home

Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing

By Jeralyn, Section Duke Lacrosse
Posted on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 04:03:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Duke University has announced the lacrosse team will resume playing this fall. Stricter conditions will be in place.

"The reinstatement is inevitably probationary. ... (If) we did not allow these players the chance to take responsibility for creating a new history for their sport at Duke, we would be denying another very fundamental value: the belief in the possibility of learning from experience, the belief in education itself."

Possible violations include underage drinking, disorderly conduct and harassment. Student-athletes who commit a violation would first be given counseling and community service. A second violation would lead to a three-game suspension. A third violation would bring forth a season-long suspension.

Students who fail to notify the team's head coach and the athletic director of a violation within 24 hours would be immediately suspended from the team.

< Investigation of NC Prosecutors Drags On | Democrats' Response to Federal Marriage Amendment >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing | 54 comments (54 topical)
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#1)
    by spartan on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:22:34 PM EST
    OK, let us change the conversation a little bit. IF the av actually made a false allegation, what would be her best course of action? Should she just say the pressure is too much and back out now? Should she wait closer to the time of the trial and then back out? Should she go through with the trial and just say she isn't sure? Obviously if she has made up the rape scenario she shouldn't admit it to anyone. However, if she slips up and the DA finds out, will the DA proceed with charges against her or would he just let things be? If she backs out can and will the DA proceed with the case? These are all hypothetical questions and I was curious as to what some of the lawyers on this blog would be advising her if she was their client.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    If she wants to back out, the best way for her is to get hospitalized for whatever mental condition she was suffering a year ago. Feeling too much pressure? Substance abuse? Some kind of break with reality? Any of those things would make it easy for Nifong to dump the case. Nifong knows how bad the case is right now. He won't need the AV to tell him. I expect something like that to shut down the carnival. If she wants to end it.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    Let me start with my politically correct bona fides. From the beginning, I have been skeptical of the players's claims that "nothing happened" at the party on March 13th. As information has leaked out, I have tried to keep in mind that the information leaked by the defense was likely to be biased and possibly misleading. To this day, I remain open to the possibility that the AV was sexually assaulted at this party on the night in question. That being said, I find President Brodhead's comments here to be upsetting, and I question that he has the moral character to serve as the University President. It is clear that the consequences suffered by the team (suspended from play this year, firing of the coach, playing on probation next year) are the result of the rape allegations. To suggest that they are the result of a string of underage drinking incidents (as Brodhead seems to do) is dishonest. Furthermore, no one following the case can dismiss the possibility that these allegations are completely fabricated. One can admit this possibility without dismissing the other possibilities (that a rape occurred or that something more complicated happened). To fail to acknowledge the possibility here, and to fail to take responsibility for the possibility that these consequences were unfairly brought against the team by the University, is, in a word, gutless. Instituting a code of conduct that is specific to the men's lacrosse team in light of the current circumstances is absurd. Although I am not a Duke lacrosse apologist, I wanted to go on record as someone who was appalled at the University's statement here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#4)
    by azbballfan on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:00:40 PM EST
    rogan - Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were called to testify in high profile federal cases where "special" grand juries were convened. Nifong needs to have charges filed to compel testimony through subpeonas. The players who are most at risk are those who have knowledge of who went into the bathroom with the AV. Thankfully for them, they were drinking and can claim no knowledge. I can see it already - the rape apologists will claim that since no players testify that they saw the AV go into the bathroom with any players, then she must be lying. What I want to know is where they thought the AV was? Certainly if they are paying for her time they had some level of interest as to where she was? Unless of course, Kim was doing something even more torrid in the open with yet another player.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:51:04 PM EST
    Libby and Rove had to testify because of political fallout if they didn't. Had they not been White House appointees, they would have claimed the 5th like most subjects and targets of a grand jury investigation. There is no way any competent criminal defense lawyer would have let any of the players testify at a grand jury whether Nifong subpoenaed them or not. They would have taken the 5th -- unless they weren't there and had had no discussions with others about what had taken place. Nifong's only option at that point would be to immunize them to get their testimony, which means if they were involved in criminal activity that night, he couldn't prosecute them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:57:40 PM EST
    azbballfan, once again, you conveniently gloss over a fundamental requirement, in any criminal case: it is the burden of the state to prove a positive (ie: a rape occured, and the three accused committed it), not the burden of the defense to prove a negative (it didn't occur, or if it did, they didn't do it.). to blithely cast aspersions, on those who would hold the state to its constitutional burden, is to demonstrate your lack of faith in the veracity of the AV, and the competence of the DA. one needn't be an "apologist" for anyone, to insist that an actual trial, with actual evidence, be held, prior to ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused. given the "facts", as they've been leaked by both sides, i expect this case to disappear into the dustbin of history, without ever reaching trial. if a crime was committed, and the case never goes to trial, there is always the civil option, for the AV, where the rules of evidence aren't as strict, and the requirement for finding in plaintiff's favor not as burdensome. we'll see.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:17:43 AM EST
    Spartan, You wrote:
    Obviously if she has made up the rape scenario she shouldn't admit it to anyone.
    It's pretty astonishing sometimes the kind of principles you find in these discussions. It's not that people are confused about right and wrong at the most basic level. It's that they are NOT confused. They are wrong with confidence.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:15:37 AM EST
    DO, You wrote:
    That being said, I find President Brodhead's comments here to be upsetting, and I question that he has the moral character to serve as the University President.
    What gives you the impression that moral character is one of the qualities we might expect to find in University Presidents? I view the selection process as one that pretty much weeds out the candidates that exhibit moral leadership, favoring other qualities, like cheerleading skills. Brodhead doesn't want to make decisions that turn off alumni/ae. Yet there are times when he doesn't have much choice, and this is certainly one of them. Making the most mealy-mouthed spineless decision possible won't build the case that they should be erecting statues to Broadhead outside the Morality Department offices anytime soon, but it may well be what's best for the future of the college. Just think of it as Brodhead's way of taking one for the team. Go [your college here]!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#9)
    by spartan on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:42:36 AM EST
    PB, So if the accuser has made a false accusation you belive she will do the right thing and admit she lied. I wish it were that easy in real life.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#10)
    by spartan on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:55:15 AM EST
    PB, My questions were regarding advice a defense lawyer would give the accuser if she lied. I didn't think that they would tell her to admit to the false accusation but rather to not pursue the case and let it die. Again these were hypothetical questions if the accuser was not telling the truth.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#11)
    by azbballfan on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 07:12:57 AM EST
    cpinva, No, I didn't conveniently gloss over the need for the prosecution to prove it's case. There are many posters who exclaim disdain for the prosecution moving forward with the case. I was merely pointing out the rationale and reason for the DA's actions. Surely criminals have their right to not incriminate themselves. There are those who claim that the lack of evidence from the defense proves they are innocent (surely if someone knew something they would come forward is their argument). Certainly you disagree with them.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 08:21:51 AM EST
    Well, it looks like Kim Roberts has cleared up the money issue insofar as it pertains to her. Roberts said a demeaning atmosphere caused the women to leave the party, but did not dispute accounts that they took an $800 fee. She said when she drove off with the other dancer, several players who were angry over the money shouted racial epithets.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 08:55:11 AM EST
    PB - First of all, I guess that I was hoping that prominent universities would hold themselves to a higher standard. Secondly, I get the impression (with no rationale basis, I guess) that that was the statement that Brodhead wanted to make. There were other statements that he could have made without taking sides. How about? 'In retrospect, this thing seems even less clear to me than it did one or two months ago (and it didn't seem that clear to me then). If the truth is that these players are not guilty, to have denied them the end of their season was unfair of me. But we didn't know the truth then and we don't know the truth now. And in life we make decisions based on the best information we have. Sometimes the decisions turn out right, sometimes they turn out wrong, sometimes we never know. The decision to suspend the season was the best decision I could make on that day. The decision to reinstate the team is the best decision I can make today. I may have to reverse that decision in the future.' I don't know why it bothers me that he didn't make this kind of statement, but it really does. What does he have to lose?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#14)
    by chew2 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:38:40 AM EST
    To fail to acknowledge the possibility here, and to fail to take responsibility for the possibility that these consequences were unfairly brought against the team by the University, is, in a word, gutless. Instituting a code of conduct that is specific to the men's lacrosse team in light of the current circumstances is absurd.
    I think Broadhead acted appropriately. He cannot prejudge the legal case or make some backdoor hint at their innocence, despite all the leaks and publicity. No more drunken orgies and underage drinking parties for the lacrosse team, and probably for the other athletic teams as well. I have no problem with that "code of conduct". Broadhead says he's assuming direct supervision over athletics. I think that's pretty gutsy, since he's going to run up against the power of the basketball program.
    "When I met with the members of the team last month, I told them that, if and when Duke resumes the playing of men's lacrosse, we cannot return to the status quo as of March 12," Brodhead said in his letter. "Though it did not confirm the worst allegations against this team, the Coleman Committee (a faculty committee chaired by Duke Law School Professor James Coleman) documented a history of irresponsible conduct that this university cannot allow to continue. " ... As I wrestled with this issue, I decided that Duke should only resume men's lacrosse if we made a clear statement of the conduct we expect of the players going forward; if the players made a commitment to live by these expectations; and if we had a strong oversight mechanism to monitor the situation. These conditions have now been met to my satisfaction."
    Anyway, something far more important than college lacrosse or the Duke rape case is coming soon - the World Cup!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    I don't know how this plays out but I'm going to use the verb "to Nifong" for prosecutorial misconduct in the future. It sounds like North Carolina has been Nifonging innocent defendants for a long time now. I wonder if the code of conduct contained a rule about public urination. Does pissing one's pants count as self-reportable offense? All kidding aside, good for Duke to bring back the team. Kali, while I think they still could hire Danowski, I'd like to see this young man Cassese lead the team. There's certainly precedent (baseball).

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    So it is OK for Brodhead to legislate morality by saying no underage drinking or strippers, but it is wrong to call the hooker a whore? Is it wrong for a bunch of guys to order a stripper? Does that in turn make it wrong to strip? What are the boundaries here? One incident of underage drinking by ANY team member will be cause to cancel the season? Or is it, one stripper order will cancel the whole season? Or is it one allegation of sexual abuse? Or is it one allegation of sexual misconduct with more than one player present? What is the line and is it applicable to every sport? My guess is that if there were a zero tolerance, college sports would shut down altogether.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#17)
    by chew2 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:10:34 PM EST
    More Broadhead
    He also noted that he is pleased lacrosse team members are committed to setting a new standard for the Duke program. "These students have lived through an extraordinarily painful situation for the last eight weeks," Brodhead wrote. "Whether or not the felony charges are upheld against the three indicted students, the fact is that members of the team engaged in irresponsible and dishonorable behavior on the evening of March 13, and those who were involved bear responsibility for their actions. For all that, few of us have suffered an ordeal like the one that unfolded as intense media interest turned this event into a worldwide news story. Setting aside the legal charges, which must be resolved in court, I am pleased that team members have acknowledged the error of their conduct and have made the commitment to create a new history for themselves and their sport at Duke.
    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#18)
    by chew2 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    DO
    There were other statements that he could have made without taking sides. How about? 'In retrospect, this thing seems even less clear to me than it did one or two months ago (and it didn't seem that clear to me then).
    Broadhead:
    Since I wrote last, three members of the men's lacrosse team have been indicted on felony charges arising from the March 13 party. The students proclaim their innocence on all the counts. As you probably know, initial reports circulated through the media advanced the case against the students; more recent reports have made the case in their favor. But none of us has direct access to the criminal investigation, and until the full evidence is presented, none of us can know with certainty what did or did not happen. As I have said, it's essential that we allow the criminal justice system to run its course, and that we wait for the truth to be established before we reach final judgment. In the meanwhile, we need to remember that the American legal system is based on the principle of the presumption of innocence.
    A Letter to the Duke Community

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:33:13 PM EST
    Chew2 -
    Whether or not the felony charges are upheld against the three indicted students, the fact is that members of the team engaged in irresponsible and dishonorable behavior on the evening of March 13, and those who were involved bear responsibility for their actions.
    1. In the event that the allegations are false, the consequences (indicted teammates, negative national press, disruption of college experience, suspension of season, probationary status, different code of conduct than any other team, loss of coach, and more) are WILDLY (to put it mildly) disproportionate to known "irresponsible and dishonorable behavior." 2. And not to get nit-picky, but Broadhead has framed this in terms of whether the the felony charges are upheld or not, when the team, in my view, deserves to have him explicitly recognize the possibility that they are 100% innocent of the charges. Obviously it's not the only possibility (and perhaps not even the most likely), but there is no question that it is a possibility. I'll stand by my assessment - gutless, dishonest, and generally reprehensible. And he had two months to think about it! And one more time for emphasis - I am one who thinks the AV and DA are generally mistreated by most posters here.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#20)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:25:43 PM EST
    TalkLeft wrote:
    They would have taken the 5th -- unless they weren't there and had had no discussions with others about what had taken place. Nifong's only option at that point would be to immunize them to get their testimony
    Saying that they would have taken the Fifth presupposes that if they were to testify candidly, the testimony would tend to incriminate them. Which is an unwarranted assumption.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:37:15 PM EST
    Spartan, You wrote:
    PB, So if the accuser has made a false accusation you belive she will do the right thing and admit she lied.
    What makes you think I believe she would do the right thing? I don't know her at all. If she's lying, I don't know what she'll do. What I was taking issue with was your idea that "Obviously if she has made up the rape scenario she shouldn't admit it to anyone." That's off-the-scale as far as being a gutter sentiment. You wrote:
    I wish it were that easy in real life.
    It's one thing to lie. It's another to make a principle of lying. The latter takes real commitment. Broadhead wrote:
    I am pleased that team members have acknowledged the error of their conduct and have made the commitment to create a new history for themselves and their sport at Duke.
    Yes, I think that commitment has been demonstrated most aptly by the fellow recently arrested for running the stoplight while thoroughly sh*tfaced. Obviously Duke lacrosse has taken the message coming from the community to heart. Next season should be a real treat.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#22)
    by azbballfan on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    DO:
    1. In the event that the allegations are false, the consequences (indicted teammates, negative national press, disruption of college experience, suspension of season, probationary status, different code of conduct than any other team, loss of coach, and more) are WILDLY (to put it mildly) disproportionate to known "irresponsible and dishonorable behavior."
    All of which could have been avoided if all the players cooperated with the authorities. If a crime did not occur, the players seem to be going way out of their way to prove their right to privacy.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:49:26 PM EST
    Talkleft wrote:
    There is no way any competent criminal defense lawyer would have let any of the players testify at a grand jury whether Nifong subpoenaed them or not. They would have taken the 5th -- unless they weren't there and had had no discussions with others about what had taken place.
    This whole idea that lawyers "let" their clients do things is as perverse as the idea that the British had, prior to the American Revolution, that Kings "let" their subjects do things. One time when I was heading to court, I told my father that I regarded the Judge and the Prosecutor as my "employees." It's the government "of the people" after all. He scolded me for my notion. Never refer to them as "employees," he said. They are "your servants." Defense attorneys are your employees. Giving them authority over you is a big mistake. Even if you have an attorney, think for yourself. Otherwise you run the risk of being used.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#24)
    by chew2 on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:51:45 PM EST
    DO
    In the event that the allegations are false, the consequences (indicted teammates, negative national press, disruption of college experience, suspension of season, probationary status, different code of conduct than any other team, loss of coach, and more) are WILDLY (to put it mildly) disproportionate to known "irresponsible and dishonorable behavior."
    Broadhead is not responsible for the rape allegation and the resulting indictments and publicity and disruption of the player's lives. Suspending the season was reasonable in my view given the facts at the time, and suspending the 4 students was also reasonable given the indictments, not to mention McFayden's hateful diatribe. I think it's also reasonable to impose a higher code of conduct in an effort to deter drunken and disorderly public behavior by the lacrosse athletes. The history of drunkeness and disorderly behavior may not have come to light but for the rape allegation. But he can't wait around to find out if the rape allegation is false or true. He's made the decision to reinstate lacrosse now, and he can't pretend before all the facts are in that it will be business as usual as if nothing had ever happened. You can't put that genie back in the bottle.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    az: you quoted DO 1. In the event that the allegations are false, the consequences (indicted teammates, negative national press, disruption of college experience, suspension of season, probationary status, different code of conduct than any other team, loss of coach, and more) are WILDLY (to put it mildly) disproportionate to known "irresponsible and dishonorable behavior." And responded:
    All of which could have been avoided if all the players cooperated with the authorities.
    I know that you believe that, but I am not so sure. If they had all come forward to be interviewed AND if they had all given basically (allowing for 40+ accounts of the same events) the same version of events, I am not so sure that Nifong would have dropped the case. He would still have had the AV's statements and the SANE report. I can see Nifong thinking that the players had all "gotten their stories straight" and pressing forward with charges. Neither of us knows, of course, what would have happened in that event. And PB: you said
    Defense attorneys are your employees. Giving them authority over you is a big mistake. Even if you have an attorney, think for yourself. Otherwise you run the risk of being used.
    "Giving them authority" is one thing, following their advice is another. Think for yourself, by all means, but listen to what your attorney is recommending. I do the same when I hire a plumber, a mechanic, a roofer, or whatever. I might think I know what to do, but they are the ones with the expertise, the knowledge, the training. And exactly how do you think the defense attorneys are "using" their clients?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:30:01 PM EST
    Atl52 wrote:
    Kali, while I think they still could hire Danowski, I'd like to see this young man Cassese lead the team. There's certainly precedent (baseball).
    Agreed. He is technically green as a coach (2 years) but he has all the respect from the team from his own player credentials (academic-ACC player, 2x captain, 3x all-american, drafted #2 in the MLL and member of USA world team), he is a stand-up leader and his desire to coach will be a great fit. His ability to recruit top talent after this scandal with be the acidtest. As for next season, he will have the core of the 2006 team back (it would have been nice to keep the defenseman recruit who switched to UVA). Don't underestimate the motivation and focus this scandal will have on the team. Mark my words...Duke will be the 2007 NCAA Men's Lacrosse National Champions.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#27)
    by azbballfan on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    Sharon, If all the players came forward with a consistent tale of events which clearly contradicts the "bunch of fantastic lies" Evans claims the AV has set forth, then at least Nifong would have some evidence which could be used to drop the case or reinterview the AV. Since the players didn't, Nifong had to press charges in order to compel their testimony. Broadhead acted as any administrator would given similar circumstances. If the players cared so much about this year's season, they should have cooperated. Certainly their priorities put protecting each other ahead of playing their game. If it proves out that there was no crime that night, then the biggest crime is the coordinated effort of defense lawyers to string this out for their own benefit.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:42:06 PM EST
    Posted by wumhenry June 6, 2006 02:25 PM
    TalkLeft wrote: They would have taken the 5th -- unless they weren't there and had had no discussions with others about what had taken place. Nifong's only option at that point would be to immunize them to get their testimony
    Saying that they would have taken the Fifth presupposes that if they were to testify candidly, the testimony would tend to incriminate them. Which is an unwarranted assumption.
    Not at all. Read the wording, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me." "Might tend" could mean as little as "suggestive of" and could apply to an entirely unrelated crime. Say for example that he was in the company of some people who were "publicly urinating" 6 blocks away at the time. Nifong seems willing to prosecute those sort of charges, even though the DA's office got called down by a sitting judge for doing just that -- and who dismissed the charges -- only a couple of weeks ago. But what if it were a really serious situation -- like, "I was across town with some people in a place where a mafioso guy was selling crack cocaine." That is something that most people "might tend" not to want to reveal simply for what it "might tend" to suggest about what he was doing at that place, even if he was not the one buying it. Then the next question from the grand jury is, "What is the name of the mafioso guy who was selling the crack cocaine?" Answer that question and he would have a lot more serious things to worry about than Nifong. Mafiosos don't give "immunity."

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:49:47 PM EST
    Min. Muhammad Calls for Community to Stand with (Alleged) Rape Victim I am not a lawyer, but doesn't an event like the one described in this article give good reason to move the trial out of Durham? For starters, the title of the piece flat-out refers to the AV as a "Rape Victim." Then, there is this section:
    Min. Ava Muhammad told members of Durham Black community Sunday that when that day comes, they must be ready to give solid support to the alleged victim. But before that can happen, African-Americans must first deal with those "in the family," like Thomas Sowell, and other "negroes" who dare attack the victim, and the community for supporting her right to her day in court. "We've got to shut the fat mouth of every negro that has anything slanderous to say about this sister," Min. Muhammad. "Shut up, don't say another word."
    I suppose this quote could be interpreted in several ways. But one reading of the statement is that it is an implied threat to African-Americans -- including potential jurors in Durham -- who "slander" the AV by questioning the veracity of her story.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    Hi Sharon, You wrote:
    And exactly how do you think the defense attorneys are "using" their clients?
    I'd have to see the billables for this case. For most of the players, those billables would represent a complete list I would think, since they had no need whatsoever for lawyers.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#31)
    by wumhenry on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:02:51 PM EST
    azbballfan wrote:
    If all the players came forward with a consistent tale of events which clearly contradicts the "bunch of fantastic lies" Evans claims the AV has set forth, then at least Nifong would have some evidence which could be used to drop the case or reinterview the AV. Since the players didn't, Nifong had to press charges in order to compel their testimony. [snip] If the players cared so much about this year's season, they should have cooperated.
    At least twice before, in reply to similar comments from you, I pointed out the fairly-obvious fact that the players and their lawyers had good reason to suspect that Nifong was determined to pursue the charges for an ulterior motive (the nature of which is too obvious to need repeating), no matter what, and that by putting all their exculpatory cards on the table early on, they'd make it easier for the AV to tailor her story to avoid being crossed up by hard rebuttal evidence. You haven't responded to these points, yet here you go again, harping on the same old tired theme with as much certitude as ever!

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    "If you've been following the case, you know these white folk... they're playin' dirty," Min. David Muhammad told the town hall meeting, "Playin' really, really dirty, and trying everything they can to taint the jury pool and sway public opinion."
    What he said.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:18:42 PM EST
    Did everyone skip over Mik's link (from Newsday) at June 6, 2006 09:21 AM, or is it old news? I had heard from defense lawyers (I thought) that the players had asked for a white girl and a hispanic girl, but isn't this the first confirmation of that claim by Kim? Considerring the attention that was being given to their possibly asking for black dancers, isn't this news?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#34)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    The NBPP is an offshoot of NOI. Muhammed's appearance is no surprise. I wonder how all the Baptists are enjoying him.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#35)
    by spartan on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:06:14 PM EST
    Does anyone know if Kim gets paid for her interview in Vanity Fair? Is that a usual practice for that type of magazine? PB, You still haven't answered my question regarding what a defense attorney tells the accuser. Does he tell her not to admit to anything or does he tell her to tell the truth. We are talking about a defense attorney representing the accuser.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#36)
    by weezie on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    Spartan, that was exactly what I was thinking as I scrolled down the comments. Kim must be getting some cash, would 10-15K sound reasonable to any posters familiar with magazine publishing? I'm so glad I stopped getting Venity Fair years ago. What a rag. Graydon Carter must be so very proud of such a coup.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#37)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    National Review Online has an article on Brodhead and a murder at Yale. I couldn't figure out how to do a link to the article, sorry. Anyway, it appears Brodhead meets every requirement for a top college administrator.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:54:49 PM EST
    PB: Such a cynical view of lawyers (wonder if we still prevail over used car salesmen(persons) as the least trusted profession?) you have. Understandable, but I would be willing to bet you are wrong on this one. Not sure which attorney it is, but he represents, as I recall, something like 20 or more of the players. And the other attorneys for the unindicted players will not have much in the way of billables: another bet on my part and, like so much on this board, totally unproveable one way or another. Seriously, though, it would be career suicide for an attorney, particularly a criminal defense attorney, to prolong a case to his or her client's detriment to up the billables. Career suicide, and an easy ethics violation for the NC Bar Association to punish. If the attorneys wanted to "use" their clients or this case for their own financial gain, they would be more likely, rather than not, to recommend talking to the DA. Higher hourly rate for work like that, more likely to involve additional work, etc. Follow your argument to its logical conclusion, and EVERY defense attorney, especially those with clients with money, would want every case to go to trial in order to get the higher fees a trial would demand as well as the extra weeks/months involved. This simply does not happen. When I did criminal defense work, we had, on retainer, some very deep pocket clients: drug dealers, a motorcycle gang, the local strip joints, and adult video establishments being the main ones. Plenty of money, but trial was to be avoided at all costs. The firm would make more money if a case went to trial, but it would be wrong on every level if we manipulated the system that way. And, really, unfair of you to impute such bad motives on the defense counsels' part, without a shred of evidence in support thereof. These are not fly-by-night shysters hanging around the courthouse in hopes of finding a defendant to represent. If one is to defend Nifong's ethics, one must (or at least should) afford the same courtesy to the other side.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:57:55 PM EST
    For skeptics of DNA, please see the gentleman in Hartford who prayed that "let science be science" and was granted his freedom...I hope that Durham feels the same way.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 07:10:06 PM EST
    Agreed, Marcus. And not just potential jurors - what about the "negroes" (and, by the way, how awful and inflammatory is the use of that word, for the obvious reasons it was used?) who are Kroger security guards, Durham police officers, Duke Medical Center employees, or any others? The mentality that an African American should stand by a fellow African American based solely on skin color is nearly as bad as any white racism in the past 40 years has been. I received my Duke alumni magazine today, and read the article about the case. I particularly liked the comments from the head of the North Carolina NAACP, as Brodhead described them:
    "If you ever want someone to come and stand by you and talk about the damage that can be done by prejudging, by judging people because of a group they belong to and some theory you have of that group rather than actual evidence, you can come to me."
    Here's the link to the Duke alumni magazine's article about this case, the article titled "A Spring of Sorrows." Not a "sexy" read, but I put it out there for those who want to see what Duke alumni are reading. The NOI seeing nothing but skin color as determinative of anything is as bad as the Aryan Nation doing the same.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 07:12:40 PM EST
    noname: some who are predisposed to believe the AV have no problem using whatever scenario they think best suits their position. Theory A: the players specifically asked for African American women because they were ready and willing to abuse them for their color; or Theory B: the players were angry/aggravated/upset that an African American stripper showed up. Damned if they did, damned if they didn't, and if Theory C shows up, they'll be damned for that, too.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 07:18:53 PM EST
    Richard: good story, here's the link And for all of you who helped me to "link," thank you again.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 08:02:12 PM EST
    And here's my e-mail from Pres. Brodhead, to us almuni. My jury is still out on him. My dad was a history professor at a small liberal arts university here in Jacksonville, and I have a . . . not sure how to describe it, "sense" of the politics of higher education, alumni and other donors sensibilities, the divergence of responsibilities from time to time, for the administrators. For now, I am still thinking that it was a lose-lose situation for Brodhead: too little, too late for some and too much too soon for others who love and support the university. Poor guy: the day after (something like that) he's hired as President of Duke, Coach K gets the offer from the Lakers. Talk about a baptism of fire. And, on that side topic of Krzewzski: no one here has mentioned it, but I have heard it from commentators: "Where is Coach K in all this? Where is HIS voice?" Clearly, VB (Vitale Backlash, which, believe me, I understand all too well). Not K's team, not his players, and not (close, real close but not) his school.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#44)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    Kim Roberts, Other Dancer in Duke Rape Case, Talks to Vanity Fair

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 09:48:44 PM EST
    Not happy with the Duke Magazine article, Brodhead's statement, the Rolling Stone Article, or the Vanity Fair article, but I must acknowledge some accuracies in all. The Rolling Stone characterization of the sororities hit home, but who cares - Duke sororities don't live together, and their sole existence is to meet once a week to plan next year's rush. Yawn. The Duke Magazine article was quite long and relatively depressing. It didn't really make any statement at all except to cover events. I am a long time Vanity Fair subscriber. They love controversy, but this was pretty mild for them, and I think Kim came off poorly, with no inconsistencies with the defense case. I have been talking to some other grads recently, and the consensus is that Duke's AD needs to go, no matter the opinion on the actual case. Brodhead seems to have garnered negative opinions from both sides of the case, and seems to be taking over the AD's role. I'm also not thrilled with Coach K or Coach G's lack of comments, but I am assuming that they are taking their cues from Brodhead.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 10:02:03 PM EST
    Hi Sharon, You wrote:
    Not sure which attorney it is, but he represents, as I recall, something like 20 or more of the players. And the other attorneys for the unindicted players will not have much in the way of billables: another bet on my part and, like so much on this board, totally unproveable one way or another.
    You really have to look at probate court to see how shameless the billing practices of lawyers can be. I was part of a case where one of the lawyers filed a motion to be excused from a hearing. I left an answering machine message on her phone telling her that that was fine by me. Later I found her bill for listening to my answering machine message in the court records. $60, if I recall correctly. All money from the dead man's eyes. You wrote:
    And, really, unfair of you to impute such bad motives on the defense counsels' part, without a shred of evidence in support thereof.
    The canceling of the appointment with Nifong is a "shred of evidence" in and of itself, but there has been much more. I've mentioned examples of what I consider to be "churning" on the part of the defense attorneys at least twice in prior threads, but in the spirit of Bob in Pacifica, I'm going to invoke the "never look over your shoulder" rule here and not bother to look these up. I'll complain as new examples arise. You wrote:
    These are not fly-by-night shysters hanging around the courthouse in hopes of finding a defendant to represent.
    I'm one of those people who appreciates the ambulance-chasers far more than I appreciate the lawyers who have managed to position themselves to represent hospitals. Everyone who takes the lawyer's oath is not a "shyster," to be sure; it is just the first step in a longer program. You wrote:
    If one is to defend Nifong's ethics, one must (or at least should) afford the same courtesy to the other side.
    First of all, if there was such a rule, you would certainly be in violation of it. Second of all, there isn't such a rule. The defense lawyers are shills by definition, whereas Nifong, in principle and as a fiduciary matter, works for "the people." You can claim, if you like, that "the people" Nifong is working for are the many friends of this poor black mother, and not the many friends of these beleagured college students, and we can make a debate of that. What is not worth debating is the idea that the defense attorneys' partisanship is equivalent to Nifong's. That idea is a product of an epistomological manipulation that I disagree with. You wrote:
    Theory A: the players specifically asked for African American women because they were ready and willing to abuse them for their color; or Theory B: the players were angry/aggravated/upset that an African American stripper showed up. Damned if they did, damned if they didn't, and if Theory C shows up, they'll be damned for that, too.
    Oh, yes. Theory C. That would be the one where they actually weren't concerned with the race of the dancers, I suppose. What a horrible world that would be! Is the balconey these guys were urinating off of the same structure as the stoop the accuser allegedly fell down after she was locked out of the house? Boy, these are some classy athletes. Kalidoggie wrote:
    Mark my words...Duke will be the 2007 NCAA Men's Lacrosse National Champions.
    Let's mark your words in uric acid... but please, can we keep it off the neighbor's lawns?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#47)
    by inmyhumbleopinion on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 10:14:13 PM EST
    alt52 posted:
    For skeptics of DNA, please see the gentleman in Hartford who prayed that "let science be science" and was granted his freedom...I hope that Durham feels the same way.
    Are you talking about that fingernail? The defense hasn't given us too much on that yet.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 10:51:12 PM EST
    Rogan, You wrote:
    What would Nifong have had to lose?
    I think its bad policy to give people immunity from prosecution on a lark. You give them immunity from prosecution when there is something essential about their testimony. It would be hard to argue, would it not, that any of the players hiding behind that Blue Wall have anything to say that would be essential to Nifong's case. You wrote:
    Also, if he were really so confident in the photo ID's made by the AV (as if he is), then why not give immunity to a bunch of the other guys since they "didn't do it anyway."
    You mean as a special Christmas gift to old friends? Good idea! But he'd beter run it through the New Black Panther Party before he does it. It's a cute idea. Anytime a prosecutor "believes" in a photo idea, they should give all the lookalikes immunity. Since they "didn't do it anyway." Good thinking.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 10:51:36 PM EST
    PB: by all accounts, the cancellation of the (I know it is an unfortunate term, but it is a term for group counselling) group grope was at the insistence of the players' parents, not attorneys. The majority of them had not even retained counsel, at that point. It was the "boys 2 men" parents who said, "wait a minute, I don't care what's good for the lacrosse team, or for Duke. I don't care what's good for Durham. I care about what's right for you." And given the atmosphere, I would have told my daughter or son the same thing. "The District Attorney wants you to come in and talk? Fine, go talk, but let me find you an attorney to go with you first." You said:
    Everyone who takes the lawyer's oath is not a "shyster," to be sure; it is just the first step in a longer program.
    I've done it, PB, are you ready to admit bias in your thoughts on this case? You hate/dislike/disrespect lawyers in general, except prosecutors? Understand: I am one of those you described:
    You really have to look at probate court to see how shameless the billing practices of lawyers can be.
    Estates, trusts, probate: that's what I do, for the most part. Actually, the bulk of what I do is in furtherance of keeping money out of the federal government and, to a lesser extent, the State of Florida's mitts. Sorry if you had a bad experience, but you are stroking with an awfully broad brush. And I have, much to the chagrin of the attorney I work with, a nasty habit of not billing, or underbilling. Unofficial pro bono. Not sure how your jurisdiction handles it, not sure how NC does, but I know Florida. All any heir in Florida has to do is challenge the attorney for the estate's fees. Sorry, everyone else. PB's comment hit a nerve, especially today after I put in more than one unbillable hour, which comes out of my pocket, to go with the 4 or 5 already for one dear soul that I keep wanting to help, because he needs it, and can't afford my fees, the way others can: the ones I DO bill. You said:
    Oh, yes. Theory C. That would be the one where they actually weren't concerned with the race of the dancers, I suppose. What a horrible world that would be!
    Sort of: Theory C is that they didn't really care, when it come down to it, what color or ethnicity the "dancers" were: they wanted more for their $800 than 5 minutes of "dancing." So why was the race of the dancers made an issue, early on? The simple hiring is enough to taint them in the eyes of some. Something along the lines of "any man who would hire women to demean themselves that way is just an impulse away from rape." Color neutral on that, or do you disagree?
    Is the balconey these guys were urinating off of the same structure as the stoop the accuser allegedly fell down after she was locked out of the house? Boy, these are some classy athletes.
    I am not suggesting that there is or was anything "classy" about that party. And where do you get the "locked out" portion of your comment, PB? Still a huge leap to go from unclassy to heinous, horrendous, morally bankrupt rapists. Big reach from not being classy to rape, especially the rape that is alleged. I find it interesting that NEVER was there put forth the easy defense: yes, there was sex, but it was consensual, paid for. NEVER, and that is the easiest defense to a rape allegation.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:00:44 PM EST
    imho: the defense was adamant, and I think it is a telling point, that the "sample" was NOT under the nail. Life or death struggle (according to the search warrant affadavit) and all the DNA that can be found is on one nail? And the small sample found on the nail was after said nail was retrieved from a bathroom wastebasket? Where is there any DNA other than that one piece, not even a full sample? After a three on one rape in a small area? Lawyers may play the crowd, criminal defense attorneys most of all. But these attorneys are not speaking in generalities. They are not stupid and would not put their reputations on the line for a lie about what the DNA reports said.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:10:23 PM EST
    TL and Rogan: Again, my criminal defense knowledge base is ages old, both in law school and practice. But what about limited immunity? "I don't care what you did that night, short of the assault/rape (repeating, for the record, my question as to why simple assault was not charged against any of the three indicted. If they can't prove the elements of rape, can't they at least show the physical damage to the AV? Everyone remember the initial reports: a dancer beaten, choked, kicked, and raped. Why only the last injury, granted the most serious and heinous, charged?) Immunity, based upon the premise that the DA finds you've lied, for anything less than kidnapping, and varying degrees of rape: what did Nifong have to lose going that route? An election. Lose the election, but do the right thing? What a concept.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:42:11 PM EST
    And I repeat, once more with feeling reading the Vanity Fair online offering: if Kim and the AV were so scared, those "little girls" with those "big boys," after the broom ( I'm still betting lacrosse) stick comment, younger and more numerous than expected, already paid (see the AV's lineup comments) $400 for five minutes: then they are in Kim's car, outside of and away from the danger. WHY DID THEY GO BACK IN? If the fear, the threat, the danger, was that iminent in their "little girl" minds: WHY DID THEY GO BACK IN? Why not just yell the limp etc white boys comment, and pull away from the curb? Call 911 then, with the same story, and leave laughing at getting $400 each for 5 minutes. Why did they go back in? Frightened, and already paid for two hours of dancing. WHY DID THEY GO BACK IN?

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 01:48:01 AM EST
    Hi Sharon, You wrote:
    PB: by all accounts, the cancellation of the (I know it is an unfortunate term, but it is a term for group counselling) group grope was at the insistence of the players' parents, not attorneys.
    Do you count yourself among those who believe that the defense attorneys have tried to get Nifong to talk with their clients but have been rebuffed? You wrote:
    Why not just yell the limp etc white boys comment, and pull away from the curb? Call 911 then, with the same story, and leave laughing at getting $400 each for 5 minutes.
    We don't know that the accuser had her purse when she went back in. The defense attorneys have suggested that she didn't. Nobody else has said. You wrote:
    Still a huge leap to go from unclassy to heinous, horrendous, morally bankrupt rapists.
    Yes, well you won't catch me going there. I just want to know whether the accuser was in the bathroom alone with the three suspects. I've got one lawyer (Nifong) saying she was and another group of lawyers not saying. And I have got the accuser saying she was and the players not saying. That's as deep as it goes so far. Spartan, You wrote:
    PB, You still haven't answered my question regarding what a defense attorney tells the accuser.
    You addressed that question to attorneys. I'm not one.

    Re: Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 02:25:24 AM EST
    Wumhenry, it's not a warrantless assumption. Testifying would have incriminated them on underage drinking, at the least. A new thread on the Vanity Fair article is here, so I'm closing comments on this one. Question: Does anyone have any thoughts as to the cases Nifong may be neglecting in favor of prosecuting and investigating this one?

    Duke Lacrosse Team to Resume Playing | 54 comments (54 topical)