Replies

From Duke Basketball Report:

60 Minutes Eviscerates Nifong, Again 1/15/2007
The previous 60 Minutes piece on the Duke lacrosse case was hard-hitting, but Sunday's was devastating to Mike Nifong and the case he built.

Among the new information revealed:

Brian Meehan, of DNA Security, made it clear that there was no question that Nifong absolutely understood there was exculpatory evidence, saying that he told the prosecutor about the lack of DNA from any lacrosse players, and the DNA found from other men. Nifong is obliged under state law to turn over exculpatory evidence.
The alleged victim (AV) has more extensive psychological problems than has been previously revealed.
The parents of the accused lacrosse players are infuriated and are clearly considering ways to punish Mike Nifong for what they believe to be outrageous abuses.
Duke's James Coleman believes Nifong may have committed obstruction of justice.
President Brodhead was briefly interviewed. He defended the cancellation of the lacrosse season last spring, arguing that with such a cloud over the program that it was not the time to take the field (the same argument he made at the time). He also defended Duke's decision to invite Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty back to school, an offer their parents suggested they weren't sure it was wise to accept, given Nifong's re-election and the treatment Durham police have given Duke students.

For Duke, the episode was, to borrow a phrase, a social disaster. It wasn't any better for Durham or the state of North Carolina.

After the lacrosse case, the faked lead tests, the burning landfill, the various police shenanigans, Durham's reputation has taken a major hit.

North Carolina's judicial system has had a harsh light shone on it, and what it's shown is not pretty: a prosecutor pursuing conviction at all costs and utterly disregarding any evidence contrary to his goal.

The case has become a significant controversy in the state, with members of the legislature suggesting that the state take over supervision of prosecutors (currently the bar handles it).

It may well be a wildcard election issue in the state in 2008, with no way to predict its impact.

For Duke, it's going to be an ongoing problem. Brodhead is in a difficult position, because no matter what he does, he's going to offend various constituencies. We can empathize. A modern university is to a certain extent anarchic, and no president, no matter how smart, strong, or capable, can truly be said to run it, other than fundraising and planning facilities or programs. Brodhead cannot control the faculty, nor, generally speaking should he try, except in exceptional circumstances.

But the entire enterprise rests on consistently recruiting new students, and for parents who may not be familiar with Duke, or Durham, the 60 Minutes piece certainly forms a frightening image of what is, basically, a very nice town, albeit a town with issues. Duke has a lot to overcome as a result of this case.

One thing which Brodhead could do, it seems to us, which everyone should agree with, is to make it clear to the city of Durham that Duke students must be treated the same as any other citizens and that Duke will not tolerate any further mistreatment of its students. Certainly parents of students (present and prospective) would wish this to be so.

In the extraordinary, this refers to the defendants in the lacrosse case, who have been handy pinyatas for Nifong to blindly smack around and to knock goodies out of for his various constituencies.

But in a broader sense, Durham police have quite frankly discriminated against Duke students as a class, which is a violation of their civil rights. In particular, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb has arrested a significantly higher number of Duke students than his peers, with some students reporting threats and violence.

Brodhead, like any university president, has limited control over his faculty, and for good reason. But he can certainly address the way the city of Durham and the state of North Carolina have treated Duke students. He has a number of options, from simply advocating for reform, to threatening to limit Duke's cooperation with the city on a number of things, to withholding taxes in protest, to suing the city for violating the civil rights of Duke students.

There is a wide gap between Duke and Durham, as this case has made painfully clear. And as Professor James Coleman has made clear, if you can do what Nifong did to rich people, it's ten times easier to do it to poor ones. Brodhead has an opportunity to let Duke serve Durham, and to build bridges, by having Duke help keep the justice system honest. Perhaps law students could organize themselves and monitor the district attorney's office for any further abuses, particularly against people who can't fight back as the lacrosse families have done.

He could, when the time is right, even advocate for major reform in the state system of justice. Reform is long overdue, and would be one of the few positives to come out of this whole mess. It would give Duke a chance to show some leadership on a very important issue, and given the level of attention the case has drawn, someone needs to step up and address the need for reform.

That would be an impressive legacy for any university president.

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/

Grand jury reform

The accuser in the Duke lacrosse case used sex to assault the members of the team. Everybody knows the extensive damage that she has caused. However, other than the minor crime of filing a false police report, she has done nothing wrong. She is free to assault another victim. If she had not been caught by very expensive attorneys, she would have received millions in civil suits. She could use her children to attack a victim and it would be legal. If they attacked a teacher and instituted a lawsuit against the school, the taxpayers would have to pay it. The laws should be changed from no crime at all to a felony. If this is difficult to believe call your representative with the North Carolina State Legislature.

The Jan. 10 column by Beth Brewer about reforming the grand jury was on the right track. Leaders in Durham should form a committee or task force to examine what should be done to prevent other lacrosse cases. This will make Durham a respected leader because we did something about it.

Reforming the grand jury, admitting lie detectors in court in "he says/she says" cases, and making verbal sexual assaults a felony, are some of the things they should consider. The community and victim advocates can help with more recommendations.

Winston Hall
Durham
January 15, 2007

Insight into LAX case

Although some letters from Durham residents express resentment that many critical letters about the Duke/Nifong activity come from outsiders, I have just received a response from a respected friend in a major city to whom I sent The Herald-Sun editorial of Jan. 11 ("Duke hopefuls see beyond lacrosse").

His comments bring a broader insight about the affair:

"All towns and cities have their problems that go along with their many advantages. But I think that the smaller the locale, the greater the focus and emphasis on what purported illegal activity occurs there and how it's handled. (And how it affects a major university there, like Duke.) If, for example, three Duke students had raped a woman and there was clear evidence to this effect, it probably would have made the national news one day and then disappeared. A crime had been committed, and crimes are committed everywhere, so its being properly handled would have been the end of the story.

"But what makes this case stand out and why it continues to stay in the news is how this case has been mishandled from the beginning, how students have been charged without evidence, and how the DA has acted poorly at every turn (obviously to help his election).

"As such, Durham's DA, Mike Nifong and Duke President Richard Brodhead are to blame for Durham's extensive negative publicity. Durham should learn from Pogo who said, 'We have met the enemy, and he is us.' "

J.A. Davis
Chapel Hill
January 15, 2007