Skip to content

The ongoing and most peculiar inadequacy of the English language

A quick note about one of the “… intriguing … items” that KC Johnson recently scrutinized, a “‘report’ produced by an entity called ‘Trinity Heights Action Committee’” and then faxed by Durham mayor Bill Bell to Duke president Richard Brodhead. I’ll admit it, I would have accepted that the document is an actual report written by representatives of a neighborhood association, as Bill Bell (I mean, seriously, Bill Bell!) refers to them. I’m sure I’m not the only one who was taken in by the moderate language, the focus on concrete problems and solutions, and the appearance of constructive dialog with interested parties on all sides. Fortunately, Prof. Johnson can see right through that pretense. What we’re actually looking at here is an “entity” that’s produced a most-appealing “report,” currently circulating from desk to desk in Durham, titled “Report and Recommendations on Party House Problems in Durham’s Central City Neighborhoods.” It’s got this little gem tucked away in the fourth paragraph:

The 2006 Lacrosse incident thrust the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses into a harsh national media spotlight. Although this incident had enormous negative consequences — legal and financial — for both Duke and Durham, it is by no means clear that Duke has yet enacted any major changes of policy for off-campus student life in response. Fraternity-sponsored parties remain a chronic disruption in neighborhoods adjacent to Duke’s East Campus.

As KC points out, the first sentence “provides what could charitably be described as an unusual take on the legacy of the lacrosse case” (my emphasis), while the second sentence implies there’s some kind of connection between Duke’s policy for off-campus life and the negative consequences of what they delicately refer to as the “2006 Lacrosse incident.” You know what they were thinking — let’s make Duke think that the lacrosse case was just some off-campus party that went bad and then they’ll clamp down on these kids. After all, “we have young children to raise, jobs to do and classes to teach.” Gimme Gimme Gimme!

It’s something that can only be described as an “unusual linkage” — KC hits the nail on the head, once again. And as usual the syllabus-deviating Trinity Park wannabes responsible for this so-called report haven’t answered his email. The real lessons of the lacrosse case are, as he points out, “no apparent concern of the Trinity Heights Action Committee.” They just want their little “party problem” taken care of, pronto.

It’s clear that KC’s job won’t be done until, at the mere mention of the lacrosse case (or at any invitation to “swagger like us” from an African American student organization), the entire Duke faculty stops, drops, and rolls, chanting in unison, “I will not be taken in by the culture of groupthink or violate the handbook, I will not be taken in by the culture of groupthink or violate the handbook, I will not be taken in by the culture of groupthink or violate the handbook…” There’s just nothing too … peculiar … for these folks. So keep up the good work!

{ 20 } Comments

  1. Michael Gustafson | May 21, 2009 at 00:06 | Permalink

    I think my main issue with the line: “Although this incident had enormous negative consequences — legal and financial — for both Duke and Durham, it is by no means clear that Duke has yet enacted any major changes of policy for off-campus student life in response.” is that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a sense from those folks or many others that what the police and DA did in the lacrosse case was wrong. Instead, it just says that the whole thing was a bad deal for Duke and Durham - legal and financial. No mention of the ethics violations, the clear-cut example of betrayal of public trust, the fact that despite enormous negative consequences - financial and legal - for Reade, Collin, and Dave, it is by no means clear that Durham has yet enacted any major changes of policy with respect to proper lineups, oversight, or indeed, judicial responsibility on the part of, well, anyone in the judicial system.

    The CCI suffered from a similar flaw - changes in campus culture or in off-campus housing should never use the lacrosse case as a starting point unless it is willing to confront the “big deals” for that case. And the “big deals” for the lacrosse case had nothing to do with off-campus parties of the problems that this letter attempts to address - they were instead rushes to judgment coupled with severely unethical behavior on the part of appointed and elected officials, fanned by a media unable to restrain itself from exploiting a story that was, in fact, too “good” to be true.

    There are more that enough pictures of trash-strewn lawns and more than enough accounts of truly un-neighborly behavior that people can draw from to make the case that there are some students who live off campus who are disruptive and whose behavior reflect poorly on themselves and their academic institution. A few years ago, The Chronicle ran an article with a picture of one of the streets just off campus - and the actions that led to the situation in that picture were just deplorable. I don’t buy this whole “college people will be college people” stuff - we cannot allow standards to be relaxed to the point of non-existence just because people are in school. I can, and do, expect respectful engagement from my students in the classroom. I can, and do, expect the same from our students when they interact with others. Do I want a wholly dry, non-party existence for my students? Absolutely not. But that doesn’t mean I think it is OK for them to inflict their social life on their neighbors in ways that are, I should hope, unacceptable in any context.

    However - invoking the lacrosse case without ever having properly addressed the real issues involved will and should always undercut the legitimacy of any group trying to use a narrow-focused presentation of the case to their advantage. These folks come off looking like they are stuck in March 2006 without a willingness to open their eyes and minds and realize that there were and are bigger problems than their lawns and auditory sensitivities with the lacrosse case.

    ~   ~   ~

    This comment is a testament to the poisonous effect of not dealing with the “big deals,” and I agree with Gus that those big deals should be foremost amongst the things associated with the case. I still find it astonishing that, as far as I can tell, no one in the “listening” statement/CCI camp has repudiated the potbanging protest. It seems like that would be a fairly easy step in the direction of acknowledging those big deals (though what do I know, really?).
    I can certainly see how infuriating it is for a group to be beavering away on their neighborhood problem and even invoking the lacrosse case as a way to get support when it presumably represents people who had some level of involvement in the ugly and foolish things that were done and said in that neighborhood, or who were more or less approving bystanders.

    The one thing that I trip over as I read the comment is “those folks.” Gus may have very good reasons to put it that way — he was much more in the thick of things back in 2006 that I was — but fwiw, here are a few reasons why I’m not convinced that the Trinity Heights Action Committee is a those-folks holdover from potbanging days. The one person I’m acquainted with on the committee is Philip Ruprecht, and he joined the faculty in fall 2006. I tend to think of Trinity Heights as an entry-level neighborhood, too, I guess because of the development across the street from the Music department — I’m sure it’s been there longer than I think it has, but it’s still something I saw being built. I also relate to the issues as a parent — I would find it very hard to tolerate anything that disrupted my kids sleep or raised their anxiety level. So I imagine the stakes as being higher than “lawns and auditory sensitivities.”

    Whether it’s invoked or not, I expect that the lacrosse case is going to be associated with any effort that neighborhood makes to deal with the students who live and party there. I don’t know how it looks from their perspective, but it seems like it’s in their interest to attend to some of the big deals as they negotiate with the school and the city.

    This post started as one thing and kind of turned into another, more self-indulgent thing, but I’m still going to take some credit for provoking a reaction that lays out the issues with such clarity and intensity. Thank you, Gus.

  2. Michael Gustafson | May 21, 2009 at 22:37 | Permalink

    So - I did partially steal “folks” from your post 😀

    But it is true that I have created a category in my mind - heretofore known as those/these folks - for those who extract from the lacrosse case only certain elements of the evening - and who also characterize it by adding on whichever sterotypes and perceptions of other Duke students they deem (un)reasonable - without addressing the fullness of what went on thereafter.

    My reaction when reading that letter is to be in agreement right up until paragraph 4. Then it hits - the letter proposes that it was actual actions by the lacrosse team that put the university in the “harsh national media spotlight.” But that is, frankly, bullshit.

    An unethical DA, a police department uninterested in following proper procedure, several individuals and groups willing to suspend patience and eschew evidence in favor of immediate and, ultimately, reckless action, and a media apparently starved for the sensational purchased, mounted, aimed, lit, and reveled in the glow of that spotlight. Then, when faced with it swinging back in their direction, quickly shut off the power or erected a hall of mirrors.

    Furthermore, the recommendations suggest unequal measures based on perceived social markers. Apparently, the fullness that should have been the hallmark of the Civil Rights movement has escaped notice in writing that letter. Basically, the letter says that there should be a class of people for whom justice is different, harsher, with less tolerance and fewer rights.

    What if Duke Police, for example, tried to cite a non-student resident of Trinity Heights for trash in their yard? Would that be acceptable? That should be what they are looking for, but it is not the way the letter is written.

    The letter is written in a way that wants “special” treatment for a class of people, and this country has spent certainly the last four decades if not the last fourteen trying to eliminate that. The fact that the “target” group in this case is perceived to be comprised mostly of “majorities” doesn’t make the tailoring any less odious, in my opinion.

    Also - have to say - the “Many Duke Seniors pay as much as $5000/month” is poorly constructed. Unless I have completely misjudged the costs, it may by that the entire group of “seven or eight” pays a total of $5,000 - which is to say, between $625 and $700ish each - which is…not really much different from living on campus.

    And yet - I really do understand the heart of the residents’ concerns and complaints. I completely agree that there is utterly unacceptable behavior at some of those houses some of the time. But the demands need to be for equal and legitimate enforcement of the law, not the creation of new rules specific to people because of their perceived membership in particular social classes.

    As an aside, I will mention that I was, briefly (one night) the party house in my neighborhood. My neighbor came over, said it’s too late and too loud for this neighborhood, and he was right. I thanked him for being willing to come by, and it was the only time anyone had to. I can only imagine (thankfully) the frustrations when you have to make that an annual pilgrimage - and even worse when the adults who allow their home to become the nexus for a neighborhood disruption refuse to take any responsibility or show any class.

    ~   ~   ~

    The thing that came to mind for me, with respect to different standards of justice, is the stuff Elliott Wolf wrote about a few years ago in “Dude, where’s my rights” — the disregard that university judicial system have for due process. There’s a suggestion of that in this comment on DIW. Knowing nothing about the people involved, I can read it as either the story of student renters being singled out and harassed or as the story of a mom falling for her son’s spin, or some of both.

    It seems like the exclusive focus on Duke party houses in the report might reflect nothing more than their sense of what the main problem is, not their determination to apply a “special” standard to students and let others litter, etc., all they want. I wonder though, if they hadn’t put in those three sentences, would you be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the things that bother you in the rest of the report? Because I think that might be an unusual position to take.

    The report says that the lacrosse case put the “disruptive and abusive behavior caused by Duke party houses,” not the university, into a harsh spotlight. I very much doubt that makes it any better in your eyes, and I’m not claiming that it should. But the case certainly made me conscious in a way I hadn’t been before of what was going on in the neighborhood of East Campus, and of the general problems you can run into when you have these groups of students with a house and alcohol and money to burn. The rape at the frat house on Gattis St. is another example of how badly that scenario can turn out — perhaps the Trinity Heights report should invoke that one, too, if they want to help their cause with high-profile incidents. It seems like there are very good arguments, both in the community’s interest and the university’s self-interest, to get that party scene out of the neighborhood and back onto campus. But then I remember that we’re talking about an educational institution. How has it become the university’s business to manage or enable or answer for student partying?

    In fact, there’s a whole lot I don’t understand about the many missions that Duke seems to have, so I’ve probably said more than enough about this one.

  3. RedMountain | May 23, 2009 at 13:15 | Permalink

    Interesting to me how Johnson latches onto an incorrect premise then uses it to make the Lacrosse players look better while at the same time the residents of that neighborhood look worse.

    But there would seem to be at best an indirect relationship between “the 2006 Lacrosse incident” and “the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses.” At least as defined in the Gibbs story, “the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses” included such behavior as loudness that triggers noise complaints or littering or destroying property on neighbors’ yards. Yet no neighbors appear to have complained about the 2006 spring break party, nor did any of the neighbors allege that any of the players hurled trash or other items onto their yards, or broke any of their property.

    In that respect, it seems as if the sentence provides yet another reminder of the attitude of the “Durham street” toward the lacrosse players.

    Yet in the time-line provided to the Durham City Council we have this “gem”:

    3/13/2006 2248HRS:
    911 CALL RECEIVED REFERENCE A NOISE COMPLAINT IN THE AREA OF N.
    BUCHANAN BLVD AND URBAN AVENUE.

    3/14/2006 2318HRS.
    DISPATCHED TO THE AREA OF N. BUCHANAN AND URBAN.

    3/14/2006 2323HRS.
    FIRST OFFICER ARRIVED IN THE AREA OF N. BUCHANAN AND URBAN.

    This in addition to a newspaper article quoting a resident in the area saying she had called 911 that night to make a noise complaint. Despite this Johnson continues his stubborn denial of anything that would detract from the storyline of an “indirect relationship” (at best) that he is advancing. Comments directed towards this evident incorrect characterization of that relationship have been met with derision and scorn. Frankly the players had a history of noise complaints even prior to the night of the accusation and it makes no sense at all to attempt a history rewrite of this in an attempt to remove that relationship between “the 2006 Lacrosse incident” and “the disruptive and abusive behaviors caused by Duke party houses.”.

    ~   ~   ~

    I agree that its ridiculous the way Johnson insists on twisting evidence to his advantage as well as to sanitize the record of the Buchanan St. house prior to the fateful incident. I also think it’s important to remember, when he does that, how much ammunition and credibility was handed to him by the people who rushed to the barricades, fully convinced that the guys in that house were not only bad neighbors but also rapists.

  4. Robert Zimmerman | May 23, 2009 at 15:13 | Permalink

    Along the lines of the the things RedMountain pointed out, some interesting stuff was kicked up in the DIW comment thread about neighborhood policing in general and lacrosse-case policing in particular. The exchange between krddurham and Johnson about shared jurisdiction arrangements is good, and as a bonus you get to see Johnson parse the difference between “false” and “not correct.”

    The other striking thing (to me, anyway), is that Johnson floats a scenario in which the Duke police looked into and then quickly dismissed Mangum’s allegations:

    The Durham PD then—for reasons never really explained—elected to pursue the investigation despite Duke PD’s initial decision.

    In a “shared” jurisdictional arrangement, it is most unusual for one of the sharing entities to overrule another on an item in which the first of the two entities already had closed its inquiry and in which the two entities have “shared” jurisdiction.

    The idea that the Duke PD dealt with Mangum before the Durham PD is, it seems, based on the idea that a certain officer B.S. Jones worked for Duke. That’s clearly wrong — google turns up a number of items that put her on the Durham PD, including this rather startling one. Near the end of the thread, inmyhumbleopinion points out that, even in Johnson’s book, Jones is identified as a Durham police officer. Good for him for clearing the comment, but he has nothing to say about it even though it seems to kill his Duke-police-were-there-first scenario.

  5. krddurham | May 23, 2009 at 23:40 | Permalink

    Here’s my last reply to KC Johnson, which he did not approve…

    ==================================

    To the 3.26:

    My apologies, I thought I included my previous links in that post, below the new links.

    In regard to the new links I posted…for some reason, you seem to think these links prove your point. No offense, but you do not seem to understand concurrent jurisdictions. Hopefully, in the May roundup, you will elaborate on the point that you’re trying to make.

    As IMHO has pointed out, Inv. B.S. Jones is a female officer of the Durham PD…she has been with the department since 2001. The Durham PD first became involved in the Duke lacrosse case in the early hours of March 14, 2006, when Officer Shelton encountered Crystal “feigning unconsciousness” in the passenger seat of Kim Robert’s car in the Kroger parking lot. I’m pretty sure the first Duke PD officers to come in contact with Crystal were Officer Mazurek and Officer Falcon, which took place at the DUMC ED. Here’s an excerpt from Officer Falcon’s witness statement…

    I stood outside the ED Triage area as a Duke Representative, while Durham City proceeded with their investigation…. Not at any time did I direct any questions to Ms. Mangum concerning the investigation by Durham City PD. Not at any time was I a direct party to any investigation(s) of Durham City PD of this alleged incident, other than to assist the outside agency of Durham City PD.

    While at DUMC, Officer Shelton radioed in an update to his watch commander. The watch commander then contacted Sgt. Fansler, who in turn ordered Inv. B.S. Jones to respond to the Duke ED. Inv. B.S. Jones set up a meeting with Crystal on March 14, 2006, but Crystal rescheduled for March 15, 2006. Sgt. Gottlieb contacted both Sgt. Fansler and Inv. B.S. Jones to discuss the case. On March 15, 2006, Sgt. Gottlieb contact Inv. B.S. Jones to tell her that District 2 would be handling the investigation and to have Crystal contact him. On March 16, 2006, Sgt. Gottlieb assigned Inv. Himan as the lead investigator on the case.

    At 10:00 you said: “What we do know, in this particular case, is that a Duke Police officer (B.S. Jones) investigated Mangum’s allegations, found them not credible, and essentially closed the case. The Durham PD then—for reasons never really explained—elected to pursue the investigation despite Duke PD’s initial decision.”

    In your opinion, at what point did the Duke PD make their “initial decision” to close the case? When did the Duke PD allegedly conduct an investigation that led them to close the case?

    ==================================

    Perhaps KC will show up here to answer my questions.

    Here’s the paragraph from Ekstrand’s lawsuit (pg. 46) claiming that 610 N. Buchanan was not within the Durham PD’s jurisdiction…

    At the time Mangum claimed she was sexually assaulted at 610 N. Buchanan, the residence at 610 N. Buchanan was within the jurisdiction of the Duke Police Department—not the Durham Police Department.

    http://www.ninthstreetlaw.com/docs/1.07-cv-953.pdf (the “Police Jurisdiction Allocation Agreement” attachment is on page 411).

    Paragraph 2.3 of the agreement says: “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2.1, the City Law Enforcement Agency maintain the authority and primary responsibility to investigate all offenses committed within the Campus Law Enforcement Agency Area of Extended Jurisdiction.”

    The Duke PD share concurrent jurisdiction, of all property in Durham owned by Duke University, with city, county, and state law enforcement. The “Police Jurisdiction Allocation Agreement” expanded the jurisdiction of the Duke PD…the jurisdiction of city, county, and state law enforcement agencies did not change.

    610 N. Buchanan is within the jurisdiction of BOTH the Durham PD and the Duke PD. Ekstrand’s assertion in his lawsuit is clearly wrong. Even KC agreed that Ekstrand’s assertion is not true…excuse me, not correct.

    ~   ~   ~

    I wonder if Johnson’s comment at the end of the thread about the “troll-like behavior… [of] repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered” is supposed to explain why this comment wasn’t cleared. If so, what that means in practice is that he wants to have the last word. I know the feeling! His last word this time, it seems to me, boils down to thanks for proving my point, sucker, though of course he’s not that direct (“many thanks for the additional links, which, again, expose how unusual the Duke PD/Durham PD ‘shared jurisdiction’ arrangement is”).

    I don’t have his book (Until Proven Innocent), but I imagine it doesn’t float the theory that Duke PD had already investigated and dismissed Mangum’s allegations, since it correctly identifies B.S. Jones as being in the Durham PD. But it seems that he’s going to stick to this new scenario, one way or another.

    As far as him showing up here to answer your questions, don’t hold your breath.

  6. Michael Gustafson | May 24, 2009 at 00:29 | Permalink

    I don’t know how to quote things properly with this blog system, so here goes. If you / anyone else can point to the “quote” code, I’d appreciate it for future reference 😀

    The thing that came to mind for me, with respect to different standards of justice, is the stuff Elliott Wolf wrote about a few years ago in “Dude, where’s my rights” — the disregard that university judicial system have for due process. There’s a suggestion of that in this comment on DIW. Knowing nothing about the people involved, I can read it as either the story of student renters being singled out and harassed or as the story of a mom falling for her son’s spin, or some of both.

    Elliott and I were and are very much in agreement with many of the issues we have with the undergraduate judicial system at Duke. Over the past several years, the “reach” has extended off campus beyond clear and present dangers to the university to anything the university wants to adjudicate, written down as policy or not. Basically, the way I currently read it, anything that any officer of the university wants to make a violation can be a violation, and all that is needed is “clear and convincing” evidence. Students do not even have the right to have witnesses make statements - rather, “The panel may determine the extent to which witnesses will be permitted in the hearing, including relevancy of questioning and information presented.” Students do not have a right to an attorney - instead, they have an advisor from the university supplied by judicial affairs. I have always had a pretty big problem with that.

    It seems like the exclusive focus on Duke party houses in the report might reflect nothing more than their sense of what the main problem is, not their determination to apply a “special” standard to students and let others litter, etc., all they want. I wonder though, if they hadn’t put in those three sentences, would you be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the things that bother you in the rest of the report? Because I think that might be an unusual position to take.

    There are several parts of the Trinity Heights letter that look for a special standard. Recommendation 1 asks Campus Police to patrol “known party houses” and asks for “issuance of citations to students when appropriate.” How about asking that the university patrol those areas where the city and the university have agreed to joint jurisdiction and issuance of citations to anyone found in violation?

    Rec. 2 asks for a “zero-tolerance policy for party-house violations.” In other words, special justice based on address. And, incidentally, who gets to make a list of the “party houses”? What legal definition will be used to put someone on such a list. I hereby declare Professor Rupprecht’s house a party house. I am sure he has had at least one party there sometime in the past three years. Is that unreasonable? Absolutely. Just like recommendation 2.

    Rec. 3 is great - “more effective preparation of Duke Students by Student Affairs for off-campus residence.” I don’t agree that parties must be kept indoors - again, the notion of a 5-year-old’s birthday picnic being squashed by this recommendation comes to mind. This recommendation is mostly good but not particularly nuanced in its reading.

    Rec. 4 asks for special regulations to be applied to Duke students who are living off campus as well as a way for residents to complain about students and find out about their complaints. Aside from, again, special justice here, I wonder what mechanism would be in place for the privacy of the students to be maintained.

    Rec. 5 - I actually agree with this one. I wish there were a way to reduce and, really, eliminate the “hard core” and especially dangerous party scene and replace it with more casual low-key, on campus, and safe events. My previous complaint still stands about the $5000/month thing, though 😀

    For the recommendations to the City…

    Rec 1 - not sure it is the city’s responsibility to “patrol” neighborhood listserves. The neighborhoods and their respective associations should filter the information and present a summary form to the city. I really don’t want to pay for someone to sit and troll list serves… I agree with (b); I have privacy concerns with (c) but understand the rationale.

    Rec. 2 - how would this be different from neighborhood associations meeting with Duke, and why should tax money go to a permanent city position? Furthermore, there are more universities around with people living in and around Durham - this recommendation again focuses on one particular group rather than looking at the whole picture. Perhaps a “collegiate liaison” to work with all neighborhoods and their relationships with all local colleges and universities?

    The report says that the lacrosse case put the “disruptive and abusive behavior caused by Duke party houses,” not the university, into a harsh spotlight. I very much doubt that makes it any better in your eyes, and I’m not claiming that it should. But the case certainly made me conscious in a way I hadn’t been before of what was going on in the neighborhood of East Campus, and of the general problems you can run into when you have these groups of students with a house and alcohol and money to burn.

    But that’s just it - let’s say that the true details of that party made it out, absent any hint of the false accusation of rape. Which is to say, student leadership of the lacrosse team had a party during spring break at which there was drinking, two erotic dancers were hired, performed-ish, a verbal altercation ensued mostly regarding said performance, epithets were traded, and the police were called by one of the dancers with respect to said epithets. No part of that gets the spotlight - which I understand is one of the frustrations of the neighborhood groups.

    But, again, for me (to quote Randy Jackson), invoking the lacrosse case should not be done lightly or without a full understanding or appreciation of the complexities of it. It’s like trying to get people to wear seatbelts by saying no one had them on in the passenger compartment of the Hindenberg. Seatbelt safety is important. The Hindenberg disaster is not the case with which to promote that particular point.

    The rape at the frat house on Gattis St. is another example of how badly that scenario can turn out — perhaps the Trinity Heights report should invoke that one, too, if they want to help their cause with high-profile incidents. It seems like there are very good arguments, both in the community’s interest and the university’s self-interest, to get that party scene out of the neighborhood and back onto campus. But then I remember that we’re talking about an educational institution. How has it become the university’s business to manage or enable or answer for student partying?

    For me, the most depressing and outrageous part of Duke’s response to that case was Dr. Moneta’s line, “It’s part of the reality of collegiate life and of experimentation and some of the consequences of students not always being in the right place at the right time.” And, of course, the city’s inaction and ineptitude that allowed another assault to happen. If the university or any neighborhood group had stood up for the young woman involved and said, “We will do everything in our power to stop sexual assaults against Duke students, and one of the ways we are going to help achieve that is radically change how we educate students about off-campus housing, both with respect to living off campus and attending off campus events,” then I would have had a lot more faith in the institution and those neighborhood groups.

    I think it is partially the university’s business to “enable” partying from the standpoint of looking at safe ways for students to blow off some steam without binge drinking, driving, being disrespectful to the community, etc. I’m still very on the fence on this one. As an example - I love eSocials, the Friday afternoon gathers we engineers have with faculty, students and staff. There is potentially underage drinking going on there (how’s that for CMA?), and hypothetically, a person like me might reasonable think that such a thing is perfectly fine in its context. Indeed a person like me might even applaud the fact that students in the 18-20.99 range are having a beer or two among friends with snacks while hanging out with each other in a no-pressure environment, in full recognition that such activities are, ahem, extralegal. What astounds me, though, has been the way the university has dealt with the crapshow that is tailgate. That’s a whole different story, though…

    ~   ~   ~

    Thanks, Gus — I really appreciate your candor on this. I formatted the quotes. The HTML to do it is <blockquote>text to be quoted</blockquote>.

    I assume that the folks who put together the report would say that there are certain houses that stick out like a sore thumb when it comes to noise, litter, etc., and that they are all houses rented by groups of Duke students. If they’re right, then I don’t think the singling out of “party houses” in the report is much of a problem, though I agree that the same standard should be applied across the board. In principle it’s an empirical question whether or not the party houses stand out as the problem. In practice it’s probably hard to settle the question conclusively, though.

    That quote from Moneta about collegiate life and experimentation does seem to be Duke’s principle public evaluation of the Gattis St. incident — I’ve dropped my reservations about that. It’s a remarkably callous reaction.

  7. AMac | May 30, 2009 at 23:48 | Permalink

    Prof. Gustafson explains how the ‘Trinity Heights Action Committee’ has scored an “own goal” by bringing in the Lacrosse Hoax/Frame into their complaint about Duke Party Houses.

    If they weren’t so daft and/or politically correct and/or determined to vindicate the 2006 Potbangers — there’s a much better place to look for solutions.

    Most years, my family vacations in Dewey Beach, Delaware. Many owners of single-family homes in residential neighborhoods rent by the week to out-of-towners. In the recent past, this caused major problems with rowdy, noisy late-night parties.

    Dewey Beach now has a noise ordinance. When parties stay hopping after 10 p.m., one typically sees a couple of cops arrive, stand at the edge of the street, and point a decibel meter at the offending structure.

    the maximum noise limits as found in Section 117-15 as measured by sound level meter are changed not to exceed 80 DBA during the daily hours of 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. and 75 DBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. as recommended by the Noise Committee…Source.

    Presumably this sort of problem and solution are old hat at the Outer Banks summertime haunts of many Trinity Park residents, too.

  8. Robert Zimmerman | June 1, 2009 at 12:47 | Permalink

    In his “May Events” post, KC Johnson holds to the line that krddurham helped to show “the unusual nature of the Duke/Durham PD arrangement.” Krddurham spells out his perspective in a comment that Johnson cleared but didn’t reply to.

  9. Pogostemon cablin | June 9, 2009 at 22:02 | Permalink

    Krddurham spells out his perspective in a comment that Johnson cleared but didn’t reply to.

    That was about the 3rd time krd had posted essentially the same comment. And the 3rd time he failed to look at the complete Allocation agreement. No further reply was necessary.

    ~   ~   ~

    I don’t see what he missed, except that apparently someone was looking over his shoulder.

  10. Pogostemon cablin | June 11, 2009 at 01:30 | Permalink

    I don’t see what he missed

    The part that assigns DUPD the authority and primary responsibility to investigate incidents on Campus.

    except that apparently someone was looking over his shoulder.

    The repeated post isn’t difficult to see, Dr Zimmerman.

    ~   ~   ~

    OK, it’s true that there’s a juicy technicality in there for anyone who goes in for that sort of thing. Duke had recently purchased the Buchanan St. house, so it’s defined in the agreement as “on campus.” By all appearances, though, it was still just a house being rented to students along a residential street. Perhaps Duke’s ownership was relevant to the way the investigation was handled, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the initial responders to know or care who those guys were renting from.

  11. Pogostemon cablin | June 11, 2009 at 23:52 | Permalink

    OK, it’s true that there’s a juicy technicality in there for anyone who goes in for that sort of thing.

    That’s not a ‘technicality’, ‘juicy’ or otherwise. Assigning DUPD the authority and primary responsibility to investigate incidents on Campus is the raison d’être of the agreement - without that there would be no reason for the agreement in the first place.

    ~   ~   ~

    That’s sure not what they were saying at the time it was put into effect. According to the Duke Chronicle

    The large number of students, faculty members and employees that live in the area around East campus will be the primary beneficiaries of the new cooperation, officials said.

    […]

    “The advantage for the community is double the resources,” he said. “This agreement points to community safety and allows us to work hand-in-hand with the Durham city police to address quality of life issues for the extended Duke community.”

    John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations, worked to facilitate this collaboration and believes it will benefit both the Duke and city police departments. “It should really improve response time, but it should also free up the Durham police to focus on higher crime areas that may be nearby,” he said.

    The new Duke police patrols will not change the jurisdiction the Durham city police currently has in that area, but rather add to the existing police presence.

    “This does not replace the Durham police. [The agreement] merely makes for a bigger and better response,” Birkhead said. “Police visibility should be increased as we have two police agencies patrolling the area immediate to Duke.”

    That’s just what the agreement looks like it’s about — extending off campus and overlapping with the DPD. Not so obvious in the agreement but stressed in the article is the focus on patrolling rather than investigating.

    Anyway, I know you’re just trying to yank my chain, so we don’t need to get all wrapped up in the nonsense they print in the paper.

  12. RedMountain | June 17, 2009 at 18:19 | Permalink

    I would like to post my response to KC Johnson here if I may, Robert. His last response seemed to me to indicate an arrogant disregard for my opinion

    Anonymous said

    Blogger KC Johnson said…

    To the 5.42:

    As I noted above, you are certainly entitled to your belief that the CCI advocated increasing admissions standards in such a way that would have decreased the number of African-American students who were admitted to Duke—given that Duke’s own figures showed that the average SAT and admissions scores for African-American students admitted to Duke was considerably lower than the average SAT and admissions scores for legacy students admitted to Duke.

    I appreciate the effort you took in rephrasing my question as a statement. However that statement does not portray a fair characterization of my question. Here is my question:

    “Simply put, if the CCI was all for increasing diversity at the expense of academic standards, then why in the world would they make these 2 recommendations?” That seems to me to be pretty straightforward and I listed the 2 recommendations in my previous post which are as follows:
    “3. Aggressively recruit international students and high-achieving applicants from underrepresented groups and increase financial aid to attract those students
    4. Raise the low end of the admissions standards so that all students have the preparation and commitment to contribute fully to the intellectual life of the community”

    My personal opinion is that the CCI wanted to make up for the loss in the low end of under-represented groups by aggressively recruiting at the high end of these groups. How they felt they could accomplish this is a matter of debate and certainly the report is lacking specific ideas other than an offer of increased financial aid for these highly qualified students. My concern with your post and some of the comments regarding the CCI is the impression it gives that the CCI wanted to increase diversity at any cost including admission standards. That runs counter to the ‘evidence’ as presented in their official recommendations.

    RedMountain
    6/17/09 5:51 PM

    Blogger KC Johnson said…

    To the 5.51:

    Thank you for sharing with DIW readers your “personal opinion.” I am sure that it will be received with all the weight to which it is entitled.

    6/17/09 5:57 PM

    To KC:
    I will also give your opinions all the weight to which I believe they are entitled (in my humble opinion).

    ~   ~   ~

    Well, yes, when he refers to your “personal opinion” in scare quotes, that does looks like arrogant disregard. I’m not sure what good posting it here will do, but it can’t do any harm.

  13. krddurham | June 18, 2009 at 09:59 | Permalink

    Pogostemon cablin/Yankenstein/Righteous Thug said: The part that assigns DUPD the authority and primary responsibility to investigate incidents on Campus.

    And this proves that 610 N. Buchanan was not within the jurisdiction of the Durham PD, as Ekstrand’s suit asserts???

    Duke’s campus is within the Durham PD’s jurisdiction and they have the authority to investigate any offense that allegedly takes place on campus…the Duke PD shares their jurisdiction (“Campus” and the “Campus Law Enforcement Area of Extended Jurisdiction”) with the Durham PD. If 610 N. Buchanan is within the corporate city limits of Durham, NC (and it is) then it’s within the Durham PD’s jurisdiction.

    Regardless, the Durham PD’s investigation began in the Kroger parking lot. The Kroger security guard called 911 and the Durham PD was dispatched to respond to the call. When the responding officer, Sgt. (now Lt.) J.C. Shelton, arrived on the scene, he had the authority and primary responsibility to investigate what prompted the 911 call. After the trip to the Durham Access Center, the Durham PD’s investigation turned to a rape investigation and Crystal was transported to DUMC. There, Officer Shelton continued his investigation. The investigation was then transferred to Inv. B.S. Jones of the Durham PD. Sgt. Gottlieb ultimately seized control of the investigation and assigned Inv. Ben Himan to the case. The Durham PD never relinquished control of the investigation. They didn’t have to.

  14. Pogostemon cablin | June 20, 2009 at 15:48 | Permalink

    And this proves that 610 N. Buchanan was not within the jurisdiction of the Durham PD, as Ekstrand’s suit asserts???

    No, Eckstrand’s assertion in that paragraph is in error. Everyone knows that, but you’re the only one who’s doing a neener neener on a 18-month old copy of the complaint.

    Suffice it to say that DUPD has the authority and primary jurisdiction to investigate incidents that occur on Campus.

  15. Pogostemon cablin | June 20, 2009 at 16:05 | Permalink

    …so we don’t need to get all wrapped up in the nonsense they print in the paper.

    And nonsense it is / was, a puff piece unworthy of a ‘reporter’. Burness could have save Sophis the trouble and just ussed a press release.

    That’s just what the agreement looks like it’s about — …Not so obvious in the agreement…

    You’re at cross-purposes there, Dr Zimmerman. The patrolling aspect of the agreement hasn’t been in much evidence in the last 5 years, has it? One would think that the Trinity Park residents would be less vocal now, but the opposite is true.

    ~   ~   ~

    Yes, it’s true that the extra patrolling initiated in 2004 with some fanfare (a Chronicle article from the fall) either hasn’t done the trick in Trinity Heights (not Park, though they may have the same complaints) or else maybe the two police departments haven’t kept at it, or whatever. I don’t know what the story is and I’m not interested enough in it to do the research. I noticed the irony at the time but I didn’t have anything useful to say about it.

    I wasn’t at cross-purposes, either. My purposes are not as narrow as yours, which isn’t saying much — you’re a hard one to out-narrow. From the way you raise cross-purposes as a gotcha, it seems that your idea of debate is that I should respond to your mindless, uninformed spin with mindless spin of my own. And you clearly don’t know or care to know enough about the neighborhoods, the people in them, and the policing of them to offer anything more than mindless spin.

    The same goes for journalism. Your two cents worth on the “puff piece” is overvalued. For what it is — a workaday news story in what’s essentially a community newspaper — it’s perfectly fine.

  16. a reader | June 20, 2009 at 16:24 | Permalink

    Can anyone explain how one DPD Sgt. can “seize control” of an investigation from another DPD Sgt? How did Gottlieb manage this?

    Does this happen often? (Hey You..I’m seizing your case.”)

    ~   ~   ~

    Maybe krddurham has a more specific answer to this. Offhand, though, it strikes me as the kind of thing that would happen pretty naturally in most any bureaucratic, hierarchical organization.

  17. a reader | June 26, 2009 at 16:28 | Permalink

    Mark, I read your comment at TL..scoffing at the “conspiracy.”

    With our host’s permission…here is how I see this now.

    To me…the Duke Lacrosse Case is a story of Rookies, Hand-wringers, and Hustlers.

    A rookie nurse, a rookie politican, and a fiasco that needed a Fix… are a simpler explanation than evil villians devising a Frame.

    There was villiany, but of the venal sort…where the villians may delude themselves that they are actually doing GOOD. All it requires is that they subtract out THEIR victims, the real victims, Collin, Reade, and Dave..from the equation.

    I believe that happened here.

    Mangum presented at DUMC… where their literature tells us they have 14 SANE nurses…always at the ready. But, despite claims of a vicious beating and gang-rape AND… her interactions that night with numerous other DUMC personnel…she was left “to sleep” … until a rookie SANE came on duty next morning. Five or six hours! Why was that? Is that the DUMC gold standard of care for a woman who presents with “blunt force trauma” and “the signs and symptoms” of this heinous crime? (as DUMC would later , through Levicy, represent to the DPD)

    There is a special pink room to soothe rape victims as they are awaiting testing. Mangum was put elsewhere. Why? Was there another gang-rape-blunt-force-trauma “victim” in residence that night who merited the primo accomadations? DUMC has a lot of “splaining to do” in this case…either way…because if Mangum was believed…allowing her to lay around for hours was unconscionable. If she wasn’t..allowing Levicy to misrepresent the SANE exam to the DPD is an outrage!

    IMO, the personnel who interacted with Mangum that night DID NOT find her believable…or they would have reacted MUCH differently (unless DUMC is indeed a callous incompent pit for any REAL victim)

    Enter Levicy.

    She encounters Mangum when she comes opn shift at 7AM…she and Manly finally attend to Mangum around 9AM. They note redness, some swelling, a non bleeding scratch, whitish discharge. Now his woman claims to have been used as a punching bag by three strong young athletes in a tiny bathroom FOR THIRTY MINUTES….violated in every horrific fashion. This wasn’t a boyfriend who didn’t respect “no is no.” This is a violent, hate filled attack.

    Insert that close-up picture of Mangum here.

    I’d love to have a jury see crime photos of real victims, beaten by ONE man…half that amount of time…and compare with Mangum’s unblemished face. Maybe a collage of them..with Mangum dead center…surrounded by the broken faces of women who REALLY endured repeated fists and kicks and crushing blows. These are the women Mangum disrespected and most damaged with her lies. But I digress….

    Later, in her first interview Mangum would tell DPD that , oh yeah, she…. the shy young girl, new to dancing…had performed with a vibrator for a couple in a motel room…and later her strip club collegues would mention dropping Sister Survivor in the gravel after she argued with a customer….but Levicy would not know that. But Levicy WOULD know a SANE nurse collects evidence for a trial, not offers a diagnosis.

    But when the DPD came calling, she diagnosed “blunt force trauma” and “all the signs and symptoms congruent with” the vicious gang rape story Mangum told.

    We were off and running.

    Now comes Nifong, newly elevated out of Traffic Court but behind in the polls. He’s put his own money into keeping his job,,because having fired Freda…his employment prospects… if she wins… look dismal. Suddenly, as he tells his campaign manager, a “million dollars worth of free publicity” falls in his lap. The media blitz begins. He’s championing the poor Black student against these ‘sons of privilege”; he’s choking himself on national TV. Perhaps he thought he could invite the MSM in for a few days, get the name regognition he needed, and then make them depart. Instead, he was the one cornered, “Nifong, honey, YOU can’t leave till we see what YOU’ve got here.”

    He had a local pole dancer with a rap sheet and a medical record that would need to be carried into court on a lift-truck. She had told many different stories; the SAER didn’t match the rhetoric; she couldn’t even pick workable targets in the line-up. But he still had hope. Drunken college guys…strippers…there had to be some DNA.

    Because at this point, it was essential for many folks that there really had been a rape.The community was enraged; the media was engaged. Duke’s tenured radicals were over the top.

    I believe when Durham, Duke, Nifong et al met…that fateful day…that the Lab reported not a speck of DNA….a convergence of convenient necessity occured.

    The Handwringers embraced their only possible MUTUAL solution.

    Bell and Baker felt that riots were possible. Evidence or not, THEY believed Durham was demanding a trial. At the very least, for political purposes…this mess HAD to go to trial.

    Brodhead believed that dropping the case would smell of University interference…woud NOT be “best for Duke.” At the very least, for Duke’s PR purposes…this mess HAD to go to trial.

    Nifong understood that the genie was out of the bottle. He could not win this election and drop this case. At the very least, for Nifong’s personal purposes, this case HAD to go to trial.

    Otherwise…, just WHO was going to step forward and say…”Ooops.” Who was going to tell the Potbangers, the NCNAACP, the Black Panthers, the folks at the NCCU forum…that Mangum was a liar?

    They comforted themselves with platitudes..but there was self-preservation in each respective purpose. Collin, Reade and Dave were not real to them, must NOT be real to them. That’s why Nifong did not want to know their alibis; Brodhead did not want to meet with their devasteated parents. These kids just had to be the means to an expedient END: a trial.

    The Hustlers…”Dr. Discount Meehan”…the Gospel-Singing Witness-intimidator Wilson…Houston Baker….the NCNAACP…the thugs and agendaistas…are really too numerous to mention…but certainly found a way to claim their share of the infamy.

    The ATTY General of North Carolina told us there was NEVER any evidence of rape. But two rookies created an enviorment where a trial was deemed necessary…not to get at the truth but to get out of their lies.

    It wasn’t a Frame per se; it was…a Fix.

    Thirty years of three real kids lives were on the line…but they were expendable.

  18. inmyhumbleopinion | June 26, 2009 at 17:06 | Permalink

    a reader / Joan Foster asked:

    [blockquote]Can anyone explain how one DPD Sgt. can “seize control” of an investigation from another DPD Sgt? How did Gottlieb manage this?

    Does this happen often? (Hey You..I’m seizing your case.”)[/blockquote]

    MARK D. GOTTLIEB NC DISCIPLINARY HEARING COMMISSION DEPOSITION

    [url]http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/2448[/url]

    4 Q. All right. Let’s talk a little bit
    5 about the investigation itself. When was your initial
    6 contact about this case, about the investigation?
    7 A. I was called on Wednesday. I don’t know
    8 the.
    9 Q. You are welcome to look at the
    10 investigative notes.
    11 A. 3/15/06, I was a called by Investigator
    12 Jones, and I was working off-duty at City Hall.
    13 Q. All right. What division is
    14 Investigator Jones in?
    15 A. She works at District 5, Investigations.
    16 And I believe — I don’t know if she still works there
    17 now or not. I think she may have been transferred to
    18 District 4, but I’m not sure.
    19 Q. And later that day you agreed to adopt
    20 — she asked you — from your notes, it appears that
    21 she asked you if District 2 would take over the
    22 investigation?
    23 A. Uh-huh (yes).
    24 Q. And you agreed to do that later in the
    25 day?
    Margaret M. Powell, CVR - (919) 779-0322

    PAGE 43
    Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb - 4/19/07
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. And you did agree, you agreed to take it
    3 over later that day?
    4 A. Yes.
    5 Q. All right. You said that you assigned
    6 Investigator Himan as the primary investigator on what
    7 became the Duke lacrosse cases?
    8 A. Yes.

    GOTTLIEB’S CASE NOTES

    [url] http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/708 [/url]

    3/15/2006 1640

    I was working off duty at Durham City Hall when I received a call from Inv. B. Jones in reference to a case she was handling. She stated there was a rape reported at 610 N. Buchanan which is in District 2. She received the case on the morning of 3/14/06 while on call. She stated she had very little information on the case due to the victim’s condition while she was at Duke ER. She stated the victim did have a rape kit done while she was at the hospital. She stated the victim had left her a message that she received when she woke up on the afternoon of 3/14/06 around 1400 hours, and was suppose to meet with the victim later that night at 1900, however, the victim had gone back to be seen by a doctor again due to medical problems. She stated the victim’s boyfriend had contacted her on the evening and let her know the victim was being seen. and that is why she missed her 1900 hour appointment. She stated she had set up a new appointment for 1900 hours today (3/15/06) and wanted to know if the District 2 Investigations wanted to adopt this case since she had not had a true interview with the victim to this point. I asked if any canvass had been conducted, a search warrant done on the crime scene, or identification of any potential suspects had been done up to this point. I explained to Inv. Jones that District 2 Investigations could take over the case if she needed our assistance, however, I explained to her it would be in the best interest of the victim to limit the number of interviews of the traumatic event. I advised her we should first consult with Sgt. Fransler and see if she agreed on this decision to transfer this case to District 2 from the On-Call Team. If in fact District 2 adopted this case, the interview for this evening would need to be canceled and the District 2 Investigator who would be assigned in the morning would interview the victim then. Inv. Jones stated she would discuss this with her Sergeant and get back to me. I told her to give the victim my pager and office number and have her call me at 8:30am on 3/16/06 so we could set up the interview. She agreed.

    INCIDENT #06-8310 TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR COUNCIL (prepared by Gottlieb)

    [url] http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/3302 [/url]

    3/14/2006 0231HRS:
    VICTIM WAS TRANSPORTED FROM DURHAM ACCESS TO DUKE ER BY UNIFORM PATROL.
    3/14/2006 0240HRS:
    VICTIM ARRIVED AT DUKE ER AND HAD RAPE EXAMINATION AND KIT
    DONE.
    3/14/2006 0250HRS:
    NATURE OF CALL CHANGED TO RAPE.
    3/14/2006 0340HRS:
    SGT. FANSLER WAS PAGED BY THE WATCH COMMANDER REFERENCE A RAPE VICTIM AT DUKE ER.
    3/14/2006 0343HRS:
    SGT. FANSLER PAGED INV. A. TAYLOR AND PLACED HER ON STANDBY IN
    CASE SHE WOULD BE NEEDED.
    3/14/2006 0347HRS’: 1
    SGT. FANSLER PAGED OUT INV. B.S. JONES TO RESPOND TO DÜKE ER.
    3/14/2006 0405HRS:
    INV. B.S. JONES ARRIVED AT DUKE ER.
    3/14/2006 0444HRS:
    INV. B.S. JONES SPOKE WITH SGT. FANSLER CONCERNING THE INCIDENT AND VICTIM’S CONDITION.
    3/14/2006 1400HRS
    INV. JONES RECEIVED A TELEPHONE MESSAGE FROM THE VICTIM.
    NOTIFIED SGT FANSLER.
    3/14/2006 1405HRS
    INV. JONES LEFT A MESSAGE TO MEET VICTIM AT HQ THAT EVENING.
    3/14/2006 2230HRS
    INV. JONES RECEIVED A CALL FROM VICTIM’S FRIEND STATING SHE WAS.UNABLE TO KEEP THE APPOINTMENT.
    Page 3
    3/15/2006 1640HRS
    SGT. GOTTLIEB HAD TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH INV. B.S. JONES
    REFERENCE THE CASE ASSIGNMENT. INV. JONES ADVISED THAT SHE HAD AN APPOINTMNET 3/14/2006 WHICH THE VICTIM HAD TO RESCHEDULE:
    INV. JONES NOW ADVISED SHE SET UP A NEW APPOINTMENT WITH THE
    VICTIM FOR 7PM THIS EVENING. SHE ADVISED SGT. GOTTLIEB SHE
    ADVISED SGT GOTTLIEB SHE WOULD CHECK WITH SGT. FANSLER
    CONCERNING THE ASSIGNMENT.
    3/15/2006 1649HRS.
    SGT. GOTTLIEB SENT OUT AN EMAIL REQUESTING THE COMMUNITIES HELP.
    3/15/2006 1720HRS:
    SGT. GOTTLIEB HAD TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH SGT. FANSLER AND
    NOTIFIED HER IF DISTRICT 2 INVESTIGATIONS TOOK THE CASE AS
    REQUESTED,
    THEN INV. JONES SHOULD CANCEL HER APPOINTMENT WITH THE VICTIM SO SHE WOULD ONLY HAVE TO GO INTO THE DETAILS ONE TIME. SGT. GOTTLIEB WOULD HAVE AN INVESTIGATOR REASSIGNED TO THE CASE SET UP A NEW APPOINTMENT
    3/16/2006. INV. JONES IMMEDIATELY
    CALL THE VICTIM BACK.
    3/15/2006 1725HRS:
    SGT. GOTTLIEB HAD TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH INV. B.S. JONES AND :
    NOTIFIED HER THAT DISTRICT 2 INVESTIGATIONS WOULD HANDLE THE
    CASE AND TO HAVE THE VICTIM CALL SGT. GOTTLIEB IN THE MORNING.

    610 N. Buchanan is in District 2. The case was transferred from the On Call Team to The Durham Police District 2 Criminal Investigations Violent Crimes Unit. According to Gottlieb this was done at the request of the On Call officer. What’s the big mystery?

    ~   ~   ~

    Thanks for compiling all that, and I’m sorry it took so long to clear — it was mistakenly marked as spam. I redated it a little later to so it would come up after the comment of Joan’s that I already cleared.

  19. krddurham | June 30, 2009 at 11:53 | Permalink

    Just in case anyone missed it, KC Johnson snuck in a correction

    KC Johnson said…

    A correction, hat tip to R.T.:

    Jones was a Durham, not Duke, officer. I erroneously transposed an item from the Ekstrand brief.

    6/1/09 7:16 PM

    I guess KC missed IMHO’s comment on 5/22/09 at 2:15 PM in which she points out that Inv. Jones works for the Durham PD. Her source – KC’s own book. IMHO’s comment is in the same comment thread as KC’s correction.

    I wonder which item KC “transposed”? It seems as though Ekstrand’s suit is trying to portray Inv. B.S. Jones as a Duke police officer, too.

    Part F: “Duke Police Take Control of the Investigation”

    Section 2: “Inv. B. Jones Interviews Mangum”

    Paragraph 288: “Pursuant to Duke Police Department protocol, at approximately 3:50 a.m., the ‘on-call’ investigator, Inv. B. Jones, was dispatched to DUMC’s E.D. to interview Mangum.”

    Page 99 of Ekstrand’s suit.

    I’m not sure where Ekstrand’s going with his jurisdiction argument, but it’s not looking good for him or his clients, IMO.

    On 5/21/09 at 10:00 PM, KC said

    Actually, we have no real idea how the arrangement works. What we do know, in this particular case, is that a Duke Police officer (B.S. Jones) investigated Mangum’s allegations, found them not credible, and essentially closed the case. The Durham PD then—for reasons never really explained—elected to pursue the investigation despite Duke PD’s initial decision.

    So, would this comment be considered “not true”, or “incorrect”, KC?

    ~   ~   ~

    I love that. Johnson “erroneously transposes” this little detail, even though it conflicts with his book, and then, I suppose, erroneously concocts a new theory about misconduct by the DPD and DUPD based on that detail.

  20. Robert Zimmerman | July 5, 2009 at 20:08 | Permalink

    There are a couple of comments here that sat uncleared for a long time. Partly it’s that I wasn’t [I wrote “was” when I first posted this] attending to the blog, and partly it was that they got shunted into my spam folder. Sorry about that.