Posted on 04/18/2007 11:03:11 AM PDT by abb
A few months ago, former Duke University lacrosse captain David Evans was facing rape charges. He was shunned and taunted for his alleged role in a crime that North Carolina’s attorney general has declared never happened.
Now Evans has gained the trust of Morgan Stanley Chief Executive John Mack, a Duke alum and trustee (class of ‘68) who went to bat for Evans after serious questions were raised about the case against he and his two former teammates.
Evans now has landed one of the most prestigious jobs on Wall Street, Deal Journal has learned. Morgan Stanley has hired Evans, who graduated in May 2006, as part of its analyst program. Landing a plum job — which is paying well into the six-figure range these days — has to be a satisfying end to a bitter sequence of events for Evans since the rape allegations surfaced in March 2006.
The 24-year-old Maryland native had a job lined up at J.P. Morgan Chase’s investment bank that was rescinded in the wake of his May 2006 indictment, with the bank telling him it probably wasn’t the best time to be starting a new job. After he was cleared recently, J.P. Morgan came back to Evans and made a new offer, which he declined.
J.P. Morgan declined to comment. We’re trying to get comment from Evans and will post again if and when that happens.
But don’t expect his life to resume the course it was on any time soon. When asked by Leslie Stahl in a recent “60 Minutes” show whether the dismissal of the charges means the ordeal is over for him, Evans said, “I don’t think it really will ever be over … when I die, they’ll say ‘one of the three Duke lacrosse rape suspects died today...
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Gross mischaracterization. She has not continuously spoken against them. She has been defending herself from attacks such as yours' all for stating the opinion that the boys' behavior irked her.
Her criticism of the boys has actually been mild. You are hyperbolizing.
Taunting? Nothing struck me that way. Please cite example.
And do you really consider a statement about someone in the media personal? Like I said, I know some people believe themselves intimate with people in the news but really.
Reade, Colin, and Dave are real human beings, with real families. Many on these threads are alumni of Duke, or have children attending there. Some have been in communication with people near to the families.
So I think you mischaracterize by implying it's some kind of TV celebrity attachment.
but this is no excuse to become personal with someone who you are communicating directly with when she has not gotten personal with you at all.
Hey, as I said before, she laid that card on the table.
I would venture to say that every media story which goes on for weeks contains real human beings.
And they draw crowds and advertising because people begin to think they really know them.
Thus, the addiction to the MSM. It gets really blown out of proportion, however, when people start to think that when you comment on these media figures you are getting "personal". I think then it might be time to turn off the TV.
The purpose of this thread was to celebrate Reade's getting on w/the rest of his life. It was hijacked unfortunately.
No your comment about "character assassination" was hyperbole.
Hyperbole being a quality that appears too often on FR these days, unfortunately.
Labeling his action as immoral was a personal attack on his character. No evidence that he was the one who invited her to “perform”. He left shortly after she arrived, apparently having no inclination to watch HER immorality on display.
Most of us are glad he did that.
He accepted the job with Morgan Stanley.
Are you kidding? Hiring/obtaining “adult entertainment” by young men at colleges, in the military and any group situation where there is a collection of unattached young males has been going on for a lot longer than you or I our even our grandparents have been around. During the Civil War the troops stationed in the Arlington/Alexandria/DC area referred to it as “going down the line”. It’s part of human nature and it isn’t going to change and you will be “irked” by a large part of the male population past and present if you don’t get over it.
Very sad and pathetic people show up here sometimes.
"These kids still irk me." and "Lie down with dogs . . ."
You are mischaracterizing what she said. Here's what pa mom said about him.
And I have commended that guy for his behavior.
You are not presenting the facts.
the way I read it he declined
After he was cleared recently, J.P. Morgan came back to Evans and made a new offer, which he declined.
****
JPMorgan Chase retains Chemical Bank’s headquarters and stock history. ... with some Drexel partners, sought to begin what is now called Morgan Stanley. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPMorgan_Chase
I'm back! Well, risky? yes! But that's a far cry from repugnant, and beats the heck out of sinful.
Christ was invited to dinner by a Pharisee (Luke 7: 36-48) and he, in turn, allowed a prostitute to enter and wash his feet with her tears. The Pharisee said to himself: "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." Part of Christ's reply was: "You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven--for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.".
I'm not writing this to rebuke you but to point out that what Christ sees isn't necessarily what we see. Who knows what purpose we serve in His kingdom? Who knows what will come of out our efforts? Is it unseemly to consort with prostitutes (or strippers...in your context)? Perhaps, in our World. But is it in Christ's World? It merely seems to me that the answer to that rests with Him and not us. Perhaps we should reserve our judgment on such matters, and let Him rule.
She was saying how she felt as far as the behavior with strippers. She wasn't taunting.
And then she quoted a maxim... which is said quite often and very true. And if you need me to explain it it is that if you engage in nefarious behavior you may get "fleas". That is...if you live a very clean life you are less apt to suffer bad consequences. Not to say nothing bad will ever happen to you, but you are less apt than if you run with a loose crowd.
If you were personally taunted by these comments you may be an overly sensitive person. Again, you may be too attached to celebrity figures on TV.
I know this wasn't in reply to one of my responses, but yet I hope you don't feel I've personally attacked you. I've simply tried to point out some differences of opinion between us.
I simply don't believe that what these young men did was immoral or deserves censure. Was it callous or a youthful folly? Yes! Was it repugnant? No!
Much of the criticism you've received is unjust. You simply aired your viewpoint. Yet to many, your viewpoint seems to censure actions that aren't reproachful to most people; even those of a conservative mind. I guess that's what's so upsetting to so many. In any event, hang in there; and have a good evening.
Jim
It was stupid enough in the beginning but after a year it’s beyond petty.
Many on these threads are alumni of Duke, or have children attending there. Some have been in communication with people near to the families.
So I think you mischaracterize by implying it's some kind of TV celebrity attachment.
She was saying how she felt as far as the behavior with strippers.
Agreed.
She wasn't taunting.
I say that she clearly was. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.
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.