Durham in Wonderland blogger K.C. Johnson paid a visit to The N&O during his local tour promoting "Until Proven Innocent," a book coauthored by Johnson and National Journal writer Stuart Taylor Jr. Later he spoke at Duke.

In the book and on his blog, Johnson has criticized The N&O on some points and praised and linked to us on others. During an hour-long chat with reporters and editors, the Brooklyn College prof shared some thoughts on the relative strengths and advantages of blogs and traditional journalism. My column this Sunday will draw on this discussion and other thinking about blogs and journalism. I don't endorse Johnson's opinions (or oppose them) or his blog, but I think his experience and ours in covering this story demonstrate how traditional and nontraditional forms can play off each other in ways that end up improving the flow of information.

I think Johnson's blog had more credibility than most other Duke lacrosse boards for a few reasons. First, it wasn't anonymous. Johnson's name and credentials support his opinions. Second, Johnson did research and brought original information forward on occasion. (Other blogs did introduce information as well, though usually anonymously, offering tips rather than verified detail) Third, Johnson worked hard and consistently, and he corrected errors that were pointed out.

Those attributes elevate any information source, in my view. We've flagged some errors in the book regarding The N&O and asked him to correct them. Johnson, meanwhile, said during his visit he would correct errors on a web site for the book that will include source notes and an "errata" page. I've asked him for the URLs and will post them here.

09/13/07 at 07:54
I'm glad that someone writing about this case was willing to correct the record quickly (K.C., that is). The N&O took its sweet time to do the same.

What can we say about a newspaper that helped to promote a hoax, ruin lives, and then declare it was "proud" of its coverage? Remember, we sat back and watched an out-and-out frame. We saw manufactured evidence in the form of a false report (leaked to the NY Times) and a deliberate misreading of the SANE report.

We saw the N&O and other journalistic outfits insist that medical evidence of a rape existed when, in fact, no such evidence existed. So, I would say that what K.C. Johnson did was far superior to anything that came from the editorship of the N&O (which now has decided to follow its usual PC version of the hoax instead of admitting its role in promoting it).

By the way, what do you think would have happened had Nifong been successful and a Durham jury convicted the three young men despite the dearth of evidence (which clearly would have been the case, given the political climate in Durham)? These young men NEVER would have survived prison, and you know it. So why does the N&O complain and use anti-Catholic slurs when the three young men threaten to sue Durham? Instead, the whole thing is one big joke to you. How would one of you like it if this happened to you or to a family member or loved one? I suspect you would sing a different tune than "fish sandwich and a yoo-hoo."

09/13/07 at 11:25
So these three young men get to continue with their lives of privelege and take away $10 million each from the city of Durham? That's what they're asking for. It's apalling to me that these guys are asking for this kind of money when people like Darryl Hunt who was actually wrongly convicted and served nearly 20 years in prison received $1.6 million.

Their lawyers write crap in the NY Times like "this is the worst travesty of justice in American history." Really? How about Guantanamo? How about Sacco and Vanzetti? I could go on and on. People are wrongly convicted in this country every day; some are on death row. These guys were not wrongly convicted -- they were wrongly accused. Big difference.

Because they were wronged, some reasonable compensation is in order. But $10 million apiece? Puh-leeze!

09/13/07 at 21:59
Attorney General Cooper concluded that there was “no credible evidence” to support an ever-changing accusation. Yet three young men were indicted, and they remained under indictment for almost a year, despite substantial evidence that they were innocent—indeed, evidence that in fact no crime had occurred.

The disbarment and resignation of Mr. Nifong represents only the first step in the search for justice.

Mr. Nifong could not have carried out this “fiasco” without help from others, including his investigator and others in his office and, most importantly, officers in the DPD. This prosecution was almost certainly a deliberate frame of three young men for a crime that Nifong and the DPD knew had never occurred.

The DPD investigation violated departmental guidelines and procedures. Virtually every step of this investigation was deeply flawed. The DPD repeatedly failed to interview witnesses, investigate available evidence, re-interview witnesses when their statements were contradicted by evidence, and, most importantly, make any attempt to reconcile the many versions of the accuser’s story or to challenge her when her accusation was contradicted by all other evidence. The DPD ignored, avoided and ultimately hid exculpatory evidence. They allegedly attempted to create evidence by filing inaccurate affidavits and reports, providing false and misleading testimony before the grand jury, and intimidating and influencing witnesses. Members of the DPD apparently violated policy with their inflammatory public statements, the method in which they conducted lineups, and their failure to maintain a contemporaneous record of their activities.

This deeply flawed investigation demonstrated a complete failure in the DPD chain of command. Senior DPD officers apparently either failed to supervise the investigation or failed themselves to follow standard procedure.

Information available in media reports and in defense filings showed a case that had no substance and had fallen apart. In spite of these obvious problems, the chain of command took no apparent action. They either failed to step in to review the investigation or demonstrated an utter inability to comprehend its failure.

In April 2006, Mayor Bell claimed that he was closely monitoring the investigation. He was in a position to ask tough questions and demand straight answers. He failed to react when it was apparent that the investigation had seriously violated standard DPD procedures and had violated the civil rights of the defendants. Prof. Coleman described Nifong as "mooning" the justice system--and Nifong was ably assisted in this effort by DPD officers. Yet, Bell asked no questions. His failure to ask questions will cost the taxpayers of durham millions of dollars. The DPD violated the rights of the defendants over a period of more than one year and they did it with the apparent approval of senior city officials.

This breakdown in the chain of command continued long after the case had fallen apart. In January, after Nifong’s agreement to hide exculpatory evidence had triggered the Bar complaint and his recusal, DPD Deputy Police Chief Ronald Hodge expressed the view that the case would move forward and proceed to trial. I paraphrase Investigator Himan: With what?

In May, in an attempt to salvage his widely discredited report, DPD Police Chief Chalmers made the incredible claim that “at the time we did go to the grand jury, Mangum’s accounts were consistent.” Based on Jim Cooney's summary to the committee investigating the DPD’s actions in this case, we know that Chalmers' claim is patently false. I am confident that a review of the facts will show more "inaccuracies" in the Baker/Chalmers report. I believe that report will be shown to be a transparent attempt to shift blame from the DPD to other parties.

These actions raise credible questions whether Nifong, a number of DPD officers and others committed criminal acts in connection with this prosecution. In his deposition for the Bar, Gottlieb indicated that his testimony before the grand jury included the statement that the accuser’s story had not changed from the time that the SANE nurse had calmed her down. Cooney demonstrated last week that this statement is false.

During the ethics hearing, Investigator Benjamin Himan admitted under oath that he testified before a grand jury and obtained indictments with no evidence to support the accusation—he asked “with what?” in conversations with superiors. Yet, these superiors endorsed Nifong’s decision to ask for indictments. Himan also admitted under oath that Sergeant Mark Gottlieb prepared affidavits (signed by Himan) in connection with search warrants and the non-testimonial order based on false information.

Nifong and others acted openly and brazenly—as though they had no fear of the consequences of being caught. They have defamed the legal system and destroyed our trust in it.

Many residents on Durham do not understand that this was not an investigation. Nifong and the DPD conducted a deliberate frame.

When will the N&O do its job?