Yesterday I posted “In Ashley’s H-S venue.” On Nov. 14 The Durham Herald Sun ran a column questioning the innocence of the three young men falsely indicted in the Duke Hoax case. On Dec. 1 the H-S published a letter from the columnist retracting his column because of its many errors.
But as defense attorneys noted in their change of venue motion last Friday, the H-S had continued to run the column online and without informing readers the columnist has retracted it.
Yesterday, after calls from many of us, the H-S was STILL running the column online and without notice of retraction
Well, the problem is now “fixed” but it seems it took an engineer to do it.
Michael Gustafson, a professor at Duke’s Pratt School of Engineering, just sent along a copy of an email he’s received from the H-S:
"To Michael Gustafson:Michael, a good friend of this blog, has been a voice for reason and justice within Duke and at his Blog of Convenience.
Professor Crowley's article has now been removed from our Web site.
Thank you for your interest.
Ron Landfried
Editorial page editor"
Message to Michael: Nice “engineering,” Professor. The JinC Regulars can’t wait to celebrate with you the completion of another “engineering project:” Mike Nifong’s disbarment.
7 comments:
Makes sense, Ron Landfried
Editorial page editor wouldn't even write this trinity and fugua grad back on same subject.
Did you notice that HS is at it again today. An article about the Friends of Duke says that the DNA lab found traces from five men on and in the accuser and that those five men are not connected to this case.
Now, how does the HS reporter know they are not connected to this case?
An HS editorial today takes up the same point. After saying the courts have to respect the accusation of rape, the editorial declares the same DNA came from men the accuser had consensual sex with.
If the HS is going to insist on considering her accusation as legitimate, how can the paper's editors and reporters just brush off the possibility that the DNA belongs to those who attacked her?
Now they're just making up details about the case to support their editorial position. Unbelievable.
Now fixed? JiC, I just checked the link you provided in In Ashley's H-S venue blog post for the op-ed.
It's still there. Check it out.
So, they have not removed it but just made it harder to find?
Nice.
Is Professor Crowley aware that his original piece is still on the H-S website, but his retraction apparently is not? Without the retraction, it really makes him look foolish - especially in light of the revelations at last Friday's hearing.
Professor Gustafson is featured in the latest Durham in Wonderland article:
But Kaplan's rationalization strains credulity. As her colleague, Michael Gustafson, pointed out, "I would agree with Professor Kaplan's assertion that the faculty members who signed that petition cared about what all their students were going through if, parallel to the ad that ran this spring, there had been a new one that came out this summer or fall capturing the outrage over the due process denied our students. I would have a better time accepting her statement if any one of the people who signed that document had spoken out against the death threats hurled at our students, against calls for our students to be "...prosecuted whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past" as reported in Newsweek. But instead - there was silence - the same kind the faculty that supported that ad railed against. This is still a social disaster, but the inability to see it in its fullness has left us even more polarized than before."
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/12/meagerly-articulated-agendas.html
Well said, Professor!
Professor Crowley does not need any help looking foolish. With or without a retraction, he looks like a clown.
Post a Comment