Readers Note: You all will pick up quickly on the email below, which I've just sent KC Johnson offline.
Many of you may have the same or similar questions to those I asked him. You may also have had the same difficulty commenting at KC's Durham-in-Wonderland blog today that I've had.
John
___________________________________________________
Dear KC,
At your Book News post you say:
A reminder that the source notes are available for the book, at the book website. The notes also include corrections to the text. One correction that I wanted to highlight here as well: on pp. 65-66: the discussion of the March 25 N&O story quoted Duke Law professor Paul Haagen’s recollections of his interview for that article. The book stated that Samiha Khanna interviewed Haagen, and Haagen recalled her asking leading questions; in fact, another N&O reporter interviewed Haagen.I went to your source notes website and found the following:
I apologize for the error.
Errata:I went back to Book Notes to make a comment, but could find no place to do so.
pp. 65-66:
The discussion of the March 25 N&O story quoted Duke Law professor Paul Haagen’s recollections of his interview for that article. The book stated that Samiha Khanna interviewed Haagen, and Haagen recalled her asking leading questions; in fact, another N&O reporter interviewed Haagen, and said that she asked fair questions of Haagen, who did not subsequently complain to her. We apologize for the error.
I've checked a number of times today and there's still no place to comment as of 10 p.m.
Have you shut down comments on this post?
I'm sending you this email and posting it for readers who may have encountered the same problem commenting, may have questions similar to mine, or may just want to learn more about the book.
Questions:
Who is the reporter who actually interviewed Professor Haagen?
What was your basis for telling readers in the first place what you and Taylor reported Professor Paul Haagen said Reporter Samiha Khanna did during the interview?
For the benefit of readers who may not have access to Until Proven Innocent, I'll quote what you and Taylor say in regard to Haagen's statements and the interview: "The article concluded by portraying the chairman of Duke's Academic Council, law professor Paul Haagen, as hinting he thought the players guilty.
The story said that Haagen cited studies showing 'that violence against women is more prevalent among male athletes than among male students in general,' and singling out 'helmet sports,' such as football, hockey and lacrosse, for particular notice. The concluding quote: 'These are sports of violence. This is clearly a concern.'
Yet, as Haagen recalled later, reporter Samiha Khanna took the quotes wildly out of context: he had grave doubts about Mangum's story, and Khanna spent most of her interview with him fishing for negative quotes about the players at a faculty meeting that day." (p. 65-66)
KC, you say in your correction: "in fact, another N&O reporter interviewed Haagen, and said that she asked fair questions of Haagen, who did not subsequently complain to her."
What does Haagen say about what this other N&O reporter says about the interview?
Do Haagen and the other N&O reporter at least agree he said what the N&O quoted him as saying?
If Haagen and this other N&O reporter are now in substantial agreement, how did you and Taylor wind up reporting the version of the interview that's in Until Proven Innocent?
In any case, I have my fingers crossed that Haagen has in fact substantially disowned what the N&O quoted him as saying in it’s March 25, 2006 story which fair-minded people familiar with the framing of the players agree was a deliberately fraudulent story.
Haagen disowning the quotes will help those of us who are working to get the N&O to retract the story and to apologize for it to the players, their families and the community for what was a deliberately fraudulent story.
Yesterday N&O executive editor Melanie Sill posted at the Editors' Blog telling readers you recently visited with the folks at the N&O. She spoke very favorably of you as you have of her. She likes the way you and the N&O compliment one another.
However, she went on to say the book has errors but didn’t specify any.
I’d ask her what she thinks they are, but she usually doesn’t respond to my questions.
So I ask you: Was the Haagen matter one of the errors the N&O pointed out?
Can you tell us what are the other errors the N&O says are in Until Proven Innocent?
Given the involvement N&O folks have had helping with the book, and how generous you've been in your praise of them, I was frankly surprised the N&O was fussing with you, even a little bit.
Following this email is a copy of the text of Book News I printed off DIW a little after 10 p.m.
Thanks for your attention to the questions.
Best,
John
---------------------------------------------
Book News
Liestoppers has the video of my colleague Stuart Taylor’s book talk at the Cato Institute from earlier this week.
The video of my Duke talk should be available soon; when it is, I will post a link.
Stuart will be speaking tomorrow at William & Mary, in a forum on prosecutorial misconduct and the Duke lacrosse case. He’ll be joined by legal luminaries (and Duke Law professors) Jim Coleman, Erwin Chemerinsky, and Walter Dellinger. The event runs from 2.00pm-3.00pm.
----------
A reminder that the source notes are available for the book, at the book website.
The notes also include corrections to the text. One correction that I wanted to highlight here as well: on pp. 65-66: the discussion of the March 25 N&O story quoted Duke Law professor Paul Haagen’s recollections of his interview for that article. The book stated that Samiha Khanna interviewed Haagen, and Haagen recalled her asking leading questions; in fact, another N&O reporter interviewed Haagen.
I apologize for the error.
POSTED BY KC JOHNSON AT 12:47 PM
LABELS: BOOK
11 comments:
Sill still needs to explain her newspaper's role in the lacrosse hoax/frame in March of 2006.
I had no idea KC had developed a relationship with the NO. No wonder he has been so easy with Ruthie and the NO stories. I am disappointed. he has constanly pointed a finger at the low level staff nurse with no evidence except his word, but has given Ruthie and the NO a pass for inflaming the Durham Community with their writings.
A lot of people have caught on to KC's game. The N&O made its reporters available to him for his book and he went soft on the N&O.
I admire you for standing up to him and seeking the truth. All bloggers like to say they do that, but not many of them do.
Any news on why the N&O withheld all the exculpatory news it had about the players for more than a year? KC doesn't even mention that in the book.
And thanks for pointing out the lies Joe Neff told at the press club. Taylor was on the panel with him and didn't say a word.
KC's slip is showing. He jousts indignantly with trolls teasing about surname misspellings, dodges pointed inquiry from me and, apparently, now has banned comment upon one particular DIW post?
Meow.
RE:12:26
The only evidence Nifong had was Levicy's testimony. To my knowledge she has never contradicted her position that CGM was raped. Had there been a trial, she would have been a witness for the prosecution. We now know with certainty that nothing happened that night to CGM. Therefore, rather than whining that Tara is being unjustly picked on, if you think her position is defensible, then give a reasoned explanation of how it is defensible. Otherwise we can conclude that KC is correct in pointing the finger at Levicy. As for the N&O, they certainly deserve condemnation but they were not witnesses as was Levicy.
Brant Jones
The case was not about rape. Anyone who does not understand that, does not understand the case. It was only about votes and election for Nifong. He needed no help for his 70 plus interviews. His statement of "My reading of the nurse's report..." was a lie. He never read the report. The report never indicated Crystal had been raped. He went after a low level nurse, but not the Doctors who were in charge of Crystal's care. I like KC but this persecuation is starting to bite him in the nose.
NDLax84 - Good to hear from you. Enjoyed your blog and commentary.
The only thing Levicy could have testified to was the WHo, What, Where and When of the exam. Which is what she did when questioned by Lawyer Jean. Nifong never had any evidence and certainly not from the report.
The report was not what Nifong would have used in a trial but rather Levicy's statements to police that she believed a rape had occurred. Granted she would have been eviscerated on cross-examination but her testimony might have persuaded a jury, since she would have been someone who saw CGM shortly after the attack and believed she had been raped. The fact that her name was being used by Nifong and she never contradicted him publicly says o me that she shares blame in the hoax. Granted Nifong was the main perpetrator but Levicy was an accomplice. On that KC is exactly right.
Brant Jones
There is no law compelling anyone to correct the police in public. ANeither the ADA, DPD (including the sainted Sheldon) or the Physicians involved felt the responsibility to correct Nifong, how does a lowly staff nurse get in the act? People can not freely give their opinions on the stand. As we have no information from her interview, we do not know what she would have said. Pretty much what she said at the bar hearing - the details of the exam.
I don't believe Nifong ever used Levicy's name.
This thread is supposed to be about KC Johnson whimping on the N&O's frame-up.
Stick to that.
Good work, John.
Post a Comment