Why Those Letters?

Commenters often ask questions like: “Why do you bother writing to the N&O public editor? You don’t really expect Ted Vaden to answer your questions, do you?” and “I know you mean well, JinC, but nobody at Duke is going to speak up about the attacks last May 18 on Reade Seligmann, his parents and Kirk Osborn. So why keep asking?”

Those and similar questions are reasonable. I sometimes ask them of myself.

The short answer is: I want to.

Ah, but nothing in life is as simple as, “I want to,” is it?

There’s always, “But why do you want to?”

And then follow-up questions like: “Don’t you realize this has been an incredibly difficult year for Dick and the trustees? Why are you making things worse?”

I’ll respond this way ----

First, letters with questions help me focus on who I’m trying to reach and what it is I’m trying to bring to light and help place before JinC readers.

Many of you remember last April many of us pointed out that as part of the Raleigh N&O’s deliberately malicious framing of the Duke lacrosse players even before Nifong spoke publicly about the case, the N&O repeatedly told other media and its readers Mangum was “the victim.”

Why did the N&O do that?

Why did N&O reporters, including Anne Blythe, Samiha Khanna and others, as well as senior editors John Dresher and Melanie Sill decide to call Mangum “the victim” and frame the lacrosse team as her victimizers, who included three brutal rapists and their teammmates who were covering up for them?

The N&O journalists all knew what they were doing, but why did they do it?

I kept asking that question and related questions. So did many of you.

My posts asking that question and related questions of N&O staffers were ignored, misrepresented or trashed.

I’ve recently reread at the Editors’ Blog all the questions many of you asked about what we now know was first, a deliberately fraudulent March 25 story, and then a thirteen month long cover-up, during which innocent people suffered greatly while the N&O withheld critical news the would have stopped the frame-up.

My questions didn’t expose the N&O’s fraud and cover-up any more than those many of your asked did.

But we were part of pressuring the N&O, sustaining others pressing for justice and helping build piece-by-piece what it took to get to “Innocent” on April 11.

Getting to “Innocent” on April 11 began when many of us and countless others refused to accept the N&O’s March 25 fraud and the rendition of that fraud that Nifong began offering on the afternoon of March 27. Together we asked important questions, many of which the N&O and its fans won't answer.

We'll keep asking, won't we?

You can stand on the shore and do nothing, or you can throw your pebble in the water and make at least a slight difference.

Those of us asking questions made at least a slight difference. That’s one reason why I post and ask questions.

In a few days I’ll say more about posts and questions.

Thank you for asking.

John

N&O Public Editor Scams - Post 2

Readers Note: If you're already familiar with the background to this series and have read Post 1, you many want to skip down and start at the star (****)line.

For those new to the "N&O Public Editor Scams" series or just wanting a "refresher," The Raleigh News & Observer has a public editor, Ted Vaden, whose job is to watch out for readers’ interests. In fact, Vaden likes readers to think of him as their “watch dog.”

Vaden writes a Sunday column. His April 15 column was titled, “Assessing The N&O’s lacrosse coverage.”

A more accurate title would be: “Scamming readers about The N&O’s Hoax coverage.”

Vaden's column contains a few grudging admissions of N&O errors which he minimizes. The rest of the column is a mix of air brushing, factual errors, blame-shifting and blandish puffery about the role of newspapers.

As public editor, Vaden owed readers a thoughtful, no holds barred examination of the N&O's biased, often false and racially inflammatory Hoax coverage. Instead, he gave them a scam.

This is the second post in a series detailing Vaden's scamming.

This second post, like the first, comments on one section of Vaden's column. In subsequent posts, I’ll comment on other column sections or assertions Vaden made.

I hope you read the series. I’ll be interested to know whether you agree his column is a scam.

I’ll send Vaden links, invite his comments and offer to publish them.

If past history is any judge, I won’t get back much, if anything, of substance.

John
******************************************************************

Vaden’s April 15, 2007 column is here. I’m commenting in this post on one section with the subhead: “Fairness in editorials.” Here's the section in full:

On the editorial pages -- operated separately from the news reporting -- the paper raised early questions about the fairness of the prosecution. In two editorials in May, the paper questioned the police lineup procedure and the prosecutor's refusal to meet with and hear evidence from the defendants' attorneys. "For justice to be served, certainly the accuser deserves a vigorous prosecution on the basis of the evidence," one editorial said. "But if the alleged attackers' right to fair treatment is abused, any case against them could, and should, melt away under the courts' scrutiny."

It should be noted also that an early editorial called for canceling the lacrosse season, which Duke President Richard Brodhead subsequently did. (bold added)

That single sentence in bold refers to the N&O’s March 28 editorial, “Lacrosse time-out.” (pay req’d)The sentence is the only comment Vaden made that can be construed as critical of anything his N&O employers said or failed to say editorially concerning the Hoax, its false accuser, those who framed, their enablers and the victims - most of all the players and their families but also the community.

In the first post I pointed out some things Vaden didn’t mention in his assessment of his employer’s “Fariness in editorials.”

They included telling readers Mangum was “a victim” and referring to “the victim's story.” Praising Mangum because "reporting to the police that she was attacked was an act of courage;” and adding "no one -- no one -- deserves the violence alleged here. “

There was a lot more like that.

In this post I want to ask some questions which a proper public editor would answer.

The N&O's March 28 editorial included a retelling of the false story the N&O had scripted for its March 25 “anonymous interview” story about the March 13/14 party the N&O said, with no qualification whatever, ended “in sexual violence.”

That prompts me to ask some questions every N&O reader should be asking. So should pundits and others now writing about the Hoax.

When editorial page editor Steve Ford published the March 28 editorial, did he know about the extraordinary cooperation the players had been providing police since March 16? The editorial says nothing about the players' cooperation.

It's had to believe Ford and his editorial writers didn't know about the cooperation. The Chronicle had reported on it March 21. Duke University mentioned their cooperation in a press release March 24. N&O reporters knew about it even before the N&O "broke" the story.

What explanation is there for the N&O’s editorial failure to mention the players cooperation?

Did Ford & his staff know that in Mangum's March 24 “anonymous interview” with the N&O, she discussed Kim Roberts?

Did they know that according to the N&O's most recent account of the "anonymous interview,” Mangum alleged Roberts was also raped at the party?

Did they know Mangum alleged Roberts didn’t report the rape for fear of losing her job?

Did they know Mangum alleged Roberts would “do anything for money?”

Vaden should be providing answers to all of the above questions.

How else can readers judge whether Steve Ford and his staff were, like the rest of us, given a fraudulent account of the “anonymous interview?”

Or did Ford and his staff simply join others at the N&O who were framing the players as a group made up of three rapists and their teammates who were covering up the gang-rape of “a victim” whose “reporting she was attacked” the N&O said “was an act of courage?”

I’ll say more about Vaden’s “Fairness in editorials” section and other N&O Hoax editorials tomorrow.

Also, I'll post later today in response to some of you who reasonably asked whether there's any point in sending links to Vaden or directing questions to him.

John

The Churchill Series – Apr. 20, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Yesterday we talked about Churchill’s love of polo, a sport he played into his fifties. I said he was an excellent player who from his early twenties on played with a significant handicap: limited range of motion of his right arm. There’s a photo here in which you can see on his right arm a halter-like device he used to make sure in the excitement of a match he didn’t over extend the limited reach he could safely make with his right arm.

How then, with that handicap, did he remain an excellent polo player for thirty years?

I’ll answer that question in just a moment. Bur first, from My Early Life, is Churchill’s own description of how he sustained the injury that limited his use of his right arm. He has just arrived with his regiment in Bombay Harbor. He’s disembarking from the ship that brought the regiment to India:

It took about a quarter of an hour to reach the quays of the Sassoon Dock. Glad I was to be there; for the lively motion of the skiff to which I and two friends had committed ourselves was fast becoming our main preoccupation.

We came along side of a great stone wall with dripping steps and iron rings for hand-holds. The boat rose and fell four or five feet with the surges. I put out my hand and grasped at a ring; but before I could get my feet on the steps the boat swung away, giving my right shoulder a sharp and peculiar wrench. …

Quite an exceptional strain is required to tear the capsule which holds the shoulder joint together; but once the deed is done, a terrible liability remains. Although my shoulder did not actually go out, I had sustained an injury which was to cripple me a t polo, to prevent me from ever playing tennis, and to be a grave embarrassment in moments of peril, violence and effort.

Churchill was an excellent polo player because of his extraordinary riding skills which earned him outstanding marks as cadet at Sandhurst and the admiration of his peers for decades.

Because of his riding skills and his boldness, Churchill was always assigned to “mark” the other team’s best player. A critical part of polo strategy is interfering with where your opponent wants to go. Churchill, because of his riding skills and his boldness, was outstanding at taking on the other team’s best player and interfering with his riding to where wanted to go.

Polo is just a game, albeit a very challenging one. But don’t you agree Churchill’s determination to prevail over a handicap and his boldness in hard fought matches very likely had something to do with Churchill’s “riding off” Hitler in 1940? I do.

Have a nice weekend. Here in Carolina it will be beautiful. I hope it’s so, or at least tolerable, where you are.

John

Response to Chronicle 4/20 editorial

Readers Note: I left the following comment on the thread for The Chronicle's April 20 editorial: "Buy The N&O Instead."

John
____________________________________________


I agree with your assessment of the Durham H-S. It's a terrible newspaper. But why do you urge people to buy the Raleigh N&O?

It was the N&O which on Mar. 25, 2006, published what it now admits was a false account of what Mangum said in the interview it granted under anonymity because, the N&O told readers, that was its policy for "victims of sex crimes."

The N&O deliberately withheld from its Mar. 25 story critically important news, including:

1) Mangum said the second dancer, Kim Roberts, was also raped at the party.

2) Mangum went on to claim Roberts didn't report the alleged rape for fear it would cost Roberts her job.

Mangum, the N&O now reports, also said Roberts would do "anything for money."

The N&O never told readers Mangum had even mentioned Roberts.

There’s more.

On Mar. 25 the N&O said Mangum only reported the alleged gang-rape because she knew if she didn't her "daddy" would have "a hurt that would never heal."

Now the N&O is admitting Mangum actually said she reported it because she wasn't going to let those "Duke boys" think they could get away with anything.

Have The Chronicle editors considered what might have happened if on Mar. 25 the N&O had told the truth about the anonymous interview?

Have The Chronicle editors, many of whom are planning careers in journalism, asked themselves why the N&O withheld from the Mar. 25 story the news of the lacrosse players’ extraordinary and extensive cooperation with Durham Police?

Or why the N&O decided instead to promulgate the "wall of solidarity" falsehood, thereby casting the lacrosse team as composed of three gang-rapists and their teammates who were covering up for them?

Do any Chronicle editors think the witch hunt and frame-up would have gone very far if the N&O’s Mar. 25 story had been an honest news report instead of a deliberately malicious fraud?

Do any Chronicle editors know why the N&O went more than a year covering up what Mangum actually said during the anonymous interview?

What do The Chronicle editors think of the N&O’s thirteen month long cover-up?

Suppose on Apr. 10, the day the public learned all DNA results had come back from the state lab negative, and one week before DA Nifong secured grand jury indictments against Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, the N&O had run on page one a correction beginning:

“In our Mar. 25 page one story which included an anonymous interview with the accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case, we didn’t tell you that along with claiming she was raped, the accuser said the second dancer, Kim Roberts, was also raped but failed to report her rape because ….

Regarding what’s now called the lacrosse players “wall of silence” (we used the term “wall of solidarity” in our Mar. 25 story) and widespread reports the players refused to cooperate with authorities, the N&O regrets not reporting that the players had cooperated extensively with police and that …

If something like that had happened, how much further could the witch hunt and frame-up have gone?

Wouldn’t a full, frank public admission by the N&O of all that was false in its early reporting have forced even people like President Richard H. Brodhead to speak out against the trashing of the lacrosse players; the circulation of the “Wanted” poster that many attorneys say libeled them; the circulation on campus of the “Vigilante” poster which added to the danger they were already facing; and the frame-up of three of them by Nifong, certain Durham Police officers and others?

The Chronicle urges people to buy the N&O? Why?

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

The Churchill Series – Apr. 19, 2007

(One of a series of posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In yesterday’s post we learned , thanks to Churchill’s biographer, Martin Gilbert, and a librarian at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst that while a cadet there, Churchill’s “riding skills had been judged exceptional.”

His riding skills enabled Churchill to become not only a fine cavalry officer but an outstanding polo player, a sport he loved and played into his fifties.

While a subaltern in India, Churchill was a member of the team that won the championship for which British regiments competed each year. Later he played many years for the Commons team in matches against the Lords.

Lest you think such matches might be like an annual softball game between the House and the Senate, bear this in mind: We are talking of a time when riding was a highly esteemed and essential activity. Most members of Parliament had been schooled in riding from childhood. Many were not only skilled polo players but fox hunters and steeplechasers. The competition to make the Commons and Lords pole teams was fierce.

Now here’s something else: From his subaltern days onward, Churchill played with a significant handicap. He had torn muscles in his right shoulder upon his arrival in India. Ever after, the muscles attachment to his arm and shoulder bones was tenuous. He had to be careful lest he team the muscles again.

So it was necessary for him when playing polo to wear a halter-like device on his right arm to limit its reach and motion lest in the heat of a match he reach too far with his mallet, and easily tear muscles that never adhered to his bones as is normal.

There’s a picture here. You can see the halter on his right arm and the banding abound his chest cavity. Between the halter and the banding around his chest was an elastic belt that pulled the halter when he began to reach too far.

You ask: With that sort of handicap, how’d he become such a good polo player.

That’s part of tomorrow’s post.

Now I have to saddle up and ride out to “the paid work range.”

Talking to Regulars & Commenters – 4/19/07

(A post in the old web log form: notes for those familiar with the material. Don’t look for hyperlinks or background in this post.)

This has to be very short. A longer Talking post will follow tomorrow.

Thanks for the heads up on what’s happening at the Editors’ Blog.

So N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill says those who’ve criticized the N&O’s Hoax coverage “hate us.”

That’s so wrong but if you’re a long-time reader of the N&O’s Editors’ Blog, you know Melanie regularly lashes out like that at readers who expose N&O falsehoods.

If you count yourselves among the critics she says “hate us,” and that upsets you, imagine this: you’re one of the Duke students or a member of one of those student’s families.

Now you’re reading Melanie’s Sunday column or Ted Vaden’s Sunday column and they’re telling you the students and their parents are the ones responsible for the biased, false and racially inflammatory N&O reporting.

I don’t know how those young men and their families endured the last thirteen months, and now the N&O blaming them for its own deliberately malicious frauds and endangerment of the players.

On a positive note regarding the students’ families, there was a wonderful letter this week in The Chronicle from a person ID’ing as a grandfather of a player on last year’s team. I plan to post on the letter tomorrow.

I sent DU Police Director Dean a copy of my March 30 post asking for a current Durham CrimeStoppers link and information about what, if anything, DUPD did in response to the “Vigilante” poster.

I’ll keep pressing.

More tomorrow.

John

JinC “Get Well” vote

A school principal got sick and had to stay home. The faculty decided to send the principal a “Get Well” card. The vote was 24 to 23.

That said, most of you know I have a transient medical condition from which I expect to make a full recovery very soon. In fact, I’m already getting much better.

What's more, I’m happy to announce tonight that early tabulation of the JinC “Get Well/Get Sicker” "vote” is so far overwhelmingly in favor of “Get well."

Of course, I’m nothing if not a realist. I know it will be a long night before I and my "Get Well" supporters can confidently declare victory.

As I’m sure you’ve all seen on the tally board, the “votes” are not yet in from the Raleigh N&O, Duke's Allen Building and DA Mike Nifong’s office.

Also, Duke's Brodhead 88 precinct has yet to report either its “Get Well vote” or who paid for its Chronicle ad.

When there's news concerning either one of those, you'll be switched immediately to Sam Hummel who's standing by under the big red and white CASTRATE banner at Potbangers' headquarters in Trinity Park.

Meanwhile, I pledge to all of you this: Even if “the vote” turns out to be “Get sicker, JinC,” I’ll not cease in my efforts to get well.
________________________________

A serious note: I appreciate every one of your good wishes.

Thank you very much.

John

N&O Public Editor Scams – Post 1

Readers Note: The Raleigh News & Observer has a public editor, Ted Vaden, whose job is to watch out for readers’ interests. He likes readers to think of his as their “watch dog.”

Vaden writes a Sunday column. His April 15 column was titled, “Assessing The N&O’s lacrosse coverage.”

A more accurate title would have been: “Scamming readers about The N&O’s Hoax coverage.”

Vaden's column contains a few grudging admissions of N&O errors which he minimizes. But most of his column is a mix of air brushing, factual errors, and blame-shifting.

Vaden's column doesn't offer readers what they have a right to expect from a public editor: a thoughtful, no holds barred examination of the N&O's biased, often false and racially inflammatory Hoax coverage. What Vaden gave readers is really a scam.

In this first post in a series, I comment on one section of his column. In subsequent posts, I’ll comment on other column sections or assertions Vaden made.

I hope you read the series. I’ll be interested to know whether you agree his column is a scam.

I’ll send Vaden links, invite his comments and offer to publish them.

If past history is any judge, I won’t get back much, if anything, of substance.

John
_______________________________________________


Vaden’s April 15, 2007 column is here. I’m commenting today on one section with the subhead: “Fairness in editorials.”

On the editorial pages -- operated separately from the news reporting -- the paper raised early questions about the fairness of the prosecution. In two editorials in May, the paper questioned the police lineup procedure and the prosecutor's refusal to meet with and hear evidence from the defendants' attorneys. "For justice to be served, certainly the accuser deserves a vigorous prosecution on the basis of the evidence," one editorial said. "But if the alleged attackers' right to fair treatment is abused, any case against them could, and should, melt away under the courts' scrutiny."

It should be noted also that an early editorial called for canceling the lacrosse season, which Duke President Richard Brodhead subsequently did. (bold added)

That single sentence in bold refers to the N&O’s March 28 editorial, “Lacrosse time-out.” (pay req’d)

Here’s some of what's in that editorial that our “watch dog” didn’t mention in his assessment of his employer’s “Fariness in editorials.”

The editorial called Mangum “a victim” and referred to “the victim's story.”

The N&O said the “woman's reporting to the police that she was attacked was an act of courage.” Then it added: “And no one -- no one -- deserves the violence alleged here. “

The N&O followed that by telling readers research “indicates that sexual assault is far too common on college campuses [and research indicated] between 15 percent and 20 percent of college women say they've been raped, and alcohol often is involved.”

The editorial included a retelling of the false story the N&O had scripted for its March 25 “anonymous interview” story about a night the N&O declared, with no qualification whatever, ended “in sexual violence.”

Before demanding President Brodhead “bench this lacrosse team” the N&O couldn’t resist sliming the students with this cheap shot:

As things stand, all are suspects in a criminal investigation. Surely, Duke students wouldn't want to be represented by those under such a cloud -- on the lacrosse field or anywhere else.

That cheap shot from the editorial page editor Steve Ford who in November was castigating Durham voters who didn’t want Nifong representing them in the district attorney's office or anywhere else.

I’ll say more about Vaden’s “Fairness in editorials” section and other N&O Hoax editorials tomorrow.

Closing thought: Vaden’s one sentence which we’ve just considered is the only thing he said that could be construed as critical of his employer’s editorials.

The Churchill Series – Apr. 18, 2007

(One of a series of posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Martin Gilbert, Churchill’s official biographer, tells us what he learned in 1964 about Churchill’s subject grades and overall achievement at Sandhurst. He also says something about a myth concerning them:

[A copy of Churchill’s] examination marks at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, [was] sent from the academy in 1964.

The young Churchill had dramatically improved his marks in the course of a single year, from December 1893 to December 1894. Military topography had been one of his best subjects. His marks in tactics, as well as in the study of fortifications had been very high. His horse riding skills had been judged exceptional.

The young cadet’s conduct had also steadily improved, from “good but unpunctual” to “unpunctual” (half way through the year) to “good.”

Most remarkable, as the librarian at Sandhurst pointed out in a covering letter, Churchill had come within 24 marks (out of 2,720) of receiving the Sword of Honour for his year: he only failed to attain that coveted prize because the winner had received a bonus of fifty marks for already being an Under Officer.

The image of the backward cadet could no longer be sustained, even though, thirty years after this discovery, it is still being perpetuated.

Tomorrow’s post will also deal with Churchill’s success at Sandhurst, something of which he was very proud.
_____________________________________________

Martin Gilbert, In Search of Churchill: A Historian’s Journey. (John Wiley & Sons) (pgs. 16-17)

Attorneys: Investigate Nifong, DPD

ABC News reporting today:

For the three Duke lacrosse players once called "hooligans" by Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, Wednesday's dropping of all charges against them was both a legal and personal vindication.
"I hope these allegations don't come to define me," said former lacrosse player David Evans. ….

Evans and his fellow teammates, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, fought back with the help of the four attorneys who represented them: Joe Cheshire, Jim Cooney, Bill Cotter and Wade Smith.

On "Good Morning America," the attorneys talked about what's next for the young men, Nifong and the woman who accused the players of rape. …

Cooney said that Nifong should be investigated by the state bar and by an independent agency who can determine if he engaged in criminal wrongdoing.
"I think we all need to make sure that we give Mr. Nifong the thing he didn't want to give our clients, which is a fair hearing before the state bar," Cooney said.

"One thing we're all in agreement on is that an independent agency with criminal jurisdiction needs to do an investigation into this case. We need to determine whether there was in fact criminal wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement, and on the part of Mr. Nifong." (emphasis added)

So they're all in agreement: “We need to determine whether there was in fact criminal wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement, and on the part of Mr. Nifong."

I think that means some kind of investigation, more likely more than one, is/are going to happen given the legal and moral authority with which the defense attorneys can now speak because of how the case played out as an indisputable frame-up of three innocent young men.

I wish Cooney had said which “independent agency with criminal jurisdiction” should investigate. I hope blogs such as Liestoppers and Durham-in-Wonderland will follow up and bring us more from Cooney and the other attorneys.

So much that is questionable and perhaps criminal was done involving both state and federal laws that agencies on both levels very likely have cause to be involved.

At least federal involvement seems a sure thing. Every attorney I’ve spoken to recently about the case has said something between “reasonable grounds to at least consider whether their civil rights were violated” and “there’s no question their civil rights were violated. At some point the federal government is going to have to step in. It’s a matter of when and how.”

Needing investigation are all the matters surrounding DPD Cpl. David Addison’s public assurances a crime was committed at a time when evidence DPD had strongly indicated none had occurred. And don’t forget all the DPD involvement with the CrimeStoppers poster.

Some attorneys have pointed to Moezeldin Elmostafa, the cab driver may very well have a civil rights violation claim based on his arrest and trial for a three year old shoplifting warrant.

Those attorneys say you’re not supposed to single out one citizen for treatment that you wouldn’t treat other citizens like in similar circumstances. Here’s how one attorney “made the case:” “How many of the thousands of Durham residents with old, outstanding shoplifting warrants are arrested by Durham Police, taken to jail, forced to post bond and then tried in court where two police officers show up, sit through the trial and never explain why they were there?”

Let’s keep in touch, folks. There’s a lot we don’t know and a lot more we’ll learn.

Hat tip: Liestoppers.com

This made me smile

Our dishwasher broke almost a week ago and the repair person couldn’t get out until yesterday.

By late yesterday afternoon repairs were completed; and all was once again well in our kitchen.

My wife loaded a “first wash” and hit the “Start” button. We began eating dinner.

With the dishwasher’s hum sounds in the background, my wife looked at me across the tile counter and said:

”It’s a sobering thought to realize I love the dishwasher almost as much as I love you.”

I leaned over and refilled her wine glass.

The Churchill Series – Apr. 17, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Cigars today, threats to Prime Minister’s life, and a caution to be careful who you buy cigars from on your next visit to wartime England.

In a Finest Hour article, Allan Packwood, then Archivist at the Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge, tells us:

The problem facing those trying to protect the premier [from Nazi assassins] was immense. The only way they could be absolutely certain that a cigar [received in a gift package] was safe to smoke was by exposing it to a testing process that would destroy it. [That solution] was clearly unacceptable to the Prime Minister. …

[What to do?]

It became the policy of Churchill's Private Office not to accept small gifts, while larger consignments of cigars were individually assessed for the risk they posed. If the source was considered respectable the consignment could be referred to M.I.5 for random testing. But when the source was considered unreliable the cigars clearly had to be disposed of.

On 7 November 1941, John Martin, Churchill's Principal Private Secretary, sent the Prime Minister a minute relating to two recent gifts of cigars from Brazil. He noted that, "In view of the German record in matters of this kind, there is undoubtedly an element of risk...and it does not seem to be a risk which you should take."

He suggested three alternatives: the cigars could be exchanged at a reputable dealer's for reliable stock and sold to unsuspecting customers; they could be exchanged with cigars owned by Lord Rothschild and smoked by him; or they could be destroyed or smoked by any of Churchill's staff who were prepared to take the risk.

From his marginal annotations, it is clear that Churchill considered the first option to be "lousy" and the second to be unacceptable. He minuted back, "If these cigars are not thought safe for me, they are not safe for anyone, and had better be destroyed."

Churchill had the right solution for the right reason.

Whatever possessed Martin to suggest the cigars “be exchanged at a reputable dealer’s for reliable stock?” Or to think Churchill would endorse such a proposal?

It may be that Martin was doing what staffers often do for the top executive: laying out all the options, even those with which they might disagree.

That said, and remembering that fine cigars were very scarce in wartime England, I don’t think any of us would have bought a cigar from Martin if we knew what Churchill learned on 7 November 1941.

Wise words about rape

I don’t know about you, but in following all that’s happened since April 11 when NC Attorney General Roy Cooper spoke the truth - “Innocent” - I missed a great column by professor and blogger William (“Bill”) Anderson who’s been in the forefront of the fight for truth and justice in the Duke Hoax case.

Bill’s April 12 column includes:

The politics of rape dominate the law in this country, and that is not a good thing. Yes, rape is a terrible crime, but a rape must first be committed before one can say there was a crime.

The modern politics of rape do not require a rape, only an accusation, and once that accusation is made, it almost is impossible to dislodge.

Even today, even with the AG’s statement and all of the investigation done, there still are "rape crisis" advocates out there who will insist that those three young men raped Crystal Gail Mangum. Take the following quote:

"I hope people who experience sexual violence in any form feel comfortable calling for help ... and know that each case is different, and they can seek help when they've been violated.

There's a possibility that the way the media handles high-profile sexual assault cases, and the fear that would happen to any survivor who comes forward, can have a chilling effect and make them reluctant to step forward." – Margaret Barrett, executive director, Orange County Rape Crisis Center in Chapel Hill.

This comes from the NAACP:

"Now, as we have repeatedly said, comes the hard part. How do we proceed toward the healing places in our communities and our hearts? Long after the television vans with their saucer antennas have pulled out of Durham, long after the bloggers have grown weary from typing, those of us who believe in freedom and justice can not rest.

How do we work to ensure that the final decisions in this case in no way deter women of color from making claims of violations against them which violate their spirits and their bodies?" – statement from William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina NAACP.

Thus, we see the intersection of the politics of race and rape. That intersection more often than not produces lies, and we have seen the wreckage.

This part of the case is over, although the trials for Michael Nifong are just beginning. One can hope that this miscreant meets the bar of justice. There are more people who need to meet that bar, too, and I will deal with them at a different time.

You can read Bill’s entire column here, and if you haven’t, I hope you do.

Bill offers wise words.

Folks, after reading Bill’s column, I searched the net for Rev. Barber’s statement.

It’s not at the state NAACP site. I called the NC NAACP office. They’ll be posting it soon, I was told. I asked for a fax copy: it hasn’t arrived.

I’ve a lot of questions about what Barber’s been quoted as saying since Cooper made his statement, but I settled on asking him about the most important of those questions as you’ll see in the email I'm sending him.
_____________________
Dear Rev. Barber:

I blog as John in Carolina and post often on the Hoax case.
On Apr. 12 the Durham Herald Sun reported:

State NAACP President William Barber said in a prepared statement that he supported the attorney general's move.

"If [Attorney General Cooper’s] office believes the state lacks sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements of each crime took place, then it is the state's constitutional duty to dismiss the charges," Barber said. "We trust that [Cooper's office and the State Bureau of Investigation have] left no stone unturned in the investigation of this case."

Did the H-S quote you accurately and completely?

I was concerned to see you quoted as saying: "If his office believes the state lacks sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements of each crime took place, then it is the state's constitutional duty to dismiss the charges.”

In fact, Attorney General Cooper said: “Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.” (emphasis added)

If you were accused of stealing from your church and I was accused of abetting you, and Attorney General Cooper, after a lengthy investigation, said he believed we were “innocent of these charges,” we’d want and rightly expect at least fair-minded people to say, “They’re innocent,” instead of “the state lacks sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that all elements of each crime took place that Rev. Barber and John in Carolina are accused of.”

Do you agree with the Attorney General: they’re innocent?

I’ll publish your response at JinC. This link will take you to a post where I discuss the matters I’ve just placed before you.

Thank you for your attention to my query.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

The Churchill Series – Apr. 16, 2007

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

While some few of Churchill’s many biographers describe him as rude, even nasty, that’s not how he struck almost everyone who served under him. Political colleagues, members of his private office and others overwhelmingly describe him as a man who could certainly be abrupt and sarcastic, and was prone to temper outbursts.

But he was quick to recover and almost always apologized fully. If you’d done your best but made a mistake, he was very forgiving. And so much of what he said and did was leavened with his puckish sense of humor and quick wit that people who worked with him invariably found it fun as well as demanding.

Let's use the mention of fun to agree: “Enough of this serious stuff; its time we had a little fun.”

In his diary Lord Charles Moran, Churchill’s personal physician, recorded many amusing incidents involving Churchill and his valet, Sawyers.

Do you recall Jeeves, the supremely competent and candid valet to P.G. Woodhouse’s well-intentioned, fun-seeking, and bumbling Bertie Wooster?

Sawyers wasn’t by any stretch as competent as Jeeves, but he was candid as you’re about to see. You’ll also see Churchill’s humor and wit come to the fore.

The following entry from Moran's diary is dated 3 Feb. 1945, and appeared previously in a Nov. 2005 series post.

All morning the P.M. has been losing things.

"Sawyers, Sawyers, where are my glasses?"

"There, sir," said Sawyers, leaning over his shoulder as he sat, and tapping the P. M.'s pocket.

At last, when the P. M. was getting ready for his afternoon sleep, he cried out irritably: “Sawyers, where is my hot-water bottle?"

"You are sitting on it, sir," replied the faithful Sawyers. "Not a very good idea.”

"It's not an idea, it's a coincidence," said the P. M., enjoying his own choice of words, and without a trace of resentment.

__________________________________________________
Lord Moran,Winston Churchill: The Struggle for Survival, 1940-1965. (pg. 240)

Hoax commentary – 4/16/2007

Readers Note: I’ve a transient medical situation the docs say will get better sooner if I stay prone most of the time.

So blogging will be light for a few days. But I’m reading and thinking a lot; and in order to “keep the blog light burning” I’ll post for the next few days some informal commentary posts without the usual links to sources. That will be a time saver and allow me to prattle on as if I were a “distinguished journalist and pundit.”

John
__________________________________

I thought last night’s 60 Minutes episode was a big plus for all involved: the players, Cooper and Stahl.

On another matter: The N&O has now given us a second and very different account of what took place at the “anonymous interview.” (really two sessions on the same day according to the N&O’s “latest”)

Don’t you think it’s fittingly ironic that Mangum told a number of conflicting stories and now the N&O is compelled to admit it told conflicting stories about its “anonymous interview” with her?

Why did the N&O give us such a false account in its March 25 “anonymous interview” story?

I still don’t have a satisfactory answer to that question, not to my own personal satisfaction, and certainly not to any level of confidence where I'd put it on the blog.

One thing I’m sure of: the answer to the question isn’t, “Samiha Khanna did it. She wrote the story.”

Young reporters dream of page one, above the fold, five column wide stories that are sure to “go national.”

But they don’t decide to put the stories there. Editors do that. And editors have the final call on what goes in a story.

I’m working on a post that will say more about that. Also, that the story had two reporters’ names bylined. The other was Anne Blythe.

Blythe and Khanna teamed, you’ll recall, on the first of the N&O’s framing stories that ran on March 24 and seven times called Mangum the “victim.”

Some people are talking about apologies. I predict the N&O will very soon offer a “Nifong-type” apology or claim it already has.

Did you all read N&O exec editor Melanie Sill and public editor Ted Vaden’s columns’ in the April 15 edition? They blamed the players and their parents for the N&O's false and racially inflammatory coverage last March and April.

Do any of you really believe I’m too critical of the N&O?

I’ll give you my answer: I spent a lot of today flat on my back but able to at least scroll a laptop and read many of my posts from last year on the Hoax.

A date was wrong here or there, and there were spelling errors, but the posts have stood up to time and unfolding events.

If anything, I was too cautious and understating in my posts regarding the N&O’s important role in launching and maintaining the frame-up.

The next time someone tells you how good the N&O’s coverage got after last April, ask that person a question if you think the person is intelligent and reasonable: Would the Nifong part of the frame-up have gone as far as it did and caused all the damage we know its caused, if last May when David Evans was indicted or last June when Duke Law professor James Coleman called for Nifong to remove himself from the case, the N&O had shared with us the critical information it withheld from us about what the frightened young mother, “struggling not to cry as she recounted the events,” really said?

My favorite person has just said I need to get prone.

I’ll be in touch again soon.

(This unproofed)

Questions for Two Profs – Post 2

Readers' Note:The post below is a follow up to the post, “Questions for Two Profs,” and comments which appeared on its thread. If you’re not familiar with that post and the comments, I encourage you to read them.

John
________________________________________

First, as most of you realize, the reason I responded to Duke University Professor Broverman’s email had to do primarily with what she didn’t say. From my email to Broverman:

Nowhere in your email do you say you agree with NC Attorney General Roy Cooper’s conclusion: “Innocent.”

Do you?

If not, why not?

Given that in her detailed email Broverman had not said, “Yes, they’re innocent,” I also questioned Professor KC Johnson’s response to her email because he said he agreed with everything she'd said in it, and he hadn’t called her on the absence of a “Yes, they’re innocent.” KC, as all of you know, has been a leader in the fight for justice in the Duke Hoax/frame-up case.

KC responded promptly. Here in full is his response:

John,

Given that Prof. Broverman says she was contacted by the newspaper about another matter and that the reporter promised to get back to her after Cooper's remarks and didn't, I was inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt--especially since the paper in question was Newsday, which in the last couple of weeks has published several articles highly and unfairly critical of the lacrosse players.

On prosecuting rape cases, I share your opinion. This case, obviously, is an extreme example--but it is frightening that under NC law, Reade Seligmann's ability to absolutely demonstrate his innocence was not in and of itself enough for a judge to dismiss all charges right off the bat.

On the Duke case, one thing I hope would bother all scientists, including Prof. Broverman, is Nifong's almost casual dismissal of the forensic evidence. Given the specifics of the allegations of Mangum and the fact that she immediately went to hospital (as opposed to most rape cases), the DNA in this case should have been dispositive.

KC

I thank KC for his response.

If Broverman resplies to my email, I will, as promised, publish it.

Also, if AMac gets a response from Newsday and passes it on to me, I’ll build a main page post on it, if that’s OK with him.

I want to thank all of you who at KC’s DiW and here at JinC civilly and with informed care invoked principles of science and/or common law precepts to question and/or refute what Duke University Professor Sherryl Broverman said and didn’t say in her email about the indicted Duke students; and what Brooklyn College Professor Robert KC Johnson said in response to Broverman's email.

In a few minutes I’ll leave a brief comment on the thread of the “Questions for Two Profs.” Besides thanking those of you I’m just thanked I plan to say Broverman is fortunate so many of her science colleagues stepped forward to remind her of the limits and proper uses of the scientific method. I’ll end with a special word of thanks to those of you who refuted the commenter who seemed to infer I’d unfairly “slammed” KC Johnson.