Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Duke, lacrosse players reach settlement
News Observer ^ | June 18, 2007 | Anne Blythe

Posted on 06/18/2007 12:33:46 PM PDT by BradtotheBone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last
To: freeangel

It is a travesty that Crystal Mangum is still out walking the streets.

Being crazy is no excuse. If she were crazy they would take custody of her children. But they haven’t. So there must be some other reason they don’t touch her.

What are they afraid of? Has she been sleeping with every elected official in Durham? The DNA says yes. Maybe just the police chief. He’s been awol but still on the payroll for over a year.

What a sink hole Durham is.


61 posted on 06/18/2007 7:23:37 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Malacoda

According to a Duke representative, the settlement covers the actions of faculty up to that date. So the 88, if they keep their mouths shut, are cleared from being sued by the three.

I think the settlement was in the best interests of the three, but, unless Duke does an internal investigation of how its faculty and staff behaved during this “fiasco”, the 88 are free to go on their merry way spewing their poison to “minds full of mush”.

As far as getting more money out of Duke, at this point the 3 have the most bargaining power. If they continue and start depositions, then Duke lawyers would just put their heels in and fight (meaning the 3 may never see any money). It would be very difficult to prove damages (especially against the 88 who were only exercising their freedom of speech rights). The last thing Duke wants is to have the curtain further exposed as to what is going on in various disciplines outside of business, engineering, and hard sciences.

The people to go after would be the Duke governing board (ala the attempts made with Dartmouth). Also the strategy of bringing up questions that are unrelated to the settlement with the Duke president at recruiting functions may also be effective.

Some questions could be asked are as follows:

*Who paid for the original 88 ad?
*Why did the ad mention several departments which supported the ad even though no evidence exists of a departmental vote, and, in some cases the departments have later denied support for the ad. This appears to be a serious breach of academic truthfulness that should be investigated and punished if proved.
*Why did you, the President, say that whatever they did it was bad enough?


62 posted on 06/19/2007 4:16:45 AM PDT by exhaustguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

They only take kids away for violations of PC codes, donchaknow.


63 posted on 06/19/2007 5:32:36 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

Never. You can bet the university paid extra to keep it quiet.


64 posted on 06/19/2007 9:01:39 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

We have a winner! You can’t imagine how painful it is to litigate. It’s a sign of failure for it to proceed to trial. If you don’t settle, you have failed.


65 posted on 06/19/2007 10:09:39 AM PDT by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson