newsobserver.com |The Editors' Blog

Comments:

Comment from: SRM [Visitor]

10/05/06 at 19:56
Linda,

I strongly disagree with your explanation regarding why and how the story you ran regarding the AV and her comments. In fact, I find it repugnant that you would think we were that ignorant.

My response howeve is to the Voter's Guidd and the commment you made:
"That is where some people commenting on this blog found the Mike Nifong candidate profile. While the material was accessible from news&observer.com, it was merely serving as a template for the staff to complete the online guide for the fall election. Now that we know that people may be reading the information as if it were a live document, we will block access to the information untill the fall guide is complete."

I personally spoke to Michelle V. (witholding her name out of respect) of the N&O. Her assistance was not only considerate and genuine, it was immediate and she made absolutely NO EXCUSES. NONE. SHE is a firm example of integrity and honesty. She is a firm example of how to treat subscribers, readers, PEOPLE!

Your rhetoric is appalling and quite frankly I am embarassed for you.

Thank goodness for people like Michelle.

Comment from: SRM [Visitor]

10/05/06 at 19:59
BTW, the information is still accessible and our concerns were immediately addressed and necessary corrections made, so your comment regarding it being down is, at this time, false.

Comment from: SRM [Visitor]

10/05/06 at 20:23
I apologize for not using spell check in my original post.

See that Linda, I can own up to my mistakes!

Comment from: H.L.M. [Visitor]

10/05/06 at 21:19
Atrocious and arrogant post, Ms Williams.

After months of hiding behind Melanie Sill, we have clearly now discovered the editorial source of most of the bad, bigoted and malicious journalism done at the N&O in the early days of the story.

It was the work of Linda Williams.

Ms Williams, your personal decision to hide CGM's statement to your reporter that she felt that Kim Roberts had robbed her that night was on-it-s-face a wrong decision.

Depriving your readers of a very important part of the story.

it was likely motivated solely by your own agenda, Ms Williams.

Bad enough.

But worse is your arrogant unwillingness to own up to your mistakes. That is a very bad sign, Ms Williams. It makes people wonder what else you are hiding.

On this story, you rate an F. Poor show.

Comment from: david [Visitor]

10/05/06 at 21:55
It's time to come clean with the interview of the accuser. What did she say about the actions of the second dancer?

Comment from: jenniferd [Visitor]

10/05/06 at 22:20
Funny, how you were worried about unsubstantiated statements the accuser made regarding Kim Roberts. But unsubstantiated rape allegations-that must have not bothered you one bit?
Rather pathetic excuse, in my view.

Comment from: H.L.M. [Visitor]

10/05/06 at 22:31
Ms Williams:

Whether your censorship of uncomfortable facts and
your malicious editorializing and headlining of a number of news reports on the Lacrosse case in March and April was
motivated by righteous outrage, "activist" journalism,
or personal animus towards the Lacrosse players doesn't much matter

You did a lousy job and nearly discredited the work of
your paper. A disgraceful performance made worse by
hiding behind Melanie Sill all these months.

Melanie: You want to play the new media game, play
it. Your deputy editors need to be accountable. Linda
Williams made at least 3 terrible news judgments on
this story (hiding the accuser's real story, publishing the "wanted poster" and the gratiutous use of the word "Nigger" in a news story).

Williams is still bluffing and trying to hold back on your readers.

You might let her know that it won't work.

Comment from: kbp [Visitor] · http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=326&st=0&#entry4273946

10/05/06 at 23:06
You might want to read over the comments at the Site/Url before the next explanation is given.

Comment from: MaryinNJ [Visitor]

10/05/06 at 23:35
Which "Police Report" are you referring to? I thought Sgt. Gottlieb's wasn't prepared for months...

Comment from: Fred [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 00:36
You had 6 months and this was the best excuse you could come up with?

How come the article didn't state that "the decision [was]made prior to the March interview to limit it to the information in the police report...Our purpose was to hear from the woman in her own words the accusation she made to the police."? Don't you think the reader would have benefitted knowing this?

You say that you didn't include information because "the accuser" offered an opinion about the other woman’s actions that night which clearly an opinion, offered without any substantiation. Well, how is this different from the rape accusation? What substatiation was there of this? Not to mention that she obviously lied about her history as a sex worker...but did you bother to confirm what she said with regards to this?

What about using the term 'victim' instead of 'alleged victim'?

Since it appears to most rational people that these accusations are bogus, wouldn't it be relevant to print what she said about the other dancer?

This explanation is a joke...this paper is a joke. Guess I'm still waiting for the apology....

Comment from: Newport [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 02:29
Dear Ms. Williams:

I hate to do this to you, and I am going to try and do it in a nice way, but I am about to point out in dramatic fashion that you are not being real truthful here.

You said you did not publish the quote from the interview of the accuser because it was unsubtantiated opinion. You said that was standard journalism at your paper. I say -- NONSENSE.

Here is what your paper wrote in an article entitled, "DA changed bond status for second dancer," on April 22:

I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred -- and I never will," Roberts told the AP Thursday in her first on-the-record interview. She previously told her story on television; she was pictured in silhouette, and her name was not used.

She began wondering about the character of the players after defense attorneys released photos of the accuser and leaked information on both dancers' criminal pasts.

"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty ... but somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression."

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/431417.html

Did you get that? Let me repeat it for you:

"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty ... but somebody did something besides underage drinking."

Is that unsubstantiated opinion? Well, I certainly think so, and so do your readers. Do you really think that we are so stupid that you can pull this bull on us?

This is not even the most important point. It is irrelevant whether the accuser was stating unsubstantiated opinion or not from both a legal and journalistic standpoint. The mere speaking of the words that she uttered is legally relevant AND NEWS.

The accuser's statements about her fellow dancer should be printed in your paper to show the state of mind of the accuser. The issue here is not whether "the opinion" meets some level of quality for opinion, the question is what does this woman think about her fellow dancer WHO IS A PUBLIC FIGURE BY VIRTUE OF HER NOTORIETY. That is important from a legal standpoint to show her state of mind, bias, etc. This is very important. Whether the words of the opinion are true or not is not at issue. They are not relevant for their truth, they are relevant as a window into the mind of a very public figure. This makes the mere utterance of the words important and newsworthy.

If George Bush stated that Dennis Hastert is a crazy fool, would that be withheld from print because it was an "opinion?" Of course not. The mere speaking of those words, whether opinion or not, is NEWS. I can see refraining from printing scurrilous accusations, but when the speaker is the accuser in a very public and very notorious rape case, her opinions are NEWS (regardless of whether they are "substantiated") and they should be printed.

This editor is hiding behind the standard canard used by reporters when they don't want to print something. Oh, that's not fact, that's opinion. Trust me, if it was something they wanted to print, you wouldn't hear anything about it being opinion, it would be priinted.

This entire episode is Shameful, and the N&O's conduct in perpetuating and fueling the HOAX with it's abysmal early coverage is equally shameful. Do not add further to the shame by hiding the accuser's accusations against her fellow dancer.

Ms. Williams, you owe us a response to this post, and I am sure that we will not let up on you until we get one. You need to publish that quote now.

Comment from: J [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 04:53

The subject interview was conducted, in part, by Samiha
Khanna. This interview of the false accuser was the source of multiple articles published in the N&O.

In the articles based on the interview that launched a thousand tears, Samiha writes that the players were "barking racial slurs." The article could have been titled, "Who let the dogs out?" Samiha goes on to report that the AV "found herself surrounded by more than 40 men," and that the dancers simultaneously broke down crying and she quotes the AV as saying, "we were so scared." She tells readers that "authorities vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity." Samiha claims "this was the first time she (the AV) had been hired to dance provocatively for a group."

WAS THIS SUBSTANTIATED?

According to Samiha Khanna, and the N&O, this most reluctant of victims "hesitated to tell police what happened," but "She realized she had to, for her young daughter and her father." In a few short days, the AV went from the Salt of the Earth to a Saint. Ms. Samiha writes that "the petite, soft-spoken woman is described by friends as a caring mother and a hard worker," and "she also is a serious student." And the N&O sought and got quotes to hammer home the point, "I couldn't fault a woman for taking care of her family and trying to pay the bills."

After landing the only interview of the AV, Samiha took to the airwaves and, more than once, appeared on shows with Mike Nifong. Samiha makes an odd statement in one of her TV appearances, and it seems to echo the sentiments of her colleague - Weiss, "Upon starting her PERFORMANCE OBLIGATION, she did recall hearing epitaphs, terms that were derogatory towards her as a woman and an African American. She said she was very scared. She started to cry and that she wanted to leave."
Now it's clear - the woman still hasn't danced provocatively for a group - now it's a "PERFORMANCE OBLIGATION." You gotta hand it to his woman - the accuser - she will work her fingers to the bone. She never met an obligation she didn't fulfill - apparently. It's so humbling to read of the character this woman possesses.

Samiha provides readers with a quote from a member of the Duke Academic Council, "There was a sense of, 'This is sad, and it's terrible," and the same can be said of the N&O coverage of this case!

Appropriately, on April Fools day, the N&O published an article by N&O correspondent, Elizabeth Weiss.

Weiss wrote, "I felt connected to her because I somehow understood, based on pure instinct and imagination, how hard it must have been to talk to the Durham police that night.

It is odd how strongly I winced internally when I heard the details, having never experienced anything like that. Yet somehow I felt pain and sadness -- and anger. I don't know when I'll stop thinking about what that must have been like every time I drive past the Kroger on Hillsborough Road where she felt safe enough to stop."
http://www.newsobserver.com/978/story/424079.html

So, Mrs. Williams, you sound so ridiculous to be rolling out this claim of 'JUST THE FACTS, MAM!' coverage.

The N&O sat on the accuser's Criminal record while printing the records of lacrosse players of bygone years. The N&O refused to reveal the Identity of Kim Roberts until Mrs. Roberts did it herself? What policy is that you were following?

The N&O, to this day, calls these women DANCERS, while referring to STRIP Club owners on the opposing page.

Wait a month, and I'm sure we'll hear the Dog ate Samiha's notes on the interview, or they were destroyed in a freak accident.

J

~

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 07:26
N&O Readers, take note here.
Ms. Williams references two items in her post:the Voter Guide and the N&O interview with the accuser.

On the former, the first poster points out ...from first-hand experience....that Ms. Williams is either misinformed herself and giving you incorrect information,..or is well aware of the truth and misinforming you for her own reasons. Of course, any of us can misspeak,and we may give Ms. Williams the benefit of the doubt. But, in certain professions, the qualities of accuracy, truthfulness and caution are of crucial importance. We don't want our doctors spouting potential diagnoses before they read the lab results. Please Ms. Williams, inform yourself before you post. Or as Attorney Cheshire told Linwood Wilson (paraphrased) "Read the notes."

Your second revelation is stunning in its arrogance and relevance to this case. YOU decided the readers didn't need to know any part of the Accuser's story that.... didn't fit the party line!! YOU decided. You omitted anything that might make us ..in those early crucial days say...hey, wait, a minute, something's wrong with this story. You decided?!!! What hogwash that you were somehow protecting the players! You were about to SAVAGE them with the Swagger story. No, you were protecting the Accuser. Propping up her credibility. Helping her along a bit by making her sound CONSISTENT. YOU did this. Then you ran the Vigilante poster ("without the discussion we should have had)," says Melanie. You were on a righteous role to stir fury and condemnation against these kids. Congratulations, Linda.Mission accomplished.

You sugar-coated every word you employed for the "dancer", the "victim", the "soft-voiced girl who got an A in a hard class." Why you told us what a good mother she was! Please re-read Jarriel Johnson's statement of how this "Good Mom' spent just one weekend in her life (God knows what else we will find out at trial.) You dishonored every single Mom who works at Wal-mart or bags groceries or stands on her feet all day every day...to provide for her kids. You dishonored them by inferring that The Shy One who makes $400 a hour to "dance", who wanders Motel strips and spends nights at strip bars...who vibrates for strangers...is somehow one of them. You created an image for her, like a Hollywood PR team...and then set about to create a contrasting obnoxious image for the boys. You interviewed every neighbor that they irritated to get the dirt. Never called the poor taxi driver, whose cab was stolen when The Shy One failed her lap dance try-out.

This paper has never corrected that first impression. All those adjectives..."shy".."good mother" "good student"..etc still stand. STILL STAND. Run those articles beside Jarriel's sworn statement. It might improve your credibility.

Did you have collaboration of her good grades or is that just an opinion you liked?

The "Swagger story" was a vehicle to show a "mentality" Melanie told us months ago on the blogs. A companion story on the "mentality" of sex industry workers might have been educational. Boy, these guys had a lot of open container violations! Do tell...what kinds of charges are most prevalent in the sex trade industry? Open container? No? How about an expose...Tell us about all those shy, soft voiced girls.

Have you yet read the Coleman Report? Here's are some interesting tidbits for you .

There are more general citations attributed to this Duke team than other teams because lacrosse players are the only athletic group that lives in two of the houses off East where the neighbors are most bothered by Duke students. In fact, there are fewer citations attributed to this team than there are to other Duke groups who live in this neighborhood. The Coleman Report found no incidents of racism among this team—it states, “The current as well as former African-American members of the men’s team have been extremely positive about the support the team provided them.” There are no incidents involving lacrosse players that in any way show a disrespect for women-in fact quite the opposite. Kerstin Kimel, the coach of the women’s team, attests to the camaraderie and mutual respect between the boys and girls and points out that the smart, savvy young women on her team would not hang out with “arrogant jocks.”

“By all accounts, the -lacrosse players are a cohesive, hard working, disciplined, and respectful athletic team. Their behavior on trips is described as exemplary. Airline personnel complimented them for their behavior…..Both the groundskeeper and the equipment manager spoke about the players’ respect for and appreciation of efforts for the team. They described the members of the team as the best or among the best group of athletes they served in their long tenures with Duke athletics. Although they give coach Pressler credit for instilling these values, they emphasize that the players are a ‘special group of young men.’ The female manager for the last three seasons, a Duke senior, echoed these sentiments.”

“Lacrosse players also have performed well academically. In 2005, twenty seven members of the lacrosse team, more than half, made the ACC Honor Roll. The lacrosse team’s academic performance generally is one of the best among all Duke athletic teams,” according to the Coleman Report. The team also has an impressive, lengthy community service record both on campus and off."

Linda, you are accountable here. You were front and center, torch held high...when the Witch-hunt began. I have no doubt you are an accomplished, intelligent woman. You used every talent God gave you to promote a terrible miscarriage of justice. I do not excuse that party, but the burden on these families, emotional and financial ..even for the unindicted ones.... has been horrific. Nifong could not have perpetrated this Hoax alone You were in a position of power and influence. You owed your readers caution, accuracy and fact. You had no right, as a Journalist or even a person of conscience, to shape and massage and inflame! You are accountable.

Comment from: D [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 09:27
Did you know that the prosecution theory is that the second dancer stepped outside for a few minutes and that's when the rape happened?
If the accuser told Ms. Khanna that that the second dancer was an accomplice, a fellow victim, or even a witness (each version is in various police reports), the N&O is sitting on a blockbuster news story (not to mention a big piece of exculpatory information).
The differences between the stories she told police, the story she told Ms. Khanna, and story the police told the judge in affidavits IS the story.
Thanks for reading,

Comment from: MaryinNJ [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 10:47
Which "police report" stated the boys were "barking racial slurs" DURING the dance?

Kim Roberts' statement didn't say.

How did YOU decide this was "substantiated?"

Comment from: mj [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 11:06
I have been following all of this since the beginning, knowing in my heart that the initial story wasn't the truth. I have had such a difficult time with the fact that no one seems to hold to the basic tenets of our Constitutional rights--innocent until proven guilty. The N & O, among many other media outlets, was simply interested in a titillating story that would sell newspapers--justice be damned. And Mike Nifong picked up on all of that and ran with it. He doesn't care about this "shy mother" or her children. He doesn't care about these 3 young men, their families or the lacrosse team--or even the accuser. The N & O doesn't care about them either. You have served Nifong well, and you continue to be a support for him. The "expose" you printed last weekend was much too weak--is everyone in North Carolina scared of this man? It's bad enough that the Herald Sun is at Nifong's beck and call--but he seems to own a little bit of the N & O as well.

I continue to wonder on a daily basis how Nifong and the news media sleep at night, with the full knowledge that these indicted players have done nothing to the accuser--it is appalling that these families are paying enormous legal bills, not to mention a huge emotional price, to defend their innocence, and that Nifong is wasting untold amounts of Durham tax dollars to get himself elected and to continue to build up his own pension!

Ms. Williams, you must feel so proud of the role you have had in this Hoax!

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 13:08
"The decision made prior to the March interview to limit it to the information in the police report was the correct decision... "

Okay, this has already been asked but I'll ask it again. WHAT POLICE REPORT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT as your arbitrary boundary of your factual investigation?

If it was Officer Shelton's March 14 report, were you only going to report the alleged victim's comments that were consistent with this part of the report:
"While being interviewed at Duke, her story changed several times. At one point she said that she had not been raped. She also said that Nikki had stolen her money and cell phone. Ms. [ deleted ] also said that she might have deposited the money."

Was it Officer Himan's March 20 report of his interview with Kim in which she called the rape allegation "a crock" and said that she and the alleged victim were never apart except for 5 minutes when the alleged victim "would not leave"? Were you striving for consistency with that report?

Was it Officer Himan's March 22 interview with the alleged victim (shy girl!) in which she stated that she had a "function" with a man and woman in a hotel room where she used a small vibrator (sex toy) on herself? Were the shy young lady's answers to your interviewer's questions consistent with that report?

Please don't make us keep wondering just what "police report" the N&O had obtained as of March 25 and then used as the "fact" boundary of your "factual" reporting. No need to ever dig beyond a police report, right? Especially so early in the investigation. No "unsubstantiated" statements are ever in the initial police reports, right?

Comment from: Greg [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 13:29
"Omitting from published news articles unsubstantiated opinions is a standard, normal part of the journalistic process."

WHAT??? That is the most absurdly laughable thing I’ve heard in a long time [My opinion]

The subtle editorializing in your paper gets worse everyday. Example: If a news source you consider friendly doesn’t want to talk to you, your paper will write “Declined to comment” If the news source is a person you don’t like, you write “Refused to comment”

Two very different conclusions will be drawn from those comments.. The examples of this kind of thing are endless!

Comment from: RTL [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 14:10

Michael Gaynor has a few words for Ms. Williams:

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_14347.shtml

Comment from: NDLax84 [Visitor] · http://crystalmess.blogspot.com

10/06/06 at 14:12
Who can spot the agenda?

http://www.newsobserver.com/content/blogs/editor/williams_76.jpg

Comment from: emmy954 [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 15:22
I find it unacceptable that *any* parts of this interview, however short, were omitted from the article...and the explanation that these omitted comments were just, "opinion" does NOT pass the smell test. Opinions are stated in news articles all the time, and even if they weren't, this "opinion" of the alleged victim in the Duke case is VERY important to show what her mindset was on the night in question. I would hope that Ms. Williams would reconsider this decision to omit these comments from her article...it does not do anything to enhance her credibility, and in fact, it only makes it appear as though she has an agenda which is driving her editorial decisions.

Comment from: Longtabber [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 15:29
I would ask you why her "opinion" of the other dancers actions is different from her "opinion" of what happened?

You also state that her account was in the "gist" of the police report. This begs the question of which account and which report since they ALL contradict themselves. Did she relate the account where Kim was an ACCOMPLICE? was it 20? 5? 3?

Any issues rising from peoples disbelief are a direct result of your selective wordy non answers and never addressing a direct question with a direct answer that is detailed.

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

10/06/06 at 15:40
Folks,

What Linda has said (and I have said in the past) is that the editing of this story, which was a news story on deadline, followed our usual guidelines and cautions. I'd ask everybody to take a deep breath here. The first day story was about a DNA roundup involving an unprecedented number of people from a single group. The second day we were working to talk to all the principals. We got the woman identified as the victim and interviewed her. As Linda notes, it wasn't an extensive or extensively planned interview -- it was boots on the street hustle to track down the key players. We published what was newsworthy and went through the usual process of including some information and leaving out other information. As noted many times over neither the players nor their families or lawyers would talk to us that day. And as noted in prior posts, stories unfold day by day -- we kept pushing this one and the picture has fleshed out over time.

The intensity of interest in this interview with the reported victim is understandable, but I think Linda's main point is that much of this speculation about the handling of this story is simply imagination at work. The interview was good reporting but certainly not the end of our reporting. I'd note that The N&O has done the deepest and most comprehensive work on this case, as we should and as we'll keep doing.

-- Melanie Sill

Comment from: Longtabber [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 15:48
The interview was good reporting but certainly not the end of our reporting. I'd note that The N&O has done the deepest and most comprehensive work on this case, as we should and as we'll keep doing.

-- Melanie Sill

Now, THATS a crock

Have you been looking at the blogs?

Comment from: emmy954 [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 15:49
Melanie, please realize that this omission is vitally important...this is unacceptable...how can you reconcile printing Kim Robert's speculation from April 22, that is

"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred -- and I never will," Roberts told the AP Thursday in her first on-the-record interview. She previously told her story on television; she was pictured in silhouette, and her name was not used."

and NOT printing the alleged VICTIM'S comments about what she thought of Roberts role in the night's events? Ms. Roberts admits that she was NOT even in the bathroom when the *alleged* rape took place, but you *will* print that bit of speculation, but the ALLEGED VICTIM's speculation is not fit for us to read? Can't you see how horribly that decision reflects on you, Ms. Williams, and your entire newspaper? I think it's time for you to *attempt* to undo some of the grave damage that you have done to the wrongly accused and indicted Duke LAX papers...you all have MUCH to atone for, imo...

Comment from: NDLax84 [Visitor] · http://crystalmess.blogspot.com

10/06/06 at 16:14
We published what was newsworthy and went through the usual process of including some information and leaving out other information.

No, you made agenda-driven decisions as to what you deemed newsworthy. The information "left out" was and, now more than ever, IS, newsworthy. Pony it up.

And as noted in prior posts, stories unfold day by day -- we kept pushing this one and the picture has fleshed out over time.

The picture that has "fleshed out over time" is that of a troubled false accuser concocting a series of fantastic lies to keep herself out of the nut bin, and an editorial staff, bereft of dispassionate forebearance of judgment pending development of hard FACTS, that stoked up both a City's lynch-mob mentality and the political opportunism of Willie Loman.

Knowing how the picture has "fleshed out," Melanie, how can you possibly defend not printing the accuser's "opinion" of the other dancer's ACTIONS that night? Nifong has said he didn't talk turkey with Crystal on 4.11 because she was "too traumatized." That's a crock. You know. We know.

The Liar's state of mind, and her recollections of the events in question more than two and a half weeks prior to her meeting with Mikey and Markey are most certainly RELEVANT NEWS. What, did she tell Khanna & Blythe that Kimmie helped rape her, too? We can't have that hitting the eyes of the public now, can we?

Sickening. Sickening. Sickening.

You're nearly a laugh. But you're really a cry.

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 16:30
One wonders why? Why was Kim exempt?

How is her status different from the boys?

Why would you "protect" Kim? Edit statements about Kim?

If you had printed the the accuser's actual statement, Nifong might not have been able to flip Kim from a "crock" to a "could-be."

If you had printed the accuser's actual statement, your readers might have "taken a deep breath."

if you had not immediately put out the sweet contorted profile of the "shy girl, first time dancer, good mother...who got an "A' in a hard class..." (all documented and will be verified at trial, I guess)

If you had waited to read Jarriel's statement or investigate HER a bit...maybe Nifong would have been forced to put on the brakes.

You didn't need to take sides. You needed to be cautious.

Hold back on the Vigilante posters. (Shades of the Old South reversed!)

Ms. Williams stated it well:

"The latter was clearly an opinion, offered without any substantiation. Omitting from published news articles unsubstantiated opinions is a standard, normal part of the journalistic process."

You were generous with every negative "opinion" about tne boys...while you held back information..and wrapped that girl in near sainthood for your community.

Read your early reporting again...knowing what we know now. And read the letters and the pain of the families.

."You're a Dead Man Walking", your believers shout. To their sons..stirred by your reporting.Think of your own children.

And to this DAY, you prop Nifong up and allow the egregious, reckless behavior of this man to dominate not only this case...BUT YOUR COMMUNITY..for years to comer with your nod and wink!

Comment from: Jack [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 16:45
I am 54 years old. I have been an N & O subscriber for 27 years. When my friends who have charged the paper with a major left lean, I have frequently defended the reporting by stating that I thought the reporting was fair, and that only the op/ed was leftist, which is the option of the paper. I think for many years, this was true. But clearly, it is no longer true, and I am thoroughly disgusted. My head and heart tell me to cancel my subsrciption, but old habits die hard, and I'm debating that decision as I write. I sitll contend the N&O used to be a fine paper, and it sickens me that it has sunk so low and has become a malevolent spewer of false reproting odriven by political correctness.

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 17:27
Do you intend to inform your other readers that you held back comments about Kim Roberts or is this our secret?

Comment from: Bob [Visitor] · http://southofheaven.typepad.com/

10/06/06 at 17:30
Ms. WIlliams,

I agree with the other posters here that your position regarding witholding the alleged victim's comments concerning Ms. Roberts and what she may have done the night of March 13-14 rings untrue.

In the last half-year those of us who have followed the case have seen the various police reports rrevealing a number of conflicting stories given by the alleged victim ranging from Roberts helping to facilitate a rape to being a witness to the alleged victim being pulled away from her to be carried into the bathroom and raped. None of her stories match any version of events that Roberts has yet revealed, nor do they match any of the known evidence of the case.

Hiding what particular story about Roberts the alleged victim related to the N&O seems to me to be a continuing attempt by the N&O to protect the alleged victim's whole narrative from the disinfectant that sunlight provides. If her claims at the beginning of this debacle were so absurd that they needed to be hidden in order to protect the legitimacy of this case, then the N&O has intentionally participated in this fraud.

As this case has unfolded and the public has gained access to the (absolute lack of) evidence through the discovery process, it has become obvious to those of us not connected to the movers and shakers of Durham that your District Attorney has knowingly and willfully made false statements to the public about the evidence of this case for his own political benefit, Your latest puff piece about Mr. Nifong seems to celebrate that he pursues cases without evidence and your writers seem unable to find a motive for his behavior. The rest of the world is ahead of you.

At some point in the future, perhaps when this case comes to trial or is dismissed, the whole truth about this case will become known. The public will find out what the N&O knew about the accuser's honesty and competency, and what the N&O felt the need to conceal. At that point you will have to explain to your readership why you helped to perpetrate this lie.

Comment from: Newport [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 17:52
Melanie:
This says it all, here is the most blatant "unsubtantiated opinion" ever published in a newspaper:

"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty ... but somebody did something besides underage drinking."

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/431417.html

You have NO ANSWER for this. You cannot justify printing this tripe and withholding, i.e., CENSORING, the opinion of the false accuser. YOU are harming the defense of innocent men falsely charged with the most heinous of crimes by PROTECTING and not printing the statements of the false accuser. Your earlier coverage of the false accuser was enough to nominate a stripper for sainthood, and you vilified the boys. Now, you continue to protect the false accuser by refusing to print her statement of opinion about her fellow dancer.

This is the worst kind of journalism, it shows more than anything you have done your inherent bias and prejudice against these white players. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You provide no answers, just more obfuscation and non-responses. This is not going to work. We will not back off until you print what you should have printed on March 25.

What is your response to this post? I am waiting.

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

10/06/06 at 18:19
NDLax, others,

Kim Roberts was speaking on the record, and the people in question had responded through their lawyers to the accusations.

I understand all of the interest in the case. What I think isn't coming through is that you all are looking through the lens of hindsight. We can disagree on this. But you are looking at the March 25 story with the knowledge built on all that we have reported since then. Some of the comments seem to say, how could you report this on March 25 given what was said April 22?

Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post called journalism the first draft of history. Each day we report to the best of our ability and we come back and do it again the next day. You're entitled to disagree, but what I will say again is we didn't then and don't now have any agenda but this one: to bring forward facts and put them in context.

Your speculation about what was left out is off the mark. Beyond that, as I've said before, our news judgement is what we're here for, and that thinking with this story was consistent with our approach. If we don't report it, it's because we don't think it merits inclusion. I stand by that, in fact it's what distinguishes us.

Comment from: Jack [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 18:22
Melanie: I'm glad I didn't go to j school. Would have flunked out for sure. Anyway, what is the reason for not publishing now what the false accuser said about Kim?

Comment from: Newport [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 18:35
Melanie,

You just wrote:

Kim Roberts was speaking on the record, and the people in question had responded through their lawyers to the accusations.

WHAT? Was the false accuser speaking OFF THE RECORD? The rest of your statement quoted above is obtuse and makes no sense either. Is that why you didn't and won't publish her opinion of her fellow dancer, and opinion that is vitally relevant to show the state of mind of the false accuser. All of her statements are RELEVANT. All of her accusations are relevant, all of her opinions are relevant. What don't you get about this?

Your response is insulting to the intelligence of all of us. You are wrong, and you know it. You are backpeddling, grasping at straws to come up with some justifications for your unjustifiable journalistic decision making. "WE ARE PROUD OF OUR COVERAGE" or "WE STAND BEHIND OUR DECISIONS" ain't cutting it. This sounds like a father who is always right responding to a little boy, "I'm right because I say I am."

HINDSIGHT

You are free to print the rest of the story NOW. It has nothing to do with hindsight. We are asking that you print the left out part of the interview NOW. Hindsight has nothing to do with it. Even if it is only a mistake because of hindsight, what is stopping you from printing the rest of the interview NOW? This information in your possession is relevant NOW.

Comment from: emmy954 [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 18:58
Melanie, if Kim was on the record, what was the alleged victim?? Was she off the record? Well, you still published *some* of what she said...so now, I guess you're saying that as long as someone is speaking on the record, the newspaper is free to print their SPECULATION...but if someone is speaking off the record, you can pick and choose what of their account to print? You make no sense in your defense of what you omitted, because it is indefensible...you know, not to speak for everyone, but I would imagine that for most of us, we didn't need to see this as a crock in HINDSIGHT...we saw it for the crock it is from early on...how many more people would have realized that this was a FALSE allegation sooner if you had just PRINTED THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW...one of the most egregious things the N & O did was to print that vile Wanted, Vigilante poster...you will NEVER be able to make up for that horrendous decision, but maybe by providing the full account of AV's interview, you could at least show that you are trying....

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 18:59
I read this on a blog today:

" Imagine how different the second half of March and the first half of April would have unfolded if the discussion had included the AV's charge that Kim robbed her and/or assisted in the rape.

It's like a giant wrench in all the stereotypes that drove that period. "

But , Melanie, you desperately protected those stereotypes. That was the story. You enhanced them, and massaged them, and the community believed them.

Nifong's handmaidens...all of you.

In fact , Melanie, your reporting accepted every negative statement about those kids at face value.

You shielded the girl in every way possible...stripping became.."a performance obligation." You went out of your way to combat any negative impression being a sex industry worker might convey. Emphasis on soft voice, good grades, good little Mom, hard worker...Navy vet, by God!

And you omitted whatever negative things she said about Kim...because they BOTH needed to be heroines..worthy ,abused. For the stereotypes.

No wonder the New Black Panthers came to town. These young "goddesses" had to be avenged.

"You're a dead man walking."

Mission accomplished.

Comment from: HLM [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 18:59
Melanie-

I think the fact that Linda Williams is once again hiding behind your defenses is disgraceful.

Given the amount of time you have kindly spent her, we all understand your position and the work you have done to report well on this story.

But If Linda Williams cannot stand in front of the readers and defend her bad decisions (or admit her mistakes) then I would suggest you need a new deputy editor.

We will all wonder how many other stories has Ms. Williams twisted facts and deceived the readers to fit her political agenda.

Comment from: Newport [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 19:18
Melanie,

First Ms. Williams tells us that you didn't print the accuser's comments about the fellow black dancer because it was "unsubstantiated opinion." Well, that was demonstrated to be a CROCK.

Then you come to the rescue saying this was just some normal editorial decision making. Well, that was demonstrated to be a CROCK.

Realizing this, you come up with perhaps the weakest attempt yet -- Roberts' was on the record. Surely, you are not suggesting that your interview with the accuser was OFF the RECORD, are you? Because that would be a CROCK.

What is your reason that you cannot review your decision making, in hindsight if it makes you feel better, and print the full interview NOW?

You have not answered this question at all. Do you still feel that the false accuser's statements about her fellow dancer are not NEWSWORTHY? If so, we would like to know why?

Comment from: Longtabber [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 19:59
"Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post called journalism the first draft of history. Each day we report to the best of our ability and we come back and do it again the next day. You're entitled to disagree, but what I will say again is we didn't then and don't now have any agenda but this one: to bring forward facts and put them in context."

Lets expose this for the OBVIOUS untruth it is- you "say" you report each day? WHERE is your "report" on the OBVIOUS errors in this case?

Melanie, I personally have done more "investigative reporting" than your entire STAFF.

Do you really thing this group of bloggers will buy or ignore your sterilized, politically correct nonsenseical non answers?

"Your speculation about what was left out is off the mark. Beyond that, as I've said before, our news judgement is what we're here for, and that thinking with this story was consistent with our approach. If we don't report it, it's because we don't think it merits inclusion. I stand by that, in fact it's what distinguishes us. "

You again talk in circles- "WHAT" exactly "distinguishes" you? ( and from whom or what) You state you dont think it "merits" inclusion- OK, what DOES merit inclusion?

For that matter, what "merits" discernment? What merits "truth"?

WHERE are your 'stories" exposing the OBVIOUS errors in this investigation? Where are your stories asking IMPORTANT questions? WHERE are the stories contradicting Nifong's statements on his website versus his conduct in this case?

Honestly, I personally have done more "investigative" reporting in my 2 articles than the N&O has.

Comment from: Suasn [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 20:40
Ms. Sills,

What is disturbing is that the N&O prefers to have me and others make assumptions about the "opinions" the accuser made regarding Kim Roberts. The logical assumption is that the accuser implicated Kim Roberts in a robbery and rape. We assume this because the accuser gave these "opinions" to police and medical staff. These "opinions" have been publically diseminated and we know already about them.
What is disturbing is that the accuser had these "opinions" 12 days after the alleged rape and the N&O chose and continues to choose to ignore these "opinions."
What is disturbing is that these "opinions" greatly impact the case against three young men. The accuser implicating Kim Roberts in a robbery/rape further highlights that these young men are not guilty and that the DPD did not properly investigate this case. It provides additional credability issues for the accuser and highlights the fact that the accuser gave multiple and conflicting accounts of the alleged rape. This is especially true if the accuser does NOT provide the same "opinions" under oath at trial.
What is disturbing is that the N&O editors know this and pretend that it's some sort of journalistic high road to protect the accuser. This information should be part of the evidence in this case.
What is disturbing is that your readers request that you release the accuser's "opinions" about Kim Roberts and you refuse. However, you readily publish every negative bit of information about the three young men accused . You even publish pictures and names in the form of a Wanted poster.
What is disturbing is that the N&O has an opportunity to revealing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the accuser and refuses.
I don't need a deep breath as you recommend. I am a level-headed intelligent person. It is very reasonable for we who are interested in seeing that justice is served to request that the N&O publish exactly what the accuser said about Kim Roberts.
What should be disturbing to N&O management is that your paper had a chance to fulfill its obligation to the community and investigate this case and publish the information and you refuse.

Comment from: v063009 [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 22:07
Yes, do tell. Please!

Comment from: Gregory5412 [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 22:10
Did Ms. Williams suffer the same type of soul-searching trouble that Kristiana Bennet of the NCCU Campus Echo suffered before she also decided to hide relevant facts about the false accuser from her readers? A newspaper does not print the truth when it makes the decision to shape stories based on an agenda. A courageous journalist would have printed the facts, no matter where they led.
I will renew my subscription to the N&O when it comes under new and improved ownership as part of a Finnerty/Seligmann/Evans media conglomerate which will include the Herald-Sun and various other local media.
The civil trial of the N&O will go badly, and every day the N&O fails to print the false accuser's true words will equal additional punitive damages. WARNING: These are my opinions, you may not want to print them.

Comment from: H.L.M. [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 22:20
A reliable source indicates that the story that Kristiana Bennet hide from her readers was that CGM has a long history of flipping out after drinking and exhibiting grossly inappropirate behavior.

Apparently everyone within a 1000 yard radius of CGM's family home has a favorite story of her outrageous drunken conduct at neighborhood parties.

I am ~100% sure that Samiha Khanna and Linda Williams are fully aware of these stories and hide them from the N&O readers as well.

Comment from: david [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 22:29
We can disagree about whether it was appropriate at the time for the N&0 to leave out the accuser's comments about Kim Roberts in the original article.

What is clear now, however, is that the N&0 has an obligation to justice to report the FULL STORY of what the accuser told your reporter, considering what has happened since then.

There are no reasons to continue to hide the truth, especially since you are likely to receive a subpoena to produce the information if a trial occurs.

It's time to come clean and put out a complete account of the interview, since it was one of the few the accuser gave and it WAS on the record.

Enough feeble excuses!

Comment from: Ellen [Visitor]

10/06/06 at 22:36
Ms. Williams,
A concerned reader above is quoted,

"A courageous journalist would have printed the facts, no matter where they led."

I would add to that statement a non agenda driven journalist would have done the honest and right thing and printed the facts of the story. Not picked over the truth and selected what fit her wishful PC version of the truth.

What happened to your integrity? How can you look yourself in the mirror?

Imagine you son accused falsely of a horrible crime and a local journalist thinks and reports through glasses tinted with the color of her skin. Does it make it ok, regardless of what color it is?

Ellen Rock

Comment from: NDLax84 [Visitor] · http://crystalmess.blogspot.com

10/06/06 at 23:07
Melanie,

The difference between you and me?

You tell it as you'd have it be.

I tell it like it is.

Comment from: El jefe [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 00:28
So what is the reason for not printing the accuser's full statements to the N&O interviewers now? It seems it is certainly now relevant since the majority of people following the case believe her accusations to be completely false and you have the ability to confirm or rebuke these beliefs. To those closely following the case, the silence is obviously confirming what they already believe, so why not just make it public for the sake of the three defendants? How can you sleep at night?

Comment from: H.L.M. [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 01:25
One of the most interesting columns written about the lacrosse case was by the normally goofy, smug and unreadable Herald-Sun moralist John McCann.

He described his geniune astonishment at the virulent reactions he received from readers when he wrote a snarky column suggesting that even thought he knew the team hadn't raped CGM, the players deserved to go to jail anyway for being rich, rude, white boys.

The comments implied that McCann had written the column as a black man attacking whites as part of his duty
to the race.

Much like similar columns written in those early days by professional race-card journalists like Stephen A Smith.

The letters apparently called McCann a black racist.

It apparently so traumatized McCann that the man has not written a word on the case since (leaving the daily, despicable defenses of Nifong's misconduct to his boss, Bob Ashley)

That reaction seemed to surprise McCann, who claimed never to have experienced racist or race-based responses from "white people" before.

McCann was incapable of pushing past to see, a more complex and complete picture of his own and his readers responses to his column.

A column that was despicable, malicious and, yes, likely motivated out of racist stereotyped thinking on his part.

We can all contrast that with Cash Michaels' out-front , complex and ever-changing approach to the case.

Acknowledging its racial dimensions, castigating the players for their racist attitudes and yet still moving onto an appreciation that the case is a hoax. And that Mike Nifong is a dishonest race-baiter who represents a serious danger to the community.

Linda Williams' disgraceful performance on this blog, with his arrogance and complete lack of insight into her own motivations for cooking the story in March and April reminds one of McCann more than Michaels.

Lack of courage, lack of integrity and lack of insight.

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 07:11
" Speculation, premature conclusions, white-hot political rhetoric, amateur psychoanalysis -- all are prevalent these days in Washington."
Hey, Editorial page, that was Spring in Durham too. And one of your Editors was fiddling with the story to make it "cleaner."

By Ms. Williams moral standards, if the Foley page told her Bush was in the room with Foley when they were instant messaging each other..why , golly, she'd never print THAT. Unsubstantiated? Right , Linda? Right?

In time we'll know who authorised the "vigilante poster" "without the discussion we should have had." Helping hands again.

Maybe there's more.

Every blogger on this page, every concerned parent will get the story out. By God, we will.

It's terribly sad for those of us who truly wore ourselves out for equality and justice years ago..to see our daughters display the same hateful bias in reverse.

Your readers will learn you did this. You can fold your hands and wait for trial. And personally, I'll do a little fund-raising then...for a billboard contrasting what we learn at trial with what YOU told us...and what you HID from your readers.

Comment from: emmy954 [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 10:03
Joan, words of wisdom from you...yes, we will NEVER let this go...everyone who had a part in perpetuating this vicious hoax will be held fully accountable...they'd best prepare for a long, protracted legal battle...

Comment from: MaryinNJ [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 11:00
Ms. Williams:

I hope you believe in God.

You had better PRAY that nothing happens to these boys.

(And I'm not just referring to the legal process.)

Comment from: jvj [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 11:16
"But you are looking at the March 25 story with the knowledge built on all that we have reported since then."

I assure you Melanie, our knowledge today in NOT built on all that the N&O has reported since then!

Comment from: John [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 11:24
One thing is for certain. Among those subpoenaed by the defense will be Ms. Samiha and her notes. At that time, we will all find out what has been filtered out by the N&O. At that time, we can all decide for ourselves whether the comments were filtered for some sound journalistic principal or whether the filter occurred to move the case toward a desirable conclusion. I suppose one could argue that liberal news organizations, among other causes, fight hard to eliminate race from the courtroom. With that principal no thinking person could disagree. Isn't it then the ultimate irony that the N&O has apparently decided that race should be the factor in spinning this matter in favor of the false accuser?

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 11:49
Unfortunately, John..things are disappearing in this case. Along with notes, defense-requested tapes.and God knows what to come....integrity, fairness, truthfulness and justice are also coming up missing.

Nifong sang a song they wanted to believe. In their zeal, they took shortcuts and made decisions only MORALLY TENABLE if these boys were guilty.They staked their reputations on guilt and... on Nifong.They need guilt now.They need Nifong to be right. This is why they continue to prop up an elective official with the moral failings even THEY concede. They prefer his re-election, They prefer subjecting their readers to 4 more years of his reckless tactics...then facing their own "rush to judgment."

Lots of things are disappearing. Some good reputations as well.

Comment from: MaryinNJ [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 14:28
Melanie:
Please tell me which of these N&O articles is the SUBSTANTIATED one:

From the May 19 article:
“The man said he did not know his daughter was working as an escort that night. She didn't return until late the morning of March 14, the father said”.

From the March 24 article:
"My father came to see me in the hospital," she said. "I knew if I didn't report it that he would have that hurt forever, knowing that someone hurt his baby and got away with it."

Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com

10/07/06 at 14:58
I just want to commend the readers, really citizen journalists, here who are exposing the falsehoods in the N&O's original Mar. 25 story as well as refuting and exposing point-by-point the self-serving, incomplete and misleading justifications Editor Williams made in her post and Editor Sill has made on the comment thread.

You are rendering an important service to those of us who want facts and not PC and leftist agendas.

Your work is also bringing some measure of comfort to the many innocent people who have been harmed and endangered by what Williams' post and this thread make very clear was the N&O's recklessly irresponsible, if not deliberately malicious, reporting.

Thank you.

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Comment from: fillintheblanks [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 16:04
Melanie,

The N&O's March 25 article, after obtaining the only interview to date with CGM, did as much to color this case in the beginning as did Nifong's many statements and pantomimes before the media. The article's one-sided, soft-pedaled, emotive portrayal of CGM and her chosen profession verily wrapped her in a protective gauze and implicitly, with apparent prejudice, heightened public vilification of the Duke student-lacrosse players. But surely you must realize that this unique position of journalistic advantage also carries with it an obligation - a "performance obligation," if you will. Your decisions then, to publish what you did, are one thing, but your present defense of the article's selective reporting are another. You write that "[we] are all looking [at this case] through the lens of hindsight." And that is certainly true. But now, given the oft-cited benefits of hindsight, with all that has transpired over the last months, don't you think the full story from that interview should be told? The N&O, by continuing its willful and tacit abridgement of the full story, dispossesses its obligation as a newspaper.

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 16:38
What did you mean, Melanie , when you said you were careful not to "introduce any new allegations." What "new allegations did the Accuser make? Were they in reference to Kim's "actions at the party."

Your April 3rd blog entry…

Monday, April 3, 2006 Our coverage was fair

Public editors and executive editors are bound to disagree sometimes, so you might not be surprised that I don't agree with Ted Vaden's conclusion Sunday that it was unfair for The N&O to publish a front-page interview with the woman who reported being raped at a Duke lacrosse team party.

The story was published March 25, the day after we broke the news that more than 40 lacrosse team members had reported for DNA samples in the case under investigation by Durham police and the district attorney. We took care in editing the story not to introduce new accusations -- the basics were the same as in police reports, which had already been made public. In the interview, the woman told our reporter why she was at the party and what kind of work she did, among other details.

Comment from: mj [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 18:27
By the time the DNA came back negative (first round tests) and Kim had changed her story it was clear to just about everyone that this was a case of a woman (regardless of her race or occupation) who had found herself in trouble (being taken to the drunk tank) and cried "rape" to get herself off the hook. Even before we knew it was not the first time this shy mother had cried rape we knew she was lying about the lacrosse players.

You at the N & O had the opportunity to investigate everything about this case, just as the bloggers have. They aren't being paid to be journalists and aren't up for any Pulitzers, but they are doing an amazing job of exposing the real story here--a foul-mouthed, win-at-all-costs DA up for a tough re-election using a story that the N & O had already made into a racial, athlete swaggering pile of nonsense. The bloggers are absolutely beating you at the job you were supposed to do. Are any of you on Nifong's payroll?

Comment from: momtothree [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 19:01
There is so much more in this story than just the withholding of information. By refusing to report on the huge discrepancy between the description of the crime contained in the March 16 search warrant and what the accuser presumably told them in the interview, the paper was pretending to be blind to the implications of that difference, namely that the accuser was an unreliable witness who was now telling a different story, or that LE had undertaken to revise the AV's story to remove those parts (the charge that Kim robbed the AV and was an active facilitator fo the rape) that raised major questions for the case.

It is simply impossible that the N&O staff did not understand the meaning and implications of this. Either the AV was telling a wholly different story to the N&O than she had told to the police, or the police were not telling the truth about what her story really was. By ignoring the obvious implications of what they had learned, the N&O made a decision, the effect of which was to give media support to LE's efforts to hide those parts of the AV's accusations that didn't fit the 'perfect storm' stereotypes of the case.

This wasn't just another accusation, it was a case up-ender, a wrench in the works, a skunk at the picnic that casts all the individuals involved in a somewhat different light. If the AV's accusation that Kim stole $2,000 from her that night were true, then the questions come fast and furious. Why did the AV have an additional $1,600 on her? Why was she carrying this money around? Was it money she had just made? What sort of things would one be doing to earn $1,600 in an afternoon and evening. With that kind of earning power, perhaps the AV wasn't even poor. Not poor, perhaps she wasn't even forced to do these degrading performances to feed her kids. Was the robbery of $2,000 the reason Kim was trying to dump the AV at the Krogers and get the heck out of there, instead of making some effort to take her home? Was the 911 call a phoney attempt to cover up this robbery and cast the lacrosse players in a bad light. But most of all, if Kim could so casually rob a 'sister' within 90 minutes of meeting her, the racial tableau of this case starts to melt down like a bunch of cheap wax works.

The N&O was comfortable with the soft-spoken, black, single mother student and sex worker who was a victim., but couldn't handle having another black, single mother sex worker with a criminal record who may have been a victimizer. – way too complicated for "our readers". So just like the police investigators, they took it out of the story.

In essence, they signed up to be enablers of LE's efforts to tidy up this story, and they did it willfully, arrogantly and deliberately. So far, they aren't honest enough to have any remorse about it.

Comment from: MaryinNJ [Visitor]

10/07/06 at 21:32
To follow up on joan foster's post, maybe all the N&O had was a story (the REAL story) of an embezzler robbing a sex industry worker. Must have been a good cat fight. Ho, hum.

Kim Roberts called the cops on the accuser just like she called the cops on the lacrosse players---so she could take their money, get them out of her hair, and make her escape.

With some "selective editing" by the N&O, however, it became a story that would increase readership and cast the DA and the N&O as victims' advocates---all at the expense of the lacrosse players.

The N&O story is fiction, but it did reveal something...

Your ugly prejudice and stereotyping is showing....

Comment from: JeezOhPete [Visitor]

10/08/06 at 00:49
History has shown that it is the "cover-up" that brings people down. Don't wait for the subpoena, tell us what you conveniently edited out. After all, EVERYTHING the accuser said in the initial interview is UNSUBSTANTIATED! Meanwhile, read a more accurate account of the story to date:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/07/deep_questions_remain_in_duke_rape_case/

Comment from: jls [Visitor]

10/08/06 at 04:01
Ms Sill and all,

I am a bit late to this, but the clearest implication to me is that at the highest levels the N&O decided the most profitable way to play this stroy was black against white. In a long standing tradition of southern newspapers, this paper has decided it can make money from racial division.

Why else would a newpaper decide not to publish information that would make this story seem less like a black against white story. The story would have become one black woman accusing some black and white people of harming her. It certainly would have played differently, but I guess in the estimation of Ms. Sill or her bosses, less profitably.

BTW, the way trying to profit from racially dividing its community certainly explains the N&O's original failure to publish and their contiued failure to publish. There are not many other good explannations for this.

Comment from: MaryinNJ [Visitor]

10/08/06 at 11:47
Here is the tutorial:

http://www.liestoppers.blogspot.com/

Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com

10/08/06 at 12:54
Dear Melanie,

Your Mar. 25 story told readers: "authorities vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity.

'We're asking someone from the lacrosse team to step forward,’ Durham police Cpl. David Addison said. 'We will be relentless in finding out who committed this crime.'

If the truth had been told to you readers on Mar. 25 they would have learned the authorities had received a Niagara of cooperation from the lacrosse players.

The Niagara of cooperation began on Mar. 18 when the lacrosse captains who lived at the house voluntarily answered police questions first at the house and then at a police station, gave police signed statements, voluntarily went to Duke Hospital and submitted to rape kit testing, offered to take polygraph tests, helped police identify who was at the party and who wasn't, and then helped police locate the others who were at the party.

Police tell me they were letting the N&O know about the cooperation right after it happened. They say they continued to report to media on the players’ cooperation.

The police also reminded me that reporters always ask, “Is the suspect cooperating?” If the police answer yes, the next question is always: “What kind of cooperation?”

On what day , Melanie, did the N&O first learn about the captains' cooperation?

On what day and in what detail did the N&O first report that cooperation to readers?

Did anyone at the N&O tell Ruth Sheehan before she wrote her "Team's Silence is Sickening" column about the captains' extraordinary voluntary cooperation?

When you prepared your Mar. 25 story, you knew the court order the players had received was appealable. Anyone of the 46 could have exercised his right of appeal. None did. Every one of the players immediately complied with the order.

What a remarkable example of cooperation with the authorities.

So why did you decide to tell readers nothing about the captains' cooperation and all of the 46 players waiver of their right of appeal?

Why did you decide instead to just tell them "authorities vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity?"

You knew what you were reporting to readers about "the team's wall of solidarity" was false. But you've never explained why you did that. Why?

It’s sad to have to ask these questions. If the N&O Duke lacrosse coverage had been fair and reasonably accurate they wouldn’t be necessary.

Why did the N&O deliberately do such a malicious thing?

Last two questions: Who put you in touch with the hoaxer? Why did that person(s) do it?

Thank you.

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com

10/08/06 at 12:57
Folks,

in the comment above "you" should be "your" and the date referencing the captains' cooperation should be Mar. 16, NOT Mar. 18.

Sorry for my errors.

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Comment from: J. Miller [Visitor]

10/08/06 at 13:11
One question to the N&O editors and reporters:

When, if at all, did you disclose the full content of your interview to the Durham police, Mike Nifong, or his staff?

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/08/06 at 13:49
Linda Williams will not detail the "actions" of the second dancer that the N&O felt necessary to omit.."because they were unsubstantiated." We know now that at least in one version of her story the Accuser said the second dancer participated in the alleged attack and/or robbed her. But it was probably NOT in the police report the N&O saw that day.

But pleases re-read two interesting blog posts by Melanie Sill.
In the first she stresses the importance of that first interview.with the accuser.

"The next day we sought interviews with all the primary characters -- the woman who had reported being raped, police, prosecutors, the players, any others. We were able to track down the reported victim, an interview that is still the only one done with her, and reporting that is important because her report is the basis for this case."

"Her report is the basis for this case." But the N&O did not tell its readers ALL of that report. Nor did it ever amend it. So that first interview...EDITED...stands as N&O readers story of record. In all these months...even after the various other statements of the accuser were released to the public, the N&O did not say what"actions" of the second dancer had to be omitted and for what reason.
That's what is outrageous.

In the second blog statement, Melanie Sill says they "took care not to introduce any new allegations." in that interview.

Monday, April 3, 2006 "Our coverage was fair.

Public editors and executive editors are bound to disagree sometimes, so you might not be surprised that I don't agree with Ted Vaden's conclusion Sunday that it was unfair for The N&O to publish a front-page interview with the woman who reported being raped at a Duke lacrosse team party.

The story was published March 25, the day after we broke the news that more than 40 lacrosse team members had reported for DNA samples in the case under investigation by Durham police and the district attorney. We took care in editing the story not to introduce new accusations -- the basics were the same as in police reports, which had already been made public. In the interview, the woman told our reporter why she was at the party and what kind of work she did, among other details."

Since the players were already accused of anal, oral, and vaginal rape...robbery and kidnapping...one is left to wonder what accusations were LEFT for the N&O "not to introduce against THEM...? " So whose "actions" did that leave? Just as it should do to any investigative reporter, your "stonewalling" spurs our curiosity and speculation.

You may assume it will stay buried on the blog...but I would think that through. Maybe for the moment..but there are many people ...involved... in this story..There will be trial, and books and much more to come. We are small change compared to the people who will examine your decisions last Spring...in the months and years to come.

Comment from: H.L.M. [Visitor]

10/08/06 at 14:37
It is clear that Linda Williams one-hour experiment in open journalism has come to end.

She will now scurry back into the editoria officel to manipulate facts and push her agenda behind the scenes,

And Drescher will be sent out periodically to make some self-indulgent pointless post.

See, Linda, the publc's not quite as stupid as you think.

Or as tolerant of race-baiting as you and Nifong had hoped.

Comment from: Marco2006 [Visitor]

10/08/06 at 14:46
It might be a good idea for the newspaper to do a little study of the following quotes. Bigotry is not just about Race, it is about people who are different. Reporters & Editors must always be on guard against being used by the State for its purposes. Clearly Nifong & Addison were feeding reporters talking points

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

“Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character”

"Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor
to make every item of news serve a certain purpose."

Comment from: david [Visitor]

10/08/06 at 16:49
Ms. Williams and Ms. Sill:

I have a simple idea. Rather than re-hash the past, assign one of your reporters to document the various stories the accuser gave, as listed in the search warrants, the affadavits, the medical reports, the defense motions, and in the News & Observer interview covered in the March 25 story.

This would allow you to reveal the interview information in a broader context.

Comment from: D [Visitor]

10/08/06 at 22:20
No one can change the past. Let's work on the future.
Good job on on an expose on the photo IDs.
Next article: for next Sunday, (last chance before 60 Minutes scoops you): "Accuser's Stories Differ from Prosocution Theory".
You have the accuser's version, Kim's version, and all the discovery. It's you on October 15th or it's all Ed Bradley. Swing for the fence.

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 05:57
Searing indictment of the media coverage of the Hoax in the very liberal New York Magazine yesterday. It's starting....

Rape, Justice, and the 'Times'

"I've never felt so ill," says one reporter about the paper's coverage of the Duke lacrosse-team case.

By Kurt Andersen

http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/22337/

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

10/09/06 at 09:59
All,

I think you'll be hard-put to find another editing team even attempting to respond to this kind of anonymous accusation. I continue to wonder why people who feel so strongly won't step up with their real names. This has become the convention on the Duke lacrosse posts on this blog, but on other such blogs many people identify themselves. I think that identification strengthens the dialogue.

Another challenge is the echo-chamber nature of the blogosphere. When we respond honestly and people don't like the answer, the response is "you're lying!" Some of you have conflated decisions made by several different editors and decided one editor, Deputy ME Linda Williams, made all these decisions. In truth we don't have time or inclination to go around trying to correct all these misstatements, but take what you read about us with a giant grain of salt. Who's the source? What's their credibility?

Those who have read The N&O's coverage going along recognize the enormous reporting investment we've made in what, in real terms, is hardly the crime of the century. We were aggressive on coverage from the beginning, though in the beginning the main point of interest was the large number of people rounded up for DNA samples, something that hadn't occurred here before. We continue to work to get to the bottom of things.

Getting back to the March 25 interview. A few of you mentioned publishing some of the omitted material in the future. I think most of what was said in the interview has appeared in various stories, and going forward as it seems relevant any further information might be used in N&O coverage. There are also some good suggestions on lines of inquiry in the comments above, thanks for those.

And the continued but perhaps futile request: Please be civil.

Comment from: emmy954 [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 11:26
"In truth we don't have time or inclination to go around trying to correct all these misstatements, but take what you read about us with a giant grain of salt. Who's the source? What's their credibility?"

Ms. Sill, I assue you that you and the rest of the N &O editors are NOT the only ones who are pressed for time...most of us also have many obligations to fulfill throughout the day...but this case is of extreme importance to us, for various reasons, and so we make the time to write wtih our concerns, and post about this persecution.

"Those who have read The N&O's coverage going along recognize the enormous reporting investment we've made in what, in real terms, is hardly the crime of the century."

Well, you could have certainly fooled me, judging by your breathless, relentless, (and in many cases, erroneous and inflammatory), coverage early on...you did the players a GRAVE injustice, which you need to rectify now.

"Another challenge is the echo-chamber nature of the blogosphere. When we respond honestly and people don't like the answer, the response is "you're lying!"

Hmmm, echo-chamber...not hardly...there are many dissenting opinions on the blogs...you're just not hearing from them because they of course are content with your early coverage of the case...and I have not said that you are lying outright...you and some of your fellow editors have shaped your reporting to portray a sympathetic alleged victim, and have in the process villified the Dukies, at least in your early coverage...slanting things to paint the picture you want...hey, that sounds just like what the district attorney is doing....

"And the continued but perhaps futile request: Please be civil."

I've been nothing but civil, unless you consider uncivil as pointing out you and your editor's many missteps in your early coverage and editorial decisions in this case.

Comment from: Susan [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 11:31
Perhaps the reason people are relunctant to use their real names is because DA Nifong likes to know who is against him. Think about the taxi driver, the accuser's boyfriend and assoicates who were arrested, the members of the Animal Control Board who signed the Cheek petition, the Newsweek reporter who received an angry email, the guy in NJ who Nifong emailed after research to uncover his identity, the defense attorney who was cursed. Perhaps people don't want DA Nifong to know what they think of him until they are in the privacy of a voting booth.

This may be small potatoes to you, hardly the crime of the century. However, to three innocent boys, it is everything. Would it be more important to you if one of your family members was accused? It may not be a big deal that a DA would use the power of his office for political gain, but to many of us, it's very serious.

I really don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the N&O provide the complete interview with the accuser. This is her only interview and it occurred 12 days after the alleged rape. If she implicated Kim Roberts, that is very important information. She implicated her in statements to police and medical personnel. The police did not follow through with her accusations. Why?

Comment from: krddurham [Visitor] · http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/10/walk-down-memory-lane.html

10/09/06 at 11:43
Mel,

Just print the part of Precious' March 25th interview that the "editors" of the N&O collectively determined to be an “unsubstantiated opinion,” therefore the N&O decided to omit from the article. Print it right now Mel! Post it on your blog, right now. Not later. Right now! If it’s as insignificant as you claim…we’ll leave you alone.

Right now, Mel. Print it!

Thanks,
Bosco “B.A.” Baracus

Comment from: darby [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 11:45
Ms. Sill,

Why must you continue to show Reade Seligman's picture next to articles you post or print about the Duke Lacrosse Rape allegations?

Surely there are those on your staff and you who have access to the discovery records and must know that of those attending the party he is one of the least likely to have been involved in fanstastic allegations being made against him. We know you know.

Do you continue to post his picture as a public service to warn those who may meet him to beware? Do you post his picture as a courtesy to him and his family that this is the poor lad who was falsely accused in relation to the posted article?

Is this an odd continuance of the "not talked about enough" wanted poster decision? I'm curious about the journalistic ethos which dictates constantly displaying pictures of avowed and presumed innocents each time an article related to the accusations is posted.

Since this story is being perpetuated by the DA and the accuser as well as the article's authors and editors, it seems that to me more appropriate to publish their photos instead of those presumed innocent.

I realize that this story may not be the most important thing in your life, but I can guarantee you that if it were you or your family, you'd wish we were on your side.

Thnaks for your participation.

Comment from: David Abrams [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 11:50
In keeping with your request, and because I feel so strongly about this case, I am posting under my real name.

First of all, I don't see any legitimate reason why the "unsubstantiated opinion" was not published and is still not being published. As others have pointed out, "unsubstantiated opinions" are published in your paper all the time. The fact is, if the accuser opined that the other dancer robbed her or assaulted her, that opinion is extremely newsworthy.

Second, in my opinion, this case is highly significant. If not the "crime of the century," it's in the top 10. Why? I can't think of any case in recent history (in the United States) where transparently innocent people were so brazenly railroaded by an out-of-control prosecutor for a serious crime. Just my humble opinion, of course.

Do you remember the celebrated case of "Hurricane" Carter, immortalized by Bob Dylan? The case against him was a lot stronger than the case against the Duke 3. Again, just my humble opinion.

Anyway, I hope that your organization will reconsider its (apparent) decision not to publish the "opinion."

David Abrams
New York, NY

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 12:55
One of the purposes of a blog is communication. Communication ends speculation. That has been one of the problems here.Simple answers could stop us dead in our tracks.
You told us months ago that the weekend Editor ran the "vigilante poster" without "the discussion we should have had." From our point of view and that of some of the Lacrosse team families, in the atmosphere of last Spring, that put their children at very REAL risk. There are pictures of people holding "CASTRATE" signs (I can produce them if you wish) and worse during that time. The N&O provided pictures and names of all. Later when the New Black Panthers said they were coming ARMED, to interview the Players...that publication felt even more ominous.The investigation had not even been concluded nor anyone charged when you released that information into that volatile atmosphere!
Take off your Editor hat, Melanie. Can you feel what the Moms must have felt? Call up those feelings.

"Dogged" as we are, some of us have reviewed all the old blog posts and all your early reporting. You are correct that hindsight is 20/20...but if the Accuser told you the story (that she told several others in court papers) that included the second dancer in some aspect of the attack...HOW could you allow the further stories to appear unchallenged.How could you stand by as Nifong flipped Kim from a "crock" to a "could be?"

Remember Kim, sobbing. "I didn't do enough." How could you print that and not inform your public..that long Spring day ago, the Accuser didn't have very nice things to say about best bud Kim.

If it was truly a variety of Editors, you are correct on another score. Ms. Williams, I apologize. If you played no part in these two events I mentioned above, I am sorry for my mistake.
Ultimately, Melanie, it is your responsibility. Both for the confusion..because you have made no attempt to be forthright or communicative on this blog....and for whatever decisions were made on those matters last Spring. And for allowing, the second Dancer to become the second heroine of the piece.

Comment from: HLM [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 13:20
Melanie-

A somewhat squid-like response. The two worst actions by your newspaper were the censorship and biased inflammatory editing done on the two original Khanna's stories, particularly the interview story.

And the publication of the wanted poster.

Was Linda Williams was the deputy editor responsible for those pieces.

Yes,,or no.

Comment from: Brian Johnston [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 14:03
Melanie,

Any discussion about who made the decision deflects from the fact that you (collectively as editors) STILL refuse to publish the omitted comments.

By the way, it isn't "a few of you" that are requesting publication. Virtually every one of the 60+ responses in the blog is BEGGING for publication.

Are you waiting for a defense subpoena to reveal the notes?

Brian

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 14:49
The N&O interviews the "Second Dancer." Remember this?

DURHAM -- At first, a stripper who performed at a Duke University lacrosse team party doubted the story of a colleague who told police she was dragged into a bathroom and raped. Now, Kim Roberts isn't so sure.

WOULD SHE HAVE CHANGED HER STORY IF YOU HAD PRINTED WHAT THE ACCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?
"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred - and I never will," Roberts told The Associated Press on Thursday in her first on-the-record interview. But after watching defense attorneys release photos of the accuser, and upset by the leaking of both dancers' criminal pasts, she said she has to "wonder about their character."

"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty ... but somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression."

WOULD SHE HAVE CHANGED FROM A "CROCK" IF YOU HAD PRINTED WHAT THE ACCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?

Attorneys for the 46 players have aggressively proclaimed the players' innocence, citing DNA tests during a public campaign that has included describing and releasing photos from the party.

Those photos, the defense maintains, show the accuser was both injured and impaired when she arrived, and also support the claim that one of the two players who has been indicted would not have had enough time to participate in any assault before he left the party. The district attorney has said he also hopes to charge a third suspect in the case.

The attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her. They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage."

"We believe ... her story has been motivated by her own self-interest," said attorney Bill Thomas, who represents one of the uncharged players. "I think that a jury will ultimately have to decide the question of her credibility."

Roberts, 31, was arrested on March 22 - eight days after the party - on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to documents obtained by the AP.

On Monday, the same day a grand jury indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, a judge agreed to a change so that Roberts would no longer have to pay a 15 percent fee to a bonding agent. District Attorney Mike Nifong signed a document saying he would not oppose the change.

"It seems she is receiving very favorable financial treatment for what she is now saying," Thomas said.

COULD SHE HAVE GOTTEN FAVORABLE TREATMENT IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT THE ACCCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?

Mark Simeon, Roberts' attorney, said the bond conditions were changed because Roberts is not considered a flight risk. Nifong, who hasn't spoken with reporters about the case in weeks, didn't return a call seeking comment.

Roberts' testimony could be vital during any trial of the two sophomores, indicted on charges of first-degree rape, sexual offense and kidnapping.

Other than lacrosse players and the accuser, a 27-year-old student at a nearby university, Roberts is believed to be the only other person at the March 13 party.

Roberts said Thursday she does not remember Seligmann's face, but said she recalls seeing Finnerty - whom she described as the "little skinny one."

"I was looking him right in the eyes," she said.

Although she would not talk extensively about the party, she confirmed some of what the other dancer told police - including that the women initially left the party after one of the players threatened to sodomize the women with a broomstick.

WOULD SHE HAVE CONFIRMED ANYTHING IF SHE KNEW WHAT TNHE ACCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?

The players' attorneys have said their clients were angry and demanded a refund when the women stopped dancing, but Roberts disputed that.

"They ripped themselves off when they started hollering about a broomstick," she said.

The accuser told police that the women were coaxed back into the house with an apology, at which point they were separated. That's when she said she was dragged into a bathroom and raped, beaten and choked for a half hour.

Later, police received a 911 call from a woman complaining that she had been called racial slurs by white men gathered outside the home where the party took place. Roberts acknowledged that she made the call because she was angry.

Roberts drove herself to the party and said she could have left anytime, but she said, "I didn't want to leave her with them."

WOULD SHE HAVE SAID THIS IF SHE KNEW WHAT THE ACCCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?

Roberts then drove the accuser - whom she had just met that night - to a grocery store and asked a security guard to call 911. The accuser was described later by a police officer as "just passed-out drunk."

Roberts said the woman was sober when they arrived at the house. But by the time the party was over, she said the accuser was too incoherent to tell her where she lived, let alone that she had been raped.

"I didn't do enough," she said, tears welling in her eyes. "I didn't do enough. I didn't do enough."

COULD SHE HAVE PULLED THIS OFF IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT THE ACCUSER TOLD THE N&O?

The defense timeline is backed up by a cab driver who said Seligmann called for a ride at 12:14 a.m., and was picked up five minutes later. The defense argues that if the dancers were performing around midnight, Seligmann would not have had enough time to participate in the 30-minute assault described by the accuser.

The cabbie, Moez Mostafa, also said he saw a woman leaving the party in anger, and overheard someone say, "She just a stripper. She's going to call the police."

"She looked, like, mad," he said of the woman. "In her face, the way she walked, the way she talked, she looked like mad."

IF THE TRUTH HAD BEEN TOLD WOULD MR> ELMOSTAFA HAD TO ENDURE A TRIAL?

On Thursday, authorities released warrants detailing their search earlier this week of Finnerty's and Seligmann's dorm rooms. Police took a newspaper article and an envelope addressed to Finnerty from his room, and an iPod, various accessories, computer manuals, photos and a CD from Seligmann's room.

Also Thursday, 5W Public Relations, a New York firm that specializes in "crisis communication," distributed an e-mail signed "The 2nd Dancer," and Roberts confirmed she sent it after learning the AP knew her identity.

"I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country," she wrote. "I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage."

COULD SHRE "SPIN" IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT THE ACCCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?

Ronn Torossian, 5W's president, said he replied, but got no response.

"If this person is indeed who they say they are, I would be happy to speak with her," said Torossian, whose firm has represented the likes of Sean "Diddy" Combs, Ice Cube and Lil' Kim.

WOULD HE SPEAK TO HER IF HE KNEW WHAT THE ACCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?

Roberts, like the accuser a divorced single mother who is black, took umbrage at the notion that she should not try to make something out of her experience. She's worried that once her name and criminal record are public, no one will want to hire her.

"Why shouldn't I profit from it?" she asked. "I didn't ask to be in this position ... I would like to feed my daughter."

COULD SHE PROFIT IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT THE N&O WON"T TELL US?

Roberts said she knows what it's like to sit in jail, and that she would never wrongly accuse an innocent person.

"If the boys are innocent, sorry fellas," she said. "Sorry you had to go through this."

SORRY FELLAS. SORRY FAMILIES. "YOU"RE A DEAD MAN WALKING, THEY SHOUTED TO READE."

But unlike her and the other dancer, she said, they have money to hire the best attorneys.

"If they're innocent, they will not go to jail," she said. But, she added, "If the truth is on their side, why are they supporting it with so many lies?"

WHAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT THE ACCUSER TOLD THE N&O ABOUT KIM?

Roberts is bracing for an all-out attack, but said she's almost past caring.

"Don't forget that they called me a damn n-----," she said. "She (the accuser) was passed out in the car. She doesn't know what she was called. I was called that. I can never forget that."

WHAT DID YOU SAY FIRST KIM? AND WHAT DID THE ACCUSER TELL THE N&O ABOUT YOU?

---

Comment from: jenniferd [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 15:13
So, what did the accuser opine about Kim? Why won't you print it, even now, after all that time? Clearly, printing accuser’s unsubstantiated allegations towards the players did not bother you one bit. The allegations of racial slurs, intimidation, rape, etc-how are those allegations substantiated in your mind? Do tell. You printed how her father visited her at her bedside, according to her. Later on you printed that her father didn’t even know she was working as an escort, and saw her the next day when she showed up at home. So, when she claimed the father visited her in the hospital, and that convinced her to file charges, how was that substantiated? Nothing? You did nothing? You didn’t even check with the father if he visited her in the hospital? Does it bother you that you printed the accuser’s unsubstantiated opinion about her father visiting her in the hospital? You keep patting yourself on the back and claiming your paper did a good job, so I guess not. Why won’t you print what the accuser said about Kim Roberts? Why did you not print what she said about Kim Roberts in March? Is it because whatever the accuser said about Kim would have ruined your beautifully crafted story?

Comment from: Steve Langley [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 18:03
I have been reading the excellent comments on this blog for over a month without jumping in. Thanks to Joan and others who consistently set forward carefully reasoned remarks. At this stage I find the level of obfuscation by the paper's editorial staff appalling. You clearly made some fundamentally wrong editorial decisions in the early days of this case -- your bad decisions helped contribute to a media firestorm that aided the purposes of a morally corrupt DA. But all that is beside the point -- you continue to sit on firsthand information obtained during the only on-the-record interview with the AV up to this point. Why hold back on this information, which is clearly so relevant to the case? No number of quotations from Ben Bradlee or Edward R. Murrow will help hide your culpability as journalists in this regard. I feel fortunate I don't live in Durham or Raleigh...

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

10/09/06 at 18:09
Linda, as the deputy managing editor over local news, and I, as editor, are responsible for news decisions. But other editors handled the various stories and specific news decisions mentioned above.

Folks, we are in the business of putting news in the paper, not keeping it out. We are not prone to being hounded into publishing something (or not publishing something) because someone pressures us. Please see my last comment. Please see our home page, keyword Duke lacrosse, for dozens of stories (inlcluding many that answer some of the questions above)

Thanks to all and especially to those who shared your names.

Comment from: jenniferd [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 20:23
No, of course you wouldn’t publish due to public’s pressure. After all, public only has a right to know what you decide to tell them. And if you omit critical information because it does not fit you story, that’s just too bad. Is that what they teach in journalists schools now days?

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 20:40
To sum up:

The" actions" of the second dancer were NEGATIVE Had the Accuser said "My God! We held on to each other, trying to save each other." THAT statement would have fit the tone and tenor of the story and been included. No need for the N&O to "substantiate" it.Or it to be removed. But that was Accuser Story #5, not whatever one she was pushing the day you spoke.

The "actions" of the second dancer were SIGNIFICANT. If Kim tried to take her to a Young Republicans meeting on the way home...that, Melanie, you would have offered up months ago. You are not holding back some "actions" of non-relevance.No, sir-ree! You could have shut us down and shut us up long, long ago...if the "actions" were unimportant to the case. No need for all the half-phrases and tortured comments. Like in your old "employment obligation" days.

In fact, the "actions" of the second dancer are IMPORTANT ENOUGH that you with-hold them from your readers ...even now after Ms. Williams revealing comments ...as if they involved National Security or something.. Though I recall you were in favor of the New York Times revealing National Security secrets to its readers. You were even huffy defending their obligation to TELL US ALL. By God, you said we deserved to know everything.But the Lacrosse case...that's on a whole different level. Why? As you said.."It's not the crime of the century." NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS! YES! LACROSSE CASE! NO!

Certain people we expose.
We want all THEIR secrets OUT!
Certain people we protect!
And hide those folks behind our clout!

No, we are not hypocrites
Our agendas aren't to blame.
Stop asking, and stop hounding us!
And please ...leave your real name.

It's that logic that gets you in trouble, Melanie.

So, in review you've told us a quite a lot. Plenty enough for now., Melanie. I may just move on to other things. Hm-m-m, where is your old blog post ..so very critical of those government secrets.I tire of this Lacrosse case. Bet I could entertain myself with that.tonite.

Comment from: Gregory5412 [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 22:23
Ms. Sill & Ms. Williams:

Please don't think of it as bowing to public pressure. Instead think of it as any of the following {select one]:

1. Your desire to report the truth.
2. Following your conscience.
3. Doing the right thing.
4. Mitigating civil damages.
5. Providing a total picture for your readers.

By failing to provide the initial facts available to your readers, the N&O arguably failed to show journalistic integrity.

The continued obfuscation leaves no doubt.

Comment from: SarahSoCal [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 23:04
I think it's time for you to confront the uncomfortable fact that you did not go into this story with a neutral and unbiased attitude. Anyone who reads through your early articles can spot the bias. It's unmistakable. The "dancer" or "victim" as you like to call her, is portrayed as a shy, soft-spoken mother. The lacrosse players are portrayed as swaggering, stonewalling menaces to society. It's obvious you felt they were guilty.

Alot has been revealed since that time and now that there is a near certainty that the entire story is a gigantic hoax, you must be feeling a bit foolish and defensive. I can understand that. What I don't understand is why you attempt to justify your actions with transparent excuses. So, the N&O does not print "unsubstantiated opinion". How is it possible then, that you printed the unsubstantiated opinion of Kim Roberts that a rape had occured? Could it be because that "unsubstantiated opinion" was one you agreed with?

I'm left to conclude that in fact the N&O does print "unsubstantiated opinion" although there is a condition attached to this. The condition is that the "unsubstantiated opinion" be negative towards the lacrosse players and positive towards the alleged victim. Your early coverage of this case served Mike Nifong very well. It also served the alleged victim well as it cast her as a shy young mother and student. A "dancer". I don't think it served the Durham community well though. And it certainly didn't serve the cause of justice well either. Even now, you continue to skirt around the uncomfortable truth.

Comment from: Fred [Visitor]

10/09/06 at 23:49
Melanie, you question the bloggers credibilty but, on the whole, they have shown to be a lot more credible and newsworthy than your paper. But, if they're wrong, then show us by printing the full interview. You don't need to run a story, just post it in the blog. But your refusal to do so really tells us all we need to know.

And now that appears that the only crime is the prosecution on a fake rape case, the story isn't the crime of the century? It sure seemed like it was when the crime appeared to be "rich, white, jocks" raping a hard-working, black mother?

Comment from: Marco2006 [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 00:52
Confession of errors is like a broom which sweeps away the dirt and leaves the surface brighter and clearer. I feel stronger for confession.

Mohandas Gandhi

Give it Up Ms. Sill. We all can look at the N&O articles from March 25 on. They were a sickening indictment of three innocent young men by an unethical prosecutor.

Prehaps you should look up and discover that most prosecutors since the early 90's , when DNA became the standard for rape cases, WON'T charge a person with rape until they do have a DNA match. Try to find one where a man was charged when the only DNA found in her, on her, or on her clothes comes from someone else.

Can't you at least look into that? No some hack but some real legal minds who know who can give you real cases!

Comment from: mj [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 01:53
Ms. Sill~It is incredibly disgusting for you to act so dismissive about the Hoax not being the "case of the century"! Durham has never seen anything like this case. We are talking about 3 innocent young men that your paper portrayed in the worst possible way back in March and April because you did not take the time or make the effort to get all the information before publishing your initial stories. This is why everyone commenting here, and on other blogs, are so very angry with the N & O. It is a munumental case for these young men. Their lives will never be the same and your paper is most certainly partially to blame for that. You continue to publish their pictures just as you had the "wanted poster" in your paper. And you have the audacity to be critical that some of us are not posting under our names. Did it ever occur to you that if we have a son or daughter at Duke we would most certainly not want this incredibly outrageous DA to know our name, or to be able to connect us to a student at Duke? Look at his tantrum about people signing the petition to get Lewis Cheek's name on the ballot. This is a man who will apparently not stop at anything to get what he wants. He has no conscience about what he is doing to these young men.

YOU need to take a deep breath, look back at all that you have left out of your stories, and fill in the gaps for the people of Durham to see how much time and money Mike Nifong has wasted on his prosecutorial misconduct.

Thanks so much to Joan Foster, John in Carolina and KC Johnson, NDlax and others for the tremendous service they have done to get the truth out to as many people as possible. We have donated money to the campaign effort to Recall Nifong, and God willing, this man will not be elected to be DA again.

Comment from: David Abrams [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 07:03
"Folks, we are in the business of putting news in the paper, not keeping it out. We are not prone to being hounded into publishing something (or not publishing something) because someone pressures us. "

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "hounded." If somebody presents a compelling argument to you, why shouldn't that change your mind?

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 08:05
N&O readers, some interesting comments from the editing team yesterday. Please think them through with fairness and discernment.

Melanie states:

" When we respond honestly and people don't like the answer, the response is "you're lying!"

She's talking about her own self here and the N&O team, of course. Hear her righteous indignation? Yet last Spring, when those young men gave an answer this newspaper didn't like, their reporting portrayed the whole team as a Blue Wall of Silence..."stonewalling."

Frustrating, isn't it, Mel? Now you can relate..but only in the tiniest measure. Nothing compared to those boys.

The Editors also castigate us for "hounding" them.

Don't go there, Mel and Linda.

We are cyber-people...on a computer you can shut off...or unplug.Complaining about your news coverage. Okay, sometimes with a harsh word or two...

We are not marching, screaming , banging pots outside your home carrying signs that say "Give them Full Measure!"..."Castrate Them,!" Literally threatening your life and limb.

Hate groups are not descending on the N&O offices...saying they are armed..threatening to"interview" you for what we bloggers said .... My God! ...you supposedly did to the soft-voiced first time dancer- "VICTIM", great Mom, great student and her sweet best friend...just doing their little performance obligations!"

That's YOUR accountiblity. Our words have brought no results like that. Just a little criticism, yet Linda flees and you reply in indignation. Buck up,ladies.Those boys endured so much more, with such courage and grace.

And these groups had the advantage of the handy N&O "Picture and Name guide "to the whole team..you kindly printed in the paper as a visual aid.

Put it in perspective please. Think this once beyond yourselves...to others. To last Spring. To the courtroom even now. "You're a dead man walking." they screamed at Reade Seligmann as he walked with his Dad.

No, you and Linda take a deep breath...control the self-righteous anger about how "hounded" your editing team has been.

Not gonna play well here..

Comment from: david [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 10:02
If the case gets that far, we'll see your reporters in court under subpoena.

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 10:29
This whole exchange reminds me of Leslie Nielsen in "Naked Gun", standing there on the street proclaiming "Please disperse! Nothing to see here! Please disperse!" while right behind him a fireworks store is on fire and fireworks are shooting and exploding in all directions. Everyone can see what's going on, except for those who won't turn around to see the real story.

I'm losing hope that these N&O editors can step back from this situation and realistically assess what is going on and how their work has played into the overall picture. They're good people, I'm pretty sure of that, but too emotionally close and too vested in the work product that they have published. Of course, we Americans are a very forgiving bunch, especially when people admit mistakes and take steps to set things right. But it's important that such steps are taken willingly rather than forced by overwhelming exposure of truth. Time's a-wastin'.

- Jim Curry

Comment from: Susan [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 10:41
Ms. Sil,

Please understand that we request the full interview with the accuser as an attempt to reveal the truth about her allegations. The accuser made allegations that implicated Kim Roberts in rape and robbery to police and medical staff. The March 25 article quotes a police officer stating that the victim had been raped AND ROBBED!!! It's in the same article. Thus, I don't think it's reasonable to say you can't publish any allegations (opinions about Robert's actions per your definition) because they aren't included in the police report. The police officer listed ROBBERY and you reported it in the same article.!!!
Thus, a police officer told your paper about the accuser also being robbed AND the accuser possibly told your paper the other dancer stole her money and you didn't put those two pieces of information together for you readers? This is why is so difficult to just swallow your explanations about how you reach editorial decisions.
If you feel "hounded" it's because your explanations don't make sense to me. Dogged "hounding" is a fine quality in a news reporter. Don't believe everything you hear. Ask more questions. Follow up. Keep asking questions until you know you've received all the information. Just a suggestion.

Comment from: MaryinNJ [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 11:13
"Test: Boyfriend Likely Sperm Source"
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/441262.html

While we are on the topic of "Unsubstantiated Opinion," WHO said that the DNA source was the accuser's boyfriend?
The Durham Police? Nifong?
It is obvious that the accuser didn't speak to the N&O on this topic.
A little more fact-checking is in order here...

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 11:14
The statements by the accuser that the N&O has not printed are probably not at all relevant as far as their value towards learning the truth of what happened that night in March. However, these unprinted statements are relevant and newsworthy for the simple reason that the accuser made such statements at all. If they contradict her vaious other stories, that's relevant and newsworthy. If they contain allegations against the co-stripper, that's relevant and newsworthy. And, because the N&O still refuses to print these statements, they are now relevant and newsworthy because they are part of this perceived "stonewalling" by the N&O.

And so far, the N&O editors have failed to state a valid reason why such statements were omitted from the original story or why the N&O still refuses to print them. It is not the N&O's job to hide facts and paint the story the hue that suits its editors. The press is supposed to convey the facts. Tell us the truth, N&O. The whole truth. Please.

- Jim Curry

Comment from: David Abrams [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 11:32
I agree. If the accuser shared an opinion that KR had engaged in unlawful or inappropriate behavior; and there was no substantiation for that opinion, it shows -- at a minimum -- that the accuser is willing to make baseless accusations.

Obviously that would be highly newsworthy.

David Abrams
New York, NY

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 11:56
Today we review Editor Sill opining on the dust-up over the New York Times revealing government "ease dropping" tactics in the "War on Terror. "

Readers, no matter how you feel on that particular topic..notice the hypocrisy when we apply her words to the "Lacrosse suppression" controversy here. These blog entries (which many of us have archived) are stunning in the revelation of the N&O's ability to talk out of both sides of its mouth!

Editor Sill:"It's clear from the debate on the NSA eavesdropping and the financial records monitoring that opinions are divided as to whether these practices passed muster in terms of oversight. The idea of our democracy is that citizens get to decide how we want government to operate, not the reverse."

WELL, MEL, THERE"S AN ELECTION IN A FEW WEEKS IN DURHAM. SHOULDN'T"T DURHAM VOTERS HAVE THE FULL FACTS ON THE ACCUSER"S STORY AND NIFONGS CASE ...SO THEY MAY DECIDE IF THEY WANT A D.A. WHO "OPERATES "AS NIFONG DOES?

IF THIS PAPER HOLDS BACK INFORMATION ....HOW DOES THAT FIT WITH YOUR JOURNALISTIC ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY?

CAN VOTER'S MAKE AN TRUE INFORMED DECISION ON WHETHER NIFONG'S TACTICS SUIT THEM...IF YOU WITHHOLD PERTINENT FACTS ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ACCUSER AND/OR KIM (with the sweet new Nifong deal)

"An independent press (print and electronic) serves citizens by informing them."

BUT IN THE LACROSSE CASE , YOU OMITTED DETAILS AND STILL REFUSE TO INFORM YOUR READERS. YOU DID THE OPPOSITE AND NOW CONDONE, EVEN PRAISE YOUR DECISION!!!

YOU GAVE A PARTIAL STORY AND, IN A CASE WHERE CREDIBILITY AND NUMEROUS CONFLICTING STORIES ARE KEY, ..YOU WITH-HELD FACTS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT SKEW THE STORY ONE PARTICULAR WAY.

TO PARAPHRASE DR. KING , "YOU ALLOWED A LIE TO LIVE." AND GROW.

"At The N&O, we have had very few occasions when people in government tried to block publication of information, and never to the degree the Times and the other papers have faced. So I can't speak to that decision. I can speak to the importance of an informed electorate, and to the enduring role the First Amendment and Constitution should hold in these discussions."

NOW YOU ARE "BLOCKING PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION."

YOU CARE NOTHING FOR AN INFORMED ELECTORATE IN DURHAM.

YOU MOCK YOUR WHOLE PREMISE ON YOUR STANCE INTHE NSA MAATER IF YOU CANNOT BE CONSISTANT WHEN IT IS YOU WHO ARE SUPPRESSING FACTS!

Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com

10/10/06 at 12:29
Dear Melanie,

You say:

“ I think you'll be hard-put to find another editing team even attempting to respond to this kind of anonymous accusation. I continue to wonder why people who feel so strongly won't step up with their real names. This has become the convention on the Duke lacrosse posts on this blog, but on other such blogs many people identify themselves. I think that identification strengthens the dialogue”

First, Melanie, as anyone who reads this thread will see, almost all people on this thread aren’t making anonymous accusations. They’re in some cases asking fair and important questions the N&O should have answered months ago. In other cases, they're providing fact-based refutations of statements you and Linda Williams have made.

You wonder why people “won’t step up with their real names.”

Perhaps, Melanie, some of them are concerned you'll target them the way you’ve targeted the teenagers and young men on the Duke lacrosse team.

You published and distributed over 200, 000 copies of the “vigilante poster” knowing that doing so would endanger the lacrosse players.

Now if the N&O would do something that despicable to the Duke lacrosse players who did you no harm, people will surely ask themselves what you’d do to them for asking questions and providing information that expose the N&O’s falsehoods and news suppression.

Think about it, Melanie.

BTW – Has it occurred to you that you’re still keeping anonymous the source(s) of the “vigilante poster” and those at the N&O who decided, “Let’s put it out there anyway?”

Your Mar. 25 story told readers: "authorities vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity.”

The truth on Mar. 25 was that the lacrosse players had since Mar. 16 been extraordinarily cooperative with authorities.

I detailed some of that cooperation in my comment above at 10/08/06 at 12:54. I also noted police say they reported the cooperation to media as it happened.

Melanie, you need to tell readers on what day the N&O learned of the captains’ cooperation (detailed, signed statements to police voluntarily given, etc., etc.).

Then you need to tell readers on what day and in what detail the N&O reported the captains’ extensive cooperation.

Every question asked in my comment above is fair, needs to be answered, and should have been answered months ago.

Stop whining and answer those questions and the other ones people are asking.

You say, “I think that identification strengthens the dialogue.”

I don’t know about that. Look at all the journalists we’ve learned about in the last five years who were identified by their newspapers through bylines, posts and comment threads who turned out to be lying to us.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 12:54
Readers are now forced to wonder how much other information on this Duke case (and other matters) the N&O has decided to withhold for reasons as obtuse as limiting disclosure of interview statements to those that comport with a police report. If this paper is willing to continue to withhold such information that its readership knows about and is clamoring for, it seems fair to assume that this paper wouldn't think twice (or even once) about withholding other information that the public doesn't even know the paper has obtained. Granted, this is an "unsubstantiated" speculation. But this is the kind of suspicion that naturally arisess when a news organization paints what can be described, at best, as an incomplete picture and at worst a deceptively manipulated picture. And such suspicion is compounded when the paper continues to "stonewall" with nothing but clumsy and patently insufficient excuses.

Hey NandO, Credibility's on the line....wants to know if it's cool if she comes over and hangs out a while....

- Jim Curry

Comment from: Bunny [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 13:25
I don't think it's a good idea to encourage people to publish personal information (such as full names) in an online forum. We've all been taught that we should not give personal info online, haven't we? Bit irresponsible to try to goad people into doing such a thing, in my opinion.

Besides, unless you plan to investigate posters' names to verify that they are indeed who they claim to be, how in the world would you ever know if a name were real or assumed?

And how does throwing a first and last name together and slapping it on a blog post lend more credence to the substance of the message? The suggestion that posts with names attached are more worthy of consideration by the N&O is, in my opinion, simply an excuse for not taking seriously some very valid points that have been raised.

As for the accuser's unpublished remarks -- if they'd never been mentioned, no one would be "hounding" you to publish them. Do you really think it's fair to chastise folks for asking about the comments after that tidbit was tossed out for public consumption? If you want to chastise, I think you need look no further than your own team.

Comment from: Randy Sellers [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 14:57
Melanie,
Just publish the entire interview with the accuser and be done. You are really getting dusted by the bloggers. You and Nifong share a common trait, everytime you try to defend your actions you dig a deeper hole to crawl out of. I'm was starting to feel sorry for you, but then I thought about the incredible anguish the parents and families of the accused must be feeling. Here is my name, Randy Sellers, no hiding. Where is the interview?

Comment from: Brian Johnston [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 15:18
All,

Don't count on any help from Ted Vaden, the N&O's Public Editor. See below my email exhange with him concerning this blog.

From: Ted Vaden [ted.vaden@newsobserver.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:58 AM
To: brian.johnston@hughes.net
Subject: RE: You need to review Editor's Blog on Mar 25 interview
Brian: Well, I tried. Sorry to disappoint you. Ted Vaden

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Johnston [mailto:brian.johnston@hughes.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:52 PM
To: ted.vaden@newsobserver.com
Subject: RE: You need to review Editor's Blog on Mar 25 interview

Dear Ted,

Let me get this straight. You (and your paper) were being careful not to ADD anything to the public record.

Let’s imagine you are interviewing Monica Lewinsky; well after the story broke that she had an affair with Clinton, and Clinton stared at the TV camera and said “I did not have SEX with THAT woman.” You are talking about the story and Monica says, “Oh I just remembered; I did not dry-clean this little black dress and I am pretty sure that it still contains Clinton’s seman, why don’t I just call the FBI and let them know while I’m talking with you.” According to your guidelines, you would not include any of that information in your story of the interview since it is not yet in the public record. Is this a correct analogy?

Do not reporter’s interviews with people add and enhance the public record? Since they are “reporting the news” should it not be analogous to what the public would find out if the accuser said the same words through a loudspeaker while driving through Durham?

Further, if you are so convinced of your stand; I challenge you to publish the gist of Ms Williams’ and Ms Sill’s remarks about deeming irrelevant ANYTHING that the accuser had to say about the incident just 10 days after accusing the ENTIRE Duke Lacrosse team of being involved (either directly or indirectly) in a violent gang rape. And publish along side it a representative sampling of the 80+ comments from the public saying (paraphrased) ..”OK you left two important comments out…regardless; now JUST PUBLISH them now without delay”. And then conclude with, as Public Editor of the N&O, that you are perfectly OK with these editors’ original edits and are perfectly OK with the continued refusal to inform the public of what was asserted by the accuser 10 days after the alleged rape.
You state in your reply below: “I didn't think it was fair to allow an unnamed person to make unsubstantiated charges”, but you accept the explanation that they were not adding to public record. Further, Ms. Willaims in the Oct. 5 entry in the Editor’s Blog on the March 25 article states that “The decision made prior to the March interview to limit it to the information in the police report was the correct decision and I stand by it.” But in the March 24th article in your newspaper it states “and soon, the men who were watching became "excited and aggressive," the statement says. The women stopped dancing and wanted to leave, concerned for their safety. “ The statement refers to the search warrant of March 16 for the house, the only public record (to my knowledge) at that time. But in the March 25th interview article, the subtitle cries out “A woman hired to dance for the Duke lacrosse team describes a night of racial slurs…” and it further describes the accuser’s comments in the interview by writing: “Just moments after she and another exotic dancer started to perform, she said, men in the house started barking racial slurs”. Please cite where “racial slurs during the dance” was in the public record or police search warrant or even the police report of March 14. If this was not in the public record, why were unsubstantiated comments “selectively” included in the article?
Sincerely and civilly,
Brian Johnston

_____________________________________________
From: Ted Vaden [mailto:ted.vaden@newsobserver.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:47 AM
To: brian.johnston@hughes.net
Subject: RE: You need to review Editor's Blog on Mar 25 interview

Dear Brian: I have previously read Linda's blog and the comments. I don't find a problem with her explanation. She told you the good journalistic reasons that The N&O had for not publishing the interview -- such as it was -- in its entirety. Newspapers do that every day with interviews; you seldom see the full "outtakes" because they are irrelevant, defamatory or otherwise extraneous to the story. That's what editing is all about.

At the time of that story, I wrote a column that criticized The N&O for publishing her accusations, because I didn't think it was fair to allow an unnamed person to make unsubstantiated charges. In not publishing all the info from the interview, The N&O was trying to be conscientious in not going beyond what was already on the public record, and I think that was responsible.

Thanks for writing.

Ted Vaden

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Johnston [mailto:brian.johnston@hughes.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:42 AM
To: ted.vaden@newsobserver.com
Subject: You need to review Editor's Blog on Mar 25 interview

Ted,

As public editor, you need to review the 80+ comments arising from Ms. Williams’ admission that two critical statements concerning the second dancer were omitted from the Duke accuser interview published by the N&O on March 25. I would venture to guess that this is the largest response to an Editor’s Blog entry to date.

See Editor's Blog at:
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=march_25_interview&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

The deputy managing editor, Ms. Williams starts the Blog with "...Only two things the woman said at that time did not make publication. She provided a description of the then-unidentified second woman who had also been hired to dance at the lacrosse team party. She also offered an opinion about the other woman’s actions that night. The latter was clearly an opinion, offered without any substantiation. Omitting from published news articles unsubstantiated opinions is a standard, normal part of the journalistic process. The description of the second woman proved to be accurate when Kim Roberts exposed herself at a later date. That description was withheld in March, not because of doubts about its accuracy, but because it was deemed irrelevant since we had no other information to tell readers about the second woman."

Parse that statement and the editors are dismissing the statement of the accuser concerning the second dancer’s actions as “unsubstantiated opinion”, but the description of the second dancer - “was withheld in March, not because of doubts about its accuracy, but because it was deemed irrelevant…”

The executive editor, Ms. Sill, responding twice in the comments section on Monday 10/9, states "...Getting back to the March 25 interview. A few of you mentioned publishing some of the omitted material in the future. I think most of what was said in the interview has appeared in various stories, and going forward as it seems relevant any further information might be used in N&O coverage."

and later Ms. Sill writes: "...Folks, we are in the business of putting news in the paper, not keeping it out. We are not prone to being hounded into publishing something (or not publishing something) because someone pressures us. Please see my last comment. Please see our home page, keyword Duke lacrosse, for dozens of stories (including many that answer some of the questions above"

Of course Ms Sill's first statement of "a few of you have" is comic...virtually every comment to the blog is saying ...why not publish it? and several suggest that it could just be revealed in the blog.

Also in Ms. Sill’s first comment of 10/9..”I think most of what was said in the interview has appeared in various stories…” This is ludicrous. Doesn’t Ms Sill realize that timing is EVERTHING in news? To say that the some of information dribbled out later gives news outlet the license to withhold anything, even evidence of innocence or guilt, as long as it is eventually revealed, like after a trial or after someone is put to death.

Most of the comments also suggest that the omitted statements did not slant the story the N&O way...that of rich white boys against this poor, single African-American mom.

It is clear that the March 25 article fanned the flames of racial conflict. Revealing the accuser's description of Kim and (probably) accusing her of taking part in the rape or stealing her money did not match the "feeling" that the N&O was going for.

But why not disclose the statements 6 months later? Who or what are they protecting?

Also, Ms Sill’s in an April 3 blog responding to your comments of April 2, states in part:
“We took care in editing the story not to introduce new accusations”. I thought newspapers wanted to report news, not rehash old stuff

Brian Johnston

Comment from: jenniferd [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 15:47
Why do you want our names? JIC thinks you are not above planning a vigilante wanted poster with our names on it.
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/
For all I know, you will call us enemies of N&O for asking too many questions. After all, you published a vigilante wanted poster of the players, apparently unconcerned with their safety, didn’t you? No, thank you very much.

Comment from: MaryinNJ [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 18:54
The deputy managing editor, Ms. Williams starts the Blog with "...Only two things the woman said at that time did not make publication. She provided a description of the then-unidentified second woman who had also been hired to dance at the lacrosse team party. She also offered an opinion about the other woman’s actions that night. The latter was clearly an opinion, offered without any substantiation."

Ms. Williams,
Can you tell us then---
WHO determined that the accuser's opinion of the 2nd dancer's actions that night were "unsubstantiated" and on WHAT basis?
Thank you.

Comment from: D [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 19:35
The idea that the police reports substantiated the story is suspect. They are both from the same source. One cannot vouch for oneself. If the accuser had told the same version twice, she would be a more credible accuser. Since she did not, she is an incredible accuser.

The news story now is how the accusation has morphed. The accuser told one set of versions to the police. The police told a different version to a judge to get the warrants. The prosecutor has told even different versions to the press and to the judge in pre-trial hearings. The coup-de-grace: Nifong has refused to give a bill of particulars to the defense. We (and more importantly the defendants and their lawyers) do not know which version Nifong will spring on them at the trial.

Comment from: Ellen [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 20:55
Ms. Williams and Ms. Sill,

WHY do you sculpt and in this case, create the news instead of simply reporting it?

I beg of you, do the right thing. Please tell the whole story.

Thank you,
Ellen Rock

Comment from: JeezOhPete [Visitor]

10/10/06 at 22:14
Ted says:

"I didn't think it was fair to allow an unnamed person to make unsubstantiated charges. In not publishing all the info from the interview,"

But Linda says you only printed what was substantiated. The N&O is as messed up as the accuser!

Comment from: kbp [Visitor] · http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=326&st=0&#entry4273946

10/10/06 at 23:57
Take some time to watch this webcast about what the media did in this case. Separate the truth and spin.

I think Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor and Chief Legal Correspondent, Slate.com, tells us best what you at N&O did early on.

Syracuse University's ""Lacrosse Justice: Gender, Race, and Fairness in the Duke Lacrosse Legal Saga""
See Webcast under Fall 2006 @
http://jpm.syr.edu/events_archives.html

Comment from: jenniferd [Visitor]

10/11/06 at 08:26
Why won’t you publish what the accuser said about Kim Roberts even now? Care to explain what are you concerned with NOW?
Can you explain something else to me?
It seems to me that accusations accuser made against white men were published with no much concern for substantiation, but accusations against a black woman were considered “unsubstantiated” by your paper. Is that how you decide whether accusations are substantiated or not? The race and gender of the accused?

Comment from: Newport [Visitor]

10/11/06 at 08:36
Melanie,

You can see this has created a firestorm of criticism which in my judgment is wholly justified. Joan Foster and others have pointed out with unmistakeable clarity the wrongheaded nature of your editorial decision making. The bottom line is that you are free to publish the information now, and do the right thing from a journalistic perspective.

Other posters here have made the excellent suggestion that you incorporate the accuser's unpublished statements pertaining to Roberts in a new news story relating to the many versions of the accuser's tales. You seem receptive to this idea. This would be an excellent way of moving forward on this issue. No hindsight, just new and fresh editorial judgment. I have a feeling the accuser's statements about Roberts were in the form of insults, others think accusations of theft or worse in conformity with some of her documented accusations against Roberts. Whatever, the nature of these statements, they are probative of her state of mind and therefore important and newsworthy material.

I urge you to consider this approach, and move forward with a news story detailing the accuser's many different versions of the night in question.

Comment from: Newport [Visitor]

10/11/06 at 08:41
I think the model for this news story detailing the accuser's many different versions is found in Mr. Neff's outstanding original reporting on the Gell case. As I recall, in one of the articles for that series you ran, Mr. Neff went through each of the five(?) or more stories that the two young women told to frame Mr. Gell.

Comment from: Jack [Visitor]

10/11/06 at 09:16
I think this blogger would be an excellent new reporter for you:

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?topic=311.0

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

10/11/06 at 09:45
Prof. K.C. Johnson helps us follow the money today...which this newspaper might have done. Nifong put almost $30, 000 of his own money into his campaign. An except:

"But the campaign finance reports suggest that sometime in mid-February, Durham’s legal elite concluded that Nifong’s election bid was doomed. In March, with the primary between five and nine weeks away, the district attorney received only three donations of more than $100, for a paltry total of $1,150 raised for the month. Even more alarming for his cause, lawyers stopped giving to him: the March donations came from a bail bondsman, a jury consultant, and a self-employed Chapel Hill resident.

Between February 20 and April 1, Black outraised Nifong by a margin of greater than 4-to-1. As his fellow lawyers abandoned him, Nifong could have thrown in the towel. Instead, needing to keep pace, he loaned his campaign $6,601.

It was in this atmosphere—a campaign whose fundraising sources had evaporated, kept afloat by the candidate's limited personal wealth—that Nifong made three fateful decisions regarding the lacrosse case:

On March 24, when the court granted his DNA motion, he effectively made himself lead investigator on the case.
On March 27, when he started his barrage of interviews, he effectively made himself the Police Department’s press secretary in violation of state bar ethics guidelines.
On March 31, when he ordered the police to violate their own procedures for the photo lineup, he effectively made himself a legal pariah."

How about some coverage on this? It's public record.

Or is this another nuance of the story, like Kim's actions that you just don't want your readers to know?

Comment from: Bob Banks [Visitor]

10/11/06 at 13:59
In your March 25 article, you were not reporting the news, but selling ideological soap.

You portrayed both dancers as victims of racially motivated attacks, verbal and physical. If you had printed one negative word from the alleged rape victim about Kim Roberts, you would have destroyed the whole structure of your story: evil white men v. virtuous black women.

Today, you still refuse to report the accuser's comments about Roberts because to do so would reveal just how shoddy and biased the original report was. All your shopworn cliches about journalistic judgment boil down to CYA.

The sad thing here is that the N&O's recent coverage has been better, but you are throwing away the credibility gained by continuing to defend the indefensible.

Comment from: Bob [Visitor] · http://southofheaven.typepad.com/

10/11/06 at 16:51
What reason prevents you from publishing the whole intereview now? Or just posting it here? Certainly not space considerations.

Not concern for false claims by the AV against Roberts/Pittman. Some of the Av's many varied tales which have been revealed in discovery are close to untoppable.

This is a story of a mentally ill woman with substance abuse problems who makes a living in the sex trade. She and her family have proven themselves to be so alienated from the truth as to be unbelievable. Either the N&O believed her, or they went along with the hoax for a reason, which brings us to the other part of the story, the story about a political candidate for district attorney who went into debt in order to finance his campaign and was still about to lose when this farce fell into his lap. He took over the case, ignored guidelines for identifications, made racially inflammatory false claims to the citizens of Durham in order to win the primary. He refused to look at exculpatory evidence, He has absolutely no evidence of a rape and yet he still pushes this case. He has continued this farce when anyone can see through the hoax.

The N&O is on the wrong side of history. Worse, you are on the wrong side of truth. I expect that these false prosecutions will eventually result in civil suits which will drain the city's coffers of tax revenue. You have not only hurt the falsely accused by your slanted reporting, you have hurt every citizen of Durham who pays taxes and relies on city services. By perpetuating this hoax you have set up Durham to be a laughingstock..

Time to start reporting the truth. The sooner the better. Don't keep hiding what the alleged victim said. Stop hiding the truth.

Comment from: emmy954 [Visitor]

10/11/06 at 17:48
Ms. Sill, you imply that we would be more credible if we post our names, and yet, you want us (apparently) to deem credible a woman who has made incredible (and unsubstantiated) claims of the most heinous manner against three innocent young men, and her name is *not* printed here in the paper...your double standard just doesn't fly...running more interference on your part, I think, in order to avoid the problem at hand for you, which is, how to just shut us up...(hint...we're NOT going to shut up)...

Comment from: D [Visitor]

10/11/06 at 21:18
Joan--
On Tuesday, the N&O did publish a piece on the campaign finance reports.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/496840.html
Benjamin Nolet's blockbuster findings: some donors are from out of state.
KC Johnson examined the very same records and found the real news.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Not that Mr. Nolet is incompetent, but he was certainly shown up by one of the bloggers in this case. Perhaps he'll do a follow up article?

Comment from: jenniferd [Visitor]

10/14/06 at 19:51
Do you find it intriguing that in her police report, the accuser claimed she and Kim were separated by six men? Kim, it seems, had no clue as to what her alleged role in the accuser’s story was, until Ed Bradley clued Kim in. I presume that is not what the accuser told you regarding Kim’s role? Of course you for some strange reason refuse to publish it to this day. If you wouldn’t let us know what the accuser said about Kim, at least you should clue Kim in.

Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]

10/16/06 at 10:44
This is a disgusting action. YOU CHOSE to say what the truth was. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES AND RESIGN!

Mike Nifong doesn't have any substantiation either! But that didn't stop you from reporting his lies.

You all should resign.

Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com

10/16/06 at 16:01
Dear Melanie,

I've 10 questions for you:

At 10/06/06 at 15:40 above you say:

“We got the woman identified as the victim and interviewed her. As Linda notes, it wasn't an extensive or extensively planned interview -- it was boots on the street hustle to track down the key players.”

1) In the Durham community with 250,000 people, “boots on the street” didn’t lead you to the accuser. Someone who knew who she was and where she was led you to her either directly or with address information. Most likely the person(s) was someone who could reach the accuser quickly and “arrange” for the interview. Who was that person(s)?

2) What was that person’s motive for leading your reporter to the accuser?

3) Was that person a member of either the Durham Police Department (I include as a member of the DPD Cpl. David Addison who, while assigned full-time to CrimeStoppers, is a sworn DPD officer) or the Durham District Attorney’s office, including DA Nifong?

4) Was the interview audio taped, which is common practice with an interview of such critical importance, especially as what was said could be relevant to a then ongoing police investigation and possible subsequent indictments and trials?

5) If the interview was audio taped, what can you tell us about the custody and condition of the tape; and whether there is anything about the technical nature of the tape that would prevent you from releasing it to the public with only the accuser and her family’s IDs removed?

6) If the interview was not audio taped, why not?

7) You say you didn’t publish those parts of the interview that concerned remarks made by the accuser about the second dancer, Kim Roberts, because the remarks were unsubstantiated. But as many readers on this thread have demonstrated, you published a great number of unsubstantiated statements you say the accuser made about the lacrosse players.

Whose interests are you serving by refusing to inform the public of the parts of the interview you suppressed on Mar. 25?

8) On what day did the N&O first learn of the extensive, voluntary cooperation the three Duke lacrosse captains provided police on Mar. 16, including signed statements, going to DUMC for “rape kit” testing, helping police ID and locate others who were at the party, etc?

9) On what day and in what detail did the N&O report to readers the cooperation the captains provided the police and the fact that the court order for 46 lacrosse players to submit to DNA testing and “mug photos” could have been appealed, but that not a single one of the 46 exercised his right of appeal (not even the ones who weren’t in Durham the night of the party)?

10) What’s your definition of news suppression?

Yes, Melanie, some of the questions are repeats I first asked months ago. It's time you answered them.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Comment from: JeezOhPete [Visitor]

10/16/06 at 19:57
"Senior editors answer questions and talk about The N&O's print and online news reporting. Contributors include Melanie Sill, executive editor; John Drescher, managing editor; and deputy managing editors Dan Barkin, Steve Riley and Linda Williams. Email Melanie or John with questions or suggestions."

Above is more N&O malarky!

Comment from: EMU [Visitor]

10/17/06 at 17:48

JOP,

There were lessons to be learned from Editor Williams' brief foray out of her accustomed "Drive-By-Media" theater of operations and into the brave new world of two-way communicatons.

EMU

Comment from: Dan Collins [Visitor]

10/20/06 at 15:53
Ms. Melanie,

I think the reason you and your newspaper make so many people sick is the way you defend your thinly disguised agenda by saying you are, "proud of your objective reporting and editing".
This article is just another prime example of what all the people are angry about. The "agenda" of this interview/ article was "white men against black female victims". You were not about to print anything that would reduce the possibility that this horrible crime was comitted by these beasts, or that would tarnish the image of these 2 soft-spoken fragile victims. You have printed one negative article after another about the lacrosse players, and with the exception of the complaints of the bloggers, you have not had to answer to anybody. Don't you think it is about time that you just say,
"We are taking the side of the "victim" to please our liberal, politically correct, and minority readers. And there are no risks in slandering white males, we will never have to worry about pot-bangers, hate groupes, Jessie or Al coming to our newspaper and putting too much pressure on us.
And I also agree with you that when a person does not use their real name you lose so much credibility and shows how cowardly they are..........just ask "Precious" and "Nikki".

Just for the record my name is Dan Collins and you have my e-mail address.

	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 \|

Thursday, October 5, 2006