(Readers’ Note: This note series contians information and opinions on many aspects of the DL case. I'll cover many topics with a few sentences. For more fully developed posts, look elsewhere at this blog.
I hope you use the note series the same way on its comment threads. JinC readers have been a great source of DL info and commentary.
While I'll be briefer here than in standard JinC posts, there’s always the chance some fine person just back from the Antarctic or in the Antarctic will drop in for a first time visit. So some material redundant to you will be here because it'll help our new Antarctic friend. John)
Just a few items tonight.
Most of you care about fair treatment for the DL players and want “the system,” including the law, Duke and media, to come as close to doing what’s right as is possible.
In that case, do you know K. C. Johnson, professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center?
If not, you’ll want to meet him. He feels just as you do.
A good place to meet Johnson or renew your acquaintance is at his National Review article, “Missing the Point: Conservatives and the Duke case.”
Johnson begins:
In the future, recent events in Durham might serve as a case-study in law schools on the seemingly endless number of ways in which a prosecutor can violate state procedures in a single case.I’m following up on some of what Johnson says with reference to the failure of a prominent Tar Heel Conservative, John Hood, to speak out on the players' behalf. Hood is President of The John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank and policy center.
But for now, it is worth exploring why, in a matter that confirms their critiques of issues ranging from feminism to the professoriate’s ideological one-sidedness, conservative intellectuals and activists have proven reluctant to take the side of the Duke lacrosse players.
By speaking out for the players Johnson doesn't mean supporting their partying. He's thinking Constitutional rights and fair treatment from media and Duke. I'm with him on all of that just as most of you are.
Look for more about Hood and DL soon. In the meantime, I hope you read Johnson's NRO article.
I’m working to convince a prominent NC attorney to blog regularly concerning the DL case.
It doesn’t look like she'll say “Yes,” but keep your fingers crossed. She’s first-rate in everything she does.
If that doesn’t work, I’d like to find perhaps a law school professor.
Any names? I’ve already got a call in to UNC’s Ken Broun.
When I finish this I’m emailing his colleague, Eric Muller, who already blogs at www.IsThatLegal.com but hasn’t posted much concerning the DL case.
Now the Raleigh N&O.
I said in yesterday’s notes that the N&O is underreporting on Professor Coleman’s letter.
You don’t believe me?
Consider the following:
On Mar. 25 the N&O gave front page, above the fold, across the page headline treatment to the accuser’s anonymous interview. The N&O's public editor later said the N&O’s story didn’t break any news in the interview. Everything that was reported, the public editor said, was already in the police records and publicly available.
Really? Then how does the N&O justify page one, five column headline treatment for such a story and then turn around and report in the “B” section with a one column head Professor Coleman’s demand that Durham DA Nifong step aside because he’s too compromised?
When was the last time a Duke Law professor said a Durham DA needed to step aside and turn a very important case over to an outside prosecutor?
That’s a page one, above the fold headline story. Something like that in such a prominent case hasn’t happened in decades. Or maybe ever.
More N&O underreporting:
There’s been no N&O follow up to Coleman’s statement. Why?
Shouldn’t the N&O be asking other North Carolina law school profs what they think of Coleman’s statement? And how about retired judges? What are their thoughts?
More tomorrow.
_____________________________
Post URL:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODBiOWRjOTcyOTJiOGJhNWMyMjNlYWVkNzYxMjRmNTQ=
2 comments:
I followed up your powerful post at Ruth's Metro Blog with this today. Ruth, your columns often presume some form of moral authority, some well-honed wisdom of what is right and wrong...be it Walmart or awarding scholarships. We are now getting some insight into your own morality, your own standard of values.
Your children will learn when they grow older what the community knows now. That after placing yourself front and center of the witch-hunt, you slink in silence to the back of the mob now. Rightoues and raucous, your voice at the beginning of this debacle was one of the loudest. "You're a dead man walking" is shouted to other mothers' sons, ...based in part on your powerful words.
"We know you know."
Any decent person would step forward now and admit...you DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING. But you hide behind fluff and nonsense, cowering behind one "cutsey" column after the next. Go read that powerful, classic play "All my Sons" to see the only anti-hero to compare with yourself.. "Yes, in a way ",that man says "they were all my sons. " Colin, Reade, and Dave.
Readers see your attempts to turn your eyes from your own ressponsibility. Waaah! I get nasty E-mails! How tragic. Is your child falsely accused of a crime, recieving death threats, facing life in prison? Too bad about the E-mails.
You post links to a website for "Your sister survivor."..but have not the decency to link to one of the many that exist for the boys.
Please do not tell us you are waiting to see all the evidence. You were not waiting when you wrote "We know you know."
Readers will remember your silence now, your inability to write the piece all of Durham and all of America knows you owe us. You are a coward. And in time your own children will know of your shame.
Ruth, the silence is sickening.
Joan,
First, thank you for your nice words.
I take them as coming from a person who's a superb writer.
That's not just me saying that. I'm sure you've seen what others are saying at Sheehan's blog.
I'm glad people are calling her.
In the old days Sheehan and those like her could say whatever they wanted in the papers and dump critical letters in the waste basket.
But now that declining circulation and revenues are forcing MSM news organizations to force their columnists out into the blogosphere, things are a lot tougher for Sheehan and those like her.
There was such justice in the first comment at Sheehan's new blog being from that Duke lacrosse mother (bless her).
Well, now we're being told Sheehan is planning another DL column for tomorrow, Monday.
We shall see what she writes.
One things for sure: She heard from some people, you in the first rank, who have told her things that should help her avoid the kinds of things she did in attacking the players and Coach Pressler.
Let's see if she's learned anything.
Best,
John
Post a Comment