I hope no one was playing a drinking game involving "Corey Maggette" being mentioned during David Glenn's radio show.
I hope no one was playing a drinking game involving "Corey Maggette" being mentioned during David Glenn's radio show.
... or if told anything, what it was.
This is an extremely serious charge which deserves extremely serious inquiry. The speculation far outpaces the publicly-known facts at this time. And with events that allegedly occurred twenty years ago, even the “facts” ultimately may depend in the eye of the beholder.
It is a shame that these issues get played out in the court of public opinion, because that court is the least equipped of all venues to deal with it. JMHO.
While I agree with the concept of due process, what does that really mean in the context of a rape allegation made in 1999 involving two students who are not students any longer? What is Duke's duty now? I assume Duke will investigate whether its process (at the time) was followed appropriately and make adjustments if its investigation reveals deficiencies in its processes that currently exist. However, we are now 20 years later and a lot more thought and analysis has gone into what response a university should take under these circumstances. My guess is that the policies are different now and much improved from prior experience at Duke and other institutions of higher learning. I may be wrong but, as I understand it, apparently in an attempt to discredit her, Fairfax brought out this 1999 rape allegation involving a basketball player when he responded to Watson's allegation against him. Watson then confirmed it and also stated that the unnamed Dean failed to help her. Given these circumstances I just don't see Duke investigating the merits of her allegations against Maggette. Of course Duke will investigate, but investigate what?
At the end of the day, no cloud from this allegation will ever be lifted because Duke is not going to determine whether Corey Maggette was responsible for misconduct that may have resulted in his expulsion from Duke or dismissal from the basketball team or may not have so resulted. And, to digress somewhat, I do not agree that making such a determination, if necessary because two current students are involved, is NOT the province of a university. Subject to applicable law, Duke has the right to revoke the privilege of being a student for violations of its policies and should do so if Duke finds that allegations like those asserted here are true, are more likely than not true, or meet some other threshold of credibility that applicable law does not prohibit. While expulsion may result in being branded a sex offender for life, the university has a duty to take action to keep its students safe and it is not going to wait for the criminal justice system to wind its way to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt before it does. You just don't get that kind of due process outside of the criminal law.
They will presumably only be able to investigate who (among those employed by Duke) knew what and who did what about what they knew. This will presumably involve the people involved that are still at Duke, as it would likely be harder to access information from folks no longer at Duke. I would guess it would start with whichever Dean was the one allegedly notified in the first place. If that Dean is no longer at Duke, it's going to be really hard for the investigation to go any further unless any official paperwork was filed. If that Dean IS still there, then the investigation can be into how the matter was handled and whether or not it followed the appropriate (at that time) protocols in place. If it did, then there isn't much to be done. If it did not, then things will happen.
There's no statute of limitations in NC on rape...but unlike some murder cases, the forensic evidence will simply not be available in a 20 year rape allegation. I would only quibble with your statement above by saying that an accusation alone deserves solemn inquiry, but I'd say there needs to be some evidence, some corroboration, or a very specific and detailed account before the inquiry goes full bore.
This is an extremely complicated and difficult situation and your point (as well as others above) frame the multiple questions that are raised and will have to be addressed by systems that are, at best, imperfectly suited to do so at this late date. But, it seems to me there are a range of related issues that will have to be addressed, including:
1. Will the North Carolina authorities being criminal charges in either case, given that the sources below indicate there is no statute of limitations for rape/felonious sexual assault in North Carolina?
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/north-...ions-laws.html
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wh...-felony-in-nc/
From the information provided in the New York Times and Washington Post stories, there would seem to be real potential criminal exposure in these cases, despite the extended passage of time. The news stories report multiple instances of prior outcry by Ms. Watson (who appears to have no axe to grind or personal agenda), and the sources to whom she reportedly made the outcry appear to corroborate that report and themselves appear from the news stories to have no axe to grind either.
I agree with you that Duke University has no real business making determinations about the validity of the underlying allegation and that this would need to be addressed through the criminal justice system -- especially since Maggette is no longer a student. I'm not sure what a University disciplinary proceeding could do vis-a-vis him at this point.
2. What did Duke University know, when did it know it and what did it do in response (if, as is claimed, Ms. Watson did make a contemporaneous report to a Dean)?
I see this as being more about an investigation of how the University handled the complaint (again, assuming it was made) -- e.g., did the University comply with Title IX and/or its own processes in fairly handling and investigating the complaint -- than about adjudicating the validity of the underlying allegations.
Due to the privacy issues involved, the public may well learn very little about these conclusions.
3. What did the Duke University Basketball program know, when did it know it and what did it do in response?
Given the statement Coach K made over the weekend, and the way in which the allegations against Rasheed Sulaimon (from what we can read between the lines in light of how little was released due to the federal privacy rules) were handled, it would be almost impossible to believe that the basketball program had had any prior knowledge or role in the situation. But, that has to be investigated.
Again, however, whatever the results of that, we will likely learn very little about it publicly.
If I understand the current situation, Meredith Watson has not yet herself identified Corey Magette - just Fairfax. Her childhood friend (Mr Jones) says she confided in him that it had been Corey. Ms. Watson - through her lawyers- has only said she went to a Duke Dean about an alleged rape by a basketball player. I have to imagine Duke and Fox West will both be reaching out to Ms. Watson’s legal team to confirm Corey is the alleged perpetrator and also - in Duke’s case - the name of the Dean. If Ms. Watson and her legal team don’t wish to engage on this particular allegation, that may more or less end Duke and Fox’s internal investigations unless more accusers come forward alleging wrongdoing by Corey.
Interesting that Maggette has been named but not the dean?
The only thing I will post, without speculation, is that many were surprised that Corey, talented as he was, as a 6th man surprised nearly everyone when he declared for the draft.
At least that's what I remember, but here is a contemporary article published at the time:
ADVISING MAGGETTE: DUKE BLUE OR NBA GREEN?
In the case of an alleged rape, is it recommended or required that a party who hears about it from the alleged victim report it to law enforcement? Isn't it up to the victim to report the crime? Will LE even take a report from a third party who was not a witness to the crime?
Not that you're insinuating as such, but to prevent anyone from taking this the wrong way, as far as I am aware, there was never any definitive connection made (publicly) between the allegations against Rasheed and his dismissal from the team, and it's my understanding that the dismissal was solely due to other incidents.
1200. DDMF.
I would just like to thank the mods for re-opening this thread. I know it's not easy. I would also like to thank the members for such well thought out and well written comments above, which help me put things in perspective. This sort of rationality seemingly just can't be found elsewhere. As always, this board continues to impress.
Some of you are bringing up "Title IX." The Obama administration sent to colleges and universities a 2011 "Dear Colleague' letter in which it presented what I will call a novel interpretation of the 1972 act of which Title IX was a part. This is not the place to get into that controversy, only to say that Eric Holder was not running the Justice Department when this happened.
This case falls under the jurisdiction of the law enforcement authorities.
As a non-lawyer, I'm curious about this part. Her attorneys made a point of mentioning the Facebook and e-mail messages she sent. At least in the Fairfax case, they would seem to be useful in proving her allegations and description of the event precede the more recent one, but in the Maggette case, what value would they serve?
Will Avery was mostly a surprise, too, though. Elton, Will, and Corey popped the bubble on early entry at Duke (with Corey being the original OAD), and only Elton was considered almost a sure thing to go.
Over the years, we've had several other early entries that could be called surprises such that nowadays, it's no longer a surprise if anyone goes.
I wouldn't read into Maggette's surprise decision other than that he received correct info that he would be a first-round draft pick.