Thursday, August 03, 2006

Talking to JicC Regulars and Readers - 8-3-06

Sorry I didn’t get anything posted today besides this and that little "note" to N&O Editor Sill.

Travel always takes time from blogging.

Anyway, some thanks and news.

Thanks for the great comments, the links to places like talk left, Freepers, something called “Truth getting its pants on,” La Shawn Barber , Johnsville, KC Johnson and FODU among others.

Your comments and questions have helped sharpen my thinking and posts.

Example: Many of you have been asking about any liability the N&O might have for what it’s done to the lacrosse players and coaches, their families, and the community.

I been asking journalists and attorneys about that. I hope in a week or two I can say something that may shed a little light.

Another example: Reader comments and info put me on to the H-S fake story of "previously undisclosed [DNA] matches.]

I never made any contact this week with Durham City Mgr. Patrick Baker. I did get an email this afternoon from attorney Charns. He’s also not had any contact from Baker this week.

Charns and I are going to get together tomorrow so I can take another look at the public part of his CrimeStoppers file.

I want to nail down timelines regarding when the first CS poster was produced, how soon thereafter the N&O’s “vigilante” poster appeared, and just when DPD Maj. Lee Russ directed DPD Cpl. David Addison to change the first CS poster.

Russ' direction resulted in Addison producing a second, modified version of the first CS poster; which was again changed at Russ’ direction, that direction from Russ thereby leading to the production of a third version of the CS poster.

I also want to learn as much as I can regarding how the CS "wanted" poster production timelines fit with the production timelines of the N&O's "vigialnte" poster.

More on all of that over the weekend.

I heard back from Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley on my email follow-up to the post: "Duke lacrosse: A fake Herald Sun story?"

Ashley said he didn’t want to “debate news judgments” with me.

Of course, I didn’t ask Ashley about his news judgments. I asked him about the truthfulness of what he was claiming and telling readers: “previously undisclosed [DNA] matches.”

I also asked about the H-S's failure to ID Joyner and his connection to the Duke lacrosse matter.

I’ll get back to Ashley in a day or two.

I thank all of you who posted “go for it” and “here’s more info” comments here and at the Editor’s Blog re: The H-S non-story story. I hope you join in when I comment to Ashley.

And hey, if you don’t want to wait, let me be the first to say to you, “Go for it!”

I’ll post another Talking with JinC and Readers post tomorrow evening.

In the meantime, if anyone sees the fat, bald principle Durham Police investigator of the Duke lacrosse frame-up, please tell him to stop hanging out in sports bars and finish those investigative report notes he was supposed to have completed four months ago.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

More on Irving Joyner. I don't know if anyone posted this, but here's what he said in Sports Illustrated on 06/22:

"Nifong may have been engaging in some political showmanship at the beginning of the case. But that does not take away from the value of his evidence and the fact that he has probable cause to pursue the case. He still has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/06/22/duke0626/


As we know, Joyner is monitoring the case for the NC NAACP. The head of the NC NAACP Legal Redress Committee (McSurely) has tried to involve himself in the case. From the Wilmington Journal:

McSurely, who also heads up the NC NAACP's Legal Redress Committee, announced last week that he will file a motion for what is effectively known as a gag order to stop the defense attorneys from trying to either poison the potential jury pool, getting the trial moved out of Durham County, or so scaring the alleged victim, that she backs out of testifying.

Legal observers say, however, that McSurely and the NAACP will have to demonstrate legal standing in the case to the court in order for the motion to have any chance.

http://www.wilmingtonjournal.com/News/article/article.asp?NewsID=70042&sID=4

Anonymous said...

Well, surely McSurely (how can I resist) has legal standing to protect those poor boys.

After all, they're clearly being railroaded because of their color.

And don't try to claim that because the prosecutor is the same color that this can't happen - he's clearly a self hater.

Oh, wait, you mean the NAACP is on the other side? My bad, sorry.

-AC