Duke LAX case discussion continued.....;)

Parent Cafe
1461

<p>As you say that this case shed light on off campus parties and various other campus/student issues, I have to say that their case ALSO shed light on some corruption and injustices in the legal system. The boys have also made it abundantly clear that they hope to effect change regarding the injustices in the system and it isn’t JUST about them. What made this case so interesting, in part, to me, is that it uncovered what really can go on in the system. Perhaps, those who are poor and don’t have the means to fight this fight, can be glad that this high profile case brought to light some corrupt things going on in that system in your city. </p>

<p>You say you don’t care about the case or these young men who were tarnished in a wide spread public eye, but having followed the case, I do care about them and hope their lives get back on track and that emotional scars can heal. I would say the same about other cases I have heard about that seem unjust…whether it is Genarlo Wilson or the Jena 6. Some things are outrageous and this case was one of them. I hope the lives of these boys and families can be more positive after living through this awful mess that had to be very painful and damaging. Is it the worst injustice ever? No. I don’t need to compare. It was bad enough on its own. It interests me and I DO care that the boys have some smooth sailing from here on out and can recover from this huge upheaval in their lives. While you say you do not care and it bores you, you don’t come across that way. Plenty of people do care. You don’t have to, as it is your right, of course. I hope the attention the case garnered will be a good thing and that some positive comes out of this. I can tell that the boys made a point that they hoped the case will cause investigation and change for others who are railroaded like this, who don’t have the means to mount the defense team they had. Hopefully a court case like this can have far reaching affects on others in the future. That’s one good thing that might come out of this.</p>

<p>By the way, you may find these boys dull, but I was VERY impressed in how each of them presented themselves in several public instances, including the news conference in which they were exonerated. They seem like men who have achieved some positive things in their young lives and were on course to achieve more. I think they have handled themselves well in the public during very stressful times and conditions and while being young. This event has changed their lives forever and I am sure will impact what they choose to do down the line. I doubt they are so “dull” if they got into Duke. One of them now attends my D’s school and every kid I have met there so far is far from “dull” and I imagine this young man is far from “dull” as well. I found him very mature and articulate for someone his age in such a situation.</p>

1462

<p>Good post soozievt!!^^</p>

1463

<p>Personally, I wish those boys all the best. Theirs was a trial by fire I wouldn’t wish on anyone. It wasn’t the worst that’s ever happened to anyone, true, but does it really have to be to merit some understanding and sympathy? I was impressed too, with the way they handled themselves before the media throughout the whole ordeal, especially Reade Seligmann. Clearly, this episode has changed their lives permanently, and possibly, made them better, stronger, more compassionate people (ironically, as is so often the case when one faces tremendous adversity). I don’t at all find them dull. And I don’t begrudge them the good fortune of having been white and affluent in the face of this adversity (in case anyone misunderstood me in prior postings concerning this case). I only wish outrageous injustices of this kind weren’t so common among poor and minority defendants. I only wish America would get half as up in arms about their mistreatment as they did over the plight of the Duke three.</p>

1464

<p>Poetsheart…I hear you. I truly believe there are many in our society and right here on CC who do care about the plight of those innocent defendants (about whom you speak) who have been mistreated and have been the victim of injustice that unfortunately befall many poor and minority defendants. Injustice is injustice no matter one’s lot in life or color of their skin. I think many care about injustice itself. There are those who make fighting it and advocating for justice their life’s work. One can care about injustice when it affects any group or person… Many care about the issue and not just who is affected. Those less fortunate have more of an uphill battle or fight. Let’s hope that cases like the Duke one can only help to shed light on the workings of the system so that more people can benefit from any changes that may result given the attention and outrage that this case garnered.</p>

1465

<p>It looks like North Carolina law sets punitive damages as follows:</p>

<p>

I think this is the statute that would govern an award, but I am not certain.</p>

1466

<p>Re possible legal limits on the amount of punitive damages here (and with the caveat that I’m a criminal-defense lawyer and don’t ordinarily handle civil litigation, so take what I have to say here with that in mind until someone with greater knowledge and experience in this area chimes in):</p>

<p>–Razorsharp: As I understand it, the contemplated litigation would be a federal civil rights lawsuit. That being the case, it would be filed in federal court and, therefore (I believe), this state-law statutory cap would not apply.</p>

<p><a href=“Durham Leaders Meet With Attorney About Lawsuit Threat”>Durham Leaders Meet With Attorney About Lawsuit Threat;

<p>–Re the United States Supreme Court decision suggesting that punitive damages ordinarily ought not exceed nine times the actual damages, my understanding is that the Court did not set an absolute bar on awarding punitive damages in a greater amount; rather, the Court said that in the usual case larger awards would not survive constitutional scrutiny.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.sdma.com/Publications/detail.aspx?pub=3820[/url]”>http://www.sdma.com/Publications/detail.aspx?pub=3820&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>(P.S. I find it amusing and distressing in about equal measure that in the civil context the Supreme Court is becoming increasingly aggressive in policing what they consider constitutionally excessive monetary awards while, in the criminal context, they seem all too willing to hold, for example, that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of less than a kilogram of cocaine is not constitutionally excessive. <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmelin_v._Michigan[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmelin_v._Michigan&lt;/a&gt;
Here, as so often in the law, the key question may well be whose ox is being gored.)</p>

1467

<p>

</p>

<p>Why do you think that Jesse Jackson payed attention to the Duke case and (apparently) not the Gell case? Is it because he identified with the Duke boys?</p>

1468

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree that they handled themselves very well; one more reason the over-the-top demand for $30M is tarnishing that shiny image somewhat (in my opinion). They look like they’re getting greedy and vindictive at this point, and --to be honest-- based on how they appeared throughout this ordeal, this seems out of character. </p>

<p>I also thought they handled themselves better than at least one of their mothers with her comment about Nifong “messing around with the wrong families.” That was telling, and not in a good way. </p>

<p>I also would have been far more impressed had one of them, at any time, ever uttered any apology for their previous behavior, when they stood up and spoke to the public. If they did, I missed it. To my knowledge (and from what I remember), they only did it through their lawyer. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And that’s perfectly alright that you care and you don’t find them dull. You asked ME why I was posting here, since I said I thought they were boring. You were interested in the contradiction, apparently. So I answered you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>People can be smart enough to get into a fine university and still be dull, soozievt; I don’t think one is necessarily connected to the other. (ie, I got into a top university; therefore, I am not dull.) ?? I didn’t mean “dull” in the sense of not smart or stupid; I meant “dull” in the sense of typical, not unusual, boring.</p>

<p>The story itself was interesting (in the beginning) from many perspectives, but I don’t find <em>them</em> so. And, yes, at this point, I find the story now uninteresting (reasons of continuing interest in my other post). </p>

<p>I guess it’s a bit like reading about Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, or Paris Hilton-- or Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie-- after a while, all this over-exposure (so to speak) is too much. The reaction is to turn the page. I think there are much more interesting news items and issues with which we should be [more] concerned. The inequities, injustice, and dishonest cops and prosecutors, etc., is a big, apparently continuing, problem across the country-- but watching these guys and what they’re doing, demanding, wanting-- I just find boring. Sorry.</p>

<p>Again, soozievt, you asked me why-- if I found this so boring-- would I still post here. I gave you reasons why. I can understand why you or someone else might feel differently, but that doesn’t invalidate a different viewpoint.</p>

1469

<p>“I also think their case shed light on some inherent problems with Duke’s off-campus parties, alcohol consumption, [some] sports teams, etc.”</p>

<p>I don’t think these “problems” are any different at Duke than at any other University. That is just my opinion. Maybe UNC is different, I don’t know. ;)</p>

<p>Soozie, good post.</p>

1470

<p>

</p>

<p>Indeed, you missed it.</p>

<p>As you might imagine, after having apologized at the outset (that is, the team captains, which includes Dave Evans), they probably decided that continuously apologizing would have been poor planning when the appointed, then elected, minister of injustice was trying to put three people in jail for thirty years and as various students, faculty members, media outlets, and others starting playing the game of, “Who can state the worst things the lacrosse case has done in the largest font possible?” Besides, few paid much attention to the first apology anyway. I know I didn’t.</p>

<p>As more came out about the past of some of the players, I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with [Reade</a> Seligmann’s exchange with Ed Bradley](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140_page6.shtml]Reade”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/11/60minutes/main2082140_page6.shtml):

</p>

<p>As for Rae Evans, the full [url=<a href=“Parents of Duke Lacrosse Players to Appear on '60 Minutes'”>Parents of Duke Lacrosse Players to Appear on '60 Minutes']quote[/url</a>] is:

</p>

<p>I’m not a mom, but I have one, and I could see her being channeled in that remark. It’s what I think of as the Lioness coming out, and I think it is telling (in a good way) about how deeply she cares for her children and how willing they were to make sure this rogue DA didn’t just steamroll them for his own political gain. After all, this was a response to a question asking a mother what she would say to the main that she KNEW had indicted her child and called him a hooligan, a thug, and a rapist, despite all evidence to the contrary. Her statement, in that context, is remarkably controlled.</p>

1471

<p>Jack,
Nobody, or at least not me, said your opinions and views are not valid or welcome. I explained that I am befuddled that you keep saying you are not following the case, find it boring, do not care about it or the boys, and so on and it appears to me that you care enough to be actively engaged in following news stories and discussing the case on CC both in the past and now. That is your right to do and I welcome more of your posts and sharing your points of view. I don’t quite understand or can’t reconcile your stated distinterest and lack of caring with what I am observing.</p>

<p>When I said these young men are not dull, in my opinion, since you think that they are dull, it wasn’t simply due to their having the smarts to get into Duke. To get intio Duke and to succeed, one usually has to have more than “smarts” like SATs or whatever. Duke accepts students who are outstanding wholistically. I don’t know these boys. It appears that they were outstanding athletes who were able to maintain very good academic records in a demanding and selective university. I have read of other good deeds they have each done. I believe some of them have a religious and moral upbringing. One was offered a very good job upon graduation and usually those jobs do not go to someone who is simply “smart” but someone who has character and is not too dull of a personality. They appear to be quite articulate for their age in a very stressful public situation that many “dull” young men or women would not be able to carry off. They appear to have many friends and are or have been in relationships with young women. I doubt many would find these guys to be dull. A person who is dull is usually not elected captain, by the way. You are entitled to your opinion and standards as to what is dull, however. </p>

<p>As far as what you perceive as tarnishing their image (asking for a lot of compensation), I think their image was grossly tarnished in a very very public way and they deserve some compensation to amend the loss to their image on an international scale. </p>

<p>You mentioned that you would be more impressed if the young men had offered apologies for their behavior and that you have not seen them do that (obviously you must be following the case to be able to make such a claim? ) I don’t even think I have followed it as closely as you have and you live in the community, but as soon as I read what you wrote, two things came to mind (and I hadn’t even read the replies on this thread yet to your remarks)…one is that while they were indicted for unspeakable crimes, was a difficult time to publish apologies of any type of wrongdoing or misjudgement. However, I immediately recalled the interview I watched on 60 Minutes with Ed Bradley and I definitely recall Reade saying the only thing he felt he did wrong was to have attended the party and wishes he hadn’t. I do not condone parties that are out of hand or when students become overly inebriated. However, it is far from shocking behavior on a college campus and doesn’t deserve this level of condemnation. Others do this and don’t get plastered all over magazines and TV. Yes, colleges need to reel in such behavior. I’m not saying it is OK. Hiring strippers? Well, I hadn’t heard of college students doing this on campus until this story broke, but it is not illegal AND after the story broke, I kept reading about that both female and male college groups do this (I must be naive…never heard of this from my kids). Adults do this too. It is distasteful to many. But it is not a crime to apologize for. Their coach should have had stricter guidelines for team behavior, that I would say. </p>

<p>You go on to say that this incident exposed the problems with athletes and alcohol, etc. While these are important issues, they are not unique to Duke or this team. This group may have had more issues, I can’t say. But these are issues many colleges deal with. And when something goes wrong, as it did at this party, it is a wake up call to students themselves as to how poor judgement might have poor consequences and surely this time the consequences went over and beyond anyone’s wildest dreams that could happen. Had they hired another stripper, we never would have heard about this story, for instance. They surely hired the wrong one! :smiley: Seriously, however, it is a learning experience that when you put certain elements together, there is a risk of something going wrong. </p>

<p>As far as Mrs. Evan’s remark on 60 Minutes about messing with the wrong family and that Mr. Nifong would have to pay…I was proud of her subdued response and in fact, felt that it was spoken as any proud mother would speak. She is proud of her son, knew he was innocent, was reeling from this gross injustice that put her son in the public eye for what he was NOT, and wanted to make it known that she would stand up for her son and that those who would attack him unjustly would not be permitted to take advantage of him or her family and she would defend him and make the threatening party pay for this injustice. I say bravo to her. Had she not defended him in this manner, she would have looked weak. She fought back and rightfully so. Her son was the wronged party. I’d fight for my kids with my own life if I had to. I imagine you would too. Nifong hurt her child in a BIG way and UNFAIRLY and she let him know she would fight for his name to be restored against this injustice that this man brought on her son. He didn’t deserve anything like what happened. One of the things THESE young men had that not all innocent charged people have, were families who supported them and not just financially. These families put their lives virtually on hold for their son’s cause. Their names have been smeared. They deserve to fight back. I don’t have much respect for a mom who would not do the same. One thing I noticed with the three familes is that they came across as being raised within very close knit supportive families and I am sure that helped this boys see this through. The love and appreciation that they showed their parents when they spoke on at the news conference on the day of their exoneration actually made me cry.</p>

1472

<p>Rae Evans has my utmost respect, as does her husband, who conducted himself with touching dignity during an ordeal of world wide condemnation and “feeding frenzy” behavior while the world gleefully hunted down the effigies of White Male Privilege. David Evans gave his DNA and his statement to the police without counsel, apologized profusely to his coach, family and to the others at Duke, and feels a great weight of responsibility for hosting a party that put his team and coach in harms way. Their son was in grave jeapordy until the conspiracy to deep six clearly exculpatory DNA was exposed. Mr. Evans health was broken during a year in which their son’s safety was gravely threatened by stone-cold liars in every part of the justice system, with members of our own faculty gleefully joining up with the distortion artists. </p>

<p>My husband has worked as a Public Defender in a major southern city, and we know all too well what happens to the sons of the families who have no resources and no acumen about the system. And my husband, like many attorneys with character, continues to take on legal aide cases. Those accused falsely without parents as talented as the Mr. and Mrs. Evans are often forced into taking deals which have no relation to justice or truth.
Nifong’s narcissism is a condition that is a handicap and was his undoing. This was obvious from day one, but self delusion and selfish motives were stated in the final conclusions of those who removed his law license from him. You don’t have to be psychotic to be self deluded and people like Nifong exist in every profession. Lawyers who can’t sort out their self delusions from facts cannot be allowed to practice law.
He was allowed to get away with never reading anything thoroughly, never interviewing “victims,” rampant cursing and bullying of people just coming into Durham’s traffic court for years because a significant number of his colleagues function at his level. In the Duke lacrosse case, Nifong’s narcissism was exposed when he was deluded enough to think that he could win an election and get away with never even interviewing the complaintant about her myriad conflicting statements. He felt he could get away with an outrageous line-up that breaks all standards of procedure. He drove to Burlington, NC three times to discuss the troublesome DNA of other men that was never handed over to the judge or the defense lawyers. Those of us who care about Reade, Colin and David and their parents are cognizant that Nifong no doubt has acted on self delusions many times before he decided to throw three randomly picked innocent student athletes in prison.
Yes, indeed, he finally did randomly attack the son of the wrong family with the strength to expose him and all of his enablers.<br>
This travesty will serve as a change-agent. The miscarriage of justice goes on in many towns, and this case has most certainly been a wake up call for the sons and daughters at Duke today. I know my son at Duke, who lived on a hall with three members of this team (all wonderful young men he admired for their obvious academic talents as well as for their work ethic as athletes), is disabused of many illusions and recognizes now that justice has to be fought for and can easily be corrupted by vile people in power. </p>

<p>I will be interested in how Durham responds, since most of the people in office are still turning reality into myth and think “Durham is being victimized twice.” Sorry, Durham officers of the court and in the police department victimized three randomly selected people and there were no checks and balances in place. Durham and the Herald Sun didn’t have to become collaborators with the amazing trick of a Line Up of only lacrosse players. Durham could have apologized for the police officer who spread the news of the “horrific crime that has taken place.” Durham instead reelected a man clearly violating every rule of conduct and that was before the exposure of the DNA conspiracy, an astonishing moment indeed. Let Durhamites assume more responsibility for the rule of law in their city. Let the negotiations begin.</p>

<p>I guess Jack is back. Yeah. These three victimized students are just like Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears. Boring.</p>

1473

<p>The New York Times Sunday Book Review weighs in on Until Proven Innocent:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/books/review/Rosen-t.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/books/review/Rosen-t.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

1474

<p>Let’s not forget that Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears have chosen to be in the limelight. The three Duke boys did not choose to be front page news. </p>

<p>As well, Ms. Lohan and Ms. Hilton have broken the law. I can’t keep track with Britney and I don’t think she has, though she has problems enough. The three Duke boys did not commit a crime. The only law I know that some on that team broke AT the party was underage drinking or possibly a noise ordinance. When Ms. Lohan or Ms. Hilton broke the law, nobody railroaded them or charged them for something they didn’t do and didn’t handle the cases in corrupt ways that I know of. I see NO correlation between these celebrities with Duke students who clearly were not trying to be celebrities but have become known in the public eye initially for despicable acts they never did and also never chose to be known so widely.</p>

1475

<p>Jack, you want to hear more apologies from Reade, Colin, and Dave, right? Now that the young men are deemed innocent by the state Attorney General, do you think the Duke 88 should apologize since they were wrong about these students and caused them unjust harm ?</p>

1476

<p>[personal comment edited out. Please keep posts to the thread topic, not other posters.]</p>

<p>Let me just say that Duke University is a fine university and has been for a very, very long time. I’m sure <em>I</em> knew that long before that school was ever on your radar screen. The academics are top notch; the faculty are excellent; the campus is beautiful. I’m confident we’re all aware of that by now.</p>

<p>However, even before this fiasco, it has had some serious problems with off-campus parties and drinking; those past parties and arrests just didn’t happen to hit the national newspapers, but locals sure read about them. We all know that not everybody drinks there, and not all students are involved in this sort of partying. We know that; this has all been said before. However, some years ago, Duke knew how bad the on-campus drinking was-- one reason they encouraged off-campus parties-- to help get the excess drinking off-campus. If you don’t believe me, look it up.</p>

<p>And while drinking occurs at every university (again, something we all know), I would say-- yes-- the problems Duke had had in the past with off-campus parties and alcohol were much worse/more prevalent than at any of its nearest universities.</p>

<p>This is old news, but I grow very weary of your predictable knee-jerk reaction every time I mention Duke. I happened to like and admire the University very much, have a daughter with ties to it, and I’ve actually been involved there myself as an adjunct instructor. That shouldn’t blind one, however, to any problems it might possibly have.</p>

<p>Again, I think shedding light on this issue and making the effort to curb that sort of excess drinking and partying-- to not only provide better alternatives for students, but to ensure they take advantage of those preferable alternatives-- is an excellent thing. I admire Brodhead for hiring an outside committee to review these issues. Good for him.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I did, indeed, miss that. Could you provide a link to when/where this occurred (the original public apology)? Thanks. I didn’t miss the answer to Bradley, though.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong. Please re-read my original comment about this.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, please re-read my original statement regarding this. I never said there was a correlation among the events in these people’s lives. Please don’t re-write what I wrote, or take it out of context. Why do that? What purpose does it serve?</p>

<p>What I said was, all the over-exposure (much like when these stars are in the paper every day of the week) makes me grow tired of it. Whew.</p>

1477

<p>Has anyone followed the case closely enough to make a case as to when Nifong finally realized that the kids were innocent?</p>

<p>Or does he still believe that they are guilty?</p>

1478

<p>Posting here is very difficult when people either don’t comprehend what I’m saying, or <em>choose</em> to re-write it, or choose to attribute thoughts or comments to me, that I never had, nor ever posted… I honestly don’t get that. I like to think it’s a lack of reading comprehension, rather than deliberate twisting/re-writing, but I’m not so sure. I find that very strange.</p>

<p>At any rate, carry on. I’m done.</p>

<p>* [Personal comment edited out - Please keep all posts focused on the issues of the thread, rather than on other posters. - Mod JEM ]*</p>

1479

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So, which is it? Are you following this story with some interest for whatever reason or not?</p>

<p>After reading your post, I asked:

</p>

<p>You responded:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Here is your original comment:

</p>

<p>Did I misunderstand that you would be impressed or prefer to have heard apologies from these three students for previous behaviors? Perhaps I have misunderstood you.</p>

<p>After reading one of your posts, I wrote:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You have now responded:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Even now you are saying “much like” and that appears to be some sort of analogy or comparison or correlation that you are making. And I happen to see none. As I said, some of the celebrities chose the limelight. The Duke boys did not. Some of the celebrities broke the law and were convicted of doing so and their cases were not handled with corruption. This is not the case with the Duke kids. The over exposure you speak about is not comparable. One chose it and actually DID something and the others did not. And if you are tired of it, don’t read or follow it as you don’t have to, but I guess you do read about it and watch it on TV and discuss it on message boards. I choose not to discuss Paris, Britney or Lindsay on message boards because they do not interest me and I even have a child who is a performer/singer/actress. :D</p>

1480

<p>beprepn - as of his contempt hearing just this month, Mr. Nifong was still using the term “victim,” so…take that for what it’s worth.</p>

<p>He did [apologize[/url</a>] to the players in April (kinda):

</p>

<p>He also eventually said there was “no credible evidence” at his disciplinary committee hearing (story at [url=<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-26-nifong-court_N.htm]USA”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-26-nifong-court_N.htm]USA</a> Today](<a href=“Nifong Issues Apology to Ex-Lacrosse Players”>Nifong Issues Apology to Ex-Lacrosse Players)). The main paragraph has some interesting wording:

</p>

<p>I think the CYA in the first line is interesting. If the AG had <em>more</em> evidence than Nifong, what did Nifong actually have to go on to get an indictment? It’s that whole Innocent Until Proven Innocent thing again. He also changed the AG’s wording. The AG declared that the evidence showed that the three were innocent. Nifong switched that to say there wasn’t credible evidence that they were guilty. A small, but profound, difference.</p>