Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
Blog Awards
About Me
DIW in the News
- New York Magazine (Kurt Andersen)
- cnnsi (Richard Deitsch)
- Slate (Stuart Taylor)
- National Post (Mary Vallis)
- Chicago Sports Review
- Worcester Telegram(Paul Jarvey)
- New York Sun (John Leo)
- North Adams Transcript (Adam Bloch)
- New Criterion
- New York Observer (Anna Schneider-Mayerson)
- Towerview/Chronicle (Rob Copeland)
- New York Post (John Podhoretz)
- Volokh Conspiracy (Jim Lindgren)
- USNews.com (Michael Barone)
- Crime and Federalism
- Chicago Sports Review (Matt Wood)
- Seton Hall Sports Blog
- Wall Street Journal (Randy Barnett)
- N&O (Eric Ferreri)
- Blogger News Network (Jefferson Flanders)
- Slate (Jack Shafer)
- New York Sun (Eliana Johnson)
- Infodder
- Duke Chronicle (Saidi Chen)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(132)
-
▼
August
(15)
- Cooper Response: Duke's SANE Brief
- Cooper Response to Duke
- Q&A Regarding the Mangum Opus
- The Mangum Opus
- Ironies
- Thirty-Six Questions
- Nifong: "$34.99 Is My Final Offer"
- Airbrushing
- Still More: Only in Durham
- More Only in Durham
- The Baker File
- Brodhead, Brown, & the Seligmanns
- FODU on Brodhead, the Giuliani Case
- Delaying Discovery
- July Events in the Case
-
▼
August
(15)
Comments Policy
(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
- "From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review
Links
Motions and Documents
- Attorney General's Report
- DNA motion
- Lineup motion
- Supplementary lineup motion
- Change of venue motion
- Bar amended complaint/Nifong response
- December 15 hearing
- State Bar v. Nifong
- Brewer removal motion
- Nifong December 28 letter to Bar
- Nifong January 16 letter to Bar
- Group of 88 statement (removed from Duke website)
- Group of 88 membership
- Transcript of relevant sections, April 4 "identification" "procedure"
3 comments:
"I am, however, troubled by some things Mr. Cooney had to say in two articles in yesterday’s Herald-Sun....."
Thank you, Jason.
Seligmann unaware of Duke help
By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun
Aug 7, 2008
DURHAM -- If Duke University President Richard Brodhead indeed helped Reade Seligmann transfer to Brown University last year, he did so largely without the exonerated lacrosse player's knowledge, Seligmann and one of his civil lawyers say.
Seligmann "knows of no support that Brodhead gave him at Brown," lawyer Richard Emery said Wednesday after his office e-mailed a statement from his client to The Herald-Sun. "Whether that happened behind his back, he can't be sure. It may have happened, but he doesn't know about it."
Emery's comments, and Seligmann's parallel statement, came a day after the player's Charlotte-based former criminal-defense attorney, Jim Cooney, told The Herald-Sun that Brodhead had helped Seligmann transfer by lobbying officials at other schools and writing letters of support.
Cooney said Brodhead went "out of his way to talk to the right people" and that Seligmann "wouldn't have ended up at Brown" unless the Duke president had.
In the statement Emery's office released Wednesday, Seligmann said it's his "clear recollection" that one of the last two times Brodhead communicated with him or his family was to wish them happy holidays late in 2006.
The Duke president also called to say he'd reinstated Seligmann at Duke, Seligmann said, without specifying when that occurred. Duke formally announced the reinstatement on Jan. 3, 2007.
Paralleling Cooney's comments, Seligmann said he was "aware of one letter I was told Mr. Brodhead wrote on my behalf," though neither he nor his family had ever seen it.
Emery said Seligmann doesn't know what the letter said, who received it or even if it went to officials at Brown.
"Nobody ever communicated to him anything specific about any letter," Emery said. "There was some general knowledge that Brodhead was writing a letter to assertively help him. But [that knowledge] was very general and very vague."
Emery, who's based in New York City, also said he and Seligmann "have no knowledge, one way or another," to say whether Brodhead did or didn't make any calls on the student's behalf.
The lawyer added that he thinks Duke should help "set the record straight" by opening its records on the matter.
If Duke officials have any inclination to do so, they didn't signal that on Wednesday.
"Student privacy laws constrain us from discussing such matters," school spokesman Keith Lawrence said after consulting other administrators.
Professors, administrators and others in the world of academia usually handle recommendations for students confidentially. Among other things, students almost never see the contents of letters written on their behalf.
Emery and Seligmann didn't question Cooney's Tuesday comment that Duke officials had encouraged him to join the player's defense team in the fall of 2006. Seligmann at the time was facing rape charges with teammates David Evans and Collin Finnerty.
"That's nothing we dispute. If Jim says it, it's true," Emery said when asked about the point. "No question, he's very accurate generally. He may be totally accurate. It's just that we've never had indications."
He added it's possible there were "conversations that Reade and his family in the turbulence of [that] time don't remember." The statement Emery's office released also said the Seligmann family "remains close friends with Mr. Cooney."
Cooney joined Seligmann's defense team in October 2006, at the request the month before of Evans defense lawyer Joe Cheshire and the encouragement of officials at Duke. Cooney had previously turned down a similar request from Cheshire in May 2006.
The school had to give Cooney permission to represent Seligmann because Cooney's law firm, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, numbers Duke as a client.
Once again, Jason cuts through the rhetoric and lays out the case with precision. His actions in this case were invaluable, much more important than I think people realize.
Post a Comment