Talking with JinC Regulars - 7 -13-06

(One of a series of posts in the original web log tradition: notes and "thinking out loud." These posts will be most easily understood by regular visitors and are But others are welcome. John)

First item:

J is a self-described “semi-regular.”

J commented in response to “Duke lacrosse: Police investigation questions. (Post 1)”

J provided a number of questions concerning the DL police investigation. If you haven’t read them, I hope you do.

J’s questions, asked in a matter of fact, on point, and brief form reveal considerable knowledge of the DL investigation and suggest the investigative background J claims is bona fide.

I promised J I’d give the questions a very close look, ask some clarifying questions, and then build a post on them. I didn’t do that.

My apologies, J.

I’ll review your questions this weekend, and post a response on the thread by Sunday morning.

In the meantime, I hope J and everyone else feels free to comment on the thread.

On another matter:

Did you all see the Durham Herald Sun’s July 8 story on Charns/CrimeStoppers?

I was glad new media attention is being paid to Charns’ request for a public apology by Dur. City and Police for the CrimeStoppers flyer telling the community the Duke lacrosse players weere multiple felony criminals. Also, to his request for an official investigation into its production and distribution.

That said, I had trouble following the sequence and substance of correspondence between Charns and public officials which the H-S discussed.

So I called Charns to nail down who has written what to whom when.

Bottom line: Charns agreed to let me sit down in his office and go through the public correspondence making notes and photo-copying as I wish, with the understanding I will share what I learn with you.

I’ll very likely do that sometime next week and pass on data to you ASAP.

Thank you, Alex.

Charns and I also agreed we’d refer to posters/flyers produced by CrimeStoppers as “Wanted” posters/flyers. We’re also going to refer to posters/flyers with the face photos of 43 Duke lacrosse players as “vigilante posters.”

It was a “vigilante poster” that the Raleigh News & Observer published on Apr. 2 with no reference to its source or any explanation for why it was published after warnings that doing so would endanger the players. Also, the N&O didn’t even mention its “vigilante poster” in the story it accompanied.

Something isn’t right, folks. The act of publishing the poster stunk. Now the N&O's refusal to explain why it published such an inciteful phote without even referencing it in the news story it was supposed to "support and explain" stinks like a 1000 acre hog farm.

I hope you’ll continue to ask N&O exec news editor Melanie Sill why the N&O published the “vigilante poster” and how it “got into” the N&O newsroom and was approved for publication. Lots of stories about that are going around all three corners of the Research Triangle.

Final item:

KC Johnson’s latest post is extraordinary. Here’s part of what Betsy Newmark says about it:

Historian Robert K. C. Johnson has done a great bit of research to answer a question that I've been wondering about.

We know that there have been a lot of questions about the procedure used in the lineup that led the woman in the Duke lacrosse story to identify three of the players.

Under orders from Mike Nifong, the police presented her with pictures of only the team's players with no filler photos. The police told her that she was just going to see pictures of men who were at the party. All this violates the procedures that were adopted in 2003 by the Actual Innocence Commission (AIC).

“b) The individual conducting the photo or live lineup should not know the identity of the actual suspect. This is called a double-blind procedure and addresses misidentifications resulting from unintentional influences from those conducting the identification procedure.”

”c) Witnesses should be instructed that the suspect may or may not be in the lineup.”

”d) A minimum of eight photos should be used in photo identification procedures.”

I had wondered how anomalous Durham's lineup procedure was for North Carolina.

Well, K.C. has done that research by communicating with district attorneys and police departments across the state to ask them simply what procedures they use in lineups.

And, no surprise, they ALL follow guidelines similar to what the AIC guidelines recommend.

That’s right, Betsy and JinC Regulars, all but one.

KC’s research and conclusions are just what the N&O likes to tell people it “digs up” and reports on.

So why didn’t the N&O do any of that?

Putting that very important question aside for now, why isn’t the N&O interviewing KC ?

Why isn’t any “news organization” in North Carolina interviewing KC Johnson, one of America's outstaning historians?

And why aren’t North Carolina news organizations asking NC Attorney General Roy Cooper questions about AIC and the conduct of his fellow Democrat , Durham DA Mike Nifong?

It can’t be that Cooper isn’t available to the press. He wants to be the next Governor. He’s “currying” the press right now.

So why isn’t the press asking Cooper tough questions?

It makes you wonder, doesn’t it.

More soon.

Thanks for your continuing interest in JinC.