Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Kennedy deposition (excerpts)
Topic Started: Jan 5 2012, 05:19 PM (3,154 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

This deposition is what Duke has over the past five years spent multiple millions of dollars of endowment money - money that could have gone toward educating students - trying to prevent.

It didn't work.
:X
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Another email, this one about the Admin shutting down the voter registration.

From: Aaron Graves <CN=Aaron Graves/OU=Police/OU=Admin/OU=Univ/O=Duke>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:11 PM (GMT)
To: John F Burness
Bcc: Robert Dean
Subject: Re: Fw: crime at homecoming game



John is it more too the fact that we (DUPD) failed to coordinate with Durham Police and RLSH in conducting interviews of suspects/witnesses within the residential community. I don't want to imply that we might attempted to impede an investigation by denying access to our students that may be involved
in an incident. Just my two cents!

Aaron L. Graves Associate Vice President Campus Safety and Security
919.684.6571(Office)
919.681.7656(Fax)



John F Burness/Allen/Admin/Univ/Duke
11/16/2006 02:31 PM

To Aaron Graves/Police/Admin/Univ/Duke@mc cc
Subject Fw: crime at homecoming game







Please take a look at this draft response, particularly the sections regarding Duke Police, and send me your comments. Thanks.




Hello, Mr. Huitt.

I am responding to your recent email to Chairman Steel and President Brodhead. Let me begin by assuring you that free speech is alive and well at Duke. I wrote a column that appeared in the Duke Chronicle on 27 October 2006 (http://www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/10/27/Columns/Duke- Supports.Voter.Registration-2406770.shtml? norewrite200611161413&sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com) which describes the circumstances surrounding the effort of a group of students to register voters in or near Wallace Wade Stadium.

You cite three incidents where you believe the civil rights of our students have been violated with





University assent. Let me speak to those.

1. The University has acknowledged that Duke police on one occasion inappropriately permitted Durham police to enter a residence hall and interview students. That was a mistake by the Duke police officer involved, and processes have been put in place to assure it does not happen again.

2. The University was not willing to turn over student swipe cards. When we were asked to do so by the District Attorney, we immediately notified the students’ attorneys who filed a protest which was upheld by the courts. Our attorneys were in regular contact with the students’ attorneys as this case developed.

3. The reported special targeting of Duke students by the Durham police is pretty straightforward and, for a number of reasons, I believe, has been misrepresented. In recent years, at the beginning of the school year, the Durham police have made it clear, historically with Duke’s support, that they will have a zero tolerance policy re enforcement of the law in the Trinity Park area. The idea is that if they could set behavioral expectations in the community in the first few weeks of the year, there would be a tendency for students to behave better for the rest of the year. The Durham police always have the right (and some would argue, a legal obligation) to enforce the law to the letter of the law; in their view, a zero tolerance policy is a statement that they will do so rather than look the other way over minor offenses, which they sometimes have done and for which they have received complaints from Trinity Park residents over the years. The police traditionally have sent letters over the summer to the homes of our students who live off-campus – sometimes, I believe, with separate letters to their parents – alerting them that they will have a zero tolerance policy in the first few weeks of school. This is, and has been, a relatively routine practice in Durham at the beginning of each school year.

Clearly the lacrosse incident itself has frayed emotions at our campus and among those who care about Duke. Given the evolution of the case and the intense media scrutiny which has accompanied it, it is not surprising that people are angry. President Brodhead spoke to these issues in his interview with “60
Minutes”. (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/) At the end of the day, I
can assure you that Duke’s leaders are guided in dealing with this very difficult case by a clear focus on the values which undergird this University.



John F. Burness
Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations
Duke University

----- Forwarded by John F Burness/Allen/Admin/Univ/Duke on 11/16/2006 02:28 PM -----



Lyndsey Hill/Allen/Admin/Univ/Duke
10/17/2006 11:42 AM

To John F Burness/Allen/Admin/Univ/Duke@mc
cc Virginia M Skinner/Allen/Admin/Univ/Duke@mc, Kelly Rohrs/Allen/Admin/Univ/Duke@mc
Subject Fw: crime at homecoming game





Dear Mr. Burness,

Could someone in your office please respond to the following email and copy the president@duke.edu account when a response is made?
Thank you! Best,
Lyndsey

Lyndsey Kay Hill
Staff Assistant
Office of the President
Duke University lyndsey.hill@duke.edu
919-684-2424
207 Allen Building
Box 90001
----- Forwarded by Lyndsey Hill/Allen/Admin/Univ/Duke on 10/17/2006 11:37 AM -----



JHuitt5409@aol.com
Sent by: president-owner@duke.edu
10/13/2006 12:50 PM
To: president@duke.edu, boardchair@duke.edu
cc: Tcclark100@aol.com, sterly.wilder@daa.duke.edu
Subject: crime at homecoming game



Dear President Brodhead and Mr. Steel,

I have heard from two sources I consider very reliable, that at the Duke homecoming football game, students wearing T-shirts inscribed “Voice Your Choice” and registering voters were ordered by Duke officials to stop their activity and remove the shirts or turn them inside out. Knowingly and willfully interfering with persons registering voters for a federal election (candidates for a U. S. Congressional seat will be on the ballot Nov. 7) violates federal voting laws (42 U.S.Code Sec. 1973gg-10(1)(B)) and is punishable by fines and up to 5 years in prison. If two or more officials were involved, they might have violated federal conspiracy statutes as well. Ordering one to remove the shirts was a straight forward violation of the right to free speech. President Brodhead, you defended your decision, shortly after your arrival, to allow an execrable Palestinian group on campus as a matter of free speech. The Alumni Association web site defends allowing faculty members to criticize publicly lacrosse team students as a matter of free speech. Has free speech become a one way street at Duke, or permitted only for those selected by the administration?

I was disturbed when the administration failed to protect the civil and due process rights of its lacrosse players and other students, particularly:

Allowing Durham police without warrants to enter Duke dorms and interview students represented by counsel
Being willing to turn over swipe card logs of non-indicted lacrosse players to the District Attorney
(eventually stopped by a judge because to do so would violate federal privacy laws)





Not protesting the targeting of Duke students by at least one member of the Durham Police Department
(as reported in the Chronicle and News and Observer).

Failing to protect the civil rights of Duke students is horrible. Actively squashing those rights by stopping registration efforts and banning their free speech is indefensible. A letter of apology to DSED is in order. I hope you will discipline those involved and provide them some training on respect for the civil rights of others. I also hope you soon find your moral compass. If you are having trouble, the word “Courage” is inscribed on the back. Perhaps Kirstin Kimel and the young ladies who founded Duke Students for an Ethical Durham will help you look for it. Odd, isn’t it, that in a crisis over a rape allegation, it’s the Duke women who are showing the most backbone.

Jim Huitt
Duke JD ‘76
Duke MBA ‘76

cc: Tom C Clark, Pres. Duke Alumni Association
Sterly Wilder, Exec. Dir., Duke Alumni Association
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Here's the Dean Sue email with the entire cc string. Wouldn't copy well, so here's a link.

http://lincolnparishnewsonline.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/emails-010612-1.pdf
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

April 7, 2006


« Update to Is there a Conflict within Workaholic
Behavior? | Main| MarketingMonger Podcast »

Plaintiffs'
EXHIBIT No. 7




Disgrace at Duke; What Took So Long Anyway?



Disgrace at Duke; What Took So Long Anyway?


President Richard Brodhead of Duke University took strong action on Wednesday, April 5 to reclaim the moral high ground after his school has been battered by a burgeoning scandal, with three Duke Lacrosse players accused of raping a dancer from a predominately African-American college at a party at their fraternity house on March 13. As Mr. Brodhead noted in his communication to alumni, "This episode has touched off angers, fears, resentments...brought glaring visibility to underlying issues...concerns of women about sexual coercion and assault...concerns about the culture of certain student groups that regularly abuse alcohol and the attitudes these groups promote...concerns about the survival of the legacy of racism, the most hateful feature American history has produced."


This post does not seek to examine the underlying issues. Others will do so in a more eloquent manner. It suffices to say that as a father of three daughters, I am repulsed by the alleged violation of basic human dignity. There can be no excuse for this type of

behavior. But let me focus instead on the communications issues in this crisis. In particular, let's examine the accusation that the University has been too slow to respond to the crisis.


The Context--The town of Durham has had a very "fragile relationship" with the University, according to the local newspaper News & Observer. According to the paper, "Fifteen players--about 1/3 of the (men's lacrosse) team--had previous
criminal charges in Durham in the past three years, mostly related to drunken and disruptive behavior. Most of those charges were resolved in deals with prosecutors that allowed the players to escape criminal convictions." The paper goes on to quote faculty member Kathleen Smith as saying the faculty was unaware of the team members' legal record. President Brodhead's note to alumni acknowledges that "There have been reports of persistent problems involving the men's lacrosse team, including racist language and a pattern of alcohol abuse and disorderly behavior."


The Timeline--


March 14, early AM--Victim relates story to Durham police March 15--Duke begins investigation, though University says nothing
March 18, 21--Duke mens' lacrosse team plays games against N. Carolina and Cornell
March 24--SVP for public affairs John Burness says in response to lacrosse team members going for DNA tests, "Duke University is monitoring the situation and cooperating with officials, as are the

students."
March 25--In response to stories confirming the hiring of women from an escort service to dance at the party and that alcohol was served to underage lacrosse team players, Duke decides to forfeit games against Georgetown and Mount St. Mary's. President Brodhead said, "Physical coercion and sexual assault are unacceptable in any setting and have no place at Duke. There will be very serious penalties if the charges are verified but the facts are not yet established."
March 29--Duke decides to suspend all games of the men's lacrosse team until the rape allegations are resolved. The team captains acknowledged certain judgment lapses in holding the party, but denied the allegation of rape and said they did not want to play competitively until the DNA results are finalized. President Brodhead said, "While we await the results of the investigation, I remind everyone that under our system of law, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. One deep value the university is committed to is protecting us all from coercion and assault. An equally strong value is that we must not judge each other on the basis of opinion or strong feeling rather than evidence of actual conduct."
April 3--SVP for public affairs Burness confirms to News & Observer that there were frequent complaints to Durham police on rowdy behavior and charges against 15 players over the past two years for drunk and disorderly conduct.
April 5--Lacrosse coach resigns with no comment. Presidential council convened to scrutinize Duke's response to the situation,

another will consider the lacrosse team's behavior and culture. President Brodhead's statement is noted above.


Conclusions


1) It took too long for the President of the University to lay out the context, which he did eloquently on March 25. There were eight days with no apparent comment by the university brass and ten days in which the only official statements came from the athletic director and the SVP of public affairs. What doesn't seem to be apparent in the coverage to date is whether Duke officials were
led down this communications path by legal counsel. I believe that there are times when the court of public opinion needs heavier weighting than those applied in the legal courtroom. This could be one of those cases.


2) The best type of statement in the days just following the event would have established Brodhead's unequivocal support for due process but also a determination to understand the root causes of the problem and a restatement of his commitment to the rights of the accuser, not just the accused.


3) There had to be a separation of the interests of the accused and those of the university. In fact, the lawyers for the lacrosse players and the Durham District Attorney have been scrapping quite publicly for days about trying the case in the media.


4) The university community was relatively calm until March 27, when protestors chanted in front of the administration building.

So there was a week of tolerance for the president, until enough details about the party were established to give credence to the accusations.


The general best practice in crisis communications is for the top person, the CEO or university president, to respond quickly to the problem, laying out a process for resolution then following up regularly with all stakeholders to assure full transparency. In this case, it became clear that the University would not control the release of information as it was a criminal inquiry. All the more reason why, at the outset, the University had to establish its position and its commitment to a thorough review of the incident and the environment that spawned it.


Posted by Edelman at April 7, 2006 5:06 PM |


Trackback Pings


TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edelman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/148
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
agatha

Quasimodo
Jan 5 2012, 06:40 PM
God Bless abb and Quasi!!!!! :toast:

I just finished my first read through it. To say it is an interesting read is an understatement. Now I must go bac to see what I missed on the first read..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

agatha
Jan 6 2012, 07:31 AM
Quasimodo
Jan 5 2012, 06:40 PM
God Bless abb and Quasi!!!!! :toast:

I just finished my first read through it. To say it is an interesting read is an understatement. Now I must go bac to see what I missed on the first read..
Just recently a lawyer over on FRee Republic commented on how to read legal documents. The first read is to see what IS in the doc. The second read is to see what AIN'T in it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
University assent. Let me speak to those.

1. The University has acknowledged that Duke police on one occasion inappropriately permitted Durham police to enter a residence hall and interview students. That was a mistake by the Duke police officer involved, and processes have been put in place to assure it does not happen again.

2. The University was not willing to turn over student swipe cards.
When we were asked to do so by the District Attorney, we immediately notified the students’ attorneys who filed a protest which was upheld by the courts. Our attorneys were in regular contact with the students’ attorneys as this case developed.

[This is at best, not true; at worst, a lie. (And was Burness that out of the loop?)]


3. The reported special targeting of Duke students by the Durham police is pretty straightforward and, for a number of reasons, I believe, has been misrepresented.

[Defending the DPD? But he wouldn't defend falsely-accused students?]

In recent years, at the beginning of the school year, the Durham police have made it clear, historically with Duke’s support, that they will have a zero tolerance policy re enforcement of the law in the Trinity Park area. The idea is that if they could set behavioral expectations in the community in the first few weeks of the year, there would be a tendency for students to behave better for the rest of the year. The Durham police always have the right (and some would argue, a legal obligation) to enforce the law to the letter of the law;

[which sounds exactly like the excuses used in the pre-civil rights era.]

in their view, a zero tolerance policy is a statement that they will do so rather than look the other way over minor offenses, which they sometimes have done and for which they have received complaints from Trinity Park residents over the years. The police traditionally have sent letters over the summer to the homes of our students who live off-campus – sometimes, I believe, with separate letters to their parents – alerting them that they will have a zero tolerance policy in the first few weeks of school. This is, and has been, a relatively routine practice in Durham at the beginning of each school year.

[If they don't send such letters to students at other schools and to other young people living in rental housing--and they don't--then that is targeting Duke students. And Duke students receiving 33 times the number of alcohol violations as NCCU students is prima facie evidence of targeting by other NC LE, which would bring about a federal civil rights investigation if the situation were reversed.]


Clearly the lacrosse incident itself has frayed emotions at our campus and among those who care about Duke. Given the evolution of the case and the intense media scrutiny which has accompanied it, it is not surprising that people are angry. President Brodhead spoke to these issues in his interview with “60
Minutes”. (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/) At the end of the day, I
can assure you that Duke’s leaders are guided in dealing with this very difficult case by a clear focus on the values which undergird this University.


[revolting hypocisy]

John F. Burness
Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations
Duke University
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Burness said. " In the lacrosse
case, the consultant's feedback has been 'highly
reinforcing of our approach,' which he said has been
characterized by cooperation with the news media. "


Quote:
 

http://today.duke.edu/2006/03/lacrosse1.html

Statement on Duke Men's Lacrosse Team

John F. Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations

March 24, 2006

DURHAM, N.C. - Yesterday, 46 Duke University undergraduates who are members of the men's lacrosse team responded to a legal order from Durham authorities and traveled downtown to be photographed and provide identifying information. The authorities made the request in connection with an investigation of an alleged incident on March 14 at 610 Buchanan St. in Durham. Duke University is monitoring the situation and cooperating with officials, as are the students


How did this go from "they are cooperating" (affirmed by Dean Sue in her original email) to repeated and incessant calls from Brodhead for them to cooperate (and right after Addison and the DPD called on them to cooperate)?

Was there some sort of coordination here?


Was a new line decided on?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 


From: Aaron Graves <CN=Aaron Graves/OU=Police/OU=Admin/OU=Univ/O=Duke>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:11 PM (GMT)
To: John F Burness
Bcc: Robert Dean
Subject: Re: Fw: crime at homecoming game



John is it more too the fact that we (DUPD) failed to coordinate with Durham Police and RLSH in conducting interviews of suspects/witnesses within the residential community. I don't want to imply that we might attempted to impede an investigation by denying access to our students that may be involved
in an incident. Just my two cents!

Aaron L. Graves Associate Vice President Campus Safety and Security
919.684.6571(Office)
919.681.7656(Fax)


Quote:
 

http://today.duke.edu/2006/04/graves.html
Statement from Aaron Graves Regarding Durham Police Visit to Campus

April 14, 2006

Editor's Note: Aaron Graves is the associate vice president for campus safety and security at Duke University.

DURHAM, N.C. - "Two Durham police detectives visited a residence hall on the Duke University campus yesterday evening. They were there as part of the ongoing police investigation of the March 13 incident on North Buchanan Boulevard, and they notified the Duke Police Department ahead of time. No search warrants were executed. The purpose of the visit was to conduct interviews. We do not know who they interviewed during the hour and 15 minutes they were in the Edens Residence Hall.

"Duke reiterates its earlier statements that it is cooperating fully with the police investigation and urges anyone with information pertinent to the events of March 13 to cooperate with the authorities. Any further questions about this should be directed to the Durham Police Department."


No apology, no admission of error on the part of the DPD, but just

a repeat of the mantra that everyone should cooperate...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
If you are having trouble, the word “Courage” is inscribed on the back. Perhaps Kirstin Kimel and the young ladies who founded Duke Students for an Ethical Durham will help you look for it. Odd, isn’t it, that in a crisis over a rape allegation, it’s the Duke women who are showing the most backbone.


:toast: :toast:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

abb
Jan 6 2012, 04:51 AM
This deposition is what Duke has over the past five years spent multiple millions of dollars of endowment money - money that could have gone toward educating students - trying to prevent.

It didn't work.
:X

The trustees need to explain why they accepted the expenditure of these funds, for this purpose.

(And they are personally liable if university funds are spent to defend individuals for their individual
wrongdoing--such as obstruction of justice.)



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

Despite the wealth of information contained as exhibits in Ekstrand's motion, Duke has turned over only 27 items in discovery. This is just a small fraction of the documentation in this case.

Look what's missing so far-- the communications between Brodhead and Steel, the communications between Brodhead and Burness, the communications between Brodhead and Alleva, the communications between Alleva and Pressler, etc. etc.

What we have so far is just the tip of the iceberg.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
agatha

abb
Jan 6 2012, 07:40 AM
agatha
Jan 6 2012, 07:31 AM
Quasimodo
Jan 5 2012, 06:40 PM
God Bless abb and Quasi!!!!! :toast:

I just finished my first read through it. To say it is an interesting read is an understatement. Now I must go bac to see what I missed on the first read..
Just recently a lawyer over on FRee Republic commented on how to read legal documents. The first read is to see what IS in the doc. The second read is to see what AIN'T in it.
Granted, this is just the beginning. The main question I have after reading this is what was in it for Brodhead?

Brodhead had a choice. Not only did he have a choice, he had the knowledge to make the right choice. He turned his back on the truth, the players and Pressler. Why? What did he hope to gain? What was his goal, his preferred outcome?

==========
OT: my preview button is not working. Is anyone else having that problem?
Edited by agatha, Jan 6 2012, 08:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

agatha
Jan 6 2012, 08:36 AM
abb
Jan 6 2012, 07:40 AM
agatha
Jan 6 2012, 07:31 AM
Quasimodo
Jan 5 2012, 06:40 PM
God Bless abb and Quasi!!!!! :toast:

I just finished my first read through it. To say it is an interesting read is an understatement. Now I must go bac to see what I missed on the first read..
Just recently a lawyer over on FRee Republic commented on how to read legal documents. The first read is to see what IS in the doc. The second read is to see what AIN'T in it.
Granted, this is just the beginning. The main question I have after reading this is what was in it for Brodhead?

Brodhead had a choice. Not only did he have a choice, he had the knowledge to make the right choice. He turned his back on the truth, the players and Pressler. Why? What did he hope to gain? What was his goal, his preferred outcome?

==========
OT: my preview button is not working. Is anyone else having that problem?
Coverup is the natural response of ANY bureaucracy caught in wrongdoing. Every time. Just look at Penn State. And you just KNOW how a worm like Brodhead will act.
:mkell:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
OT: my preview button is not working. Is anyone else having that problem?


There is a preview button?

(mine isn't working either...)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

abb
Jan 6 2012, 05:55 AM
Here's the Dean Sue email with the entire cc string. Wouldn't copy well, so here's a link.

http://lincolnparishnewsonline.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/emails-010612-1.pdf
Interesting sequence. Actually, the first e-mail in the series starts at the bottom of the page with gottlliebs e-mail to PAC2. Working up the page one can see how rapid all the e-mails and response came and the addition of additional CC's. I did not see Dean Sue listed on any of these e-mails. Her final e-mail assured everyone that nothing happened and every one of the students living in the house was cooperating. AND the cc list was quite extensive, so there was no doubt that everyone in Duke administration knew exactly what Dean Sue said and implied. All these e-mails were in a time period of about 1.5 hours on March 17th.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Quasimodo
Jan 6 2012, 08:52 AM
Quote:
 
OT: my preview button is not working. Is anyone else having that problem?


There is a preview button?

(mine isn't working either...)
Yes. If one clicks ADD REPLY, at the bottom of that screen it says preview so pne can preview their reply before posting. It appears to not be working this am.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Despite the wealth of information contained as exhibits in Ekstrand's motion, Duke has turned over only 27 items in discovery. This is just a small fraction of the documentation in this case.


27 documents. Right. That's all there is for the biggest scandal in Duke's history. I guess there was almost NO communication
between anyone in the Admin or among the trustees; and no papers were kept.

And Duke is cooperating fully with the discovery requests...

(sarc/off)



Quote:
 
Look what's missing so far-- the communications between Brodhead and Steel, the communications between Brodhead and Burness, the communications between Brodhead and Alleva, the communications between Alleva and Pressler, etc. etc.

What we have so far is just the tip of the iceberg.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

I am having a problem with the go button sending me back to whatever thread I am reading - I get an error data message and then I have to log into liestoppers again - this just started yesterday.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Granted, this is just the beginning. The main question I have after reading this is what was in it for Brodhead?

Brodhead had a choice. Not only did he have a choice, he had the knowledge to make the right choice. He turned his back on the truth, the players and Pressler. Why? What did he hope to gain? What was his goal, his preferred outcome?


It may be that he is only Steel's creature. Maybe Steel called the shots, and Brodhead was only following orders.

Steel's attitude was indicated by his rush to get photos of the team out of the media--right or wrong.

Steel may have early on made a decision to sacrifice the players "for the good of the organization".

If so, his emphatic statements about the entire BOT backing what Brodhead did, seem to me to be
support given to Brodhead to reassure him he won't be tossed under the bus as a "rogue university
president" for obeying Steel's instructions.

(MOO, for discussion purposes only)



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



I think Steel needs to be deposed, along with the trustees, to see what he told them.

And especially, I think the trustees have to be on record as to how they reacted, and why.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Wade

chatham
Jan 6 2012, 08:55 AM
abb
Jan 6 2012, 05:55 AM
Here's the Dean Sue email with the entire cc string. Wouldn't copy well, so here's a link.

http://lincolnparishnewsonline.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/emails-010612-1.pdf
Interesting sequence. Actually, the first e-mail in the series starts at the bottom of the page with gottlliebs e-mail to PAC2. Working up the page one can see how rapid all the e-mails and response came and the addition of additional CC's. I did not see Dean Sue listed on any of these e-mails. Her final e-mail assured everyone that nothing happened and every one of the students living in the house was cooperating. AND the cc list was quite extensive, so there was no doubt that everyone in Duke administration knew exactly what Dean Sue said and implied. All these e-mails were in a time period of about 1.5 hours on March 17th.
What struck me about this email chain was that the PR people were initially out of the loop. Their first inkling appeared to be Gottlieb's posting to the PAC 2 listserv, and being competent professionals, correctly anticipated that they might get a call or two about it. But ... they had to ask the higher-ups what was going on. Whereas one would think they should have gotten a heads-up from Dean Sue or the Athletics people as soon as those sources knew something was brewing.

Also, it appeared from Kennedy's deposition that he didn't know who some of the PR people were (David Jarmul's name, if I recollect correctly, sticks out there as someone he thought was in an entirely different office). Not entirely surprising as Athletics has its own PR staff (i.e. sports information) and therefore doesn't routinely have to deal with university-side PR.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Quote:
 
I have heard from two sources I consider very reliable, that at the Duke homecoming football game, students wearing T-shirts inscribed “Voice Your Choice” and registering voters were ordered by Duke officials to stop their activity and remove the shirts or turn them inside out. Knowingly and willfully interfering with persons registering voters for a federal election (candidates for a U. S. Congressional seat will be on the ballot Nov. 7) violates federal voting laws (42 U.S.Code Sec. 1973gg-10(1)(B)) and is punishable by fines and up to 5 years in prison. If two or more officials were involved, they might have violated federal conspiracy statutes as well. Ordering one to remove the shirts was a straight forward violation of the right to free speech. President Brodhead, you defended your decision, shortly after your arrival, to allow an execrable Palestinian group on campus as a matter of free speech. The Alumni Association web site defends allowing faculty members to criticize publicly lacrosse team students as a matter of free speech. Has free speech become a one way street at Duke, or permitted only for those selected by the administration?


Am I missing something, or did Burness totally ignore this part of
Mr Huitt's letter, in his response? This was the first (and most detailed)
paragraph of Mr. Huitt's letter and Burness just totally blew it off!
Edited by MikeZPU, Jan 6 2012, 12:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Quote:
 
John is it more too the fact that we (DUPD) failed to coordinate with Durham Police and RLSH in conducting interviews of suspects/witnesses within the residential community. I don't want to imply that we might attempted to impede an investigation by denying access to our students that may be involved
in an incident. Just my two cents!

Aaron L. Graves Associate Vice President Campus Safety and Security
919.684.6571(Office)
919.681.7656(Fax)


Did VP Graves graduate from the Tracey Cline school of bad english and mispellings?

The "too" in the first line should be "to." In addition, the grammar in the second sentence
is bad. I assume he meant "might HAVE impeded" ? The wording at the end of the
second sentence is awkward as well.

BUT two more important points are: (1) it seems that there was a strong directive
from the administration to let the DPD do whatever they wanted, and
(2) yes, neither the DPD or the DUPD bothered to talk the
neighbors at 610 N. Buchanan Ave about what they heard or saw that night.
Recall that Jason Bissey had to take the initiative to call Himan to give a statement.
Edited by MikeZPU, Jan 6 2012, 01:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

MikeZPU
Jan 6 2012, 11:56 AM
Quote:
 
I have heard from two sources I consider very reliable, that at the Duke homecoming football game, students wearing T-shirts inscribed “Voice Your Choice” and registering voters were ordered by Duke officials to stop their activity and remove the shirts or turn them inside out. Knowingly and willfully interfering with persons registering voters for a federal election (candidates for a U. S. Congressional seat will be on the ballot Nov. 7) violates federal voting laws (42 U.S.Code Sec. 1973gg-10(1)(B)) and is punishable by fines and up to 5 years in prison. If two or more officials were involved, they might have violated federal conspiracy statutes as well. Ordering one to remove the shirts was a straight forward violation of the right to free speech. President Brodhead, you defended your decision, shortly after your arrival, to allow an execrable Palestinian group on campus as a matter of free speech. The Alumni Association web site defends allowing faculty members to criticize publicly lacrosse team students as a matter of free speech. Has free speech become a one way street at Duke, or permitted only for those selected by the administration?


Am I missing something, or did Burness totally ignore this part of
Mr Huitt's letter, in his response? This was the first (and most detailed)
paragraph of Mr. Huitt's letter and Burness just totally blew it off!
You are correct. He breezed right past it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rusty Dog
Member Avatar

MikeZPU
Jan 6 2012, 12:20 PM
Quote:
 
John is it more too the fact that we (DUPD) failed to coordinate with Durham Police and RLSH in conducting interviews of suspects/witnesses within the residential community. I don't want to imply that we might attempted to impede an investigation by denying access to our students that may be involved
in an incident. Just my two cents!

Aaron L. Graves Associate Vice President Campus Safety and Security
919.684.6571(Office)
919.681.7656(Fax)



Did VP Graves graduate from the Tracey Cline school of bad english and mispellings?

The "too" in the first line should be "to" but the more important problem is the
english in the second sentence. I assume he meant "might HAVE impeded" ?

BUT two more important points are: (1) it seems that there was a strong directive
from the administration to let the DPD do whatever they wanted, and
(2) yes, neither the DPD or the DUPD bothered to talk the
neighbors at 610 N. Buchanan Ave about what they heard or saw that night.
Recall that Jason Bissey had to take the initiative to call Himan to give a statement.
Thanks for the translation. I couldn't figure out what in the world he was trying to say. He didn't seem to answer the questions asked.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Rusty Dog
Jan 6 2012, 12:56 PM
MikeZPU
Jan 6 2012, 12:20 PM
Quote:
 
John is it more too the fact that we (DUPD) failed to coordinate with Durham Police and RLSH in conducting interviews of suspects/witnesses within the residential community. I don't want to imply that we might attempted to impede an investigation by denying access to our students that may be involved
in an incident. Just my two cents!

Aaron L. Graves Associate Vice President Campus Safety and Security
919.684.6571(Office)
919.681.7656(Fax)



Did VP Graves graduate from the Tracey Cline school of bad english and mispellings?

The "too" in the first line should be "to" but the more important problem is the
english in the second sentence. I assume he meant "might HAVE impeded" ?

BUT two more important points are: (1) it seems that there was a strong directive
from the administration to let the DPD do whatever they wanted, and
(2) yes, neither the DPD or the DUPD bothered to talk the
neighbors at 610 N. Buchanan Ave about what they heard or saw that night.
Recall that Jason Bissey had to take the initiative to call Himan to give a statement.
Thanks for the translation. I couldn't figure out what in the world he was trying to say. He didn't seem to answer the questions asked.
"Failed to coordinate"... What did that mean? It appears that Durham was going to do it anyway, regardless, and now graves is coming up with the excuse that if duke cops prevented Durham cops from doing the illegal entrance into the dorms then duke would also be accused of impeding the investigation? Weak excuse. But it was sufficient fora CYA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
agatha

Quasimodo
Jan 6 2012, 09:35 AM


I think Steel needs to be deposed, along with the trustees, to see what he told them.

And especially, I think the trustees have to be on record as to how they reacted, and why.



Well, we know he was going to make nice to the families because
Quote:
 
"...the parents didn't view Alleva favorably and - - or Brodhead, for that matter, and that he wanted to meet with them to talk about the situation and to have me [CK] come with them because the parents had some kind of faith in me.." pg.65
Since that meeting did not materialize, I wonder if Steel realized the families did not hold him in high regard either.

:hun: <--- Ekstrand preparing to depose.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

I think we are lucky to get a look at the Kennedy deposition. I would be surprised if any others become public like this one. Was this used to justify the subpoena for the two PR firms file on the Duke case?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

chatham
Jan 8 2012, 07:38 PM
I think we are lucky to get a look at the Kennedy deposition. I would be surprised if any others become public like this one. Was this used to justify the subpoena for the two PR firms file on the Duke case?
Unless the judge puts a protective order on them, depositions will be public. And if he does that, it will be just more proof that Beaty is corrupt.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

I find this questioning interesting because Ekstrand is saying that mangum did not make any allegations.

=========================
Q. All right. Lets move on. lets talk about the allegations that gave rise to the criminal case and this one ultimately. When I - -and to shorthand itl when I refer to allegations or the allegations, I'm referring to the allegations that the police have -- had said that Mangum made.

A. Okay.
Q. Crystal Mangum made . I 'm not aware of any direct evidence that she unequivocally made them, so
we' ll just call them allegations. Okay? Are you familiar with what I 'm talking about?
A. Uh-huh.
MR ELLIS: Objection
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 


12 And I mean, I can tell you from my son' s
13 experience , he loved Coach Pressler. And he loved
14 Coach Pressler not because Coach Pressler treated him
15 great all the time or because Coach Pressler told him
16 what he wanted to hear. He loved him because he
17 pushed him hard and he made him work. And my son
18 felt that he was a better person for his association f
19 with Coach Pressler. And to this day, he has
20 enormous respect for him. And that sentiment
21 pretty much permeated that team.

22 Q. All right. And he was, as of April 5th,
23 gone ?

24 A. He was no longer their caoch. He wa s
25 still around. He was still in town. He showed up in


1 the office from time to time, but as their coach, he
2 was gone .

3 Q. Okay. Did you perceive- - what did you
4 perceive the effect of all that change on those boys
5 or the potential effect on those boys at that time ?

6 A. You know, I was worried about - - there's
7 another range in that group, too, in that you have
8 18-year-olds and you have 22-year-olds , 23-year -olds
9 who are- - and the older guys were better equipped to
10 handle this , although nobody was equipped to handle
11 what happened that spring.

12 So I wa s concerned about all kinds of
13 issues. I was concerned about their academic
14 performance . I was concerned about - - I was
15 concerned about their safety. I was concerned about
16 their, you know, mental stability, not , I wouldn't
17 think anybody wa s going to kill themselves or
18 anything, but I really thought , I mean, they were
19 suffering.

20 And you know, they were - - they were
21 consistently, constantly branded as rapists or
22 misogynists or rapists or racists , or at the very
23 least covering up for it . And they were branded
24 that way. And loca l media , on campus , on Nancy
25 Grace, in every possible form of communication they

would turn on and find out that they were the worst
2 scum of the earth.
3 That's pretty hard for an 18-year-old kid
4 away from home to deal with. And then, you know, one
5 of the greatest supports , their coach, is gone .


Quote:
 
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/04/carrington-schoeffel-speak-out.html

SUNDAY, APRIL 08, 2007
Carrington, Schoeffel Speak Out
Bo Carrington and Steve Schoeffel gave a wide-ranging interview to the Charlottesville paper about their experiences over the past year.

Their Initial Expectations


Schoeffel noted they expected the charges to blow over quickly, especially after they gave their DNA: “We did that willingly, with the assumption that we had to do this to be sure, and if we could get on with our season and play a game next week, we had no problem walking right in there.”

Carrington: “We lost at Cornell right before that, and we were coming out expecting a hard week in practice. I remember people being like ‘Great, we get to go to the police station and give our DNA instead of practice.’ There was nothing to hide and all of us were ready and willing to do that. I remember the lawyers were trying to figure out a way to get out of it. For us, it didn’t occur because we wanted the truth to be known. If us giving our DNA helped that happen, then we were all for it.”

The Initial Student Reaction


Carrington recalled one of the uglier campus incidents of the affair, when he was surrounded by African-American students as he was walking across the quad. They shouted, “Tell the police what you know! Why are you protecting these rapists?”

He told the Daily Progress, “That was really weird because those were people you have in your classes and people you eat next to in the cafeteria. That was a time when we couldn’t say very much to the people outside of our team and outside of our legal counsel. That was really hard - wanting to be able to explain something and not being able to talk about it.”

The Campus Situation


Carrington: “It was uncomfortable. We had the guys on our team and our families and some of our close friends that we felt comfortable around and felt like they knew the truth. Other than that, it wasn’t a good place to be.”

Schoeffel: “The fact that white, privileged, upper-class - any of these things - were loaded on top of this without any much true knowledge of the situation - we were an easy target to exploit.”

Mike Pressler’s Dismissal

Carrington: “It was a hard day. Knowing Coach P - he used the word ‘resign’ when he told us, but I don’t think there was a guy that thought he had resigned. I think everyone knew exactly what that meant.”

Schoeffel: “There was a sense of injustice. He told us ‘I’ll fall on the sword. I’ll be the sacrificial lamb if I need to, but know that I’d never choose to leave you guys.’ He preaches and lives loyalty.”

“We felt like the decision came from up top with absolutely no transparency. They didn’t bring us through it. There wasn’t any explanation - not even from athletic director [Joe Alleva] - nothing that we knew except everything was being taken from us.”

[John Burness responded, “Obviously, we have a lot of information now that we did not have then. But you’re making your decisions based on the best information you have at the time. Nonetheless, the decision made by the president with the strong support of the board of trustees was made in the best long-term interest of the university and the athletic programs.”

[By April 5, what did Burness know? What information did he get later that he did not have then? (That Crystal was not credible?) And if the trustees backed the firing of Pressler, it was on what basis? What were they told? Duke is owed an explanation from them as to what their reasoning was, and on what basis they approved Pressler's firing.)]

(snip)

The Run-Up to Indictments

Carrington: “Every single person on our team went into their lawyer’s office, and everybody’s question was: ‘Is it me?’”

Schoeffel: “There was anxiety and trepidation - that fact that it was wide open like that.”

Duke’s Response


Schoeffel: “It’s [an apology] something that we’ve asked for. It’s not like we’ve been waiting for them and we’ve been passive. We’ve actually asked and said: ‘This is something you can do for us. We would appreciate this and it would go far for us.’”

Carrington, on the administration: “I think they’re afraid [to apologize] . I think a lot of times it’s hard to admit that you made a mistake. I think inaction had the same effect as action against us. Them being passive about it, the message was pretty clear.”

Their Current Status

Carrington: “I think in some aspects it’s close to getting back to normal. At the same time, three of our best friends are still indicted for sexual assault and kidnapping. It’s hard for anything to be normal with that. I think a lot of that comes from feeling like it could have been me.”

I should note that I interviewed Carrington for the book. He is a very impressive person—someone of high character who fits none of the stereotypes about the team, but also an unusually perceptive observer.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jarms

Quasi: "[By April 5, what did Burness know? What information did he get later that he did not have then? (That Crystal was not credible?) And if the trustees backed the firing of Pressler, it was on what basis? What were they told? Duke is owed an explanation from them as to what their reasoning was, and on what basis they approved Pressler's firing.)]"

In my fevered and admittedly paranoid mindset I'm imagining that by March 25, or at the latest March 29 Burness/Brodhead/Steel knew that there would be no DNA match and that, unless Duke acted as if the coach and the players were guilty, Nifong's case would never make it to a jury. My delusional belief is that Steel particularly believed that only a jury verdict would get Duke out of a mess with the Durham AA community and the faculty/student agitators (innocent or guilty, it didn't matter), and therefore Duke had to do everything it could to support Nifong in getting the case before the jury.

Obviously, these are crazy, irrational thoughts on my part.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

jarms
Jan 10 2012, 09:16 AM


Obviously, these are crazy, irrational thoughts on my part.
Of course! Don't you know that Brodhead was always in front stressing the presumption of innocence?

(From Duke's FAQ about the case) :


Quote:
 
Even during the first few weeks of this story, when many people assumed the players were guilty, Duke President Richard H. Brodhead repeatedly said they must be considered innocent until proven otherwise. In his first public statement about the incident, he said, "The facts are not yet established, however, and there are very different versions of the central events. No charges have been filed, and in our system of law, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty." He reiterated this several days later and in numerous subsequent statements.


:SarC:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Why did duke form the CMT and have their first meeting that Saturday afternoon at brodheads place? Did burness have some important information to tell the higher ups? Something about results from some testing the state labs did? Decide to meet with Durham officials on the 29th to decide how to go forward? No notes, no evidence, no nothing except what was already stated to be true by gottlieb?

With every job I have had when there were rumors out there that would affect the results I was looking for there was always a meeting called to confront them. I guess one could call those meeting CMT also, lol lol.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

Justia has finally listed some of the recent filings including the deposition by Chris Kennedy:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00953/47494/258/3.pdf?ts=1326431053

And here is the exhibit containg the key March 17, 2006 email by Dean Sue:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00953/47494/258/2.html
Edited by sceptical, Jan 18 2012, 11:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply