Two recent breathtaking assertions prompt this two-part DIW contest.
Duke attorneys Jamie Gorelick and Dan McLamb wrote,
[The lacrosse players] contend that Duke and its employees violated their legal rights by providing the police with information about the alleged rape during the investigation. They also contend that the University had a legal obligation to quell public debate about the alleged rape. In essence, Plaintiffs argue that the University had a legal duty to stand between themselves and the prosecutor, and to try to prevent the police and prosecutor from investigating them for a very serious crime.
I have followed the case very closely. Unfortunately, I seem to have missed the filing or statement in which an attorney for the unindicted players made such assertions.
Contest participants are, therefore, urged to identify the statement to which the Gorelick/McLamb brief refers. To account for the Duke attorneys’ possible confusion, the contest will accept even a statement by an attorney in the criminal case arguing “that the University had a legal duty to stand between themselves and the prosecutor, and to try to prevent the police and prosecutor from investigating them for a very serious crime.”
Yesterday’s N&O contained the following passage about Board of Trustees chairman Bob Steel’s performance in the lacrosse case.
Steel said in such a situation many decisions are made, sometimes based on incorrect information. “There’s no way you can go through something like that and do everything perfectly.”
Contest participants are urged to identify which piece of correct information—if known to the Duke administration—would have caused the administration to pursue a different policy. Three points need to be kept in mind:
1.) At the time of Mike Nifong’s pre-primary publicity crusade (late March/early April 2006), Duke administrators knew that a key Nifong claim—that the players had erected a “wall of silence” and refused to give their version of events to police—was false. Yet not only did administrators decline to reveal this information, there’s no evidence that their knowledge of this correct information had any impact on their approach to the case at the time.
2.) Two months after public revelation of Mike Nifong’s most serious procedural breach—instructing the
3.) Apart from Prof. Petters (and, briefly before their subsequent retreats, Profs. Thorne and Moreiras), the Group of 88—the key campus pressure group on the case—appeared impervious to any new, correct information after they issued their statement on April 6, 2006.
Contest answers will be posted Friday.
[Update, 6.45pm: Prize for anyone who can actually identify the statements to which Gorelick and McLamb referred: One share of Wachovia stock.]