And don't forget to address the questions in #331.
XVI. THE CONSPIRACY TO RETALIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR TEAMMATES FOR EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS....
F. The Duke University Faculty’s Public Acts
Duke University is named as one of the defendant's and section 16, para F specifically mentions the acts of the faculty. The issue isn't really whether this suit includes the professors (it does as demonstrated above,) but it is about my original post #172. You'll probably not notice that in it I say I have no sympathy for either the players or the liberals. I conclude by saying I wish we could see all parties for stupidity.
"Carry Water?" If saying that I have no sympathy for those whose stupid act brought consequences, then I guess that's carrying water. And especially if I refer to both the liberal faculty and the players as stupid.
Do you have any evidence that the nurse DID see such signs - yes or no?
Yes. Her report. Your link even provided a review of her reports. Also, the case included testimony that the woman had DNA from a variety of partners and there was even testimony of a sex toy used. I don't find it surprising at all that that nurse found evidence of sex. In fact, since that was the charge of the players' lawyers -- multiple sex partners prior to the strip act at the players' party -- then I would hope that the nurse had noticed signs of sex.
I don't admit to enabling racist, left-wing corruption. Neither did P-Marlowe.
From your #308: Why are refusing to back up your claim that the peripheral players in the suit believed the accuser?
Peripheral players was my claim? Defendants was my claim?
My claim is at #172. Go read it.