Today’s Raleigh News & Observer carries a 2700 word front-page story on Durham DA Mike Nifong, the lead actor in a series of media, Duke University, and Durham Police and DA office travesties that have resulted in monumental injustices, most notably the indictments of David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann.
I don’t have time to systematically assess the story. But here are a few “observations.”
A Word seach of the story reveals the N&O never once uses the words “victim” or “victim’s”
By my hand count, the N&O 18 times refers to the Duke hoaxer as either “the accuser,” “the woman” or with the feminine pronoun. I did not count the times the N&O referred to the hoaxer by other terms such as “dancer.”
In the N&O’s Mar. 24 front-page story - the first media report to link “Duke lacrosse” to some of the contradictory claims the hoaxer had been making for 10 days - the N&O seven times referred to the hoaxer as either “the victim” or with the possessive “the victim’s.”
In today’s story we read:
The News & Observer generally does not identify complainants in sexual assault cases.But back on Mar. 25 when N&O reporters and editors were working diligently to cast the hoaxer as “the victim” while framing the Duke Men’s lacrosse team as composed of three gang-rapists and their teammates who were refusing to help the police identify the rapists, the N&O told readers:
It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify the victims of sex crimes.The third paragraph in today's story begins
He was so confident in the accuser's story and his case that he refused to meet with lawyers who said they could prove players' innocence. (bold added).How do Reporter Ben Niolet and his editors know confidence is what motivated Nifong to refuse to meet with attorneys? Couldn't his refusal have been for other reason(s)?
Of course it could!
Niolet and the editor’s “confident” claim is opinion masked as news reporting. You find that all the time in the N&O’s “news columns.”
The N&O “confident” claim enables it to avoid mentioning that Nifong had a sworn duty to meet with attorneys to seek out exculpatory evidence that might prove the lacrosse players innocent.
I'll end here.
What do you all think of the story?
13 comments:
I think the article reads like an ode penned by some PR flack on Nifong's personal payroll. Has the N and O now officially become the media arm of Nifong's political campaign?
I find it interesting that Nifong has been reported as having so much confidence in the 'accusers'
story when it is my understanding that he has actually NEVER, NOT ONCE, spoken with her directly!!!!
How can this be?
I have written the N&O to request confirmation of their statement that Nifong has not heard the AV's story.
The biggest thing to me is - Nifong hasn't heard the accuser tell her story. How can he judge her credibility and be so confident in her story if he hasn't heard it?
This is a story he wants the jury to accept as fact. He wants to put three young men in jail for 50 years based on this story. And yet seven months later he hasn't bothered to sit down with the accuser and hear her tell it.
I still don't understand how Nifong can claim he believes her when he never actually listened to her to tell her story. In March, already, Nifong was making proclamations that the rape occurred, yet he did not listen to her tell her story. Of course the only thing N&O can proclaim is that Nifong is so “confident.” Yet, this man who is making accusations of guilt based on his believe in the accuser never actually heard her to tell her story. Which one of her numerous versions of the story does Nifong believe? Cause he can’t possibly believe them all. Since he didn’t hear any of those versions, how does he come up with five minute vs. thirty minute timeline?
It’s very scary that someone that unstable was entrusted by the state of NC with power to destroy lives based on nothing but his believe in the story he never even heard from the accuser herself. And N&O seem happy to point out he had apparently done this before, going after some guy with no evidence, and using some erased tapes as evidence to try and put this guy in prison for years. The guy was acquitted, but instead of pointing out that Nifong is ruining lives taking people to trials on false allegations, N&O pats Nifong on the back, saying he is so “confident.”
I think it is important to verify when and how many times Nifong has met the accuser face-to-face. Also, it is not plausible that on the April 11 meeting the facts of the case were not discussed, as Nifong claims but Gottlieb refutes.
To anonymous 6:42
Nifong has this problem; he earlier told a judge that records of the April 11 meeting did not have to be turned over under discovery rules because the substance of the case itself was not discussed - only proceedural issues.
Nifong almost certainly DID listen to the AVs story at some point. However, denying that he had serves him in two ways" First, he does not have to turn over any records of the conversation(since it never happened, get it) and second he has an out, in his mind I suppose, when faced with civil litigation/ethics panels in regard to the apparent fact that he proceeded with a bogus case while knowing it was bogus. He wants to be able to claim ignorance of exculpatory facts available to him.
In other ways, he has wandered a long, long way from insisting on seeing "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" before letting loose the dogs.
If Mike Nifong has never heard the story directly from the accuser, then what is he basing his indictments upon?
From the DA's perspective, he has:
1) Multiple written statements from the accuser, each in conflict as to basic elements of timing, events and number of assailants.
2) No DNA.
3) No physical evidence or anything else supporting the accused in the report from the SANE nurse.
4) Multiple, conflicting non-identifications from photo lineups developed without conforming to procedural standards.
5) Contradicting statements from "Nikki".
6) No witnesses.
7) No evidence from the site of the alleged crime.
Right. He's been listening to what, exactly?
In perspective, this story is an improvement over the N&O stories of March 24-25. That, however, is saying little. The reporter fails to get much beyond the surface. When we need real reporting, all we get is superficial stuff. Sad.
My comment has more to do with good journalism practice. Even if he isn't running to win, wouldn't it have been standard practice in an election-year piece to look for comment from the other candidate.
Just as he did with the case in '94, Nifong intends to put the accuser on the stand and hear her story then. She better be ready because she will be subjected to cross examination. Just as he did in '94, when the defense blows holes in her story, he'll just ask if she is telling the truth now.
If you live in the area you might consider writing a letter to the editor regarding on specific issue such as his duty to listen to alibi evidence or whatever else you wish to say. The N&O *will* publish your letter if it isn't a total 'bashing' of the case but on a certain issue. Actually confining it to a certain issue gives the letter a greater impact (you also get more space to make your case rather than having to fit your entire analysis into 150 words or so).
I have sent letters to the editor all of which were published on this and other topics. I'm not interested in doing it again; new names are always a plus.
If you don't live in the area but have some magical letter send them a raleigh/durham/area address and an area code.
Nifong's unprofessional bahavior is unacceptable, but why are the judges (Stephens, Titus) enabling him?
Post a Comment