In today's coverage of the Duke lacrosse case, The News & Observer for the first time identifies the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum of Durham, by name.

During the year since Mangum told police she was assaulted at a lacrosse team party, The N&O followed its longstanding policy of not naming claimants in sexual assault cases. This policy is accepted practice among most print and broadcast media in the United States.

The N&O has upheld this approach, which the newspaper has followed for at least 15 years, to avoid discouraging victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting such crimes. The N&O's policy regarding sexual assault claimants has rarely been challenged and we saw no reason to abandon the policy in the midst of a case.

In recent weeks The N&O's senior editors consulted a number of people with an interest in these issues, among them advocates for sexual assault victims, defense lawyers, current and former journalists, a district judge, journalism educators and ethics experts, in considering whether and under what circumstances to identify Mangum. No consensus emerged, but the conversations helped us consider essential questions about precedent and impact.

With the decision of the state attorney general's office to drop all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, no charge of rape or sexual assault exists. Mangum's claim has been vehemently denied by the three men indicted in the case and by their teammates, who believe they have been damaged by a false accusation. Attorney General Roy Cooper said his office concluded that the three are innocent.

Mangum also has been widely identified on the Internet, including on mainstream sites such as Wikipedia. Because of these circumstances, and in order to more fully report on the case and its aftermath, we decided to publish her name. Additionally, we will review our standing policy.

If you would like to weigh in on this decision and the broader issue of naming sexual assault claimants in criminal cases, go to our forum on "Naming accusers" at share.triangle.com and post your comments. We ask that you be civil and encourage you to include your name and town.

— Melanie Sill, executive editor

Update at 5:39 p.m.: Further research shows The N&O stopped naming reported victims in sexual assault cases in 1983.

Comments:

Comment from: John [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 15:47
I wonder why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are mum about this. Oh yeah-too busy worrying about an old coot that called a team a bunch of nappy headed ho's. Meanwhile-three young men and their families have had their lives altered all because of a bunch of lies. Mangum should be thrown in jail, Nifong should be disbarred, and Duke University should be sued for millions.

Comment from: Bufford Moore [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 15:59
You have to commend the Atty General for his handling of this whole affair. Notice that during the state investigation, there were not daily conferences, nor second by second media coverage. Further, the statement issued by Roy Cooper does great honor to his office and state. I guess no statement can really undo the damage that was done, but this is as close as you might get.
This is a cautionary tale about the popular election of prosecutors, and what some might do to get and keep office.

I await, with interest, statements from those who called for these players heads. I suspect that they will be understated or absent

Comment from: Jeff Given (New England) [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 16:23
You all called her a "victim". You all at the News and Observer should all resign. You are a pathetic display of media run wild, and I hope you are ashamed of yourselves.

Comment from: Jeff Given (New England) [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 16:26
The media should be ashamed. Durham, Durham County, and the state of North Carolina should all be sued for millions.

Comment from: Carolyn [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 16:32
I am deeply dissapointed with the N&O editorial staff decision to publish not only the name, but a photo, of the accuser in the Duke case.

Aside from the impact on this individual -- who the State implied did not make false accusations knowingly -- this creates an atmosphere which can make real sexual assault victims afraid to come forward for fear their names and photos will make headlines.

The N&O -- unlike the many bloggers who already made this public -- holds a commnuity responsibility for operating in a way that betters the Triangle and upholds general standards of decency.

I wish you were doing a better job of that today.

Comment from: jim [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 16:58
Plaudits for your editorial decision. The first thing that occured to me when I heard all charges were dismissed in the case was---there is no longer any justification for withholding this woman's name. These young men's names are, and will forever be, linked to this purported attack. Their lives and reputations are altered beyond repair. For Ms. Mangum to escape public criticism and censure for her part in this sad episode would be a travesty of justice. To those who claim this public identification "creates an atmosphere" that inhibits reporting of sexual assaults, I would certainly agree---as long as an actual assault took place. If naming a false accuser inhibits the making of false accusations, then I would contend that is also a public good.

Comment from: Shawn [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 16:59
I'm a middle-aged white guy, and I think what's happened is that you've realized your initial coverage of this case was way over the top, so now you're stepping back to restore your "good name". And that's fine. Simplistic and self-serving, but fine.

I find it more troubling that now that this is all over and done, "mainstream media" like your newspaper are making the LAX men out to be innocent victims of a false accusation. OK, so they didn't commit rape. But what about throwing a party for the express purpose of seeing black woman perform sex acts for them, or screaming insults about slave ancestors as they scattered out the house that night? Where's the righteous indignation over this behavior?

Don't worry. The N&O isn't the biggest screw-up here. Duke's President Clodhead changed his tune faster than anyone, and now acts like these men are paragons of virtue. And don't get me started on Coach K. He stayed silentas long as there was a danger of this "bad press" affecting his team. but then once he was insulated by the Nifong mess and the transfer to the AG's office, suddently he had lots to say about how terrible all this was for the LAX men.

So fine, the woman lied. That doesn't mean the LAXmen and Duke shouldn't be embarrased by their actions forever and hang their heads in shame. Unfortunately, the media made them devils, and now the media -- which knows that the "middle ground" doesn't "sell" -- is about to make them angels.

Comment from: mike [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 17:15
It is appropriate to display her name because she is the criminal here. These men have spent millions to defend themselves. This case NEVER had any credence and should have been left at the detective desk. So when is there going to be an apology from Nance Grace, J. Jackson, A Sharpton, N&O, Duke and so on. Never happen!!

I think Al and Jesse are still trying to find the evidence in the Tawana Brawley fiasco.

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 17:19
The exploits of the liberal left "PC righteous" zealots begin to make the Salem witch trials look like a picnic. We've been Bork'ed, and Thomas'ed, and now "Duke'ed". It's just the latest in the saga of the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, etc. lynching crusade, with the full support and advocacy of the N&O, Ruth Sheehan, and the "Gang of 88". Will we be hearing the taunting voices of the NAACP and the Black Panthers calling "Dead Man Walking" in open court again, as innocent white men, having said or done something dumb, are lead before the rock wielding public again for brutalization? Maybe we need only ask Imus.....

Comment from: Bill [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 17:20
What policy to follow with respect to naming an accuser is problematic. Probably the fairest policy is to print the accuser's name from the point at which a defendant is charged. There is something offensive in letting a person accusing another of a serious crime from the shadows of anonymity. Clearly at the point at which the accusation is proven false, the reason behind not printing the accuser's name-- to encourage the victims of rape to step forward and report the crime-- has disappeared unless we think it important to encourage persons to step forward and make false accusations.

Comment from: Rudy [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 17:57
Will you have the courage to confront Mr. Barber of the NC NAACP? This from his statement your paper just published about AG Cooper's decision:

"If his office believes the state lacks sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements of each crime took place, then it is the state�s constitutional duty to dismiss the charges. ... Now, as we have repeatedly said, comes the hard part. How do we proceed toward the healing places in our communities and our hearts?"

The healing might begin by black leaders ceasing to misrepresent events. Mr. Cooper did NOT say simply that there was insufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. He said the evidence showed the defendants were INNOCENT of the charges brought.

Comment from: Ewol_Smith [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 18:13
Well, it's about time. Protecting the reputation of a bona fide victom is one thing, and protecting an aggressor under the guise of a victim is another. Meantime, these innocent boys have had their reputations smeared in the press nationwide.
It's a darned shame; I hope the N&O has learned something from this. . .

Comment from: Kriti [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 18:22
A photograph? Really, N&O, you published a photograph of a member of our community who lives in fear of her life because of constant death threats over the last year? Someone who can't stay in her own home because it's no longer safe for her to be there? The blogospherians have been ruthless in their vitriol, and, more importantly, in their deliberate attempts to compromise the safety of this person by disseminating her personal information, encouraging attacks on her, and making wild, ignorant, and cruel conjectures about her character. But you, N&O, our community newspaper? Why be complicit in this breach of a human being's safety and well-being? I am disgusted by your decision, and I am anxious about the negative ramifications your decision will have for our community and for survivors of sexual violence, past and future.

Comment from: Bianca [Visitor] · http://Durham

04/11/07 at 18:28
These young men are not innocent! They are "JOHNS!" Soliciting for sex is a crime in the state of North Carolina. In addition, why has one young woman's action become an indictment against all Black citizens of Durham?

Throughout history White women have made false accusations about being raped by Black men. Those Black men spent years in jail (not in their parent's home) waiting for justice. Where were the White leaders? Where was their outrage?

Comment from: wxharpo [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 18:51
Kudos to the SAG for correcting an unfortunate incident involving Nifong and his blindness by the power of the office he held. Kudos to the N&O for publishing the "victim"s" name. She is no longer a victim. Perhaps this will prevent a future filing by a person out to "get even" with someone by filing false charges. To Bianca, one of the major problems in this entire episode has been the call of racisim. And besides where was a mention of soliciting for sex made by anyone other than possibly Nifong. He will have his day in court and may he be barred from practicing law in the city of Durham, the state of North Carolina, and hopefully from anywhere in the U.S.A.

Comment from: Bob [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 18:54
Bianca, They're not JOHNS! There was never any accusation for soliciting for sex. The players hired wo women (actually they thought they were getting two other women, but why quibble?) for a strip show. By your logic, nearly every bachelor party should be raided for pandering and solicitation. Moreover, by your (flawed) logic, Mangum should be arrested for prostitution if she was accepting money (which she did). Such charges against her, however, would be groundless. Next time people start accusing others of a crime, they should really be more aware of the facts. You'd think everyone who's been following this fiasco would've figured that out by now.

Comment from: Frank [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 19:09
The Duke rape allegation was about the political career of one man, Mike Nifong, who saw an opportunity to ensure his election by taking advantage of a situation created by the false charges of another opportunist, the accuser. This occurred because Mr. Nifong serves at the pleasure of a mainly black electorate whom he calculated would support him at the polls if he gave active voice to a lynch mentality, created because of the races of the accuser and accused. What is odd are the reversed racial roles.

If Mr. Nifong had refused to prosecute the Duke lacrosse players on flimsy evidence, he certainly would have lost his job in the upcoming election. His major mistake was overplaying his hand in the media (for the listening electorate) during the early days, while not realizing how he was prejudicing the jury pool and outraging the parents of the players. Perhaps he felt justified because of the raucous reputation of lacrosse players at Duke and neighboring UNC-CH. It is clear, in hindsight, he misjudged the veracity and motives of the accuser. He allegedly didn't interview her for six months, so obviously didn't care that much about her truthfulness or lack of.

Certainly, Duke lacrosse team members should have found a better way to be entertained than by hiring two strippers. But in colleges, many worse things occur than females disrobing at parties.

There's no doubt some type of altercation occurred OUTSIDE the house where the "party" was hosted. A neighbor noticed Duke lax players and the two strippers in a verbal confrontation on the front lawn. It is likely the "N" word was said by a Duke lax player, at which time the accuser decided she could make a wild accusation and probably get money by forcing the Duke students pay up, maybe even to settle out of court should a trial occur. But she then must have figured no trial would occur simply because of an alleged racist word exchange; she HAD to rachet up the charges and what better way than to cry rape? Faulty thinking? Well, she'd had a lot to drink, allegedly.

Why would she believe she could accomplish this scam? I know of one instance in the 1980s in which a major NC bank, which had fired two black tellers whose books repeatedly were out of balance when their work went unsupervised, was going to be sued in a class action suit by the NAACP's legal defense fund lawyer from Charlotte, who later served as chancellor at NCCU. The bank, knowing it had the documention to prove embezzlement also knew it stood to lose all its black depositors -- and potentially some liberal white depositors -- in case of a lawsuit. It's name certainly would be besmirched. It caved in to the NAACP and the two tellers in a class action suit that cost its depositors $750,000. No one ever knew, particulary the depositors nor the media. But now you know.

Is it unlikely this story never spread in the black community, particularly at Durham, the home of NCCU?

So we finally get to the reason for this sordid affair -- greed for political office and greed for cash by two opportunists.

It wasn't racism at all, except the racism of that portion of the Durham community willing to convict the players -- and apparently still willing to do so even though their innocence has been obvious for months and today is admitted by the NC attorney general.

Be afraid, be very afraid for Durham and in Durham.

Comment from: john [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 19:22
Kriti, I guess you have forgotten, but when this case first broke this paper published photos of all lacrosse players and they got death threats and were fearful for their lives. What about their safety and well being when the black community wanted duke lacrosse blood?

I hope you go after the NAACP for not admitting their mistakes. It's no wonder black people take no responsibility for their actions and cry racism at the drop of a hat, their leaders do it.

Comment from: Maryann (Long Beach CA) [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 19:36
I think it is unconscionable that Crystal Gail Mangum will not face charges. Of course she still maintains that she was assaulted! To do otherwise would be to acknowledge her heinous behavior and face the consequences. Even if she has managed to convince herself and others that she believes the lies she told and re-told, it is not a credible excuse for not pursuing legal action against her. She is not the victim here! These young men, their families and a fine university were all harmed significantly by her false accusations. An untold amount of time and money has been wasted in the pursuit of crimes that never occurred – and for which there was not one shred of evidence except for her own words, which kept changing in an attempt to fit the circumstances. It is truly proper for her to be named publicly, as were the men she falsely accused. And doing so should not discourage any true victims from coming forward – only those who, like she, would attempt to use the legal system for their own immoral ends.

Comment from: Walter Abbott [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 19:51
Melanie Sill you and your newspaper are a disgrace. You and your entire staff should resign. After exoneration for the Duke 3, your reporter finally admits what you withheld from the public for over a year. And it was material and would have had an effect on the case.

Here it is: "Mangum, a mother of three children ages 6, 8 and 3 months, was enrolled last spring at N.C. Central University. On March 24, 11 days after the party, she granted a short interview with The News & Observer, her only media interview to date. Mangum made allegations of racism, claimed to have only a short history as a stripper, and said she believed the other woman hired to dance with her also had been assaulted."

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/17062683.htm

In last year's interview, Mangum claimed Kim Roberts was assaulted. If the public had known that, it would have been obvious she wasn't credible.

Do us a favor. Quit your job and become a Wal-Mart greeter. Something that's not a danger to the public.

Walter Abbott
Ruston, LA

I'm in the phone book if you want to talk to me.

Comment from: tc [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 19:55
It is worth noting that Melanie Sill hasd decided today to publish, an article by Samiha Khanna summarizing her encounter with CGM last March.

In her recollections, Ms Khanna includes a statement by CGM (omitted from the original article, "Dancer gives details of ordeal") that would have been contridicted by Kim Roberts instantly and have been devastating to CGM's credibility.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/421799.html

In addition, if the interview had been presented whole instead of being chopped up by Ms Sill's editor (or Ms Khanna herself) it would have presented a very different picture of CGM's truthfulness and motivations for pursuing charges (the profit motive looms large in Khanna's partial retelling)

I still think Samiha Khanna owes it to history (and to the people who were damaged by her deplorable journalism) to recount the interview intact, without editorializing or mixing in other people's comments.

As Cooper said today, anything that CGM says doesn't add up.

If CGM has been quoted correctly originally, it (likely) would have spelled the end of the hoax right there.

Comment from: Tim [Visitor] · http://Wilmington NC

04/11/07 at 20:07
These 3 boys should sue Nifong, Durham Co. and this worthless piece of crap billions of dollars . . . I'd bukrupt them a thousand times over - - I'd bankrupt their cats, their mailmen, their dog-houses and anything else I could attach -- Durham Co. should suffer badly because of this --- and these 3 dudes should never have to work a day in their lives again thanks to the Durham Cash they deserve - - - what a CROCK; Nifong should be deported to Iran; I knew from DAY ONE that this Durham Dirtbag was nothing more than a complete pile of human filth - - Crystal Mangum should be convicted of False Reporting and made to break rocks for 30 yrs (same as the boys could have gotten) -- Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

Comment from: Chuck Watts [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 21:01
Your fifth paragraph is where the error of your thinking lies. The Attorney General did not say that the charges werre false or that the accused lacrosse players were inocent. His office concluded that there was insufficient evidence to procecute.

Once you get that point, I think that our logic falls apart. The accuser is still accusing the lacrosse players. The state is just saying that they can not bring her case becasue of too many inconsistencies in her story and too little physical evidence.

While your other points about her identiy being well documented are legitimate, let's be clear. You are now disclosing her name for that reason and that reason only. Of course, you didn't want to hang your hat on that flimsy ground becuase on that basis you could have disclosed the name long ago.

Sorry to have to get you to face the facts.

Comment from: David [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 21:10
Hey Chuck - what part of "We believe these men are innocent" don't you understand?

Comment from: john [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 21:16
Chuck you might want to read the AG's speech in full

"Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges."

"Our investigation shows that:

The eyewitness identification procedures were faulty and unreliable. No DNA confirms the accuser's story. No other witness confirms her story. Other evidence contradicts her story. She contradicts herself. Next week, we'll be providing a written summary of the important factual findings and some of the specific contradictions that have led us to the conclusion that no attack occurred."

"...that we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night."

I think that means they are innocent and the charges are false, but I guess I am unable to face the facts.

Comment from: Lanisha [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 21:36
I am glad her name is being released. She is a disgrace. She has made it that much harder for real victims to come forward and not be seen as crying wolf. These young men have had their pictures plastered across television screens and newspapers all over the world. It's about time the same is done to this Crystal Gail Mangum. Even then, she will not have lost even a fraction of what these young men have lost.

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 22:19
Now, why should we believe that Samiha Khanna and the N&O are telling us the WHOLE TRUTH now about what CGM told Ms. Khanna in that interview? After more than a year of hiding the truth from us (in effect, LYING), now suddenly the N&O gets a conscience and wants to come clean?

Sorry, we have no reason at all to believe that you are even telling us everything, even now. And anyway, the chance for redemption passed many many months ago. The N&O and the editor and reporters involved in the decision to selectively edit that interview to maximize the condemnation of the innocent lacrosse players, well, you folks should be ashamed. But I'm sure you've undertaken some amazing ethical/rational gymnastics within your heads to convince yourselves that what you did was "right". Lame. You should see what you look like from here in the real world.

- Jim Curry

Comment from: Jayme [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 22:35
I have always been told, and truly believe, there are three sides to any story. This side, that side, and the truth. Unfortunately, no one will ever know what really happened on that night.

Now, on to the real issue: the release of this girl's name by N&O and other news organizations was UNETHICAL. I think we should look at a similar case to determine what precedent should have been established. Immediately, I think of the Kobe Bryant case in which the charges of rape were dropped, and the name and picture of the accuser were NEVER published by the news media. Just as in the Duke LA-X case, her name and photo were posted all over the internet, but mainstream media never published them.

So why was a precedent not established? What is so different about this case?

Comment from: David [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 22:45
This case is different because no member of the Colorado Department of Justice, much less that State's Attorney General, led an investigation into that case that actually fully cleared Kobe of all accusations. Here, these young men have been vindicated. As for truth? The most powerful investigative arm in this state just told you the truth: innocent.

Comment from: Sarah [Visitor]

04/11/07 at 23:13
Equity would be better achieved if both the accuser's and the accused's names were withheld from the media in sexual assault cases. The act of accusation in such cases is too often taken as a sign of guilt. Anonymity would have prevented the circus created by Mike Nifong.

Comment from: latrelle [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 00:42
Crystal Gail Mangum now realizes that turnabout is fair play. Bearing false witness against one's neighbor is one of the greatest sins in the 10 Commandments. From the beginning, it appeared that her main motive was dishonestly earned money. Nifong clearly was playing racial politics. He should be disbarred for lying in front of the court.

If there were any kind of justice, Ms. Mangum would be charged with filing a false police report, and sued for her future exotic dancer income.

In any case this is clearly a deeply troubled woman. She has cried rape by three men in the past (just a coincidence?!) and tried to murder a police officer. Her children should be removed from her custody until she gets the mental health assistance she needs.

Comment from: latrelle [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 00:44
I am calling for Nifong to be fired and to be disbarred. He has done a great injustice to these young men and stirred up a great amount of racial hatred and mistrust. By deliberately allowing the young men's reputations to be destroyed and refusing to even consider exculpatory evidence, he was clearly on a racial agenda that had a lot more to do with his cushy job than with justice.

This hurts all citizens of Durham, regardless of race.

Comment from: The Acid Queen [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 00:46
I am a survivor of sexual assault, and I wholeheartedly applaud the N&O's decision.

Ms. Mangum's accusations--and her history of making such accusations--have done a lot more harm than good to women like me that really HAVE been raped, and that is the real tragedy in this whole thing.

How many rape victims are going to think twice about doing the right thing and coming forward now, for fear of being called liars thanks to this one woman's bid for attention?

Comment from: John Simpson [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 01:13
Bianca said "Throughout history White women have made false accusations about being raped by Black men."

The N&O should run a story that truthfully and completely gives the actual interracial rape statistics. Of course, I'm not holding my breath while I wait for that to happen.

Comment from: Jayme [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 01:16
Unless "the most powerful investigative arm in this state" was in that house, he only knows his interpretation of the "truth." Which means it still is not THE truth.

Comment from: Yolanda Carrington [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 01:29
Ms. Sill and the N&O, we all understand that this case is over and that the charges have been dropped. That doesn't mean that the threats to this young woman's safety are over. The accuser has been receiving death threats for over a year, so much so that she's had to change addresses and phone numbers. Plus, she has three young children, and as long as their mother is in danger, they are in danger.

This woman has a family and people that care about her. Please, if nothing else, be mindful of that fact.

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

04/12/07 at 01:45
Melanie,

It would have been better if you had told the truth in the first place.

Who knows how much of what you're saying now is true beyond facts readers can determine themselves, such as Mangum's name.

Journalists, including two who are professors at your alma mater, UNC-Chapel Hill, say the N&O's done great damage to their profession by publicly framing the players even before Nifong began to do it publicly.

They also say we're going to hear a lot more the N&O knows and has withheld from us just the way you did with the interview.

Things have to change at the N&O. The paper can't go on decade after decade playing race against race.

John in Carolina

Comment from: S John Massoud [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 06:48
I want to thank AG Cooper for doing the right thing and doing it in a professional manner. I agree with the News Observer that Ms. Mangum's name should be made public. Since the Duke lacross students were found to be "innocent" by the AG's office, then she no longer is entitled to any anonimity.

Personally I think that Ms. Mangum should be charged with filing a false police report,but if the AG's office seriously believes that she may be so deluded that she believed all these things occurred, then I will defer to their judgement. Cooper did his profession and the state of NC right in how he handled this case. This part of the legal system shows that it still works properly.

I do hope that Nifong is disbarred and that either the new Durham DA or Cooper's office has him charged with obstruction of justice. What Nifong did was discredit the judicial system, which is the backbone of our democracy. Each person should be entitled to a fair day in court, not a day in court that has been manipulated by an ambitious and out of control DA.

Sic Semper Nifongus!
'
John Leesburg Virginia

Comment from: Kelley [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 06:48
I have been impressed all along with the N&O's coverage of the case. I think you were instrumental in reporting the inconsistencies as well as the facts as you knew them. I tend to be a conservative and I know you have the reputation of being a "liberal" paper. But I thought that your coverage was even and balanced. And I think you did the right thing holding the line on the accuser's name until now. Those that really wanted to know it could go to the Internet. You kept your class and did not sink to the level of a news "rag."

Comment from: Locomotive Breath [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 10:58
Joe Neff said yesterday...

“Fundamentally, this case was of leads not followed, of tips not pursued, of questions not asked.”

I thought he was talking about the N&O's coverage before he got involved. Unfortunately he was not. He should have been.

Comment from: David [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 12:06
Jayme - the 3 players are still guilty in your eyes? That's preposterous. It has been proven, maybe not beyond your idea of some holier than thou truth, that one of the 3, Reade, was not even in the house during this false accusation.

I guess you subscribe to the camp that "something happened" in that house. Yeah, something happened, a woman was taunted. And in retaliation, she cried rape. A disgrace to herself and all real victims of that terrible crime.

Comment from: LTC8K6 [Visitor] · http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showforum=3

04/12/07 at 12:07
Why haven't you fired Barry Saunders yet?

He has just made a totally unjustified attack on the players with factually incorrect information. We can see why this case went on and on, and the N & O was a big part of the reason. We can see who the jerks are, and they work at the N & O.

"You've got three privileged, frat boy-looking Duke lacrosse players "

"Lost in the post-dismissal jubilation was the fact that these dudes, like the Duke lacrosse players in general, weren't the proverbial choirboys. You couldn't tell that from the after-party news conference, where defense attorney Joe Cheshire practically canonized them for their athleticism, scholarship and community service.

Community service? Is that what they call parties where strippers are verbally abused and threatened with broomsticks?

Nobody wants to see innocent men sentenced for a crime they didn't commit. But please, stop the deification of the Blue Devil Three. At the least, they and their party mates are guilty of being misogynistic jerks. That, however, is not a crime deserving of either jail time or the media battering they initially received.

It's easy from the evidence to say that these guys are not guilty, but damned if I'll say, as Cooper did, that they're as innocent as lambs."

Comment from: LTC8K6 [Visitor] · http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showforum=3

04/12/07 at 12:40
Only a lawsuit will stop the unjustified attacks, I guess.

Comment from: JeezOhPete [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 15:49
Yesterday Saunders blamed the rush to judgment on "the feminist groups" - per interview on WRAL. I thought he worked right along with Ruth.

Comment from: craig henry [Visitor] · http://leadandgold.blogspot.com

04/12/07 at 17:04
Did your reporter ever suggest that the accuser might be mentally ill?

The AG suggested as much and it does explain alot of what happened.

So after she scored her exclusive, did she wonder if the woman she was talking to was delusional? Seems to me that a reporter who missed that probably should be covering something where perceptiveness is not a job requirement.

Comment from: heath in raleigh [Visitor]

04/12/07 at 17:22
N&O, I am disappointed in the withholding of info from the interview from a year ago. It contributes needlessly to the conflict and stress everyone's been through this year. But going forward, how about a new policy; Don't publish the names of either side until a verdict is reached? I have heard this is how it's done in England or Europe (not sure, you'll have to check into that). That way no one's name is dragged in the mud for no reason. I know this may not sell papers, but what's it about in the end, integrity or selling papers? More and more it's about the latter.

hp

Comment from: JeezOhPete [Visitor]

04/13/07 at 01:07
Editors...your silence speaks volumes!

Comment from: joan foster [Visitor]

04/13/07 at 07:00
No call for Nifong's resignation?

You would allow people in your readership to be under the sway and power of the nationally disgraced corrupt prosecutor you helped to elect?

This is sadly consistent.

The only saving grace on this paper is Joe Neff.

The most egregious is your Weekend Editor.

That "weekend editor" was on a mission to create a jury pool that would take the productive lives away of these three young men. To that effect, Samiha's article was "shaped" so to effectively keep Mangum's lies intact. The Weekend Editor created the fairy tale.
.
In a small city, where the NCCU reporter had to edit OUT the neighbors negative comments about Mangum...the N&O Weekend Editor provided a rosy glow to her sleazy life. Looking back, you did no research, no "checking..just pushing, pushing a vindictive agenda. You had the power to hurt these boys and you used it! Without evidence, on a liar's allegation , you would ruin their lives!

Did you research Crystal Mangum at all? The beat cops knew her! They asked about her children! Did you know that her profession could well account for her only injury..the "diffuse edema?" Could you not in your desire to convict these boys do minimal research on who was accusing them?

Then, having created a venomous, dangerous local atmosphere, your Weekend Editor released the Vigilante Poster.

Just think about THAT for a moment.

Justify THAT.

For THAT vicious vengeful act ALONE, the N&O and that Weekend Editor should face civil remedies.

Comment from: sybil johnson [Visitor]

04/13/07 at 09:08
The N & O withheld information about Ms. Mangum. Your wall of silence prolonged the hoax.

You knew Mangum had a troubled past, assuming you check your own archives.

Woman charged in taxi theft, chase
News & Observer
June 24, 2002

You knew the accuser was telling different versions of the story, and you withheld that information from this story.

Dancer gives details of ordeal
The News & Observer
March 25, 2006

Yet, you piled on with these gems.

Beauty in place of horror
News & Observer
March 28, 2006
Author: Barry Saunders; Staff Writer

Team's silence is sickening
News & Observer
March 27, 2006
Author: Ruth Sheehan; Staff Writer

The truth was right under your nose ... and withheld.
Sickening.

Comment from: JeezOhPete [Visitor]

04/13/07 at 09:11
Why have you purposely left out the name of Crystal's current lawyer in two different stories? You criticize bloggers for anonymity and you choose who you name and do not name. Hypocrisy!

Comment from: BroDalton [Visitor]

04/13/07 at 09:39
Your newspaper wore blinders during the entire past year. Many of us even gave you information, and you chose to not report, or even investigate! What kind of journalists are you if you won't even follow up with good information by readers?

When the Attorney General said "INNOCENT", many of us already knew that, didn't we?

Rev. Leon Dalton

Comment from: Jayme [Visitor]

04/13/07 at 11:25
Wow! If I'm "holier than thou" what does that make everyone else who posted here? Or am I "holier than thou" because I don't see these men as innocent little angels? Or is it because I have a dissenting opinion?

Yes, something definitely happened inside and outside that house that no one is addressing. Taunted??? Whoa! But I guess none of that matters "in the grand scheme of things."

Again, none of us will ever know EXACTLY what happened that night. And we are all entitled to our opinions about what happened (and why), this entire fiasco, and those involved.

Comment from: Dan Collins [Visitor]

04/14/07 at 08:11
This is without a doubt, the dumbest bunch of newspaper people that anyone could ever imagine. At first I thought it was mainly just Ruth Sheehan and Barry Saunders, with Melanie Sill just being a gutless politicallly correct, stooge, but now this Samiha Khanna has moved to the top of the list.

Ruth Sheehan can not understand why she is so hated in the Durham community, first she wrote that the Lacrosse players made her sick because they would not confess to a rape that they did not commit, then she demanded that the coach get fired, which he did, but not before him and his family received death threats. Then in the following months, she made a mockery of the case with 3 men’s lives at stake. I can’t see why she’s is hated…. What a mystery.

Now this fool, Samiha, thinks she will win back readers, too, with this belated, pathetic article that the readers have been BEGGING the News and Observer to print for months, that even if it is the entire truth, (you can only imagine what else is cut out of it) shows how the original version was edited to fit your political agenda. Her original story should have been titled, “Dancer Gives (edited) Details of Ordeal” Are you still proud Melanie, withholding information that was obviously a lie or so ridiculous that only an idiot would believe it? Did you ever stop to think that the “ordeal” would not have been as much an “ordeal” if you had printed some of the agenda shattering lies. Aren’t you proud that you were a big part of the witch hunt that made so many people suffer, aren’t you proud that you can be included with Mike Nifong as being one of people that had the power of controlling powerful evidence on your side, but elected not to reveal it, so you could see the boys suffer for a longer time. That’s got to feel good. It is obvious that you don’t know what a liar is so I will tell you.

A liar is someone that tells readers over and over again that the information that was withheld, “was unsubstantiated” and “deemed irrelevant”. Well, Melanie, this gets back to your staff’s stupidity, in case you haven’t figured it out, lies ARE “unsubstantiated”, that's why they are lies, and they ARE “relevant”.

Then after a year, after the boys are finally cleared, you show what you knew all along, that this pathetic animal was telling lies faster than her mouth could move – and you were supporting her! Now you know what a liar is. And from the columns I have read in your newspaper on this case, it looks like you enjoy it.

You must more proud than ever of your coverage. Congratulations.

Dan Collins

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

04/14/07 at 09:58
As the case has concluded we have written several stories to back up and put into context many of the details we've reported earlier. We do t his often because we report facts incrementally and in certain situations it's helpful to show people how they all fit together. The only factual element that we had not previously reported was Crystal Mangum's speculation that the other dancer also had been sexually assaulted at the party and that she was motivated by money. On the day she said this in the interview, we did not know the identity of the second dancer (it took weeks before Kim Roberts surfaced) nor had police or anyone else mentioned this as an element of the investigation. Everything else in our story published this week had been reported previously.

Comment from: jenniferd [Visitor]

04/14/07 at 12:55
Did N&O do any background investigation on Crystal when N&O published "Dancer gives details of ordeal" article? If N&O did, why did N&O not inform the readers of her history? If N&O didn't check her background, think what N&O did-N&O published serious accusations against a group of people, not knowing about accuser's history.

"A woman hired to dance for the Duke lacrosse team describes a night of racial slurs, growing fear and, finally, sexual violence."

N&O printed Crystal's allegations that could have landed someone in prison for decades without naming her.

That's what N&O said "It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify the victims of sex crimes."

Do you think N&O ows someone an apology for this?

Comment from: Faye Joseph [Visitor]

04/14/07 at 12:59

Under normal circumstances I agree with your policy of not naming innocent victims of rape. But there was nothing innocent about the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse players' case. Apart from Nifong's appalling behavior, when the DNA test cleared the accused, and the accuser's dubious character became clear, she should have been named.

Although proven innocent by DNA, (not wealthy lawyers) The damage done to the the young men, their legal costs, and the emotional cost to their families is incalculable. While deploring the players' behavior, the eagerness with which they were tarred as "privileged whites" disclosed a reverse racism that was sickening.

Comment from: nancync [Visitor]

04/15/07 at 13:42
Gee Ms Sill, once you DID find Kim, did you not see the fallout coming? Why was the only recourse you felt you had to forward the hoax with how many articles rehashing the "single mother, student" and continued to call her a victim, all the way to the bitter end.

It was not until Cooper set the record straight did you do any investigative reporting - if you did, it was buried on a page unpublished.

The lack of quality journalism on this year long hoax is very telling that you do not pursue the information, you merely react from a personal bias and run with it.

Disgusting, Two sides to every story but I never saw the other side in any of your coverage, ever.

Speaks volumes about the direction of the N&O.

Comment from: Darren E. [Visitor]

04/15/07 at 14:14
Melanie,

Could you please explain how this statement about the other dancer being assualted too is libel? That was the excuse one of the editors had previously given for the reason this was not included in the interview article, Keep in mind that at the time the idenitfy of the 2nd dancer was unknown (as you stated above).

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

04/15/07 at 17:44
Nancy, I don't know where you are but you must have missed much of our coverage. You can find it at newsobserver.com by searching under Duke lacrosse, several pages of results, including investigative and explanatory stories that revealed many elements of the problems that derailed the prosecutor's case.

Comment from: Kris Christensen [Visitor]

04/16/07 at 11:48
It is always with great wonderment seeing the names of people accused of sex crimes published on the front page and trumpeted on the evening news. It seems that the modern news media takes great interest in every "sexy story" (as Joe Cheshire put it), especially relishing those involving politicians, priests, teachers, universities, even pre-schools. Most people probably don't remember the witch hunt of the Edenton 7. I can still see the anchors on WRAL pronouncing every sordid detail as if it were fact. I'm not sure what became of the accused in that case, but it was just as unbelievable as this, if not more.

Leave a comment:

Remember: We reserve the right to delete any comment we deem to be obscene, profane, off topic, harassing or an impersonation. Please be civil.
Name:
Email:	Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Comment text:	Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small> URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:	Auto-BR (Line breaks become <br />) Remember me (Set cookies for name, email & url)