(Readers’ Note: Here you'll find in sketch form material concerning the DL case. Look elsewhere at JinC for more fully developed posts.
I hope you make comments on the threads. JinC readers have been a great source of DL info and commentary.
Look for some redundency here because there’s always the chance someone from the Antarctic or in the Antarctic will drop by for a first time visit. John)
I need to learn more about Friends of Duke University blog. So far FDU's
links tab is the main reason I go there.(Full disclosure. FDU has linked to me)
But if you go to FDU, you'll quickly see many people go there for other reasons, including the opportuntiy FDU provides with its comment boards.
Getting back to the links, it looks like FDU updates them at least twice daily.
The links take you to “places” where posts, op-eds, news reports, etc are mostly the sort that the “why aren't they in jail and where’s Rev. Sharpton” crowd might skip over.
But not always. FDU linked today to the N&O’s awful editorial that included this:
Certainly the defense is campaigning to swing public opinion in their clients' favor, and can be counted upon to highlight anything in the record that will help achieve that. As long as the accuser holds to her account, the authorities must not let the defense intimidate them.(bold added)I posted on the N&O editorial here.
I expect other bloggers may also have posted on it or will. If you see any, please leave a comment here. I'll put the information in a main page post.
I've said MSM is underreporting Duke Law Professor James Coleman’s statements calling for Nifong’s replacement as prosecutor of the DL case.
Can you recall the last time a Duke Law professor spoke this way about a Durham DA:
"Nifong can no longer personally restore public confidence in the prosecution of this case.But look at the kind of coverage liberal/leftist MSM have given Coleman's statements.
Someone with professional detachment and unquestioned integrity must review the case and determine whether the evidence against the three students warrants further prosecution?"
The N&O, for example, reported Coleman's statements in the "B" section with a one column head.
But open beer cans in 18 year old hands and rowdy kids peeing on the lawns gets page one, above the fold, headline treatment from the N&O.
Today at The Editor’s Blog a thoughtful N&O reader asks an even better question than I've been asking about media underreporting (scroll to about the 45th comment) :
"How often does the former chief counsel to the US House Ethics Committee publicly state no confidence in a prosecutor?"Great question for the professors at North Carolina’s five law schools – Campbell U., NC Central, Duke, UNC–Chapel Hill, and Wake Forest.
Why aren't at least some of the professors at those law schools telling us whether or not they agree with Coleman?What else do the professors at NC's law schools think about the DL case?
We're not hearing very much except for Coleman. The other profs can't all be vacationing, can they?
Is the problem that no reporters are calling?
Can anyone answer that question?
Moving on.
We hear a lot about the defense attorneys cherry picking.
I'll end tonight with two cherry picking questions:
1) If attorneys cite medical records the DA made available to them; and the attorneys don't leave out other medical records the DA gave them that contradict what the attorneys cite, how can the attorneys be accused of cherry picking?
2) If you’re a Durham DA teaming with an accuser who’s told many different stories about an alleged gang-rape; and you and the accuser settle on one of the stories to tell in court, are you cherry picking?
More notes tomorrow evening.
Meanwhile, I hope you ask your friends some cherry picking questions. The whole cuntry should be chewing on them.
John
_____________________________________________
Post URLs:
http://friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/
http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/451509.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/449892.html
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=duke_lacrosse_comments_1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/06/duke-lacrosse-mcclatchys-no-still-with.html
2 comments:
Thus far, it doesn't seem that it's the defense attornies who are cherry picking.
Much of the informatin the DA leaked wasn't so much cherry picking as it was made up (i.e. date rape drug, his reasoning of no DNA match, etc).
Saying Distric Attorney Mike Nifong is cherry picking is an understtement because so far much of the DA's cherries were artificially made by him personally.
Maybe he's just clumsy and trying to make a pie, which would explain why he has egg on his face.
Betty,
You come across as a sharp person.
Therefore, I want to ask about this part of your comment: "Thus far, it doesn't seem that it's the defense attorneys who are cherry picking."
I agree.
The question I asked beginning "If attorneys cite medical records; etc"
was rhetorical.
I was not meant to suggest that I thought the defense attorneys were cherry picking.
The point of my rhetorical question was that if medical exam results are critical, and you select from among 1300 pages those pages that deal with medical exam results, you are not cherry picking but providing the pages relevant to what's critical.
I'm going to say something later today about this in a Talking with Regulars post.
I loved your references to artificially made cherries, pie, and egg on a certain prosecutors face.
I hope you keep commenting. You’re adding to this blog.
Thank you.
John
Post a Comment