Did Duke BOT Pay GGM?

Pages:
1
2
3

Did Duke BOT Pay GGM?; D-I-W Comment says so.
Topic Started: Nov 1 2009, 11:40 PM (1,245 Views)
Q.A.	Nov 1 2009, 11:40 PM Post #1
Posts: 142 Group: Members Member #439 Joined: Feb 27, 2009	I was stunned to read this (my emphases): Durham-in-Wonderland Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case. Monday, October 26, 2009 Comment to "In the Can." ... Anonymous said... We as a group(class action law suit) are waiting for Judge Beatty( federal court) to rule on the collective dismissal motions, then the discovery process will begin, that is if the Trustees can afford it to begin, individually as well as a group. The minutes of the Executive Committee, which is the determining body of the Board of Trustees, looked to Roy Bostock,T 62( Chrmn of Yahoo ) to advise the six of them, and all the information is confidential. The interesting part of the discovery could show the apology and funding the Trustees provided CGM back in June 2006, for fear, according to a conversation between David Gergen(Trustee) and J Cheshire(attorney for David Evans), of a law suit by CGM against Duke University. 10/31/09 7:38 PM Am I the only LS member not to have read about this before?



Kerri P.	Nov 1 2009, 11:47 PM Post #2
Posts: 4,899 Group: Tier1 Member #131 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Q.A. Nov 1 2009, 11:40 PM I was stunned to read this (my emphases): Durham-in-Wonderland Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case. Monday, October 26, 2009 Comment to "In the Can." ... Anonymous said... We as a group(class action law suit) are waiting for Judge Beatty( federal court) to rule on the collective dismissal motions, then the discovery process will begin, that is if the Trustees can afford it to begin, individually as well as a group. The minutes of the Executive Committee, which is the determining body of the Board of Trustees, looked to Roy Bostock,T 62( Chrmn of Yahoo ) to advise the six of them, and all the information is confidential. The interesting part of the discovery could show the apology and funding the Trustees provided CGM back in June 2006, for fear, according to a conversation between David Gergen(Trustee) and J Cheshire(attorney for David Evans), of a law suit by CGM against Duke University. 10/31/09 7:38 PM Am I the only LS member not to have read about this before? This is the first I'm reading of this.



Baldo	Nov 1 2009, 11:49 PM Post #3
Posts: 8,458 Group: Tier2 Member #45 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	If they did fund CGM I would be surprized and she wouldn't have been working at Costco, nor another stint as a janitor. But I wouldn't be surprised that some fool BOT member thought about it. After-all they did re-up Brodhead and are spending tens of millions on a legal defense.



LTC8K6	Nov 1 2009, 11:56 PM Post #4
Assistant to The Devil Himself Posts: 4,503 Group: Tier1 Member #15 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	"could"



Q.A.	Nov 2 2009, 12:07 AM Post #5
Posts: 142 Group: Members Member #439 Joined: Feb 27, 2009	*"the* apology and funding" Edited by Q.A.**, Nov 2 2009, 12:10 AM.



Quasimodo	Nov 2 2009, 12:17 AM Post #6
Posts: 4,850 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	If it happened, it would not surprise me in the least. I think Duke just wanted the case to go away, and was willing to pay to see that happen, regardless of the "justice" involved. And if Crystal was paid then in a settlement, then did that 'easy' payment encourage her to continue to seek another payment from the players? (And if so, to what extent were they damaged then by Duke's settlement?) (It may on reflection be considered curious that she did not sue Duke, nor threaten to sue Duke...) If Duke did apologize to her, I would like to see what that apology said, and what it 'admitted' as having happened, to apologize for. (Was Brodhead being truthful when he said that Duke was waiting for the legal process to determine what happened?) I assume the BOT would have agreed to all of this (as per Steel's remarks). Edited by Quasimodo, Nov 2 2009, 12:18 AM.



Quasimodo	Nov 2 2009, 12:21 AM Post #7
Posts: 4,850 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	And if--IF--there was such a settlement, what bearing if any did that have on Duke's unwillingness to support its wrongly accused students later? Had Duke made any agreement in a settlement to not bad mouth Crystal? Would defending the players be considered speaking ill of her? (pure speculation, for discussion purposes only)



Quasimodo	Nov 2 2009, 12:26 AM Post #8
Posts: 4,850 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	If true-- why is Duke spending so much money defending against the lax players? Duke chose NOT to spend money to defend against Crystal--who was manifestly making false accusations--but to settle early. (A defense against her would have cost much less and been much less involved.) OTOH, it is willing to spend tens of millions to defend against the players. Is that for the good of Duke, or to protect the trustees? (JMOO. For discussion purposes only)



Quasimodo	Nov 2 2009, 12:32 AM Post #9
Posts: 4,850 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Quasimodo Nov 2 2009, 12:26 AM If true-- why is Duke spending so much money defending against the lax players? Duke chose NOT to spend money to defend against Crystal--who was manifestly making false accusations--but to settle early. (A defense against her would have cost much less and been much less involved.) OTOH, it is willing to spend tens of millions to defend against the players. Is that for the good of Duke, or to protect the trustees? (JMOO. For discussion purposes only) And if there is even the least question about the purpose of spending tens of millions on defense of the suits, then shouldn't the court be petitioned to appoint interim trustees who can handle the decision about how much to spend on the suits--in order to protect the Duke trust and the interest of the beneficiaries of the Duke trust? ETA: and is this grounds to ask the NC AG to look into the oversight of the Duke trust? Are there conflicts of interest which are dissipating the trust? Edited by Quasimodo, Nov 2 2009, 12:34 AM.



Q.A.	Nov 2 2009, 05:35 AM Post #10
Posts: 142 Group: Members Member #439 Joined: Feb 27, 2009	Unfortunately, as I have posted on D-I-W, if the Trustees actually did provide such apology and funding to CGM, they can use that misconduct to bolster their defence against one of their other misconducts - throwing their own falsely-accused students under the bus - by arguing that they did so innocently, and in good faith, because they, also, were deceived by CGM and Nifong et al. when they moved to protect the Duke-Brand's reputation against further damage from the bad publicity. They could further argue that such an alleged apology and funding would not have been misconduct at all. Edited by Q.A., Nov 2 2009, 05:38 AM.



Quasimodo	Nov 2 2009, 08:20 AM Post #11
Posts: 4,850 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Q.A. Nov 2 2009, 05:35 AM Unfortunately, as I have posted on D-I-W, if the Trustees actually did provide such apology and funding to CGM, they can use that misconduct to bolster their defence against one of their other misconducts - throwing their own falsely-accused students under the bus - by arguing that they did so innocently, and in good faith, because they, also, were deceived by CGM and Nifong et al. when they moved to protect the Duke-Brand's reputation against further damage from the bad publicity. They could further argue that such an alleged apology and funding would not have been misconduct at all. But how could they have been misled by June? To claim they acted "in good faith", they would have to testify that they didn't understand the meaning of DNA; that they didn't know Crystal had made a previous claim of gang-rape; didn't know her co-dancer had called the story "a crock"; and didn't know that already some editorialists (not the sensationalist variety) were calling for the case to be dismissed. (And, that their own police had said there was no case.) OTOH, if they acted solely to protect their PR, then that means they testify to the reverse of all the above--yes, they knew the students had been cleared by DNA; they knew that Crystal's testimony was unreliable; they knew the charges were false. Yet despite this, they still cared only for the PR aspect of the case ("getting it off the front pages"); and so threw their innocent students under the bus. (JMOO)



kbp	Nov 2 2009, 08:44 AM Post #12
Posts: 405 Group: Tier1 Member #20 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	"...funding the Trustees provided CGM back in June 2006, for fear ...of a law suit by CGM against Duke University" While I doubt this is true... Duke seemed to have BIG pockets for RCD, after the campus staff condemnation of the 3 and their team had finally slowed down. Who here would actually be surprised if Duke paid CGM early on, should it be true? Would $1+/- million then have seemed like a small price to pay in order to keep CGM from striving to be in the spotlights? Her working does cloud the idea, but maybe it was structured with a monthly payment and terms requiring her to be working & drug free, in order to keep her out of the news. Edited by kbp, Nov 2 2009, 08:46 AM.
Posts: 405 Group: Tier1 Member #20 Joined: Apr 28, 2008


sceptical	Nov 2 2009, 08:44 AM Post #13
Posts: 1,077 Group: Tier1 Member #264 Joined: Apr 30, 2008	There were a lot of rumors early in the case that Mangum might sue Duke because the incident happened on Duke property (610 N. Buchanan), she fell down the stairs there, etc. If Duke did pay off Mangum, it might be one of the reasons that Duke is fighting so hard to avoid discovery and to delay the civil lawsuits. The commenter on DIW is likely one of the LAX parents, who might have heard this story third hand. While it is intriguing, I am awaiting some corroboration before I believe it. Ekstrand and other attorneys in the case have always said that there are more facts to emerge.



chatham	Nov 2 2009, 09:05 AM Post #14
Posts: 2,793 Group: Tier1 Member #308 Joined: May 2, 2008	If there was a payout crystal would not be able to keep her mouth shut long enough to keep it a secret. If there was a payout she probably would not know about it. Suppose Duke paid her tuition and fees at NCCU and guaranteed her a degree. Suppose no one told her and she never got a bill. Suppose for receiving the payout someone told her that it would be useless to sue Duke. Crystal had no clue so a payout to stop a suit would be easy. Pay her tuition, get her a degree and poof, she is gone. And never telling her how it happened. Duke would never apologize. It makes no sense. Why apologize to a liar and not apologize to the accused. Duke would not be caught in that web.



sceptical	Nov 2 2009, 09:12 AM Post #15
Posts: 1,077 Group: Tier1 Member #264 Joined: Apr 30, 2008	chatham Nov 2 2009, 09:05 AM If there was a payout crystal would not be able to keep her mouth shut long enough to keep it a secret. If there was a payout she probably would not know about it. Suppose Duke paid her tuition and fees at NCCU and guaranteed her a degree. Suppose no one told her and she never got a bill. Suppose for receiving the payout someone told her that it would be useless to sue Duke. Crystal had no clue so a payout to stop a suit would be easy. Pay her tuition, get her a degree and poof, she is gone. And never telling her how it happened. Duke would never apologize. It makes no sense. Why apologize to a liar and not apologize to the accused. Duke would not be caught in that web. An "anonymous" pay-off? No way. As far as Duke apologizing, in April and May, 2006 many in the Duke administration believed "something hapened" so that they might be liable to a claim by Mangum. There were many conflicting reports then and people such as Steel, Brodhead and the Trustees did not believe their own students. In retrospect, the story is clear, but even up to Cooper's report, many believed Mangum (and some still do).



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3