Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Recalling some other fake Duke rape hoaxes
Topic Started: Mar 18 2017, 01:00 PM (44 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Notorious sexual assaults at Duke in 2004 and 2002 were hoaxes

In Spring 2002, a freshman had terrified the campus community two years prior by alleging that she had been “beaten and sexually assaulted after being sprayed in the eyes with a liquid as she exited a stall in a Randolph Dormitory bathroom” (having been “blinded,” she could not identify her attacker). Women wrote to the Duke Chronicle of their fear of being on campus. Duke began offering a reward for information leading to the arrest of the assailant before he attacked again.

In Fall 2004, there was another terrifying sexual assault. A woman said she had been attacked from behind while jogging near Duke Forest by a man who placed a cord around her neck. The campus was once again wracked by a “culture of fear” and “hysteria.”

Then the truth came out. The victim in 2004 was the same victim in 2002, and as her tale of the forest assault was revealed to be a hoax, investigators realized that that infamous assault of ‘02 had been a hoax, too:

A student who had reported she was assaulted near the Duke Forest Oct. 22 admitted Monday that the incident never occurred, University officials said. Her admission has cast doubts upon the veracity of a much-publicized 2002 sexual assault in Randolph Dormitory.

The same student reported in 2002 that she was sexually assaulted in a bathroom in Randolph, the woman’s close friends said. University officials and police would only comment on the October report, but the student’s friends said the police described evidence that indicated the 2002 attack may never have happened. …

The father told the University Monday that his daughter confirmed the alleged incident had not occurred. The new information was posted on DukePass Monday afternoon.

[Vice president for student affairs Larry] Moneta said the student is withdrawing from the University and is getting counseling.

Officials said there are often discrepancies between victims’ descriptions of crimes and the story police uncover, but it is somewhat rare for an entire event to be fabricated. “It’s not common enough to say it happens in great numbers, but it happens often enough that on a checklist of issues, it’s something to consider,” Moneta said.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

TWO YEARS LATER :
Quote:
 

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/995121.html

Woman made up assault report: Duke


Staff Reports
A woman who said she was sexually assaulted last week near Duke Hospital has admitted that her report is untrue, Duke Police said in a press release today.

An investigation by the Duke University Police Department turned up several inconsistencies in what the woman said had occurred, said Aaron Graves, Duke's associate vice president for safety and security.

(snip)

No decision has been reached yet regarding whether charges will be filed against the 21-year-old woman. She is not a Duke student or employee.

"Sexual assault is a very serious matter, and I hope this unfortunate incident will not deter anyone who is a victim of such a crime from reporting what happened and seeking assistance," Graves said.



By the way, this was in 2006, and there was another false rape case at about the same time--I wonder why that was handled any differently? (Can we ask Moneta?)

(Could be a good topic for a master's thesis...)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Recall also that Sue Wasiolek was involved in at least five other lawsuits with regard to Duke;
I have no idea what they were about (perhaps some of them concerned alleged student misbehavior?)
but certainly she was not a stranger to the process.

It's a pity that she seemed unable to recall anything about the lax case:


Quote:
 

C. THE LONE WITNESS DUKE DESIGNATED TO TESTIFY TO THE FEW TOPICS NOT
SUBJECT TO ITS OBJECTIONS WAS NOT PREPARED TO DO SO.

To testify to all of the topics noticed in Part I of the Notice of Duke’s 30(b)(6)
Deposition, Duke designated one witness: Suzanne Wasiolek. With respect to the topics
relating to Plaintiffs’ fraud claim, Ms. Wasiolek had no personal knowledge of any of the
material facts, reviewed a handful of documents, and spoke with only 4 people. Ms.
Wasiolek had no clear recollection of the documents she reviewed, and she did not interview
any of the individuals named or identified in connection with Plaintiffs’ fraud claim.

(snip)

Ms. Wasiolek’s omissions were even more striking: Ms. Wasiolek did not interview Sgt. Smith, who requested the DukeCard reports from the DukeCard office and delivered them to Sgt. Gottlieb. Ms. Wasiolek also failed to interview the DukeCard employee who produced the DukeCard reports for Smith and Gottlieb.

Ms. Wasiolek appeared oblivious to the correspondence that evinced the fraud and the agreement among Duke and Durham defendants to cover it up through a bogus subpoena, and the ensuing fraud on Plaintiffs and the court. For example, Ms. Wasiolek was ignorant of the communications and transactions culminating in Sgt. Smith’s delivery of the DukeCard reports to Sgt. Gottlieb, and was even unaware of Sgt. Smith’s April 14, 2006 email directing Sgt. Gottlieb to obtain a subpoena for the DukeCard records that Smith gave Gottlieb two weeks before, on March 31, 2006.

Ms. Wasiolek also conceded that she had not even reviewed the transcript of Sgt. Smith’s deposition. As a result, Ms. Wasiolek did not know that Sgt. Smith admitted that he enlisted the aid of a specific programmer in the DukeCard Office (Roland Gettliffe) to produce Plaintiffs’ DukeCard records; she did not know that Mr. Gettliffe routinely produced such reports without a subpoena; that the subpoena for Plaintiffs’ records was the only subpoena for DukeCard data that either Mr. Gettliffe or Mr. Drummond received before 2006 or since.

Ms. Wasiolek did not know that, after Mr. Gettliffe produced the DukeCard reports on March 31, 2006, Sgt. Smith obtained Gottlieb’s agreement to obtain a subpoena for the same records, or that, before the subpoena was issued, Sgt. Smith solicited Mr. Gettliffe’s agreement not to disclose that he had already given Plaintiffs’ DukeCard records to Durham Police.

Ms. Wasiolek did not even bother to ascertain the identity of the DukeCard Office employee who produced the DukeCard reports to Sgt. Smith, and therefore she did not even know that the DukeCard employee was Mr. Gettliffe. As a result, Ms. Wasiolek also did not know that Mr. Gettliffe told Matthew Drummond that he produced the same records sought by the bogus subpoena that Smith, Gottlieb, Himan and Nifong agreed to issue, and she did not know that Mr. Gettliffe did so before Mr. Drummond advised Plaintiffs that their DukeCard data would be released pursuant to the subpoena unless Plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a motion with the Court.

Further, because Ms. Wasiolek did not inquire into the policies, customs, or practices of the DukeCard office, she did not know that Mr. Gettliffe always notified Mr. Drummond whenever he produced reports of students’ DukeCard data to police, that Mr. Gettliffe did so as matter of course to ensure that Mr. Drummond would know that he need not act on a subsequent request for the same information Mr. Gettliffe had previously produced.

Ms. Wasiolek simply did not prepare to testify on the subjects Plaintiffs identified in
their Cross-Notice – even when those subjects were unilaterally limited to a handful of
topics by Duke’s last second objections. And yet, Ms. Wasiolek swore under oath that no
one else was more knowledgeable
or better able than she to testify about the noticed topics
on behalf of Duke University.

Plaintiffs need not belabor the point any further than to simply note that the
transcript of Ms. Wasiolek’s testimony as Duke University’s corporate representative is rife
with variations of “I don’t know.”
Ms. Wasiolek’s consistent lack of knowledge across all
topics on which examination was actually permitted is tantamount to a failure to appear for
the deposition in violation of Rules 30(b)(6) and 37(d)(1)(A), and as a result, caused a
significant waste of time and resources, and will continue to do so as Plaintiffs undertake to
remedy Duke’s failure.

Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 18 2017, 01:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply