Duke lax scandal. Duke Lacrosse Scandal: Unraveling the Complex Truth Behind the Controversial Case

What really happened in the Duke lacrosse scandal. How did a party lead to national outrage and legal turmoil. Why was the case so complex and misunderstood. What were the long-term consequences for those involved.

The Fateful Night: March 13, 2006

On March 13, 2006, a seemingly innocuous party at an off-campus house near Duke University’s East Campus in Durham, North Carolina, set in motion a series of events that would captivate the nation and spark heated debates about race, privilege, and justice. Three co-captains of the Duke men’s lacrosse team organized a day-long celebration for their teammates, which included hiring two “exotic dancers” for $800. One of these dancers was Crystal Mangum, a single mother of two and a student at nearby North Carolina Central University.

The racial dynamics of the situation immediately drew attention: Mangum was Black, while all but one of the lacrosse players were white. This racial element would become a significant factor in the media coverage and public perception of the case as it unfolded.

Accusations and Initial Investigation

In the aftermath of the party, Crystal Mangum accused three lacrosse players—David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Colin Finnerty—of raping and sexually assaulting her in the house’s bathroom. These accusations led to a police investigation and a nurse’s examination, which convinced Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong that a crime had occurred. A grand jury subsequently indicted the three players, setting off a media firestorm and igniting a national debate about sexual assault on college campuses.

The Role of Media in Shaping Public Perception

How did the media coverage influence public opinion? The case quickly became a sensation, with cable news channels, newspapers, and online platforms providing extensive coverage. This media attention amplified the racial and socioeconomic tensions inherent in the case, often presenting a simplified narrative that overlooked crucial nuances.

• 24/7 cable news coverage
• Extensive newspaper and magazine articles
• Online forums and discussions
• Social media debates (though less prominent in 2006 than they would be today)

The Unraveling of the Prosecution’s Case

As the legal process progressed, the narrative surrounding the Duke lacrosse case began to shift. The accused players hired high-profile defense attorneys who vigorously challenged the prosecution’s evidence and tactics. Several key factors contributed to the unraveling of the case against the lacrosse players:

1. Inconsistencies in Mangum’s recollection of events
2. DNA evidence that did not match any of the accused players
3. Evidence of other men’s DNA found on Mangum
4. Concerns about District Attorney Mike Nifong’s conduct

Why did the case against the lacrosse players begin to fall apart? The defense team’s strategy of scrutinizing every aspect of the prosecution’s evidence revealed significant weaknesses in the case. Additionally, Nifong’s aggressive media statements and alleged withholding of exculpatory DNA evidence raised serious ethical concerns.

The Unprecedented Intervention of the North Carolina State Bar

In a historic move, the North Carolina State Bar took the unprecedented step of bringing charges against a sitting district attorney. Mike Nifong faced accusations of ethical misconduct, including making prejudicial statements to the media and concealing crucial DNA evidence that could have exonerated the accused players.

This intervention by the State Bar marked a turning point in the case and highlighted the ethical obligations of prosecutors in high-profile cases. It also raised questions about the checks and balances within the legal system when dealing with potential prosecutorial misconduct.

The Consequences for Mike Nifong

What happened to Mike Nifong as a result of his actions? The North Carolina State Bar’s charges against Nifong led to his recusal from the case and eventual disbarment. He was found guilty of multiple ethics violations, including lying to the court, making prejudicial statements about the accused, and withholding exculpatory evidence. This outcome served as a cautionary tale for prosecutors about the consequences of overzealous pursuit of cases and misconduct.

The Resolution and Aftermath

After Nifong’s recusal, the case was handed over to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper. In April 2007, Cooper dropped all remaining charges against the lacrosse players and took the unusual step of declaring them “innocent,” rather than simply not guilty. This declaration aimed to fully exonerate the accused and acknowledge the flaws in the original prosecution.

The aftermath of the case had far-reaching consequences for all parties involved:

• The three accused players each received $20 million in a settlement with Duke University
• Duke University spent over $100 million on legal fees, settlements, and other expenses related to the case
• The case sparked ongoing discussions about race, class, and justice in America
• It raised questions about media responsibility in covering sensitive legal matters
• The incident led to reforms in the handling of sexual assault cases on college campuses

Lingering Questions and Competing Narratives

Despite the legal resolution of the case, many questions and conflicting narratives persist. Crystal Mangum maintained her belief that she had been sexually assaulted, even though she was never charged with making false accusations in the lacrosse case. The lack of a trial meant that many aspects of the case were never fully examined in a court of law.

How do different stakeholders remember the Duke lacrosse case? The players, their families, and supporters often present a narrative of complete innocence and victimization by an overzealous prosecutor and a rush to judgment. Critics argue that this perspective oversimplifies the complex racial and social dynamics at play and ignores broader issues of privilege and power.

The Impact on Public Discourse

The Duke lacrosse case had a lasting impact on public discourse surrounding several key issues:

1. The presumption of innocence in high-profile cases
2. The role of race and class in the criminal justice system
3. Media ethics in covering ongoing legal proceedings
4. The handling of sexual assault allegations, particularly on college campuses
5. The power dynamics between universities, student-athletes, and local communities

Revisiting the Case: “Fantastic Lies” and Its Critics

The 2016 release of the ESPN documentary “Fantastic Lies” on the 10th anniversary of the incident reignited interest in the Duke lacrosse case. The 103-minute film, directed by Marina Zenovich, aimed to provide a comprehensive look at the scandal and its aftermath. However, the documentary faced criticism for its portrayal of events and potential bias.

Why did “Fantastic Lies” generate controversy? Critics argued that the documentary presented an oversimplified version of events, focusing primarily on the perspective of the accused players and their supporters. This approach, they contended, failed to capture the full complexity of the case and the broader societal issues it raised.

The Challenge of Portraying Complex Events

The controversy surrounding “Fantastic Lies” highlights the difficulties in presenting nuanced accounts of complex events, especially those involving sensitive issues of race, class, and sexual assault. Documentarians and journalists face the challenge of balancing different perspectives while striving for accuracy and fairness.

• Selecting which voices to include and emphasize
• Addressing conflicting accounts and memories
• Contextualizing events within broader social and historical frameworks
• Navigating legal and ethical considerations in reporting on sensitive cases

Long-Term Implications for Higher Education and Athletics

The Duke lacrosse case had far-reaching consequences for higher education institutions and collegiate athletics programs across the United States. It prompted many universities to reevaluate their policies and practices regarding:

1. Student-athlete conduct and oversight
2. Reporting and investigation of sexual assault allegations
3. Relationships between universities and local law enforcement
4. Crisis management and media relations
5. Diversity and inclusion initiatives

How did the case change the landscape of college athletics? Many institutions implemented stricter codes of conduct for student-athletes and increased education programs on sexual consent and responsible behavior. There was also a renewed focus on the potential risks associated with the culture of some college sports teams and the need for greater accountability.

Balancing Athletics and Academics

The scandal also reignited debates about the role of athletics in higher education and the potential conflicts between athletic and academic priorities. Some critics argued that the incident highlighted the dangers of elevating sports programs to positions of outsized influence on college campuses.

Universities faced pressure to:

• Ensure better integration of athletes into the broader student body
• Address concerns about preferential treatment for athletes
• Emphasize the primary educational mission of institutions
• Improve oversight and governance of athletic departments

The Legacy of the Duke Lacrosse Case in American Culture

The Duke lacrosse case left an indelible mark on American culture, becoming a touchstone for discussions about race, class, gender, and justice. It continues to be referenced in debates about false accusations, prosecutorial misconduct, and the court of public opinion.

Why does the Duke lacrosse case continue to resonate years later? The case encapsulated many of the tensions and divisions in American society, serving as a Rorschach test for people’s views on complex social issues. It also highlighted the power of media narratives and the dangers of rushing to judgment before all facts are known.

Lessons Learned and Ongoing Challenges

The case offered several important lessons for various stakeholders:

• Media outlets: The importance of balanced reporting and avoiding sensationalism
• Law enforcement: The need for thorough, unbiased investigations
• Universities: The importance of crisis management and supporting due process
• The public: The dangers of making assumptions based on limited information

However, many of the issues raised by the Duke lacrosse case remain unresolved. Debates continue about how to balance the rights of the accused with support for alleged victims, how to address racial and socioeconomic disparities in the justice system, and how to create a fair and equitable environment on college campuses.

Reflections on Memory and Narrative in High-Profile Cases

The Duke lacrosse case serves as a powerful example of how memory and narrative shape our understanding of complex events. Different stakeholders remember and interpret the case in vastly different ways, often reflecting their own perspectives and biases.

How do personal experiences and societal positions influence the way people remember and interpret events like the Duke lacrosse case? Factors such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, and personal experiences with the justice system can all play a role in shaping individual and collective memories of high-profile cases.

The Role of Storytelling in Shaping Public Opinion

The competing narratives surrounding the Duke lacrosse case highlight the power of storytelling in shaping public opinion and historical memory. Various accounts of the events have emerged over the years, each emphasizing different aspects of the case and drawing different conclusions.

These narratives often serve specific purposes:

• Advocating for legal or policy changes
• Reinforcing or challenging existing beliefs about race and justice
• Attempting to restore reputations or seek vindication
• Exploring broader societal issues through the lens of a specific case

As time passes, the challenge of separating fact from interpretation becomes increasingly difficult, underscoring the importance of thorough documentation and critical analysis of high-profile cases.

Remembering (and Misremembering) the Duke Lacrosse Case

Ten years ago this Sunday, three of the four co-captains on the Duke men’s lacrosse team held a day-long bacchanal for their teammates at their off-campus house, just off the school’s bucolic East Campus, in Durham, North Carolina. One of the supposed highlights of the party was to be a performance by two “exotic dancers” that the players had hired for a total of $800. Crystal Mangum, a single mother of two children and a student at the nearby North Carolina Central University, also in Durham, was one of them.

You may remember bits and pieces of what happened next. Mangum was black. All but one of the players on the lacrosse team were white. Among them were David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Colin Finnerty, all of whom Mangum later accused of raping and sexually assaulting her in the house’s small bathroom. The young men were subsequently indicted by a Durham County grand jury after a police investigation and a nurse’s examination convinced Mike Nifong, the district attorney, that a crime had occurred. The indictments created a firestorm that played out in the media (including this publication) and on cable-news channels, and all across the Internet. It ignited a national debate about sexual assault on college campuses that rages to this day.

But the Duke lacrosse case, as it came to be known, wasn’t so simple. In fact, its nuances were hard to behold and poorly understood. Soon after the indictment, as the Duke students hired top-notch defense attorneys, the narrative began to change and a vexing legal circus ensued. Mangum could no longer recall with precision exactly what happened on the night of March 13, 2006. Nifong overzealously championed his case in the media. The DNA evidence did not match any of the three players, but it showed that other men had been with Mangum in the week before the incident.

In a clever tactic, the defense attorneys turned to the North Carolina State Bar to intervene, and for the first time in its history, the state bar brought charges against a sitting district attorney—Nifong—for being too outspoken and concealing the crucial DNA evidence. Nine months into the case, Nifong dropped the rape charge and offered Mangum the chance to abandon the entire case. But she refused his offer. She said she wanted justice. Eventually, to defend himself in front of the state bar, Nifong had to recuse himself from the case, and he handed it over to Roy Cooper, the North Carolina attorney general who four months later dropped the remaining charges against the players, declared them “innocent,” and called Nifong a “rogue prosecutor.”

The Duke Lacrosse team house.

From Raleigh News & Observer/Tribune News Service/Getty Images.

In the end, there was no trial—a fact that most people forget. The three players received $20 million each in a settlement with Duke. The university spent more than $100 million between legal fees, settlement costs, and other expenses to move on from the ignominy and preserve its “brand.”

Not only does this Sunday mark the 10th anniversary of that infamous night, it also is the ESPN premiere of Fantastic Lies, a 103-minute documentary about the case. (The title derives from David Evans’s famous remark to the press after his indictment.) The timing is serendipitous, you might say, since Fantastic Lies will appear on the same night and network as “Selection Sunday,” the popular prelude to March Madness, the annual N.C.A.A. college basketball tournament, which Duke won in 2015.

But the problem with Fantastic Lies isn’t its opportunistic programming as much as its uneven portrayal of the events in question. The Duke lacrosse case, after all, was remarkable for, among other things, its enormous complexity. This was the main point I tried to convey in The Price of Silence, my book on the scandal, which came out in 2014. (I should mention—not with any sort of Dickensian pretensions—that the final version clocked in at 614 pages for a reason. The innumerable subtleties of the story demanded it.) For the first time, Nifong explained his motivations for prosecuting the case with such zeal. For the first time, Mangum shared what she believed happened on the night of March 13, 2006. Cooper, the state attorney general, never charged her with making false accusations in the lacrosse case; she told me she still believed she had been sexually assaulted.

The fall after my book came out, Jonathan and Simon Chinn, the principals at Lightbox, wanted to option The Price of Silence for a documentary. Simon Chinn was the producer of the Oscar-winning documentaries Searching for Sugar Man and Man on a Wire. They explained that they wanted to tell the true, multi-faceted story of what happened, not just the sanitized version that the players, their parents, and their attorneys preferred—and the one that everyone now remembers and accepts as fact. On the other hand, after they signed the contract and paid my fee, they were free to make whatever movie they wanted.

Crystal Mangum in 2008.

From Raleigh News & Observer/Tribune News Service/Getty Images.

After a few false starts, the Chinns selected Marina Zenovich to direct the film. She was known for her two documentaries about Roman Polanski and another about Richard Pryor. She seemed genuinely moved by the incredible complexity and many subtleties of the story. In December 2014, she filmed me for close to six hours at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. After that, I helped her and the Chinns when I could. After Nifong declined to be interviewed or filmed, they asked me for the tapes of my conversations with him in order to include his voice in the documentary. With Nifong’s permission, I gave the Chinns 20 hours of my digital recordings, plus the transcripts, of our conversations. After they asked, I also gave the Chinns the digital recording of my conversation with Mangum, who is now in the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women, in Raleigh, where she’ll be for the next 14 to 18 years as a result of her 2013 conviction for second-degree murder in her boyfriend’s death. (The prison would not allow Zenovich to film Mangum.)

I did not get much information along the way about the film. Nor did I really expect any. I am hardly the first writer to be kept in the dark about how his book was being used, or not, in a documentary film. Occasionally, Jonathan Chinn and I would speak. After each conversation, I felt reassured. “It’s a dense topic and not a straightforward story from any angle,” he wrote me in September 2015. “That’s what makes it so fascinating. Editorially, we are interested in unpacking the way in which this story fed into a city, state, and country’s pre-existing racial and economic dysfunction and provided every side with a runaway bandwagon to jump onto. Some of the archive we have sourced of what was going on in Durham and on campus is remarkable in its expression of raw anger, mistrust, and frustration. It’s turning out to be a story as much about the fallibility of the media and our universities as anything else. . . . Juicy stuff!”

The Duke men’s lacrosse team in 2007, wearing practice jerseys with the numbers worn by their accused players.

By Sara D. Davis/A.P. Images.

In December, the Chinns sent me a cut of Fantastic Lies. It was breathtaking, but not in a good way. Nothing from my interview was used, nor were any of the recordings I shared with them from Nifong or Mangum. Instead, Fantastic Lies presents the narrative that the parents of the indicted players and their defense attorneys have been busily trying to preserve in amber for years: that the players were falsely accused, and that the Durham police, aided and abetted by Nifong, the rape nurse, and the media created an epic conflagration. Instead of grappling with why there never was a trial and how the North Carolina State Bar was used to subvert justice, the film once again spews the defense version that justice was served, even though it was not, and that no amount of money, not even $20 million, could ever compensate the three players for what Mangum and Nifong did to them.

We’ll never know what really happened in that that bathroom 10 years ago, and the house itself has long since been torn down. To be sure, Fantastic Lies is more than just a bunch of fantastic lies. But it can certainly seem that way. In the end, sadly, it is another major missed opportunity to explain to a wider audience the complex story of the Duke lacrosse case.

Duke lacrosse team suspended following sexual assault allegations

Duke University officials suspend the men’s lacrosse team for two games following allegations that team members sexually assaulted a stripper hired to perform at a party. Three players were later charged with rape. The case became a national scandal, impacted by issues of race, politics and class. In April 2007, all charges against the young men were dropped due to lack of credible evidence and the district attorney was eventually disbarred for his mishandling of the case.

On March 13, 2006, the Duke lacrosse team held a party at an off-campus house and hired two strippers to perform. The following day, one of the dancers, Crystal Mangum, told police in Durham, North Carolina, that three white lacrosse players forced her into a bathroom and raped her. On March 23, the team’s 46 white members provided police with DNA samples and were photographed. On March 28, Duke suspended the team for two games; soon after, their coach was forced to resign and the school’s president cancelled the rest of the lacrosse season. On April 10, defense attorneys revealed that DNA test results showed no match between the players and the accuser. Nevertheless, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, who labeled the players “hooligans,” vowed to continue investigating the case. On April 17, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were charged with rape, sexual offense and kidnapping. On May 12, defense attorneys announced a second round of tests found no evidence of any player’s DNA on the accuser’s body or clothing on the night of the party. On May 15, a third lacrosse player, David Evans, the team captain, was indicted on charges of rape, sexual offense and kidnapping. All three players maintained their innocence and had cell phone records and time-stamped photographs to demonstrate they couldn’t have committed the crimes.

The case raised issues of class and race because the accuser was a poor, Black, single mother from the Durham area and the three lacrosse players were out-of-staters from affluent backgrounds. Nifong, who was running for district attorney when the rape allegations were first made, was accused of aggressively pursuing the case to gain favor with Durham’s African American community. Additionally, the case sparked a national debate about the behavior of college athletes.

In late December 2006, the accuser altered several key details of her story and Nifong dropped the rape charges but kept the kidnapping and sexual offense counts in place. On December 28, the North Carolina State Bar Association filed a prosecutorial misconduct complaint against Nifong. In January 2007, Nifong, facing growing criticism, asked North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper to take over the case. In April of that year, the attorney general announced Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann had been wrongly accused and dismissed all charges against them. Nifong was heavily criticized for his rush to judgment and his heavy reliance on the faulty testimony of the accuser. He was disbarred in June and later convicted of criminal contempt for making misleading statements to a judge. The three accused players received an undisclosed financial settlement from Duke University and later filed a lawsuit against Nifong, the city of Durham and the investigating police officers.

10 Years Later, The Duke Lacrosse Rape Case Still Stings

Kerry Sutton was on the phone with the father of a Duke University lacrosse player when her Amtrak train collided with a dump truck.

It was March 2006, and Sutton, a defense attorney in Durham, North Carolina, was discussing whether she would be willing to defend Richard Zash’s son, Matt. He and several other white players were facing shocking allegations: that they had together raped a black woman named Crystal Mangum at a party hosted by the Duke lacrosse team at Matt Zash’s house on March 13, 2006.

The ensuing chaos of the crash put Sutton’s introduction to the family on hold. But for her, the event was a stirring omen.

“If there was ever a clue that that case was going to turn into a trainwreck, it couldn’t get any more clearer than that,” Sutton told The Huffington Post.

Sutton eventually decided to take up Zash’s defense, quickly finding herself at the center of one of the decade’s most closely covered trials. Ten years ago this month, Duke lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans were accused of raping Crystal Mangum, a North Carolina Central College student who was hired to strip for the team during a party.

The media’s coverage of the case inflamed race, gender and class divisions locally and nationally. But upon further investigation by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, Mangum’s allegations were deemed false. Cooper exonerated the students, saying in April 2007, “We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred. “

ESPN Films’ “30 for 30” series will revisit the entire story Sunday in the Marina Zenovich-directed documentary “Fantastic Lies,” offering new insight into the families of the accused.

To be clear, false rape allegations are few and far between. According to a 2010 study by Violence Against Women, only 2 to 10 percent of rape allegations are false. As Zenovich writes on the ESPN page, “To use this case as representative of a wider issue would be a profound injustice to the real victims who have the courage to come forward.”

Instead, one of the most interesting narratives of the new film is its thorough examination of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, whose prosecutorial misconduct subsequently led to his disbarment and brief jail sentence.

A sign in Durham protests the actions of Mike Nifong during his prosecution of three Duke lacrosse players indicted on rape charges.

Sara D. Davis via Getty Images

Nifong was running for election as the DA when the case landed on his desk. He had been appointed to the position on an interim basis in 2005. Critics subsequently said Nifong pushed the Mangum case so strongly because of the upcoming election — and indeed, the investigation helped him garner endorsements from Durham’s prominent black leaders. Voters responded at the ballot box by carrying Nifong to a 3 percent win over challenger Freda Black.

Nifong subsequently said the case had nothing to do with the election. Attempts to reach him for comment were unsuccessful.

Nifong was also eager to tell Mangum’s story, repeatedly failing to use important qualifiers like “we believe the evidence will show.” In a front-page story run by The New York Times on March 29, 2006 — just 15 days after Mangum’s complaint — Nifong stated that “gang-like rape activity” had occurred by “three people who went into the bathroom with the young lady.” On April 7, Nifong went on Dan Abrams’ MSNBC show and demonstrated how the rape allegedly happened:

Nifong demonstrates how Mangum was allegedly strangled from behind by one of the Duke lacrosse players. No physical evidence from Mangum’s hospital report corroborated Nifong’s claim.

“The minute [a prosecutor] steps outside of that courtroom, they’re treated just like anybody else making those comments. It’s not only smart from a public policy point of view, but also on a personal level, to use words like, ‘We believe the evidence will show,'” Abrams, now the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC and Founder of LawNewz, told HuffPost.

“Making conclusions and stating as fact that things occurred — that is very dangerous,” he added.

Zenovich, the film’s director, told HuffPost that she didn’t get to interview Nifong, but wishes she could have.

“I would’ve asked him from his point of view how he thought he was doing things. But everyone sees things from their own point of view and they don’t see any other way,” she said, adding that she wanted to interview him “without judgement, to understand what the story means to him. What he’d do right, what he’d do wrong, let’s have some self-reflection on it. “

As authority figures and public officials, prosecutors are held in high regard. But in some cases, that power can lead to wrongful convictions. A 2013 ProPublica analysis that looked at more than a decade of state and federal court rulings found more than two dozen cases where courts threw out convictions after judges found there had been prosecutorial misconduct.

Susannah Meadows, a journalist interviewed in “Fantastic Lies,” describes in the film how Nifong gave over 50 interviews making false statements because, in effect, he could.

“You naturally think, ‘Wow there’s something there,’ because you believe in the process,” said Michael Cornacchia, Finnerty’s lawyer in the Duke case.

While Abrams said he believes that prosecutors, who represent “the people” in court, should have the right and ability to publicly explain why charges have been filed in a particular case, they must toe a fine line.

“I think once a prosecutor effectively starts making a closing argument in the court of public opinion, before the case is presented, then that’s when the line can be crossed,” he said. “I think prosecutors have a greater obligation to adhere to principles than a defense attorney does.”

Because of that presumed credibility, Abrams and CBS legal analyst Rikki Klieman told HuffPost that they both thought the Duke players were probably guilty when they first heard the news, with Abrams pointing out that most sexual assault allegations are in fact true.

“I feel like there were a lot of people out there who were relying on Mike Nifong’s statements without actually testing what he was saying,” Abrams added.

In Durham, long-standing hostilities towards the lacrosse team boiled over into genuine threats and demagoguery. Sutton and Cornacchia both described running through a daily gauntlet of protesters when arriving at the courthouse, with people calling for the boys to be hung.

“We see corruption with money, but this was corruption with power to manipulate the media and the public,” said Cornacchia.

Most criminal cases don’t receive the level of media coverage and fanaticism that the Duke lacrosse one did, so it’s more likely that a case of prosecutorial misconduct may go unnoticed. Despite the Duke example, Abrams and Klieman defended the integrity of public prosecutors in general, saying they believe the majority of them are earnest.

Zenovich took an opposite stance. “If the police and prosecutor can act with such impunity that they can essentially railroad the 1 percent, just imagine what they’re doing to everyone else,” she said. “It’s not fair.”

Duke Lacrosse Incident

On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper stepped before a crowded press conference and spoke the words that ended one of the most publicized legal stories in recent American history. “We believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges,” he said.

Cooper’s long-awaited decision ended a legal ordeal for three Duke University students who had been charged with first-degree sexual offense, kidnapping and, earlier, with rape. The allegations were made by one of two exotic dancers that members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team had hired to perform at an off-campus party in March 2006. Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong stated publicly that a rape had taken place and prosecuted the three students vigorously even as evidence mounted that raised serious questions about the accuser’s credibility and the veracity of the charges.

Cooper took over the case in January 2007 after the state bar association filed ethics charges against Nifong for withholding exculpatory evidence and making inflammatory statements about the case. In dismissing the charges and stating the attack never occurred, Cooper spoke of a “rush to accuse” and said “there were many points in this case where caution would have served justice better than bravado.” In one of the many similar judgments made about how the news media covered the case, columnist David Broder described “a painful exercise in journalistic excess.”

The case changed the lives of the three young men and their families and deeply affected the broader Duke community, which found itself in the spotlight with major stories in The New York Times, Newsweek, The New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated and thousands of other outlets. Five segments on “60 Minutes” were devoted to the case, as were extensive commentaries on blogs and tabloid television shows.

Faced with the case and its larger implications, Duke President Richard H. Brodhead moved to address broader university issues highlighted by the situation, forming a council of advisers and four committees to examine the lacrosse team, the administration’s response to the incident, the student judicial process and Duke’s campus culture. In the weeks and months that followed, the committees issued their findings, all of which Duke made public immediately.

Independent of the legal case, given the standards expected of teams that represent Duke, the university forfeited two lacrosse games in the immediate aftermath of the incident as a response to admitted behaviors by team members, such as underage drinking. Brodhead later suspended the remaining games – not as punishment, but as a necessary action until the legal situation became clearer, based on concerns including the safety of Duke’s players. At the time, the district attorney was saying emphatically that as many as 46 of the players were still under suspicion for the alleged crimes. After the district attorney indicted three of the players, Duke placed on interim suspension the two who had not yet graduated – part of a routine protocol most U.S. universities follow when students are charged with violent felony crimes. Duke later modified the status of the two players to “administrative leave” and, soon after it became clear in court that Nifong’s statements were not credible, invited them to return in good standing, months before Cooper’s decision. In addition, in an effort to create a fresh start for the program, Duke replaced Coach Mike Pressler with an interim coach and, subsequently, with John Danowski, who previously coached the lacrosse team at Hofstra University.

Brodhead told “60 Minutes” in August 2006 that “the DA’s case will be on trial just as much as our students will be.” After Nifong dropped the most serious of the charges – rape – in December 2006, Brodhead called on him to recuse himself from the case, saying, “Mr. Nifong has an obligation to explain to all of us his conduct in this matter.”

From the beginning of the affair, other observers voiced strong, often harsh, opinions about the players, the district attorney, the university and nearly every other aspect of the story. Initial criticism focused on the players, with protesters assembling outside the house where the party occurred, banging pots and shouting their concerns. As doubts grew about the charges, criticism shifted to Nifong and his team, as well as to some administrators, students, community members and others – including a group of faculty members who published an ad in The Chronicle – who were accused of prejudging the players or of using the case to promote their own agendas. The lacrosse team returned to the field in February 2007 before a cheering crowd that included Brodhead and much of the university’s senior leadership, as well as thousands of students and the largest group of reporters ever to attend a regular-season Duke lacrosse game. The team went on to win the league championship and to reach the national championship final game while also maintaining a strong record in the classroom and the community.

Meanwhile, Duke began responding to the concerns raised by the committee that had examined the campus culture. Approximately one year after the event, Duke’s fund raising hit record levels, applications for student admissions remained near record levels, new media guidelines were in place to enhance the privacy of students and campus life began to return to normal.

On the legal front, in June 2007 a N.C. State Bar disciplinary panel concluded after a trial that DA Nifong had made inflammatory and prejudicial comments about the case, intentionally withheld DNA evidence and lied to court officials. The panel called for his disbarment and Nifong resigned his office.

Also in June, university leaders announced a settlement with David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, noting in a statement how “these young men and their families have been the subject of intense scrutiny that has taken a heavy toll” and saying “it is in the best interests of the Duke community to eliminate the possibility of future litigation and move forward. ” An accompanying statement from Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann said, “We hope that today’s resolution will begin to bring the Duke family back together again, and we look forward to working with the University to develop and implement initiatives that will prevent similar injustices and ensure that the lessons of the last year are never forgotten.”

Robert K. Steel, the chairman of Duke’s Board of Trustees, summarized Duke’s remarkable “lacrosse story” in a message he sent to the campus community following Cooper’s decision in April. “There is much to learn from the events that we have lived through, and we intend to put this learning to use,” Steel wrote. “Duke is a great university that steps up to challenges and opportunities, and together we will use this moment to make our community stronger.”

Shaped by False Rape Case, Former Duke Lacrosse Player Becomes Lawyer

Last night, ESPN aired the latest episode in its “30 for 30” documentary series, taking a close look at a 2006 case in which the U. S. justice system nearly fell down, when three members of Duke University’s men’s lacrosse team were wrongly accused of raping a stripper.

A prosecutor withdrew the case against all three defendants, and recently, one has pursued a career in the law: In 2014, Reade Seligmann joined the New Jersey law firm Connell Foley as an associate, after receiving his J.D. from Emory University School of Law.

The other two accused have since found jobs in finance: Collin Finnerty is an equity sales trader for Deutsche Bank in New York City, while David Evans is a senior associate at the consumer team at Apax Partners in New York.

The law firm Seligmann joined is the same firm that conducted an investigation into Rutgers University over its handling of former basketball coach Mike Rice, who resigned in 2013 after a video was released that showed him verbally attacking his players. Founded in 1938, Connell Foley has more than 140 lawyers and seven U. S. offices. It specializes in litigation, corporate law, intellectual property, construction law, real estate, bankruptcy, insurance and environmental law.

After ESPN aired its documentary, titled, Fantastic Lies, Big Law Business reached out to Sligmann to speak about his decision to become a lawyer. We’ll update this article or publish a new profile altogether if we hear back from him, but public records and media reports tell some of the story.

For those unfamiliar with the Duke case, in 2006, Crystal Gail Mangum, an African American student at North Carolina Central University, accused the three lacrosse players of raping her at a party held at the house of the Duke lacrosse team captains. The allegations sparked nationwide outcry as journalists and activists latched onto the story as an example of broader race and class issues. But the case ultimately fell apart as the accuser was found to have had a history of mental illness and the prosecutor — who had political aspirations while bringing the case — was later disbarred in North Carolina for “dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation” in his handling of the charges.

In 2006, Seligmann transferred from Duke to Brown University, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in 2010 majoring in History and Public Policy.

He expressed interest in a legal career before he even started law school, becoming a legal intern for the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, a pubic defense practice representing residents of upper Manhattan, according to his LinkedIn profile.

From there, he went on to study at Emory and was an executive board member of the Emory Mock Trial Society. While at Emory, he clerked for magistrate judge Joseph A. Dickson and the now-retired federal judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh in the United States District for the District of New Jersey.

The documentary also noted Seligmann’s involvement in the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully imprisoned. When Seligmann was honored with the Advocate of Justice Award in 2012, Seligmann wrote about his experience with the project.

He wrote:

While I’ve had so many amazing experiences with the Innocence Project, the most rewarding have come through my work with Stephen Saloom and Rebecca Brown from the IP’s policy department. In 2010, we organized the Brown University Eyewitness Identification Symposium in Rhode Island with the goal of bringing together members of the law enforcement community, criminal defense attorneys and experts in eyewitness memory research to discuss ways to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identification process. Keynote speaker Dennis Maher, a Massachusetts native who had spent 19 years in prison before being exonerated in 2003, was the highlight of the event. We were also lucky enough to have Betty Anne Waters, a courageous woman who chose to become a lawyer for the sole purpose of exonerating her wrongfully convicted brother, in the audience as well.

The goal of the symposium was to educate law enforcement officials on the procedural and cognitive factors that cause mistaken eyewitness identifications. By providing the police officers and prosecutors with the scientific research underlying the reforms, we were able to convince political leaders in Rhode Island to establish a task force to identify and recommend policies and procedures to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identification. This past spring, we hosted another eyewitness identification symposium at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia. Calvin Johnson, a Georgia native who spent over 15 years in prison based on a misidentification, gave an inspiring keynote speech in front of nearly 100 police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys and law students.

Seligmann was first a summer associate at Connell Foley in 2012. Today, he specializes in commercial litigation and construction law and works out of its Newark, New Jersey office, according to the firm’s website. John Lacey, a high-ranking partner at Connell Foley who conducted the Rutgers investigation, did not respond to a request for comment.

Email biglawbusiness@bloomberglaw. com with feedback about this article.

‘Fantastic Lies’ Lays Out 2006 Duke Lacrosse Rape Case : NPR

David Greene talks to director Marina Zenovich about her documentary, Fantastic Lies, about the Duke lacrosse rape trial. The story begins 10 years ago when team members held an off-campus party.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:

Ten years ago this Sunday, members of the Duke University lacrosse team held an off-campus party. Two strippers were hired – one of them, a young black woman who went to the police.

(SOUNDBITE OF DOCUMENTARY, “FANTASTIC LIES”)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: She’s asked, you know – have you been the victim of a sexual assault? She said yes.

GREENE: What unfolded was a story that captivated the nation. The narrative – wealthy, white university athletes had taken advantage of an underprivileged African-American woman. It made many people sick.

(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, “FANTASTIC LIES”)

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I’m shocked and appalled that there are still varsity letters on these athletes.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Three weeks after a woman accused several Duke lacrosse players of rape and sexual assault, head coach Mike Pressler has resigned. Also, the rest of the lacrosse season was canceled.

GREENE: Ultimately, three players were charged with rape by District Attorney Mike Nifong who quickly became a big part of the story himself. He did dozens of interviews talking about the case and the athletes’ behavior at a time when he was running for office. He won the election, and he kept his job. This whole story is laid out in the documentary “Fantastic Lies” that’s airing this Sunday on ESPN. The director is Marina Zenovich.

MARINA ZENOVICH: It was just a – you know, a perfect storm of everyone overreacting and kind of journalists taking the lead of the DA who was going on television and basically acting as if he had some smoking gun.

GREENE: But there was no smoking gun. In fact, there was no evidence, DNA or otherwise, that a crime had happened at all. It took more than a year for the three players to clear their names, including Duke’s captain David Evans.

(SOUNDBITE OF DOCUMENTARY, “FANTASTIC LIES”)

DAVID EVANS: I am innocent. Reade Seligmann is innocent. Collin Finnerty is innocent. Every member of the Duke University lacrosse team is innocent. You have all been told some fantastic lies.

ROY COOPER: Today, we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.

GREENE: Marina Zenovich came into our studios to talk about this ESPN “30 for 30” documentary. And I began by asking her whether people just had this perception that lacrosse players at a big-time university represent a kind of white privilege.

ZENOVICH: I think it’s unfair, but people are going to react the way they want to react. I found it fascinating, as a filmmaker, how people had so much judgment, whether they were right or wrong.

GREENE: Was it hard to get people to talk?

ZENOVICH: Oh, my God. Are you kidding? I literally would just start writing letters almost as a joke to see how many noes I could get. I have a whole file of noes, and it was just one after another.

GREENE: You got some of the players on the team to talk, but none of the three who were actually charged.

ZENOVICH: Right.

GREENE: What did they tell you? Or what was their response to you?

ZENOVICH: Do you know that I’ve never spoken to any of them? I fight and fight to get people to talk, but I never reached out to them myself. They knew the film was happening. They knew that I was trying to get them through their lawyers, through their parents. But on some level, I really respected the fact that they just want to move on. It’s unfortunate that they will be labeled as the Duke lacrosse boys, but unfortunately, that’s what happens.

GREENE: I want to play one clip from one of the professors who spoke to you, James Coleman, a criminal law professor at Duke. Let’s just listen to a little bit of this.

(SOUNDBITE OF DOCUMENTARY, “FANTASTIC LIES”)

JAMES COLEMAN: People, you know, treated it like a Christmas tree and they put their lights on it and their ornaments to, you now, push other issues that they could connect to it. But this was the wrong case for that. It doesn’t support all of these other issues I – that people want to sort of, you know, heap up on it and use it as a platform.

GREENE: Say more about the Christmas tree metaphor and what you make of that.

ZENOVICH: Well, everybody brought to this case what they wanted to bring to it, and that’s, I think, a big problem with cases like these. Everyone is coming from their own experience. And I was glad that professor Coleman kind of could explain that because he was in the thick of it.

GREENE: Whose job was it to stop that from happening – to tell people to pause and wait for the truth?

ZENOVICH: Well, I think it’s our elected officials’ – the DA in the case. I mean, you know, everyone looks to the DNA for the truth, you know. But this is a case where he was engaging in serious professional misconduct and was disbarred.

GREENE: I want to play one more clip of tape from the film. It’s – you spoke to Dan Okrent who is the former public editor from The New York Times. And here’s what he had to say.

(SOUNDBITE OF DOCUMENTARY, “FANTASTIC LIES”)

DAN OKRENT: It was male over female. It was rich over poor. It was educated over uneducated. My God, all the things that we know happen in the world coming together in one place And you know, journalists – they start to quiver with a thrill when something like this happens.

GREENE: You do sort of paint a picture of journalists as real – as really failing here.

ZENOVICH: You know, it started as a sports story, and it became bigger and bigger. And, as I said, it had a DA who was – you know, didn’t go on one local radio show. He went on national talk shows acting as if the boys were already guilty. I mean, this all played into this mishandling of this case.

GREENE: There was something about, you know, three white men – you know, that the truth being discovered and not being – not having to serve time for a crime they didn’t commit. And I just think about, you know, the Innocence Project, which these young men have joined, which is to get wrongly accused people, you know, out of prison. And, you know, I just think about the number of young black men around this country who are serving time in prison for crimes they didn’t commit. Did that sort of thing come to mind as you were putting this documentary together?

ZENOVICH: You know, it did. But what also came to mind is that this film focuses on a case where men were falsely accused and where a DA engaged in serious professional misconduct. But this should not, in any way, detract from the fact that the vast majority of reports of sexual assault are true. And to use this case, the Duke Lacrosse case, as representative of a wider issue would be a profound injustice to the real victims who have the courage to come forward.

GREENE: That was the director Marina Zenovich. Her documentary “Fantastic Lies” airs on ESPN this Sunday night.

Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

“I’m Broken”: The Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser, 10 Years Later

You know who Crystal Mangum is, even if you don’t know her name.

Ten years ago, on the night of March 13, 2006, Mangum and another woman were hired by members of the Duke Lacrosse team to dance and strip at a house party. Early the next morning, she reported to Durham police that she had been sexually assaulted by some of the lacrosse players.

The allegations riveted the nation. And then the case fell apart amid a series of inconsistencies in accounts of the evening and various unethical actions by Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. All charges against the players were eventually dropped. 

Mangum lives on in the public consciousness as one of America’s most infamous rape accusers. She is aware of this even though she’s currently serving a minimum 14 year, 2 month prison sentence for second-degree murder in an unrelated case.

“It’s so hard for me to share my story with strangers,” Mangum said over the phone from the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women. “I’ve had so many times… where I share my story and it got misconstrued or people made up what they wanted to believe out of the story.”

She maintained that she was assaulted on the night of March 13, 2006. She said that the incident was “humiliating” and she “was violated, and then there was nothing that could be done about it.”

Mangum also doesn’t believe she is to blame for the second degree murder of her boyfriend, Reginald Daye, for which she was convicted in 2013. The state, she said, has “not [been] sympathetic to my experience of violence and the things that I’ve been through.”

That is possible given her past relationship with the law. It’s also possible that she’s in prison for defending herself against an abuser—a phenomenon that disproportionately affects women of color. It’s also possible that the jury simply believed the evidence against her was worthy of a conviction.

If Mangum has taught us nothing else about the judicial system, she has taught us how murky it can be.

“Right now, I’m broken,” Mangum said. It all goes back to when she was 14 and dated a 27-year-old man.

“I came to hate who I was. And I started to mask and cover up that person through a relationship with an older guy,” she said. “He gave me everything that I ever needed, that I thought I needed.”

But he was abusive, she said. From that abuse came “guilt and shame,” and “instead of admitting, ‘I feel dirty, I feel used, I feel worthless,’ because I gave my love to this man and he didn’t accept me,” she built walls, became emotionally detached, and slept around.

“I didn’t feel like I had the right to say ‘no.’”

It was this point in her life, she said, that “set up the framework for what happened on Buchanan Street.” (The house where the Duke lacrosse party happened is located on Buchanan Street.)

“So many times I wanted to say ‘no,’ I didn’t want to do things, I didn’t get enjoyment out of sex but I agreed to it. I actually consented to it because I didn’t feel like I had a right to say, ‘no.’

“And of course it was a boyfriend usually. I still didn’t want to and I still did it anyway.”

All “those experiences piled up, trauma kept piling up,” Mangum says, “until eventually it led to a circumstance where I did say, ‘no’ and I did put my foot down and things got worse.” She said this in reference to the Duke lacrosse case.

“So, at that point, I’m just like, ‘OK, I really can’t say no.’ You know? There’s nothing that’s off limits. It’s just like, I’m just,” she said, “available for anybody to use.”

Now she’s behind bars. She has been separated from her three children—each of whom are living in a different state due to family shuffling and state intervention—following her incarceration in 2011. She hasn’t seen any of her kids in two years.

“The system has torn my family apart. I feel like it is all a vendetta because I wouldn’t allow myself to be disrespected just because I was poor and African American and a woman,” she says. “That doesn’t mean that you can violate me and get away with it. I feel like I’m still getting payback for that, for standing up for myself and not backing down.”

In the deep Southern town of Durham, this case at first appeared to be one in a long history of white men committing sexual violence against black women. Many of the players were rich white kids who attended northeastern prep schools; Mangum was a poor black mother of two working her way through school.

The outcome, for Mangum, is not just that she is seen as a liar, but something worse: She is “The Liar.” You don’t need to know her story because you know of her, of what she represents.

Today, someone need only say the word “Duke” in a discussion about sexual violence and for all listening it invokes the specter of a false accuser who cries rape and ruins the lives of innocent men. The case is mentioned during sexual assault trials by defense attorneys whenever they can manage to work it in; a mere mention of “Duke Lacrosse,” even if ultimately objected and sustained, plants a seed of doubt in the jury’s mind about the victim’s credibility.

Mangum knows how the world views her.

“I don’t understand why people hate me and judge me without getting to know me or even understanding,” she said. “If I have offended anyone in any way with my issues, whatever the case may be, I apologize. But at the same time, I forgive. I forgive and I’m willing to move forward.”

For Mangum, moving forward can’t happen without looking back.

The morning after the Duke lacrosse party, Mangum filed a sexual assault report to the police and was taken to the hospital, where a nurse administered a rape kit and she was interviewed by law enforcement.

Ten days later, the police collected DNA samples from 46 of the 47 players, since only one of the players was black and Mangum reported that the men who assaulted her were white. The players all said they were innocent.

By the end of the month, the university had suspended the team and the story was national news. On March 31, the New York Times described the lacrosse team as “a clubby, hard-partying outfit with roots in the elite prep schools of Northeast,” who have “a sense of entitlement” and “surely brought the trouble on themselves.” Three days later, at neighboring North Carolina Central University where Mangum was a student, 250 students from both schools gathered for a vigil in her honor.

Duke University then cancelled the lacrosse season and the coach resigned. A search warrant affidavit revealed that a player on the team, Ryan McFadyen, had sent an email shortly after the party on March 13 saying, “he planned to invite strippers to his dorm room, kill them, and cut off their skin.”

Eighty-eight Duke professors published an advertisement in the school paper about the larger context of the case, stating, “Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism; who see illuminated in this moment’s extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday.”

Those professors were then nicknamed The Group of 88 and are still chastised by those who feel they overstepped their bounds by publishing the advertisement.

In mid-April, two of the players, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, were indicted by a grand jury on charges of rape, sexual offense, and kidnapping. They maintained that they were innocent. A month later, a third Duke lacrosse player, David Evans, was also indicted. He, too, said he was innocent.

Over the next few months, the defense repeatedly said that Mangum had changed her story and the prosecution changed their timeline. In October, with the case against the players falling apart in clear view of the public, Duke lacrosse was back on the field under a new coach.

Then, on December 22, Nifong announced he was dropping the rape charges against the three players but still pursuing the sexual offense and kidnapping charges. According to the New York Times, he decided this “because the accuser had begun to waver on crucial details.”

Nifong had long been dogged for his actions in the case, especially, “for making early outspoken comments about the case, setting up a lineup that violated police procedures, failing to interview the woman himself and sitting on evidence favorable to the defendants.”

In January, Nifong was then brought up on ethics charges by the State Bar, for “making prejudicial statements to the press” and “withholding DNA evidence that could have exonerated the defendants and then denying that he knew about it.” The Attorney General, Roy Cooper, took over.

On April 11, 2007, more than a year after Mangum reported the charges to the police, Cooper announced that all charges were being dropped and that “we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred.” He also said that “we believe [Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans] are innocent of these charges.”

Technically, the three had never been anything other than “innocent.” An attorney general does not get to determine if someone is “guilty” or “not guilty.” That is what a trial is for, after all.

Cooper blamed the failure of the case on “an ‘unchecked’ and ‘overreaching’ district attorney [Nifong] who had ignored contradictory evidence and instead relied on the stripper’s ‘faulty and unreliable’ accusations.” He never pressed charges against Mangum for false reporting, saying “his investigators had told him that the woman ‘may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling.’”

In the end, under the law, no one was found guilty except for Nifong. In June 2007, Nifong was found to have committed ethics violations and was disbarred.

A year later, in 2008, Mangum published a memoir and for the first time publicly revealed her name. In 2010, she was convicted of misdemeanor child abuse and damaging property. Then, in 2011, she was arrested after fatally stabbing Daye.

Her defense during the trial maintained that she acted in self defense against Daye, who Mangum said was abusive.

When she stabbed Daye, who died 10 days later, she said she felt like because the judicial system had “automatically labeled [her] ‘the aggressor’ or ‘the criminal,’” she was bound to be punished harshly.

Mangum is currently working on an appeal of her murder conviction. She is getting help from a layperson, Sidney Harr, who is interested in her case and keeps an extensive website outlining her side. (There have been questions about Harr’s role in her case and his motivations; he has responded to those questions.)

Harr told me over email that he came to help Mangum through “my advocacy for former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. Now, more than four years after working on her case, I am still trying to get her justice.”

She was convicted of Daye’s murder and sentenced to a minimum imprisonment of 14 years, 2 months and a maximum of 18 years.

The three men Mangum accused in 2006—Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans—all seem to be doing well. One moved on to a job immediately, the other two to new schools and then onto careers. They all sued Duke and the City of Durham in separate civil suits, settling with each. The latter settlement amounted to the city making a one-time $50,000 donation to the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission.

Ryan McFadyen, who wrote that email about killing and skinning strippers, ultimately had to  change his name because “he had a difficult time landing a job because a Google search of his name would immediately reveal it.” He did change his name and landed a job.

Mike Pressler, the fired coach, was announced as the head lacrosse coach at Bryant University within months of leaving Duke. He and his teams have done quite well over the last ten years.

Duke lacrosse is doing great again under head John Danowski, who has been coaching the team since 2006. “Seven members of the 2006 team were on the roster in 2010, when Duke and Danowski won a national championship in overtime against Notre Dame. The Devils also reached the Final Four in each of the next four years, winning national championships in 2013 and 2014.”

Roy Cooper is still the attorney general in North Carolina. He is currently running for governor.

Mike Nifong remains disbarred. He filed for bankruptcy not long after he was found guilty of ethics violations. In 2014, a judge overturned a conviction in a case that Nifong prosecuted in 1995 because of misconduct on the part of Nifong.

At the Washington Post that same year, Radley Balko explained the larger issue around Nifong and the Durham District Attorney: “After Nifong was removed from office, Tracey Cline, his top aide, took over. She, too, was removed from office after a series of allegations of misconduct, including several cases in which she was found to have failed to turn over exculpatory evidence, just like her boss.”

The university and Durham continue to struggle with racism within their communities. There is a series of recent examples: a gas station attendant hurling slurs at black customers, a politics professor who posted a racist comment on an article about racism in Baltimore, a black student reported that a white student shouted a racist chant at her on campus, a fraternity threw a racist Asian-themed party, a Black Lives Matter poster on campus was vandalized with a slur, and a noose was hung on a tree on campus.

Last month, the student paper, the Duke Chronicle, reported that a parking attendant said that in August 2014, Executive Vice President Tallman Trask hit her with his car and then called her a “stupid n—-r.” The paper then interviewed twelve employees in the Parking and Transportation Services department, “who described the environment within the department as hostile and its current leadership as discriminatory,” including issues with “racism, harassment, retaliation and bullying.”

Ten years out from the night that triggered this series of events, Mangum is doing by far the worst out of anyone.

Mangum, for her part, hopes to attend college again one day. “What I really want to do is practice psychology and be a therapist or an abuse counselor.” she said. “Obviously, I can’t do that here.”

At this point, the odds of her achieving that goal are, at best, unlikely. She’s either a rightly convicted murderer or, as she said, powerful people within the system are working against her. Either way, she’ll be in prison for at least the next 12 years.

Regardless, she has become the symbol of The Woman Who Lies and Ruins Men’s Lives. This is a common cultural trope that says women lie about being raped because it will make them famous or get them rich or so they can score some kind of revenge. However, despite being the most infamous example of that idea, Mangum hasn’t benefitted from her accusations at all. If anything, she feels she was punished for speaking out.

Despite where her life has taken her, she remains culturally relevant because she fits an easy narrative about lying women and the impact of those lies on men. That narrative is the only one society will fit her into.

Mangum knows this; she sees it reflected back at her and she struggles against it. “It’s hard to get past the shame and the guilt and to be proud of who I am in spite of what I’ve been through,” she said.

“Because what I’ve been through is not who I am. So, how do you talk about what you’ve been through without taking it on as a part of who you are and for people to judge you as that’s who you are?”

She doesn’t yet have that answer.

90,000 A Manhattan court accepted a lawsuit against Prince Andrew. The Queen’s son is accused of sexual abuse

• Kirill Belyaninov
• BBC, Washington

August 10, 2021

Photo author, VIRGINIA ROBERTS

Photo caption,

Virginia Giuffre and Prince (then – Roberts Andrew in London, 2001

A federal court in Manhattan accepted a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew, the middle son of the Queen of Great Britain.According to American Virginia Giuffre, the Duke of York was one of several powerful men with whom she was forced to have sex when she was 17.

The fact that Virginia Giuffre went to court, demanding to bring Prince Andrew to justice, became known on Monday. According to the official database of court documents, the American’s claim was accepted for consideration by a federal court in Manhattan.

In his statement, Giuffre does not name the amount of possible financial compensation and does not demand to bring the prince to criminal responsibility, leaving the decision on this “at the discretion of the court.”

What is Giuffre accusing Prince Andrew of?

Sex scandal, in the center of which was the 61-year-old prince, is connected with the case of the American financier Jeffrey Epstein. The latter was found dead in a prison cell in August 2019, where he was awaiting trial in the case of involving underage girls in prostitution.

In her first interview on BBC Panorama in December 2019, Giuffre revealed that Epstein forced her to have sex with her friends when she was only 17 years old.

According to her, she was introduced to the prince in 2001 by Epstein’s partner Gislane Maxwell. At the insistence of the financier, Giuffrey arrived in London and met the Duke of York at a nightclub. After that, Maxwell allegedly ordered her to have sex with the Queen’s son.

“In the car, Gislane told me to do for Andrew what I did for Jeffrey, and I just felt bad,” Giuffre said.

According to the American, she later met with the prince on the private island of Epstein and at the financier’s mansion in New York.

“This is not just a dirty story about sex,” she told the BBC. “This is a story about the slave trade, about humiliation and your royal family.”

Prince Andrew himself in an interview with the BBC said that he did not remember that he had ever had sex with Giuffre.

In response to an inquiry from CNN, Buckingham Palace issued a statement on behalf of the royal family, which, inter alia, stated: “We strongly deny that the Duke of York had any sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts (Giuffre’s maiden name is BBC ) “.

What evidence has been submitted to court

In her lawsuit, Giuffre claims that Epstein and Maxwell forced her to have sex with the prince.

“Prince Andrew sexually assaulted and beaten the applicant when she was 17 years old,” the lawsuit states. “In this regard, Prince Andrew is liable for beatings and willful infliction of moral harm under New York law. inflicted on the applicant was deep and prolonged. “

Photo author, Reuters

Photo caption,

Giuffre claims in a lawsuit that she was sexually assaulted by Prince Andrew in London and New York.

According to Giuffre, the Duke of York knew not only that she was a minor, but that the 17-year-old American had been brought to London against her will. In the lawsuit, she explains that she was afraid to disobey Epstein and Maxwell “because they had powerful friends and because of their wealth.”

In January 2020, former attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jeffrey Berman, said that the US authorities had repeatedly tried to interrogate the prince, but that he consistently refused to cooperate with US law enforcement.

Giuffre’s lawyer, Sigrid McCauley, issued a special statement on Monday evening, saying that the Manhattan court’s acceptance of the lawsuit showed that “no one, not even a prince, can be above the law in the United States.”

By court order, investigators from the Manhattan Attorney’s Office are now allowed to interrogate Prince Andrew.

Financier Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in a New York jail cell in August 2019.

His assistant Gislane Maxwell was accused in 2020 of looking for and transporting underage girls, some of whom were 14 years old, to have sex with the financier and his friends.At the trial, Maxwell declared her innocence and is now awaiting the start of the trial.

Prince Andrew resigned due to the scandal with Epstein :: Politics :: RBK

The middle son of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II stepped down from public duties due to the scandal with the billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of human trafficking

Prince Andrew

(Photo: Stefan Wermuth / Reuters)

The British Duke of York, Prince Andrew (middle son of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip) asked to be relieved of his public duties due to his past contacts with the American billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of human trafficking.This is stated in a statement released on behalf of the prince by the press service of Buckingham Palace.

“Over the past few days, it has become clear to me that the circumstances of my previous contacts with Jeffrey Epstein have become a serious obstacle to the activities of my family and the work of many organizations and charitable foundations that I am proud to support,” said Prince Andrew.

According to him, with a request to release him from his public duties in the “foreseeable future” he appealed to the Queen of Great Britain.Elizabeth II, the statement said, gave her consent.

“I continue to unequivocally regret my unreasonable relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,” also noted Prince Andrew. According to him, the suicide of the billionaire “left many questions unanswered.” He added that he is “ready to provide assistance to law enforcement agencies in the investigation”, if required.

Epstein wrote his will two days before he committed suicide

90,000 His Problematic Highness – Mir – Kommersant

Prince Andrew, Duke of York, has announced that he will not appear at events in the near future as a representative of the British royal family.The decision was taken amid a scandal following an interview with the BBC prince about his friendship with financier Jeffrey Epstein. The American authorities accused the financier of sexual abuse and involvement in prostitution of minors, who, according to media reports, provided services to Prince Andrew. In August, Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in a preliminary investigation cell.

Last Wednesday, a statement by Prince Andrew, Duke of York, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, appeared on the official page of the British royal family.The prince said that he asked the queen to allow him to retire from public and public duties in the near future. “It has become clear to me over the past few days that the circumstances of my previous contacts with Jeffrey Epstein have become a serious obstacle to the work of my family and the important work of many organizations and charitable foundations that I am proud to support,” he explained his decision.

Behind the stingy words of the statement is a difficult situation and a scandal, against the background of which many organizations and charitable foundations publicly refused to cooperate with Prince Andrew.

American financier, millionaire Jeffrey Epstein – founder and owner of J. Epstein & Co. A well-known and influential figure in the United States and the world who had connections in high society and in the country’s leadership. In 2008, he was arrested on charges of organizing prostitution and for sex with minors. He admitted his guilt, agreed to cooperate with the investigation and paid compensation to 36 girls who suffered from his actions. As a result, he was able to negotiate a deal granting him immunity from further prosecution.After serving only 13 months in prison, he was released. According to the law, the victims should have been informed about his deal with justice and early release, but this was not done. In February of this year, the investigation into the Epstein case was resumed precisely on this basis.

By that time, the investigation had accumulated a lot of lawsuits from victims who told dirty details of Jeffrey Epstein’s illegal activities. The financier was arrested again in July 2019. After ransacking his home, the police obtained further evidence of sex crimes.He was charged with sex trafficking, seduction of minors, organizing prostitution, bribery of witnesses, etc. But Jeffrey Epstein did not wait for the trial. On August 10, he was found dead in a pre-trial detention cell. He committed suicide at the age of 66.

However, the investigation of his crimes did not stop. More and more new details appeared, the names of people in any way connected with this side of Epstein’s life were called. Among others, they named Prince Andrew, who does not hide the fact that he was familiar and even was friends with the financier almost from the late 1990s.The media began to flicker his old photographs, in one of which he was in 2001 in the company of 17-year-old Virginia Roberts Giuffre. She now says that then Epstein forced her to provide sexual services to wealthy clients, and she had to have sex with Prince Andrew three times. Information appeared in the media that Giuffre was allegedly not the only one of the girls attracted by Epstein to prostitution who spent time with Prince Andrew.

For a while, the Duke of York denied involvement in the Epstein scandal.However, on November 16, he nevertheless decided to explain himself publicly and agreed to an interview on the BBC Newsnight program, the result of which exceeded all expectations.

Prince Andrew only explained to the presenter why he could not be involved in what he was suspected of, but did not condemn Jeffrey Epstein’s actions, which the public expected from him. Nor did he express sympathy for the victims of Epstein’s actions.

The last straw was the recognition that the prince does not regret his friendship with Epstein, because thanks to her he met many interesting people, learned a lot and learned a lot.

The very next day, the prince’s face adorned the front pages of newspapers with incriminating texts, statements from companies, organizations and charitable foundations, which were supported by Prince Andrew, began to sound about breaking off relations. Dozens of companies have opted out of its Pitch @ Palace entrepreneurship support program, including KPMG, Standard Chartered, Aon, Advertising Week, Inmarsat, Gravity Road and several universities. Barclays Bank and Astra Zeneca are reconsidering their participation in this program.BT refused to endorse the Duke of York Inspiring Digital Enterprise, and the fate of the award is now in question.

Prince Andrew’s statement of resignation, released Wednesday, sounded what the public wanted to hear from him during the interview.

“Without a doubt, I still regret my ill-considered relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide left many questions unanswered, especially for his victims.And I deeply sympathize with everyone who suffered from this. I can only hope that over time they will be able to rebuild their lives, ”he wrote. But it was already too late.

Alena Miklashevskaya

90,000 Prince Andrew’s Troubles: Scandal Continues Around The Queen’s Son

The Adventures of Prince Andrew

As if he was missing old scandalous stories, a sexual innuendo has been hovering around Andrew for many years now. And if not everyone still believes that he is a pedophile, then the vile shadow of something obscene has already stuck to him so strongly that after reading the next articles, you inevitably want to go and wash your hands.

And how well it all started! Born in Buckingham Palace, the handsome boy grew up into a brave soldier – in 1982, Andrew fought as a helicopter pilot in the Falkland Islands war with Argentina. The queen herself insisted that he be sent to the front line: the son had to share the fate of the rest of her subjects, who fought for Great Britain. It was rumored that he was the Queen’s favorite, because he embodied the qualities that fate had cheated Charles. And if the elite had previously guessed about this favor, then after watching the series “The Crown” the whole world learned.And although the series has always been presented as a “play drama” and not a historical documentary, one can only assume what an unpleasant sediment the family secret has settled on the hearts of the rest of the children, which has become the property of the public.

Koo Stark was born in America and at the age of 17 she starred in an erotic film. She was waiting for Andrew from the war, she really liked both the queen and Prince Philip, and their romance proceeded quietly until the paparazzi found out about him. A favorite of the public, a participant in the war, the playboy prince (at the time he was second in line to the British throne) was always under the scrutiny of the press.“The attention in those days was unprecedented and the paparazzi were everywhere. Once I was pulled by the hair from the back seat of a motorcycle; the lens of the camera was moved to the solar plexus. Photographers on motorcycles literally drove into restaurants to try to photograph us together, ”Ku recalled this time.

In the end, the paparazzi pulled out shots from scandalous films: a lesbian scene in the shower – and the romance of Ku and the prince was doomed.

Ingrid Seward, author of Diana: An Intimate Portrait, believes that marriage between Andrew and Stark would have been virtually impossible anyway, regardless of erotic films.“In those days, the prince could have an actress lover, as was the case with his ancestors, but never had a wife,” Ingrid said.

By the way, years later, Ku Stark wrote an open letter to Meghan Markle, a few years before she married Prince Harry. Among other things, she warned: “I am still not left alone, decades after everything was over between me and the prince. It would seem that this is absurd. However, welcome Megan, this is how it is.As for your American background … Do you remember Wallis Simpson? ” – she finished the letter, hinting at the story of the abdication of the throne of Harry’s great-uncle for the sake of his American bride.

On the other hand, it should be noted that Koo Stark and Andrew remained friends, as evidenced by the fact that many years later Andrew became the godfather of Stark’s daughter Tatiana. Stark also rushes to Andrew’s defense whenever a new scandal arises, of which a lot has happened since their separation.

Commenting on today’s, Koo described Andrew as someone with Christian values; “A good man, gentle, loving, caring and generally a normal guy.”

Photo: instagram.com@hrhthedukeofyork

The best divorces on earth

We will never know if Andrew was devastated by the break with Koo Stark, or if he simply resigned himself to his fate – somehow, he was spun into a series of novels.He dated several women before marrying Sarah Ferguson, daughter of Major Ron Ferguson, Prince Charles’ polo coach.

Although they have seen each other several times before, Princess Diana directed the crucial meeting during the reception at Windsor Castle. Her friend Sarah had just parted ways with her lover – he was 22 years older, married and had children, and her heart was broken. But seeing Andrew, Sarah perked up, and after 6 months they announced their engagement.

At first she was called “a breath of fresh air”: she was always in a good mood and the smile never left her face. But in reality, everything was not as smooth as it seemed from the outside. “I married a guy who turned out to be a prince, and a sailor to boot, because I fell in love with him. And my only condition was “I have to be with you,” she gave an interview to Harper’s Bazaar magazine in 2011. “But two weeks after the wedding, Andrew went to sea. I spent my entire first pregnancy alone.When Beatrice was born, Andrew received only 10 days of leave on the beach, then he left again, and I sobbed. ”

But “Ryzhik”, as Diana called her, could not be sad for a long time and by the second pregnancy she fell in love with another. They say, however, that Andrew was not particularly bored: recently, one of his friends, hoping, perhaps, in this way to whitewash him after accusations of sex with minors, said that, like a normal sailor, Andrew had a mistress in every port, but neither one minor. Nevertheless, the prince invited Sarah to live separately.In the future, everything could get better: the couple had two wonderful daughters; even Prince Philip is said to have had educational conversations with his son on the subject of family rebuilding.

But then an incident occurred that played a fatal role in their relationship.

Back in August 1992, I already wrote about him for MK, and the other day Richard Kay, the legendary writer, confidant of Princess Diana, remembered how he received an unsigned message on his pager, it read: “Redhead is in trouble.” He knew that the message had come from Diana, Princess of Wales, and knew perfectly well who it was about.Richard befriended Diana as the royal correspondent for the Mail and became increasingly drawn into the protracted war of the Wales, but at the time, all the rumors surrounding the royal family centered on Sarah Ferguson. There was talk that her true relationship with Texan John Brian was about to be revealed at last. And Diana obviously got wind of it.

Richard called several numbers and learned that intimate photographs of this couple in a villa in the south of France were to appear in the country’s leading newspapers the next morning.They argued that Brian was much more than the “financial advisor” he called himself. The photographs showed him caressing the Duchess and sucking her toes. The matter was aggravated by the fact that the duchess was topless, and her little daughters were sitting nearby.

Late in the evening, when the story broke, Brian, whom Richard knew well, asked if he could get an early copy of the newspaper that published the photographs, and he rushed to his apartment in Chelsea with one in his hands.

The phone rang non-stop, pizza boxes were lying around, and Brian frantically flipping through the newspaper. “Oh my god,” he muttered. “The photographer must have been hiding right there in that damn garden! .. Damn it! I didn’t suck her fingers, I kissed them! ”

It was past midnight, but he hurried to the kitchen to answer another call. It was Sarah, calling from the Balmoral estate, where she was with the entire royal family.

Always a calm companion, Brian promised her that everything would be fine, but it was clear that he himself did not believe in it.In a few hours, these photographs will be scattered throughout England and – worst of all – they will be on the breakfast table in the Queen’s castle.

The Duke and Duchess of York divorced in 1996, but continued to live together for a long time. They raised children and always helped each other. Especially when Fergie, as they began to call her, met a businessman and offered to introduce him to Prince Andrew, asking for an impressive amount of money for “access to the body” of her ex-husband. The businessman turned out to be a correspondent, the conversation was recorded on tape.At first, she did not believe in her bad luck, and then she did not find anything better than to say that she was drunk. Then she got into debt and started giving paid interviews. And then her debts grew so much that they could no longer be covered.

In light of the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on charges of rape, human trafficking and forcing minors into prostitution, another scandalous fact concerning the Duchess has recently surfaced. Sarah accepted $ 18,000 from Epstein to help restructure her debts.After The Telegraph released the payment in 2011, Ferguson also acknowledged that Prince Andrew was behind the “gift.” She called this agreement a “gigantic mistake.” Many felt that Sarah, instead of taking the blame (after all, it was her debt!), Chose to point the finger at Andrew.

Prince Philip until his death could not hear her name and refused to be with her in the same room. According to rumors, from time to time in the presence of the Queen, pretending to answer the phone ring: “What? Fergie got hit by a bus? ” – and burst into laughter, looking at the queen’s worried face.

Virginia Roberts-Giuffre: “The whole procedure was short-lived, but disgusting.”

Photo: AP

Latest News

If Andrew thought his troubles were behind him when he divorced Fergie, then he was wrong.

A civil action under the Child Victims Act 2019, allowing victims to make legal claims of abuse regardless of how long ago the alleged crime occurred, was filed in federal court in New York by Virginia Giuffre.Prince Andrew has always vehemently denied any sexual contact or relationship with her, but she stated that “it is long overdue to bring him to justice” for the alleged sexual abuse of her while she was a teenager.

Prince is the sole defendant in her civil lawsuit, although Jeffrey Epstein and his ex-girlfriend Gilaine Maxwell are often mentioned in it. “In this country, no person, be it a president or a prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable he may be, can be deprived of the protection of the law,” says Ms. Giuffre’s lawsuit. has repeatedly brought charges against Epstein, Maxwell and Andrew, but this lawsuit is the first time that she actually challenges the prince personally and challenges him to a duel in court.

What exactly is said in the documents concerning the Duke of York?

First, Ms Giuffre claims that Gilaine Maxwell recruited her as a prostitute when she worked at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, and between 2000 and 2002 by Jeffrey Epstein flew with her around the world and sexually assaulted her in “numerous places.”

Prince Andrew confirmed that he first met Epstein in 1999. Flight logs record numerous flights of Prince Andrew on Epstein’s private jet.The royal family has confirmed that he flew in Epstein’s private jet and stayed at various Epstein-owned houses. Epstein’s staff also confirmed in sworn testimony that they saw Prince Andrew at his homes.

In 2000, Epstein and Maxwell attended Prince Andrew’s 40th birthday party. That same year, Prince Andrew hosted Maxwell’s birthday party at Sandringham, the royal residence, and Epstein was also among the guests. In 2006, Prince Andrew invited Epstein to his daughter’s 18th birthday party, despite the fact that just a month earlier, Epstein was accused of bringing a minor into prostitution.

These are all confirmed facts. But there is also something else.

Ms. Giuffre claims to have been sexually assaulted by the Duke at Gilaine Maxwell’s London home after the famous Trump nightclub, and that this was where a photograph was allegedly taken of him hugging her around the waist. At the club, Virginia said, the prince danced disgustingly and sweated a lot. “It was disgusting!” She said, but she knew what was expected of her, so she went with him to Maxwell’s house.In an interview with Newsnight, Duke said he did not know who Virginia Roberts-Giuffre was and had never met her. On that day, it turns out, and he remembers it for sure, he took his daughters to a children’s birthday at Pizza Hut. And the photo does not remember this, and wondered if it was his hand in the image. There were also commentators who questioned its authenticity: the prince is standing too unnaturally, in this position the face should be turned in the other direction, clearly a fabricated photograph! As for the disgusting dances, he was silent, but as for “pretty sweating” he was sincerely indignant.It turned out – and it became sensational news for several hours and led to the creation of numerous memes – the prince does not sweat! He suffers from a disease (from the Falklands War) that makes perspiration impossible.

The court document states that Prince Andrew knew that Giuffra was 17 years old and was a victim of the sex trade, and also hints that she feared for her life due to the fact that she was surrounded by wealthy and powerful people who had exerted on her psychological pressure and suppressed her will.

And how they criticize Scotland Yard for not opening a “domestic” case against the prince, in spite of numerous accusations! Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service Cressida Dick, perhaps one of the most famous police officers to date, said that at the moment the case is being investigated in America and the Metropolitan Service, of course, will come to the rescue if needed, but no more.

Arguments that if the prince was not a prince, but was a convinced pedophile, and even belonged to ethnic minorities, the case would have been opened in one second, the police do not comment.Naturally, if we take into account that the metropolitan police provide personal protection to members of the royal family, then it is logical to assume that, if the accusations have at least some basis, one of the prince’s guards accompanied him to those addresses and in those days when he claims the opposite. In this case, there is a conflict of interests, to which none of the parties is interested in drawing attention. On the other hand, the Metropolitan Police must act on the principle of “no fear and self-interest,” and when this does not happen, it undermines the credibility of the police and the royal family, which prevents an uncompromising investigation.

There is a possibility that the prince will take advantage of the immunity of a member of the royal family and try to drag out the investigation. Despite the fact that Prince Andrew completely denies all the charges against him, he is in a situation worse than you can imagine.

It is likely that he will start sweating again.

London.

90,000 Prince Andrew was broken into twice in a week

The son of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, Prince Andrew, was twice broken into by strangers at the end of April.At first, a 43-year-old woman identified herself as his guest and tried to find the Duke at the residence, then two Londoners were detained when they climbed over the fence. Since stripped of his working royal status in 2019, the Duke of York has been stripped of his armed guards. It has not yet been decided how to ensure its safety.

The security system of the Windsor residence of the son of Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Andrew, will be reviewed after two failures, according to The Telegraph.

On Sunday, April 25, Thames Valley police took into custody a 29-year-old woman and 31-man after receiving reports that two unidentified persons were in the Great Windsor Park, belonging to the residence of Prince Andrew. “Two people, a 29-year-old woman and a 31-year-old man, both from London, were arrested on suspicion of being in the surrounding area and were released after interrogation, although the investigation is ongoing. There is no risk to people, “The Guardian quoted police as saying.

According to The Telegraph, the man and woman were escorted to the Maidenhead police station in Berkshire, where Windsor Castle is located, interrogated and released on bail. It is clarified that they were detained at the moment when they climbed over the fence.

This was the second time in a week that the police were called to the Duke of York: on April 19, a 43-year-old woman entered the residence. She managed to spend 20 minutes there.

The woman told the guards that she was invited to dinner with the son of Elizabeth II.They detained her already in the mansion – she turned to one of the homeowners with a question where she could find Prince Andrew, and a statement that she was his bride (the prince, by the way, is indeed officially single – he is divorced from the Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson, although in recent years he has lived with her).

As reported by the Sun newspaper, the “bride” arrived at Prince Andrew’s residence by taxi and even convinced the guards to pay for the trip. She was detained – the police are checking her mental health.Later it became known that the woman was a Spanish citizen.

According to The Telegraph, after the first invasion of Prince Andrew’s residence, precautions were taken – but they were not enough. “They need someone to review them at my level,” Day Davis, the former head of Scotland Yard’s Royal Security Division, told the publication. – And I will look for an explanation. I am concerned that there is a failure in the security system. ”

According to the policeman, both cases of penetration into the territory of the residence of the son of Elizabeth II need to be thoroughly investigated – and to study what loopholes in the protection the violators used.

Prince Andrew’s security system is currently undergoing reform. After in 2019, amid a scandal with the pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was close friends with the duke, the prince was removed from his royal duties and deprived of his maintenance, he was left without armed protection. It is still not known who will protect the son of Elizabeth II – such a decision should be made by British Home Secretary Priti Patel and Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

It is possible that Prince Andrew’s guards will be handed over to a private firm, but Day Davis expressed his belief that this would be wrong. “To invite unarmed guards, in my opinion, is pointless,” he said. In his opinion, all senior members of the royal family should be guarded by professionals from law enforcement agencies 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

90,000 What threatens a loud sex scandal for the son of Elizabeth II

In the United States, the billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein is again remembered.It became known that the victims of his sex crimes will be paid $ 125 million. They will be divided among 150 victims. The lawsuit of another victim was accepted today by a federal court in Manhattan. The American claims that Epstein introduced her to the British Prince Andrew. He raped her, although she was still a minor.

Virginia Jufre (Roberts) detonated her powerful media bomb when she first openly accused Prince Andrew of sexual harassment. But only now the blast wave really reached the middle son of Elizabeth II.So much so that it can knock down not only him alone.

Jufre accuses the Duke of York of beatings and intentional infliction of emotional stress, demanding compensation. The full text of the statement of claim is published in 73 three paragraphs. Jufre, without hesitation in details, describes how it all began. All the circles of hell through which she was led by the American billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide. At the age of 16, Virginia was hired to massage him, but soon she turned into one of the many sex slaves.Jufre first had sex with Epstein himself. Then he began to lend it to his influential acquaintances. One of the acquaintances was a member of the royal family.

Sex crime sites, according to Jufre, were half of the world. She allegedly experienced violence by Prince Andrew both in the Epstein mansion in New York and the Virgin Islands, and in London, at number 44 on Kinnerton Street – where, as it is assumed, in 2001, the Queen’s son, Prince Andrew, was photographed in a hug with underage Virginia.In one picture she is only 17 years old.

“It did not last long. I mean the process itself, but it was disgusting. He was not rude, no. When he left, he said: thanks. I sat on the bed and felt humiliated and dirty, I wanted to go to the shower and wash everything off . The next day Gilane told me that I did everything perfectly, that he was happy, “- said Virginia.

Gilaine Maxwell in the background of the same photo. The secular star that shone on both sides of the Atlantic – the daughter of the late British media mogul, owner of the Daily Mirror newspaper, was Jeffrey Epstein’s closest friend.Other victims of this couple claim that she was like a madam from a brothel to them, and forced them to fulfill any whims of the millionaire and his friends.

“She raped me over twenty or thirty times. She’s as much a devil as Epstein,” says Virginia.

Maxwell was arrested a year ago. In the United States, she is charged with the sexual exploitation of minors. Draws to 35 years in prison. At the hearing, Madame denied her guilt. Prince Andrew also denied. Not to investigators, but to the press.

– One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts, has brought charges against you. She described that night in great detail, she said that you danced with her and you were sweating a lot.

– I have an unusual physical feature – I don’t sweat. More precisely, at that time I did not sweat.

With this disastrous interview, the prince has driven himself into a trap. British newspapers and TV channels inundated him with photographs of wet armpits. His other excuses were also unconvincing. Due to the scandal, Andrew was removed from the performance of royal duties, but now it is clear that all this will not settle down by itself.There is something to fight for. For example, the total amount of compensation to the victims of Epstein was determined at $ 125 million. But the royal family, of course, does not want to pay.

Worst case for the prince – if the pimp Maxwell makes a deal with the investigation. In any case, a year ago, that is, before the current turn and the suit of Prince Andrew, New York prosecutors already wanted to see.

There has been no history of the FBI or any other foreign investigators interrogating a member of the royal family.True, the world is now such that many unthinkable things began to happen for the first time. They even wrote that the prince’s lawyers tried to bargain immunity for him in exchange for testimony, but they allegedly could not get such guarantees from the American authorities.

Andrew does not have diplomatic immunity – only the Queen and her inner circle have it, but, of course, they will not give it out. So the prince can be brought to trial under duress only if he finds himself in the United States.However, at home in Britain, he has long been living the life of a recluse rather than a completely free person.

90,000 The son of Elizabeth II was sued on charges of rape | News from Germany about Europe | DW

British Prince Andrew is sued for sexual abuse of a minor in the United States. As reported on Tuesday, August 10, the AFP agency, the statement of claim arrived on Monday in a New York court from the alleged victim – 38-year-old American Virginia Giuffre.She claims to have been “loaned” to the son of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain as a minor by an American financier, registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Now Giuffre demands damages from the prince.

Sequel Sex Scandal

According to her lawsuit, Andrew abused her over 20 years ago at the home of Epstein’s then friend Gislaine Maxwell in London. 17-year-old girl “against her will forced to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew” Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew.According to Giuffre, the prince’s abuse of her took place not only in London, but also at Epstein’s mansion in New York and on his private island.

Virginia Giuffre

Giuffre, who has previously publicly accused the prince of molesting minors, spoke about the lawsuit: “I demand that Prince Andrew be held accountable for what he did to me.” Influential and rich people are not immune from responsibility for their actions, the woman stressed. According to her, the decision to sue was not easy for her, since she does not exclude retaliatory attacks from the prince.

Charges against Prince Andrew have been pending since 2019. He himself always denied them, but in 2019 he stepped back from fulfilling the duties of a member of the royal family after one unsuccessful interview on television.

Gislaine Maxwell, who is accused of recruiting minors for Epstein, pleaded not guilty at trial in April.

The multi-millionaire Epstein allegedly sexually abused and incited underage girls and young women for many years to engage in prostitution.The prominent financier was arrested in July 2019 and found dead in a prison cell in August. His friends included former US President Bill Clinton and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

See also:

• Princes snapped up

  Nicholas, Prince of Denmark (born 1999)

  The grandson of Queen Margrethe II is seventh in the list of heirs to the Danish throne. Nikolai has a reputation as a hipster and is already appearing on the lists of the most attractive bachelors of aristocratic origin.Nothing is known about his career plans yet. You can get acquainted at royal balls and receptions – the prince is in kinship with all the august dynasties of Europe

• Princes snapped up

  Ferdinand Habsburg-Lorraine (born 1997)

  The offspring of the most powerful royal dynasty in Europe, whose representatives occupied the Roman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Great-grandson of the last Austrian emperor and the only son of the current head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine.In view of the renunciation of his ancestors from all claims to the throne, he can count on royal honors only as a race car driver. You should search on the race tracks.

• Princes snapped up

  Prince Philip of Greece (born 1986)

  Numerous royal relatives promise marriage with Prince Philip. One of the sons of Constantine II and Queen Anne Mary, the last monarchs of Greece until the fall of the Greek monarchy in 1973. His maternal aunt is Queen Margarete of Denmark, and his paternal aunt is Queen Sofia of Spain.Diana of Wales was the godmother. Sister Theodora (photo), by the way, is also not married yet.

• Princes snapped up

  Princes of Greece Constantine-Alexios (born 1998) and Achiles-Andreas (born 2000)

  In the family of Prince Paul of Greece, older brother of Philip of Greece, and Crown Princess Mary-Chantal, daughter of American billionaire Robert Warren Miller, five children. Four of them are boys. And two are almost marriageable grooms. Constantine-Alexios and Achiles-Andreas were born in New York and moved to England with their parents and older sister Maria Olympia.Look for them there!

• Princes snapped up

  Josef Wenzel von und zu Liechtenstein (born 1995)

  Probable future ruler of Liechtenstein. The eldest grandson of the reigning prince and the eldest son of the regent occupies the second, after his father, position in the line of succession to the throne. On the maternal side, the heir to the royal house of the Stuarts, Joseph (pictured in the center) ranks third in the Jacobite line of pretenders to the thrones of England, Scotland, Ireland and France.Impressive genealogy!

• Princes snapped up

  Sebastien of Luxembourg (born 1992)

  Fifth in the succession to the throne of Luxembourg, fourth and youngest son of the Grand Duke, as yet unmarried Sebastien (right) studied in Great Britain, at the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst. received an economic education in the United States. Likes to travel, is interested in art, is fond of sports, preferring rugby. A very versatile prince!

• Princes snapped up

  Prince Joachim of Belgium (b.1991)

  His Imperial and Royal Highness Prince Joachim of Belgium, nephew of the King of Belgium and grandson of King Albert, is serving on land and at sea. The ninth in the list of succession to the throne, the youngest son of Princess Astrid received a military and economic education. He gives the impression of a serious young man. The girl in the green dress is not a friend, but a sister, the (unmarried) princess Maria Laura.

• Princes snapped up

  Albert Thurn and Taxis (b.1983)

  Without a crown or throne, but the head of a dynasty dating back to the time of the Holy Roman Empire. He inherited an energetic temperament from his mother, and from his father a considerable fortune, including breweries, land and banks. The inheritance received as a child made Albert the youngest, according to Forbes, a billionaire on the planet. Studied economics and theology. Engaged in auto racing. An enviable groom from Germany!

• Princes snapped up

  Nikolai von Bismarck (b.1986)

  Not quite a prince, but belongs to one of the most noble aristocratic dynasties in Germany. The great-great-grandson of the Chancellor of the German Empire, Otto von Bismarck, is known as a professional photographer and a regular in London’s social events. Cinderella, be careful! The young count has a reputation for being a bully. Although a bachelor, he has been in a relationship with British model Kate Moss since 2015, who is 12 years older than him.

• Princes snapped up

  Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b.1960)

  Not the first freshness, but a true gentleman. In the royal family of Great Britain, and after the marriage of Prince Harry, bachelors will still be available. Prince Andrew, Duke of York, youngest son of the Queen of Great Britain, has been divorced since 1996. He has two grown daughters from a marriage to Sarah Ferguson and has a solid military career behind him.