Are you serious about the Dukie liberal clientele? Do you really want proof that they sided with the accuser?
Wasn't that the subject of about every news report early on?
Frankly, I'm puzzled by the question. Why do you think the fired the coach? Why disband the team for that season? Why the public statements of supports for the stipper/ho and "raped" women, in general?
(and why use the word chaplain in conjunction with "lying" except to inflame?)
Do you get the feeling you are being Nifonged on this thread?
What's this "clientele" business? The Duke defendants in the suit are administrators, employees with direct involvement (such as the nurse referenced), and members of the Crisis Management Team, including BOT chairman Robert Steel. I don't think the term "clientele" applies, do you?
Do you really want proof that they sided with the accuser?
Hold on now. You have been using the term "believed" in your posts, now you have switched to "sided". Words mean things, and the two terms have very different meanings. Of course they sided with the accuser. No one is disputing that.
As I said in #279, the key point in the lawsuit is that the defendants knew she was lying yet proceeded anyway.
Now, do you have any justification for your repeated claims that the defendants in the lawsuit believed the accuser?