| Duke Files New 732 Page Answer in Civil Suits; Duke Denies Fraud; Text of McFadyen Answer | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 15 2011, 01:22 AM (2,904 Views) | |
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 01:22 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/12797442/article-Duke-denies-fraud-vs--lacrosse-players?instance=homesecondleft The brief, according to the story by Ray Gronberg, answers the facts of the allegations against Duke remaining after Judge Beaty's ruling. The brief denies that Brodhead and Trask promised the players a "student-administrator privilege." The brief also denies that Dean Sue Wasiolek told the players not to tell their parents or get lawyers, although Duke does admit she steered them to Wes Covington. The suit admits that Duke Police gave the keycard data to Durham police, but claims there was no conspiracy with DA Nifong to hide that. Duke also denies that Tara Levicy misrepresented the SANE findings to Durham police or to Nifong and that she did not change her account to bolster the prosecution. The brief is not up on Justia (nor are Beaty's rulings.) Hopefully someone with PACER access can obtain the text. There appear to be some astounding assertions by Duke but we have to wait to see the actual brief and not just Ray Gronberg's account. Edited by sceptical, Apr 15 2011, 01:34 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 01:50 AM Post #2 |
|
There is nothing on the Duke website (duke.edu) or in the websites of WRAL, WTVD or the N&O about this. Did Duke advise Gronberg about this unexpected filing? The parties had until June to answer but apparently Duke decided to file soon after Judge Beaty's decision. The timing of the filing and Gronberg's story are suspicious. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Apr 15 2011, 06:30 AM Post #3 |
|
Yes..suspicious indeed. Knowing the corporate philosophy "We had to stop those pictures"...as the media is now flooded with photos and articles about the Murderess whose word they embraced over 47 of their own students...the face that launched a thousand faculty op-eds and TV appearances trashing the team, and that forced the Penitent Brodhead into his Apology Tour/..dragging his PC cross and the assumption of INNOCENCE for these kids...through the streets of Durham. Well, Duke has to stop the impact of those pictures again. This is a "Hey,-don't-look-at-US-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-Mangum" moment. Mangum is just Duke's yesterday Plaything... Looks like Levicy is the one they are going to clean up to bring home to Mother now. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 15 2011, 06:36 AM Post #4 |
|
A cynic might conclude they had the brief written even BEFORE Beaty released his ruling of 3/31. |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Apr 15 2011, 06:55 AM Post #5 |
|
Not a cynic but I had that exact thought. Very convenient release since I believe brodhead has made his refuge in China. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 07:14 AM Post #6 |
|
The brief denies that Brodhead and Trask promised the players a "student-administrator privilege." There are witnesses. The brief also denies that Dean Sue Wasiolek told the players not to tell their parents or get lawyers, There are witnesses. although Duke does admit she steered them to Wes Covington. conveniently deceased now. The suit admits that Duke Police gave the keycard data to Durham police, but claims there was no conspiracy with DA Nifong to hide that. So why did they cooperate in lying to the court? Duke also denies that Tara Levicy misrepresented the SANE findings to Durham police or to Nifong and that she did not change her account to bolster the prosecution. I can't see why they would make such obviously false --which means easily disproved--claims... unless they want to get these "facts" on the record, because they expect a settlement, and then their version will still remain unchallenged, and in the future they can say that they denied these assertions and it was never shown to be otherwise. (pure speculation alert!) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 07:15 AM Post #7 |
|
I also hope the judge comments on the length of their briefs (unless he is reserving his ire only for the wronged plaintiffs) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 07:17 AM Post #8 |
|
Does that mean the two have been combined, and that discovery will also be combined for those two (hence, there will be a limit on the number of depositions taken?) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 07:23 AM Post #9 |
|
Meaning, if Duke gets settlements, the truth will be completely buried and they will always deny that Levicy did anything wrong. (and confidentiality agreements will keep anyone from testifying otherwise) Duke wants its PR brand, will pay any price (financially), will be willing to admit the plaintiffs suffered (but they can't get any acknowledgment of 'emotional distress'), and will let them describe how they suffered at the hands of the rogue prosecutor, and maybe at the hands of two rogue police officers, but not at the hands of Duke, which always supported the notion of withholding judgment and remembering the premise of innocent before proven guilty... (pure speculation alert!) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 07:26 AM Post #10 |
|
That's what Duke doesn't want. And it will play rough to get it (as it has all along throughout the case...) (speculation alert!) |
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Apr 15 2011, 07:27 AM Post #11 |
|
I believe that filing was Duke's Answer to the Complaint's, not a brief. By denying most of the allegations, Duke is admitting the Judge was right in his rulings, the Plaintiffs' Complaints do state causes of action upon which relief can be granted. A lawsuit is started by the filing of a Complaint. Once the Complaint is filed, the defendants have to file an Answer. In this case the defendants chose to file 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. Now that those motions have been dispensed, Answers are due. Duke's Answer is puts almost everything in play. That is the normal state of affairs in a lawsuit. However, good lawyers tell their clients that sometimes it is best to admit some facts when they are not in controversy. So far no one has accused Duke of taking good legal advice. Walt-in-Durham Edited by Walt-in-Durham, Apr 15 2011, 07:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 07:59 AM Post #12 |
|
Walt, many thanks for the clarification. When we get the text, Duke's Answer to the Complaints in McFadyen and in Carrington will be very interesting. From Gronberg's summary, it appears that Duke did admit steering the players to Wes Covington (although denying he was a "fixer") and also that Duke Police gave Durham investigators the key card data (although claiming that adminstrators did not know this had happened). These appear to be some of the obvious admissions of fact that Walt refers to. Some of the other denials, however, are unbelievable. To say that Levicy did not mischaracterize the findings of the SANE exam contradicts the testimony of Gottlieb, Himan, and Levicy's own admission what she told them . Duke's lawyers must be drinking some strange Kool-Aid. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 08:09 AM Post #13 |
|
Which is why it would be nice to have Covington's testimony as to precisely what he was supposed to do (did Duke tell the players to hire him as their lawyer? was he supposed to represent them? was he supposed to represent Duke's interest?) One of the reasons to take discovery is to preserve the evidence, in the event that a witness should later be unavailable, refuse to testify (having left the jurisdiction), or has died. I guess judicial economy trumps that in the Fourth Circuit. |
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Apr 15 2011, 08:23 AM Post #14 |
|
I have to disagree with that last sentence. Duke's lawyers do what Duke tells them to do. I am certain that their lawyers advised them differently. I repeat, Duke has never been accused of taking good legal advice. Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Apr 15 2011, 09:07 AM Post #15 |
|
Again we see the wisdom of Linwood being his own attorney. He may be a fool, he made do a horrible job, but at least he isn't paying $$$$$ for a defense to do what he wants them to do. Half sarcastically posted |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






3:28 AM Jul 11