<p>Geez…I can’t believe that professor is still maintaining that stance. The attorney general didn’t merely say there was not enough evidence to prosecute…he said they were INNOCENT. Meaning this crime never happened. The Attorney General wasn’t uncertain. </p>
<p>I do agree with SS, however, unfortunately, that this charge taints their reputations in irrepable ways. Hopefully, they can go on and some good can come of out it (justice process changes as Attorney General proposed, etc.) and that the flip side is that some may be impressed with the boys’ characters (I certainly think they came across well in their news conference) and be willing to give them opportunities and such now that this mess is over. But yes, their lives are tainted and will forever be changed by these events.</p>
<p>“The fact the charges were dropped doesn’t mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn’t collected appropriately enough to go forward.” - Quote from a Professor Broverman.</p>
<p>Not really. The DA was very clear that the men are INNOCENT, period. He did not focus on the mishandling of the information. There was enough information to prove that the accuser’s story made no sense, and that nothing did happen as she suggested. </p>
<p>Good God, I hope my son never has a class with this Broverman. Enough is enough.</p>
<p>BTW, I thought I would just drop by and say that I hope they throw the book at Nifong. He should never have filed charges with no evidence and a flakey accuser. He needed DNA, some collaborating evidence from somebody, and/or a more reliable, consistent accuser.</p>
<p>Of course the DA said they were innocent, in the eyes of the law these boys are innocent and it’s the DA’s job to inspire confidence in the law. If the evidence does not exist the defendant is legally innocent. That says nothing about whether or not they really did it… OJ Simpson was legally innocent.</p>
<p>Gang - Prof. Broverman is an excellent teacher who does great things for her students. I think in this particular case the source - specifically Newsday - bears more of the blame for the particular spinning of what she said than anything else. They’ve not been…the best as far as journalistic integrity and dispassionate discourse of late.</p>
<p>ID - I think one of the strongest lessons from this is that people in positions of trust are not always trustworthy… I hope it shakes some of my administrative superiors out of their naivete.</p>
<p>The AG said they were innocent, not the DA. The DA told everyone a pack of lies to have them believe they were anything BUT innocent. Now he’s the one who is a defendent. I am not sorry for someone who has been so deliberately evil.</p>
<p>berurah~this is so great!!! I know you are as happy a Duke mom as I am!!
and I agree with what you said ^^!! </p>
<p>So…where are all the others who had these young men tried and convicted in the first weeks of this case on the original lax thread?? Any comments?</p>
<p>It has been a long year, but I have learned so much. Thanks to all on CC who continued to contribute to the discussion here during this long search for justice–what a great group!</p>
<p>Hey, I’ve been burned twice. I assumed that Cheney would not invade Iraq without some reason. And, I assumed that Nifong wouldn’t indict three students without a shred of evidence. No WMD. No DNA. Pretty much the same story.</p>
<p>Shame on me for giving elected public officials the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>What’s really frustrating is that I called the eventual outcome of the case on day one…successfully discrediting the accuser and dismissal of charges. But, I can’t even take any solace in being right because I don’t think a rape occurred. I have no idea what Nifong was thinking.</p>
<p>Oh…I have many ideas about what Nifong was thinking. Mostly on the order of “oh, crap, if Freda gets elected she’ll fire me and create some office dating rule with MY name on it in exactly the same way I did that to her.” I didn’t think that at the immediate time, o’course, but now…OH yeah.</p>
<p>I agree though - first week? I was absolutely convinced something happened at 610. My mom was absolutely the opposite. Yet more proof about listening to moms… </p>
<p>I’m truly glad the AG’s team took the time they did to prepare the investigation to the point that AG Cooper could make the kind of statement he did today. As Mayor Bell said, it provided closure - at least to this stage.</p>
<p>The young men were excellent public speakers - I was very impressed. Duke should be ashamed at not standing up for them. They were clearly an asset to the University and I would not be surprised at a backlash at Duke now via Alumni donations/application numbers.</p>
<p>The joke in our house is “you are not allowed to apply to Duke” to our son who does NOT have the stats but if he did we would still not feel comfortble with him matriculating at Duke. Yikes! The band of 88 are still on staff. Scary stuff.</p>
I agree with you, PtM…the boys all exuded class and eloquence. I will say, though, that even as a Duke mom, I do recognize the VERY difficult position that the university was put into with this unsavory and very public set of events. I would not have wanted to be the one to make the decisions as to how best to balance support for the students against the mounting anger of the community in light of the early skewed press coverage. I got this in my email tonight. I was actually touched by the fact that the Board of Trustees is admitting here that things could have been done differently. Good for it!
</p>
<p>As I said, Duke was in a quite impossible situation. I would not want to second guess how things should have come down, though clearly I think the school owed it to the boys to NOT jump to conclusions early on.</p>
<p>InterestedDad, I want to applaud you and give you credit for returning to this thread and mentioning how you feel now about this case at this juncture, considering your views for many months earlier on in the case. Initially, it really appeared that something unsavory happened that night based on information we were fed. However, as more and more came out, I moved to a more neutral wait and see stance. And then more and more and more and more came out, and I moved to believing that these boys were innocent and the case handled in unjust ways. It doesn’t make me or anyone else more “right” to have moved to this position sooner (and the one that turned out to be the truth), but I am appreciative to the observation that your position did not turn to this view until much later. I admire you coming back now and expressing your eventual change in point of view on the case. I can’t imagine too many people believing these three young men are guilty at this point any longer. </p>
<p>Berurah, thank you for posting a copy of the Trustee’s Letter. As I wrote earlier this evening, I was wondering what the university’s statement would be considering their earlier stance to “wait and let the justice system work”. This statement feels a bit late now but I’m glad at least it has finally been made. On the other hand, I agree with you and am glad that even as an avid Duke supporter (understandably), you see that Duke was in a difficult position. I think so too. I think they likely would have been damned if they do, damned if they didn’t. I realize they tried to take a neutral stance though I do think they needed to be more supportive of their students once it appeared that the case was so weak. But I can very much appreciate that they were in a difficult position. I do wish that they didn’t believe the accusations to the extent they did and that they’d have given the boys more of a benefit of the doubt…you know, presumed innocence, particularly as the case unraveled and became clearly unjust to so many. Still, they were in a difficult spot. I wish as time went on, they had moved to more of a position as to how this wasn’t being handled fairly. But I appreciate that even as a Duke supporter, you see their situation as difficult. You also are able to comment that the school could have stood behind its students better in this situation. Even a much loved school could improve or makes mistakes.</p>
<p>When the story was in the early stages, I did not think it would hurt Duke much and didn’t change my view of the school. I still believe it is a great school. But these events have been quite something over time and in the end, now I do believe that it has affected the school. I hope there is healing and I hope there are some changes or good that can come out of it.</p>
<p>Well, something did happen. An ugly, racially-charged scene between a Duke sports teams and two strippers.</p>
<p>Duke’s mistake was not suspending the season immediately based solely on the drunken party and strippers. </p>
<p>Nifong’s mistake was not proceding with very judicious public comments (like “we won’t really know what happened until the investigation in complete”) until he had a handle on the evidence, if any.</p>
<p>Both sides acted in a way to inflame maximum public opinion, which apparently pushed Nifong into what I can only say was prosecutorial misconduct. He may be forced by state law to pursue rape complaints; but he was totally irresponsible to suggest or imply that he had any evidence until he did. To indict with the DNA coming back negative for the accused and positive for others was just insane.</p>
<p>People here attribute a lot of opinions to me that I don’t personally hold. I never assumed that a rape took place. I never assumed that a rape didn’t take place. I was always agnostic on that. My belief all along was that no such assumptions could be justified until we knew the evidence.</p>
<p>I was shocked that Nifong had no evidence.</p>
<p>If there’s a lesson in any of this for young college men, it’s don’t act like meatheads and put yourselves in a position for somebody to cry rape. If there’s a lesson for colleges, it’s don’t allow unsavory behavior to go unchecked and put yourself in a position where the community resents the lack of leadership. This situation never would have happend if these boys had been reigned in much earlier. If there’s a lesson for prosecutors, it’s don’t file charges in a high profile case until you have a little evidence. Sheesh.</p>
<p>Actually I think it was said that there is no evidence any attack took place. That’s certainly different from OJ where there was plenty of evidence that there actually was an attack.</p>
<p>I am also glad to see that ID has stepped up to the plate and conceded that he was wrong in his initial rush to judgement about these young men. ;)</p>
<p>The Attorney General has deemed these young men to be NOT guilty of any and all alleged crimes, and has stated that they are the innocent victims of a travesty of injustice, after a very thorough investigation.</p>
<p>I didn’t hear the Attorney General say anything about the fabricated story being “racially charged”. (Any racial “charge” about the fabricated story was energized or provoked by Nifong and the media.) “Racially charged” seems to be an overused euphenism for any media hyped story (true or not) that garners the attention of the likes of Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton, often used to illicit emotional outrage from the masses, and or to support some political or public agenda. This week’s example: the Imus Incident. </p>
<p>Quote from ID- "If there’s a lesson in any of this for young college men, it’s don’t act like meatheads and put yourselves in a position for somebody to cry rape. "</p>
<p>What about the lesson for any young women? Should the lesson be that it is OK to falsely accuse a man of a horrific crime because if you do there are no consequences ???</p>
and I moved to believing that these boys were innocent and the case handled in unjust ways. It doesn’t make me or anyone else more “right” to have moved to this position sooner (and the one that turned out to be the truth), but I am appreciative to the observation that your position did not turn to this view until much later. I admire you coming back now and expressing your eventual change in point of view on the case. I can’t imagine too many people believing these three young men are guilty at this point any longer. </p>