Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LSU AD Alleva Deposed in Duke Lacrosse Suit
The Hayride ^ | February 4, 2012 | Walter Abbott

Posted on 02/04/2012 5:00:45 PM PST by abb

LSU AD Alleva Deposed in Duke Lacrosse Suit Posted by: Walter Abbott on Saturday, February 4, 2012, 18:20

Louisiana State University (LSU) Athletic Director Joe Alleva was deposed last month in a lawsuit filed nearly five years ago regarding the notorious Duke Lacrosse Case, where a prostitute falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape.

Alleva was Duke’s athletic director at the time and was famously quoted as telling lacrosse coach Mike Pressler as he was cancelling the team’s season that “It’s not about the truth anymore,” because of the intense media coverage of the controversy.

Mike Nifong, the district attorney who filed the bogus charges was later disbarred and spent a night in jail for his role in the attempted lynching.

From the latest filing in McFadyen v Duke:

During his deposition on January 20, 2012, Mr. Alleva testified that he made positive and truthful statements about Plaintiffs and their teammates’ character at the University’s press conference on March 28, 2006.

See here the court filing.

See here earlier coverage of Joe Alleva at Lincoln Parish News Online (LPNO).

Archive for the ‘Joe Alleva’ Category


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Louisiana; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: duke; dukelax; durham; louisiana; nifong; northcarolina
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: Pontiac
The plaintiffs' lawyers are doing their job, nailing down any wiggle room the defendants might have.

When you're dealing with the 'intentions' of people, you have to cover every base because they will try to explain bad motivations away with some excuse.

I agree with you that the longer this drags on, the worse it looks for Duke. Of course, the initial scandal was bad enough - this just keeps it in the news.

My daughter was applying to colleges about the time this all broke, and we crossed Duke off the list. Even though my mom was Duke '48.

Though I never defended a high-profile case like this, I would think that somebody should have contemplated settlement very, very seriously rather than let things drag on this long. But the same pride and liberal delusions, plus blind belief in their own perfection, led to the scandal in the first place and will probably lead them to go to trial. They might get lucky, but they may have a hard fall.

An interesting thing about trying this in federal court is that Duke will not get a Durham jury. The panel will be drawn from all over the division (five counties), and I don't think Duke will get much sympathy outside its immediate orbit.

21 posted on 02/04/2012 7:03:28 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: abb

No one seemed to bat an eye when the chief dropped out of sight. I can’t wait until he is deposed.


22 posted on 02/04/2012 7:24:11 PM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Traveler59

You may be right, but I definitely heard Cooper say that the three were innocent. As soon as he proclaimed it, there were gasps from those gathered.


23 posted on 02/04/2012 7:33:19 PM PST by FamiliarFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: abb
"Mike Nifong, the district attorney who filed the bogus charges was later disbarred and spent a night in jail for his role "

A NIGHT?

He tried to put boys he knew not to be guilty in jail to gain a political advantage in an election and spends ONE NIGHT in jail?

THAT SHOULD BE MANDATORY 20 YEARS (in general population- A prosectutor would have a lot of fun there with guys he probably sent there)

24 posted on 02/04/2012 8:02:31 PM PST by Mr. K (Physically unable to profreed <--- oops, see?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
"Mike Nifong, the district attorney who filed the bogus charges was later disbarred and spent a night in jail for his role "

A NIGHT?

He tried to put boys he knew not to be guilty in jail to gain a political advantage in an election and spends ONE NIGHT in jail?

THAT SHOULD BE MANDATORY 20 YEARS (in general population- A prosectutor would have a lot of fun there with guys he probably sent there)

25 posted on 02/04/2012 8:02:56 PM PST by Mr. K (Physically unable to profreed <--- oops, see?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Of course shysters pile up billable hours, that’s their job! And where did you get the idea that in an adversarial judicial system “justice” is the shyster’s job!?

Hypothetical: I get caught for felony theft. I hire an attorney. If I find out that rascal has taken my money and is working for “Justice” as opposed to getting me off, I’ll have him before the Ethics Board, have him on the wrong end of a civil suit, and might well get him disbarred!

Actually Duke is a pretty good school. Just give them the SMU “death penalty” on all intermural NCAA sports as happened to SMUs football program.


26 posted on 02/04/2012 9:01:48 PM PST by barkeep (Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

Broadhead. Isn’t that the name of a certain kind of catfish?

The Duke Lacrosse case wasn’t the first time.
While at Yale he tried to destroy James Van de Velde’s career:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/070611

Truly a despicable sack of ...Broadhead.

By the way, note how far ahead of the curve this Van de Velde guy was at the time.


27 posted on 02/04/2012 9:12:30 PM PST by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: abb
Quite right. The charges were upgraded to Murder One. This is one messed-up and dangerous woman.
28 posted on 02/04/2012 10:35:34 PM PST by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Though I never defended a high-profile case like this, I would think that somebody should have contemplated settlement very, very seriously rather than let things drag on this long. But the same pride and liberal delusions, plus blind belief in their own perfection, led to the scandal in the first place and will probably lead them to go to trial. They might get lucky, but they may have a hard fall.

Actually, its the plaintiffs who are resistant to a settlement. We over at Liestoppers have some limited contact with them, and infrequently correspond.

You see, the entire thing was a frameup from the start. The cops, Duke, Nifong - all of them knew there was no rape from the beginning and before it hit the headlines. But they pushed it anyway, for various reasons - DA Nifong, to win an election; Duke, to curry favor with the Marxist crowd on campus; the cops, to settle old scores with uppity students; the prostitute accuser, to score a big payday. And so on.

The plaintiffs overarching goal is that the truth of the attempted lynching be exposed for the world to see. It isn't about settlements or money.

It's about the truth.

29 posted on 02/05/2012 4:46:22 AM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: abb
It's about the truth.

As it should always be. More power to the TRUTH!

30 posted on 02/05/2012 6:23:34 AM PST by FamiliarFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Traveler59

How often does that happen, not “not guilty”, not “innocent”, but “no crime in the first place?” Especially in a case of this seriousness and publicity. Rare? Rare-squared? Off the graph? Never heard of it?


31 posted on 02/05/2012 6:49:58 AM PST by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Traveler59; SunkenCiv
N.C. attorney general: Duke players 'innocent'

The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges. Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans. The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur.

We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. 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.
32 posted on 02/05/2012 8:34:22 AM PST by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: abb
A most unusual posture for a plaintiff!

That being the case, all bets are off.

Duke has offered a substantial sum in settlement, which has been refused? Then the defendants will twist and turn and try to delay the trial, but the whole purpose of delay on the part of the defense is to try to leverage a settlement. If the plaintiffs aren't interested in a settlement, then all the delay in the world will, in the end, do no good.

And sooner or later the judge is going to deny a motion for extension of discovery time, and set a trial date.

If they are just deposing Alleva, though, and haven't yet deposed the police chief, and the defendants are filing motions for protective orders to limit discovery, we are probably not near the end of discovery.

But this could get . . . interesting.

33 posted on 02/05/2012 4:40:42 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath; Traveler59; SunkenCiv
I remember hearing this press conference at the time.

I was completely blown away. I don't recollect EVER hearing any public official say anything so absolutely uncompromising. That's the point at which you say, "Uh-oh." Especially if you're in the DA's office.

34 posted on 02/05/2012 4:42:55 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; Locomotive Breath

FYI, Locomotive Breath (who has followed the case from the very beginning) was actually AT that press conference. He was denied access to the room because of overcrowding. At least that was the excuse used.


35 posted on 02/05/2012 4:53:40 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Yes. Lots of discovery yet to go, and all of it very revealing. Which is why Duke U has spent uncounted millions trying to prevent it.

One other tidbit: There’s no statute of limitations on felonies in North Carolina. And since it was a deliberate attempt to pin a rap on innocent people, there’s plenty to go around.


36 posted on 02/05/2012 4:58:05 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: abb
Whatever became of the Duke 88? Are they going to get away with their crimes?
37 posted on 02/05/2012 5:37:53 PM PST by PA Engineer (Time to beat the swords of government tyranny into the plowshares of freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer

Although some have moved on to other higher ed jobs, most are still at Duke. It will take lots of work to root them out.


38 posted on 02/05/2012 5:41:42 PM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: abb
I'm beginning to understand how this has probably gone down.

Before you take depositions, you have to have the documents to pin the deponent down. So the plaintiffs sent requests for production to Duke and the other defendants. Duke filed motions for protective order, those were heard and the judge ordered them to produce documents, which they then produced in a "document dump" of thousands of irrelevant similar items. The plaintiffs' lawyers (actually, their paralegals and summer associates) sat around and sifted through the silt of thousands of documents to come up with the nuggets of evidentiary gold.

Those items lead, of course, to more items which the defendants had hoped to avoid producing. Another round of motions to compel/for protective order ensues - and it looks like that's what we're seeing as depositions get under way.

The judge is probably getting irritated about now. If the plaintiffs can show that one or more defendants have been playing 'hide the ball' with documents, things may get pretty intense.

We'll await developments with interest. It seems clear to me that there was malfeasance at the bottom of this (that was pretty darn clear as soon as the AG made his bombshell announcement). Just how blatant will depend on the documents that surface -- and how truthful the deponents are under oath.

39 posted on 02/05/2012 6:46:05 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: abb
The "no statute of limitation" wrinkle is very interesting. Some folks may be going to jail for considerably longer than Nifong . . . .
40 posted on 02/05/2012 6:47:28 PM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson