Readers, bloggers and journalists (a few publicly, many privately) are asking questions about the Raleigh News & Observer’s now discredited Mar. 25 front-page story:
Dancer gives details of ordealBelow are ten questions I just left for Melanie Sill, N&O executive editor for news at the Editors’ Blog. I’ve been asking some of them for months; others are new.
A woman hired to dance for the Duke lacrosse team describes a night of racial slurs, growing fear and, finally, sexual violence
I'm going to keep asking these 10 and other questions until the N&O provides answers.
______________________________________________
Dear Melanie,
I’ve 10 questions for you.
On 10/06/06 at 15:40 you say:
“We got the woman identified as the victim and interviewed her. As Linda notes, it wasn't an extensive or extensively planned interview -- it was boots on the street hustle to track down the key players.”
1 - In the Durham community with 250,000 people, “boots on the street” didn’t lead you to the accuser. Someone who knew who she was and where she was led you to her either directly or with address information. Most likely the person(s) was someone who could reach the accuser quickly and “arrange” for the interview. Who was that person(s)?
2 - What was that person’s motive for leading your reporter to the accuser?
3 - Was that person a member of either the Durham Police Department (I include as a member of the DPD Cpl. David Addison who, while assigned full-time to CrimeStoppers, is a sworn DPD officer) or the Durham District Attorney’s office, including DA Nifong?
4 - Was the interview audio taped, which is common practice with an interview of such critical importance, especially as what was said could be relevant to a then ongoing police investigation and possible subsequent indictments and trials?
5 - If the interview was audio taped, what can you tell us about the custody and condition of the tape; and whether there is anything about the technical nature of the tape that would prevent you from releasing it to the public with only the accuser and her family’s IDs removed?
6 - If the interview was not audio taped, why not?
7 - You say you didn’t publish those parts of the interview that concerned remarks made by the accuser about the second dancer, Kim Roberts, because the remarks were unsubstantiated. But as many readers on this thread have demonstrated, you published a great number of unsubstantiated statements you say the accuser made about the lacrosse players.
Whose interests are you serving by refusing to inform the public of the parts of the interview you suppressed on Mar. 25?
8 - On what day did the N&O first learn of the extensive, voluntary cooperation the three Duke lacrosse captains provided police on Mar. 16, including signed statements, going to DUMC for “rape kit” testing, helping police ID and locate others who were at the party, etc?
9 - On what day and in what detail did the N&O report to readers the cooperation the captains provided the police and the fact that the court order for 46 lacrosse players to submit to DNA testing and “mug photos” could have been appealed, but that not a single one of the 46 exercised his right of appeal (not even the ones who weren’t in Durham the night of the party)?
10 - What’s your definition of news suppression?
Yes, Melanie, some of the questions are ones I first asked month ago. But you haven’t answered them. It’s time you did.
Sincerely,
John
www.johnincarolina.com
12 comments:
IF the N&O tpaed the interview, let's hope that Niofng doesn't know of its existence - that guarantees its disappearance.
My guess is, the March 25 story is being scrubbed - if it hasn't been destroyed.
Todd Glosson
Duke - Class of 1984
I am including my entire name as Melanie Sills says it promotes civil discourse
In brief: it is my belief that there was no tape because of the way the 'interview' happened. I believe that the N&O has chosen to partially disclose that the AV went on a rant (which definately isn't what the N&O calls it) but will never put it in the paper (right now read on). To do so would seriously undermine the credibility of the paper. If they were to do so they may have be forced to give a broad outline of the 'interview' (which I believe was at her door and it lasted around 2 minutes). She also doesn't enjoy ANY PROTECTION FROM THE REPORTER. I would imagine that the DEFENSE SUBPOENAS THE NOTES OF THE REPORTER and CALLS THE REPORTER TO TESTIFY if there is a trial. This would seriously undermine the AV and the N&O. Nifong's claim that the AV was too upset to discuss the case for weeks would be destroyed and the defence may be able to introduce yet another 'story' that the AV told, ie, what exactly Kim stole from her. She'd also appear as if she cared only about the money and not that she was raped which is apparently what a large part of the 'interview' (one way conversation) was about.
As for the address? I think the N&O got it from the escort agency or purchased it from one of her 'drivers', 'friends', OR ON THE SCANNER etc. Yes, they would have paid at the time. The scanner is a distinct possibility; many news organizations RECORD the conversations their scanners pick up. Once they realized what happened they would probably have gotten a name at some point. It doesn't have to be a dispatch to the station - you'd probably pick it up on traffic between two patrolmen. Yes, I have used scanners in the past and yes the police are much less guarded when they are talking to each other. I SERIOUSLY doubt that they wanted her in the paper at that point. Another possibility would be that the N&O has 'contacts' within the DPD that 'provide' information when asked (money). This wouldn't be the first time.
John,
I mentioned this in the last thread but in that case it was addressing why 'you' have a problem with the N&O. I am glad you devoted a post to this issue. That said I believe there is no audio tape simply because I have had a visual image of what this interview was like since I learned it lasted less than two minutes. The 'interview' almost certainly took place at the front door and was probably one way, ie, AV spewing hate at the N&O reporter. If you wonder why the N&O wouldn't report the other things that she apparently said then it's probably the case that she would have been seen as a person who believed there was a conspiracy against her (take her money). She would have been viewed as concerned about money not the case. It's my belief that in some twisted way the AV thought hurling the accusations would help her get her money 'back' (ie police). It probably did.
The N&O had outrageous articles at the time followed by Sheehan's sort of apology and then full apology (as full as we will get) that basically said that 'we report what we know, we can't know what's hidden'. In this case the N&O reported one part of what it knew and hid the part that would have 'balanced' the coverage.
If you remember this interview was an exclusive which was something that the N&O knew would sell papers on the streets (where they make the most money - not home delivery). If they had reported what she said and her demeanor people would probably have thought she was unbalanced and such a story is not worth buying a paper for.
There is another aspect of the 'interview' that really troubles me: the descriptions of the AV during the 'interview'. What I am referring to is the softly, drifting voice and the it was a job type quote. The one where she seemed vulnerable and reserved. That would be a flat out lie if she was raving against Kim during those same few minutes. The imagery itself was reprehensible; the N&O almost never uses such words to describe how someone acts in the crime victim stories. One recent one was the story on the child that was killed which was in the Saturday? N&O (the 'mixed race' guy who claims the 'white' guy also helped kill her - note the descriptions are the N&Os not mine). They interviewed the dad but they never gave him the kind of 'voice' that the AV was given and he was discussing his kid's death, the possibility of a second killer, and the torching of the home they had because it brought such horrible memories for them.
The N&O viewed this as a way to increase sales. Now they are back to 'real' reporting (to a degree). The metro staff, however, are not - they seem bitter about the whole affair. Only Neff produces articles that cast real doubt on the credibility of Nifong/the case/the accuser/etc. The two women that initially reported still pretend that their coverage was fair (per emai contact) .
John,
I also wanted to ask you about what you see in the 'future' as far as the lacrosse case is concerned. Obviously we will see the case thrown out, a not guilty verdict, or a guilty verdict (I will go with the first two with the last being a possible reverse discrimination verdict).
Let's assume that the case is thrown out or they are found not guilty. If it is thrown out would you agree that the probability that the oversight and laws governing investigations, prosecutions, etc are less likely to be strengthened than by an aquittal? An aquittal sounds much more dramatic (from a politician's point of view anyway) as would the inevitable lawsuit against Nifong and Durham following the trial (or if the case is tossed).
So we have dramatic case found to be a hoax + massive potential claims against Durham for gross misconduct on the part of the police and DA's office (sue the city manager as well) + lots of parents who then realize 'it could happen to my kids too'. I'd also add the ability of politicians to 'judge' what would be relatively painless but popular (making us look less like a joke to our peers while pillaging Nifong).
Quite a bit has been made about whether Nifong can be sued as the bar Nifong had to cross to allow such a suit was very very high. I think he's there but I'm not sure a judge would agree (the fraternal order of former DAs/ADAs). Regardless the city of Durham could be liable for millions in legal bills plus punitive damages. The investigators, Nifong (in official and personal capacity anyway), the city manager (for effectively ordering cops to get their stories to match one another), etc.
Passing a law to prevent an out of control tax payer from costing the tax payers millions would probably go over well. It would probably go over even better if the state were forced to pay (which I hope won't happen).
I'd also like to see Nifong have to defend himself and the city have to spend some real money on the city's defence. They could rack up millions in legal bills which might make them think twice about playing with justice in the future.
So yes, I'm interested in the 'what happens after it's all over' scenarios. I don't think we can get the same reform that we did over the horrible false prosecution of the guy put on death row but we might get at least a little bit. A right to a speedy trial would be one of the few things on my list...
sorry 'out of control prosecutor' should have been inserted in the above posting before 'costing taxpayers millions'.
John,
One question about Nifong's loan to his own campaign: what was it secured against (if anything)? Loaning yourself ~30k in cash is one thing but loaning yourself ~30k in cash secured to your home can be much more painful.
How much is nifong's home worth? Year he bought it? Was the 30k equity he took out of the house?
It would be nice to know exactly where that money 'came from'. Any of those options allow you to pay whoever you want off your own account but each has different risk characteristics.
If Nifong secured the 30k with his house he might have been in serious trouble if his election fell through - if it was a straight loan for a short period (rather than a HELOC with interest only for years) then he would have had a massive cash crunch right when he was losing his cash stream from his DA job.
As we all know Nifong would never stoop so low and become a defence attorney (per his sister's letter). I don't see what else he would have done; perhaps move somewhere else and take an ada job (ada in durham would be shameful)
Anyway he may have faced a larger impact than the 30k loan indicates.
To 8:52 poster:
That's a fine letter. Go ahead and send it!
Do you have a link to the Jeffries article?
I would love to see the N&O discuss one very important piece of misinformation they included in that 25 March story:
"This was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group, she said. "
Now we now that she had been dancing in clubs long before the party and returned to work soon after the night of the party.
So the reporter got conned. Worse, the editors don't care to correct this part of the their story AND its implications.
This is one of the most disgraceful chapters in American Journalism.
So Melanie think of it as your legacy! It won't go away.
One last chance Melanie, come clean and write an article how the Press was used by Nifong & Addison, or life will get a lot worse!
The cover up is going to get you! There are too many reporters who really want that Pulitzer!
This is going to be the story of the decade.
I'm a reporter in another Southern state, and I have really enjoyed your analyses of the Duke case. I just wanted to say two things about your questions -- and this isn't a defense, just observations I've made in this business: (1) Most reporters I've seen don't use tape recorders, including myself. They can be cumbersome, unreliable and many people will clam up if they know they're being recorded. And (2) getting the alleged victim's name and address isn't that difficult. In fact, most of the time, some police official somewhere didn't redact that information like they're supposed to. Also, other people could have tipped off the newspaper to her identity, if for no reason than there are people who enjoy being "tipsters."
One question I would like to see answered is why, by their own admission, did they edit the interview with the accuser to leave out the parts that contradicted her statement to the police?
This is what the N&O said they did. Why? Are they journalists or as the defense attorneys have intimated are they Nifong's assistant prosecutors?
From Ruth S's blog at the N&O website.
Also, from Liestoppers (and www.newsobserver.com), a list of stories that have appeared in The News & Observer. As one colleague noted, we've "given everything that 60 Minutes did (minus the video clip) and a heck of a lot more."
Incredible!!
Head On, apply directly to the forehead... No, wait, I actually have something to say. You do know you're allowed to delete spam comments from this site. :)
Anyway, I'm starting to get flashbacks to the Tawana Bradley incident. Also, I wonder if there might not be an element of Stephen Glass as well. Just a thought.
Post a Comment