newsobserver.com |The Editors' Blog - Duke lacrosse comments

Comments:

Comment from: Mark Peterson [Visitor]

06/11/06 at 18:55
In today's New York Times, columnist Nicholas Kristof compares this case to the Scottsboro Boys trial. Where is the N&O editorial board? We've seen two mild editorials in the last five weeks, expressing concern that DA Nifong might not be acting according to proper procedures, as with the photo ID and the refusal to consider exculpatory evidence.

According to the police records released in Friday's motion, it now seems at least possible that Nifong deliberately went forward with a case he knew was weak to non-existent, in the hopes of fanning racial animosities and winning the primary. Surely it's time for the N&O editorial board to use its review the case impartially and demand that regular procedures, including moving forward with cases that actually seem to have some evidence, be followed--or does it believe that local prosecutors behave this way in all cases?

Comment from: AC [Visitor]

06/11/06 at 23:33
How about a thought experiment here?

A trashy white girl from Saxpahaw accuses three black NCSU athletes of raping her. The Durham police strip them to the waiste and take pictures, which are used in a flawed lineup supervised by a white city manager.

Result: Jessie calls to offer trailer park girl a scholarship. Progressives march against privledged black athletic culture.

Actually, no, can't even get that into the thought process.

How about this: $harpton comes into town and gins up a riot, just like in NY. Yep, I can see that.

Predictions: no trial except the LAX players suing 'the accuser" for damages. Nifong does not run again.

-AC

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/12/06 at 06:04
Thanks for this place, Ms. Sill. This story needs to be talked about, now and long after it reaches it's legal conclusion.

It's a story about those four young people starring in this terrible drama, but it's also a story about each one of us. Many of you in "supporting roles' will be asked why you believed what you did, acted as you did. But there are questions beyond that...for all of us out in the "audience "to ask ourselves as well. Hard questions about new kinds of prejudice. About an appearance of a troubling racial solidarity that withstands any opposing truth or evidence. About a young man who said even if innocent, the players should be jailed for life. About the Traveling Tragedy Show of Jesse and Al , who scour the headlines for any racial incident they can exploit for camera time...then book the local motel. About the Ruth Sheehan mindset, who armed with only an allegation and no evidence, wrote "We know you know." About people on BOTH sides who exposed their inner selves with every word they spoke on the topic.

There's alot to talk about for a long time.

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/12/06 at 07:19
Ms. Sill, May I presume to suggest some work assignments at the N&O?

Please send someone over to the city manager's office. Let's remember after the Duke report was issued, how he excoriated the Duke officier about that "eavesdropping" report . The one that stated the accuser told multiple stories that first night. He assured us the police denied this. In light of the recent filings that show police notes confirming multiple stories, the N&O needs to talk to him again. Who told him what? Did he talk to the police or Nifong? Did he know the truth and lie? Or was he misled, and if so, by whom? Get your best investigative reporter on this. There is a story here, a big one. The story of how and why these charges came to be....and EVERYONE who was involved. He misled the public. Why? What is the story behind the scenes here?

Get somebody else over to the police department. Is it true the Police Chief is on leave? Who is running the store over there...Nifong? There must be one man with a conscience over there, appalled at this witchhunt. Here's a catchy phrase, Tell them "We know you know,"

Get your editorial page in gear. It looks downright strange that NOW you have so little to say.The wheels are coming off Durham's justice system in front of a world audience, and the local paper is holding forth on...cable tv and kindergarden issues? Melanie, Melanie, Melanie. If you all have writers block. I'll even ghost-write a piece for you. Here'a starter:

We'll call it "Diddling with Justice in Durham." Start with Kim's original "crock" statement that the rape never took place. Observe how it morphs into a strong "maybe " after Nifong cuts her a sweet deal. Next, we have the five or six line-ups it took, to get an identification from the accuser. Huh? They were ALL lacrosse players..in their jerseys! No wrong answers? On to the poor immigrant taxi driver, who steps forwardly proudly in the American way. Soon after he is picked up on a dodgey two year old warrant..by the DETECTIVES on the rape case? To the nation at large Durham is beginning to look like Mayberry-run-amuck. Your editorial silence assumes this is business as usual in our hometown. Gosh, isn't that how every prosecutor gets a conviction. Can your editorial page do outrage? If not now, when?

Send another reporter to do some rummaging through old police/court files. Find ONE other incident in Durham where charges were pursued ....when multiple inconsistant stories were disputed by 46 witnesses and no DNA. Just give us ONE to show that these charges are Durham's NORM, not a politically motivated aberration.

Time for a sit-down with Ruth Sheehan. Her empathy-radar is now honed on paying for illegal immigrants college education. HMMM? How does she feel about every single taxpayer in Durham contributing to Nifong's campaign? How you say? Well,taxpayers paid for ALL those DNA tests...the macho move that got Nifong elected. All that taxpayer money was supposed to separate the guilty from the innocent ,said Nifong. For all that taxpayer money, the people of Durham got a partial match on top of a fake nail in a guys garbage can. (One can only imagine Nifong demonstrating in court how this woman fought for her life against three athletes using only the top of one finger. This I would pay to see) Explain to Ruth, that after the players civil attorneys get done suing the city of Durham, the taxpayers are going to be a bit tapped out to chip in on anything new.

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/12/06 at 09:21
Thanks for the comments. Rather than my spending time moving comments from the post below, those interested in seeing other comments on Duke posted over the weekend can read the post on our new local obituaries feature below. And if you have anything to say on the new "Life Stories" column, which debuted Sunday, please do.

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

06/12/06 at 16:16
Joan Foster,

Thank you, from those of us who use our brains for more than hatracks, and can see a trainwreck for what it is. You've put together a pair of very well written letters, which unfortunately will fall on the deaf ears of the N&O editors. But please know that your efforts to tell it like it is is much appreciated by an embarrassed public. it's still refreshing to know that the reality of this farce is so clearly obvious to those who can see it for what it is, a bunch of bigoted black racists with an agenda, a bunch of ego-driven, Duke-despising wanna-bes with no clue, and a justice system that is broken beyond description. Should this vigilante band ever decide to come after me, I think I'd have to take the easy way out and simply commit Hari-Kari before I'd ever trust any of them with such a thing as fairness or justice.

Comment from: more half truths [Visitor]

06/12/06 at 21:55
More manipuulation from the editor of the N&O

Your story on Saturday
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/449122.html

was a dishonest attempt by you to cover up an act of maliciousness the day before, where Anne Blythe and your night editor published a photo of another lacrosse player who had done absolutely with a caption implying he was guilty of something. (See below)

I and othrs pointed out to you that your writer was aware that the motions had nothing to do with the player you pictured but were filled by a number of attorneys in the case.

As was explained to your useless ombudsman Ted Vaden (email and responses below), this was a cut-and-dry case of ambush journalism. And rather than just admit you made a mistake, you try to cover it up with a second story.

That is what all of your critics (liberal and conservative, Durham-basedand across the country) find so galling (and yes, despicable) about your lack of leadership.

Coverup, lie, lie, coverup.

We are left to wonder if you are capable of telling the truth about anything.
-----------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------
Mr Vaden-

The publication in today's N&O of a Lacrosse "mugshot"
of Frederick Krom Jr in today's article by Anne Blythe
is one of the lowest chapters in your paper's
disgraceful pro-prosecution coverage.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/448364.html

This malicious act attempting to accuse Mr Krom of
"something" by implication is a continuation of the
Nifong-N&O witchhunt on a new front.

In case the morons at the N&O can't figure it out, Mr
Krom's lawyer was filing that motion to quash Nifong's
despicable attempt to intimidate witnesses by subpeona
of behalf of _all_ the Lacrosse players.

Mr Krom had nothing to do with it, in particular.

I think Ms Sill and her editors did figure that out.

Based on your paper's past behavior, it is clear to me
that the picture was published _explicity_ to aid in
Nifong's attempt to intimidate the entire team. And
to drag yet one more player into the public shame
arena without cause.

Will the cowardly Mr Vaden say anything? Not a
chance.
An ombudsman without any courage is less than useless,
it makes a charade of the whole enterprise.

And only adds to the growing evidence that Melanie
Sill is running a malicious, unprofessional and
thoroughly discredited newspaper.

--- Ted Vaden wrote:

I find no problem with publishing the picture with the story.
The story was about Krom, acting through his lawyer, trying to stop the DA's search of his school records. The lawyer wouldn't have filed the motion without his client's approval. The newspaper is merely reporting a legal action with no malicious intent.
------------------------------------------------------------
That's pure garbage, Mr Vaden

Your paper published the photo to be salacious and
accusatory. In no other case would your newspaper
have felt free to smear someone in this way.

The caption used, "Frederick Krom Jr. is an object of
subpoenas in Durham."

does not permit any other interpretation besides
malicious intent. The caption is a patently
misleading and accusatory.

....

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/13/06 at 07:16
Half truths, your radar is right on, but after months of inflaming local rancor against the team, with only allegation and no evidence, it's deny, deny, deny.

Sadly most people today are "Headline readers". They scan the headlines (or captions) for a quick impression of what's going on. Journalists know this. Headlines are a great insight into the viewpoint (even agenda) of the journalists who write them. After all, the headline or caption is the journalist's personal summary of the "facts" to follow.

Ted Vaden must be suffering from the same Righteous Townie Revenge Virus that effects so many these days at the N&O. Of course, any fairminded person could understand that "being an object of subpoenas" gives the impression that this young man has the Hand of the Law bearing down on him. The "object of subpoenas" sounds so much like "the target of investigation.", doesn't it? Running a photo of him intensifies the subtle smear. People unfamiliar with legal-ese might assume..especially in the context of the "swagger piece" and the "vigilante poster", that these lacrosse players were Durham's equilalent of the Bloods or Crips. To some on this paper, I think they are.
One might have written "Subpoenas filed to stop Nifong". But that would give a different impression, wouldn't it, Ted? All over the internet, on blogs and discussion boards , people are parsing the headlines, the content , the placement and choice of the articles the N&O is running on the Duke case. It would be a fascinating course to teach in Journalism school.Right along with Dan Rather's National Guard story.
After embracing an allegation, with no evidence...a journalistic "ownership" takes over. After commiting to the swagger story, the vigilante poster, the pink-puff piece on the accuser (soft voiced college coed who got an "A" in a hard course.) and one on "Dean's list Kim...they need these boys to be guilty.for their own credibility and conscience. They are invested. The pro-defense stories they print are not coupled with opinion pieces, human interst stories, Ruth's fire, or compelling editorials. After all the fire in the first pro-prosecution reporting , readers can sense the reporting now is flat

In fairness (don't faint Melanie) I have admired this newspaper and you. Till now. Till this story of rape seemed so real and relevant and your cause so righteous, that you came out with your journalistic guns blazing...with only an allegation, and no evidence. Even if Nifong now reveals the Pope was behind the shower curtain and will testify for the Prosecution.....you went too far , too soon. And now, editorial silence.

Lest you chastise me for posting too much or too long, I get up an hour early each day to post somewhere...for Colin, Reade and Dave. You may chastise or delete me. I can copy and post my comments to this paper elsewhere. But I will stay the course till this travesty ends. I don't know these boys, don't care about Lacrosse and have no allegiance to Duke. But silence in face of injustice makes you a consenting co-conspirator. Not me

P.S. Melanie, is the Night Editor who approved this caption and photo ...the same editor who approved the Vigilante poster?

Comment from: AC [Visitor]

06/13/06 at 08:00
Vote Cheek for DA!

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/13/06 at 15:37
Joan Foster: Regarding your comment on "editorial silence," this is not part of news coverage.The editorial pages are separate from news. I oversee news. Steve Ford is editorial page editor.

The photo of Krom was standard procedure, he was a principal part of the story and the reporting was straightforward. We routinely publish photos of people involved in news stories, and this is no different. This was not a high-level or complex news decision.

This is a story that is unfolding. No one knows the outcome. We reported aggressively in the beginning and will continue to do so; daily developments have slowed down for now, but there has been no change in our approach of aiming for accurate information in our news coverage.

I take no responsibility for people who only scan headlines. It's unfortunate that some people consider themselves informed after doing so. Real reporting is substantive and deep, and to get its value you have to read the stories.

Comment from: AC [Visitor]

06/13/06 at 18:03
MS -

Uh, how is Krom part of the larger story? There are only three suspects, he's not one of them.

He was certainly part of a smaller story - the unindicted players attempts to protect their privacy.

I read the whole story and thought it was unfortunate that you chose to headline/picture it that way.

Imagine a story about beaten wives, with your picture on top. True, you could be quoted inside the story on a centrally related manner, but the message everyone would take away is certainly not what you'd want.

-AC

Comment from: Mark Peterson [Visitor]

06/13/06 at 21:29
News coverage is obviously guided to some extent by events. But I think that, in practical terms, the N&O should feel under some obligation to make up for its initial take on this story--the initial articles, for instance, electing to designate the woman making the charges as the "victim" rather than the "alleged victim" or the "accuser." (The March 24 article is a good example.) This word choice essentially accepted one of Nifong's basic assertions--that a rape occurred, and the only question remaining was who committed the rape. As we have all learned in recent days, it now seems somewhat implausible that a rape occurred. I'd hope that if N&O editors could do things over--hindsight is always 20/20--they'd be a bit more careful in their word choice. But as we can't change the past, I'd hope that N&O editors will be as ruthless in going after the holes in this case as they were in labeling the woman who filed the charges a "victim," and, most important, in asking the needed questions from three sets of figures from whom we basically haven't heard but are critical to the case.

We haven't seen very much, for example, on Gov. Easley. He appointed Nifong. Is he satisfied with his appointment? What criteria did he use for the appointment? Can other jurisdictions around the state whose D.A.'s depart for whatever reason over the next 2.5 years expect that Easley will name people like Mike Nifong for their jurisdiction, or has the governor learned from this experience?

What about Attorney General Cooper? His office can only take the case if Nifong requests, but what's the opinion of our state's top law enforcement officer regarding the handling of this investigation? Does he believe that most criminal inquiries in the state are handled this way, with this disregard of procedure? Is he willing to publicly call on Nifong to refer to case to the attorney general's office?

And what's the behind-the-scenes, off-the-record attitude about Nifong's behavior in the Durham Police Department? Or in the police departments in Raleigh or Chapel Hill--have they heard anything from their Durham colleagues? Do police want to communicate to the general public that this is how most local investigations are handled? Was there subtle pressure on investigators by Nifong to fast-track this case?

These are all stories that would bring needed news even though "daily developments have slowed down for now." But they'd require the N&O to be more aggressive than it has been in getting issues onto the agenda rather than simply reacting. There's no way average citizens can do this sort of work. For us, it's the N&O or nothing.

Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 09:29
The News and Observer, if they ran the "wanted" poster, should be sued. A lot of people are going to get in huge trouble for that wanted poster.

This is what happens when a PC-protected class attacks a non-PC-protected class. The media, which worships at the altar of PC, jumps on the bandwagon.

A lot of people who have said a lot of things about the Duke lacrosse players need to start apologizing. NOW.

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/14/06 at 09:52
Thanks for the comments, suggestions and for sharing questions you'd like to see answered in reporting. As I said an email reply to a persistent critic, The N&O newsroom's initial "take" on this story is the same as its take now: this is a story we're reporting. There was a claim of rape, now a charge of rape; there is a person identified as the victim, there are witnesses, there are accused defendants. At the outset we wanted to report all we could for readers; that's our continued goal, and as I have noted in previous blog posts and columns, we are sticking to N&O standards of verification and sourcing, which means some of the gossip and unsourced assertion you find elsewhere won't appear in our reports. To catch up on The N&O's depth of reporting over nearly three months, use the keyword Duke lacrosse on our home page search. A handful of other media have done good work on this case, and there is certainly plenty of interesting commentary. Thanks.

Comment from: argarg [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 10:15
Your comments, Ms Sill are worse than saying nothing at all.

If you aren't willing to engage in any reflection or serious discussion with your critics on your poor journalistic decisions than it would best if you just stayed quiet.

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/14/06 at 10:35
Interesting view. However, this blog is where readers can hear from me about our coverage. I consider all criticism and comments, often from people who call or write using their own names, but also from people identified as argarg. Thanks.

Comment from: Mark Peterson [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 11:58
I apologize if my post above came across as a criticism of the N&O's deep coverage; I hadn't intended it that way. It was more of a plea that, as this story changes from one of a near-certain rape to one of a less-than-likely rape and more-than-likely prosecutorial misconduct, the N&O uses its resources to get people to talk--the police, the governor, the attorney general--who have every reason not to want to comment on this case, because they don't want to be seen as criticizing Nifong, but they can't very well say they agree with his tactics.

On the victim point, perhaps I can ask a question: does the N&O have a general policy on this issue (i.e., everyone who files a criminal eport that the police investigates is labeled from the start a "victim") or was a specific decision made in this case to describe the dancer as a "victim" before charges were filed?

Comment from: Wendy [Visitor] · http://islandpondwireless.com

06/14/06 at 12:07
The only reason Nifong won this election was because he pandered to the poor, uneducated and disenfranchised population of Durham. Nifong's tactics for securing a grand jury inditement are reminiscent of Nazi Germany - half truths and omitting the most important parts of the evidence.

Nifong was trailing in this primary and needed something "high profile" to get his name on the news every night - without having to pay for it. Nifong met with a radical, racist group - the New Black Panthers - and not one word of criticism. According to the leader of this hate group, Nifong took the time to explain the entire case. How nice. Would he have done the same for the Grand Wizard of the KKK? How would you have covered that?

This false accuser adds new meaning to incredible. Her stories have changed more often than her costumes. True rape victims don't vary dramatically in their accounts, so give it up about being tramatized. She was drunk and on powerful medication - yet she knew enough to blame the lovely Kimmy for participating in this assault. Why then, wasn't the lovely Kimmy charged? Was it because she told the investigators that it was a crock? It's a shame the Duke students lack her great command of the language - had they spoken like the lovely Kimmy, the investigators would have gone away.

Nifong has made Durham a laughingstock to the rest of the country. The lack of objectivity by your newspaper has only confirmed what the rest of us think of Durham. It does not seem to bother anyone that innocent students are being prosecuted; rather, everyone thinks it's fine to make up for past injustices.

Durham seems to have a new brand of justice - just be a poor, mentally ill stripper and the D.A. will find a way to exploit her in order to win an election. Guess he knew Freda would have fired his sorry butt - and let's face it - Nifong doesn't have too many career options. And he will have even fewer after this disaster of a case is finally resolved.

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/14/06 at 12:22
Marl.

Yes it's fairly routine for us to use the word "victim" in crime reports in describing the person who made the report. Sometimes it's amended "reported victim" or simply more descriptive. People report crimes, but police and law enforcment officials bring charges.

No need to apologize for criticism. It's always helpful to have specific stories or elements of reporting or story play to discuss. Thanks.

Comment from: mrssmith [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 12:41
There was no rape. The truth will come out. What then? Would you agree the false accuser needs to be jailed? You seem very biased at the N&O...leaning toward the accuser and making the 3 men guilty. Ever wonder why your subscriptions to N&O is dropping?

Pittman said in a handwritten note dated March 22 that the accuser, to whom Pittman refers as "Precious," wanted to stay at the party and earn more money, even after one of the players made a verbal threat.

"Precious became 'crazy' and eventually passed out and had to be carried to Pittman's car by some of the Duke athletes," the statement says.

here are the facts, the nurse that examined the "ESCORT" stated she had a scratch on her knee-poor thing, prob happended when she fell down in a drunken bliss, a swollen ******, prob from her previous appts. oh wait a minute, no that was prob from the semen from her boyfriend they found. She also said the accused rapist did not wear condoms. Now, I may not be the smartest person out there, but if the Lacrosse players accused did not wear a condom, doesnt it seem odd that their DNA did not show up? Oh not to mention, the 2nd DNA test that my tax dollars paid for came up clear too.

it was Nifong's dream! Poor black community looking for someone to blame and along comes the false accuser with dinner for nifong.

3 rich duke students, served with a false accusation , along with a serving of 250 potbangers.

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 13:58
I fear I may at times sound shrill, Melanie ...but that's what many of us are PLEADING for: the same forceful, hard driving reporting,... the same pointed questioning editorials ,and the same out-of-the-park opinion pieces... about THIS story of possible prosecutorial misconduct, as there was against possible rape. We've seen this paper lead the charge. We know you can do it. We can not understand the flat affect now.

There are two different stories here..a allegation of rape AND.....a growing suspicion of spurious misconduct by a corrupt D.A. in a tough re-election fight . Nifongs need to seemingly charge someone ,anyone....and do it fast. You needn't desert one story to investigate the other. Even those who might still believe a rape took place, should take great umbrage with Nifongs outrageous handling of this case. If the accuser is indeed a "victim", he may have victimised her again with his recklessness.

Of course, yes, you REPORTED on the line-up, the lack of DNA . You reported the information in the court filings that tell us ...Nifong KNEW of her multiple stories, ...knew the "crock" comment,...knew the accuser's admission of using alcohol and a strong tranquiliser ,... knew the unhelpful medical report etc, etc. We know NOW from sworn staements that Nifong knew all this BEFORE he pursued this case. REPEAT:BEFORE he pursued the case. Yes, you report these things. Then drop them. Silence. Nothing. "Slow time", you say.

On another board they have taken ALL of Nifong's 70-something media statements and contrasted them to the sworn "written statements " in the court filings. Not gossip , Melanie, sworn statements anyone can read online. I'll be happy to provide the link. It is very compelling, very troubling...almost frightening.Just his statements vs. the Court filings. No commentary. Read that and tell us again ..that this a "slow news time." The apathy to pursue the Nifong story leaves us shaking our heads, asking questions...continually asking YOU questions. Why , why , why is deep investigative reporting..on what many across America increasingly see as DURHAM'S out of control proscecutor...not of interest to DURHAM'S newspaper?

Today I'm not railing about the N&O's past; I'm pleading about the future. PLEASE take on this story. If we are all wrong, led astray by "gossip" ....help your current nationwide audience to understand. Give us an opinion piece , an editorial with all the facts to set us straight.

But if you can not refute in North Carolina law, or show us precedent or common procedure. that Nifong acted in a way that is common and CORRECT, then lead the charge. If you don't .... each time people look at Nifong and question, WHY?...thry'll next turn their eyes to the N&O and query, "And, why not?"

Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 14:34
Ms. Sill,

Did you run the wanted poster? YES OR NO?

That wanted poster said a rape happened in that house. By running it, you circulated, repeated, and amplified that charge. That charge is untrue, AND YOU KNOW IT.

Your paper should run a story about how there is NO EVIDENCE. Or a story on false rape accusations against athletes.

But you won't do that.

Mike Nifong has NOTHING except her story. Based on the fact that all players have signed affidavits saying nothing happened, he has nothing. he did this for political reasons, and you jumped on the bandwagon because it's fun to attack what you perceive as the rich, white elite.

These are KIDS. They are KIDS IN COLLEGE. And you helped savage them - and they are innocent.

And your paper, for running that wanted poster, for calling her a "victim" instead of "alleged victim" which would be responsible journalism, for glorifying her in stories when she is a lying prostitute, have opened yourselves up to tremendous liability. I hope your lawyers are getting ready, because freedom of speech does not cover libel and slander.

You have a lot of answers to provide and a lot of soul-searching to do. Why is it OK to crucify three young men based on the word of one person, with no evidence? Why is that OK? And DON'T hide behind the indictment.

You question government officials whenever you want - but apparently not when it fits with an axe you have to grind.

Your paper is an embarrassment, and you are in a whole lot of trouble, and if you don't realize that yet, believe me, you will.

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/14/06 at 14:52
Jeff: I've addressed this question several times. We ran a small photo of the poster on an inside page sometime back. We did not have the discussion internally we should have before making that decision.

Your anger over this is clear. Right now we are covering a variety of angles on a couple of distinct stories: the criminal case in which three young men face felony charges, and the lacrosse team's behavior and future as it relates to larger issues of student life at Duke.

Again I'd point all to our collected coverage: keyword Duke lacrosse on the home page search. There you'll find stories that report most if not all of the facts cited above. Our reporting continues.

I"d also ask for some civility here -- there are plenty of blogs where you can hurl whatever insults you want in a free for all. I think it's possible to make your points without stooping to this level. Please do.

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/14/06 at 14:54
Joan -- Once again, perhaps it will make sense this time -- I do not oversee the editorial page. If you want to make a pleading for an editorial, contact editorial page editor Steve Ford or the publisher, Orage Quarles III.

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 15:03
I deserved that one. You did correct me on that point before. But do you oversee investigative reporting, or just general news?

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 15:06
Why does the behavior of a college Lacrosse team concern this newspaper more than the behavior of your prosecutor?

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/14/06 at 15:11
Joan -- First, sure, share the link to the board you mentioned. Second, we've reported substantially on the prosecutor's conduct, which is a key element of the story, and will continue to. Your suggestions and input are welcomed.

Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 16:28
Gee, thanks, Melanie. All I can say is that I stand by my statements. Running that poster in any form was an egregious error, one for which your newspaper should apologize and for which your newspaper will be held accountable - just as when you called her a "victim" instead of "alleged victim". "Victim" means something happened - "alleged victim" means the charges are, as yet, unproven. Which one did your newspaper choose, and what does that say about the bias in your coverage?

The N&O gave credence to statements not yet proven and now shown to be quite untrue.

I hope you run an endless series of articles about what went on with DA Nifong when these charges are dropped.

And I absolutely stand by my evaluation of your motivations.

Comment from: (the other) John [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 16:38
The N&O is planning another story on the conduct of the LAX team. That's shocking!

Are you guys walled off from the world down there in Raleigh?

Have you seen the reports from the Police officers and detectives? Have you seen how the woman worked out of hotels and worked Johns from the street?

How about all the Accuser's family that she was attacked anally with a broom stick? Georgia Goslee (lawyer) said on National TV, that she spent time wth the accuser's family in their home and she said the AV was recovered from terrible wounds related to the broomstick attack.

Why doesn't the N&O expose the origination and motive behind that story?

How about Patrick Baker saying he had interviewed dectective and Police and he assured us that the Victim did NOT change her story; Oh really! We'd love to see reporting on his motivations and he explains himself in light of the court documents that are available now.

But, I'm sure we'll get more stories about how white the Players are and how they drank and made loud noises and how they grew up with large lawns.

It's ridiculous at this point for you to continually attack the victims in this case - the Duke Lacrosse team.

"DEAD PAPER PRINTING" said the angry mob

John

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 16:40
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=5a130b8488e3a1ff9845f700d611318a&threadid=266592

Also read the "sticky" on that Blog.on all relevant quotes.

There's a lot more..It does takesome digging to find. People are compiling fascinating comparisons of quotes all over the internet. You have the resources to do so much more. .
There are some real questions here. Rumor grows when they are neither asked nor answered. Nifong told a nationwide audience many things that now seem to be refuted by his own discovery documents.. How does he explain this? If he won't answer press the governor, press the state's attorney. They need to be on record. Not slink away to protect themselves in the next election...while young men twist in the wind.
If a distraught accuser told different stories, if Kim said rape was a crock, and 46 witnesses said it didn't happen...then how in God's name, could Nifong be "absolutely sure" it did, as he told a national audience. . Did his campaign manager tell him it was so?
Nifong said on TV victim was beaten, strangled, and alleges anal, vaginal and oral rape.for 30 minutes. Accuser's statement to examining nurse does not support. that.description of attack.
Nifong said on TV testing all those men for DNA would separate the "guilty from the innocent ." No DNA
Nifong said on TV maybe condoms were used explaining no DNA: accuser told nurse no condoms.
Nifong shows "choking move" on TV. Accuser's staement does not support.this drama.

Nifong said on TV long sleeve shirt would explain no scratches...no one in photos in long sleeve shirt.

Nifong indicated to Newsweek, a date rape drug might be found. Filings show he knew no test was done for date rape drug.
We can read these documents, Kim's statements, Driver's statement, the detective's statement. That's not "spin." Please use the power of your paper to help sort this out. If we are wrong, show us.

i do not believe a rape occured, but let's assume it did. Why then does Nifong have to lie on national TV about the specific circumstances. Write the story about what his Tv appearances say, what his affidavit for search warrant says...and what these filed court documents say. Why would he lie about a true case? What is going on here? Ask.

The city manager said no inconsistant statements from accuser. He was outraged that was in the Duke report. and made the Duke officier look like an easedropping fool. But now in court filings, the detectives report DOES tell us of inconsistant statements. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? Ask.

Melanie, the anger, the incivility you sense at times here is because this paper has not only the power but the duty to ask these questions. And you are not just asking for Durham. You are asking for all in the national audience who took in every word Nifong said on TV and elsewhere.If you do not ask , it will be wondered who or what is stopping you. Nifong engaged us all in this story. Many feel duped. We are here to stay.
. No, it is NOT a slow news period. There is a very big story here about possible prosecutorial abuse, a question about a man exploiting four young people in the most egregious way, for personal gain. Mark Peterson made some excellent suggestions above. For this paper to be passive, in light of what many believe to be a persecution for political gain is unconscionable.

Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 17:11
Melanie and the rest of the cabal at the N&O who have reported this story don't feel a need to address these questions - they will walk the Nifong party line until he loses in court or drops the charges.

Comment from: ME [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 18:08
Ms. Sill:

I am posting this to address an issue that I find truly appalling. That issue is your threat to ban John in Carolina (or any other blogger) for posting his comments on the Duke Lax topic.

I urge you to stop, take a step back and think for a moment about just what you are threatening. You have threatened to deprive John of his Constitutionally guaranteed right to his freedom of expression.

This from the very first sentence of Madison’s annotation to the First Amendment of the US Constitution (Freedom of Expression – Speech and Press): ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.'' Located here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1

Don’t you think it more than just a little ironic that you have threatened to deprive John of the same rights that allow for your livelihood?

Also one could point out to you that someone in your position should be particularly mindful of all the implications that can result from that oft mentioned first step on the slippery slope towards censorship?

To research this matter a bit further I reviewed The McClatchy Company Corporate Governance Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. I refer you to the Business Practices – Fair Dealing subsection at: http://www.mcclatchy.com/about/governance/bus_cond_eth/
It would appear that your threatened ban of John in Carolina may be in violation of The McClatchy Company Corporate Governance Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.

A little background for those readers who are unaware about what it is I refer to. Although it is unclear your precise reasons for your threat to ban John in Carolina, you have chastised John for: 1) his “off-topic” posts, 2) his overly long posts, 3) his “dominating” the posting within a thread, 4) his repeating of his posts, and 5) his cross thread posting.

A casual reader of the John’s posts, your posts and your replies to John’s posts might conclude that your threat to ban John may be the result of: 1) you simply don’t like the content of John’s posts, 2) you don’t agree with the position John has taken in his posts, 3) John has been critical of your responses and/or lack thereof to his posts and the posts of others, 4) John has been critical of the N&O coverage and apparent bias towards the Duke Lax story, 5) John has been critical of your policy of deleting posts that you have determined to be “off-topic,” 6) John has been critical of The McClatchy Company coverage of other news stories, 7) you are miffed at John because he posted an email (on this very topic from you to him) at your blog after you asked him not to post the email, and 8) John’s political leanings.

A casual reader would note that while John is certainly persistent, he is not obscene, profane nor harassing.

When you accepted the responsibility for hosting and posting on your blog, I suggest to you that you also accepted the responsibility for promoting civil discourse. That, by definition, precludes the idea of censoring or banning your bloggers – both of which I suggest to you are abhorrent.

The Duke Lax story will pass with time. The stain on your record should you ban one your civil bloggers would be indelible.

Again I urge you, think very carefully before you threaten to ban or ban any of your civil bloggers. And then, simply don’t do it.

Comment from: AC [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 19:38
Wow, as my grandfather would have said: beaten like a rented mule.

Now, I am probably second to to no-one in my disregard for the quality of work found in most newspapers, but let's keep in mind the MS is not the specific problem here.

Were she to go traipsing to the Charlotte Observer the N&O would just promote the next meeting champion to do the same job. And since they'd be compensated the same way and in the same cultural stew, you'd get about the same performance.

So, while I am LOVING the repeated beating the N&O is getting for abysmal coverage, let's be nice to MS. It's the southern way, if nothing else.

-AC

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/14/06 at 20:17
Has John in Carolina been banned?

I've missed his thoughful, well written and researched posts. And yes, he was always civil. Discussion can be pointed here, but John was always polite. John is no more frequent or long-winded a poster than..., dare I say it....Joan! And here I thought I had just emerged from the shadow of impending deletion. I hope he will be invited back.

Melanie, have you noticed more and more people are posting at this site, I would assume your blog is growing in its readership. That means that you are successfully communicating with your customers , readers, and yes, critics. Even occasionally contentious discussion is better than none at all. We need to understand the N&O point of view. And you need to hear what is being said about your coverage. If you were able to explain some of these issues in depth, perhaps you'd even make some conversions. I do not believe you just came to work one day and said, "Let's help destroy those three kids from Duke." Not at all. Emotions run high here because good people can not help but be buffeted by the incredible pain in this story...on all counts. I know you feel it too.
Have you noticed the number of posts on the Duke topic vs.the REST of the board in total? And the posts are growing. It's the elephant in the living room.

Thanks for this start of hashing it out with you. You need to keep giving us a place where it CAN be discussed...where we CAN be on topic. This paper's coverage is being discussed EVERYWHERE. But HERE, you get a chance to rebut. Keep the Duke topic up for the sake of the N&O. Let's all keep trying to understand each other. Let's listen to each other.

May John in Carolina please come back?

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 06:59
Re today's story :thank you.

Comment from: Mark Peterson [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 10:14
Kudos to Joseph Neff for his story in today's N&O, and for the fact sheet with Nifong's earlier comments. (Neff's last four or five stories, I believe, have all broken important new ground, and revealed things that someone who just watched the 11:00 news would never have known.) As I said before, I think the depth of the N&O's coverage is far better than the Durham Herald-Sun or WRAL, but it's good to see that the N&O is now starting to pay attention to the questionable activities of figures of authority. The press has to report the day-to-day news--but it also has to keep the government honest. It's clear that neither the Herald-Sun nor the TV stations are doing much of this, and the N&O hopefully will continue ti take advantage.

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 11:25
It took the N&O nearly a hundred years to acknowledge their complicity in the Wilmington Race riots. The facts were also known to many in that excursion from justice and civility, and there were deaths as a result of the N&O's activities and coverage. Should we then be surprised that such a deranged rag with such a blood-stained history will in all likelihood take another hundred years to apologize for the misdeeds of this current crop of yellow journalists?

Comment from: Anne Whitney [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 11:31
The following quote, but for the bracketed section, was written about the Scottsboro Boys series of trials in AL in the 1930s. Those too subjected "Southern justice" to ridicule:

"Evil rarely comes in the form of monsters, but rather in the form of relatively normal people who, for reasons of careers, ideology, or a desire for society's approval, are indifferent to the human consequences of their actions. Because of indifferent jurors, [journalists] and career-motivated prosecutors, the self-serving and groundless accusations of a single woman were allowed to change forever the lives of [three white boys] who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. "

Ms. Sill & Ms. Sheehan evidently seek by their conduct to obtain social approval from a certain sector of their acquaintance & the greater populace. They are unwilling to risk disapproval from these groups, even if by their inaction they contribute mightily to injustice. Facts, logic, pleading & data from hundreds of posters will not sway them. They are fighting for a way of life, just as segregationists once did. Perhaps they rationalize that they are brave for continuing to toe the PC line, even as it becomes clear that this case is sounding the death knell for PC pandering -- a larger, very interesting issue in itself that is not being addressed by the media.

Regrettably, we are still waiting for the Judge James Horton of this case - someone who says, "Let justice be done though the heavens may fall."

Comment from: ME [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 16:01
Ms Sill:

It was most gratifying to see today’s N&O coverage of what some more learned commentators are referring to as DA Nifong’s “possible prosecutorial misconduct.” It is also gratifying to see the N&O join in what has become a nationwide glaring spotlight of truth on DA Nifong’s conduct. To the extent that you may have been a driving force in Mr. Neff’s news reports today, I commend you and thank you. And I urge you, do not relent. Urge your reporters to dig for the facts. As the evidence and facts unfold, there may be much more to the DA Nifong story.

Would it not be delicious irony if, as a result of DA Nifong’s cynical expectation of the N&O’s complicity in his con job on the citizens of Durham County, the N&O having recognized that cynical expectation of complicity, with revulsion and righteous indignation, ultimately came to support candidate for DA Cheek?

cc: Joseph Neff

Comment from: ME [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 16:07

To the registered and unregistered voters of Durham County and students of Duke University.

It is now your turn. Mr. Cheek may be a viable and more than capable alternative to DA Nifong’s repulsive system of justice and unique use of prosecutorial discretion.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/450763.html

Get out and sign those Cheek petitions!

If you are not a registered voter, learn the qualifications to become a registered voter at the following website, register to vote immediately and then sign those Cheek petitions:
http://www.lib.duke.edu/reference/virtual/voting.html

Duke University students go to this site to learn just how simple it is to become a North Carolina registered voter (the deadline to register to vote in the next general election appears to be early October):
http://www.lib.duke.edu/reference/virtual/voting.html

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 16:38
Melanie, would you pass this to Ruth in the hall. I would leave it on her Metro blog, but I honestly don't think she reads it. Thanks.

All right, Ruth, just this one time I’ll help you. And, yes, I DO have a job, one similar to your own. That said, who better to commiserate on writer’s block. But you’ve got to get this mea culpa composed. Try this:

Dear Readers,

Nifong’s silence is sickening.

Members of the Durham Police Dept. and D.A.’s office: you know.

We know you know.

Whatever happened in Nifong’s re-election campaign went bad. Terribly bad. He rammed a bogus case against three young men into court to win a tough campaign. You know who was involved. Everyone one of you does.

And one of you needs to come forward and tell America.

Do not be afraid of retribution from Nifong. Do not be persuaded that his years in traffic court make him a “good guy.”

If what the court filings say is true….that three young men have been charged with rape based on the following

An ever changing account from the accuser,…. a multiple choice/ no- wrong answer line up,…. 46 witnesses who deny everything ….a crock of a story from Kim,… no DNA, save on TOP of a fake nail in a guys trash can…. and a medical exam more consistent with” Dancing Dates in Durham” than a Knock-down/ Dragged Out Struggle with three guys in a small bathroom. And Nifong's seventy -plus media rock star interviews are not lining up with sworn court statements.

Then the guy responsible for this farce is not good.

This seems an elementary statement, I know.

I can see loyal cops and assistant D.A'’s sitting around their offices convincing themselves that it would be disloyal to turn on their colleague. Why Nifong wanted to keep his job so much…he went just a little over the top. In real life, he has that cute chuckle. He calls his campaign manager and media advisor every week. He shares his strategy for punishing the defense lawyers and going on Nancy Grace with friends. He goes to political church dinners.

At this time in his life, he was just a little too hungry. Hungry to beat Freda. Hungry for a political win. Hungry to be all over cable TV with his fifteen minutes of Fame. It’s a scene straight out of a documentary on the Scottsboro boys…in reverse of course.

The angry threats thrown at defense lawyers now,…they were just…jokes. Ditto for that ridiculously pompous remark to America that no defense lawyer would want to face the great Nifong in court.

After all, he is not just handling traffic tickets. He’s the D.A. A lifelong dream.

And the players. They were rich white Duke kids, for Pete’s sake. Whose parents had big lawns.

I can see you all going down this path, justifying your silence. And it makes me sick.

***********************************************************************
I know, Ruth, it sounds pretty similar to what you wrote before. But why mess with success. And that article had such impact . E-mail if I can help more. Joan

Comment from: Wendy [Visitor] · http://islandpondwireless.com

06/15/06 at 17:27
Excellent post Joan. Would be nice if they could answer, but you probably have them speechless.

Comment from: ImpeachNifong [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 19:09
Good Job to Joseph Neff on his article today. And thank you, Melanie and other editors, for letting him set a new course for the N&O on this story. It was nice to read the paper this morning and not be revulsed by your usual Nifong PR blitz.

I and other Durham Democrats look forward to voting for Lewis Cheek in November. Hopefully, if you let Mr. Neff continue to do real journalism we will find truth has an ally after all.

Finally, may God bless you Joan Foster. Thank you especially for your letter to Ruth Sheehan on parenting stages...as a Stage one Mom I will keep your story in the back of my mind for the rest of my life.

Comment from: jimmy cothran [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 22:01
This duke case reminds me of "To Kill a Mockingbird".

The white community rallies around white trash accusers making ridiculous allegations against a black man.

Rather than seek truth, justice and decency, the white community solidifies to convict the black man because the accuser is white. BECAUSE the accusation is patently false, the whites are even more determined to convict.

Here the races are reversed. The corrupt black community seeks convictin just like the white community did in 1930's Georgia.

Lashawn Barber play Atticus Finch, calling for his people do the right thing, all to no avail.

The blacks are the racists today.

It is a shame that they repeat the injustices visited upon them.

Our shared past needs to be overcme. Maybe in 2106.

God help us live together.

J. Cothran

Comment from: Lorie Foltz [Visitor]

06/15/06 at 22:29
The evidence is just NOT there to justify the thrashing these young men have gotten. Living in a large university town we see young people making bad decisions all the time, but they're kids. For the longest time we have reserved judgment, however it has become absurd! Evidence is neither right or wrong it's a truth and to have these young men's lives turned upside down it just breaks my heart.
It is not a race issue,or a class issue and honestly I can't even write what I want to say to that women and what she has done. I do have to wonder when this plays all out and when they are found not guilty can Duke sue her for any NCAA monies lost?

L.Foltz
Lawrence,Ks.
KU Jayhawks

Comment from: argarg [Visitor]

06/17/06 at 09:13

The N&O editorial today on the Duke case is timid OTOH OTO crap, a continuing apologia for Nifong's misconduct and worst of all badly written,

http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/451509.html

Shame on the editorial staff. One thing you can say for Ms Sill...when she covers up and spins at least it's well-wrtiten.

Keep practicing, N&O. At some point, you will actually be able to write the words, "we screwed up".

We'll be waiting.

Comment from: Mark Peterson [Visitor]

06/17/06 at 13:44
Agree with the above comment on today's editorial: it's almost like the editors have read but haven't understood their own paper's stories over the past 10 days?

"Do Nifong and his team have access to other information that tends to support the woman's claims? That might be one explanation for their declared certainty that a rape occurred. But any such information should have been shared with the defense."

So, Nifong has either prosecuted the case without evidence, or he's violated discovery laws by not sharing evidence.

I'd think it must be discouraging for the news staff when the paper breaks several new developments on the case and their significance gets minimized by the editorial board. I hope we'll be seeing continued aggressive reporting from the news staff anyway, especially the reaction to James Coleman's remarks. How often does the former chief counsel to the US House Ethics Committee publicly state no confidence in a prosecutor? Surely his comments must be widely commented upon in the Triangle's legal community.

Comment from: argarg [Visitor]

06/18/06 at 01:43
Today, Newsweek published the most clear condemnation of Nifong yet in the MSM. It is the editorial that the N&O could have written if they weren't so mired in their liberal defensiveness

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13392547/site/newsweek/

Since Nifong admitted to Newsweek that he reads the blogs, I will address him directly:

Nobody is more deserving of public humiliation and disgrace than you, Mr Nifong. You should be disbarred; we will work to make sure that happens.

Comment from: Mary in NJ [Visitor]

06/18/06 at 09:48
Please stay on track and continue to peck away at uncovering the improprieties in the DA's office, the Durham PD, the City Manager.
That is the REAL story that will ultimately bring about changes that help all the people of Durham.

Comment from: AC [Visitor]

06/18/06 at 10:24
Mel -

Two things:

1> I've read 'round the blogosphere about your threat to ban John In Carolina. Frankly, as I said before, I don't understand that at all. Seems to me he's just making the same points as everyone else as to the N&O's accuracy, honesty, and integrity. I know that stuff is hard to hear, but it's a brave new world.

2> I read the article today about how one of the Dukies lost his job due to the charges. Shame on the N&O for their scapegoating. I'm sure he'll recover, he's that kind of kid, but you'll always carry your part in that injustice around with you.

-AC

Comment from: ME [Visitor]

06/18/06 at 16:06

DA NIFONG SPEAKS

DA Nifong disengages from his self-imposed “No Comment” gag order. In the Newsweek June 29, 2006 issue Nifong proclaims: He (Nifong) said that he was bound by ethics rules against commenting any more about the case or evidence.

Available here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13392547/site/newsweek/

Nifong’s most recent proclamation comes notwithstanding the 50 to 70 Duke Lacrosse case media interviews he granted immediately following his NATIONAL campaign kick-off for election to Durham County District Attorney in late March.

Since DA Nifong indicates he is an avid reader of blog entries such as this, he (and Durham County voters) may be interested in reviewing the comments he made in those 50 to 70 media interviews (some of which may just fall more than a little bit outside the boundaries of ethical rules he swore to follow). “Meadow” has done a remarkable job of cataloging nearly all of the comments DA Nifong made in those 50 to 70 interviews. Readers should refer to all of the “Meadow” posts to the end of the thread as there are periodic additional comment references.

available at: http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=16f3d7a94800c00a17c2ec64b00df1cf&threadid=260874&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Also, readers can obtain a very detailed and comprehensive chronicle of the Duke Lacrosse case news reports and blogging at the link below. (FAIR WARNING: The complainant in this case is identified by name within entries at the blog linked below):

available at: http://johnsville.blogspot.com/

Comment from: Locomotive Breath [Visitor]

06/18/06 at 17:35
For months I've been telling Ms. Sill how badly flawed is the N&O's coverage of this issue. It seems I'm not alone in understanding that Mike Nifong's abuse of his prosecutorial prerogatives is the primary story here. Your lukewarm apologetic recent coverage of his misdeeds doesn't even come close to making up for the earlier demonization of the Duke lax team and the beatification of the accuser.

Ms, Sill, ain't it a bear when you hand other people a forum and they talk about what they want to talk about instead of what you think they should talk about? As I’ve been telling you all this time - you no longer control the dialog. The N&O's going to have to figure out how to operate in this new world.

And what's with the cheesy new registration requirement? Tired of having anonymous lumpen proles giving you a hard time?

FREE JOHN IN CAROLINA!!!

You know who he is. Let him speak.

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

06/19/06 at 05:32
Melanie ,you comment above that the N&O is following several aspects of this story...the rape and "the lacrosse team's behavior." I hope you have now moved on to the bigger picture.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the Watergate break-in. At that time, the Washington Post might have assigned 12 reporters to write the LOCAL story of crime in high priced D.C. condominium complexes . T he blogosphere tells us that 12 N&O reporters were actually assigned to the lacrosse "swagger story. " But, instead the Post followed the lies...and brought down the President of the United States.

So, thanks for the good start you made last week. Now , please continue to follow the lies.

The city manager , criticized for possibly over zealous interference, said he was closely monitering the police investigation so he wouldn't "be embarrassed." He said there were no "multiple stories" by accuser. Court documents say otherwise. Did the police lie to him, or did he lie to the public? Follow the lies.

The vigilante poster. offering cash rewards for anonynmous witnesses...almost seems an invitation to perjury. It described the "horrific crime" in ways contradictory to court filings. Who authorised that poster? Who in the police dept provided the information that the accuser was "raped, sodomised, assaulted and robbed" Did the poster pre-date the receipt of medical records on April 5? You made that poster part of your coverage. Finish the story.

The blood is in the water now. The N&O was the newspaper of record about the alleged "rape," but you seem sidetracked by the local story of bad behavior on N. Buchanan. That story is for another day. You can write this, report this better than the "out of towners." They'll own this story if you don't. They "get" it now. . We are more interested in the grossly innappropriate actions of your District Attorney than a bunch of college boys.

Write the NATIONAL story. Write the BIG story. Follow the lies.

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/19/06 at 09:05
Thanks to all for comments. John in Carolina has not been banned, nor has anyone else except some IP addresses of spam-generating sites. But this is not John's blog -- he has his own. This isn't a Duke lacrosse case blog -- there are plenty of those.

I don't have endless time to remove off-topic comments. If those who post comments can't follow the guidelines, we'll have to find another approach.

As to some of the coverage above: We're not in the business of news coverage that condemns or takes a side. We've pushed hard on the story from the beginning and will continue to report in depth. Though I keep up with your comments here, our coverage is not aimed at appeasing complainers or critics.

Registration is not a new requirement, by the way.

Comment from: argarg [Visitor]

06/19/06 at 09:18
Ms. Sill-

It's not a crime to admit you respond to pressure from your readers, pressure to do a better job on this story.

It's a positive thing. Try letting down your shield of pure arrogance long enough to admit that for once.

Your coverage was reflexively pro-Nifong (Ruth Sheehan admitted as much today), it is getting better,

Comment from: Wendy [Visitor] · http://islandpondwireless.com

06/19/06 at 20:06
Incident in Durham captures world wide headlines. The local newspaper needs to make a major decision. Who is right? Rather than reporting the news objectively, you fell right into Nifong's web of deceit.

Newspapers have reporters for a reason - to investigate the entire story. It would not have taken Edward R. Murrow to check out all leads to this story. Rather, your newspaper took the easy way out and supported the local D.A. How tragic for you.

Now the D.A. is falling apart faster than a stripper's costume and you are attempting to disassociate yourself from that incompetent, unethical attorney.

Quick decisions are rarely correct decisions. Remember: The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

Comment from: Fred [Visitor]

06/19/06 at 22:58
Melanie,

You say you're not in the "business of news coverage that condemns...". So you don't think the publishing the "wanted" poster was condemning the players? You don't think the article entitled "Lacrosse team out of control" was condemning the players?

That said, nobody is asking you to write stories for the purpose of condemning people. But wouldn't it be nice to get to the bottom of some of these cases where things don't add up. What is wrong with contacting City Manager Patrick Baker and see if he still stands by his statement that nobody indicated the accuser changed her story. It seems ALL the evidence contradicts this. How could he be doing his job and not know this?! There is something very fishy about the DA's and PD's handling of this case and it needs to be reported. Why am I going to have to read about it in Newsweek...this is your backyard! And, as a bonus, this might actually wake up the editorial department from their silence since the case of their beloved alleged victim tanked.

Finally, I've been reading articles on this sight for 3 months and today was the first day I had to register. So I do question the accuracy of your previous statement.

Comment from: Fred [Visitor]

06/19/06 at 23:19
Also wanted to add...

When are you going to apologize for getting played by the accuser and her father for publishing their stories which obviously don't jive well with the facts that have been released? Have you tried to follow-up with them...I'm sure that would make a good story (and wouldn't condemn anyone). I'm also sure you have lots of other details from your those interviews that weren't published that contradict all the known evidence...why not publish some of this info now?

Also, how long until the accuser's name appears? If it's completely obvious via public info that she made this whole thing up (I don't know what more evidence you need), are you going to remove her anonymity? It would seem she committed a crime and you were so quick to publish the lacrosse players names who happened to have open container violations and the like.

Comment from: Lorie Foltz [Visitor]

06/19/06 at 23:48
A reminder of one extremely important issue.

One day in the near future one of these young men will go to apply for a job and when people find out who he is there will be a seed planted in the employers mind "Oh he is one of those lacrosse players involved in that rape scandal"
I only say this because one of our Jayhawk players got caught up in a situation that was NOT his fault, yet he is still haunted by it. At the end of the day it comes down to the fact that the media and the DA is playing with these young men's lives.

We are the parents of six children three boys and three girls.
Right now we are very poor due to having three of the six in
University.
If I thought for one moment one of our girls was raped and the facts were in order I would move heaven and earth to make sure the rapist was prosecuted!
Lorie Foltz
Lawrence, Kansas
Home of the Mighty Jayhawks!!

Comment from: Lorie Foltz [Visitor]

06/20/06 at 02:09
One more thought..........

I came from a poor family and I put myself through University by working,grants, and loans. I heard a comment that she was black and not like the boys that were going to Duke. The fact is she could have found a State university to go to. I believe the kids are not guilty and tired of hearing whoo is me. All of my family is from Louisiana and they again were very poor so I don't need to hear "well you don't understand how it is in the south"

Lorie Foltz
Home of the mighty mighty Jayhawks

Comment from: Locomotive Breath [Visitor]

06/20/06 at 06:52
Quoth Ms. Sill:
"Registration is not a new requirement, by the way."

That is patently false. I've posted here ever since this issue came to the fore. My comment on 06/18/06 at 17:35 was the first time I've had to register.

Don't you even know how your own blog works?

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

06/20/06 at 09:50
Thanks for the clarification on the registration change you encountered. I'm the editor, not the site administrator, but I know that over the past couple of years we have have been phasing in required registration for people reading news content. I know we have had plans for some time to require registration for people posting comments in blogs, which is not unusual.

This will be my last comment on this post, the blog moves along.

Comment from: David [Visitor]

07/09/06 at 21:23
There is a lot of investigative reporting the N&O could do:

1) Why hasn't the DA turned over the required written police report of Sgt. Gottlieb yet? Why the delay in putting the statements of police and witnesses down on paper? What about the meetings between Nifong and police investigators with he alleged victim?
2) How was Nifong able to talk about condoms, choke-holds, and date rape drugs when he already had the statements by the SANE nurse, alleged victim, her driver, Kim contradicting these charges?
3) What is the relartionship between Kim's bond reduction and her change in view that a rape could have happened?
4) Why are so many associates of the alleged victim in jail now?
5) Why has Chief Chalmers been uninvolved?
6) What is the size of the bathroom at 610 Buchanan? Could 4 or 5 people actually fit into the bathroom?
7) What has the cost of the investigation been for Durham County-- the extra DNA tests, invetsigators' time, alleged police protection for the alleged victim?
8) Where is the alleged victiom now? Has she been in detox or psychiatric treatment in the last 3 months?
9) What is the position of the Duke law faculty on the case?
10) Would Duke consider a waiver to allow Seligmann and Finnerty to return before a trial? Would the 2 defendants ever consider returning to Duke?
11) What is the relationship between the Durham PD and Nifong at this time?
12) Is there any relationship between ongoing prostitution arrests and stings and the alleged victim? Have the alleged victim or Kim ever cooperated with the Durham PD on past law enforcement investigations? Have individuals associated with the case been past clients of the alleged victim or Kim?
13) What is the past history and current status ot Allure and Bunnyhole Entertainment-- the two escort service involved?

These are just a few of the many questions I have about this case. Please look critically at your coverage-- there is a lot more to be done.

Comment from: Susan [Visitor]

07/13/06 at 17:43
test

Comment from: Janis [Visitor] · http://Duke Lacrosse

07/20/06 at 16:58
Ms. Sill,
David (7/09 post) makes very good suggestions. Your paper was out in front on the early coverage which described to the world a terrible crime and gave DA Nifong a forum to accuse the entire Duke lacrosse team. Now that evidence suggests that, not only is it possible that a crime did not occur, but that DA Nifong himself may have violated many professional and legal standards, your paper is remaining fairly quiet. Where is the investigative reporting that put this story on the front page before any facts were known? Why isn't your paper following up on what seems to be a corrupt (or at least self-serving) DA. Your paper should be outraged by the very possiblilty that a serious miscarriage of justice is underway, and you should be dedicating the same energies to covering that as to covering what you initially thought was a scandal.

	The Editors' Blog	Home / Blogs / The Editors' Blog

	N&O Blogs: Welcome to N&O blogs \| Readers' Corner \| Triangle Grammar Guide \| Get Out! Get Fit! \| WakePol \| Notions \| The Editors' Blog \| On the Beat: David Menconi on music \| Uncle Crizzle \| Epicurean: The Blog \| 2007 N.C. State Fair \| ACC Now \| WakeEd \| TV Eye \| Crosstown Traffic \| What's The Big Idea? \| Lord Stanley's Blog \| Bull's Eye \| Orange Chat \| SWakechat \| Backyard Buzz \| Between the Lines \| Best Blog \| Blackwater Current \|

Sunday, June 11, 2006