Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Unanswered questions which hold the key
Topic Started: Oct 20 2010, 09:26 PM (872 Views)
MikeZPU

Quasimodo
Oct 20 2010, 09:46 PM
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?


Excerpt below from Gottlieb's deposition related to Mangum ID'ing four attackers.

Gottlieb initially denies that Mangum ID'd four attackers!

And then when confronted with the excerpts from the session, he still
tries to claim her ID of Matthew Wilson was different than her ID of Dave Evans.

Then he lies and claims that she said "sort" rather than "sort of," when
the use of the word "sort" makes no sense -- apparently the word "of" was
missed in the typed transcription, and Gottlieb tried to take advantage of it.


http://members.dslextreme.com/users/campyskakel/gottlieb_depo.html

4 Q. okay. And consistent with the
S conversation that you had with Mr. Nifong on March
6 31st, you informed Ms. Mangum that you had reason to
7 believe that the people in the photographs she was
8 going to be shown had attended the party on March the
9 13th?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you use the verbal instruction and
12 certification sheets that we have seen for the
13 photographic arrays that had been used for her?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And during the course of -- without
16 going through each one, during the course of that
17 procedure, she identified four (4) people in that
18 presentation who were potentially attackers?

19 A. No, sir.
20 Q. okay. How many did she identify?
21 A. She identified three (3) people, and
22 she said one person looks like him, if not him.
23 Q. Okay. Are you referring to Matthew
24 wilson?
25 A. I guess that is his name. I had to
Margaret M. Powe 11, CVR - (919) 779-0322

PAGE 127
Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb - 4/1 9/0 7
1 actually go back and look up who the people were
2 according to item number.
3 Q. If you will go to Page 14 of your typed
4 notes
5 A. Yeah, I�ve got it. �Do you recognize
6 that person? He looked like Bret, but I�m not sure.
7 Who was Bret? one of the guys who assaulted me.�
8 Yeah, she�s saying that he looked like
9 him, but she wasn�t sure.
10 Q. Okay. And then right below that, David
11 Evans, her response is, �He looks like one of the guys
12 who assaulted me sort.� I don�t know if that�s
13 supposed to mean �sort of.�
14 A. No. It was actually �sort.�
15 Q. All right. But you�re saying that she
16 identified Mr. Evans as an attacker?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Explain to me how her identification of
19 Mr. Evans is different than her identification of
20 Mr. Wilson.
21 A. on the one she said she wasn�t sure, and
22 then on the other one she said she is 90-percent sure.
23 Q. After the identification procedure --
24 after the photographic presentation as you have
25 described it, did you meet with Mr. Nifong about the
Margaret M. Powe 11, CVR - (919) 779-0322

PAGE 128
Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb - 4/1 9/0 7
1 results?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What did you tell him?
4 A. Told him what had happened.
5 Q. And what was that?
6 A. That she had identified the people and
7 gone through it with him and that she had memory of
8 people that were there.
9 Q. Okay. Did you tell him how many people
10 she had identified as attackers or potential attackers?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How many people did you tell him?
13 A. Three (3). And we also, I know we had
14 discussed the part about looking like someone but not
15 him or not sure.
Edited by MikeZPU, Oct 21 2010, 08:35 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

Quasi, great list of questions.

Here are a few others:

1) How did Sgt. Mark Gottlieb take over the case on March 15? Who in the DPD approved the assignment?

2) Why did DUMC allow Levicy (and later Darico) to talk to police and to Nifong without legal counsel from DUMC present?

3) Who authorized Cpl. David Addison and Kammie Michael to lie to the media and issue inflammatory statements to the media about the case?

4) What did Duke say when it notified its insurers the end of March that it might face liability?

5) What happened at the first Duke Crisis Mangement Team meeting on March 25, 2006?

6) What was decided March 29 at the first Joint Command Meeting with Duke and Durham officials, including DA Nifong, City Manager Patrick Baker, Deputy Durham PD Chief Hodge, Duke VP Graves, and Duke Police Chief Dean?

7) Who in the Duke Office of Legal Affairs or administration approved Duke playing along with the charade of Nifong going before Judge Titus to supboena key card records when Duke knew that the information had already been improperly turned over March 31 by Duke Police?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Oh my!!!! great questions. But come on now. How soon we forget.....

.IT WAS ALL A HOAX.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
foxglove

Payback
Oct 21 2010, 03:57 PM
jarms
Oct 21 2010, 02:23 PM
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.
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.
Perhaps some of Brodhead's attitude toward political correctness can go back to his college days at Yale. He belonged to a secret society at Yale called the Manuscript Society. I've read that the Manuscript Society prided itself on diversity-- I believe, it was one of the first to have women members. Some of the members of that society include David Gergen and Anderson Cooper according to the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript_Society

Edited by foxglove, Oct 22 2010, 08:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

Foxglove, according to Wikipedia Brodhead graduated in 1968, the year before women were admitted at Yale. He met his wife when they were graduate students there.
I really think we can determine what turned Brodhead to Political Correctness was someone's report on his book on the students of Hawthorne. I have read many a preface, and can pretty much guarantee that the last-minute preface was an attempt to paper over his failure to have any serious treatment of women instead of just dead white men and famous dead white men at that. He had done NO research at all to find out who was really in the school of Hawthorne. People famous in the 19th century modeled some of their writing on Hawthorne, and Brodhead had no inkling of this unless someone had published articles, as people had done on Harold Frederic. He mentioned Harriet Beecher Stowe in the fns but had no idea that she had learned from NH in her New England novels. Whoever criticized him was ignorant but opinionated--he or she could see that Brodhead was working only on dead white men but did not know which other writers were in the school of Hawthorne. And Brodhead was twisting and turning in the preface to justify himself. The background of this is the agitation in the early 80s to expand the canon with women and minorities. Brodhead had made his way in ignorance of the movement until (I would bet) challenged. Read the preface and see, or see what I quote in some of the pieces pinned or the review in Amazon.com. Now, after 1986 you can trace a full flight to multiculturalism. He begins making speeches on it, and even works (with help from real scholars) on some papers of a man who was about as much black as I am Indian and looked it. Brodhead wanted to prove his street creds. I don't think he had ever been challenged before 1986 or late 1985, and being challenged shook him up. It did not shake him up enough to tell Oxford that he had to work on the manuscript another few years until he got it right, but that's our boy, not one to want to look at the evidence.

P.S. I just checked Amazon and the review is still up, the one customer review. Astonishing, the opportunities of the Internet. This is another topic, but a thoughtful review on Amazon (signed, of course) gets far more attention than a review in any academic journal. What a boon to unemployed geezers!
Edited by Payback, Oct 22 2010, 10:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

I took a few minutes on Google just now to pursue a little further when Brodhead turned away from the study of dead white men to a greater inclusiveness which led into his multiculturalism. By Goggling "Richard Brodhead" in quotes followed by "multicultural" I got interesting but not conclusive information. The most sensible hit was Gary North's "What I Learned from Duke University" (2007), where he comments that Brodhead is "arguably the most inept president in the history of America's elite education." That of course was before Burness got his latest job. I found a Fall 1996 piece in Yale's ON COMMON GROUND by Brodhead on multiculturalism, an attempt to guard against new excesses in multiculturalism, where minority writers would be taught but not, say, Faulkner. There he says that his inclusiveness began about 15 years earlier, which would put it about 1981. I think he is half a decade off. In 1984 and 1985 he demonstrably did not know that Harriet Beecher Stowe had written New England novels which were highly indebted to Nathaniel Hawthorne and he demonstrably had not read widely even among white men who were not still famous in the 1980s. If he had been interested in inclusiveness of even white women, back then, he would have seized on Stowe for his THE SCHOOL OF HAWTHORNE. My hunch is that he was fudging five years, that his turn to inclusiveness then to multiculturalism took place after late 1985 or early 1986, after he wrote his preface to THE SCHOOL OF HAWTHORNE. Can anyone find him including even white women of the 19th century in talks or essays in the early 1980s?
Edited by Payback, Oct 23 2010, 04:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

P.S. In the previous post I suspiciously suggested that in 1996 Brodhead was toying with the truth a mite when he said his interest in multiculturalism began around 15 years earlier. I hate myself when I suggest that Brodhead might speak less than absolute truth, so I went down to the garage and dug out the early 1980s copies of AMERICAN LITERARY SCHOLARSHIP, where everybody's publications are commented on year by year. Surprise, surprise, Baldo! Surprise, surprise, MikeZPU! What Brodhead was publishing on year by year was Hawthorne and Melville, and utterly conventional stuff at that. He branched out in the 1986 THE SCHOOL OF HAWTHORNE to include Henry James and Howells and other dead white men. In 1986 he compiled a short and absolutely routine NEW ESSAYS ON MOBY-DICK. In either of these books he had a perfect opportunity to shake up the canon. As I keep saying, he was so ignorant of women's writings that he did not know Stowe in her New England novels was a student in that school of Hawthorne. I did not go on to see what he published after 1987 but saw enough to be sure his photographic memory was failing him when he claimed to have been at least an incipient multiculturalist in the early 1980s. When anybody fudges something like this a good half decade (and more) it's a sign that he wishes, oh wishes! that he had been one of the early multiculturalists when he was in fact a fuddy-duddy male chauvinist piglet, rooting around on the surface of Hawthorne and Melville. I have said before he has never done anything original in his long career, however pleasingly he phrased his banalities. Being routine all your life is one thing. Lying about your multiculturalist resume is another. Potti, Potti. Hmmmm. A brotherhood? Think about those possible explanations for Potti's seeming misrepresentation of his resume. What was it Brodhead said about the cruel charges against Potti? Oh, he said that what "we want, therefore, is for people to back off until they can learn whether the allegation was true or whether the allegation was false or if there is some intermediate explanation."

An intermediate explanation of how very multicultural Brodhead had been for the fifteen years before 1996 would put his terror-stricken conversion about where?

Brodhead is not a Mensch, after all. Bill Anderson, can you handle this news calmly?
Edited by Payback, Oct 25 2010, 01:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
I hate myself when I suggest that Brodhead might speak less than absolute truth


I feel just the same way...


:roflmao:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

Quasimodo
Oct 25 2010, 12:59 PM
Quote:
 
I hate myself when I suggest that Brodhead might speak less than absolute truth


I feel just the same way...


:roflmao:
Quasi made me laugh out loud, so I added some more about intermediate explanations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jarms

Payback
Oct 25 2010, 01:13 PM
Quasimodo
Oct 25 2010, 12:59 PM
Quote:
 
I hate myself when I suggest that Brodhead might speak less than absolute truth


I feel just the same way...


:roflmao:
Quasi made me laugh out loud, so I added some more about intermediate explanations.
I'm having these urges, too. I'm going straight to confession!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

I'm enthralled with the notion of Brodhead's "intermediate explanations." The way he fudged his conversion to multiculturalism, I suspect that it he lives long enough he will recall proudly the day when he and Kerstin Kimel stood shoulder to shoulder (just the two of them) in defense of the lacrosse team and Michael Pressler.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply