As compares your textbook, and the Bill of Rights, I’ll go with the latter. There is no lawsuit against the signatores of the letter
I could easily argue, (and in exchange for releasing from from damages claims, get some signatories of the letter to truthfully testify that) the purpose of this "letter' was to bring pressure on the falsely accused members of the lacrosse team and the Duke administration.
I would argue that taken as individual statements, there are certainly some that have been expanded, enhanced and exaggerated to as to create emotion. A statement that is expanded, enhanced and exaggerated to as to create emotion is no longer the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth.
Take the statement "All you heard was "Black students complain all the time...." Is that totally and completely true? In his or her time at Duke, did he or she never hear any person say anything else. I don't only mean only did he or she not hear someone, even a white student say something supportive of Black students on race issues? I'm also asking did he/she never hear anyone say any other words,? Did no one ever order lunch, discuss a class or a Friday night date? At a school with the academic standing of Duke, did no one ever discuss an academic issue? If any of the above would be answered in the positive, then the original statement is not true.
I have no desire to get into context here. A statement is true or it is not. This sample statement is/was not true. They (the 88) caused it to be published.
What was their intent? Certainly some of the signers, in exchange for release for liability will truthfully explain that the real end result was to poison the judicial atmosphere so as to deny the Duke boys their civil rights.
Not an easy case, but a winner.