else's mouthpice (Nifong's? Gottlieb's?).
The CrimeStoppers board needs to come out and denounce Addison's actions.
CrimeStoppers is about seeking help from the community to find or identify suspects. In this case, the "suspects" were already identified and their whereabouts known. The posters were sheer intimidation and propaganda.
CrimeStoppers: denouce Addison's actions and impeach him has your contact!
THe irony of a group that exists to stop crime and cannot even control its own members! Keystone cops. Dean Sue seems hapless.
Dean Sue has been put under the spotlight for now, but I'm more concerned about Larry " the water buffalo" Monetta.
I actually know Dean Sue fairly well. I think she does care about students. However, for some reason, and maybe it has to do with the leanings of her boss Larry Moneta, she can't always bring herself to stand up for students. before the lax incident, she and Larry demonstrated a history of bias against certain fraternities. Interestingly, the lacrosse team had always received the same pass that some fraternities (but not all) got from the admin.
I had interpreted KC's past writings to lay blame for the wanted poster on CS--I'm glad the record is set straight, but either I misread KC earlier, or an entire year has gone by with a false accusation standing--the same thing we find so hard to forgive from the other side. I guess we should all recognize that we do need to try to understand the point of view of those with whom we think we disagree......
7:54:
If by "wanted poster" you mean "vigilante poster", then you indeed "misread KC earlier".
While I agree with the premise of your post, we are still without a definite example of this occuring.
Since you are tight with Dean Sue, please ask her what Duke is doing or has done in regards to exposing the origins of the vigilante poster.
Thanks
Post a Comment