INNOCENT: Readers refute N&O.

"Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals [David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann,] are innocent of these charges."

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, Apr. 11, 2007
________________________________________________________

Raleigh News & Observer executive editor for news Melanie Sill allows that the N&O’s coverage of what it used to call “the Duke lacrosse rape scandal” wasn’t quite perfect but, Sill insists, it was awfully, awfully good.

Sill and other N&O editors admit the paper made some mistakes during the first week of the N&O’s Hoax coverage, but they say the mistakes were mostly the fault of the players and their parents who refused to cooperate with the N&O. (See Apr. 15 columns by Sill and public editor Ted Vaden)

Some people buy Sill and the N&O’s glowing self-appraisal of the paper’s Hoax coverage. Sill calls those people “thoughtful critics.”

And the people who don’t agree with Sill and the N&O’s glowing self-appraisal?

Editor Sill calls them “haters” engaged in “smearing The N&O.”

That's nonsense!

The people Sill calls “haters” are really fine citizen journalists speaking truth to a powerful editor who we’ve all just learned led a thirteen month long cover-up of critically important exculpatory news that, had the public known of it, surely would have made the frame-up of David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann impossible.

Let’s look at some recent exchanges at the N&O’s Editors Blog between Sill and some of the citizen journalist she calls “haters.” From time to time I’ll interject some facts or commentary. They’ll be bracketed and in italics.

John
________________________________________

Here’s Sill in an Editors’ Blog post, Revisionist History:

… But in smearing The N&O with such a broad brush, many critics are creating a meta-narrative of their own that doesn't hold up when you examine specific stories or even the aggregate of stories after the first week or so.

I'm sure this post will bring the usual barrage from people who hate The N&O. So be it.

Along with the haters, some more thoughtful critics have shared comments that offered more substance, which is the point of this exchange. Read the stories again -- we will.

The first citizen journalist response came from kbp on 4/18/07 @ 00:40:

Without searching, I recall the first article published by the N&O on the case (after the Chronicle had already reported on it). I also recall the article that provided the exculpatory details left out of that first article. And I recall the time that passed between those two articles. Is that "substance"?

Other than Neff's fine articles, did I miss any facts reported?

Sill responds to kbp on 4/18/07 @ 8;14

Try searching. Recollection is famously inaccurate, as yours is.

(We had reported a brief story on a rape investigation, as did the Chronicle. The story we broke was about 46 lacrosse players being brought in for a DNA roundup -- a unique case, which is why it made page 1.)

[ Folks, I’m very sure the “first article” kbp refers to is the N&O’s March 25, 2006 “anonymous interview/wall of solidarity” story; the one the N&O told readers was about a night that ended “in sexual violence.”

The N&O “article that provided the exculpatory details left out of that first article” appeared on April 12, 2007, one day after NC Attorney General Roy Cooper had declared Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann innocent.

Here are some of the exculpatory details kbp refers to, all of which a group of journalists at the N&O decided to withhold from the March 25, 2006 story but include in the April 12, 2007 story.

The false accuser, Crystal Mangum claimed the second dancer, Kim Roberts, was also raped.

Mangum said Roberts didn't report the rape because Roberts was afraid she would lose her job if she did.

Mangum accused Roberts of being willing to “do just about anything for money.”

The N&O April 12, 2007 story reports:

When asked why she made the report, she said "Most guys don't think it's a big deal" to force a woman to have sex. She confirmed that the claimed incident occurred at a party near Duke.

Moments later, she added, "Maybe they think they can get away with it because they have more money than me."

But in its March 25, 2006 framing story, the N&O told readers and the rest of media:

She hesitated to tell police what happened, she said Friday. She realized she had to, for her young daughter and her father.

"My father came to see me in the hospital," she said. "I knew if I didn't report it that he would have that hurt forever, knowing that someone hurt his baby and got away with it."

Does anyone seriously believe if the N&O had reported on March 25 what it’s just now CYA-admitted withholding for thirteen months, that Nifong would have been able to get indictments of David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann?

Sill ignores kbp’s excellent point about exculpatory material. We can all understand why.

Nice going, kbp.]

The next comment on the thread is from jhd, one of those Sill calls “thoughtful critics.” jhd begins:

What Mr. kbp is missing here is that while he was sitting on his couch, reading the newspaper, surfing the 'Net from his laptop and watching Fox News, teams of journalists were combing documents, interviewing people and doing their darnest(sic) to get to the facts of the story. …

[jhd, the N&O depends on readers like you to stay in business. It’s too bad Melanie hasn’t bothered to thank you for your support.]

Now from one of the “thoughtful critics,” we go back to the “haters.”

On 4/19/07 @ 7:54 we find Walter Abbott who begins:

Melanie,

Last year, Samiha Khanna and Anne Blythe wrote this about Crystal Mangum, the false accuser in the Duke case:

"The accuser had worked for an escort company for two months, doing one-on-one dates about three times a week.

"It wasn't the greatest job," she said, her voice trailing off. But with two children, and a full class load at N.C. Central University, it paid well and fit her schedule.

This was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group, she said. There was no security to protect her, and as the men became aggressive, the two women started to leave. After some of the men apologized for the behavior, the women went back inside, according to police. That's when the woman was pulled into a bathroom and raped and sodomized, police said."

Last night, Reade Seligmann's attorney Jim Cooney had this to say on Liestoppers Board:

"We were provided with "sign-in" logs from the "Champagne Room" of the Platinum Club. A "dancer" and her customer are required to sign the sheet pledging that they will not engage in any sex or touching in the room. (I swear that I am not making this up). We have sheets from the latter part of March (and just 2 or 3 days after the "attack") showing that someone named "Precious" signed in.

This is consistent with what Yolanda Hayes said about Precious in her affidavits (and appears to corroborate the approximate time of the videotape showing her dancing until Yolanda throws her off the stage).

Significantly, we were able to trace Precious' footsteps the weekend before the party. Recall that she told Durham PD that after dancing at the Platinum Club on Friday night, she did her nails, went to a movie, and did her nails some more.

Hardly. We found that after dancing at the Platinum Club she had at least 4 private hotel room engagements with various escort customers. She made approximately 20 to 25 calls to at least 8 escort services that weekend for jobs. We were able to track down at least one of those customers. We were comfortable with what his testimony would have been."

It is my contention that the Raleigh News and Observer is as culpable as Mike Nifong in precipitating this tragedy. The 3/25/06 article by Khanna and Blythe provided the spark. It gave Nifong political cover, incited the potbangers, stampeded Brodhead and Steele, and signaled the TV networks to send in the satellite trucks.

The fuel of the accusations was there as was the oxygen of racial tension. You all struck the match.

In 1898, William Randoph Hearst, one of the most famous yellow journalists of all, precipitated the Spanish American War in a fashion similar to this case. Frederick Remington, the famous artist, telegrammed Hearst to tell him all was quiet in Cuba and "There will be no war."

Hearst responded "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

I suppose congratulations are in order, Melanie. You've made the big time.

Walter Abbott
Ruston, LA

Abbott’s comment was followed three minutes later by another “hater,” AMac, who began by quoting Melanie back to Melanie:

"I'm sure this post will bring the usual barrage from people who hate The N&O. So be it. Along with the haters, some more thoughtful critics have shared comments that offered more substance, which is the point of this exchange." ...

Editor Sill, it's time to stop hiding behind "the haters," and behind Joe Neff's outstanding ongoing work. Really thoughtful critics raise important, unanswered questions about the N&O's early coverage of the Hoax you ignore.

1. Who do you identify as the thoughtful critics?
2. What do you think their criticisms are?
3. What is your response to them?

I hope this feedback is constructive, and I await your response in a subsequent blog post (or on the Editorial page).

Abbott and AMac comments drew the following response from Melanie on 4/19/07 @ 9:07

Mr. Abbott,

The interview with Crystal Mangum was a deadline story. We learned much more each week as our reporting went forward. The work the attorneys and their private investigators did, and the work our reporters did, took much more time. Thanks for wiritng.(sic)

AMac: I have received a great deal of correspondence over time and have benefited from an ongoing dialogue through this case, including consideration of comments on this blog. I addressed some of the weaknesses I saw in the coverage in my column Sunday. You won't find a response from me on the editorial page. I do not have any involvement with the opinion pages.

As to my response, I think you see it in the column, the post above and in multiple posts and responses going back to the very beginning of this case (my first column said I thought this onslaught of "media" was counterproductive to the cause of accuracy in this case).

[Folks, Notice that Melanie doesn’t really respond to what either Abbott or AMac said.

She uses the all purpose “deadline” excuse to duck answering Abbott’s questions. How does deadline explain the N&O’s failure to report on Mangum’s criminal background and the activities the defense identified which were very, very relevant?

How does deadline explain covering up for thirteen months exculpatory information from the interview with Mangum; information which surely would have exposed the N&O’s framing and stopped Nifong’s frame-up?

Is it any wonder Melanie can’t answer AMac’s questions:

1. Who do you identify as the thoughtful critics?
2. What do you think their criticisms are?
3. What is your response to them?]

Tomorrow I’ll post again on citizen journalists, including one familiar to many of you: Locomotive Breath.