- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Unanswered questions which hold the key | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 20 2010, 09:26 PM (871 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Oct 20 2010, 09:26 PM Post #1 |
|
Several questions remain unanswered about the case. Likely, this is because the answers to these questions, each one by itself, have the possibility of unraveling the entire frame. For example, Why did the DPD turn the case over to Nifong? The answer to that would probably reveal that the DPD knew that there was no case; and that prosecuting it would involve fraud. Ergo, it wanted nothing to do with the case. Those who wanted it prosecuted knew that Nifong's taking charge would remove oversight by DPD superiors (and hence preclude their halting the investigation); and possibly give the entire case a cloak of immunity since Nifong's immunity as DA is absolute. However, Nifong pierced that immunity when he took to the airwaves. Had he not done so, he likely couldn't be prosecuted. (Even the US government was arguing in one case that a citizen does not have a right not to be framed.) In any event, a question remains with as of yet no satisfactory answer: why did the DPD turn over the case to the DA? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 20 2010, 09:29 PM Post #2 |
|
Why would Nifong not interrogate the accused? They were not asked a single question. Why would Nifong not interrogate the other partygoers? The answer in both cases is likely because they would immediately offer proof of their innocence. Nifong's backup plan was to use a Gell defense, claiming he had not seen all the evidence (which is in fact what he said during his bar hearing). Not asking questions means that he must have known that the accused were innocent and could prove it. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for him to have never taken statements from the accused, nor questioned the others at the party. So the question remains: Why did Nifong never question the suspects? Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 20 2010, 09:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 20 2010, 09:32 PM Post #3 |
|
Why would Brodhead not meet with the parents? As above, it is probable he was using a Gell-style defense--he never saw evidence of the innocence of the accused. But if he was so studiously avoiding seeing it, then he must have known that such evidence proved the innocence of the players. Usually a university president should have been eager to discover proof that his accused students were not guilty of a heinous crime (and thus that his university was not tainted by it). Ergo, another question that needs to be answered: Why would Brodhead not meet with the parents? Edited by Quasimodo, Oct 20 2010, 09:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 20 2010, 09:38 PM Post #4 |
|
Why did the chief of police disappear from the biggest case in his department's history, one which saw satellite trucks lined up hub-to-hub for international coverage? What chief would let his department be run by someone else at such a time? What chief would not have resigned if he felt himself unable to direct the department at such a time? To whom did the chief turn over the department? What chief on duty would not be in front of the cameras himself, taking and answering questions from reporters? What chief would not have been making appearances on Nightline, Larry King, etc.? Why did the chief disappear from the biggest case in his department's history? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 20 2010, 09:41 PM Post #5 |
|
Why did Nifong arrange for only limited DNA test results to be reported to the defense? If he was certain of his case, why was he concerned about what the DNA test results showed, unless he knew that those results exonerated the accused? He cannot have been concerned about privacy issues, since the identity of others who had relations with Mangum--surely of interest to police investigating a possible rape--has never been revealed. Why did Nifong arrange for only limited DNA test results to be reported to the defense? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 20 2010, 09:46 PM Post #6 |
|
Why did Nifong not arrest all FOUR of the persons Mangum identified at her April 4 ID session? What excuse was given for his not arresting all four? There was just as much evidence--Mangum's word--for arresting the fourth person as there was for any of the others. Why did not Nifong at least call in all four and question them? If Nifong only intended to charge three persons, then why did he select the three he did, and omit the fourth? What was the basis? Was the Grand Jury told that Mangum had identified four persons? If they had been told she had identified four, would the Grand Jury have wanted to know more? Why did Nifong not arrest all FOUR of the persons Mangum identified at her April 4 ID session? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 20 2010, 09:49 PM Post #7 |
|
Why did Nifong wait two weeks to arrest the suspects after Mangum identified them? If they were dangerous rapists who might flee, why did he not arrest them at once? If he wanted to avoid permitting them a probable cause hearing, then isn't that an indication that he knew they were innocent and could prove it before a hearing? Otherwise, what reason had he for not arresting them immediately? Surely the community, which was clamoring for action, would have been mollified if he had made arrests by April 5th? Why did Nifong wait two weeks to arrest the suspects after Mangum identified them? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 21 2010, 09:47 AM Post #8 |
|
Why did Gottlieb go directly to Tara Levicy and not to Dr. Manly? Gottlieb was a veteran cop; he knew that he had to have some kind of probable cause--just enough-- in order to get a warrant. He also did not have medical records, and likely IMHO had every reason to believe that when those records were delivered, they would not show evidence of rape. In order to get "probable cause", he bypassed normal procedure (how many times was normal procedure bypassed in this case?) and did not go through hospital administrators. He did not seek out the physician who performed the examination (very odd--who would be best able to describe what was found, and be the most believable?) Instead he went directly to Tara Levicy. And he obtained exactly what he needed: an amphorous statement about injuries "consistent with"... oral remarks, which might be denied later. But enough cover for Judge Stephens--who asked no questions--to issue the warrant (and later the NTO). Neither the search warrant nor the NTO were quashed later when it became obvious (with the delivery of the actual medical report) that the "probable cause" had been developed from "creative fiction". Without Levicy's cooperation, there could have been no case. Why did Gottlieb go straight to Levicy and skip intervening administrators and the examining physician? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Oct 21 2010, 10:11 AM Post #9 |
|
Any of these people could tell the truth and permit three innocent persons to get on with their lives without forever having a stigma hang over their heads... along with 43 others, and Coach Pressler: RICHARD BRODHEAD, PETER LANGE, LARRY MONETA, JOHN BURNESS, TALLMAN TRASK, SUZANNE WASIOLEK, MATTHEW DRUMMOND, AARON GRAVES, ROBERT DEAN, TARA LEVICY, THERESA ARICO, KATE HENDRICKS, VICTOR DZAU, LINWOOD WILSON, MARK GOTTLIEB, BENJAMIN HIMAN, PATRICK BAKER, STEVEN CHALMERS, RONALD HODGE, LEE RUSS, STEPHEN MIHAICH, BEVERLY COUNCIL, JEFF LAMB, MICHAEL RIPBERGER. DAVID ADDISON RONALD STEPHENS JUDGE TITUS MICHAEL NIFONG They don't have to wait for depositions. And there are worse things in life than to risk losing a little money (one of which is having the albatross of a bad conscience for the rest of one's life) |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 21 2010, 10:40 AM Post #10 |
|
Add to the list Orage Quarles, Melanie Sill, Bob Ashley and Linda Williams |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Oct 21 2010, 12:20 PM Post #11 |
|
Quasi says: "They don't have to wait for depositions. And there are worse things in life than to risk losing a little money (one of which is having the albatross of a bad conscience for the rest of one's life)" I wonder about Brodhead. I don't think anyone so committed to Political Correctness has an albatross of a bad conscience merely because he lies about people he wants to demolish or merely because he stonewalls when people want to show him exonerating evidence about people he has thrown to the wolves. He must regret the ongoing embarrassments and his need to explain away millions of dollars in payouts, but I really doubt that he walks around with a bad conscience. With grievances, sure, against Joan Foster, Quasi, Baldo, Bill Anderson, et al., because such folks are preventing his enjoying his supremacy at Duke to the full, but not with a bad conscience. That's my opinion. |
![]() |
|
| jarms | Oct 21 2010, 02:23 PM Post #12 |
|
I agree with Payback and let me add the following. "Usually a university president should have been eager to discover proof that his accused students were not guilty of a heinous crime (and thus that his university was not tainted by it)." Let me say this again. In the minds of Brodhead, Steel and Burness, the lacrosse team, or at least ALL the white players, WERE collectively guilty of a heinous crime. They [while not intending to] hired African-American women to strip [albeit not for very long] for them and made a [single, provoked] remark that involved use of the "n-word." WHAT THEY DID WAS BAD ENOUGH. All of us who post here really, I mean REALLY, need to understand this. It cannot simply be continuously dismissed as "PC mindset." We need to put ourselves [as painful as it might be] in the frame of mind that informed all of Duke's decision making during this period. None of Brodhead, Steel or Burness EVER, EVER considered that the lacrosse players would be viewed as the victims of this affair EVEN IF THEY WERE FOUND COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF THE ALLEGED CRIME. All three of those guys were legitimately shocked that public opinion flipped on them. They were absolutely convinced that hanging the kids out to dry had no downside, because whatever the evidence showed they were still going to be forever tainted and therefore unworthy of institutional concern. Sorry for continuing to berate this point and occasionally shout. But I feel that unless we begin analyzing this situation from Duke's institutional perspective at the time, we'll always be missing important pieces of the puzzle. Just my two cents. I'll stop belaboring the point after this one last post. |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Oct 21 2010, 03:57 PM Post #13 |
|
Don't stop, jarms. In some ways Brodhead's psyche is not worth the time people like you and me and Joan and abb spend on it, but we need to understand how someone could behave the way Brodhead behaved in the scene KC and Stuart depict on p. 92, where Ekstrand thinks "Here . . . is a comfortable university president wallowing in self-pity in front of four students who are in grave danger of being falsely indicted on charges of gang rape, punishable by decades in prison" and on p. 137, the so-called "moral meltdown"--although I don't think there was enough moral substance to make much of a puddle in the Brodhead's pants. |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Oct 21 2010, 04:17 PM Post #14 |
|
The Juan Williams case is on the companion site but it's relevant here because the reflexive Political Correctness of NPR is akin to the reflexive Political Correctness of Brodhead and the Gang of 88. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Oct 21 2010, 04:44 PM Post #15 |
|
jarms: I'd like to second what Payback said: please don't stop. There are murderers in this country who were not nearly reviled as the LAX players were -- not even close. There was a Duke employee soliciting adults to have sex with his 5 year old adopted AA child, and he was not reviled whatsoever in comparison to the loud and prolonged public revilement that the LAX players received. And, yet, the LAX players were transparently innocent. Brodhead's statement "WHAT THEY DID WAS BAD ENOUGH" spoke volumes, akin to Puntius Pilate attempting to wash his hands of guilt as he sent Jesus off to be crucified. It is clear that Brodhead was telling the Durham AA community, the DPD, Nifong, the media: "go ahead: crucify them with my full support." |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







9:15 AM Jul 11