Joined: 6:13 PM - Apr 28, 2008

5:00 AM - Apr 20, 2011 #11

Quasimodo wrote:
wrote:This is extremely disturbing - this is what I and all of us suspected all along.

First of all, we know who Burness was talking to on the phone: Gottlieb.
I also suspect that Holloway, of all people, was not in Burness' office by accident.

(Burness was no slouch when it came to slander by innuendo, also.)
Quasi: IMHO you are absolutely right! (always! :) ) Who talks like that on the phone?
Burness repeated that statement for Holloway to hear; I am 100% certain of that.

Now, did Burness conspire with Gottlieb to have that telephone conversation with
Holloway in the office? That is certainly possible - I wouldn't put it past him.

Back to the fact that Burness repeated that hellaciously fallacious statement
in order for Holloway to hear it. Burness' motive seems clear: to inflame
the AA faculty against the players -- that's pretty evil.

Burness needs to be deposed about this.

Last edited by MikeZPU on 5:30 AM - Apr 20, 2011, edited 1 time in total.
Baldo's 7/20/2014 all-encompassing summary statement about the Duke Lacrosse case:
"He (Gottlieb) was a dirty cop in a dirty department run by corrupt Politicians with incompetent judges and a dirty DA's Office under the control of a dirty dirty dirty DA Nifong who used for the most part, not all, a bunch of cowardly reporters & a DUMC which failed to correct a runaway nurse & others."

Joined: 1:00 PM - Apr 28, 2008

5:36 AM - Apr 20, 2011 #12

wrote:but I knew that it was not clear who had made them and I knew that conducting our own investigation would instantly be seen as compromising that of the Durham Police.
Typical also of Burness to get that part of the official line in : Duke can't investigate anything...
"The whole damnable thing was a frame-up of two irresponsible women." --Samuel Liebowitz addressing the Scottsboro jury

“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”
– St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380)


Joined: 4:11 PM - Apr 30, 2008

2:26 PM - Apr 20, 2011 #13

January 2007 was the most eventful month in the hoax/frameup since May, 2006.

The main news was Nifong's recusal and the appointment of the special prosecutors resulting from the more serious ethics charges against Nifong from the North Carolina State Bar.

However, as Nifong's case crumbled, in January there was a concerted counter-attack by the faculty at Duke who had been quick to rush to judgment against the lacrosse team and to support Crystal Mangum.

The "Group of 88" and their followers refused to believe that they may have been wrong in their intial hasty conclusions and in their inflammatory "Listening" ad in The Chronicle in April, 2006.

They had, in my opinion, a three-pronged strategy. First, they attempted to re-write history by claiming that the "Listening" ad was not about the lacrosse case and did not venture an opinion on guilt or innocence.

Second, they insisted that even if their facts were wrong, their narrative was correct.

Third, they personally attacked bloggers as "hooligans," "racists" and politically motivated (as if they were not).

The first salvo was fired by Prof. Cathy Davidson in an op-ed article in which she engages in revisionist history and denunciations of bloggers:
wrote:FRIDAY JANUARY 5: Duke English Prof. Cathy Davidson writes an article in the N&O titled “In the Aftermath of A Social Disaster.” She rejects criticism of the April 6, 2006 “Listening” ad in The Chronicle. In the N&O article, Davidson, one of the “Group of 88,” is also the first to use the term “blog hooligans,” an appellation later adopted with pride by bloggers at LieStoppers and other sites. Excerpts:
“Last April I added my name to an ad published in the Duke Chronicle. The ad said that we faculty were listening to the anguish of students who felt demeaned by racist and sexist remarks swirling around in the media and on the campus quad in the aftermath of what happened on March 13 in the lacrosse house. (…) Like the other faculty members who signed the ad, I constantly receive e-mails asking me to rescind my signature. Some people write out of real misery for their children, Duke students who are distraught that their friends may have been falsely accused and unfairly treated. They believe professors have sided against the lacrosse players, and they are outraged. If we had written what they suppose, we would deserve their anger. But we didn't.
I empathize deeply with these parents and friends. I regret additional pain they felt when they heard about this ad. However, when I send them the actual ad, they are often surprised that it does not condemn the lacrosse players but focuses on larger campus and national concerns. I was touched, recently, when one mother concluded our thoughtful exchange by noting that she still didn't like the ad, but hoped that her daughter would have the opportunity to take a class with me someday.
On the other hand, most of my e-mail comes from right-wing "blog hooligans." These hateful, ranting and sometimes even threatening folks don't care about Duke or the lacrosse players. Their aim is to make academics and liberals look ridiculous and uncaring. They deliberately misrepresent the faculty and manipulate the feelings of those who care about the lacrosse players in order to foster their own demagogic political agenda. They contribute to the problem, not to the solution.” ... z1IQcJk9Dz
The next is the extraordinary talk given by Duke Provost Peter Lange in which he accuses bloggers of racism:
wrote: THURSDAY JANUARY 11: Duke Provost Peter Lange talks to the Arts & Sciences Council about the events surrounding the lacrosse case and calls for more civility in face of “personal attacks” on faculty members. Excerpts:
“Meanwhile some of our faculty, primarily African-American but not only so, have been under repeated attacks in personal emails and in blogs. The primary precipitant – in the sense that the content offended those writing the blogs or sending the emails – was the
advertisement signed by 88 of Duke’s faculty and printed in the Duke Chronicle. Subsequently, the connection to the advertisement often has become attenuated and the ad has become rhetorically transformed into and manipulated as a symbol of all that was thought to be extreme and bad about Duke faculty, and, in some cases, universities more generally. At the same time, the emails and blogs attacking what people wrote or said have sometimes been replaced by personal attacks, some of them directed at the faculty member’s scholarship or intellectual credentials, some viciously personal, still others openly threatening or racist. (…)
With the passing of time, the heat has not gone down. In the last weeks, faculty members have shared with me emails and blog material that is as merciless, distorted and vituperative as in the past. The cumulative damage of the months of attacks on some of our faculty and the distress of those who sympathize with them is exceeding the limits of prudence about provoking external reactions. It is the Provost’s job to defend the fundamental value and values of the faculty and at some point refraining from that defense because it might produce more of the same becomes itself imprudent.”
Then on January 16, a group of Duke faculty post on-line what has been called the "clarifying" statement in which they refuse to apologize and go on the counter-offensive.
wrote:TUESDAY JANUARY 16:Dozens of Duke professors post "an open letter to the Duke community" on the web, explaining an ad last spring that has been widely criticized as a condemnation of lacrosse players. The new letter, signed by 87 faculty and posted at, refuses to apologize for the April, 2006 “Listening” ad and reiterates concerns about issues of race and sexual violence on the Duke campus. It says the ad-- published in the The Chronicle April 6-- has been grossly misinterpreted. That ad has been a subject of heated debate on blogs and its signers have received angry e-mails. "The ad has been read as a comment on the alleged rape, the team party, or the specific students accused," the new letter says. "Worse, it has been read as rendering a judgment in the case....We reject all attempts to try the case outside the courts, and stand firmly by the principle of the presumption of innocence." The letter is signed by "concerned faculty," many of whom endorsed the original ad. The April ad entitled "What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" included anonymous statements by students talking about racism and sexism on the campus. The ad also thanked "protesters making collective noise." The letter this week backs off that a bit, saying, "We do not endorse every demonstration that took place at the time." In the online letter, concerned faculty say they won't apologize despite the fury. "There have been public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it, as well as calls for action against them and attacks on their character," the letter states. "We reject all of these. We think the ad's authors were right to give voice to the students quoted, whose suffering is real. We also acknowledge the pain that has been generated by what we believe is a misperception that the authors of the ad prejudged the rape case."
The next day Prof. Orrin Starn attacks bloggers in an op-ed in the Herald Sun.
wrote:WEDNESDAY JANUARY 17Duke Prof. Orin Starn, a critic of college athletics and specifically the lacrosse team, writes an op-ed for the Herald-Sun titled “Fast, Loose and Mean in the Blogosphere.”
“The Duke lacrosse saga has played itself out as much on the internet as in the courtroom, newspapers, or university halls. I like youtubing Ronaldinho’s greatest goals and e-mailing to my friends as much as the next guy. But the lacrosse mess has put on display the more squalid, sometimes vicious side of the Internet. Only a click away lies a whole ugly galaxy of insults misinterpretations, and, at worst, sick racist hate. The virtual lacrosse world is Mad Max’s Thunderdome in Gigabytes and bandwidth: no rules apply, or at least not involving those horse-and-buggy or oh-so-yesterday ink age civility, accuracy, or accountability.”
The "Group of 88," instead of apologizing and recognizing their mistakes, go on the offensive. I guess when you are wrong, a strong offense is the best defense.
Last edited by sceptical on 2:29 PM - Apr 20, 2011, edited 2 times in total.

Joined: 4:11 PM - Apr 30, 2008

1:04 PM - Apr 21, 2011 #14

One of the most revealing events of January 2007 was the interview of Duke President Richard Brodhead by student journalist Rob Copeland of The Chronicle. During that time, Brodhead had given only a hndaful of interviews andmost of the the questioners were not as prepared as Copeland.

In the interview, Brodhead lays out the main false "talking points" that he and other Duke officials had been using;

1) The facts kept changing. (Not true. The basic stories Brodhead heard from the team captains were consistent, truthful, and exculpatory.)

2) Whatever they did was bad enough-- even if there was no rape, hiring a black stripper and underage drinking was wrong. (Ignoring that many other Duke groups had hired strippers and that underage drinking was rampant on campus.)

3) Duke could not investigate the matter itself. (Not true. As Bob Eskttrand would later lay out in detail, Duke had a fully accredited police department which could and did investigate crimes.)

4) Duke could not say or do anything that would look like it was intervening. (Duke was oddly afraid of the reaction of Durham residents and politicians that it was"fixing" the situation for its students.)

5) We have to leave the situation to the legal system. (This assumes that the police, prosecutors and judges were acting fairly with respect to Duke students-- an assumption wrong in all three cases).

6) Because Nifong said with certainty there was a rape, the later lack of certainty of rape calls his whole case in question. (While this was true In December, it was also true months earlier when the DNA tests came back negative, when Crystal kept changing her story, when the revelations about Crystal's mental problems and past exploits came out, etc. In other words there were imprtant cracks in the case before the rape charge was withdrawn in December, 2006. Brodhead uses that event as his guidepost, but it was clear months before that there was no rape and Brodhead either did not understand that or did not want to admit it.)

Here are parts of the interview:

wrote:The Chronicle’s Rob Copeland interviews Duke President Brodhead about the lacrosse case. Excerpts (C = Copeland, B = Brodhead):
C: Do you have any regrets about your handling of the scandal?
B: My principal regret is that the situation ever arose. I wish the party hadn't taken place. If the party had taken place, I wish the accusations had never arisen. I certainly wish that the district attorney had not made the statements that gave everyone such a degree of certainty about the matter. Once the situation existed, it had to be dealt with. I'm really not immune to self-criticism in any way, I believe we've handled this as straightforwardly and honorably as we could have, given the extraordinary nature of the situation and the changing nature of the facts.
C: Do you stand by all of your previous actions? Would you have done anything differently?
B: Let me take you back. You're talking about a series of events that were announced on the fifth of April, when 46 players were said to be under investigation. Every member of the Duke, Durham and national community had heard repeated statements on the certainty that the rape had taken place.... Duke was not free to say, "give us another year until we know the facts for certain."
C: To be fair, you did fire the coach and cancel the season.
B: The first thing we announced was the suspension of the season. Everytime I came near that subject, starting with the first day, I said this was not a presumption of the guilt of the players. It was not a disciplinary measure.... Many people have said to me in retrospect, "When you suspended the sport, that was your judgment of guilt." I say to them, "You are misinformed." It was an inevitability given the situation we were in. But I've tried then and in every other possible occasion to separate those acts from any question of judgment of the team.
C: Then why fire men's lacrosse head coach Mike Pressler?
B: When the coach's resignation was announced on April 5, I tried to take great care to indicate that I was not fingering him as responsible for this. What I said was that given the history that we were in the middle of living through, if and when we started the replaying of lacrosse, it couldn't be on the same terms as in the past. We needed to close one chapter and start a new chapter. Changing the coach was just one of the necessities that came along with that. There was no pleasure to be taken in any of these decisions, but I think they were inevitable and it's all very well 10 months later to look back and say, "You should have done things differently."
C: Knowing what you do now, would you still ask for coach Pressler's resignation?
B: If I were put in the same circumstances again, I would do exactly the same thing.
C: Why did you not hold Athletics Director Joe Alleva responsible for the team as well? Why not ask for the resignations of Larry Moneta, vice president for student affairs, or any of the other administrators who were previously aware of the lacrosse team's issues. Why stop at coach Pressler?
B: The party was a team event. It wasn't just a group of people, it was something convened by the captain of the team. The Pressler resignation was not my attempt to say that he was responsible for the situation. It was simply a resignation of the inevitability that given where we were, we would need to make some differences to go forward with lacrosse.
C: There are numerous documented instances of fraternities, sororities and other organizations holding parties with underage drinking and strippers. Why not go after them as well, or replace their advisors?
B: You said there are documented cases. I would say that to my knowledge, there are rumored cases. The difference between this and other cases is that this one came to our attention.... It's not my idea of how to run an undergraduate school to have dragnets and police officers to investigate people and trap them in bad behavior. (…)
C: Why didn't you call for Nifong to step down, or for a special prosecutor to replace him?
B: There is absolutely no provision in the state of North Carolina for a special prosecutor to be brought in, except at the request of the DA. Why didn't I join with the defense team and file motions with them? Because it was essential that we not be seen as a partisan player in this, but that we uphold the process that looks out over all parties and renders justice at the last.
C: On "60 Minutes" last week, the parents of the accused students said they would not want to send their children back to Duke. In particular, they said, "Who would want to send their kids back to a University which did not support them?" Do you understand that sentiment?
B: I'm a parent, and if my child were an object of such allegations, I can't imagine how appalled I would be. One of the very difficult things this whole time has been people's desire for Duke to stand up for its students. At the press conference on the 25th of March, I looked into 40 cameras and said, "These are my students too." This whole situation is a human issue.
For the full interview, see:

It is interesting that Copeland's interview is not directly listed on The Chronicle's Archives page for January 2006-- coincidence?

For commentary on the interview see: ... -take.html ... press.html
Last edited by sceptical on 1:10 PM - Apr 21, 2011, edited 1 time in total.

Joined: 9:54 PM - Apr 28, 2008

1:08 PM - Apr 21, 2011 #15

wrote:At the press conference on the 25th of March, I looked into 40 cameras and said, "These are my students too." This whole situation is a human issue.
:puk: :puk: :puk: :puk:

"They're putting on witnesses who they know are lying. They concealed exonerating evidence. Don't we have enough criminal conduct by the prosecutors to put them behind bars?"

"It doesn't work that way," the lawyer laughed. "When we break the rules we go to jail. When they break the rules they go to lunch...."

--- Eberle, Paul and Shirley. The Abuse of Innocence: The McMartin Preschool Trial ( 1993) (reporting a discussion between a friend of the Buckeys and a defense lawyer)

Joined: 6:13 PM - Apr 28, 2008

3:08 PM - Apr 21, 2011 #16

Thanks sceptical for all your efforts in compiling this series of
critical information pieces. It was another awesome read!
Baldo's 7/20/2014 all-encompassing summary statement about the Duke Lacrosse case:
"He (Gottlieb) was a dirty cop in a dirty department run by corrupt Politicians with incompetent judges and a dirty DA's Office under the control of a dirty dirty dirty DA Nifong who used for the most part, not all, a bunch of cowardly reporters & a DUMC which failed to correct a runaway nurse & others."

Joined: 8:56 PM - Feb 28, 2009

3:43 PM - Apr 21, 2011 #17

Burness responding to Holloway's hissy fit when Collin and Reade were invited back to Duke:

"But I also knew that [Duke President] Dick [Brodhead] had said from the start that independent of the criminal allegations, some inappropriate and dishonorable things had occurred that night and when the Police investigation was concluded, he committed that Duke would conduct its own review."

So much for Brodhead's "commitments," huh? Or did I miss this review?