Did the Raleigh N&O withhold news of the Duke captains’ cooperation?

We now know that the three Duke lacrosse captains who rented the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. voluntarily gave the police statements; submitted to “rape kit” testing; offered to take lie detector tests; and even helped police identify and locate others who were at the party.

But the Raleigh News & Observer’s Mar. 24 story reporting the lacrosse players had submitted to DNA testing - the story the N&O says “broke” the Duke lacrosse case - made no mention of the captains’ cooperation.

The N&O's Mar. 25 front-page, hugely sympathetic, anonymous “victim” interview story also said nothing about the captains’ cooperation. In fact, the N&O told readers authorities had "vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity."

The N&O followed that with a statement that it granted anonymity to “victims of sex crimes," dispensing altogether with any qualifying “alleged," just as, in its Mar. 24 story, it said seven times the woman was "the victim" or used the possessive "the victim's," never qualifying any of the seven with “alleged.”

The N&O's Mar. 24 and 25 stories captured the nation's attention. People bought into its portrayal of the accuser as a hard working student and mother who was brutally gang-raped, beaten and strangled as she sought to earn money to support her two small children. They also bought into the N&O’s portrayal of the Duke students as her victimizers who were even then refusing to cooperate with police.

The N&O’s reporting in those and similarly biased and inflammatory stories it published the next few days so poisoned the public’s mind that when Ruth Sheehan's Mar. 27 N&O column ("Teams' silence is sickening") appeared, it was seen by many people as a righteous expression of "community outrage," instead of what we now know it to have been: a McCarthyite screed attacking the students for doing nothing more than following the advice of their counsels.

But what if the N&O had reported at least something about the captains’ cooperation with the police?

If the N&O had done that, would that have reduced the "community outrage" that reached such a pitch that the Mayor of Durham, the Chancellor of NC Central University, and the President of Duke University felt compelled to take full page ads in newspapers, including the N&O, calling on the community to remain calm and allow the justice system to work?

Certainly any news report about the captains’ cooperation wouldn’t have made any difference to people like Duke faculty's Group of 88, the Trinity Park pot bangers, the New Black Panthers, and most people who call themselves "victim's rights" and "civil rights" activists.

But a lot of normally sensible people who got swept up in the witch hunt hysteria would have paused if they'd known of the captains' cooperation. I think they’d have said something like the following to themselves and other sensible people: "Maybe there's more here. Let's hold off on judgment. The media are so often wrong. And the N&O has a terrible history of inflaming race, gender and class issues."

With what you’ve read so far in mind, let's turn now to Duke's student newspaper, The Chronicle.

On Mar. 21, three day before the N&O claims it "broke" the Duke lacrosse story, The Chronicle reported :

[Durham Police Sgt. Mark] Gottlieb said any man that attended the party March 13 would be a viable suspect but refused to go into further detail.

The residents of the house have been cooperative with DPD in locating any suspects, he added.

(Readers, You may be wondering how The Chronicle could report on the Duke lacrosse story on Mar. 21 if the N&O, as it claims, “broke” it on Mar. 24. I’ll deal with that question at the end of this post. Right now I want to get back to the matter of whether the N&O withheld from readers news of the captains’ cooperation. John)

A customized search of the N&O’s archives for the period 3/13/2006 through 3/24/2006 reveals that twice before Mar. 24 the N&O reported on events alleged to have occurred in the Buchanan Blvd. house the night of Mar. 13/14.

The first story appeared on Mar. 18; the second story appeared the following day. They are both brief, and they both report on statements by Sgt. Gottlieb.

Here’s the N&O's Mar. 18 story:

Woman reports sexual assault

Police were investigating a report of a rape on Buchanan Boulevard near the Duke University campus Friday. .. A young woman told police she visited 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. Monday and was assaulted by three men, according to police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb... Anyone with information is asked to call Investigator B.W. Himan at 560-4582, ext. 229

Now here's the N&O's Mar. 19 story:

Alleged rape was at party, police said

Police offered more details Saturday in the investigation of a young woman's report she was raped by three men at a party Monday near the Duke University campus.

The woman told police early Tuesday morning that she had gone to a house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. the night before for a party, said Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

While at the party, she was raped by three men, she reported to police.

Gottlieb described the party as a mix of college students and non-students. In total, there were about 30 people there at the time, he said.

"It was an act where alcohol was involved," Gottlieb said.

It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify victims of reported sexual crimes.

Like its Mar. 24 and 25 stories, the N&O’s Mar. 18 and 19 stories say nothing about the captains’ cooperation.

Yet The Chronicle reported on at least some of that cooperation on Mar. 21 and cited Sgt. Gottlieb as its source; the same Sgt. Gottlieb the N&O cites as a source in its Mar. 18 and 19 stories. Why no mention in the N&O of cooperation by the captains?

I'll bet you agree it's fair to ask:

Didn’t Sgt. Gottlieb say anything about the captains’ cooperation to N&O reporters before the Mar. 18 and 19 stories?

And don't reporters routinely ask about the cooperation of people in whose homes crimes are alleged to have occured?

When did the N&O first learn about of the captains’ cooperation?

What was it the N&O learned?

When did the N&O tell readers what it learned?

What’s more, we should be asking:

When did the N&O first learn the captains had voluntarily given the police statements; voluntarily submitted to rape kit testing; offered to take lie detector tests; and helped identify and locate others who were at the party?

Whne did the N&O report that news to readers?

Those questions need answering, just as questions about the N&O’s publication of the infamous “vigilante poster” need answering.

I hope readers ask them at the Editor’s Blog where the N&O’s exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, is supposed to answer questions but has mostly been misleading readers when she's not ignoring there questions.

Sill should answer the questions asked here and others like: Who was the source of the "vigilante poster" the N&O published? Why did the N&O publish it only a few weeks after it refused to publish any of the Danish cartoons? Why was it OK to endanger the lacrosse players?

The N&O’s Apr. 2 story which accompanied the “vigilante poster” doesn’t even mention the poster. So what news purpose was served by publishing it? Many readers think it was just intended to slime the players.

Is the N&O ever going to apologize to the players and their families for publishing a poster that endangered the players?

The N&O’s executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, says she’s “proud” of the N&O’s Duke lacrosse coverage which she’s called “fair,” “accurate,” and “deep.”

But for all of that puffery, Sill’s refused to answer many questions readers are asking at McClatchy’s Editor’s Blog, the site where she supposed to answer those questions.

I hope readers keep asking questions at the Editor's Blog including :

When did the N&O start learning about the captains’ cooperation?

What did it learn?

And when did it report what it knew to readers?

Full disclosure: I no longer comment at the Editor's Blog following months of threats by Sill to bar me from the blog.

I don't think she had cause to bar me; I believe she was just bothered that I keep asking the sort of fact-based, evidence-supported questions I asked in this post.

But her repeated threats reached the point where they became harassment.

My hat is off to the many people at the Editor's Blog who are asking tough, informed questions.

I hope they keep it up.