Duke University is an extremely prestigious
private research institution in Durham,
North Carolina founded by Methodists
and Quakers. It prides itself on maintaining
an excellent reputation.

It's endownment fund had a market value of
$4.4 billion, as of the end of the June 2009
financial year.

It ran a fund raising campaign - (ended in 2003)
which collected $2.36 billion.

It has surpassed $781 million in research expenditures,
mostly in health care and social sciences.

In 2006 - 3 lacrosse team members were accused of
rape. Charges against the players were dropped
and the initial prosecutor was disbarred for
"ethical improprieties." The incident attracted
significant media attention. The University's
reputation remained unsullied.

However, the Frank Lombard case was a totally different
kettle of fish. He was a member of the Faculty at the
University - and his ensuing scandal would have
done a great deal of damage. Therefore it
did not get much media coverage.
It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out
'why?'.

With the University's reputation at stake - strings were
obviously pulled to hush things up.

Duke University is extremely influential and like
all powerful and influential institutions they prefer
their scandals to remain off the front pages of large
urban newspapers.

As a legally trained but rebellious member of an electronic society, aka OLO I cant help but marvel at what must be done to get the front page of a Newspaper. Right now there is a man sixty feet up a tower at Shannon’s Flat just south of the ACT, and at last the media is starting to show interest.

Peter Spencer is a committed Bible believing Christian whose efforts to get some justice from the pagan and uncivilized State Supreme Court in New South Wales and pagan and uncivilized Federal Court of Australia, and the exclusive and difficult Federal Supreme Court which now goes by the name of the High Court, have so far come to nothing.

The justice he wants is for the courts to accept that there is a Royal Identifier on the Australian Constitution, published in London, but not on the one published in Australia. The Australian Courts Act 1828 in S 22 required all Acts when passed and after they have received the Royal Assent, to be submitted to a Supreme Court for enrollment and the attachment of a Royal Identifier.

There is only one State Supreme Court that I know of that still uses a Royal Identifier and that is in Victoria, but they stopped complying with the Australian Courts Act 1828 after the Australia Act 1986. Only S 15 of the Australian Courts Act 1828 was repealed in 1986, and the rest was accepted by the Parliament of the Commonwealth as still in force. A transcription of the Australian Courts Act 1828 may be found here. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=520

If Tony Abbott as a fellow Christian goes to the top of the mountain and asks Peter Spencer to come down, because he as Leader of the Opposition, will raise his case in the real Federal Supreme Court, the Parliament of the Commonwealth then it will make the front page of all the Newspapers. Christians make up sixty five percent of all Australians, and as Latham and Beasley found an atheist is unelectable. Turnbull was not interested so he was defeated by the power of one

Foxy,
Your response tacitly acknowledges my claim of a cover up.
You have put forward a different hypothesis to counter my claim.
Power and influence may well have been factors in the Lombard case.
However, what about the other, parallel cases that I've cited?
More string pulling?
I see a pattern of reporting based on victim politics which I believe explains all three incidents that I've cited.
I don't see how your theory can explain the lack of reporting on Jesse Dirkhising (compared to Matthew Shepard) and on
Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian.
Does your theory extend to the other incidents or do you have an alternative theory which encompasses them?

Dear Herman,

You're quite welcome to put forward whatever
theories take your fancy.

Armchair speculation is a favourite past time
of so many people.

It doesn't of course make you right (or wrong).
And, if you enjoy doing it - I say go for it!

My comments were in relation to your opening post -
and references to Duke University and the cases
involved with that institution. I was merely
attempting to point out - another perspective to
the cases you mentioned - and the possible reasons
for the selective reporting or lack of...

I had assumed that this was the point of your thread.