More on The N&O’s Ford

Yesterday I posted, “N&O still for Nifong,” a response to on Raleigh News & Observer’s editorial page editor Steve Ford’s Nov. 12 column, “No gong for Mike Nifong ---Yet.”

A few principal points from my post:

On March 28 The N&O editorialized: Shut down the lacrosse team; the woman, by making her allegations, had engaged in “an act of courage; and echoing DA Nifong’s statement to the court, the N&O said DNA testing “can clear the innocent.”

The N&O’s editorial page was supporting Nifong then, it supported him when the DNA results came back negative and he said, in effect, “So what. We’ll just have a trial anyway;” and it supports Nifong today, which is why Ford was so upset by the Durham DA election results.

Ford was so put out yesterday he actually said :

We have trials to settle such things, and we insist that matters of guilt or innocence be decided according to very specific rules meant to safeguard the rights of both accusers and defendants. What we don't do in this country is decide the merit of criminal charges at the polls.

It seems all of us except Ford know: Of course we don’t decide the merits of criminal charges at the polls which is why a trial(s)of David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann could have gone forward if Nifong had lost and a successor DA choose to continue the prosecution.

The Durham DA election, Ford’s opinion to the contrary, was about Durham’s citizens doing what citizens everywhere else in North Carolina can do: vote for the person they think will do the most to give them fairness and justice in the DA’s office.

I said a lot more but let’s move on and take a look at an excellent KC Johnson post today in which he responds to the same Ford column.

KC starts off with a “roll call” of eleven N&O news stories concerning Nifong’s misconduct and travesties that ought to have any self-respecting editor demanding Nifong’s removal from office. Here’s the first of the eleven:

That after Nifong ordered the police to perform a photo lineup that violated Durham procedures in multiple ways, “every choice contained flaws or contradictions . . . The woman recognized 15 players at one viewing but didn’t recognize them at another. She picked out only one player with certainty at both the March and April viewings. He, however, was in Raleigh, not at the lacrosse party. She wrongly identified the player who made a rude comment about a broomstick.” (Neff, October 8)

KC ends his “roll call” with this:

That Duke Law professor James Coleman, after urging appointment of a special prosecutor to handle the case, said, “I don’t think [Nifong is] showing detached judgment. I personally have no confidence in him.” (Blythe and Neff, June 13)

Well, to paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentson: “We know James Coleman. He’s a Duke Law professor we respect. And you, Steve Ford, are no James Coleman.”

A little further on KC says:

Does Ford even read his own newspaper? He does, obviously, although his column suggests his skepticism of its reporting. If a trial occurs, Ford writes, the accuser would “have to explain embarrassing evidence such as the video that supposedly shows her performing an exotic dance at a strip club during the same time frame, just days after the alleged attack, when she was telling doctors and nurses she was in severe pain.” [emphasis added]

There’s a lot more in KC’post which you can read here.

In a few days I’ll say some more about Ford’s continuing support for Nifong.