Duke lacrosse case

The 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal began in March 2006 when Crystal Gail Mangum, a Nappy-Headed Ho, falsely claimed that she had been raped by three unidentified white members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team. Mangum had been engaged to work a party held at the residence of two of the team captains, and she reported that the incident took place there.

Subsequently, three players were indicted: David Evans of Bethesda, Maryland, Reade Seligmann of Essex Fells, New Jersey, and Collin Finnerty of Garden City, New York - each was charged with first-degree forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense, and kidnapping. Duke's nationally ranked lacrosse team's season was suspended for the rest of the 2006 season.

The initial prosecutor for the case, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, withdrew from the case in January 2007, after the North Carolina State bar filed ethics charges against him based on his actions in prosecuting this case. Nifong had originally responded to the charges by saying the defense was engaged in a smear campaign against him. On April 12, 2007, however, he issued a carefully-worded statement, "To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused." The case has drawn national attention and highlighted racial tensions in the Durham, North Carolina area.

On April 11 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that all charges against the three lacrosse players had been dropped and that "based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges." Cooper stated that his own investigation "led us to the conclusion that no attack occurred." He said the charges resulted from a "tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations" by a DA. "This case shows the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor," Cooper added. In the same interview, Cooper offered no explanation of the woman’s motive or mental health. However, he said that no criminal charges will be brought against her because she “may actually believe” the many different stories she told.

Timeline of events

The complainant was a 27-year-old African-American woman named Crystal Gail Mangum who was working as an escort and stripper. She served in the United States Navy (was discharged after about a year), is a single mother, and a student at North Carolina Central University, a state-owned and historically black college (HBCU) located in Durham, North Carolina. She claimed that, on March 13, 2006, three white members of Duke University's lacrosse team beat, strangled, and sexually assaulted her anally, vaginally and orally, without condoms and with ejaculations. Her father, who was unaware of her job until after the rape allegations, told authorities several weeks later that she was also penetrated with a broom.

Before arrival

In an interview with a local newspaper, Mangum said she had worked for an escort service for two months, meeting clients one-on-one several times a week. That day, she acknowledged having sex with at least three men prior to the party. Furthermore, she told the sexual assault nurse-in-training that she had consumed one drink of alcohol that evening and had also taken the medication Flexeril, which is a prescription muscle relaxant. Flexeril, especially when used with alcohol, "may impair mental and/or physical abilities," and it may "enhance the effects of alcohol," according to the drug's manufacturer. Mangum also told a UNC Hospital physician that she was drunk and had consumed "a lot of alcohol." She reportedly later told Durham police detective Benjamin Himan that she had consumed a 24-ounce bottle of beer and two 22-ounce beers.

Mangum claims that this was the first time she had been hired to perform a striptease for a large group of people as she expected to perform for a bachelor party of five men at an off-campus house, rented by the team and recently purchased by Duke University.. The players, who had been playing beer pong in the early evening, requested two white strippers, but instead an African American woman (Mangum) and a half-Asian half-African American woman (Kim Roberts) arrived. However, "no one seemed to care" about their race.

At the house

Mangum appeared to be intoxicated and could hardly stand, according the player's accounts. At the start of the five-minute performance, she began to kiss Roberts half-heartedly. Seligmann recounted that anybody who watched the performance would have been "bored to death" and that "It was disgusting. I was very uncomfortable and I wasn't the only one." Most of the players seemed indifferent, talking with one another or just staring elsewhere when the two women were fumbling.

One player asked if the dancers had any sex toys and Roberts responded by asking if the player's penis was too small. The player then took a broomstick and said "use this." This exchange of words abruptly stopped the performance, and both strippers went inside the home's bathroom. Players demanded their $800 back that they paid in advance for a two-hour show, thinking they'd been hustled.

While the women were in the bathroom, Seligmann left the house. At around 12:15 am, he left in a cab, went to an ATM to withdraw money, purchased food at Cookout, and then returned to his dorm (all these events have been corroborated by a sworn affidavit from the cab driver, ATM photos and receipts, credit card receipts, and electronic and phone records). Finnerty left at about 12:22 am to get tacos at a Mexican restaurant, according to the statement he gave to police.

One teammate suggested to take the money back from Mangum, and Evans, one of the owners of the home, told him he was "stupid" since the man who dropped her off at the house most likely had a gun "and would kill us."

Trying to find some way to get the strippers to leave, a co-captain slipped $100 under the bathroom door to coax them to come out and go away. The women came out, and Mangum roamed around the yard half-dressed and shouting. She had left some money behind in her inebriated state, so one of the players took that money back. By his own personal account, Evans demanded that they return the money.

Departure

Shortly before 1 am, the strippers left although taunting abounded. Roberts called the players "short dick white boys," and one player yelled back "We asked for whites, not niggers." Roberts exclaimed, "That's a racial slur, a hate crime." Then the two women drove off. Evans, who was on the phone with his girlfriend during the taunts, heard Roberts last exclamation before they left and was worried that the police would show up and cite him for another noise violation. Thus, he left the house and went to a neighboring home and told other players to leave his house.

Mangum's discredited story was that upon arrival she was surrounded by about 40 men and racial slurs were made. The dancers then allegedly attempted to leave because they felt uncomfortable, but when a player came out to apologize, they decided to return. She claimed at that point that she was dragged into the bathroom where the assault then occurred.

Driving away

The second dancer then drove away with Mangum. After the two women got into an argument, the second dancer pulled over her car to try to push Mangum out. Mangum told her, "Go ahead, put marks on me. That's what I want. Go ahead." Instead, the second dancer drove Mangum to Kroger and went inside to speak to a security guard at approximately 1 a.m., telling her that a woman refused to leave her car. At that time, the guard walked to the car and asked Mangum to leave, but she "couldn't talk at all ... She was out of it." No mention of the alleged assault or robbery took place, the guard recounted. She said that she did not smell alcohol on Mangum's breath, but thought she may have been high on drugs. At 1:22 a.m. the guard called 911 to report that Mangum refused to leave the car. Police then arrived, tried to remove Mangum from the car, and questioned her.

Mental health facility and hospital

Mangum was then involuntarily committed to the Durham Access Center, a mental health and substance abuse facility, which is where she allegedly told somebody for the first time that she was raped. She was transferred to Duke University Medical Center and received treatment for genital injuries which a doctor and nurse said were consistent with rape according to Mike Nifong's initial statements. However, more recent stories state that the findings from the medical exam are not consistent with rape. The forensic nurse "did not find abrasions, tears or bleeding in the vaginal area...[S]he did find swelling in the vaginal area along with tenderness in the accuser's breasts and lower right quadrant." In regards to blunt force trauma, the "medical records make no mention of [them] ... [The examiner] wrote that the woman had two nonbleeding scratches on her right knee and a nonbleeding scratch on her right heel," which were there before the time of the alleged incident as evidenced from photographs. The nurse also noted diffuse swelling of the vagina and did not note any other injuries in the rest of the report.

It has been reported that Mangum admitted to Durham police detective Benjamin Himan that she performed using a vibrator for a couple in a hotel room shortly before the lacrosse party, which the defense contends could account for the "diffuse swelling." Dr. Julie Manly, who performed the pelvic examination on Mangum, said the vaginal swelling coupled with her whitish discharge likely was a result of a yeast infection.

McFadyen e-mail

A couple of hours after the alleged incident, Ryan McFadyen, a member of the lacrosse team, sent an email to other players saying that he planned to "have some strippers over" and made references to "killing the bitches," then cutting off their skin while ejaculating "in [his] Duke-issue spandex."

The e-mail was provided to Durham police by a confidential source who received the correspondence from the player's Duke e-mail account at 1:58 AM on March 14 2006. The players' defense attorney has called this a "vile" e-mail. The players suggest that the e-mail was conceived as humorous irony. Administrators say the email was an imitation of a character in the Bret Easton Ellis novel American Psycho. McFadyen was not indicted of any crime, but was suspended from Duke due to what the university described as safety concerns. However, on June 29, 2006, the university reinstated him.

Minute-by-minute list of events

The Duke student newspaper, The Chronicle, published this list of events.

Timeline of March 13

Based on several published reports, The Chronicle offers readers a timeline for the night of March 13 and the early morning of March 14.

11:30 p.m. - Approximate time, according to a Durham police warrant, of the two exotic dancers' arrival at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.

11:50 p.m. - Neighbor Jason Bissey told the Raleigh News and Observer that he saw two women walk to the back of the house, where they were greeted by a man.

12:00 a.m. - Bissey sees the two women enter the house.

12:02 a.m. - A time-stamped photo provided by defense attorneys shows women dancing in front of the lacrosse players.

12:03 a.m. - Another photo shows both dancers leaving the party.

12:03 a.m.-12:30 a.m. - There is a 27-minute gap where no photos were taken.

12:07, 12:14 a.m. - Phone bills indicate two outgoing calls are made from sophomore Reade Seligmann's cell phone.

Sometime before 12:24 a.m. - A taxi driver has said in a written statement that he picked up Seligmann and a friend a block and a half away from the party.

12:24 a.m. - Seligmann's ATM card is used at a Wachovia bank. The taxi driver confirmed that he drove Seligmann and his friend to a bank and fast food restaurant before taking them to West Campus.

12:25 a.m. - Seligmann calls his girlfriend, another Duke sophomore, on his cell phone.

12:20 a.m.-12:30 a.m. - Bissey told the Durham Herald-Sun he saw the women leave the house during this period, only to try to go back inside to retrieve a missing shoe.

12:30 a.m. - A time-stamped photo shows the accuser, wearing only one shoe, rifling through her purse and apparently smiling on the back porch of 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.

12:37 a.m. - A photo shows the woman lying on her side on the porch, apparently passed out.

12:41 a.m. - A photo shows the woman sitting in the passenger seat of a car with the door open.

12:45 a.m.-1:00 a.m. - Bissey said he saw the two dancers leave in a car sometime during this time period. He said he saw one man standing adjacent to the East Campus wall, shout "Thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt." He added that he saw the players leave the residence shortly thereafter.

12:46 a.m. - Seligmann's DukeCard is used to gain access to his Edens dormitory.

12:53 a.m. - The second dancer calls 911, saying white men who came out of 610 N. Buchanan yelled "nigger" at her from near the East Campus wall. Defense attorneys have questioned inconsistencies in the call - the caller first said she was driving, and later said she was walking when the slur was yelled.

12:55 a.m. - Durham Police Department officers arrive at a quiet 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. They saw there was evidence of a party, but nobody answered the door when the officers arrived.

1:22 a.m. - A female grocery clerk at a Kroger located on Hillsborough Road calls 911, saying "There's a lady in someone else's car, and she will not get out.... She's like, intoxicated, drunk or something."

1:30 a.m. - The police officer who came to respond to the Kroger call tells a dispatcher that the accuser does not need medical attention, adding, "She's not in distress. She's just passed-out drunk."

1:58 a.m. - An e-mail sent from the Duke account of sophomore lacrosse player Ryan McFadyen discusses hiring strippers and "killing the bitches."

The timeline was compiled by Jared Mueller and Tiffany Webber using information provided by ABC News, NBC 17 News, the Durham Herald-Sun, The Raleigh News & Observer and The New York Times.

DNA tests

The prosecution then ordered 46 of the 47 team members to provide DNA samples (the lone black member was exempt since Mangum had stated that her attackers were white), though some members were absent from the party. The players, "knowing they had nothing to hide," gave cheek swabs and statements to the police the day after the party. They also offered to take lie-detector tests, but the police turned them down. On Monday, April 10, 2006, it was revealed that DNA testing failed to connect any of the 46 tested members of the Duke University men's lacrosse team to the alleged sexual assault. After the initial rounds of testing done by the state crime lab were completed, the district attorney sought the services of a private laboratory (DNA Security of Burlington) to conduct additional tests. In this case, there was some DNA found inside the accuser from "a single male source", proving that she did have sex with someone. It has been reported that this DNA was from her boyfriend.

On December 13, 2006, defense attorneys filed court papers stating that the private lab "found DNA from multiple males in the accuser's body - but none that belonged to the accused players." On December 15, 2006, defense attorneys argued in a motion that the DNA report given to Nifong's office (and thus what the defense attorneys received) was incomplete, omitting information that "showed DNA samples from several men [...] on the woman and her underwear, but none of the genetic material matched any of the players." The director of the DNA lab, Brian Meeham, acknowledged that the decision violated the lab's policies, but stated that "his lab didn't try to withhold information." Rather, he decided to withhold the exculpatory DNA evidence after discussing it with Mike Nifong in an attempt to "not [...] drag anyone else through the mud." When defense attorneys asked Meeham how releasing DNA results that cleared all 46 players would be a violation of their privacy, "Meehan fumbled for an answer as Nifong sat with his head lowered, staring at documents." When asked if Nifong and other prosecutors knew that the DNA testing proved that the defendants were not the source of DNA found on the accuser, Meehan said, "I assume so."

DNA from a broken fake fingernail from Mangum, which was retrieved from the trash in the bathroom, showed some "similar characteristics" to David Evans according to the private laboratory, but the match was not conclusive. Defense attorneys have suggested that any DNA present may have come from the tissue paper, cotton swabs or other hygiene-related trash that had been in the garbage can along with the fingernail, since David Evans lived in the house.

Mike Nifong claimed that the lack of DNA is not unusual and that 75-80% of all sexual assault cases lack DNA evidence. However, the reason that most rape cases lack DNA is that the majority of rape victims do not immediately go to the hospital for the rape exam. Instead, they wash away most or all of the DNA evidence over the days, weeks, or months before they contact authorities. In this case, Mangum had an administered rape kit exam only hours after the alleged attack and the absence of DNA is considered unlikely by many legal experts.

Arrests and indictments

File:Seligmann Finnerty.jpg

Reade Seligmann, left, and Collin Finnerty

On April 18, 2006, two members of the lacrosse team, Collin Finnerty (20) and Reade Seligmann (20), were arrested and indicted on charges of first degree forcible rape, first degree sexual offense and kidnapping.

On May 15, 2006, a third Duke lacrosse team player, former team captain and 2006 Duke graduate David Evans, was indicted on charges of first-degree forcible rape, sexual offense and kidnapping. Just before turning himself in at the Durham County Detention Center, he made a public statement declaring his innocence and his expectation of exoneration within weeks.

On December 22, 2006, prosecutors in the case dropped the rape charges against the three indicted players. Charges of kidnapping and sexual assault remained.

Collin Finnerty has previously been charged with assaulting a man in Washington DC and shouting anti-gay epithets at him. It was never considered a hate crime. He pleaded guilty and agreed to community service in November 2005 as part of a diversion program. On January 10, 2007, the assault conviction was cleared on Finnerty's record by a judge after monitoring Finnerty for several months and "learning more about his fine character". Reade Seligmann was one of five Delbarton School alumni on the lacrosse team. Seligmann reportedly told teammates, "I'm glad they picked me" after being indicted - possibly alluding to what he believes is a solid alibi in the form of ATM records, photographs, cell phone records, an affidavit from a taxi driver, and a record of his DukeCard being swiped at his dorm.

Developments in the case

On April 10, 2006, defense attorneys stated that time-stamped photographs exist that show the dancer was injured upon arrival and "very impaired." The photos were later aired on MSNBC. On April 18, search warrants were executed on Finnerty and Seligmann's dorm rooms. Items seized include an iPod and other computer materials that investigators listed in their warrant application.

On April 19, 2006, ABC News reported on the existence of evidence placing Seligmann away from the party near the time of the alleged incident. In a written statement, a taxi driver claimed that he picked up Seligmann and another person a block and a half from the party, then drove his passengers to a Wachovia bank. An ATM receipt confirms that Seligmann's card was used to make a withdrawal at 12:24 a.m. Cellular phone records indicate that Seligmann's phone was used to make a phone call to his out-of-state girlfriend one minute later. The taxi driver's statement claims that he next drove Seligmann and his other passenger to a fast food restaurant, where they placed an order, and that he then dropped them off at a Duke University dorm. Electronic records indicate that Seligmann's school ID card was used to gain entry to his dorm at 12:46 a.m. ABC News estimated that Seligmann would have needed to leave the party by 12:19 a.m. in order to meet the taxicab. If the time stamps on photographs from the party are accurate, this would mean that he and the accuser were simultaneously present at the party for no more than twenty minutes.

On June 8, 2006, court documents revealed that the second dancer, in her initial statement, said she was with the accuser the entire evening except for a period of less than five minutes. Additionally, after hearing the accuser saying she was sexually assaulted, she called that statement a "crock." Furthermore, in the same court filing, lawyers wrote in a sworn statement that the accuser told the nurse "that she was not choked; that no condoms, fingers or foreign objects were used during the sexual assault." The court filing also said, "The nurse noted that the accuser's arms, legs, head, neck, nose, throat, mouth, chest, breasts and abdomen were all normal." Both Mike Nifong and police have told the media that "the accuser was hit, kicked and strangled while she was sexually assaulted anally, vaginally and orally."

On December 15, 2006, it was reported that accuser is pregnant and the judge in the case has ordered a paternity test. Defense attorneys said, "It's impossible for any of these young men to have fathered that child," while the district attorney similarly stated that he has no reason to believe any of the players is the father of the woman's child. She claimed to be due in February of 2007, but actually gave birth on December 15, 2006. The defense team, in the same motion, asked for the photographic lineup to be thrown out due to its "tainted procedure" wherein "the woman also identified players who weren't at the party."

On December 22, 2006, District Attorney Mike Nifong dropped the rape charges against all three lacrosse players. The kidnapping and sexual offense charges were still pending against all three players.

On December 28, 2006, the North Carolina bar filed ethics charges against Nifong over his alleged conduct in the case, accusing him of making public statements that were "prejudicial to the administration of justice" and of engaging in "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." The 17-page document accuses Nifong of violating four rules of professional conduct, listing more than 100 examples of statements he made to the media.

On January 12, 2007, Nifong sent a letter to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper asking to be taken off the case, giving the responsibility of the case to the Attorney General's office. On January 13, 2007 Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that his office would take over the case.

On January 24, 2007, the North Carolina State Bar filed a second round of ethics charges against Nifong for a "systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion ... prejudicial to the administration of justice" when he withheld DNA evidence to mislead the court.

On March 23, 2007, Fox News reported that the criminal cases against all the defendants were going to be dropped in the coming days. They quoted a blog by Inside Lacrosse Magazine writer Paul Caulfield. However, on the same day, the Durham Herald Sun discounted the report, quoting the spokesperson for the state Attorney General's office.

On April 11 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced at a press conference that he had dismissed all charges against the three Duke Lacrosse players.

Publication of the accuser's identity

Partly obscured photos of the accuser at the party were broadcast by The Abrams Report on cable news channel MSNBC and by local television affiliate NBC 17 WNCN in North Carolina. The accuser claimed she was forced into "virtual hiding" as a result and had "stay[ed] with different friends almost every night."

File:Crystal Mangum Headshot.jpg

Crystal Gail Mangum

On April 21, 2006, outspoken talk-radio host Tom Leykis disclosed the name of the rape accuser during his nationally syndicated talk-radio program. Leykis has disclosed identities of alleged victims of sexual assault in the past. On May 15, 2006, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson disclosed the first name of the rape accuser on his show, Tucker. Court records presented by the defense reveal the accuser's name to be Crystal Gail Mangum. This name matches the name given by both Tom Leykis and Tucker Carlson months prior.

On April 11, 2007, several mainstream media sources revealed or used Mangum's name and/or picture after the attorney general dropped all the charges and declared the players innocent. These sources include: CBS, The News & Observer, WRAL, all The McClatchy Company's newspapers (which includes 24 newspapers across the country), Fox News, Charlotte Observer, New York Post, Comedy Central, MSNBC, and CNN (not officially released, but her name appeared on a transcript of the press conference wherein a reporter used her name in a question. This usage has subsequently been replaced by "the victim" [sic]).

Defense and media questioning

Credibility of the accuser

Lawyers for the Duke lacrosse players have said that Mangum was intoxicated and possibly on drugs. It has since been confirmed by the Attorney General's office that Mangum has taken Ambien, methadone, Paxil and amitriptyline, although when she began taking these medications in uncertain. Defense attorney Bill Thomas urged her to retract her statement, saying that the rape allegations were concocted to avoid a charge of public drunkenness. The Duke defense lawyers or media reports have said that:

• DNA results revealed that the woman had sex with a man who was not a Duke lacrosse player. Attorney Joseph Cheshire said the tests indicated DNA from a "single male source" came from a vaginal swab taken from the accuser. Media outlets reported that this DNA was from her boyfriend.

• A DNA report released in December 2006 revealed that sperm from several males was found in the accuser's body and on her underwear; none of which was from any of the Duke players. Mangum has denied engaging in any sexual activity in the days before the assault, saying that she last had sex a week earlier. She also said that her attackers did not use condoms and ejaculated.

• She was convicted of stealing a car and sentenced to 3 weekends in detention. (In 2002, she stole a taxi from a man to whom she was giving a lap dance. A high speed chase then ensued, and when the deputy chasing her approached the stolen taxi on foot, she tried to run over him. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of larceny, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a government official and driving while impaired.)

• She had made a similar claim in the past which she did not pursue. "On Aug. 18, 1996, the dancer - then 18 years old - told a police officer in Creedmoor she had been raped by three men in June 1993, according to a police document. She did not pursue the allegations. The officer who took the woman's report 10 years ago asked her to write a detailed timeline of the night's events and bring the account back to the police. "Apparently she never returned," Granville County DA Sam Currin said."

• The accuser told authorities that in 1998, her husband threatened to kill her. However, she did not appear at the court hearing and thus the charges were dropped.

• The accuser frequently passed out while performing as an exotic dancer at the Platinum Club in Hillsborough, according to the former club manager. The former manager also stated that Mangum had to be dragged out of the establishment onto gravel either one or two nights prior to the March 13 party: "She was heavy. It took four or five of us to carry her outside. She was dead weight. That's how passed out she was. She never woke up. We could have put the scratches on her. That could be how she got them." The former manager went on to describe the accuser as "a club employee whose problems with other dancers and customers sometimes made it hard for her to make money," citing an event in which she started to pull a female customer's hair.

• According to the Platinum Club owner, the accuser danced at the club on March 23, 24, and 25. Those were the same dates she told doctors she was "in excruciating pain from the [...] beating." The owner said the accuser did not say anything about being raped 10 days earlier. Similarly, 60 Minutes released a video of her dancing at the club less than two weeks after the alleged incident, again leading to the media doubting how in pain she actually was.

• The strip club's security officer said that the accuser told co-workers four days after the alleged incident that she "was going to get money from some boys at a Duke party who hadn't paid her," adding that she essentially said, "I'm going to get paid by the white boys." The security guard did not make a big deal of it "because no one takes her seriously."

Inconsistencies in accuser's story

Over the course of the scandal, police reports, media investigations, and defense attorneys' motions and press conferences brought to light several key inconsistencies in Mangum's story and raised questions about her credibility, including:

• Durham police said Mangum "kept changing her story and is not credible," reporting that she initially told them she was raped by 20 white men, later reducing the number to only three.
• Another police report states that the accuser initially claimed she was only groped, rather than raped, but changed her story before going to the hospital.
• The second stripper who performed at the house, Kim Roberts, said that Mangum was not raped. She stated that the accuser "obviously wasn't hurt [...] because she was fine." Likewise, she refuted other aspects of the accuser’s story including denying that she helped dress the accuser after the alleged incident and saying that they were not forcefully separated by players like the accuser reported.
• Mangum did not consistently choose the same three defendants in the photo lineups. Media reports have disclosed at least two photo lineups that occurred in March and April. In the March lineup, she did not choose Dave Evans at all. There was only one individual she identified as her assailant with 100% certainty during both procedures - Brad Ross. After being identified, Ross provided to police investigators indisputable evidence that he was with his girlfriend at North Carolina State University before, during, and after the party through cell phone records and a sworn affidavit from a witness.
• A police report released June 23, 2006, said that Mangum initially claimed she was "attacked by five men [...] and changed her story several times."
• On December 22, 2006, Nifong dropped the rape charges after Mangum stated that "she was penetrated from behind ... but did not know with what." In North Carolina, penetration with an object is considered sexual assault, not rape.
• On January 11, 2007, several more inconsistencies came to light after the defense filed a motion detailing her interview on December 21, 2006. For example, she changed details about when she was attacked, who attacked her, and how they attacked her:

• In the new version from the December 21 interview, Mangum claims she was attacked from 11:35 p.m. to midnight, much earlier than her previous accusations. This new timing is before the well-documented alibi evidence for Reade Seligmann that places him away from the house. However, the defense revealed that this new timing would suggest Seligmann was on the phone with his girlfriend during the height of the attack. Additionally, she received an incoming call at 11:36 p.m. and somebody stayed on the line for 3 minutes, which would be during the alleged attack according to the new timetable.
• The new statement contradicts time stamped photos that show her dancing between 12:00 and 12:04 a.m. It would also mean that they stayed at the party for nearly an hour after the supposed attack since Kim Roberts drove her away at 12:53 a.m. In her April statement, Mangum said they left immediately after the attack.
• Mangum changed the names of her alleged attackers, saying they used multiple pseudonyms. While Dave Evans went by "Dan, Adam and Brett," Reade Seligmann used the names "Adam and Matt," while Collin Finnerty either did not have a name or was not called by name, Mangum claimed.
• The accuser also changed her description of Evans. She previously claimed that she was attacked by man that looked like Evans except with a "mustache," but more recently stated that the assailant just had a "five o'clock shadow."
• Mangum claimed that Evans stood in front of her, making her perform oral sex on him. Previously, she stated that Seligmann did this. In the latest statement, she stated that Seligmann "did not commit any sex act on her [...] [H]e said he could not participate because he was getting married." Although he has a girlfriend, there has never been anything to suggest he was engaged or getting married.

• North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said Mangum told many different accounts of the attack. In one account, Mangum claimed "she was suspended in mid-air and was being assaulted by all three of them in the bathroom." Cooper then said this event seemed very implausible due to the small size of the bathroom. According to a 60 Minutes investigation, the accuser gave at least a dozen different stories.
• Mangum, at one point, claimed both Evans and Finnerty helped her into her car upon departure. However, a photo shows her being helped by another player, while electronic records and witnesses reported that Evans and Finnerty had already left. Upon seeing the photo, Mangum claimed that it must have been doctored or that Duke University paid someone off.
• In its own investigation, The News & Observer, North Carolina's second largest newspaper, determined that the accuser gave at least five different versions of the alleged rape to police and medical interviewers by August 2006.

District attorney's actions

Defense lawyers and media outlets have been very critical about how the Durham District Attorney, Mike Nifong, has handled the case. Nifong has responded by saying that the criticisms are a product of a defense strategy to malign the prosecution and intimidate the alleged rape victim.

The criticisms have focused on a series of alleged missteps: that he went public with a series of accusations that later turned out to be untrue; that he exaggerated and intensified racial tensions; that he unduly influenced the Durham police investigation; that he tried to manipulate potential witnesses; that he refused to hear exculpatory evidence prior to indictment; that he had never spoken directly to the alleged victim about the accusations; that he crossed ethical lines by making public comments about the case, possibly prejudicing potential jurors; and that he conspired with the DNA lab director to withhold potentially exculpatory DNA. Media outlets that have launched blistering attacks on Nifong, demanding his resignation or recusal from the case, include, but are not limited to:

• 60 Minutes,
• The New York Times,
• The News & Observer,
• New York Magazine,
• Washington Post,
• Washington Times,
• L.A. Times,
• New York Daily News,
• National Journal,
• Newsweek,
• Charlotte Observer,
• Newark Star-Ledger,
• San Diego Union Tribune,
• Rocky Mountain News,
• Greensboro News & Record, and
• The Wilmington Star.

Nifong gave more than 50 interviews, many with the national media, according to his own account and confirmed by the News & Observer In these interviews, Nifong repeatedly said that he is "confident that a rape occurred," calling the players "a bunch of hooligans" whose "daddies could buy them expensive lawyers." Since early April 2006, however, Nifong has generally refused to talk to the media.

On July 18, 2006, defense lawyers charged that Nifong made "unprofessional and discourteous" remarks. During a preliminary hearing, Nifong said, "[Defense] attorneys were almost disappointed that their clients didn't get indicted so they could be a part of this spectacle here in Durham." One lawyer ascertained that "Nifong's statement is an insult to the legal profession as a whole and is certainly unwarranted by any facts in this case." Others saw it as a personal insult. Immediately following the remarks, Nifong went on vacation and could not be reached for further comment.

On October 27, 2006, Nifong stated in court that neither he nor his assistants had yet discussed the alleged assault with the accuser, saying they had so far left that aspect of the investigation to the police.

On December 12, 2006, Rep. Walter Jones, R-NC, wrote a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, "asking for an investigation into Nifong to determine whether he is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct".

On December 16, 2006, it was revealed that Nifong and DNA lab director Brian Meeham agreed to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the final report submitted to the defense team. DNA findings, by law, must be immediately reported to the defense.

On December 28, 2006, the North Carolina bar association filed ethics charges against Nifong over statements he made to the media regarding the case, accusing him of violating four rules of professional conduct in more than 100 public statements, including prohibitions against "comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused." In the filed report, the Bar also claimed Nifong took part in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" when he suggested that players may have used condoms despite the fact that medical records and the accuser's account both stated that no condoms were used.

On January 12, 2007, Nifong sent a letter to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper asking to be taken off the case, giving the responsibility of the case to the Attorney General's office.

On January 24, 2007, the North Carolina State Bar filed a second round of ethics charges against Nifong for a "systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion ... prejudicial to the administration of justice" when he withheld potentially exculpatory DNA evidence to mislead the court.

On March 19, 2007, Nifong's lawyers filed a report asking for dismissal of the charges against him, arguing that his actions did not prevent the defendants from a fair trial since defense attorneys received a DNA report before a trial date was set. The North Carolina State Bar issued a harsh denial to the request, pointing out that North Carolina law "is unambiguous: Anyone subject to an NTO must be given any report of test results as soon as such a report is available." The Bar continued that "Nifong is effectively arguing that he can make false statements to a court which result in the entry of an order, and then use the order that is based on his misrepresentations to claim he committed no discovery violation."

The case's prosecution has been criticized by the legal analyst for the National Journal, Stuart Taylor, as well as New York Times columnists David Brooks and Nicholas Kristof. Susan Estrich, a former Harvard law and current USC law professor as well as a feminist and victims' rights advocate, also cites serious prosecuturial misconduct and failure to follow basic procedures. An investigation by CBS' 60 Minutes "reveals disturbing facts about the conduct of the police and the district attorney, and raises serious concerns." (This 60 Minutes segment was honored with a Peabody Award on April 4, 2007.) Several writers at Slate have also criticized the prosecution's actions and have especially criticized the mainstream media for accepting prosecution claims at face value in light of countervailing evidence.

In light of the fact that Nifong failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to defense lawyers on December 22, 2006, The News & Observer wrote that "to press forward in the [...] case, District Attorney Mike Nifong must rely on scanty evidence while deflecting serious questions about whether he broke the law or violated the ethics rules governing prosecutors." Some critics have accused Nifong of using the case to improve his chances in his next election.

The conclusion of all this, according to Thomas Sowell, is that "this case was the salvation of his career, by enabling" what Sowell calls a "demagogue" to go into an election "his opponent was favored to win" and "to win the black vote with inflammatory charges against white students accused of raping a black woman."

Chief Investigator

Nifong hired Linwood E. Wilson, "whose private detective career was marked by ethics complaints" and has "limited experience working criminal cases," as his chief investigator. Media has questioned his ethics in his investigation of this case. During his private detective career, "at least seven formal inquiries into his conduct" were performed, and, in 1997, he was reprimanded by the state commission. After his appeal of the decision was rejected, he allowed his detective license to expire. One former client called him "rotten to the core," saying he demanded additional money for work done after she fired him. She said she fired him since he did not make much progress in the case.

In response to criticism, Wilson states, "I've worked for just about every domestic lawyer in Durham ... My integrity stands for itself. I've never had anybody question my integrity."

Durham Police Department's actions

Lawyers and media have questioned the methods of the photo identification process, have suggested that police have utilized intimidation tactics on witnesses, and have argued that the police supervisor in the case, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, has unfairly targeted Duke students in the past.

Photo identification

Defense lawyers argue that the photo identification process was severely flawed. In this case, the accuser was shown photos of 46 lacrosse players one at a time three weeks after the alleged assault, wherein she identified Seligmann and Finnerty with 100% certainty and Dave Evans with 90% certainty during her second attempt in April. Lawyers maintain that other photos of young white men should have been included to make the identification process legitimate. U.S. Department of Justice guidelines suggest five "fillers" be used for every suspect.

At least two photo lineups have been reported by the media. During the photo identifications, Mangum was told that she would be viewing Duke University lacrosse players who attended the party, and was asked if she remembered seeing them at the party and in what capacity. In the March identification process, Mangum selected at least five different individuals, one of whom was Reade Seligmann (whom she identified with 70% certainty). During the April identification process, Mangum identified at least 16 lacrosse players. In the disclosed report, there were only two individuals that she identified during both the March and April lineups - Brad Ross and Reade Seligmann. Ross (the only player she identified as her assailant with 100% certainty during both procedures) provided to police investigators indisputable evidence that he was with his girlfriend at North Carolina State University before, during, and after the party through cell phone records and a sworn affidavit from a witness. Another person she identified in April also provided police with evidence that he did not attend the party at all. In regards to Seligmann's identification, Mangum's confidence increased from 70% in March to 100% in April. Gary Wells, an Iowa State University professor and expert on police identification procedures stated, "Memory doesn't get better with time. That's one of the things we know. How does she get more positive with time?"

According to the transcript of the photo identification released on The Abrams Report, the accuser also stated that Dave Evans had a mustache on the night of the attack. Dave Evans' lawyer stated that his client never has had a mustache and that photos as well as eyewitness testimony would reveal that Dave Evans has never had a mustache.

Alleged intimidation tactics

Defense lawyers also suggest that police have used intimidation tactics on witnesses. On May 11, Moezeldin Elmostafa, an African American taxi driver who signed a sworn statement about Seligmann's whereabouts that defense lawyers say provides a solid alibi, was arrested on a 2½-year-old shoplifting charge. He was not the accused shoplifter, but had driven them in his cab. Elmostafa said of his arrest, "The detective asked if I had anything new to say about the lacrosse case," Elmostafa said. "When I said no, they took me to the magistrate." Furthermore, the News & Observer has released that in order "[t]o get warrants, police made statements that weren't supported by information in their files." Mr. Elmostafa was subsequently tried on the shoplifting charge and was found not guilty.

Supervisor

The News & Observer has suggested that the supervisor of the lacrosse investigation, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, has unfairly targeted Duke students in the past, putting some of his investigational tactics into question. Gottlieb has made a disproportionate number of arrests of Duke students for misdemeanor violations, such as carrying an open container of alcohol. Normally, these violations earn offenders a pink ticket similar to a traffic ticket. From May 2005 to February 2006, when Sgt. Gottlieb was a patrol officer in District 2, he made 28 total arrests. Twenty of those arrests were Duke students, and at least 15 were handcuffed and taken to jail. This is in stark contrast to the other two officers on duty in the same district during that same 10-month period. They made 64 total arrests, only two of which were Duke students. Similarly, The News & Observer charges that Gottlieb treated nonstudents very differently. For example, he wrote up a young man for illegally carrying a concealed .45-caliber handgun and possession of marijuana (crimes far more severe than the Duke students who were taken to jail committed), but did not take him to jail.

The same News & Observer article says that, "residents of neighborhoods where Gottlieb worked and victims' advocates say that the sergeant is a dedicated and fair officer." Residents especially complimented Gottlieb for dealing with loud parties and disorderly conduct by students.

Duke's student newspaper, The Chronicle, depicted other examples of alleged violence and dishonesty from Sgt. Gottlieb. Allegedly, one student threw a party at his rental home off-East Campus before the Rolling Stones concert in October 2005. The morning after the concert, at 3 A.M., Sgt. Gottlieb led a raid on the home with nine other officers while the students were "half asleep." One student was allegedly dragged out of bed and then dragged down the stairs. All seven housemates were put in handcuffs, arrested, and taken into custody for allegedly violating a noise ordinance and open container of alcohol violations. Sgt. Gottlieb reportedly told one student who was a U.S. citizen of Serbian heritage, "Do you need to speak to your consulate? We can deport you." Other stories include allegedly throwing a 130 pound male against his car for an open container of alcohol violation, refusing the ID of a student since he was international, searching through a purse without a warrant, refusing to tell a student her rights, and accusations of perjury.

Media coverage

Initial coverage (March-April 2006)

The case attraced widespread media attention almost from the moment it became public. The apparent circumstances--three white males from privileged backgrounds at an elite university apparently taking advantage of a student and single mother from a crosstown black college, trying to make ends meet by working as a stripper--seemed tailor-made for wall-to-wall coverage. The coverage highlighted the racial tensions in the Durham, North Carolina area.

Among those giving extensive coverage to the matter was Nancy Grace. Prior to Duke suspending its men's lacrosse team's season, she sarcastically noted on the air, "I`m so glad they didn`t miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" and "Why would you go to a cop in an alleged gang rape case, say, and lie and give misleading information?"

The case continues (May-October 2006)

Grace continued to feature developments in the case on her program, with a pro-prosecution slant. On June 9, 2006, Grace, after hearing reporting on various defense motions, sarcastically asked, "Well I`m glad you have already decided the outcome of the case, based on all of the defense filings. Why don`t we just all move to Nazi Germany, where we don`t have a justice system and a jury of one`s peers?" On June 22, 2006, she featured Sports Illustrated writer Lester Munson who opined, "I think the state has probably a better case than most observers are describing. I have studied this at some length ... There is some voracity (sic) to the victim`s account."

On August 6, 2006, The News & Observer of Raleigh, NC, wrote that Nifong "promised DNA evidence that has not materialized. He suggested that police conduct lineups in a way that conflicted with department policy." The article went on to say that "he made a series of factual assertions that contradicted his own files: He suggested the players used condoms; he accused the players of erecting a wall of silence to thwart investigators; and he said the woman had been hit, kicked and strangled. The medical and police records show that the victim had said no condom was used, that police had interviewed three players at length and taken their DNA samples and that the accuser showed no significant bruises or injuries."

On August 25, 2006, amid growing doubts as to the strength of the case and the veracity of the accuser, The New York Times published a front page article stating that the weaknesses in the case highlighted by the defense were not indicative of the strength of the case as a whole. "In several important areas, the full files, reviewed by The New York Times, contain evidence stronger than that highlighted by the defense." The Times story further indicated that "there is also a body of evidence to support (Nifong's) decision to take the matter to a jury."

The case deteriorates (November 2006-May 2007)

After many inflammatory comments about the defendants, Nancy Grace's show covered the dismissal of charges on the day of the announcement, but with a substitute host.

Perhaps the most grudging admission of exoneration came from The Boston Globe, which stated in a lead editorial: "Three members of the Duke lacrosse team may have been louts, but all the evidence suggests they were not rapists . . . the students have the resources to get on with their lives."

Similarly grudging was sportswriter John Feinstein, who stated in a radio interview in May 2007 "I think they're guilty of everything but rape" and "I really don’t want to hear that they’re victims and martyrs, and that their lives have been ruined." Feinstein, who in March 2006 had demanded the revocation of the scholarships of every Duke men's lacrosse team member, and who (against the findings of the Coleman report) continued to describe the team as "out-of-control", added "I don't think I've been proven wrong."

The Duke Chronicle noted the closing of the case, and stated. "There are other members of the Duke community, however, from whom we have not heard . . . These are the voices of the range of individuals, from students to professors to community members, who responded to last year's allegations not with moderation . . . but with extreme, inflammatory and unfounded statements. . . "

Response

Duke faculty groups

Soon after the allegations were made, 88 Duke professors (commonly referred to as the "Group of 88") from the Trinity College of Arts & Sciences placed an ad in The Chronicle referring to the circumstances surrounding the allegations as a "social disaster" and quoting individuals citing racism and sexism in the Duke community. In three departments, more than half of faculty signed the statement. The department with the highest proportion of signatories was African & African-American Studies, with 80%. Just over 72% of the Women's Studies faculty signed the statement, Cultural Anthropology 60%, Romance studies 44.8%, Literature 41.7%, English 32.2%, Art & Art History 30.7%, and History 25%. No faculty members from the Pratt School of Engineering or full-time law professors signed the document. Departments that had no faculty members sign the document include Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics, Genetics, Germanic Languages/Literature, Psychology and Neuroscience, Religion, and Slavic and Eurasian Studies. Many have criticized the group for rushing to judgment in condemning the lacrosse players, but some in the group maintain that the ad made no mention of innocence or guilt, but rather elaborated on this "social disaster."[8], [9]

In January 2007, a new letter was posted at the Concerned Duke Faculty website signed by 87 faculty members stating that the original ad was misinterpreted. In the letter, the group does not apologize for the original ad but instead states that the intent of the ad was to address issues of racism and sexism on the Duke campus and not prejudge the case.

Seventeen faculty members of the economics department sent a letter showing support for the players on January 6, 2007, saying, "We regret that the Duke faculty is now seen as prejudiced against certain of its own students," and telling the players that they are more than welcome to enroll in their courses.

Student groups and independent organizations

Contrasting certain groups who had prejudged the players as guilty, many students have shown their support for the lacrosse team in a variety of ways. The Duke women's lacrosse team chose to wear "Innocent" sweatbands during their games in the 2006 NCAA Final Four. "We want to win a national championship for ourselves but definitely also for the university and the men's team," one team member explained. "They don't really have a chance to play their season, which is a shame." The women came under fire from many in the media. Kevin Sweeney of Salon argued that their actions will make it more difficult for rape victims to speak out in the future, while New York Times sports columnist Harvey Araton stated that their "cross-team friendship" made them lose common sense.

Another group of students, Duke Students for an Ethical Durham, sought to encourage students to vote in the upcoming election as Durham residents. It was specifically created in response to Nifong's mishandling of the case.

The Association for Truth and Fairness (ATAF) seeks to raise money to defray some of the indicted players' legal fees. ATAF, a non-profit organization, will continue to "help victims of abuses of power and other prosecutorial injustices."

A balcony in New Jersey displaying signs pleading the players' innocence

Wristbands saying "Duke Lacrosse 2006 INNOCENT! #6 #13 #45" were also sold to raise money for the cause.

An outpouring of support came at the beginning of the 2007 lacrosse season. For the season opener, 6,485 fans attended the game to cheer the Blue Devils on their way to a 17-11 victory.

Bloggers

Perhaps the most outstanding blog which supported the three students was Durham-in-Wonderland authored by Brooklyn College history professor K.C. Johnson, which specialized in thorough coverage of, and exhaustive analysis of the case. The players' lawyers stated that they used it as a resource throughout the case, and Seligmann made a point of thanking Johnson in his statement following the dismissal of charges.

Campus and community groups

A poster that "looked like a wanted poster" was distributed on campus and in nearby neighborhoods showing pictures and names of 40 members of the lacrosse team, urging them to "come forward" with information on the alleged rape.

Duke administration

The university placed Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty on interim suspension for the Spring 2006 semester following their indictment, while David Evans graduated the day before he was indicted. Duke University policy calls for suspensions when students face felony charges. In the fall of 2006, their status was modified to "administrative leave" to allow them to make academic progress while not at the university.

On January 3, 2007, President Richard H. Brodhead invited Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty back to Duke as students in good standing, though both have now chosen not to return. They were also welcomed to participate on the lacrosse team. Brodhead explained, "We have decided that the right and fair thing to do is to welcome back Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty to resume their studies at Duke for the spring semester. Although the students still face serious charges and larger issues require Duke’s collective attention, the circumstances in this case have changed substantially, and it is appropriate that the students have an opportunity to continue their education."

Duke University President Richard Brodhead, in an interview with Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes, stated that "Duke has a rule – and many, many other universities have the same rule – which is that, when a student has been indicted for a crime that has an element of violence, we often separate the student from the university because we don't know at that time, what harm may be done."

President Brodhead

The President of Duke University, Richard H. Brodhead, was quoted by WRAL-TV telling the Durham Chamber of Commerce on April 20, 2006, "If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough."

At the same time, Brodhead has repeatedly stated that "our students must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise," saying it as early as March 25, 2006.

Shortly after the allegations were made, the first two games were forfeited due to admitted behaviors such as underage drinking. Later, the President decided, with input from the athletics department and some of players themselves, "to suspend the remaining games until the legal situation-then involving 46 players-became clearer"; he "did not cancel the season as punishment for the serious criminal charges against the three players." He also formed committees to examine the lacrosse team, the administration's response to the incident, the student judicial process, campus culture, and a presidential council.

On December 20, 2006, Brodhead stated that "the DA's case will be on trial just as much as our students will be."

After the district attorney, Mike Nifong, dropped the most serious rape charges against the players in December 2006, Brodhead released a statement calling for Nifong to recuse himself and questioned his actions: "Given the certainty with which the district attorney made his many public statements regarding the rape allegation, his decision today to drop that charge must call into question the validity of the remaining charges. The district attorney should now put this case in the hands of an independent party who can restore confidence in the fairness of the process. Further, Mr. Nifong has an obligation to explain to all of us his conduct in this matter."

Other Duke faculty

Duke English Professor Houston Baker (now former professor as he was hired as a Distinguished University Professor at Vanderbilt University in May 2006) wrote a scathing letter on March 29, 2006, regarding the lacrosse team and the administration's response to the incident, asking, "[w]hat have Duke and its leadership done to address this horrific, racist incident alleged to have occurred" and asserting "internationally, we have been deeply embarrassed by the silence that seems to surround this white, male athletic team's racist assaults (by words, certainly - deeds, possibly) in our community".

Baker, an African-American, also wrote that the players were "safe under the cover of silent whiteness" and these "[y]oung, white, violent, drunken men among us - [are] implicitly boasted by our athletic directors and administrators." He said Duke has joined other colleges and universities in the "blind-eying of male athletes, veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech, and feel proud of themselves in the bargain." He also explicitly stated that the lacrosse players displayed "abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us."

Duke University Provost Peter Lange wrote a response in which he said, "I cannot tell you how disappointed, saddened and appalled I was to receive this letter from you." The Provost stated that, "A form of prejudice - one felt so often by minorities whether they be African American, Jewish or other - is the act of prejudgment: to presume that one knows something 'must' have been done by or done to someone because of his or her race, religion or other characteristic." Continuing he stated that "[w]e do not know much about the worst of what may have happened in the incident that has inflamed our community," and concluded by stating that "[s]adly, letters like yours do little to advance our common cause." Full version of both letters

The President appointed Duke Law Professor, James E. Coleman, Jr., to head the committee to examine the lacrosse team's culture. Dr. Coleman, also an African-American, found that the team has exhibited "exemplary academic and athletic performance" and is "[n]either racist or sexist. On the contrary, the coach of the Duke Women's Lacrosse team has expressed her sense of camaraderie that exists between the men's and women's team; members of the men's team, for example, consistently come to the women's games. The current as well as former African American members of the team have been extremely positive about the support the team provided them." Also in the report, while it was stated that the rates of alcohol abuse for the lacrosse team were higher than most other Duke athletic teams, "their conduct has not been different in character than the conduct of the typical Duke student who abuses alcohol."

Since then, Coleman has been one of the most vocal critics of Nifong's handling of the case. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Coleman argued that he pandered to the black community in the middle of the election campaign: "I think that he pandered to the community by saying 'I'm gonna go out there and defend your interests in seeing that these hooligans who committed the crime are prosecuted. I'm not gonna let their fathers, with all of their money, buy, you know, big-time lawyers and get them off. I'm doing this for you.'" Furthermore, Coleman stated that Nifong has committed serious prosecutorial misconduct, and if there was a conviction, there "would be a basis to have the conviction overturned based on his conduct."

Professor Steven Baldwin of the Chemistry Department was another of the few faculty members to make public statements about the case. In two letters to the Duke Chronicle ("What About Mike Pressler?" in April 2006 and "The Administration's Mismanagement of Lacrosse" in October of 2006), Dr. Baldwin strongly criticised the administration's handling of the case, especially with respect to Coach Mike Pressler.

Wider effects

Effects on Duke faculty

Mike Pressler, the coach of the lacrosse team, received threatening e-mails and hate calls, had castigating signs placed on his property, and was the frequent victim of vandalism in the aftermath of the accusations. On April 5, 2006, he resigned shortly after the McFadyen e-mail became public. Through his lawyer, he stated that his resignation was not an admission of wrongdoing on his part, and went on to say that "Coach Pressler is no more guarantor of the behavior of 18-21 year olds than are parents of children that age." Likewise, Pressler's lawyer has stated that he was "the sacrificial lamb." On the same day, Richard H. Brodhead, president of Duke University, suspended the remainder of the lacrosse season.

Effect on Duke students

Some students have stated they have been referred to as "rapists" and have been threatened. Shortly after the alleged attack, the President of the University warned in a school-wide e-mail of threats of gang violence against Duke students. Other Duke students were allegedly attacked by people at a restaurant called Cook-Out who were yelling that Cook-Out was Central Territory (NC Central is where the accuser attends school, although Duke's campus is significantly closer to Cook-Out than to NCCU's campus).

Lacrosse team members have had their photographs posted prominently around Durham and on the Duke University campus with accompanying captions stating that they are covering up for rapists and have information about the incident that they are not revealing.

Effect on community relations

The allegations have inflamed already strained relations between Duke University and its host city of Durham, with members of the Duke lacrosse team being vilified in the press and defamed on and off campus. On May 1, 2006, the New Black Panthers held a protest outside Duke University. Prior to the protest, representatives of the group informed Duke Police that they did not intend to enter the university; however, after the group's leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, spoke with reporters, the protesters did try to gain access to the University campus, whereupon Duke Police denied the group entrance to the university. The group also held a rally at the university-owned house where the false rape accusations originated.

Effect on Duke University merchandise

Sales of Duke University apparel, especially lacrosse t-shirts, led the Campus Store's sales to triple from March to April 2006.

Lawsuit

In January 2007, former Duke lacrosse team member Kyle Dowd filed a lawsuit against Duke University and visiting associate professor Kim Curtis. In his lawsuit, Dowd claimed that he and another teammate were given failing grades on their final paper by Professor Curtis "as a form of retaliation after the Duke Lacrosse scandal broke". Professor Curtis was among the "Group of 88" who published an advertisement in the Duke Chronicle supporting the accuser. According to the press report, Dowd had been receiving passing grades until the scandal, but received an "F" for his last paper and participation, leading to a final "F" grade. After graduation, his grade was adjusted upwards to a "D" with the administration citing a "calculation error". The lawsuit sought for the grade to be changed to a "P" for pass and also sought $60,000 in damages. On May 12, 2007, the News & Observer reported that the case had been settled through mediation, with the terms undisclosed except that Dowd's grade was to be altered to a "P".

External links

• Complete Coverage Duke Lacrosse Investigation, New York Times
• On Prejudging the Duke Lacrosse Team Scandal by Linda Martín Alcoff
• CBS 60 Minutes' segment "Duke Rape Suspects Speak Out"
• Duke Rape Scandal Photo Gallery
• Indictments (North Carolina v. Finnerty, Seligmann) FindLaw
• Dorm Room Search Warrants FindLaw
• NPR: Duke Lacrosse Players Arrested on Rape Charges
• State Bar Complaint against Mike Nifong
• Collected stories from The (Raleigh, N.C.) News & Observer
• Actual McFadyen email from The Smoking Gun
• Mangum's criminal record
• Viewing the case in a larger jurisprudential context
• Coverage and commentary by KC Johnson, a Professor of History at Brooklyn College
• Analysis of evidence, media coverage, and prosecutorial misconduct, by William L. Anderson of LewRockwell.com.
• CNN: Larry King Live Transcripts Duke University Rape Scandal; Interview With Dave Holloway