<p>Presumably a “loyal Dukester” would find no fault with any apsect of the institution. A comment or denouncement of the behavior of a professor (or group of professors) would clearly be in defiance of such a proclaimed institutional loyalty.<br>
Maybe the “loyal Dukesters” are not so different from the loyal “anti-Dukesters” after all. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Now that Nifong isn’t around to twist the AV’s crazy lid anymore, it’s alot more likely that the information that gets out will be more reliable. Should’ve learned my lesson from the Ramsey case about rushing to judgment.</p>
<p>Jeepmom, if I’m being judgmental, it’s more towards the choreographed interview style of 60 minutes, together with what I am wildly guessing must be subject matter restrictions issued by defense counsel, in order to protect their body of work. </p>
<p>And, o.k., I do hold the parents somewhat accountable, but, it seems to me that this situation calls for strategy, not drama. If I am going to walk through fire for my child, I’m sure going to operate from my strengths, and use my very best weapons. Were you really impressed by Mrs. Evan’s closing comments - “he picked the wrong families…” etc.? I wasn’t. What was the point of that? It wasn’t useful, impressive, or even very adult. Is that the very best way she could have leveraged those 20 or so seconds? </p>
<p>And, I was very sorry to have heard that Mr. Seligmann collapsed in the attorney’s office. In his shoes, I probably would have had a stroke and died on the spot. But his saying so just gave me sort of a flashback of the photograph of the AV collapsed on the porch of that house…again, very poor PR positioning…</p>
<p>LateToSchool…</p>
<p>I can’t recall if the posts when I replied to some of your posts yesterday still exist or are part of some of the ones that got deleted after the page of saved posts (pasted earlier on THIS thread), but anyway I still disagree with your take with regard to the parents on the 60 Minutes show and what they chose to talk about. If this interview were a year from now or whenever this case is ever resolved, I can see your point in the topics that they might have discussed. Then, there would be an analysis of the issues presented in this situation. But that is not where they are at during the present time. RIGHT NOW, their sons are still indicted to be tried on felony charges with serious penalties. The case is NOT over for them. Right now, they are in defense mode. Right now, they need to speak on their sons’ behalf, as well as speak out against injustices in the case which they are up against. In fact, the topics being discussed in the questions posed to them, dealt with the case, not really about issues that one can discuss from afar if not one of the people actually arrested and on trial. I don’t think this was the time or agenda for the parents to discuss some of the issues you are raising about prostitution, etc. Their issue, right now, is the defense of their sons in a criminal case that is ongoing and not yet resolved. They were answering questions posed to them about the case and they were speaking as parents of defendants in this instance, not analyzing broader issues. </p>
<p>As far as Reade’s dad mentioning collapsing in court when hearing that his son was indicted…that was in response, I believe, to Ms. Stahl asking how he felt or to describe the time when he heard his son was one of the ones accused by the AV. Remember, the boys all maintained their innocence and so when they heard there were indictments pending, they all had to wonder which three would she point the finger at. If you knew you had not committed any crimes, you would have to wonder who she was gonna pick. So, when her eeny meeny miny mo method picked their son, they had to be in shock. It is not like they knew it was coming because if he hadn’t done anything and there were 46 possible people she could pick from, they would not know ahead of time he’d be the one, though they were anxious that anything was possible. I imagine they could not think he’d be picked if he hadn’t done it. I am sure it was a shock. I think any parent who gets a shock like “your kid was in an accident”…“your kid has been arrested”, etc. is going to collapse, shake, cry, or something. He was asked his reaction and he gave an honest answer, that was quite believable to me. I don’t understand your remark that his answer was “poor PR positioning”. I mean, he gave an honest answer to a direct question. I don’t think he was trying to PR anything. He was telling what it was like. Believe me, as a parent, I indentified with what he said it was like. It had to be a shock and a crushing moment. He answered honestly. </p>
<p>As far as Mrs. Evans, she went on the attack re: Nifong when asked what she would tell him if she spoke to him. Why not? He is attacking her sons unjustly and she is fighting back with “don’t mess with us”. Frankly, in so many words she was saying “civil suit” for all the wrongs you have done against our kids. “We will ultimately have the upper hand and you will fall.”</p>
<p>Let’s remember, this is an ongoing case and they are still up for trial for serious crimes. This is not the time for the parents to discuss broader issues. They are defending their sons who require defense in court and the public eye for all the things that have been said about them that are false. The broader issues are important, but at another time. They are in the heat of the legal defense at the moment.</p>
<p>But maybe none of it is PR spin but just the way that they felt. You assume that all of it has to be calculated - what’s the BEST way for me to answer this question. I just took it as this is how I feel about my son being accused of a rape that none of us believes really happened. Forget the class, race, gender crap - my son has been accused of rape by someone who most people without an agenda think is a liar.</p>
<p>
Point exceedingly well taken! :)</p>
<p>There is an OpEd piece in today’s Hartford Courant. It summarizes the missing 11,000+ posts pretty well. (…at least the first 100 pages…;))</p>
<p>"Between a perverse form of liberation feminism that sanctifies strippers, prostitutes and porn stars and a dogma of victimology that places blame for all things at the feet of the white patriarchy, the players were instantaneously presumed guilty by virtue of their being white males and privileged jocks.</p>
<p>By the same reasoning, the dancer was assured victimhood by her status as a black single mother and student, reduced by centuries of white male oppression to stripping for food and tuition.</p>
<p>The past year has not been exemplary for the keepers of the flame. Before any charges were brought against the three players, students produced a “wanted” poster with photos of team members. Duke faculty formed the “Group of 88” and ran an ad demanding that the lacrosse team players confess.</p>
<p>It’s been quite a spectacle. It also has been a damning indictment of an intellectually dishonest culture that pretends to the virtue of enlightened tolerance, but only for a select few."</p>
<p>Ooops. Forgot the link. Here it is. Didn’t want anyone to think I was taking anyhting out of context.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-parker0117.artjan17,0,3156347.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped[/url]”>http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-parker0117.artjan17,0,3156347.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped</a></p>
<p>Yeah, that likely is the cliff notes version of the first 100 pages! </p>
<p>Last March, while the allegations were very serious and came across that a crime had occurred at the party (I mean the DA was telling us it happened), and I did wonder, I wanted to wait and see what the investigation turned up etc. I thought something must have happened because it came across as it did but as time went on, I saw the possibility that it didn’t happen and had a “wait and see” feeling. But as more and more came out within the first couple of months, I felt that the boys were innocent and so I shifted to that “side”. </p>
<p>However, as much as it sounded like a serious thing happened at that party early on, I feel there were posters here the first couple of months who had made final judgements and were not “waiting and seeing”. They seemed certain that a rape had occurred and a lot of their talk was of hooligan boys who were helmeted athletes who were “town drunks”, who were out of control privileged guys, “wall of silence”, racially prejudiced, very very bad people. And there were posts about a poor Black single mom who HAD to strip to get by as if there was nothing else she could do to feed her children. And by gosh, she was an Honors student. The community had had enough of these rich white athetes and they were fighting back! So, that was a prevailing attitude of some posters here who stopped posting after a few months when more and more was revealed that called into question if there ever was anything remotely like a rape that occurred at that party. </p>
<p>So, there are the cliff notes from the first 100 pages. Anyone care to write the rest?? LOL. </p>
<p>Perhaps the loss of the thread is one more strange “plot twist” in this bizarre case that has had twists and turns throughout and keeps going with more of them each week. I don’t think someone could have come up with a novel quite like this case has been and continues to be. It sure is to be a book at some point though. The 11,000 some odd posts on CC could have been a book in itself with a cast of “outsiders” looking at the case, in addition to the cast involved in the case.</p>
<p>One of the big shocks of this case is to see how simply one person’s words and allegations can get this far with no other evidence, with no interview of her story, with changing stories, etc. I just can’t believe this can happen quite like this and that is without even adding in all the illegal and unethical things that Nifong has done in the case. It is quite disillusioning to think that her story alone is all that they have and that her story itself has mulitiple changes and contradictions and that a case could be carried this far with only that and that alone.</p>
<p>“how simply one person’s words and allegations can get this far with no other evidence, with no interview of her story, with changing stories, etc. I just can’t believe this can happen quite like this and that is without even adding in all the illegal and unethical things that Nifong has done in the case.”</p>
<p>But I don’t believe it WOULD have gotten this far without the illegal/improper state action. Front and center, it seems pretty clear that the AV wouldn’t have been able to identify the perpetrators in a properly administered lineup. So the police would have had to wait for DNA before arresting any individuals…and there was none. No ID, no DNA, no arrests, no story.</p>
<p>Exactly Hanna. My mother was mugged a few years ago. She was beaten severely. A witness got the license number of the car the attacker fled in, but they didn’t see his face. When she went in for photo line-up, the photos shown her were all so very similar–same age, same weight, same facial hair, etc. She narrowed it down to two photos, but couldn’t say for sure–thus no charges were made – even though police admitted later that one of her two maybes was the guy that fled the scene.</p>
<p>Hanna, you are right.</p>
<p>Also, as I posted hundreds of pages ago, I never understood the whole ID thing here. My understanding is that during a couple of earlier ID procedures, she was unable to identify who “did it”. Then, later, with the flawed “no wrong answers” ID procedure, she was 100% CERTAIN of Reade and Colin and 90% certain of Dave (except he had no “mustache”). Right away, I felt…how can anyone be 100% certain in an ID procedure when in earlier ID procedures, they could not say who did it. I mean maybe later, they might be able to ID with 70% certainty but not 100%. If one is 100% certain, they’d have been able to ID on the first go around. Added to that, is what appears to be a person who was under the influence of some substance that night by evidence of how witnesses described her behaviors at the party and at Kroger’s. If someone is under the influence, I don’t see how they can identify or be 100% in their memory of that night. Further, if someone is 100% sure so and so did it (100% implies being fully certain!), how can they later say that Reade didn’t do anything. This is without even bringing up the flawed procedure of only presenting LAX players to the AV for ID purposes. It is contradictory to not have been sure who did it initially in the line ups, later to then say with 100% certainty (let alone after a long time has passed and also apparently not being of clear mind the night in question), and then later saying that one of the 100% certain people didn’t do a thing. I can’t imagine this AV on the witness stand. Add in all the contradictory stories she has related of the events that night on top of that! </p>
<p>This case is only based on her word and nothing else…no evidence…and her word itself is ever changing and contradictory time and time again, and that is without even bringing up her past, her line of work, her previous lies/allegations, her arrest record, anything but just this case. I really cannot believe that a DA could get this far based on this sort of thing. It really makes me wonder about the “system”, that’s for sure. Are there checks and balances? Can a DA just do what he wants despite the lack of evidence? It is really quite appalling.</p>
<p>Personal observation (11,000+ posts later):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Some folks still refer to the unnamed accuser as an “AV”, even though there is no evidence to suggest she is a victim of anything other than her own fabricated inaccuracies.</p></li>
<li><p>The students are still referred to as perpetrators, not even “alleged” perpetrators, (even if done so in a back-handed way). </p></li>
</ol>
<p>I looked up the definition of perpetrator. This what I found. A perpetrator is one “who has committed a crime”.</p>
<p>…even after 11,000+ posts. :o</p>
<p>sokkermom, I don’t know what to call the woman who alleges this incident, even though she is not a victim. There is a legal case going on and she alleges to be a victim (though we know she is not) and the guys are the defendents to an alleged crime they did not commit. The young woman is an ALLEGED victim not a victim. The boys are defendants, innocent as they are, and are ALLEGED to be perpetrators to crimes they did not commit. In a court case, that’s who they are, right? In reality, the girl is not a victim and the boys didn’t perpetrate anything. Both are alleged in the legal case. </p>
<p>But I will try to remember to call the woman, Precious (oy, what a name in this case), instead of AV.</p>
<p>I have been told numerous times, that kids need to be apprised that the law can go haywire even on cases that usually get handled without dire consequences. This is especially important to keep in mind at colleges where town/gown relationships are not good. Something parents might consider too if they have a child that is a risk taker and have a clean record by the grace of the local lawkeepers. Kids coming out of schools where the communtiy looked the other way on college shenanigans need to get through their heads too, that this may not continue in the “real” world. I have felt for many years that Duke needed to improve its relationship with the city and people of Durham.</p>
<p>Suzie:
My observation was not necessarily a criticism (particularly of your posts), but an observation.</p>
<p>I personally prefer to call the woman the Accuser. In my opinion, that is the only title that seems to fit.</p>
<p>Have any of ya’ll read the “open statement” put out by the arts and sciences department at Duke? If I were the administration, I would be a bit concerned by the assertions made by the signers. It is a public relations disaster as far as recruitment goes. What parent in their right mind would send their young, innocent child to a campus that is described by professors there in this way? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, is sexual violence really that prevalent on Duke’s campus? Is the campus openly racist and sexist? To what extent? Would a young woman be intimidated to walk around the campus? This open statement surely makes me wonder. </p>
<p>And, if the open statement is clearly blowing things out of proportion, would I want my white son attending an institution in which so many professors openly feel that he is part of a problem of “social disaster”?</p>
<p>^ There are two sides to every story. One could contend that college professors everywhere tend to lean far left. Duke is no exception. Could it be that there may be no social disaster there at all, but just a vocal group of liberal professors making a claim with no substance ? </p>
<p>From a recent blog regarding the “open letter”:</p>
<p>"Continuing one of the most troubling aspects of this case, the sense that some Duke professors just don’t like many of their own school’s students,the rump Group portrays the Duke campus as beset by problems of sexism, racism, and sexual assault. Without citing evidence, the authors decry the “atmosphere that allows sexism, racism, and sexual violence to be so prevalent on campus.”</p>
<p>Many of the new statement’s signatories have worked at Duke for decades. Chafe, for instance was dean of faculty, others have served as department chairs or in important administrative posts. And yet a prospective parent who reads the statement might seriously believe that Duke is awash in “sexual violence.” If true, this claim raises serious questions about the performance of the institution’s faculty in mentoring its students. If false, the claim raises serious questions about the willingness of some faculty members to make reckless, unsubstantiated assertions about the students they teach.</p>
<p>The new statement also contends that the original signatories merely wanted to “give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real.?” Yet neither the original Group nor its new, rump form has demonstrated any interest in trying to “give voice” to Duke students since March 29, when Lubiano came up with the idea for the original statement. Indeed, signatories Karla Holloway and Grant Farred have explicitly attacked Duke students, while a third signatory, Kim Curtis, went so far as to suggest that students in her own class were accomplices to rape.</p>
<p>In the end, however, the Concerned (of Being Sued) Duke Faculty seem most “concerned” with trying to limit their liability for the most indefensible element of the Group of 88’s statement, the decision of its signatories to say “thank you” to the “the students speaking individually and . . . protesters making collective noise.”"</p>
<p>Wow! I came back from a ski trip with my sisters (first time ever!) and found the lax thread gone! Now I have to read through 7 pages of this to discover what happened to it, and catch up on all that everyone has posted!! 5 days without the Internet is like living in a cave!!</p>
<p>I did celebrate the news about Nifong’s recusal (we did have TV with cable news!), and I tivoed “60 Minutes”, but I admit to being woefully behind on the posts on CC and the blogs–this could take days!</p>
<p>Just so excited that Nifong had to admit that
a) he had to turn this over to the state AG
b) he needed a lawyer (so he must be guilty!!)
c) he has to hide from everyone!</p>
<p>Reade, Collin and David are that much closer to exoneration!!</p>