READERS' ALERT: In the letter to Public Editor Ted Vaden portion of this post I say the N&O's March 25, 2006 story described "40 or so men 'barking racial slurs.'" That'a an error. The N&O siad: "men in the house started barking racial slurs."
I regret my error which does not change the indisputable conclusion of this post.
This is such a simple 1,2,3 post I’m dispensing with the usual intro and outline for such posts.
So here goes:
1) On March 25, 2006 the Raleigh News & Observer published the story containing the deliberately fraudulent script for the Duke lacrosse case frame-up which Nifong two days later used when he began speaking publicly about the Duke lacrosse students.
The N&O’s story was about a young black mother and college student who had suffered a horrific “ordeal” which finally ended in “sexual violence” at the hands of white boys from Duke.
Here’s the start of the N&O’s Mar. 25 story:
The woman who says she was raped last week by three members of the Duke University lacrosse team thought she would be dancing for five men at a bachelor party, she said Friday. But when she arrived that night, she found herself surrounded by more than 40.From the moment they read the N&O’s story, many readers sensed it was a fraud.
Just moments after she and another exotic dancer started to perform, she said, men in the house started barking racial slurs. The two women, both black, stopped dancing.
"We started to cry," she said. "We were so scared."[…]
That brings us to #2.
2) N&O editors have assured readers any statements of the accuser concerning events that night had to match what was in police reports.
Here’s N&O Executive Editor for News Melanie Sill at the Editors’ Blog on Apr. 3, 2006 [excerpt]:
We took care in editing the story not to introduce new accusations -- the basics were the same as in police reports, which had already been made publicAnd here's Deputy Managing Editor Linda Williams at the Editors' Blog on Oct 5, 2006[excerpts]
Our March 25 article that included an interview with the woman who accused Duke lacrosse players of rape has been the subject of questions and speculation on blog posts. […]Now to # 3)
The decision made prior to the March interview to limit it to the information in the police report was the correct decision and I stand by it. Our purpose was to hear from the woman in her own words the accusation she made to the police.
We also wanted to know if she would say anything that contradict (sic) the police report. In the brief interview, she repeated the information we knew to be the gist of the police report that we had access to at that time.
Raleigh News & Observer
Here a link to a JinC post:
The post documents the N&O’s 3/25/06 report in which the then anonymous false accuser had said she and the second dancer had been surrounded by about 40 men “barking racial slurs.”
You’ll see also the post documents statements by Editors Sill and Williams in which they tell readers the N&O only published statements of the accuser’s which were already in police report(s) available at the time.
However, in the more than a year and a half since you published what is now universally agreed to be a grossly fraudulent story, the N&O has refused to identify the police report(s) against which you checked Crystal Mangum’s charges.
The N&O's been asked to identify the police report(s) by hundreds of readers and some fellow journalists. You’ve not done so.
After an exhaustive review of all data and evidence related to the case that was handed over by then Durham DA Mike Nifong, Attorney General Roy Cooper found no evidence for the incident the N&O described of the 40 or so men “barking racial slurs.”
Given the N&O’s refusal to ever identify the police report(s) it claims it used; and given the Attorney General’s finding that there is no evidence for an incident of 40 or so men “barking racial slurs” at Crystal Mangum and Kim Roberts; what can a reasonable person conclude but that the N&O never had a police report describing 40 or so men “barking racial slurs?" That was faked.
If you disagree with that conclusion, I’ll be happy to do what I always do in such circumstance: publish your response in full at JinC.
Ideally, I hope you will use this post and the comments of hundreds of N&O readers to address a myriad of problems related to the N&O’s March 25, 2006 story. That's long overdue.
Thank you for your attention to this letter.
John in Carolina