This kind of 'miscommunication' is one effect of the tendency of white people to purposely shut out nonwhites from their inner circles. (When people of color are allowed access, they tend to be the ones who will just tell white people what they want to hear or echo them. That seems to be what is going on with the African-American law prof who chaired the committee investigating the lacrosse team.) I am not surprised by this report at all. 'Miscommunication' because of purposeful lack of inconclusion is quite common.

Also check this out from the NY Times:

The senior leadership of the university — five white men, an Asian-American man and a white woman — had been "handicapped by its own limited diversity" in responding to the situation. Only the five white men were at the initial meeting called to deal with the crisis and many of the subsequent ones, the report said.

An wildly inconsistent story by the accuser tends to trump "crying uncontrollably and visibly shaken" as evidence. The police simply used the information they had at hand to inform Duke what they thought at that point, and Duke took them at their word. Then they continued to investigate.

Clearly it's the administration at Duke that needs some serious "diversity" training. It will be sad to watch them trip over themselves now to try to demonstrate what good white liberals they are.

The President has already started. His letter states "Promoting understanding and sensitivity in racial matters will be a major item on the agenda of the Campus Culture Initiative, another of the steps I announced for the University on April 5."

Also, someone needs to buy the committee a thesaurus. They're favorite word is "serious".

"The administration seriously underestimated the seriousness of these serious charges. Did we mention how seriously serious this is?"

I can see faulting the police. They were wrong in their initial reaction to the complaint (it obviously did turn out to be serious). How can anyone fault the Duke administration, though? This was an off campus, Durham Police matter, and the police told them it wasn't a serious situation. What were they supposed to do?

What makes me sick the very existence & prominence given to this report. If a woman was raped, then that accusation is serious by its very nature. This report and its media attention have nothing to do with the women getting raped. It’s an internal audit conducted amidst a media firestorm attempting to gauge Duke’s public relations response to the event. Duke didn’t rape anyone, people did! Duke is not responsible for this incident, the perpetrators are! Dissecting the universities P.R. response inside or outside of leftist identity politics or media sensationalism strikes me as crass political opportunism. I’m sure next time something like this happens the University will have a suave television point man directing the seriousness of Dukes sentiment. I’m also sure that the faculty will immediately form a panel (along with committees & sub-groups/working groups) of black/feminists/non-white indigenous diversity specialists to raise awareness & fire a lot of white male whipping boys.
What a circus! Why play the clown?

Maybe the police would have taken the accuser more seriously if she hadn't claimed to have been raped by 20 white guys and then changed her story to say that she was raped by 3 white guys?

The credibility of the accuser was apparently doubted by the authorities because when questioned, she initially told them she was raped by twenty men, then later said there were three.

Erm, yeah. I saw this on the news. It is very possible - in fact not unusual - that the person who wrote the report second-hand misunderstood if she said there were 20 guys and that three had raped her. Especially is she was crying and visibly shaken.

Way to go for damage control, Duke.

Hey ass, I bet it seemed like 20 guys. It probably seemed like an eternity in hell. I'm willing to cut a rape victim a little slack if the first telling of her story is a bit incoherent, due to the fact she had just been brutalized.

"I'm willing to cut a rape victim a little slack if the first telling of her story is a bit incoherent, due to the fact she had just been brutalized."

Allegedly.

Here is a link to the Duke Police Dept. report from the night in question which was used in formulating the administration's response:

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/OperationsReportFileDUPD3.14.06.pdf

i am a firm believer in SOURCE documents.

instead of reading a distorted media account (as they invariably are on ANY subject), here's the ACTUAL report. not the media's report on the report (cue: metaphysical wanking)

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/pdf/Bowen-ChambersReportFinal05-04-06.pdf

fwiw, there is never any report of any crime, of any detail that does not have inconsistencies. any interviewer will tell u that. In fact, especially when there are multiple witnesses - TOO much agreement is almost as suspect as too little, since it suggests collusion. witnesses do lie, but witnesses are also imperfect observers, and thus one expects SOME inconsistencies - both internal, and among witnesses.

HOWEVER

Nymphalidae makes a good point in regards to the # disparity. This is a source document, but not an actual police report.

What is disgusting and stupid about the report is all the handwringing over the "racial" overtones. I don't care what race the victim, or the suspects were. The issue is the rape. That this issue should somehow be handled differently by the Duke Spin Doctors, the Prosecutor, or anybody else because of race is absurd, demeaning, disgusting, but of course oh so typical.

That's what is so disgusting to me about this incident. Let's stop looking at race, and start looking at CRIME. The issue is rape, did it or did it not occur. Not what the race of the involved parties is.

excellent link noname

i note also that that is the UPD report, not the durham PD report.

the durham PD report would be much more detailed, but i imagine that will be held from public disclosure as it is an ongoing investigation for now. could be wrong though

it does support the "changed the story" thing that is going around

The plot thickens...

By Darla Miles
(05/09/06 -- DURHAM) - A Duke University committee's report blames Durham police for sending mixed messages in the early hours of the lacrosse rape investigation, but Durham's city manager is firing back.

The report says Duke officials did not take the case seriously because Durham police officers said it would blow over.
"I'd like to see where that source of information came from," said Durham City Manager Patrick Baker.

He admits the first two or three hours after the rape was reported were confusing as to whether the alleged victim was intoxicated or mentally ill. But Baker tells Eyewitness News that once a rape kit was in hand, there was no confusion.

"We had launched a full-scale sexual assault investigation, by 4 or 5 that morning," he said. "It just doesn't make sense that a week later, anybody thinks that the Durham Police Department isn't taking the case seriously or that it would blow over."

The Duke report states that an advisor told university President Richard Brodhead on March 20 that the case would blow over, but according to the city, investigators had executed a search warrant, interviewed the three players who lived at the house and set up a meeting with the team to submit DNA samples.

"It's not typical of us to obtain search warrants and interview witnesses if we don't think there is some story that needs to be investigated," Baker said.

The report also says the accuser changed her story, initially saying that 20 people raped her. Baker says he was never aware of that. He says he has spoken with every Durham police officer involved in the investigation and has never been told of any inconsistency in the alleged victim's story.

Baker says the Duke committee contacted no one in the Durham Police Department to verify the information.

Thanks, pamps. I should note that in my opinion this report does not prove anything about the rape either way. It should, however, give you all a better idea as to what kind of information the Duke administration was working with at the time, and why no immediate action was taken.

“Maybe the police would have taken the accuser more seriously if she hadn't claimed to have been raped by 20 white guys and then changed her story to say that she was raped by 3 white guys?�

How about a little perspective: this isn’t a big deal because it is the “straw that broke the camels back�--- it clearly isn’t. This isn’t a big deal because it “proves� she lied/is making this up--- it doesn’t because for one we don’t know the accuracy of this claim, for two if it was true it wouldn’t be something she stated for the police report (this isn’t the police report anyway, this come from Duke staff/officials/whatevers), it would be something she initially said, and for three we would not know the context in which she said it; the second dancer described there being “like 20� guys in the house (we know there were more at one point) and the alleged victim is claimed to have supposedly said she was raped by approximately 20 guys … or at least that was what concluded. It is just as likely she was using hyperbole (remember, this wasn’t the police report, this was her saying, “holy, shit, I was raped and it was horrible� when she was visibly shaken to the police. The unusual and suspect thing about cases is when accounts are totally consistent) or had said there were 20 guys in the house.

What makes this a big deal is that we are just now learning it. In perspective, it really isn’t though.

Alright, that came out waaay more sloppy than it was supposed to. Sorry.

Thanks for the link, pamps.

"this isn’t the police report anyway, this come from Duke staff/officials/whatevers" - Durga

The actual Duke PD (not Durham PD) report from that night is posted above, not just Duke's recent PR investigation. This is the best information we have right now as to the accusor's initial statement, and the only information the Duke administration had in the hours after the alleged rape.

“This is the best information we have right now as to the accusor's initial statement, and the only information the Duke administration had in the hours after the alleged rape.�

I understand that. But in the context of what I was saying, it doesn’t amount to the alleged victim lying or even the claim uncovered by the reports being true. By the report statement, I meant the Durham police report doesn’t say she said “20 guys raped me�.

"I understand that. But in the context of what I was saying, it doesn’t amount to the alleged victim lying or even the claim uncovered by the reports being true. By the report statement, I meant the Durham police report doesn’t say she said “20 guys raped me�." - Durga

Well, then:

1. We are discussing things outside the original boundries of Vanessa's post.

2. We are in agreement on the important stuff.

So now it looks like the reported 20 - 3 inconsistancy was the result of shoddy police work by Officer Day (Duke PD). His "source" was an overheard cel phone call of a cop (Durham PD) not assigned to the case. Day never botherred to confirm this information directly with the Durham officers working the case.

Here is a link:

http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-733339.html

noname, thanks, but it won't gimme. Maybe so many people are looking at once.

I could make a snarky comment about the relative strength of a campus PD vs. a "real" PD, but I won't :)

"The department has 146 authorized positions including 64 commissioned Police Officers, 58 Security Officers, 12 Emergency Communications and Records Officers, and various administrative support personnel. Duke University Police Officers are commissioned under North Carolina General Statute and have the full range of police authorities granted any municipal law enforcement officer on property owned by and/or under the control of Duke University, including adjacent streets and roadways." - http://www.duke.edu/web/police/about/

The Duke Police Department is a "real" police department.

what part of snarky don't u understand? ime, campus police officers are not as well trained, and as capable ON AVERAGE as non-campus police. That's based on 15 yrs experience in the courts system, and review of literally thousands of police reports.

generally speaking, the more talented applicants in the LE field tend to not want to work as a "campus cop" for any # of reasons, many of which are obvious, and some that aren't so obvious. there are some very obvious exceptions, and i also know a few very capable cops who transferred to campus PD's in order to facilitate graduate degrees, since the dept. allows very flexible work options in that regards, and free tuition is a plus

having the full range of police authority =/= being as talented and well run an agency

fwiw, for example, in the state of texas, police constables have GREATER police powers than "standard" police, and need to undergo almost NO training (no real POST) since they are elected, unlike conventional police officers, that are appointed after a rigorous selection process.

"what part of snarky don't u understand?" - pamps

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "snarky" as: "CROTCHETY, SNAPPISH"

Indeed. ;)

exactly. snarky: it's part of my charm... or something :)

Of course! Usually your first answer is the right one.

The stripper has serious character flaws judging by her criminal pass:

• Stripper made a false claim of rape by three boys in 1996.
• Stripper made a false claim of kidnapping in 1998
• Stripper charged with larceny, auto theft, and trying to kill a police officer in 2002

The stripper’s account of the night has serious integrity issues:
• First she claimed 20 boys raped her, then she narrowed it down to 3 in a bathroom
o The bathroom is absolutely and completely devoid of any evidence of a rape. Where is her DNA? Urine, blood, vaginal fluid, saliva, or tears?
o Many people’s DNA were found under her nails but none from the innocent lacrosse boys.
o She lied about losing her fake finger nails in a desperate struggle in the small enclosed bathroom, but pictures show that she removed her nails before inadequately performing her routine. No scratches were found on any of the innocent lacrosse boys’ bodies.
o The 2 innocent boys she “eeny meeny miney moed� to be her rapists weren’t even at the party the time she claimed the rape occurred. She claims that she’s 100% sure, but she told her father that she’s not sure.
o She took drugs before coming to the house, something illegal.
• The 2nd stripper stated that she doubted that a rape occurred, but changed her story after given a deal by DA Nifong, then contact a PR firm to “spin this scandal to her advantage.�

The stripper obviously lied, and she’s putting these innocent boys and families through hell. She deserves to be in prison for the rest of her pathetic life. She is worthless as a person and human being. Her one lie destroyed innocent boys. I hope her and Nifong’s aura catches up to them and they get what they deserve. I hope everyone wishing this rape claim to be true, in spite of all the evidence that it never occurred, gets what’s coming to them.

Goodness goodness. Yes, any person that rapes any other person should promptly be shot, or burned alive, or what have you. But any woman who is in agreement to strip her clothes off in front of a group of strange men should also be dubbed and idiot. No one deserves to be raped, but I'm almost certain she would not have been raped had she not have been in that house and taking her clothes off. It's a known fact that people can be horrid creatures, so why would anyone with a brain go into a strange house and take off their clothes for them? I say she's lucky she's not dead.

Looks like feministing shut down the Duke thread. I would too if I were a feminist. Here is some new information for those interested in evidence:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4208878

"The woman who accused three Duke lacrosse players of raping her changed her story and appeared to fake being unconscious, according to a police report obtained Friday by Eyewitness News."

I already posted this once in another thread (please feel free to delete it from the Not. Fucking. Funny thread), but this one seems more appropriate since the link shows EXACTLY why the police didn't take the AV seriously.

Well of course they shut down the duke thread nothing worse to a feminist than white men gettin all uppity.

Why can't those whiney little white boys just all commit ritual suicide and leave us feminsts in peace?

Here is a fun article on Duke University President Richard Brodhead. It seems he has a history of jumping to conclusions which conveniently help his public relations position while ruining the lives of those he is in charge of.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTcyOTVmMTQ2ZGY4NzEzNzA5ZDEzNmQxMzIyMzYwZjE=

Thanks again NoName. As usual you come through with the goods (even though I detest the review).

I found this interesting as well...

http://www.nbc17.com/news/9228137/detail.html

What's the matter with the National Review? I've never read it before (found this link on another blog).

This does seem like a story with an agenda, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. The facts of the Yale case do seem to check out so far, though. Here is an early article:

http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxvii/1999.01.15/news/p4jovin.html

Particularly interesting are the comments Brodhead makes giving lip service to the idea of innocent until proven guilty:

"'The Administration presumes him innocent of wrongdoing and the murder,' Brodhead said. 'The cancellation of the courses doesn't follow from a judgment or a prejudgment of his hypothetical involvement in the Jovin case.'"

It is a matter of public record that despite never even being charged with a crime, Van de Velde was never again allowed to teach at Yale again.

This sounds familiar.

The Review is old school conservative/republican.

It's VERY partisan.

(but then again, so is this place...which is why people think I'm a troll).

Since all new Duke threads are apparently closed, I will post some new stuff here.

For those interested in case evidence:

Kim Roberts (the second dancer) said in a statement to police a week after the alleged rape that the "allegations of rape were a 'crock' and that she was with the accuser the entire evening except for a period of less than five minutes." The SANE exam has also turned up more inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s story.

For those interested in stirring up racial strife and furthering their political agendas while ignoring case evidence:

Min. Ava Muhammad spoke in downtown Durham, Sunday.

Did you like how today, samhita posted the same Rolling Stone article that you posted in a comment a few days ago (at least I think it was you...I looked for the comment today and couldn't find it)!

Thanks for the links, btw...I appreciate the heads up...I don't know if the boys raped her or not, but I think that an aquittal is inevitible (especially since they are getting THE BEST LAWYERS in the country, and Orange County hardly has money for the worst ones).

I linked the Rolling Stone article so that Feministing could use it. No problem there.

I too don't know for sure what happened that night. I find the whole circus to be both fascinating and tragic.

No, I wasn't trying to create a problem there...I just thought it was funny.

And yeah, I view the situation in the same way.

Here is the actual defense motion. It contains, amongst other information, a hand written statement by Roberts (AKA Pittman) starting on page 15 which is particularly interesting.

The allegations of withheld evidence (particularly in front of the Grand Jury) are also interesting. At this point Nifong has more to worry about legally than the accused do.

According to Roberts (in her handwritten statement), the only time the AV was alone in the house was when Robert's first went out to the car. That period of time (length not specified, but it was long enough for Roberts to change her clothes) between Roberts leaving and the men carrying the AV to her car would seem to be the only time the AV could have been raped.

Unfortunately for the prosecution, Roberts says that upon enterring the car, the AV said they should "go back to the house because there was more money to be made there". What jury will believe the AV was gang raped if just minutes after the alleged incident she was trying to convince her partner that they should go back to the house and make some money?

And for the inevitable, "she had just been raped. She wasn't being rational", and "she had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) dismissals of this behavior:

In the same statement, Roberts describes the AV as "uncontrollable at this point" while they are in the bathroom. The AV was again talking about trying to "get more money" (how did she plan on making more money, BTW?). Of course, she was also yelling at the players on the other side of the door. It sounds like the AV was losing it (a non-technical term, I know) even before the alleged rape could possibly have occurred.

Maybe her behavior can be blamed on her mixing alcohol and muscle relaxants (stated by the AV in one version of her story).

We also have to consider that Roberts is lying. How can we believe what she says, after all, when the AV said (in another version of her story) that Roberts actually helped sexually assault her?

“It looks like the Durham police report on the rape allegations against members of the Duke lacrosse team wasn’t taken too seriously.� – Vanessa

You are absolutely correct, Vanessa. If Nifong had taken the police reports seriously, he would never have indicted the three players (unless it was a day before and election).

Here is an interesting article on Nifong’s handling of the media:

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/450764.html