Monday, July 31, 2006

Duke lacrosse: Letter to Durham H-S Editor Ashley

Readers' Note: I'm sending Durham Herald Sun Editor Bob Ashley the email below along with a link to this post. I'll offer to publish on the "main page" any reply he makes.

John
_____________________________________________

July 31, 2006

Bob Ashley, Editor
Durham Herald Sun

Re: Your column, "Has the lacrosse case induced insanity?" (July 23)

Dear Editor Ashley:

I blog as John in Carolina. I’ve lived in and around Durham for almost thirty-three years. Like you, I’m a Duke alum.

I publish often on the Duke lacrosse hoax, especially that portion of media coverage that has turned what should have been a fair, thorough police investigation into something hideously different: A series of monumental injustices that have damaged the lives of innocent people and shaken citizens’ faith in Durham’s police, its DA, our court system and much of our area media.

Public opinion was once strongly against the players. Remember the pot bangers? And remember how many approved the Raleigh N&O’s Apr. 2 publication of “vigilante” poster; and your publication on Apr. 9 of the Rev. Canon Dr. Sam Wells’ Apr. 2 Duke Chapel sermon?

Now public opinion has changed and you don’t like it. You blame defense attorneys. You say:

The Herald-Sun [has] tried to consistently remind [readers] that the defense attorneys are releasing just what fragments of the total evidence they choose to make public.
Only “fragments from defense attorneys? What misleading nonsense!

There’s been an avalanche of evidence made public. Almost all of it comes from Nifong and the police, who were forced by law to disclose it.

It’s that evidence that’s influenced public opinion.

You supported gathering DNA from the 46 white Duke lacrosse players. Nifong, whom you endorsed in the primary and continue to support, promised the community the DNA results would identify the guilty.

Public opinion began to shift dramatically in the players favor when the DNA lab results found not a single match to any of them. Attorneys talking didn’t cause that shift; the lab report caused it.

Nifong then ordered a second round of DNA testing.

The only positive match the second round produced was to the accuser’s boyfriend’s semen.

You can’t blame that finding and the further shift in opinion it caused on the defense attorneys unless somehow you're ready to argue one of them is the boyfriend.

The “indentification process” used to “pick any three” has angered and revolted decent citizens. They reacted that way not because of anything the defense attorneys told them, but because they read part or all of the Durham Police Department's own records of its “pick any three” ID procedure.

Here’s how Duke Law Professor James E. Coleman Jr. described and analyzed the procedure:
According to the police account of the identification, however, the police officer who presided over the proceedings told the alleged victim at the outset that he wanted her to look at people the police had reason to believe attended the party.

Thus, the police not only failed to include people they knew were not suspects among the photographs shown the woman, they told the witness in effect that there would be no such "fillers" among the photographs she would see.

This strongly suggests that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice. (bold added)

The prosecutor would not care if the pre-trial identification was subsequently thrown out by the court. The accuser would identify them at trial by pointing to the three defendants seated in front of her as the three men who assaulted her. The prosecutor would argue that she had an independent basis (independent of the identifications thrown out) for doing so.
Editor Ashley, there are many tens of thousands of us in Durham, including Herald Sun readers, who don’t need a defense attorney to tell us what to call a police lineup procedure in which “[a]ny three students would do [and there was] no wrong choice.”

We call it a frame-up.

What do you call it?

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now, now, JinC, it's not polite to drive a person to drink before 5pm, you know that!

I think you nailed it all right.

One other thought: I bet the Gang of Three (Nifong, Baker, and whoever is/was running the Durham Police Department) wishes she'd picked a different group of three!

-AC

Anonymous said...

Dear John in NC--

The following is an excerpt from a post at http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/05/general-topics-8-full.html (3:39 PM, July 30, 2006 post) pointing out factual errors from a Herald Sun editorial--

[begin excerpt] "Cheek says 'no' to challenge, sort of

"http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-756589.html

Some factual issues regarding Mr Cheek but also contains comments on the lacrosse. I sent the following email to the publisher, editor, managing editor and editorial page editor:

Subject: 7/30 Editorial "Cheek says 'no' to challenge, sort of

Date: Sun 07/30/06 12:26 PM

Since this 'editorial' is not credited as the opinion of any particular writer, I am submitting to all of you the inaccuracies in this "report". If this is an opinion piece, why do you not not state whose opinion??.

Since this is more obviously a 'report' merely published on the opinion page... I would like to see corrections published in the opinion section of this paper - correcting the factual inaccuracies I'll identify below. As a citizen of Durham, I listened to both Mr. Cheek's and Mr. Nifong's statement in interest. After reading your editorial it did not jibe with my memory of Mr. Cheek's statements so I listened to the full press conference and follow up questions linked at WRAL

(http://www.wral.com/video/9584242/detail.html)


The first factual error in your your 'article':


"Yet he still withheld a formal decision on whether he would actually campaign for the office."When in fact Mr. Cheek stated on several occasions that he would not campaign for the office.

Some quotes include "I will not run a campaign." and "I'm not going to have any further connection with the campaign, with the election, with anything after I finish answering questions today.. "

Second, your article implies that Mr. Cheek says supporters shouldn't vote for him after all "Cheek said being district attorney would be too much of a distraction from the business of his Durham law firm, so supporters shouldn't vote for him after all.

"When in fact Mr. Cheek said "The people will be able to directly state whether they are satisfied with the status quo. They will state that themselves." "In June the people spoke with signatures on a petition. In November the people will speak with votes at the ballot box." Further Mr. Cheek says "I want to emphasize to you that what I am saying is that the people will speak. Lewis Cheek isn't going to be speaking. Its up to every individual voter to make up his/her decision on what they might believe is the right thing to do.

"Lewis Cheek absolutely DID NOT say that his supporters shouldn't vote for him after all. This is a grossly inaccurate statement (to say the least). He spoke very clearly about what he thought the voters should do. You've done the Durham community a HUGE disservice with your misstatements/lies.As to the opinions (again, whose opinions I'd like to know):

The article says that 'some people will continue to urge voters to cast their ballot for such a candidate' which 'tends to cheapen and demean the seriousness of the political process'. While this may be someone's opinion, I say that this is what our political process is all about. Let the citizens of Durham speak. It is obvious (based on the hugely successful petition drive) that as many as 15,000 Durham citizens are NOT happy with the status quo and want an alternative. [end excerpt]

Maybe editor Bob Ashley can explain this as well if/when he responds.

Anonymous said...

John-- Here's another example of misreporting you can ask the editor about--

From the July 31, 2006 Herald Sun:

Lawyers haggle over DNA matches

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun

jstevenson@heraldsun.com

Jul 31, 2006 : 9:22 pm ET

DURHAM -- Semen found in the house where three Duke lacrosse players allegedly raped an exotic dancer matches the DNA of two team members, but lawyers disagree about its potential impact on the unfolding case.

The previously undisclosed matches [FALSE! see N&O article from April 11 in following section], one involving indicted rape suspect David Evans and the other involving a player not charged, have been confirmed by several sources close to the case.

According to the sources, semen on a towel was DNA-linked to Evans.

The only previously reported DNA link to Evans involved a fake acrylic fingernail found in a trashcan at the North Buchanan Boulevard house. [FALSE! See N&O article from April 11]


_____________________________________

From the April 11, 2006 News and Observer:

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/427550.html

"They also found no DNA on the woman's clothing or belongings, players' attorneys said. ****The tests found DNA matches to two players, from a towel outside the bathroom and on another object, Cheshire said.****

****One sample was from a player's semen**** and another was a different type of DNA, Cheshire said. He said that was to be expected in a bathroom shared by the three men who lived in the house."
____________________________________
The N-H also failed to mention that NCCU law professor, Irving Joyner, IS MONITORING THE CASE FOR THE NAACP!

http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060419/UPDATES01/604190352

[from the April 19,2006 Daily Record] The faculty is involved, too. Irving Joyner, an N.C. Central law professor, is monitoring the case as requested by the state chapter of the NAACP.

"It was important that arrests were made and more that it was explained why (additional) arrests weren't made," said Joyner, who teaches criminal law, civil rights and race and the law.
The police report described the alleged victim as saying she was raped by three men.

"I don't think people were necessarily pushing for arrests but were pushing for some show that there is concern."

Joyner was in touch with state NAACP leaders.

"My assessment," he said, "was that things are moving forward. We're now on track. And we'll just have to wait and see what happens next."

Anonymous said...

John,

Posted Aug 2 at the N&O:

JOHN IN CAROLINA COMMENTARY

With the skill of a practiced surgeon, John In Carolina eviscerates the confused ramblings of Herald-Sun Editor Bob Ashley. Here is but a sample:

Now public opinion has changed and you don’t like it. You blame defense attorneys. You say:

The Herald-Sun [has] tried to consistently remind [readers] that the defense attorneys are releasing just what fragments of the total evidence they choose to make public.

Only “fragments from defense attorneys? What misleading nonsense!

There’s been an avalanche of evidence made public. Almost all of it comes from Nifong and the police, who were forced by law to disclose it.

It’s that evidence that’s influenced public opinion.

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/07/duke-lacrosse-letter-to-durham-h-s.html


And how does Ashley and the Herald-Sun reply to JinC’s criticisms? With a fact-based, point-by-point response directly to JinC; no, that would take courage and honesty. Instead, the Herald-Sun continues to support the rogue DA with this:

Nifong has been, fairly or not, roundly criticized for his words by some who have accused him of trying to be prosecutor, judge and jury in the early days of the lacrosse case. He initially granted several dozen interviews and told some reporters that he was convinced that a group of Duke lacrosse players raped an exotic dancer during a wild off-campus party in March.

[Snipped for brevity. See the remainder at the N&O The Editor's Blog.]

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-757239.html

ME

Anonymous said...

Happy Money Making Famous Quotes.... Waste your money and your only out your money,but waste your time and your out part of your life... Michael Leoboeuf

Inflation is when you pay fifteen dollars for the ten dollar hair cut you used to get for five dollars when you had hair... Sam Ewing

If You Find a need to become part of the personal development so you make a few extra bucks.. go to http://7day2success.com/ ....personal development...personal development....

Live a better life today..