Hoax mythbuster post 2

This second post in the mythbuster series targets three of the many myths now peddled by enablers of the Duke lacrosse witch hunt and the monumental injustices it’s spawned.

Those myths are:

1) “It’s all Nifong’s fault. No one else is to blame. Certainly not me.”

Number one is the enablers' 24/7, “default” myth.

2) “It was such a really, really confusing time. And the issues were so complex.”
Number two seems to be Duke’s President Richard H. Brodhead’s favorite.

3) The Raleigh News & Observer’s favorite Hoax myth was explained recently by managing editor John Drescher:

“[O]ur reporting was hampered by the unwillingness of the Duke players, their parents and their lawyers to speak to us.”

Keeping the Hoax myths in mind, let’s review some of what the N&O, the largest news organization in the Duke/Durham area, reported and commented on beginning on Mar. 24 when it “broke” the story.

We’ll use as the end date for our review Sunday, Apr. 9, the day the N&O’s executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, praised the N&O for its Duke lacrosse coverage and lamented the fact that DA Nifong was no longer giving public interviews.

After a look at some of what the N&O reported between Mar. 24 and Apr. 9, we'll look at what some intelligent N&O readers and other people learned for themselves by Apr. 9, and shared with the N&O and blog readers.

Beginning on Mar. 24 and for days thereafter the N&O repeatedly told readers the False Accuser was “the victim.” The N&O granted her an anonymous page one interview which N&O editors headlined without qualification as her account of a night that ended in “sexual violence.”

The N&O told readers on Mar. 25 the False Accuser was a victim of “sex crimes.”

On Apr.2 the N&O published its infamous “Vigilante” poster despite Duke’s plea that doing so would endanger the 43 white students whose face photos were on the poster.

By Apr. 9 the N&O had twice reported in page one, above the fold stories the “criminal records” of Duke lacrosse players, their crimes including underage drinking and carrying open beer cans.

But it had never reported on page one or in headlines the False Accuser’s far more serious criminal record that it knew about on Mar. 25. Before Apr. 9 the N&O only reported her criminal record in three brief paragraphs at the end of a story not directly related to the False Accuser’s record.

Editorially the N&O twice before Apr. 9 expressed strong support for DA Nifong handling of the case and President Brodhead’s handling of the players and their coach, Mike Pressler. The N&O also praised “the victim” for her “courage” in coming forward.

That’s a brief review of how the N&O covered the case.

Now let’s look at some of what intelligent and fair-minded people were learning and telling the N&O.

Here are excerpts from readers’ comments on the thread of the N&O’s Arp. 3 Editors’ Blog post, “Our Coverage Was Fair.” Reader comments all pre-date Apr. 6:

The only thing that is clear is that the woman had sex. It has not been established who she had sex with or under what conditions, or that it even occurred at the party at all.

Yet the News and Observer, both through your columnists and biased reporting, continues to inflame the community.

The players are castigated and defamed merely for exercising their constitutional rights to follow their attorneys’ wise council.

As a journalist, would you treat exercising the first amendment with the same contempt? (bold added)[…]

After Duke wisely removed the players’ photographs from the website for their own safety, the News and Observer published them so that anyone not getting to the website in time would still have names and faces. Most, if not all, of these young men may not have been involved in any way, but the News and Observer has lead the way in making them all targets in an emotionally charged and racially divided community. […]

People are curious to know even the most simple aspects of this story such as, did the reporter that met with the accuser notice any signs of bruising or injury such as a limp.

There are more such comments on that tread as well as on other blog threads from that time and in letters to the N&O questioning and exposing the N&O’s coverage along with Nifong’s deceits.

An Apr. 9 JinC post, “Duke lacrosse rape allegation: Important questions,” cited a Durham Herald Sun report that Nifong had talked about “if” the accuser could ID suspects. That led me to ask the kind of obvious questions most of you would ask:

Was there a lineup? And if there was, what was the outcome?

If there's been no lineup, why not?

The alleged attack is said to have occurred the night Mar 13. That's almost four weeks ago.

Has there been any effort to make positive IDs from face-photos? If yes, DA Nifong's statement [reported by the H-S] would indicate the woman wasn't able to make any positive IDs.

Now that’s nothing.

Take a look at what a JinC Regular, Straightarrow, said on the Apr. 9 thread:

Sounds to me like the prosecutor is alerting the alleged victim that he doesn't believe in the strength of the case and forewarning her that she may have to testify falsely against the accused if they both are to reap the benefits.[...]

We don't know that the evidence will exonerate the suspects. It may well incriminate them. But surely conspiracy to commit a crime if it does not [incriminate the players], is a crime of its own.

I think a lot more questions should be asked of a prosecutor that says he could pursue a conviction against the evidence.

Questions: By Apr. 9, both the N&O and the H-S had repeatedly praised Nifong’s handling of the case.

What if instead of unqualified praise, the N&O and H-S had on Apr. 9 expressed editorially the concerns and asked the questions you’ve just read?

Tens of thousands in the Duke/Durham area were concerned and asking questions. But they didn’t have the “bullhorns” the N&O and H-S editorial writers have.

What if, instead of sticking with their approval of Nifong, the papers had continued to express concerns and ask questions of the kind many people were asking on Apr. 9?

If the N&O and H-S had done that during the three weeks that remained before the May 2 Democratic primary, would Nifong have won that primary? He won by less than 900 votes.

And what if before Apr. 9 the Duke students had received something close to fair treatment by media instead of being trashed and targeted by so much of it?

What if on Apr. 9 President Brodhead publicly criticized DA Nifong for ridiculing Duke students who were just following the advice of their parents and exercising their constitution right to counsel?

What if on Apr. 16, instead of telling the Durham Chamber of Commerce that “what ever they did is bad enough,” Brodhead had told the Chamber something like:

“I’m really, really concerned about a DA who tells us DNA will immediately exonerate the innocent; and then he turns around and says they’re all still suspects?”

If Brodhead, most media and others had done what they should have done, would they need to peddle myths to cover-up their enablement of Nifong and certain Durham Police officers who conspired with him?

I don't see any basis in fact for the theee myths. Can you?

Tomorrow, and for a few days following, I plan to challenge the N&O’s blaming of the players and their parents and attorneys.

The N&O’s shameless blaming of the innocent is as abhorrent and false as the accuser and N&O’s stories about the night they said ended in “sexual violence.”

Previous mythbuster posts:

Post 1 (1/14/07)