Responding to Readers’ Comments – 7 - 2 - 06

(Readers’ Note: Comments at JinC are growing. Some raise issues I should post on but can’t because of lack of time. So I’m going to post brief responses here to part or all of reader comments that I might otherwise post on. I'm going to try this for a week or so and see how it works.

Reader comments are indented. My responses follow. JinC)

Regarding the Raleigh News & Observer’s publication of the infamous “vigilante poster” after warnings that doing so would endanger the 43 lacrosse players pictured on it, a reader asks:

When …[the N&O} published the so-called vigilante poster libeling the members of the Duke lacrosse team, who provided the poster to [N&E exec editor for news Melanie] Sill’s newspaper?

That’s a very important question. I've asked four people at the N&O that question and they won't say. One of the four is N&O public editor Ted Vaden.

I hope you and others ask Vaden that question. Maybe you'll have more luck than I've had. You can email him at ted.vaden@newsobserver.com

Recently on the thread to her post, "Duke case coverage," Sill spoke to readers about N&O sourcing and "on the record material." Here from the thread with the relevant part of Sill's comment:

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.com
06/20/06 at 21:57

As I've said in other posts, I think what distinguishes our work has been original reporting, primary sourcing and on the record material.(bold added)

If what Sill said was true, we would all know the answer to the question.

BTW – It was three months today that the N&O published the "vigilante poster."

Now this question:

With few exceptions, why have the major Carolina newspapers done so little to investigate the investigators and Nifong in light of the overwhelming indication that justice is not being served?

I don’t know for certain and I don’t want to speculate right now. But you’re asking a very good question we should all be asking again and again until they do.

Has Sill ever explained why her newspaper referred to the accuser as the "victim" numerous times?

I assume you mean referred to the accuser as “victim” without qualifying it with “alleged” or “reported.” If that’s the case, this post, "Duke lacrosse: McClatchy editor is unbelievable," will interest you.

Read this analysis by an attorney and legal expert,[Jonna Spilbor], on possibly even worse news for Nifong. Based on Nifong's statements at his numerous early press conferences, he may have given up his own immunity to prosecution. Here's the link.

I’ve posted on Spilbor at least once urging folks to take a look at her columns. What she says seems reasonable to me, but I’m not an attorney.

We need in North Carolina for some law professor’s to start speaking out to help inform the public as to the law, customary legal practices, and their own opinions of actions that have left thoughtful citizens asking what “justice in Durham” is.

Is there any legal way to deal with an out-of-control prosecutor? And what about the role of Judge Stephens?

Historian KC Johnson's excellent post, Roy Cooper's Silence, deals with both questions. I link to Johnson in this post.

What's the real story on the Durham police chief?

We’d all like to know. The public explanation is that Chief Steve Chalmers’ mother is very ill and he’s taking care of her. It’s been months since he’s been seen in public but we're told he's following the case just like the rest of us.

How exactly did Nifong originally get appointed to his position?

He served in Durham for more than 20 years as an Asst. DA. When the DA, Ron Stephens, vacated his office to accept a seat on the Superior Court bench, Gov. Mike Easley appointed Nifong to serve out the remainder of Stephens’ term.

And yes, the Duke lacrosse Judge and former DA Ron Stephens are the same person.

I'll end today responding to this comment unrelated to Duke lacrosse

[A program's] just lambasted the Democrats for promoting a “Cut & Run” program in Iraq. Of course we now see General Casey has a program to reduce the troop strength, just in time for the elections. Are these same people going to lambaste General Casey? I wonder how are troops in Iraq would feel about troop reductions, if they actually got the whole story?

I listened to all of General Casey's announcement (Secretary Rumsfeld at his side) and the reporter Q&A which followed.

Casey said he was announcing a phased withdrawal that was contingent on the new Iraqi government's ability to successfully defend itself. He and Rumsfeld stressed the importance of that contingency. They also said that during the troop drawdown there would be periods during which troop numbers in Iraq actually would increase because troops being replaced would remain after their replacements came in so as to assure a proper turnover.

What Casey announced wasn't "Cut and Run" so I hope he's not lambasted.