…Columnist Barry Saunders takes a second swing today at the 38 Duke lacrosse players who weren’t charged in the case but have filed suit against multiple parties. Click here for the full column.______________________________________________________
Last week, Saunders wrote: “The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs have been aggrieved by the negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Say what? Oh, their wittle feelings have been hurt.”
What do you think of these Saunders’ columns? ...
I’ve just left the following comment on the thread of Drescher’s post.
Dear Editor Drescher:
After reading Saunders' columns, my first thought was: "Saunders’ slimes of the players and their parents is on message with Drescher and the N&O."
That's because you and other senior N&O editors as well as McClatchy News don't want to see the 38 suit or the other suits go forward lest they expose your roles in the trashing and endangerment of the players, the enablement of the frame-up attempt and the sustaining of the ongoing cover-up of the frame-up attempt.
So after all you've already done to them, you'll now enable Saunders to slime the players and their families; their attorneys, too.
My second thought was: “Ruth Sheehan admitted the source for her March 27, 2006 “Team’s silence is sickening” column was Mike Nifong. So who was the source for Saunders’ March 28, 2006 column, “Beauty in a place of horror?”
You know, the column in which Saunders said:
From what I hear, the young lady was a novice stripper, which won't make a bit of difference to the moralists who'll blame her anyway.The N&O knew from the beginning of her lies that Crystal Mangum had a long history as a stripper.
It would, however, explain why she didn't know that she should've hustled her 6-inch clear heels out of that crib as soon as she realized that an engagement to dance for five men turned out to be a "boys gone wild" gig with close to 50 males. (Don't dare call them men.)
Editor Drescher, you knew Saunders’ “novice stripper” description was false.
In June 2002 the N&O reported Mangum had been stripping at a men's club when she stole a guy's keys and car; and then tried to run down Durham Deputy Sheriff John Carroll when he gave chase.
Durham police, deputies, news reporters and many others here in Durham knew from the beginning who Mangum was and that the "new" to dancing claim the N&O first reported on March 25, 2006 was false
So the questions I ask myself when I read a Barry Saunders column are the same ones any sensible person should ask:
Did Saunders really believe Mangum “was a novice stripper?” Or was he lying?
Didn’t everyone covering Mangum’s “story” after March 14 know who she was?
Why did you and other senior N&O editors publish Saunders’ March 28, 2006 column when you knew for days Mangum true history?
Why did you decide not to publish her history which was relevent to the case and refuted what she'd said and you'd reported?
Why did you and others at the N&O decide instead to promulgate another lie about the players refusing to cooperate with police?
Why does the N&O continue to say it's "proud of our 'Duke rape case' coverage?"
There are more questions I want to ask about Saunders’ columns.
But first, please answer the questions I’ve asked here.
You know the answers.
John in Carolina