The sad, sad state of a wing of the Duke family

[nmduke2001]

This may be one of the most troubling articles I have ever read. One of the last heirs to the Duke fortune was a terrible person that ruined his children's lives.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-poorest-rich-kids-in-the-world-20130812

[JasonEvans]

Holy !#@^!^!% What an incredible story -- incredibly sad. Cursed with unlimited wealth... a living nightmare.

-Jason "if those kids are ever even close to normal, it will be a miracle" Evans

[hurleyfor3]

The Duke family is screwed up. This is not news. Nor is the story atypical.

[nmduke2001]

The Duke family is screwed up. This is not news. Nor is the story atypical.

I did not know that the family was nearly totally gone and completely screwed up, so it was news to me.

[hurleyfor3]

Oh, don't get me wrong; a lot of the story was new to me too, but the Dukes have been in Bill Simmons' Tyson Zone longer than Tyson has.

[nmduke2001]

Oh, don't get me wrong; a lot of the story was new to me too, but the Dukes have been in Bill Simmons' Tyson Zone longer than Tyson has.

The Tyson zone is more than appropriate since this Duke family member killed his pet lion by feeding him too many cheeseburgers.

[weezie]

What a tragic and nauseating story. I feel sick.

[77devil]

The Duke family is screwed up. This is not news. Nor is the story atypical.

Having worked for a large, closely held 100 year old public company for nearly 30 years until it was sold, this story, while tragic, doesn't surprise me. In the world of wealthy family businesses, there is an old saying: the first generation creates it, the second generation builds it, and the third generation spends it.

The Duke's seemed to have been particularly dysfunctional. In my particular experience, however, the third generation was simply a bunch of harmless dilettantes, and their kids were clueless, who could not have cared less about what their forefathers created and built. They put their legacy in play for the pure greed of it and made me rich in the process. But I still think badly of them.

[-jk]

Can't speak for the rest of them, but Mary Duke Biddle Trent Semans was a truly delightful woman.

-jk

[budwom]

Having worked for a large, closely held 100 year old public company for nearly 30 years until it was sold, this story, while tragic, doesn't surprise me. In the world of wealthy family businesses, there is an old saying: the first generation creates it, the second generation builds it, and the third generation spends it.

The Duke's seemed to have been particularly dysfunctional. In my particular experience, however, the third generation was simply a bunch of harmless dilettantes, and their kids were clueless, who could not have cared less about what their forefathers created and built. They put their legacy in play for the pure greed of it and made me rich in the process. But I still think badly of them.

What do you mean by a closely held public company? Seems contradictory...

[sagegrouse]

Can't speak for the rest of them, but Mary Duke Biddle Trent Semans was a truly delightful woman.

-jk

As was her daughter, my classmate Dr. Rebecca Trent.

JB Dukes grat nephew, Angier Biddle Duke, Jr. (1915-1995), had a distinguished career as a diplomat and had four children (four marriages, I believe). His son, the III, was a fraternity brother of a friend at Cornell. This was back in the '50s. AB Duke III then transferred to Duke for his last two years. He wrote back to his brothers, "They are treating me a lot better here than at Cornell."

sagegrouse

[ArnieMc]

The Duke family is screwed up. This is not news. Nor is the story atypical.My wife is Washington Duke's great, great granddaughter. She says that the vast majority of the Duke family (at least, her family and the ones that she has met at Duke reunions) are nice people, community leaders, philanthropists, etc. Your generalization, based on one small branch of the family (granted, a filthy rich branch), is offensive.

[77devil]

My wife is Washington Duke's great, great granddaughter. She says that the vast majority of the Duke family (at least, her family and the ones that she has met at Duke reunions) are nice people, community leaders, philanthropists, etc. Your generalization, based on one small branch of the family (granted, a filthy rich branch), is offensive.

The Inman branch is not related by blood to the Dukes either. Maybe it's in the genes.

[nmduke2001]

My wife is Washington Duke's great, great granddaughter. She says that the vast majority of the Duke family (at least, her family and the ones that she has met at Duke reunions) are nice people, community leaders, philanthropists, etc. Your generalization, based on one small branch of the family (granted, a filthy rich branch), is offensive.

ArnieMC, the article makes it seem like most of the Duke's are gone. Glad to know that there are good ones still around.

[Atlanta Duke]

The opening lines are like something Hunter Thompson would write

The kids had seen her this way before; two years earlier they'd been in the car when she was pulled over for a DUI. This morning, she seemed even more wasted....

"Shut the f... up!" their stepmother, Daralee Inman, snarled. Her right hand shot out to smack Georgia's face, while her left clutched a glass filled with Trix cereal, leaving no hands on the steering wheel.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-poorest-rich-kids-in-the-world-20130812

[Faison1]

I met Walker/Skipper on a few occasions. I am close with members of his family. While there is little to defend about him or his actions, I would caution people when it comes to the validity of a Rolling Stone article.

The article is shocking, disturbing, and sad.......it's probably meant to be. It's got all the ingredients to sell. However, I didn't realize Rolling Stone was writing articles judging people's ability to parent these days. I thought it was a music magazine.

Skipper was not someone I wanted to hang around, but I know he had very meaningful relationships with his family.

I guess I am writing this to defend my friends who are extremely upset, and wondering why the article was written in the first place.

[gus]

I thought it was a music magazine.

Rolling Stone has been covering more than just music (including culture, politics, human interest) for basically as long as it's existed.

[Faison1]

Rolling Stone has been covering more than just music (including culture, politics, human interest) for basically as long as it's existed.

From Wikipedia (describing Jann Wenner's vision of the magazine):

"In the very first edition of the magazine, Wenner wrote that Rolling Stone "is not just about the music, but about the things and attitudes that music embraces." "

I guess we can nitpick, as I don't follow the magazine much, but writing a story about the Duke Fortune, Trust, and Family seems to be pretty far from anything "music embraces".

From what I've heard, Rolling Stone has changed its format in recent years in an attempt to increase circulation.

[gus]

From Wikipedia (describing Jann Wenner's vision of the magazine):

"In the very first edition of the magazine, Wenner wrote that Rolling Stone "is not just about the music, but about the things and attitudes that music embraces." "

I guess we can nitpick, as I don't follow the magazine much, but writing a story about the Duke Fortune, Trust, and Family seems to be pretty far from anything "music embraces".

From what I've heard, Rolling Stone has changed its format in recent years in an attempt to increase circulation.

I can nitpick with the best of 'em, but I'm telling you the facts: Rolling Stone has been covering stories like this since basically its inception.

[77devil]

From Wikipedia (describing Jann Wenner's vision of the magazine):

"In the very first edition of the magazine, Wenner wrote that Rolling Stone "is not just about the music, but about the things and attitudes that music embraces." "

I guess we can nitpick, as I don't follow the magazine much, but writing a story about the Duke Fortune, Trust, and Family seems to be pretty far from anything "music embraces".

From what I've heard, Rolling Stone has changed its format in recent years in an attempt to increase circulation.

Gus is correct. Rolling Stone has been covering politics, culture, and society practically since its inception. In recent years, its in depth profile of General Stanley McCrystal, for example, led to his resignation as commander of forces in Afganistan.

I'm not sure what your discord is. Rolling Stone is free to cover whatever it wants. Are you suggesting libel?

[Faison1]

Gus is correct. Rolling Stone has been covering politics, culture, and society practically since its inception. In recent years, its in depth profile of General Stanley McCrystal, for example, led to his resignation as commander of forces in Afganistan.

I'm not sure what your discord is. Rolling Stone is free to cover whatever it wants. Are you suggesting libel?

Not suggesting a thing. Simply wondering out loud, and defending a friend.

Journalism on the whole is suspect these days. Is an article written to increase "clicks", or is it written for a more noble reason like informing the public of something important?

For instance, another acquaintance who serves as a local elected official recently made a mistake and was pulled over for DUI. Our newspaper got ahold of the story and printed, "while we were looking at his history, we noticed he was investigated for sexual misconduct 9 years ago." So, they decided to make it a front page/headline story, "Local Official Previously Accused of Sexual Assault."

The case was settled 5 years ago. The story I heard was he had nothing to do with it. Does that stop a newspaper from printing a headline which turns his family and social life upside down?

[Channing]

Not suggesting a thing. Simply wondering out loud, and defending a friend.

Journalism on the whole is suspect these days. Is an article written to increase "clicks", or is it written for a more noble reason like informing the public of something important?

For instance, another acquaintance who serves as a local elected official recently made a mistake and was pulled over for DUI. Our newspaper got ahold of the story and printed, "while we were looking at his history, we noticed he was investigated for sexual misconduct 9 years ago." So, they decided to make it a front page/headline story, "Local Official Previously Accused of Sexual Assault."

The case was settled 5 years ago. The story I heard was he had nothing to do with it. Does that stop a newspaper from printing a headline which turns his family and social life upside down?

(1) There are a lot of factual statements in the Rolling Stone article that either are or are not true, there doesn't seem to be much room for grey. If they are true then I can't imagine a way to spin the story other than in the worst light. If they are false it is a case of some of the worst yellow journalism I have ever seen.

(2) On the tangent topic you raised, any elected who has a prior accusation of sexual misconduct, whether it was unfounded or not, is naive to think it won't come up at some point during his campaign/term

[JasonEvans]

The case was settled 5 years ago. The story I heard was he had nothing to do with it. Does that stop a newspaper from printing a headline which turns his family and social life upside down?

In my opinion you are being a little silly here, Faison. There are well-known laws here regarding what the media is allowed to say and not allowed to say. Libel and slander lawsuits happen all the time. If it is factual, they can report it.

I will add that it is certainly true that a story with facts can be written or spun in a way that makes the facts seem more or less severe. Quite often the media will spin things in a somewhat sensational fashion in order to "get more clicks" or sell more advertising. That is a sad reality of the business of journalism in the US and won't change any time soon unless we plan on going to a British model of widespread publicly financed media. Even if we do, we have seen the popularity and proliferation of British tabloids that practice even lower journalistic standards than we seem to be bemoaning here in the US.

Anyway, while I hear your lament that your friends may have been spun in a negative fashion the Rolling Stone article or in other media situations, the truth is that with fame, money, and power come some extra hurdles in life. Fame, money, and power do a ton of good things (which is why people pursue them with such passion) but they also put you in the public eye and bring greater scrutiny to everything you do. It is a tough standard to live by but if you are rich and/or powerful you better lead a perfectly clean life or you are likely to end up being embarrassed in the media at some point.

-Jason "if even 1/10th of what is in that Stone article is partially true, those kids grew up in a really messed up environment! Hard to see any way to defend that" Evans

[Faison1]

In my opinion you are being a little silly here, Faison.

OK. I'll drop it now.

I was never defending Skipper.

[Edouble]

I can nitpick with the best of 'em, but I'm telling you the facts: Rolling Stone has been covering stories like this since basically its inception.

Yeah, agree with this right here. I've subscribed off and on for many years. One of my favorite stories ever was about 8 years ago, when they flipped the script, so to speak, on The Church of Scientology.

[Faison1]

Anyone following the Hernandez/Rolling Stone Story?

Surprise! There might be some inaccuracies with the story and its sources.......

[cato]

Anyone following the Hernandez/Rolling Stone Story?

Surprise! There might be some inaccuracies with the story and its sources.......

I read it, mostly because Jim Trotter had tweeted that RS was teasing about explosive stuff re Urban Meyer. There wasn't much on that front in the article.

What are the possible inaccuracies?

[Faison1]

I read it, mostly because Jim Trotter had tweeted that RS was teasing about explosive stuff re Urban Meyer. There wasn't much on that front in the article.

What are the possible inaccuracies?

Interactions between Kraft/Belichick and Hernandez......questions about who the sources were, and whether they had firsthand knowledge or what their motive is.

The only reason I bring this up is its similarity to the argument I was making about the Duke/Inman article. Hernandez (presumed) and Walker Inman are despicable. However, Rolling Stone seems to be in the habit of quoting 3rd party statements/opinions and writing them as fact.

For example, does this sound really like something Belichick would tell Hernandez:

Mortified, Hernandez returned to Boston; Belichick, per a close Hernandez associate, had told him to lay low, rent a safe house for a while.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-gangster-in-the-huddle#ixzz2dTud2lJk

Who are all the sources/friends of Hernandez?

[77devil]

Interactions between Kraft/Belichick and Hernandez......questions about who the sources were, and whether they had firsthand knowledge or what their motive is.

The only reason I bring this up is its similarity to the argument I was making about the Duke/Inman article. Hernandez (presumed) and Walker Inman are despicable. However, Rolling Stone seems to be in the habit of quoting 3rd party statements/opinions and writing them as fact.

For example, does this sound really like something Belichick would tell Hernandez:

Mortified, Hernandez returned to Boston; Belichick, per a close Hernandez associate, had told him to lay low, rent a safe house for a while.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-gangster-in-the-huddle#ixzz2dTud2lJk

Who are all the sources/friends of Hernandez?

Don't conflate the two stories. You profess to know the Inmans. If there are inaccuracies in the RS story, make your case directly. It's not as though you weren't provoked to do so before.

[Chicago 1995]

Interactions between Kraft/Belichick and Hernandez......questions about who the sources were, and whether they had firsthand knowledge or what their motive is.

The only reason I bring this up is its similarity to the argument I was making about the Duke/Inman article. Hernandez (presumed) and Walker Inman are despicable. However, Rolling Stone seems to be in the habit of quoting 3rd party statements/opinions and writing them as fact.

For example, does this sound really like something Belichick would tell Hernandez:

Mortified, Hernandez returned to Boston; Belichick, per a close Hernandez associate, had told him to lay low, rent a safe house for a while.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-gangster-in-the-huddle#ixzz2dTud2lJk

Who are all the sources/friends of Hernandez?

Does it sound like something Belichick would say? Heck yes. He's a football coach with a decimated receiving corps. He NEEDED Hernandez. Note that his threat to cut or trade him was that it would happen AFTER the 2013 season. Belchick's one of the worst win at all cost types. This isn't shocking.

As for sources, it's not as though there weren't others present when these discussions happened, and it's not like either participant wouldn't have talked about the meeting with others.

The reflexive need to assume a story is made up when you don't like it is interesting, but not a strong defense

[Faison1]

Does it sound like something Belichick would say? Heck yes. He's a football coach with a decimated receiving corps. He NEEDED Hernandez. Note that his threat to cut or trade him was that it would happen AFTER the 2013 season. Belchick's one of the worst win at all cost types. This isn't shocking.

As for sources, it's not as though there weren't others present when these discussions happened, and it's not like either participant wouldn't have talked about the meeting with others.

The reflexive need to assume a story is made up when you don't like it is interesting, but not a strong defense

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/patriots-president-jonathan-kraft-rips-rolling-stone-article-233752179--nfl.html

It has nothing to do with me not liking the story. It has everything to do with my distrust of how journalism works these days. As I've said before, I don't really care about any of the subjects.

However, it became personal when everyone on this board starting ripping my friend's family member, when they have no basis for doing so, besides a Rolling Stone article.

[Faison1]

Don't conflate the two stories. You profess to know the Inmans. If there are inaccuracies in the RS story, make your case directly. It's not as though you weren't provoked to do so before.

Here you go:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/08/29/tom-brady-just-observer-for-patriots-preseason-finale/htAtjJ31FPMJfoFKQ6wGaK/story.html

[Faison1]

This is my argument with both articles, and it's said by Patriots President Jonathan Kraft in an ESPN article:

"I read that article, and there's so much in it, and it reads like it's all factual, people were there, yet there are no named [sources]," Kraft said. "It's all unnamed, and yet it appears like people are in some very private moments and got the dialogue just right. Nothing is sourced, and reading the article, there were three things or two, three, four things in particular that I saw and I just know are completely factually inaccurate, I mean not close to being factually accurate. Just inaccurate. So I look at it and I read the article, and you wonder how much else in there is."

[77devil]

Interactions between Kraft/Belichick and Hernandez......questions about who the sources were, and whether they had firsthand knowledge or what their motive is.

The only reason I bring this up is its similarity to the argument I was making about the Duke/Inman article.


Here you go:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/08/29/tom-brady-just-observer-for-patriots-preseason-finale/htAtjJ31FPMJfoFKQ6wGaK/story.html

I'm not referring to the Hernandez story. What, specifically, are the inaccuracies in the Inman story? That is the point you've never addressed, just a lot of innuendo.

And do you really believe a quote from Jonathan Kraft is credible?

[Chicago 1995]

This is my argument with both articles, and it's said by Patriots President Jonathan Kraft in an ESPN article:

"I read that article, and there's so much in it, and it reads like it's all factual, people were there, yet there are no named [sources]," Kraft said. "It's all unnamed, and yet it appears like people are in some very private moments and got the dialogue just right. Nothing is sourced, and reading the article, there were three things or two, three, four things in particular that I saw and I just know are completely factually inaccurate, I mean not close to being factually accurate. Just inaccurate. So I look at it and I read the article, and you wonder how much else in there is."

Kraft has more reason to lie than does the Rolling Stone writer. His dad and his organization look like garbage and that they ignored minimally if not enabled a gangster.

But we should take his word over Rolling Stone?

I have no idea if your friend got smeared by Rolling Stone, but trying to use the Hernandez story and the Pats to help your argument is failing miserably.

[Faison1]

Kraft has more reason to lie than does the Rolling Stone writer. His dad and his organization look like garbage and that they ignored minimally if not enabled a gangster.

But we should take his word over Rolling Stone?

Got it. Jonathan Kraft is less credible than some questionable of character, non-named sources/friends of Aaron Hernandez.

[Faison1]

I have no idea if your friend got smeared by Rolling Stone, but trying to use the Hernandez story and the Pats to help your argument is failing miserably.

And before you accuse me of failing miserably, look back at my original post. Inman was never my friend. I never said he was smeared. He is related to a good friend of mine who was crushed by the article and the inaccuracies associated with it.

Unfortunately, since Inman is dead, there remains only 2 trailer-trash women fighting over his estate who will use any means to make each other look bad.

I used the Hernandez story as an example because it is now open for debate as to how credible the article and sources are.

[cato]

However, it became personal when everyone on this board starting ripping my friend's family member, when they have no basis for doing so, besides a Rolling Stone article.

That may have been the wrong hill to defend. If *anything* was true about dude's parenting in the prior article was true, well, wow.

[Faison1]

Don't conflate the two stories. You profess to know the Inmans. If there are inaccuracies in the RS story, make your case directly. It's not as though you weren't provoked to do so before.


I'm not referring to the Hernandez story. What, specifically, are the inaccuracies in the Inman story? That is the point you've never addressed, just a lot of innuendo.

Here you go, 77. If this doesn't raise some sort of seed of doubt for you, then I guess you believe everything in print.

Hmmm....let's see: Mom and Crazy Lover can't get the money they want....so let's print a damning story of how kids were abused by Dead Father and Crazy Widowed Wife....then these jerks at JP Morgan will surely cave to our demands.

http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/duke

But JP Morgan administrators have fired back that mom is not exactly promoting a safe environment for the beneficiaries whose interests they are bound to protect.

As they note, the custody court passed her over in favor of her legendarily eccentric spouse when they split up – and now she’s romantically involved with a known child molester who already has a restraining order keeping him away from the kids, but not her accounts.

If he’s the source of recent “erratic” requests for distributions to pay for Vegas jaunts and gold bullion, the trustees have every right to clamp down on suspicious expenses.

After all, their job is to ensure that the kids get the maximum possible inheritance, and not to fund the foibles of anyone hanging around the household. Should mom burn through the money now, JP Morgan is on the hook for failing to live up to its fiduciary responsibilities.

[Chicago 1995]

Got it. Jonathan Kraft is less credible than some questionable of character, non-named sources/friends of Aaron Hernandez.

Superficially, Kraft is more credible than Hernandez or his associates. No question.

But let's think about incentives. What would Hernandez and his guys have to gain from making this story up? He's still in jail. He's still facing murder charges and being investigated for a slew of other crimes. The stories told to Rolling Stone aren't going to help with a plea-deal. They aren't going to help with a jury. They really don't have any reason to tell those stories. The Krafts and the Pats? They've got plenty of reason to deny everything related to Hernandez.

Credibility is more than simple standing. It's incentives. And here, the Krafts don't have much of a leg to stand on.