Monday, January 05, 2009

Duke Trustees Watching Larry King On Apr. 10, 2006

would have seen and heard noted defense attorney Paul Geragos tell Larry and his viewers---

GERAGOS: What more do you need. They have pictures and a timeline, they have DNA that says it's not there. The defense lawyers tell you there's not any DNA. They know the fact the women lied through their teeth. Why is this an issue? This is a reject.


GERAGOS: The opposite -- I think the idea that they suspended this lacrosse program, that the coach was forced to resign and these three students were presumed guilty, I think it's outrageous.

I don't know why anybody would want to go to a school where the president took that kind of outrageous action, as opposed to getting to the bottom to of this.

What happens -- you know, what if it turns out that this is a false allegation?

What do you do with the coach?

What do you do with the program?

What do you do with the three students?

Who do you go at that point to say, hey, I'm sorry, we just destroyed all your lives?


My Comments:

The above is from a transcript of King’s Apr. 10, 2006 Larry King Live.

A few hours before King's show aired, attorneys for the 46 white students on the 2006 Men’s lacrosse team announced the State lab results of DNA testing were negative for all the students.

Nifong’s office, when requesting the DNA testing, had told the court the results would immediately identify those innocent of what we now know was a false charge.

Nifong ignored the DNA results and said he was going on with the case anyway.

On Apr. 17, one week to the day the DNA results were made public (Nifong had known them since Mar. 28), Nifong arranged to have two Duke students indicted in what by then was a transparent frame-up attempt.

Did Duke’s trustees know what was going on by Apr. 17?

They had to unless they were willfully blind.

Hat tip to Anon @ 6:44 on the thread of Attorney Spilbor Proves Duke's Trustees Knew.

Anon provided both the transcript link and Geragos excerpt.


Anonymous said...

And there was no one in the Duke law school faculty who could see this?

And no one on the NCCU law school faculty who could see this?

How different might things have been if a criminal law professor at NCCU had simply said on April 10, that there was no case?

Anonymous said...


"Did Duke’s trustees know what was going on by Apr. 17?

They had to unless they were willfully blind."

Copies of verbal or written communications between the trustees should settle the question. I vote for willfully blind.


Anonymous said...

This case against the lacrosse players was so outrageous — it was a deliberate frame — that it's ridiculous that those who committed the frame should get off without serious consequences.

Anonymous said...

JinC - What is your take on the appearance of Nifong at Tracy Cline's swearing in? Seems to me that this is just another reason why the lawsuits need to proceed - nothing really has changed. Cline=Nifong.