| Revisionism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 1 2010, 08:36 PM (430 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Mar 1 2010, 08:36 PM Post #1 |
|
http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/ Duke Office of News and Communications Looking Back at the Duke Lacrosse Case (snip) The case changed the lives of the three young men and their families and deeply affected the broader Duke community, which found itself in the spotlight with major stories in The New York Times, Newsweek, The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated and thousands of other outlets. Five segments on “60 Minutes” were devoted to the case, as were extensive commentaries on blogs and tabloid television shows. [IE, DUKE was in the spotlight...not the players?] Faced with the case and its larger implications, Duke President Richard H. Brodhead moved to address broader university issues highlighted by the situation, [what "larger implications"? and what "broader university issues" were "highlighted by the situation"? Isn't this a bit like holding a symposium on the perils of riding a train without a ticket, or on black attitudes towards white women, after Scottsboro?] forming a council of advisers and four committees to examine the lacrosse team, [see above. why examine the lacrosse team at all, if the accusations were not credible in the first place (and Duke knew it)?] the administration's response to the incident, the student judicial process and Duke’s campus culture. In the weeks and months that followed, the committees issued their findings, all of which Duke made public immediately. Independent of the legal case, given the standards expected of teams that represent Duke, the university forfeited two lacrosse games in the immediate aftermath of the incident as a response to admitted behaviors by team members, such as underage drinking. [I will wager that every other Duke team had underage drinking. This statement is ludicrous.] Brodhead later suspended the remaining games – not as punishment, but as a necessary action until the legal situation became clearer, based on concerns including the safety of Duke’s players. At the time, the district attorney was saying emphatically that as many as 46 of the players were still under suspicion for the alleged crimes. After the district attorney indicted three of the players, Duke placed on interim suspension the two who had not yet graduated – part of a routine protocol most U.S. universities follow when students are charged with violent felony crimes. Duke later modified the status of the two players to “administrative leave” and, soon after it became clear in court that Nifong’s statements were not credible, invited them to return in good standing, months before Cooper’s decision. [As if Duke acted as quickly as it could!] In addition, in an effort to create a fresh start for the program, Duke replaced Coach Mike Pressler with an interim coach and, subsequently, with John Danowski, who previously coached the lacrosse team at Hofstra University. [Isn't this a slap at Pressler?] (snip) The lacrosse team returned to the field in February 2007 before a cheering crowd that included Brodhead and much of the university’s senior leadership, as well as thousands of students and the largest group of reporters ever to attend a regular-season Duke lacrosse game. The team went on to win the league championship and to reach the national championship final game while also maintaining a strong record in the classroom and the community. [If Brodhead had really supported the team, it was a little late to show it. If he had really just "learned" of their innocence, he could have gone down on the field and apologized; invited Pressler back; rebuked the reporters; or all of the above. As it was, it was not until September--seven months later--that he read out an apology to an audience, and then immediately left without any questions being taken (an apology delivered possibly at the insistence of the BOT)] Meanwhile, Duke began responding to the concerns raised by the committee that had examined the campus culture. Approximately one year after the event, Duke’s fund raising hit record levels, applications for student admissions remained near record levels, new media guidelines were in place to enhance the privacy of students and campus life began to return to normal. [Better check with Fact Checker about that...] (snip) Also in June, university leaders announced a settlement with David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, noting in a statement how “these young men and their families have been the subject of intense scrutiny that has taken a heavy toll” and saying “it is in the best interests of the Duke community to eliminate the possibility of future litigation and move forward.” An accompanying statement from Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann said, “We hope that today’s resolution will begin to bring the Duke family back together again, and we look forward to working with the University to develop and implement initiatives that will prevent similar injustices and ensure that the lessons of the last year are never forgotten.” [Is Duke trying to do that?] Robert K. Steel, the chairman of Duke's Board of Trustees, summarized Duke’s remarkable "lacrosse story" ["Remarkable 'lacrosse story'"? Really sounds like there was a lot of outrage over what happened to three innocent Duke students--NOT!] in a message he sent to the campus community following Cooper's decision in April. "There is much to learn from the events that we have lived through, and we intend to put this learning to use," Steel wrote. "Duke is a great university that steps up to challenges and opportunities, and together we will use this moment to make our community stronger." [Very neutral statement, admitting nothing, blaming no one...] |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 2 2010, 09:22 AM Post #2 |
|
(overlooked somehow in all the general ruckus...) : "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) |
![]() |
|
| Jack_Webb | Mar 2 2010, 11:56 AM Post #3 |
|
I remember the lacrosse parents were none too pleased to have Brodhead sitting amongst them and asked him to move, which he stubbornly refused to do. Brodhead's presence at the game was transparently intended to be used later as proof of his reconciliation with the lacrosse team, as evidenced by its prominent mention in this Duke PR account of the hoax. I've often marvelled at the restraint shown by the LAX parents, who didn't start "accidentally" spilling their sodas and nachos over their unbidden guest. Had it been one of my sons, I would have had great difficulty resisting the temptation to piss down his back and then tell him it was raining. |
![]() |
|
| Texas Mom | Mar 2 2010, 12:00 PM Post #4 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| psych | Mar 2 2010, 01:59 PM Post #5 |
|
Duke University and the Former Soviet Union do seem to have a lot in common. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Mar 2 2010, 08:01 PM Post #6 |
|
It was clear that Nifong was trying very hard to convince the public that a rape by LAX players had occurred -- WHY? There can only be one answer: he had no evidence that a rape had occurred, no evidence implicating any LAX player. Any one with an ounce of a brain could see that Nifong's behavior was amiss. If he had strong evidence, why did he have to wage such an incendiary PR campaign? If Brodhead did not know that Nifong is ethically bound NOT to make the kind of incendiary, guilt-presuming public statements that Nifong was making early on, then he is not qualified to be a university president. If Brodhead had just shown an ounce of courage ... All he had to say was that Duke is eager to fully cooperate with the investigation, but would please ask the DA to refrain from making public statements of guilt. If the evidence is sufficient to take the case to court, a jury should decide guilt or innocence, not the DA. Edited by MikeZPU, Mar 2 2010, 08:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Q.A. | Mar 2 2010, 09:26 PM Post #7 |
|
Q.A.
|
Mike, you have really reduced the issue to its thrice-distilled essence. If only....
Edited by Q.A., Mar 2 2010, 09:27 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 2 2010, 09:33 PM Post #8 |
|
Is joining with others to defame defendants one knows are innocent; in order to poison a community (and therefore a jury pool) against them-- obstruction of justice?
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Mar 2 2010, 09:55 PM Post #9 |
|
I have always wondered, and still do wonder, how the city and Duke came to the conclusion that they should work together to accuse the LAX team of something that the evidence clearly showed never occurred? What was going to be the reward for such cooperation. Clearly Brodhead knew what the evidence was by the end of March. They all knew because they kept meeting and going over what the evidence was. Brodhead and others refused to look directly at the evidence but believe me they knew something about what the defense had. Even if they did not have the direct evidence from the defense, they sure knew what the defense had to offer. So I get back to my original question above. How did the city and Duke come to the conclusion that they should work together to accuse the LAX team of something that the evidence showed never happened. ANd thats what they did. Even before the indictments they accused the team. Did Duke help choose the 3, RCD. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Mar 2 2010, 11:45 PM Post #10 |
|
Good points! Even if Brodhead would not agree to look at the evidence of innocence, he knew the fact that the defense made such an extraordinary offer to show him such meant the defense had some pretty compelling evidence. And he certainly heard about Reade's alibi, from Don Abrams at MSNBC and the papers. What is clear is that Bill Bell was VERY concerned about riots breaking out, so he demanded that Nifong make arrests as quickly as possible. Mayor Bell also publicly called for the cancellation of the LAX season: "it would send a good sign to the community." I think McFayden's email was the just the excuse Brodhead needed to appease Mayor Bell's public call for the cancellation of the LAX season. Edited by MikeZPU, Mar 2 2010, 11:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Payback | Mar 3 2010, 12:01 PM Post #11 |
|
I like better and better what Brodhead said on April 6, 2006 in the interview Quasi has posted. Brodhead is answering a question about whether it was time to dump Pressler: A: Well, I think the time had clearly come. The notion that he could have continued to be an effective or successful leader of that team--I think we just reached the point where it was clear that wasn't going to happen. The most intelligent man Burness ever met doesn't have the ability to apply to himself what he said about Pressler? Well, this is a case where only a real meany would say to Brodhead: "KNOW THYSELF." Edited by Payback, Mar 3 2010, 12:01 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:14 PM Jul 10