This is a 1, 2, 3 post.
1 – Some simple questions I asked in a post, "Call home immediately" , concerning Duke’s actions and inactions in response to the lies Crystal Mangum told and the police investigations her lies launched.
2 – A response to those simple questions by Red Mountain, who’s commented often, typically with: 1) comments critical of a complaint filing by attorney Bob Eckstrand on behalf of three unindicted Duke lacrosse players; and 2) offering generally benign explanations for Duke's and its leadership's actions and inactions
3 – A few comments.
1 – The simple questions from "Call home immediately" :
Let's put aside for now questions of whether what's alleged in the portion of the [complaint filing] cited above is true in part or whole.
Let's allow that there are confidentiality provisions regarding to whom and what university administrators may disclose concerning a student.
Was there anything that prevented Duke administrators when they first learned DUPD and DPD were investigating crimes alleged to have occurred at a party attended by certain Duke students from advising those student to "call home immediately?"
Was there anything that prevented Duke administrators from sending emails to the students concerned urging them to call their parents to let them know what was happening?
Was there anything that prevented Duke administrators from saying to eighteen and nineteen year-old students that the administrators and the students could jointly call parents to make sure that anything the parents thought should be done in the students' interests was being done?
In the more than twenty-one months since the night of March 13/14 has Duke ever claimed it did some or all of what I've asked here?
2 – Red Mountain’s comment in its entirety (on this thread) :
I also think this is an excellent post. The giving of legal advice (and bad advice at that), the dorm search, and the giving away of the key card info are hard to justify. I have stated before that Duke went way overboard in terms of its cooperation with the Durham police.
Was that due to an interest in getting the case resolved quickly or due to a conspiracy by the Duke consortium to frame the players?
3- A few comments:
In another post here I noted what would happen if Red Mountain merely dropped the “or” out of the compound sentence with the two questions he asked.
Just by dropping out the “or” RM would then be asking concerning Duke going “overboard [in] its cooperation with the Durham police" :
Was that due to an interest in getting the case resolved quickly due to a conspiracy by the Duke consortium to frame the players?Now we can be pretty sure RM didn’t mean to ask that question, but just dropping the “or” out of what he actually asked illustrates how very careful you have to be these day when you try to defend or excuse Duke’s actions and inactions in response to Mangum’s lies and what followed from them.
And here’s something else: Go back and read those four simple questions in Section 2.
All four of them can only be correctly answered with the same two-letter word: “No.”
When such simple questions can only be answered “No,” it’s no wonder BOT chair Bob Steel and president Richard Brodhead want us all to join MoveOn. Duke.
Will things get “uglier and Dukier?”
Who doesn't know the answer to that simple question?