Marlette and Anderson letters text

Two outstanding letters appear in the Dec. 7 Durham Herald Sun. One is by Professor William Anderson whose writings on the Duke Hoax injustices many of you have read. The other is by someone I don't know, Graham Hayes Marlette.

Both letters are available now online at the H-S's site. However, the H-S generally "pulls" letters off its site after a day or two.

Since letters to the editor are not subject to newspaper copyright, I'm republishing the letters in full below so they'll remain available online.
__________________________________________________

The truth in Brooklyn

Duke professor Thomas J. Crowley, in his letter of Dec. 1, is right to apologize for his uninformed remarks about the Duke lacrosse case. As a strong supporter of Duke and its faculty, I have been appalled to read opinion pieces by academics who apparently know nothing about the rule of law. Their writings about this case, mostly in The Herald-Sun, reveal a callous disregard for the suffering of the accused students and their families.

Just as the foundation of our justice system is the presumption of innocence of any accused, the foundation of learning must be the quest for truth, the search for evidence in order to support a given position. Instead, what we read from the worst of these writers are self-righteous platitudes, dripping with political correctness that is based on nothing but their personal dislike of male athletes and the bizarre notion that it is not possible for a woman to lie about being raped.

Professor Crowley is also right to call for the lifting of "standards of justice" in Durham. There is a law professor at Brooklyn College who is teaching a course about prosecutorial misconduct and the miscarriage of justice based entirely on the facts of the Duke lacrosse case.

Perhaps these uninformed academicians could take a sabbatical to Brooklyn so that they could find out what is actually going on here in Durham.

Graham Hayes Marlette
Durham
December 7, 2006

Free the 'Duke 3'

In reading The Herald-Sun editorials and letters to the editor, I see how the paper has framed the Duke lacrosse case and evidence, especially exculpatory evidence.

For example, we hear that the accuser told multiple stories, and that constitutes "proof" that a rape occurred because she must have been so traumatized that she could not remember what had happened.

Then we are given Sgt. Mark Gottlieb's 33-page account, from memory, that claims the accuser told a consistent story. That too, according to many in Durham (and The New York Times) constitutes "proof" that the "Duke 3" are guilty of rape. Of course, those two different accounts are mutually exclusive, but we are told that both are equally true and valid.

Likewise, we hear from District Attorney Mike Nifong that the accuser was too badly injured to work. When we find she was on the job immediately, we are told that people who are raped go right back to work. Two mutually-exclusive statements, both are said to be "proof" of a rape.

In other words, if there is exculpatory evidence, then it is explained away by an insistence that mutual exclusivity means both things must have happened simultaneously, which is a logical absurdity and in most cases would be seen as evidence that there was no rape.

So, let's face it. The Herald-Sun, and Durham in general, simply want to railroad a conviction, not find the truth. No wonder Professor K.C. Johnson calls Durham "Wonderland."

William L. Anderson
Cumberland, Md.
December 7, 2006