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?
“Sided” and “believed” is the basis of your argument now? LOL.
This is really reaching, you know.
Here they take out a huge ad in a paper with their names attached, and they do NOT believe the woman as they put their names to that ad?
Really, I think it would the burden of proving they did NOT believe her is upon you and not on me to prove that they did. I have the ad as evidence. I have their public statments as evidence.
I have their history as politically correct observers and commentators on all things sociological in my favor. These people “believe” that victims are blamed, accused, downtrodden, etc.
Your comment suggests that ALL liberals disbelieve what they write. The real danger with them, my friend, is that they fall under the heading of “true believers.”
Do you think the nurse did NOT see signs of unususal sex on/in the body of the stripper?
P-Marlowe, isn’t it odd that you’re now a bigot and I’m a liar?
Here is one final question that I think is telling, and I also think they will not answer:
“If this “team” had NOT had the stripper/ho at their team party, would any of this have happened?”