Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2017, 12:38:57 AM
75132 Posts in 1768 Topics by 359 Members
Latest Member: nic4real
Home Help Login Register
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
 1 
 on: March 03, 2009, 06:37:58 PM 
Started by Sydney Carton - Last post by Sydney Carton
     Ex-Duke lacrosse coach finds success at RI program

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/232/story/574027.html

By ERIC TUCKER
Associated Press Writer
Posted: Tuesday, Mar. 03, 2009

SMITHFIELD, R.I. Mike Pressler was convinced he'd never coach again after he was forced to resign from Duke University when three of his lacrosse players were accused of raping a stripper.

He was spurned by his college alma mater, denied interviews for high school positions and resorted to contacting former players for help getting work. His only offer came from a Division II program in northern Rhode Island far from the rarefied top-tier of college lacrosse occupied by Duke.

But three years later, and with the rape allegations fully debunked, Pressler is relishing a resurgent career at Bryant University. The Bulldogs are playing their first season against Division I competition, marching through a bruising schedule of Virginia, Maryland, Brown and other elite teams. His focus on building Bryant's program has helped raise the school's profile - and helped Pressler move beyond his acrimonious departure from Duke.

"I always say to the guys, 'Being at the top is great, but the journey's a heck of a lot more fun,' " said Pressler, who was hired at Bryant in August 2006. "To take our team to Division I in our third season, open at Virginia ... that's thrilling stuff, that's invigorating stuff."

His presence has paid dividends.

One of Pressler's former Duke players, Zack Greer, a three-time All-American and the all-time NCAA goals leader, used his final season of eligibility to enroll at Bryant as a business graduate student and leads the team with 13 goals in four games. Next year, Pressler will coach the U.S. team in the World Games in England.

"It's quite gratifying to see him land on his feet at Bryant," said Virginia lacrosse coach Dom Starsia, a longtime friend of Pressler's. "I think he's having a blast right now."

Bryant would have seemed an unlikely destination for Pressler, regarded as one of the country's top college coaches after going 153-82 in 16 seasons at Duke and leading the Blue Devils to the 2005 Division I title game.

But his career unraveled in March 2006 when an exotic dancer said she was raped in the bathroom of an off-campus house during a team party. The season was canceled and Pressler was ousted. Three players were indicted on rape charges that were dismissed the following year by North Carolina state prosecutors who declared the allegations fabricated.

Pressler contemplated leaving the sport. Instead, he was hired by Bryant after being recommended to the athletics director, Bill Smith, by a mutual friend and fellow college coach. Smith said he carefully vetted Pressler, clearing him with the university president and dissecting an internal Duke report chronicling the team's off-the-field behavior.

"It became very apparent to me early on that not only had Mike not done anything wrong - he had done everything right," Smith said.

Though grateful for the job, Pressler said the transition to a lower-caliber program was initially uneasy, especially for a coach who had just competed for a national championship. Bryant's lacrosse program was relatively new - it formed in 2000 - and, unlike Duke, didn't have access to the top high school recruits.

The Bulldogs won the Northeast-10 Conference's regular season title in Pressler's first year and won a school-record 14 games last season to reach the Division II tournament.

Bryant began moving its entire athletics program to Division I last fall. The men's lacrosse team, which is on a fast-track to full membership, won't be eligible for the NCAA tournament until 2011 but set up a loaded schedule this spring.

Bryant won three of its first four games after dropping its season opener, 10-4, to then-top ranked Virginia. The team's schedule will reunite Pressler with two of the exonerated ex-Duke players - Reade Seligmann, now at Brown, and Collin Finnerty at Loyola of Maryland.

Pressler said he's been approached by other schools looking for new coaches, but signed a four-year contract extension in August to solidify his presence at Bryant.

"What you're really looking for is people you can trust and people you can count on, and he may have found that at Bryant," Starsia said. "I wouldn't assume that he's only there for the short-term."

Still, it's hard to completely escape his past. Pressler has a slander lawsuit pending against Duke and a former university spokesman, accusing him of making disparaging comments to the media and violating terms of a confidential settlement the coach reached with the university. And Pressler said emotions are probably still too raw for a Bryant-Duke matchup.

Parents of his new recruits bring up the case, asking Pressler how his family got through the ordeal and how the vindicated athletes are doing. But it's nothing compared to his first season, which unfolded while the charges were still pending.

That year, he regularly discussed the Duke case with his new players and helped them navigate the unprecedented swirl of attention they received.

Now, he said, "all we talk about is lacrosse."
 

 2 
 on: March 03, 2009, 06:07:04 PM 
Started by Sydney Carton - Last post by Sydney Carton
   Today is Reade's birthday.
    Best wishes  and many ,many, more from all of us,Reade.
         

 3 
 on: March 03, 2009, 06:01:38 PM 
Started by Sydney Carton - Last post by Sydney Carton
   This so-called "Justice 4 Nifong" Committee may be minute in size and mental capacity, but its gullability as we frequently see ,is unlimited.
    They have now bought Mike an "even more valuable" and "more beautiful"guitar to replace one of the three guitars which Mike was compelled to sell to meet a few of the civil (and criminal) liabilities incurred by his manifold sins.(See multiple Nifong threads).
  The Nifongians  further intend to replace all three of his auctioned  instruments.unaware of the fact that Nifong family members have already purchased two of the guitars on their own recognisance.
   They even allege  that  Mike uses his instruments  to sing "the praises of the Lord".
       Mike must be  rather like the Alien  in John Campbell's "Who Goes There?" "Singing the prises of a god it hated,praying to a lord it never knew".
     Well,here is the link.We always enjoy giviing these people another chance to illuminate themselves and it iis understandable that Mike is photographed  laughing at them out of both sides of his mouth.
     http://www.justice4nifong.com/homenewsguitar.htm
         

 4 
 on: March 03, 2009, 07:01:11 AM 
Started by Sydney Carton - Last post by S.G.
He who has nothing to hide, Hides nothing.

As all of you know if the jury spent most all of their time contemplating the lesser charge (which should of never been allowed in) then they had to of voted unanimously not guilty on the murder charge.

Why would a judge not allow for the jury to "validate their verdict" when they were ALL present and ready to do so?

What is he hiding?

 5 
 on: March 02, 2009, 05:04:32 PM 
Started by Sydney Carton - Last post by Sydney Carton
  Well,Governor Sarah and President Barach do at least agree on one thing.They both want to block  William Osborne's efforts to get DNA (which the State of Alaska has been witholding for fourteen years ) that could well prove his innocence.The Supreme Court heard arguments .This is also on the front board but as it seems refer essential to the logue which we have buuilt up here,I am taking the liberty of reprinting the reference from former FBI Director William Sessions.
   A  case quite similar to the one Osborne is appealing just occurred in Ohio(see the Captain Douglas Prade story under Raymond Towler in the Wrongful Convictions section.)

   Obama's Testing Test
Why is the Justice Department on the wrong side of a Supreme Court case about DNA evidence?
By William S. Sessions
Posted Friday, Feb. 27, 2009, at 3:43 PM ET
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a case about whether the Constitution's due process clause requires Alaska to turn over DNA evidence to William Osborne, who was sentenced to 26 years in prison for kidnapping and sexual assault. Alaska prosecutors do not dispute that advanced DNA testing could prove Osborne's innocence beyond any doubt. But for nearly a decade, they've refused to allow him to do this testing.

PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
SINGLE PAGEYahoo! Buzz
 Facebook
MySpace
 Mixx
 Digg
 Reddit
 del.icio.us
 Furl
 Ma.gnolia
 Sphere
StumbleUpon
CLOSETo my great disappointment, recent news reports indicate that the Obama Justice Department has decided not to reverse the Bush administration's decision to weigh in on Alaska's side in the case, District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne. As has been said many times, the Justice Department's mission is to do justice. It is not to seek a conviction—or to uphold one—at all costs.

What interest does Alaska have in denying Osborne access to this evidence, thus obscuring the truth? He has offered to pay for the testing, so the state will incur no financial cost. In any case, federal money is available to help pay for testing for those who cannot afford it. Osborne did not willfully bypass advanced DNA testing when he was tried 14 years ago; the sophisticated testing he requests did not exist then.

   
Alaska's primary argument is that testing is unnecessary because non-DNA evidence demonstrates Osborne's likely guilt. But the victim's physical description of her attacker was tentative, differing in key respects from Osborne. And other cases have repeatedly demonstrated that this other evidence will amount to nothing if the DNA excludes Osborne and could even be matched to a convicted felon already in the system.

As I know from experience, law enforcement's predictions about a defendant's likely guilt are no substitute for actually performing a DNA test.

When I became FBI director in 1987, the bureau established a DNA laboratory we hoped would be used to verify that a suspect had indeed committed a crime. During my years as a U.S. attorney and federal judge in Texas, rapists and murderers sometimes walked free for lack of biological evidence. I had these cases in mind when we established the laboratory in Washington, D.C.

The results of the first 100 tests in 1988 astonished me. In three out of 10 cases, not only did we have the wrong person, but the guilty person was still at large. Many of them were unidentified and dangerous. DNA testing overall has produced dramatic results, exonerating a total of 232 people, including 17 on death row.

Alaska argues that a constitutional rule mandating that defendants get access to DNA after their convictions will prevent states from coming up with their own rules for handling this evidence. It's true that some states and the federal government do allow post-conviction access to DNA evidence. But as important, some narrowly circumscribe such access, and six, including Alaska, provide no statutory right to it at all.

Alaska contends that evidence of innocence does not, by itself, matter once a person has been convicted, or if the trial was free of constitutional and other defects. That goes too far in elevating the principle of finality over basic justice.

It's a generally laudatory goal for a new president to continue the DoJ polices of the previous one when he takes office. But a change in position may be warranted in some cases. Osborne is one of them. The Justice Department's decision is particularly perplexing because when President Obama was an Illinois state senator, he responded to that state's wrongful conviction problem by leading a bipartisan effort to help prevent convictions of the innocent, including laws allowing access to DNA evidence.

Evidence of innocence does—and must—matter to all of us, whenever it is presented. I have no idea whether Osborne is guilty. If the DNA shows that he is, so be it. But what if it shows he is not? Wouldn't victims of crime want to know if the wrong person is imprisoned, and the real perpetrator is still on the streets, free to commit more crimes? Wouldn't all of us want to know this?

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has called DNA the "truth machine of law enforcement." Why should our criminal justice system be afraid of that truth machine? There is still time for the new administration to reverse course before next Monday's argument. I hope it will.


 6 
 on: March 02, 2009, 01:21:29 PM 
Started by Sydney Carton - Last post by S.G.
These jury instructions are from the first trial to the first and only jury.
So we have a LAW that states: "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting..."
Then the judge says there is evidence of self-defense in his instructions to the jury, so if he understands the LAW then he should of tossed this before it went to trail, but this judge says Indiana does not allow judges to dismiss cases for the best interest of justice.

The juror said he thought I was guilty of reckless homicide because I should of ran and hid.
Where did he get the right to decide that aspect?

I'm still wondering how with a law so exact and precise, how a lesser charge is even allowed? Either I have the right to protect myself or not, how do you throw an accidental shooting into this? How do you go from an intentional act to oops it was an accident?

I've never responded to Drake or any adversary on this site so I do not know what outburst your talking about. Go to pg 3, post 34 on other thread to see where I mentioned the ex-sheriff.
"I have a witness that puts the now ex-sheriff in jail for perjury but she hasn't spoke to her."
I was simply pointing out that a witness is willing to testify that discredits the sheriffs character/ testimony and "my" atty. refuses to this day to speak to her.

 7 
 on: February 27, 2009, 03:37:34 PM 
Started by Sydney Carton - Last post by Sydney Carton
   On February 19th,the defense filed a 64 page appeal from Judge Fox's refusal to take  new evidence. It requests oral argument.
  It looks good to us but then few things judicial ,save the summary execution of Wayne Tompkinsin Florida (see Current Cases)  have looked worse to us  than Judge Fox's arbitrary dismissal of Captain MacDonald's excellently crafted case.
   http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Images/Defense_Appeal_to_the_Fourth_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals.pdf

   We are saddened  to report the death of Helena Stoekely,Sr.,who was certain  that her daughter had murdered the MacDonald family and vigorously supported the Captain's efforts to obtain vindication.

 8 
 on: February 26, 2009, 06:50:44 PM 
Started by Sydney Carton - Last post by Sydney Carton
   Here is the link to the original survey condducted by the Center of Publiic Integrity.It can keep any researcher  happilly wallowing for many hours.
   Published as far back as 2003(meaning it was a thirty-two year survey) but should again be getting a lot of well merited attention with the avalanche of similar cases which have nearly buried our justice system  recently.
              http://projects.publicintegrity.org/PM/
     

 9 
 on: February 26, 2009, 06:41:57 PM 
Started by Neanderthal - Last post by Sydney Carton
   That's three billion dollars loss for Duke before they get down to paying the fifty-seven people now suing for damages iin the wake of the Lacrosse case.

 10 
 on: February 26, 2009, 06:39:33 PM 
Started by Neanderthal - Last post by Sydney Carton
  STEELE AND BRODHEAD HAVE RECENTLY LOST 3,000,000,000 FOR DUKE.
       This is not one of my many computor generated solicisms.That is three BILLION not three million.
    http://www.johnincarolina.com/

Thursday, February 26, 2009
Butler & Rickards Are Back For Duke

There’s great news for people who love Duke and don't confuse its best interests with the interests of President Brodhead, BOT Chair Steel and the other Duke dependents in the civil suits brought by former Duke students and family members victimized by the hoax, attempted frame-up and ongoing cover-up.

Former Chronicle columnist Kristin Butler (T '08) and Ed Rickards (T’63 & Law ’66), the 1963 Chronicle editor-in-chief, have just started a blog True Blue.

Here in full is True Blue’s "Introduction" post:

Welcome to our blog! We hope to provide information and analysis that will empower students, parents, faculty, staff and alumni to participate more fully in the governance of Duke.

Some of our posts will be long because our material is very detailed. We will often post original documents. We will tell our readers when we seek information and cannot get it.

When we wrote a joint column in The Chronicle in the fall semester, President Brodhead and Executive Vice President Trask refused our requests for interviews. Vice President for PR Michael Schoenfeld said we were entitled to public reports -- and no help in understanding them.

In this antagonistic atmosphere which some administrators created and continue, we do our best to carefully source all information.

You are encouraged to post comments: click on the title above our post, in this case the word "Introduction." Or click on the word "Comments" at the end. We welcome your thoughts indeed.

Our URL is www.ButlerRickards.blogspot.com and our e-mail for additional feedback and tips is Butler.Rickards@gmail.com
_________________________________________

After their "Introduction" Butler and Rickards get right at it with a post report: "Duke has now lost $3 BILLION in financial crisis."

Give that post a read, including the note appended at the end which begins:

"the preparation of the above report was made more difficult by the Brodhead Administration's failure -- unprecedented in Trinity College and Duke University history -- to produce an annual report for the 2007-2008 school year[.]"

To Kristin and Ed - - Welcome to the neighborhood.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10

Advertise Here