Duke lacrosse: Johnsville’s Questions

Johnsville News has Nifong questions. JN starts off:

Durham has real problems - gang problems. How are Mike Nifong and the Durham Police Department able to justify in their minds expending the time and effort on prosecuting a hoax against three innocent lacrosse players, when gang violence is erupting in the Durham courthouse? ….

ABC reported:

The first-degree murder trial of 17-year old Calvin Nicholson is on hold. He is accused of gunning down an 18-year-old Hillside High School student on Bacon Street in 2005. Police say it was gang-related.

Tuesday's courthouse melee erupted on the fifth-floor, after key witnesses backed out of the Nicholson trial. They said they were being threatened.

"An incident occurred when information came up that caused people from one courtroom and gang to come to the other courtroom, where members of a rival gang were involved," said Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Durham police are investigating the threats, which are a major challenge in prosecuting gang-related trials.

"You can't really conduct trials in an atmosphere, where there is intimidation of witnesses, or where there is fear that something might happen," Nifong said. "The District Attorney's Office is not equipped to protect witnesses in any situation. There aren't any local witness protection programs, or anything of that nature. The fact is people are to some extent on their own, in terms of their protection." (bold JN)

People are on their own in terms of their protection? So that’s what DA Nifong has given us. Well, at least it’s more truthful than most of what he’s been saying.

Johnsville continues with the usual smart commentary:

The District Attorney's Office is ill equipped to protect witnesses in any situation or protect the citizens of Durham from gang violence because the office is totally distracted by this lacrosse hoax. Until this hoax is dropped and Mike Nifong is removed from office the Durham District Attorney's Office will be fighting crime with one hand tied behind its back.

Who does not think that Mike Nifong is emotionally involved with this case? His obsession certainly impacts the performance of the entire DA's office.

Nifong is spending his time filing ridiculous legal motions in the Duke case about telephone surveys that involve his wife. Last Friday he spends basically the entire day at courthouse on his hoax. This doesn't count Nifong's countless hours of case related preparation, time obsessing about the case, and time spent dealing with at least seven outstanding defense attorneys.

There’s a lot more to the JN post. You can read it all here.

The Churchill Series – Sept. 28, 2006

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

On October 28, 1943 Churchill spoke in the House of Lords. But he didn’t address the Lords. He was speaking to Members of the House of Commons.

How did that happen?

The House of Commons was bombed and badly damaged during the Blitz. So it was arranged that the Commons would meet in the Lords.

Meanwhile, plans were afoot to restore the Commons once the war was over. And that’s what Churchill spoke about to the Commons in the Lords that October day in 1943:

"On the night of May 10, 1941, with one of the last bombs of the last serious raid, our House of Commons was destroyed by the violence of the enemy, and we have now to consider whether we should build it up again, and how, and when. We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us. Having dwelt and served for more than forty years in the late Chamber, and having derived very great pleasure and advantage therefrom, I, naturally, should like to see it restored in all essentials to its old form, convenience and dignity."

The matter of how the Commons would be restored provoked considerable dispute. There were some who thought, for instance, that it should be enlarged and that there should be a desk in the chamber for every member.

Churchill wanted none of that. In tomorrow’s post, we learn how it all turned out.

Hint: Churchill was very pleased with the final result.

Duke lacrosse: Is this year's Chronicle serious?

Last Spring Duke student’s newspaper, The Chronicle, did some fine reporting on what was then called “the Duke lacrosse case;” something we now recognize was a vicious hoax that’s injured many innocent people and whose full damage we can't yet tally.

Now another year's news and editorial teams are at The Chronicle giving us their latest on the case/hoax. Beneath the headline, “Research reveals impact of lax scandal on Duke's image,” we read:

For months, allegations of rape surrounding the men's lacrosse team splashed across the headlines of the country's most prominent publications, from Newsweek to The New York Times.

But according to research recently acquired by The Chronicle, most alumni and the larger public have since rebounded from the negative impact of the controversy, giving Duke an overwhelmingly positive favorability rating.

Research acquired by The Chronicle? What could that be?

And how did The Chronicle acquire that research in time to publish it just as Duke’s trustees are arriving on campus for a weekend meeting?

The Chronicle doesn’t say, but it does disclose this:

Commissioned by the University's office of public affairs, the study was drawn from two sets of data collected in late April and mid-June to analyze the effects of the controversy on public impressions of Duke.

Researchers compiled data from 786 and 801 telephone interviews conducted in April and June, respectively.

OK, we now know the "research" was commissioned by the University’s office of public affairs.

But The Chronicle doesn’t say how it got its hands on the “research.” I guess journalists have to protect their sources.

Still, did The Chronicle uncover the “research” it reports as a result hard-nosed digging? Or was The Chronicle fed a selective leak from an “anonymous source high up in the Brodhead administration?”

The Chronicle leaves its faithful readers in what I've heard the University’s office of public affairs Senior Vice President John Burness call a “quandary.”

The Chronicle moves on and reports :

"The overall conclusion that we came to was that this ultimately was not an issue of Duke University's reputation," said Brian Hardwick, vice president for Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, the firm hired to conduct the research.

The study showed that as early as late April, alumni-and to a lesser extent, the public-displayed strong approval of Duke despite the negativity of March's media blitz.

Strong approval? What does that mean?

The Chronicle provides many statistical data of which these seem strongest and most relevant regarding Duke alumni:

Although there was a greater than 5 percent margin of error for some statistics, the "directional trends" in the data between the two months confirmed the study's conclusions, Hardwick added.

In the April results, 97 percent of alumni respondents rated Duke in the "Top 2 Favorability" choices-meaning they felt "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" toward the University.

By June, the Top 2 Favorability among alumni rose to 98 percent.

But alas, The Chronicle gives no breakdown between the percentage of alum “very favorable” and the percentage “somewhat favorable.”

Why not?

If The Chronicle “dug,” did it fail to uncover that information? If it relied on source “feeding,” did its source decline to provide the information? Did The Chronicle even ask?

We have no answers to any of those questions.

And what do "very favorable" and "somewhat favorable" mean in the context of Duke and the hoax?

I know many alum who are "somewhat favorable" about Duke and think Brodhead "threw the lacrosse team under the bus." They're "somewhat favorable" about Duke even as they're appalled by the faculty's failure to assert reason and wise leadership in the face of a wildly improbable hoax.

I also know many alum who are "very favorable" about Duke but think the trustees need to replace Brodhead because, among other things, he "threw the lacrosse team under the bus." They also worry about the faculty's failure to assert reason and wise leadership in the face of a wildly improbable hoax.

And what’s this The Chronicle tells us about favorability among alums rising from 97 to 98 percent?

In a “research study” The Chronicle reports has a “greater than 5 percent margin of error for some statistics,” was there any real difference between 97 and 98 percent?

Was “the [rise] to 98 percent” anything more than a source/PR hype point The Chronicle swallowed “whole hog and biscuit,” and afterwards “passed” to readers?

The Chronicle reports at least one top Duke administrator felt some sense of relief when he learned of the “research.” :

"I must confess, I felt some sense of relief," said John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations, of the earliest results. "On one level, you're encouraged, and on another level, I don't think you can ever feel, after what happened, complacent or confident."

The Chronicle goes on to report Duke President Richard H. Brodhead’s reaction to the “research” :

"People have voiced a wide range of feelings to me very candidly," President Richard Brodhead said. "I have found, however, a wide level of recognition that the University is taking this seriously and in a balanced way. And I was interested to see that reflected in the research."

”People have voiced a wide range of feelings to me very candidly.”

People have also asked Brodhead some very important direct questions, which he won’t answer. Here are a few of them:

Why, President Brodhead, did you say nothing on May 18 when racists repeatedly screamed “Justice will be done, Rapist” at a Duke student, Reade Seligmann, as he walked to the Durham County Courthouse?

Why, President Brodhead, did you say nothing on May 18 when racists in the courtroom shouted death threats at Reade Seligmann? You haven’t forgotten “Dead man walking.”

Why, President Brodhead, have you said nothing critical of the Raleigh News & Observer for its publication and distribution of over 200,000 copies of the “vigilante poster” containing face-photos of 43 white Duke lacrosse players; the distribution occurring after the N&O learned that the posters would add to the very serious physical danger the players faced?

Why, President Brodhead, your silence in the face of racism and danger directed at Duke students.

Why, President Brodhead, your silence now when you were so quickly and unconditionally apologetic to a 911 caller whose identity we were told you didn’t know; and whose accusations were disputed then as they are now?

What, President Brodhead, Vice President Burness and Chronicle staffers, are polls telling you about those questions?

Update: KC Johnson has another fine post today. KC looks at what Brodhead calls "the balance" he's shown when discussion lacrosse matters (KC refutes that claim). KC also demonstrates the imbalance in other aspects of Duke's response to the hoax

Duke lacrosse: Takedowns of Nifong and Brodhead

Whatever any of us think of Durham’s DA Mike Nifong and Duke’s President Richard H. Brodhead, we can agree on this: neither man has said a single public word critical of the other.

If you doubt that, just ask any member of either man’s staffs, any member of Brodhead’s Duke board of trustees or any member of Nifong’s campaign committee.

So who’s to object to my putting bloggers’ takedowns of each man in the same post?

First, the Nifong takedown from KC Johnson at Durham-in-Wonderland

It's almost as if Mike Nifong didn't read any of his case file before proceeding with indictments.

DNA:

• March 23: Nifong’s office submits a motion to the court affirming, “The DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to who the suspect(s) are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim.”


• April 11: “DNA results can often be helpful, but, you know, I’ve been doing this for a long time, and most of the years I’ve been doing this, we didn’t have DNA. We had to deal with sexual assault cases the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them.”

Nifong apparently discovered it was useful to revise his opinion after the DNA tests he was certain would reveal matches to lacrosse players instead all came back empty.

Respect for Civil Liberties:

• Herald-Sun votebook: “Justice requires a level playing field, and it is the District Attorney’s responsibility to see that every defendant has one.”

• ESPN: “One would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong.”
Nifong apparently discovered it was useful to revise his opinion about the importance of civil liberties after defense attorneys started objecting to his unethical behavior, such as his inflammatory public statements. …

KC provides much more about Nifong’s duplicity before he wraps up with:

If any justice remains in North Carolina, this case will end with the state bar citing his massive procedural misconduct to revoke Nifong’s license to practice law.

You can read the entire post here.

Well said, KC.

The Brodhead takedown can be found at Liestoppers. Most of the post is a carefully reasoned, lucid, and civil letter from a Duke alum to Duke English Dept. Professor Karla Holloway. The letter is a response to an article, “Coda: Bodies of Evidence,” Holloway recently wrote.

The letter writer exposes Professor Holloway’s manipulations of facts so they "fit" with what she “sees” when looking at the world through her all-purpose, Four-in-One race, sex, gender and privilege "prism."

Let’s look at parts of the alum’s letter and then discuss why it’s a very effective Brodhead takedown. The letter begins:

Dear Professor Holloway:

My wife and I both graduated from Duke. I have been following the lacrosse investigation very closely and have corresponded with numerous individuals about the events and Duke's response. I was very sad to read your article "Coda: Bodies of Evidence."

The lacrosse scandal has been painful for all of us in the Duke community.

What is particularly painful is the degree to which members of the Duke faculty have labored to condemn the lacrosse team with what at times appears to be a cruel disregard for the likelihood that no rape occurred.

You address this in your "Coda: Bodies of Evidence" article by saying:

"The appropriate presumption of innocence that follows the players, however the legal case is determined, is neither the critical social indicator of the event, nor the final measure of its cultural facts."

This statement appears strange for a number of reasons.

First, the presumption of innocence obviously doesn't follow a defendant "however the legal case is determined." A defendant found guilty is treated as guilty. Michael Peterson is not presumed innocent while he serves a life sentence for the murder of his wife.

Your statement suggests that you are equating someone charged with someone convicted.

Second, whatever else happened at the party, I struggle to see how anything other than whether or not a rape occurred can be the "critical social indicator of the event."

If there was a rape, the players committed a heinous act.

If there wasn't a rape, they have been the victims of a vicious lie.

Third, the support for the lacrosse players from people like me is not based on a presumption of innocence. It is based on the facts of the case.

We are arguing that the players are actually and demonstrably innocent. The timeline of events is wholly inconsistent with the accuser's story, the medical evidence doesn't support the claim, and no witnesses corroborate the accuser's version of events.

One of the defendants, Reade Seligmann, has produced conclusive evidence that he wasn't even there during the only time any assault could have possibly occurred.

Yet, [Professor Holloway,] you dismiss the evidence no rape occurred out of hand and …

Folks, you can read the rest of the alum’s letter here and more about Prof. Holloway here at KC Johnson’s Durham-in-Wonderland.

Prof. Holloway is very comfortable with Four-in-One prismatic views but they leave reasonable people asking serious questions not just about Holloway but about Brodhead

Why, for instance, Brodhead select Holloway from among hundreds of faculty to head the committee he charged to assess Duke’s Campus Culture?

Wasn’t it clear to everyone at Duke, including Brodhead and the trustees, just what Holloway “sees” when she looks at Duke through her prism?

I have no problem with Holloway sharing her "visions" of Duke, criminal justice et al with the Campus Culture Committee. But by what standard is she the right person to chair the committee. What was Brodhead thinking of?

How does Brodhead, who himself overturned a foundation stone of American justice with his “proved innocent” remark, justify selection of Holloway who says, “ however the legal case is determined, is neither the critical social indicator of the event, nor the final measure of its cultural facts?"

Selecting Holloway to lead a committee charged with assessing Duke’s Campus Culture is a lot like selecting Ward Churchill to determine whether there’s too much patriotism on your campus.

Nice work, Liestoppers.

Hang in there, folks. It’s going to be a long struggle.

The Churchill Series - Sept. 27, 2006

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

Both Churchill and FDR had great physical courage. Churchill had proven his in battles on three continents. Roosevelt's heroic struggles to overcome the effects of polio are legendary. Less well-know, really now all but forgotten, is the extraordinary courage he displayed on Feb. 15, 1933 when, while still President-elect, a would-be assassin fired five shots at him just as he finished delivering a speech. They all missed FDR but one killed the Mayor of Chicago whose hand Roosevelt was shaking. Throughout the ordeal, Roosevelt never ducked; and he sought to comfort others afterwards.

All of that is background to a small incident that occurred in January, 1943 in Casablanca where Churchill and FDR were conferencing. They were staying in villas near each other. Their villas’ grounds were, as you can imagine, very heavily guarded.

Both men were amused by the extensive security their staffs insisted on providing. So you can imagine their mutual laughter one morning when Churchill told Roosevelt about something that had happened the night before to Mike Reilly, the head of Roosevelt's Secret Service detail. As Jon Meacham tells it in his book, Franklin and Winston,

"Mike Reilly was on patrol one evening when he glimpsed someone walking in the darkness near Roosevelt's villa. 'The old bloodhound in me took charge and I stalked the intruder,' Reilly recalled. ‘I stepped from behind a bush, directly in his path, only to have Winston Churchill look up and inquire blandly, ‘What’s the matter, Mike, did you think I was some person of evil Design?'"

____________________________________________________
You can read more on the assessination attempt on FDR here.

The Churchill Series – Sept. 26, 2006

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

Reeaders’ Note: A few of you have made nice comments. Thank you. I appreciate them very much. John
____________________________________________________

In a 1954 book, Churchill by His Contemporaries, edited by Charles Eade, then President Eisenhower recalled Churchill as a wartime ally “of extraordinarily strong convictions and a master in argument and debate.”

About that no one would disagree with Ike who went on to say:

Completely devoted to winning the war and discharging his responsibility as Prime Minister of Great Britain, he was difficult indeed to combat when conviction compelled disagreement with his views. …

He could become intensely oratorical, even in discussion with a single person, but at the same time his intensity of purpose made his delivery seem natural and appropriate. He used humor and pathos with equal facility, and drew on everything from the Greek classics to Donald Duck for quotation, cliché and forceful slang to support his position. (p.159)

Ike nicely captures the essential Churchill arguing his case. I especially liked his reference to Churchill drawing “support for his case from Greek classics to Donald Duck.” I recall reading an aide’s recollection that Churchill within a few sentences cited Gibbons and Gilbert & Sullivan. And, of course, he most often cited his favorite source of quotes: Yes, you guessed it, himself.

I hope you’re back tomorrow.

Posting delayed - Will resume by this evening

Folks,

In the past few days, I've had some heavy, urgent "day job" responsibilities to meet.

So I didn't get a few planned posts up on schedule.

I hope to have them up by this evening, Sept. 26.

Thank you for your understanding.


John

The Churchill Series – Sept. 25, 2006

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

This from Lt. Gen. Ira C. Eaker, Commander of the U.S.A.A.F. Eighth Air Force in England during WW II:

My first meeting with Winston Churchill occurred at Chequers, his country residence, in the fall of 1942. Air Marshall Harris, the R.A.F. Bomber Commander, telephoned me one evening and said the P.M. would like us at a conference at 8:00 p.m.

Shortly after our arrival it was clear that the purpose of the meeting was to brief Harry Hopkins and Gen. Jos. McNarney prior to their flight to Moscow. After the conference we were invited to join the P.M. for a spartan dinner.

At the conclusion of the meal, over brandy and cigars, our host pointed to each of us in turn and called us by the name of his opposite number on Hitler’s staff.

"You are Hermann Goering," he said to me. He then berated me in typical Hitlerian fashion, concluding, "Your miserable Luftwaffe was not able to defeat the pitiful little package of R.A.F. Spit-fires in the Battle of Britain, to clear the way for my cross-Channel invasion."

Then he beat his chest and said, "I am Der Fuehrer, Now what do we do?"

"Hitler’s" pantomime staff spent the next several hours advising him how to win the war. When daylight arrived, the P.M. pushed back his chair and said, "Well, gentlemen, if I have been correctly informed, we now know what the devils will do, the better to circumvent them. Good night, or rather, good morning."

As Eacker's recollection remiinds us, many British and American WW II leaders who worked closely with Churchill complained that he kept them up past the time they should have been in bed.

For such behavior, Churchill has been rightly criticized. He knew better and should have shown more consideration.

I don’t have a good explanation for why he didn’t. What about you?
_________________________________________________
Ira C. Eaker, "Some Memories of Winston S. Churchill," Finest Hour (52)

Reincarnation and Michael Barone

If we’re reincarnated and we get three wishes before we come back, mine will be :

1) I’m married to the same woman I’m married to now

2) We have the same grandchildren we have now

3) And I’m half as smart and talented as Michael Barone.

Like so many of you, I’ve known for years Barone is a wise person and a fine columnist.

But lately, I've learned what a terrific blogger Barone is.

Just look at Barone's Sept. 15 post, “What a load of Armitage!”

Barone begins ---

That's the headline on Victoria Toensing's dynamite column on the Plame case in today's Wall Street Journal. In it she raises several uncomfortable questions about Joseph Wilson, Richard Armitage, and Patrick Fitzgerald.

About Wilson, a serial liar, there is not really much more to say, and Toensing simply notes that Wilson confirmed that his wife, Valerie Plame, returned to the United States from a foreign assignment in 1997–which means that disclosure of her identity in 2003 could not have been a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, since that 1982 law covers only disclosures of the names of covert agents stationed abroad within five years of the revelation.

Toensing also clears up any ambiguity as to whether Plame could have been a covert agent:

As the Senate negotiator for this 1982 act, I know a trip or two by Ms. Plame to a foreign country while assigned to Langley, where she worked in July 2003, is not considered a foreign assignment. I also know covert officers are not assigned to Langley.

As to Armitage, she notes that he has said he did not disclose that he was the source of the disclosure of Plame's name publicly because he was asked not to do so by special prosecutor Fitzgerald.

But Armitage learned that he was the source on Oct. 1, 2003, and Fitzgerald was not appointed special prosecutor until Dec. 30, 2003.(bold mine)

And "any witness is free to talk about his or her testimony." She puts the responsibility for the controversy squarely on Armitage's silence:

Put aside hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds squandered on the investigation, New York Times reporter Judith Miller's 85 days in jail, the angst and legal fees of scores of witnesses, the White House held siege to a criminal investigation while fighting the war on terror, Karl Rove's reputation maligned, and "Scooter" Libby's resignation and indictment. By his silence, Mr. Armitage is responsible for one of the most factually distorted investigations in history.

I think the most troubling questions she raises are about Patrick Fitzgerald, who "knew from the day he took office that the facts did not support a violation of the act."

So why did [Fitzpatrick]continue the investigation? I think he has a responsibility to answer that question. And why didn't he find out that Armitage had disclosed Plame's name to Bob Woodward a month before he disclosed it to Robert Novak?

Mr. Armitage, who came forward after Mr. Libby was indicted, was told in February 2006, after two grand jury appearances, he would not be indicted.

Mr. Rove, however, after five grand jury appearances, was not informed until July 2006 he would not be charged. Mr. Fitzgerald made the Rove decision appear strained, a close call.

Yet of the two men's conduct, Mr. Armitage's deserved more scrutiny. And Mr. Fitzgerald knew it. Each had testified before the grand jury about a conversation with Mr. Novak. Each had forgotten about a conversation with an additional reporter: Mr. Armitage with Mr. Woodward, Mr. Rove with Time's Matt Cooper.

However, Mr. Rove came forward pre-indictment, immediately, when reminded of the second conversation. When Mr. Woodward attempted to ask Mr. Armitage about the matter, on two separate occasions pre-indictment, Mr. Armitage refused to discuss it and abruptly cut him off. To be charitable, assume he did not independently recall his conversation with Mr. Woodward. Would not two phone calls requesting to talk about the matter refresh his recollection?

Now we also know Messrs. Armitage and Novak have vastly different recollections of their conversation. Isn't that what Mr. Libby was indicted for?

To be charitable: Armitage has an honorable record of public service, and we should not assume he intentionally concealed the Woodward conversation.

But, really, how likely is it that he forgot about it for all that time? Novak's most recent column on the subject makes it clear that Armitage was not a regular Novak source, as I had assumed he was; Novak says he never talked to Armitage before Armitage's office summoned him to the interview in which Armitage disclosed Plame's name.

But Armitage surely was a regular Woodward source. Any fair reading of Woodward's books on the Bush administration shows that Armitage and the boss to whom he was fiercely loyal, Secretary of State Colin Powell, were Woodward sources. Would you forget that you had been interviewed by Bob Woodward?

I think Victoria Toensing has made a powerful case that Fitzgerald should have ended his investigation before it was begun, that Karl Rove was unjustly brought before a grand jury five times, and that Scooter Libby was unjustly indicted. But, as Glenn Reynolds says, read the whole thing.
______________________________________________


Thank you, Michael Barone.

You can read the whole Toensing op-ed here.

More about Barone's post and Toensing's op-ed tomorrow.

Nifong’s enablers and their back stories – (9/24/06 Post)

Readers’ Note: The post below is the first of a series concerning aspects of the Duke lacrosse case.

Before beginning the series, I want to tell you something about it and what I hope it helps accomplish.

Informed, fair-minded people who respect the Constitution are revolted by Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s conduct in the Duke lacrosse case.

Nifong has been the central and essential agent in creating what Brooklyn College Professor Robert KC Johnson has rightly called “monumental injustices.”

I think, at the least, Nifong should be disbarred.

But Nifong didn’t act alone. He had many enablers; most of whom are still enabling him.


I count as prime among Nifong’s enablers certain Durham police officers; Duke University’s trustees, its President, very many of Duke’s top administrators and its faculty; those at the Raleigh News & Observer who produced, beginning on March 24, Duke lacrosse coverage that was so recklessly biased, inaccurate and inflammatory that it helped launch a witch hunt and endangered many innocent people; and finally, organizations that claim to advocate justice for all, but in reality are interest groups for those they favor.

Among Nifong’s primary enablers, the series will pay most attention to those at the N&O and Duke. That’s because I know more about them and how they’re supposed to function than I know , for instance, about the legal/ethical responsibilities and constraints of NC’s elected and appointed officials and its bar association officers.

Legal/investigative/ethical aspects of the case are very well covered by journalists, academics and bloggers such as Stuart Taylor, KC Johnson, Liestoppers, Johnsville News, William Anderson, Wendy McElroy and Jason Trumpbour who occasionally comments at Friends of Duke University.

My focus on the N&O and Duke as Nifong enablers is intended to help push each organizations’ Duke lacrosse back story out before the public.

Doing that will help those pursuing justice for the lacrosse players and make the public better informed about how the monumental injustices were created and how we can undo as much of their damage as possible.

If you are not familiar with “back story,” it’s a term journalists use. It doesn’t have as precise a meaning as “everything” or “next Wednesday,” but journalists find it useful.

Asked to provide a definition for this post, a journalist friend laughed and said, “The back story is whatever we know about a story and don’t tell the readers.”

In September, 2004, when bloggers exposed the phony 60 Minutes Texas Air National Guard “documents” and how Dan Rather got them, they were making public back story parts of 60 Minutes’ on-air story.

In terms of the Duke lacrosse case, consider this question: When did Duke and the N&O each first learn of the extraordinary cooperation the lacrosse captains provided Durham Police investigators on March 16; and when, and in what detail, did Duke and the N&O each first report the captains’ cooperation to the public?

That’s a very important back story question both organizations should have answered many months ago. I hope this series helps force them to do so now. Why shouldn’t Duke and the N&O answer the question?

That completes my explanation for the series. Now the first post.
________________________________________________________

On March 25, 2006, Durham DA Mike Nifong was locked in a tough election battle for the Democratic DA nomination in November. He was paying very close attention to everything media were saying about him and whatever he was connected with.

For Nifong, the previous day had been a fine one as far media coverage went. The Raleigh News & Observer, the region’s largest circulation newspaper and dominant news organization, had broken that day what would come to be called “the Duke lacrosse case.” Nifong knew it might be the most important case he’d ever been connected with in twenty-seven years as a Durham prosecutor.

The N&O’s Mar. 24 story was very “prosecutor friendly.” One journalist would later say, “I’ve seen newspapers jump in the pool with prosecutors but what the N&O did in that story and the interview story the next day was dive from the high board and do back-flips on the way down.”

Among other things, the journalist noticed that seven times in its Mar. 24 story the N&O called the accuser either “the victim” or used the possessive “victim’s” without once qualifying them with “alleged” or “reported.” Thus, the N&O had, in the very first story media and the public would read about “Duke lacrosse,” effectively begun the process of framing the lacrosse players as criminal victimizers.

Mike Nifong noticed that, too. He no doubt remembered two brief news items in the N&O’s Mar. 18 and 19 editions concerning alleged rapes at a party on N.Buchanan Blvd, Durham. "Duke lacrosse" was never mentioned.

In its Mar. 18 and 19 stories, the N&O was careful to refer to the accuser as “a woman” or with the pronoun “she;” and never as "the victim." Nifong knew that was standard practice for ethical newspapers.

The N&O’s Mar. 24 story was indeed “prosecutor friendly” as was a large "perp-walk" color photo of lacrosse players with jackets over their heads which the N&O "splashed" across page one. But in its Mar. 25 story, the N&O went well beyond prosecutorial “friendship.” It all but took on the prosecutor’s role.
_______________________________________

( The next series post will analyze the N&O’s Mar. 25 story. You may recall that was the hugely sympathetic interview with the anonymous “victim.” The next post will also ask the N&O a set of back story questions concerning its Mar. 24 and 25 stories.

I hope to have the second post up by 10 p.m. tonight.)

Duke lacrosse: Raleigh N&O's public editor punts

Readers' Note: Yesterday, September 24, was the six month annivsary of the Raleigh News & Observer's publication of the story the "broke" the Duke lacrosse case.

The N&O's football coverage.


We now know that the three Duke lacrosse captains who rented the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. voluntarily gave the police statements; submitted to “rape kit” testing; offered to take lie detector tests; and even helped police identify and locate others who were at the party.

But the Raleigh News & Observer’s Mar. 24 story reporting the lacrosse players had submitted to DNA testing - the story the N&O says “broke” the Duke lacrosse case - made no mention of the captains’ cooperation.

The N&O's Mar. 25 front-page, hugely sympathetic, anonymous “victim” interview story also said nothing about the captains’ cooperation. In fact, the N&O told readers authorities had "vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity."

The N&O followed that with a statement that it granted anonymity to “victims of sex crimes," dispensing altogether with any qualifying “alleged," just as, in its Mar. 24 story, it said seven times the woman was "the victim" or used the possessive "the victim's," never qualifying any of the seven with “alleged.”

The N&O's Mar. 24 and 25 stories captured the nation's attention. People bought into its portrayal of the accuser as a hard working student and mother who was brutally gang-raped, beaten and strangled as she sought to earn money to support her two small children. They also bought into the N&O’s portrayal of the Duke students as her victimizers who were even then refusing to cooperate with police.

The N&O’s reporting in those and similarly biased and inflammatory stories it published the next few days so poisoned the public’s mind that when Ruth Sheehan's Mar. 27 N&O column ("Teams' silence is sickening") appeared, it was seen by many people as a righteous expression of "community outrage," instead of what we now know it to have been: a McCarthyite screed attacking the students for doing nothing more than following the advice of their counsels.

But what if the N&O had reported at least something about the captains’ cooperation with the police?

If the N&O had done that, would that have reduced the "community outrage" that reached such a pitch that the Mayor of Durham, the Chancellor of NC Central University, and the President of Duke University felt compelled to take full page ads in newspapers, including the N&O, calling on the community to remain calm and allow the justice system to work?

Certainly any news report about the captains’ cooperation wouldn’t have made any difference to people like Duke faculty's Group of 88, the Trinity Park pot bangers, the New Black Panthers, and most people who call themselves "victim's rights" and "civil rights" activists.

But a lot of normally sensible people who got swept up in the witch hunt hysteria would have paused if they'd known of the captains' cooperation. I think they’d have said something like the following to themselves and other sensible people: "Maybe there's more here. Let's hold off on judgment. The media are so often wrong. And the N&O has a terrible history of inflaming race, gender and class issues."

With what you’ve read so far in mind, let's turn now to Duke's student newspaper, The Chronicle.

On Mar. 21, three day before the N&O claims it "broke" the Duke lacrosse story, The Chronicle reported :

[Durham Police Sgt. Mark] Gottlieb said any man that attended the party March 13 would be a viable suspect but refused to go into further detail.

The residents of the house have been cooperative with DPD in locating any suspects, he added.

(Readers, You may be wondering how The Chronicle could report on the Duke lacrosse story on Mar. 21 if the N&O, as it claims, “broke” it on Mar. 24. I’ll deal with that question at the end of this post. Right now I want to get back to the matter of whether the N&O withheld from readers news of the captains’ cooperation. John)

A customized search of the N&O’s archives for the period 3/13/2006 through 3/24/2006 reveals that twice before Mar. 24 the N&O reported on events alleged to have occurred in the Buchanan Blvd. house the night of Mar. 13/14.

The first story appeared on Mar. 18; the second story appeared the following day. They are both brief, and they both report on statements by Sgt. Gottlieb.

Here’s the N&O's Mar. 18 story:

Woman reports sexual assault

Police were investigating a report of a rape on Buchanan Boulevard near the Duke University campus Friday. .. A young woman told police she visited 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. Monday and was assaulted by three men, according to police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb... Anyone with information is asked to call Investigator B.W. Himan at 560-4582, ext. 229

Now here's the N&O's Mar. 19 story:

Alleged rape was at party, police said

Police offered more details Saturday in the investigation of a young woman's report she was raped by three men at a party Monday near the Duke University campus.

The woman told police early Tuesday morning that she had gone to a house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. about 11:30 p.m. the night before for a party, said Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

While at the party, she was raped by three men, she reported to police.

Gottlieb described the party as a mix of college students and non-students. In total, there were about 30 people there at the time, he said.

"It was an act where alcohol was involved," Gottlieb said.

It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify victims of reported sexual crimes.

Like its Mar. 24 and 25 stories, the N&O’s Mar. 18 and 19 stories say nothing about the captains’ cooperation.

Yet The Chronicle reported on at least some of that cooperation on Mar. 21 and cited Sgt. Gottlieb as its source; the same Sgt. Gottlieb the N&O cites as a source in its Mar. 18 and 19 stories. Why no mention in the N&O of cooperation by the captains?

I'll bet you agree it's fair to ask:

Didn’t Sgt. Gottlieb say anything about the captains’ cooperation to N&O reporters before the Mar. 18 and 19 stories?

And don't reporters routinely ask about the cooperation of people in whose homes crimes are alleged to have occured?

When did the N&O first learn about of the captains’ cooperation?

What was it the N&O learned?

When did the N&O tell readers what it learned?

What’s more, we should be asking:

When did the N&O first learn the captains had voluntarily given the police statements; voluntarily submitted to rape kit testing; offered to take lie detector tests; and helped identify and locate others who were at the party?

Whne did the N&O report that news to readers?

Those questions need answering, just as questions about the N&O’s publication of the infamous “vigilante poster” need answering.

I hope readers ask them at the Editor’s Blog where the N&O’s exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, is supposed to answer questions but has mostly been misleading readers when she's not ignoring there questions.

Sill should answer the questions asked here and others like: Who was the source of the "vigilante poster" the N&O published? Why did the N&O publish it only a few weeks after it refused to publish any of the Danish cartoons? Why was it OK to endanger the lacrosse players?

The N&O’s Apr. 2 story which accompanied the “vigilante poster” doesn’t even mention the poster. So what news purpose was served by publishing it? Many readers think it was just intended to slime the players.

Is the N&O ever going to apologize to the players and their families for publishing a poster that endangered the players?

The N&O’s executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, says she’s “proud” of the N&O’s Duke lacrosse coverage which she’s called “fair,” “accurate,” and “deep.”

But for all of that puffery, Sill’s refused to answer many questions readers are asking at McClatchy’s Editor’s Blog, the site where she supposed to answer those questions.

I hope readers keep asking questions at the Editor's Blog including :

When did the N&O start learning about the captains’ cooperation?

What did it learn?

And when did it report what it knew to readers?

Full disclosure: I no longer comment at the Editor's Blog following months of threats by Sill to bar me from the blog.

I don't think she had cause to bar me; I believe she was just bothered that I keep asking the sort of fact-based, evidence-supported questions I asked in this post.

But her repeated threats reached the point where they became harassment.

My hat is off to the many people at the Editor's Blog who are asking tough, informed questions.

I hope they keep it up.

Blame Bush?

Headlines in today’s Raleigh News & Observer :

Gas-price wars break out

Competition sent pump prices at some stations in Greenville below $2. Could it happen here?

Duke lacrosse: Gaynor with the news and the N&O catches Nifong

Late Friday afternoon attorney and columnist Michael Gaynor reported in a comment here that Judge W. Osmond Smith III, now presiding in the Duke lacrosse case, had just modified a gag order placed on attorneys and potential witnesses. Gaynor wrote:

Judge Osmond Smith modified Judge Kenneth Titus's gag order, ungagging potential witnesses (including the Duke Three) to speak to the media about the Duke case.

Cause for celebration for the Duke case defense, "60 Minutes," the people of Durham County, North Carolina and free speech supporters. Calamity for Mr. Nifong and his dwindling supporters. …

Since no media were reporting a gag order modification, JinC readers reasonably asked for confirmation.

I contacted Gaynor. He got back quickly and said he was standing by his statement which was based on information he’d gotten from two sources he respected.

This morning the AP’s, NY Times’ and other news organizations’ accounts of yesterday’s court hearing make no mention of a gag order modification.

But in both my hard copy of today's Raleigh News & Observer and it’s online report we read at the end of its report on Friday's court hearing:

The judge also ordered the lawyers to abide by the rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers in North Carolina. The order replaces one issued by a previous judge that applied the rules -- and specifically the ones regarding statements to the news media -- to witnesses in the case.

Judge Smith said he would make no judgments on the previous statements by lawyers in the case, but now that he was assigned, the lawyers should remember that cases are tried in court.

Congratulations, Michael Gaynor.

And a hat tip to the N&O for getting the news out there.

I know some of you will say: “Hat tip? It’s their job.” That’s true but so much of media is doing so lousy a job reporting the case, why not a “hat tip” when the N&O does something right, especially when all the other news organization accounts I found failed to mention the modification?

The modification has some very important implications as Gaynor points out.

On another matter –

If you’re still struggling to convince yourself that you can put at least a little confidence in anything Mike Nifong says, read no further.

For the rest of you, if you'll go to the N&O’s online account of the hearing, you’ll see a sidebar below a picture of Collin Finnerty’s father. Scroll down a few items and you come to one titled:

HOW MANY?

When one of the defense lawyers said that Nifong gave 50 to 70 interviews about the case, Nifong said he wanted to set the record straight. He checked his schedule and it showed that he actually gave more like 15 to 20 interviews. He said he had many conversations with reporters, some just to say that he would not comment on the case.

But the number 50 came from Nifong himself.

In a March 31 interview with a News & Observer reporter, Nifong was asked "How many interviews do you think you've given?"

"In excess of 50," Nifong said.

Nice catch, N&O.

The Churchill Series – Sept. 22, 2006

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

We are ending today a “Walk in Churchill’s Steps” series we began Monday.

Today we are walking up Whitehall from Downing Street toward the New Palace of Westminster, the official name for what is really a group of buildings most often called simply “Parliament.” An easy few minutes walk takes us to the grass covered Parliament Square.

We’ll stand on the sidewalk at the Southwest corner of the Square. Churchill stood there often waiting for the light to change before he crossed the street.

As we look across the street what we see is little changed from Churchill’s time. The part of Parliament closest to us is Westminster Hall, completed in 1097. Sir Thomas More’s trial was held there. In his later years Churchill knew that plans for his funeral called for him to lie in state there.

Turn to you’re right and look at Westminster Abbey. On June 18, 1886 Churchill, then 11, stood close by the Abbey to watch Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee procession.

St. Margaret’s Church is also in your view. If a visitor in the 1930’s had stopped to ask Churchill, “What’s that small church beside the Abbey?” Churchill could have told him a lot about the church. It’s the parish church of Parliament and he and Clementine were married there in September, 1908.

Churchill might have asked the visitor where he was from. If the visitor had said, “North Carolina,” Churchill would likely have told him Sir Walter Raleigh is buried beneath St. Margaret’s alter.

We’ll now end our “walk” at this corner. When you arrived you noticed a Churchill statue right behind us (photo here). It’s sparked some controversy. There are those who say it shows an old, brooding Churchill.

I like the statue very much. To me Churchill looks resolute, defiant and purposeful just as he was when he led the fight for Britain and civilization.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about the statue and our series of “walks.”

Duke lacrosse: Gaynor gets Nifong

There’s not much about DA Mike Nifong that attorney and columnist Michael Gaynor hasn’t exposed and analyzed.

Here’s the start of Gaynor’s most recent column:

When it comes to poisoning the Durham County, North Carolina jury pool, District Attorney Michael B. Nifong knows what to do and he does not want anyone trying to undo his work after he is through.

That gets it, doesn’t it?

Gaynor includes in his column a good part of the "Background Facts" portion of the motion by defense attorneys for modification of Judge Tutus’ gag order. In making their case the attorneys include a series of examples, one after another, of Nifong’s prejudicial and frequently false public statements.

You’ve probably read most, if not all of them. Still, you may find it shocking to read them in series. I did. I've a heightened sense of just how false and reckless Nifong has been.

There’s a lot more to Michael’s column. He’s always an interesting read, and especially so in this column.

Question to Michael: What are you hearing about the 60 Minutes delay until 10/1? You were one of the first to let me know of the original scheduling.

When the Raleigh News & Observer falls down

You may recall that late one night this past January, there was an unconfirmed report all the miners trapped in the Sago Mine had been found alive. Tragically, the unconfirmed report turned out to be false. All but one of the miners were found dead.

Some newspapers were careful to let their readers know the report was unconfirmed. They ran qualifying headlines.

Other newspapers ignored the lack of confirmation and ran headline stories saying without qualification the men had been found alive. The Raleigh News & Observer was one of those newspapers.

The N&O exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, refused to accept any responsibility for the N&O's error. It was all the AP's fault, the Governor of West Virginia's fault, the mine owners' fault, impossible press deadlines --- you get Sill's point.

When readers reminded Sill that many papers with the same information and deadlines had gotten the story right; and that she should accept responsibly for the N&O's errors, Sill dismissed them as people who "look for any opportunity to bash us." (You can read Sill's explanations and her "conversation" with readers here.)

Sill's "final words" to readers were: ""There are occasions when we fall down on our responsibilities; this isn't one of them."

That prompted me to post on Sill's thread the following comment :

Comment from: John [Visitor] • http://www.johnincarolina.com
01/04/06 at 21:24

Melanie,

You say: "There are occasions when we fall down on our responsibilities; this isn't one of them."

Give us a few examples of what you see as The N&O falling down on its responsibilities?

Thank you.

John

Sill never offered any examples. Maybe she was too busy taking calls from people who "look for any opportunity to bash" the N&O.

No Churchill Series post - Sept. 21, 2006

Folks,

I'm sorry there won't be a post today.

I'm spending most of my blogging time on the Duke lacrosse case.

But I'll be posting The Churchill Series tomorrow, Friday, Sept. 22.

I appreciate your understanding.

John

Duke lacrosse: Two takes on Nifong's latest

Today both the Raleigh News & Observer and the Durham Herald Sun report concerning a phone survey of 300 Durhamites commissioned by attorneys for the three indicted Duke lacrosse players. Durham DA Mike Nifong is upset about the poll which he learned about from his wife, Cy Gurney. She was one of those polled.

There are major differences in the two papers’ reporting. Let's look at a few of them.

The H-S’s headlines :

Lacrosse defense survey questioned

Nifong says polling might taint jury pool

Now the N&O’s headlines :

Nifong assails phone survey

Duke lacrosse players’ lawyers say poll was to gauge prosecutor’s early public comments.

Right in the headlines the N&O tells readers defense attorneys say they polled to gauge the effects of Nifong’s early public comments. But the H-S says nothing about that and instead gives readers Nifong's spin that polling might taint the jury pool.

The N&O story reports on the attorneys' concern beginning in its second paragraph:

The defense lawyers said they were only trying to assess how Nifong himself might have influenced a potential jury with his early public comments on the case …

So when does the H-S mention the defense attorneys’ concern?

The H-S waits until its tenth paragraph before it reports:

[The] defense says it gave its approval for the survey, "as is their legal right and duty to protect the defendants' right to a fair trial before an impartial jury" as specified by the U.S. Constitution and North Carolina law.

"That impartiality could have been substantially threatened by extensive prejudicial comments" made by Nifong, the defense argues.”

A news story’s first few paragraphs are usually its most important ones. Look at each paper's first two paragraphs.

Editor Bob Ashley’s H-S starts off :

The prosecution is dialing up a new issue in the Duke lacrosse rape case.

Specifically, District Attorney Mike Nifong is questioning a survey -- admittedly approved by lacrosse rape suspects' defense attorneys -- which he said, if allowed to go unchecked, might wind up tainting the prospective jury pool for the case.

We’re moving right on to the N&O’s first two paragraphs, but keep in mind the H-S’s “admittedly approved by lacrosse rape suspects’ defense attorneys.” We’ll come back to that in a minute.

Here are the N&O’s first two grafs:

District Attorney Mike Nifong on Wednesday accused defense lawyers in the Duke University lacrosse rape case of using a telephone poll as a "thinly disguised" attempt to influence jurors.

The defense lawyers said they were only trying to assess how Nifong himself might have influenced a potential jury with his early public comments on the case, in which three men are accused of raping a woman hired to dance at a March lacrosse team party.

I don't need to highlight the differences, do I?

About that Ashley H-S report that defense attorney’s “admittedly approved” the polling. Here’s how the N&O reported on that:

In a motion prepared late Wednesday afternoon, attorneys for the three defendants asked a judge to deny Nifong and said they told him in August that they intended to conduct polling. The survey was scientific, the lawyers said, and limited to 300 interviews. (bold added)

Why didn't Editor Bob Ashley's paper tell readers the attorneys said they told Nifong about the polling in August? Why say instead the attorneys "admittedly approved" the poll?

The question answers itself, doesn't it? And the answer tells us a lot about Bob Ashley's H-S.

Most of the story both papers report is a matter of Nifong and his wife trying to make something out of nothing. Both papers should have mentioned that in cases where there’s been extensive pre-trial publicity, it's fairly common for defense attorney and sometime persecutors to poll prior to trial to determine community sentiment on critical issues.

I hope attorneys who read this post will comment and tell us more about that.

You’ll find the online H-S story here and the N&O’s here.

Others are commenting on Nifong's latest:

Liestoppers makes the very sensible point: "[It] appears unlikely that questions posed to 0.12% of local residents could serve to taint the jury pool regardless of how they are phrased."

The Poet of the Piedmont, Joan Foster, has a wonderful offering that begins:

Hello, Mrs Nifong
New York on the line.
Well, how are you doing?
We hope... doing fine

You're going to love the poem's title.

KC Johnson wonders if the strain of prosecuting three clearly innocent people isn’t getting to Nifong. He identifies some Nifong behaviors that are strange even by “Justice in Durham” standards

The Churchill Series – Sept 20, 2006

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

Today we continue a “Walk in Churchill’s Steps” series we started on Monday.

We’re now leaving St. James Park and heading toward where Downing Street enters Whitehall. There are a number of ways to get there. It’s less than a five minute walk.

When you stand at Whitehall looking down the single block that’s Downing Street, you’re looking through a gate. In Churchill’s lifetime the street wasn’t gated. He knew it first as a small boy. His father, Lord Randolph, became Chancellor of the Exchequer when Churchill was about 10. The Chancellor's office and home are at 11 Downing Street. Churchill was away at school most of the time his father was Chancellor, he did stay at 11 Downing Street for short periods during holidays.

From the gates at Downing Street you see the Parliament building some few hundred yards up Whitehall.

Walk up Whitehall toward Parliament. It’s a walk Churchill made on countless days.

May 13, 1940, was one of those days. The 10 year old school boy who used to run up Whitehall to play in Parliament Square was on that day the 65 year old Commons Member for Epping about to address the House for the first time as Prime Minister. He would tell the House that he had “nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

But Churchill really offered much more. He gave courage, defiance, hope and purpose, ending his first speech as PM with:

"But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, 'come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.'"

Tomorrow we’ll end our walk in front of Churchill's statue in Parliament Square
_______________________________________________________
The text of Churchill's May 13, 1940 speech to the Commons can be found here courtesy of The Churchill Centre.

Expiring Delta Miles and US military

If you're a Delta frequent flyer (Delta Rewards) and you have expiring miles you're not planning to use, you can donate them so they'll be put be Delta in a pool that's used to provide tickets at no cost to U.S. military service personnel.

Talk to your Delta agent about it.

It's a great thing to do.

The U.S. military is the world's greatest human rights organization.

Duke lacrosse: About trolls and deletes

A reader asks:

Why is everyone who disagrees with the "anti-Brodheads" a troll? Why is it that those who disagree can't be credible if their child is not at risk? Why threaten to erase their comments?

I think this reader is well-intentioned but the questions are overblown and misstate.

Everyone who disagrees with those the reader calls the “anti-Brodheads” is not a troll. I’ve not said that; and I can’t think of anyone else here who has besides this reader who misstates.

My sense is that almost all the people who’ve spoken up here for President Brodhead are sincere and wish to converse in a civil and serious way with due respect for others.

Such people are welcome here even when I think they are very wrong: Example – this second reader who says in part:

In the early days of the LAX mess, the entire country thought the LAX players were guilty. During that time, Richard Brodhead was one of the very few voices of reason. While the media conducted what can only be described as a high-tech lynching of the entire LAX team, Brodhead went before the television cameras in countless press conferences and submitted to countless newspaper, magazine, and television interviews. He reminded everyone that there was no evidence of any rape other than the allegation of the accuser. ….

However, I do not see him getting much credit for his efforts on this website. All I can say is that people have short memories because it was not too long ago that Richard Brodhead was just about the only person in the country who was standing up for the LAX players, other than their lawyers and their own families.

This reader is speaking civilly and makes a genuine effort, IMHO, to offer a fact-based case although the facts offered are, again IMHO, in some instances wrong.

But let’s leave the “who’s right, who’s wrong” matter for another time. I sometimes on second or third reading see where I’ve been wrong, when on my first reading I thought it was the other person who was wrong.

All I want to do here is offer an example of the kind of reader comment supporting Brodhead that’s welcome here.

Now for something completely different. Please read this comment:

I think it is important to remember that it was the LAX players who created this mess, not Brodhead. I think one of the things going on here is that the families of the LAX players and their supporters feel so guilty about the damage the players have done to the reputation of the university and so angry at how the players have been treated by the justice system and by the media that they just want to lash out at others in order to assuage their own guilt, and at some point along the way, they decided to beat up on Brodhead. This would help to explain some of the overheated rhetoric and, in some cases, downright false accusations about Brodhead that I have seen on this website and some of the other websites that have been following the LAX case.

This comment by a third reader is the kind of comment I delete.

This third reader begins with an absurdity: “it was the LAX players who created this mess”

Third reader then says the “families of the LAX players and their supporters feel so guilty about the damage the players have done to the reputation of the university and so angry …. that they just want to lash out at others in order to assuage their own guilt, and at some point along the way, they decided to beat up on Brodhead.”

All third reader is doing is using psycho-babble to make mean, unsubstantiated personal attacks against the LAX players, their families and their supporters.

But third reader doesn’t end there. Third reader, who is acting just like a troll, wants everyone to know about the “downright false accusations about Brodhead that I have seen on this website and some of the other websites.” Only troll doesn’t cite any. Making the accusation is what it’s all about.

There should now be no one who doesn’t know the difference between reasoned discourse and troll ad hominems.

The good news for trolls and those who want to hear what they say is that there are so many blogs that let trolls be trolls.

The good news for the rest of you is I’ll keep deleting; and I won’t repeat again the explanations for deletions I’ve given these past two days.

If I get a question about a deletion I think is genuine, I’ll refer the questioner to my archives for the Sept. 10 – 17 time period.


John

Newmark: "What the New York Times won't print"

Sometimes there's nothing to do but copy, paste and say "thank you" to bloggers whose work gets the job done and you can't imporve upon it with further commentary.

This is one of those times. Asst. Secretary of Defence Smith's letter to the NY Times needs to be "out there" so people can see it. Betsy's brief comments nail the Times.

Here's Betsy Newmark's post, "What the New York Times won't print"

____________________________


Powerline has the text of a letter that Assistant Secretary of Defense Dorrance Smith sent to the New York Times to contradict errors that they had in their editorial. Smith's letter exposed all the errors in their piece which had said that, with the transfer of some CIA prisoners to Guantanamo, the US finally had some terrorists there.

The response of the New York Times to the exposure of how wrong they were: they neglected to print the letter. Here's the letter that the NYT didn't see fit to print.

September 7, 2006

Letter To The New York Times

To the Editor:

Your September 7, 2006 editorial, "A Sudden Sense of Urgency," asserts that the recent transfer of 14 CIA prisoners means that "President Bush finally has some real terrorists in Guantánamo Bay." This merits a correction.

Since its inception, terrorists that have been held at Guantánamo Bay have included personal bodyguards of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda recruiters, trainers, and facilitators. One notable individual held at Guantánamo was Mohamed al-Kahtani, believed to be the intended 20th hijacker on September 11th.

That many of these men are terrorists intent on doing America harm is not a simply an assertion made by the U.S. government, but something many detainees themselves have claimed, indeed boasted about. For example, in open commission hearings on March 1, Mr. Al Bahlul boasted five times that he was a member of Al Qaeda involved in an ongoing war against America. In open commission hearings on April 27, Mr. Al Sharbi said, "I’m going to make this easy for you guys: I’m proud of what I did and there isn’t any reason of hiding...I fought against the United States. I took up arms."

It is unfortunate that one of America’s largest newspapers concludes these men are not "real terrorists."

Sincerely,

Dorrance Smith,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs

Perhaps they were just embarrassed about how wrong they'd been in their own editorial that they couldn't let the American people see that they, shock!, actually let their bias lead them into making such a mistake.
_______________________________________

Thank you, Betsy.

Thank you, Powerline.

The Churchill Series - Sept. 19, 2006

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

We are continuing today a “walk in Churchill’s footsteps” we started yesterday at The Savoy Hotel from which we walked East, past Charing Cross Station and up to the corner of Trafalgar Square, a very easy walk of less than 10 minutes.

After crossing the square we came to The Admiralty building from which the King summoned Churchill to Buckingham Palace in the early evening hours of May 10, 1940. We had just walked under Admiralty Arch and were starting our way up the Mall to the palace, a distance of a less than a mile.

We stopped at that point and continue now.

As you walk in the direction of the palace look to your left. You’ll see one of London’s loveliest parks, St. James. It has a lake which at its end closest to the Admiralty contains an area called Duke Island because - well, you can guess why.

Churchill loved St. James Park. When he was First Lord of the Admiralty from 1911 to 1915 and again from 1939 to 1940, the park was “in his backyard” because the First Lord lived as well as worked at the Admiralty.

During his first tenure as First Lord, Churchill often took his young children to see and feed the ducks, geese, swans and birds that nest in the island area.

During WWII Churchill frequently took his walks in St. James, which is also close to Downing Street. His principal bodyguard, Inspector Walter Thompson, tells a number of stories about those walks, often taken during blackouts. Thompson would beg Churchill not to go out in the blackout but off they went. One evening Churchill almost walked into a tree trunk.

The next day, a desperate Thompson convinced Churchill to let him make an adaptation to Churchill’s walking stick.

Thompson taped a flashlight (he called it “a torch”) to the end of Churchill’s stick. Then he taped a kind of “collar” around the light end of the torch so only a narrow beam shone from it. With the aid of that device, Churchill had no more close encounters with tree trunks in St. James.

Tomorrow, well turn away from Buckingham Palace and walk toward Churchill’s two favorite London destinations: Parliament and 10 Downing Street.

Duke lacrosse: Ashley’s ashes

A number of bloggers ( e.g. Liestoppers, KC Johnson, Johnsville and JinC) have called attention to the sharp decline in the accuracy and completeness of the Durham Herald Sun's reporting and analyses of matters relating to the Duke Hoax. They've also called attention to a series of Editor Bob Ashley’s editorials and columns concerning the hoax. Ashley, though, doesn’t call it a hoax. He's more: "Brodhead and Nifong are great; when's the trial?"

It occurred to me you might be interested in learning a little bit more about the Herald Sun, Ashley’s editorship and how the paper’s been doing recently. So I put this post together.

Three years ago, The Durham Herald Sun was a respected community newspaper owned by a local family. Then in late 2004, the H-S was sold to a privately held The Paxton Media Group, based in Paducah, Ky.

Paxton sent Ashley to Durham to run the H-S. On Ashley’s first day, scores of long-time H-S employees were summarily fired and escorted by security guards from the H-S building. They weren’t given reasons for their firings, other than they were no longer needed. They weren’t even allowed to return to their desks to say good-bye to friends and colleagues, some of whom they’d worked with for more than 20 years. Ashley explained that was because of "security reasons."

I called Ashley in mid January 2005, to complain about his treatment of the employees as well as what I saw as a significant drop in the paper’s quality after he took over. I said I was on the verge of doing what thousands of readers had already done: cancel my subscription.

Ashley asked me not to. Give him a chance, he said. Sure, there had been some initial “bumps.” But if I just gave him a chance, I’d see what he would do.

Ashley said in a year the H-S under his editorship would be a much better paper than it had ever been.

I gave him a chance; and watched the paper decline. When my subscription was up, I didn’t renew. I’ve since re-subscribed but mainly to have access to the H-S’s archives.

OK, that’s me. What about other people in Durham? How do they feel?

When Ashley first took over, the H-S had a weekday circulation of about 54 thousand. My best guess is that the H-S weekday circulation is now about 35 thousand or so, and continuing to decline. The decline is occurring in a fast-growing region with a strong and expanding economy.

It isn’t just readers who are abandoning what many people now call “Ashley’s H-S.”

Advertisers are abandoning it, too.

The information below illustrates that. For each of the five weekdays beginning Monday, Sept. 11, I counted the total number of pages in the H-S’s “A” section. Then I estimated the total number of those pages taken up by advertising.

I estimated the ad “pages” because ads were in various sizes from a few inches high and one column wide to a full page. I tried to make my ad “pages” estimates on the generous side. I suspect if Editor Bob Ashley himself were to check the amount of advertising in those “A” sections, he’d find my ad “pages” estimates might be a little high.

Here's what I found for each of the 5 days' "A" section

Sept. 11 -- 6 pages of which .75 was advertising.

Sept.12 -- 8 pages of which 2.25 were advertising.

Sept. 13 -- 8 pages of which 1.75 were advertising.

Sept. 14 -- 8 pages of which 1.50 were advertising.

Sept. 15 -- 8 pages of which 3.00 were advertising.

When a newspaper’s circulation is declining as its region grows and its weekday “A” section advertising averages less than two full pages a day, that paper’s headed for “a crash and burn,” even if its editor was once “Duke of Paducah.”

Ashley’s ashes!

I’ll be saying more soon about the demise of a once fine newspaper.

The Churchill Series - Sept. 18, 2006

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

Today I'd like to respond to a reader comment from last week. In doing that, perhaps I'll help make your next visit to London more memorable.

The commenter responded to a post concerning The Other Club, the social and dining club which Churchill co-founded in 1911; and held membership in until his death. The club met fortnightly in the Pinafore Room of London's Savoy Hotel when Parliament was in session.

The commenter said it was always special to be in the Pinafore Room and think of its Churchillian history.

The commenter got me thinking of a short “Churchill” tour you could all take from the Savoy.

Standing at the main entrance to the hotel you are at the end of a very short dead-end street that exits on to the Strand.

As you walk toward The Strand, you’ll notice on your left the entrance to a theatre (as they spell it there). Fittingly enough it’s The Savoy, once “the home” of the D’Oyle Carte Opera Company, producer of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operettas of which Churchill was so fond. He often sang G&S songs in his bath. And, of course, he attended many productions at the Savoy.

Since Churchill’s time, the Savoy Theatre has been gutted and rehabbed inside. But the outside structure and the basic interior layout remain essentially the same as in his lifetime.

When you come out onto The Strand, turn left in the direction of Trafalgar Square, which is an easy five-minute walk down The Strand.

Stay on the left side of The Strand as you approach Trafalgar and you’re taking the same walk Churchill often took to head back, say, to the Admiralty or the Charing Cross station where he’d catch a train to Seven Oaks, the station near Chartwell.

You’ll come to Charing Cross in just a few minutes. If at that point you look across to your right, you’ll see Saint Martin-in-the-Fields. Its crypt now serves as a gift shop and café. During WWII, it served as a bomb shelter.

Continue past Charing Cross another few blocks down The Strand and you’ll find yourself on the Southeast side of Trafalgar Square. You can look to the North side and see the National Gallery. Churchill sometimes took his children there.

Directly across from you on the West side of the square is The Admiralty. Through Admiralty Arch you can look up the roadway and see Buckingham Palace. It was from The Admiralty in the early evening hours of May 10, 1940 that Churchill, alone except for his bodyguard Inspector Thompson, rode to the Palace in response to the King’s summons.

(Continued tomorrow)

Duke lacrosse: Brodhead and students on trial

I’ve repeatedly said Duke’s President Richard H. Brodhead wants to see three Duke students put on trial for gang-rape.

In a number of posts I’ve cited many reasons why that statement is true. The students have been indicted for multiple felonies including rape. Those indictments, unless overturned, make a trial necessary. Brodhead has refused to say a word of criticism of DA Mike Nifong or the investigative travesties that led to those indictments.

Duke Law Professor James Coleman has called for Nifong to step aside and allow a special prosecutor to take over the case. That would include a review of the indictments by the new prosecutor who could possibly ask for their dismissal. In that case, we wouldn’t see the students put on trial.

So if you want to see the students put on trial you should say nothing critical of DA Nifong; and for heavens sake, you don’t say anything like: “I think Professor Coleman is right. Nifong should step aside.”

You especially shouldn’t criticize Nifong or endorse what Coleman has said if you’re the President of Duke University, because your words would carry great weight with public officials and the general public.

President Brodhead has been under great pressure from many sources to speak out but he's resisted the pressure. That’s because he wants to see those three Duke students put on trial.

When President Brodhead doesn’t want to see Duke students put on trial, he says so. And Brodhead says so in no uncertain terms.

Take, for example, Brodhead’s Aug. 3, 2005 letter to the President of Armenia, in whose country a Duke student, Yektan Turkyilmaz, was scheduled for trial. Saying he was writing as the President of Duke University, Brodhead appealed to the Armemian President:

you have the ability to intervene in this matter and to determine the appropriateness of the actions of your government and the Armenian prosecutors and police. You also have the ability to release Mr. Turkyilmaz. With respect, I urge you to do so.

Soon after Brodhead made his appeal, Turkyilmaz was allowed to leave Armenia.

Friends of Duke University spokesperson Jason Trumpbour, a former Asst. Attorney General for the State of Maryland, was happy for the resolution of Turkyilmaz’s case. But Trumpbour also noted (scroll to Sept. 13 statement):

Brodhead was evidently willing and able to speak up in the case of Yektan Turkyilmaz and express concern about the irregular circumstances of his arrest as well he should have.

Moreover, President Brodhead was also willing to go further and actually express an opinion as to the proper resolution of the case.

It is truly sad to learn that President Brodhead’s willingness to intervene on behalf of his students when they are faced with injustice is selective and not based on any sort of principle, whether right headed or wrong headed, whatsoever. Thus, in addition to injuring Reade, Collin and David with his silence, President Brodhead insults them as well.

I’ll repeat: President Brodhead wants to see the three Duke students put on trial for gang-rape.

If that ever changes, I’ll say so.

If Brodhead writes a letter to the same effect as he did in the case of Turkyilmaz, I’ll publish it in full here and link to it.

If Brodhead even just says something like: “You know, maybe we ought to take another look at those indictments. Professor Coleman may be right. Let’s bring in an special prosecutor,” I’ll be sure to put a post up ASAP.

Until such time, it isn’t fair for trolls to misrepresent Brodhead’s position by claiming he doesn’t want to see the students put on trial.

I can’t control what happens at the millions of other blogs that are out there, but I can at least delete comments here that misrepresent Brodhead.

Now I have to get to work on that email I’m sending Brodhead asking what he said in response to the racist remarks and death threats that were hurled at Reade Seligmann on May 18.

What do you think he’s going to tell me?

Duke lacrosse: Lots of good posts

William Anderson reminds us of what much of Duke campus was like last Spring. He tells us how and why it was that way.

Attorney Mike Gaynor is calling on the accuser to come forward; tell the truth; and end the hoax and the injustices and miseries its spawned. Key graf:

The Duke case should be put out of its misery, so the undeserved misery of the Duke Three and their families and friends can be alleviated, they can move on with their lives, and the people of Durham County can do what they need to do.

I hope it happens, Mike, but I'm not holding my breath.

Liestoppers has two posts up today. One is “Let the Great Axe Fall.” I’ll bet you can guess whose head they want. Liestoppers' Meet the Enablers Series has a very deserving “honoree” today: Durham Herald Sun Editor Bob Ashley.

Besides serving as Liestoppers Enabler “honoree,” Ashley’s doing double duty today serving KC Johnson’s “piñata of the day.” Here’s part of what KC says:

In the lacrosse case, Ashley has failed at performing the basic journalistic task of speaking truth to power–and in an affair where the representatives of "power" desperately need rebuke. But he’s not a very good propagandist, either. His paper’s columns and articles are either comically heavy-handed (as in the editorial praising Chalmers’ alleged openness) or unintentionally helpful to critics of Nifong and Gottlieb. No wonder the Herald-Sun’s circulation figures continue to plunge. Hilarity on the news and editorial pages, whether intended or not, isn’t a good selling point.

You may be asking: It there any life left in Ashley’s H-S. Johnsville News offers its answer: “Duke Case: Death Spiral for The Herald-Sun”

The Herald-Sun may be another casualty of the Duke rape hoax. The case has been an acid test for North Carolina journalists. It looks like the acid from this case may peel away the remaining dead flesh from the corpse of The Herald-Sun.

When Bob Ashley first took over as H-S editor in December 2004 he said to me: “Give me some time, John. I’ll show you what I can do with this paper.”

I did; he has.

One final link is to the Raleigh N&O's Editors' Blog post "Duke lacrosse latest: Gottlieb profile." Scroll down and take a look at what reader/commenters are posting on the thread.

RSS Update 9 -18 -06

Hold on, folks.

A few minutes ago I posted from a friend saying RSS might be tough to do etc.

Now other friends are stepping up and working with the first friend. JinC may actually have RSS now if you know how to access it.

I'm sure there'll be another announcement about this soon.

I'm lucky to have great friends.

Still, on this matter I feel like the guy in the circus waiting to get shot out of the cannon.

John

On the RSS matter

Folks,

This FYI.

In the most recent Readers/Commenters post, I responded to a comment saying, "turn on the RSS, please."

I said I'm a tech dummy (BTW - How do radio waves get into our homes when all the doors and windows are shut?) but said a friend would get the RSS turned on.

Friend researched and responded this morning.

Ok, I did some research between calls and Blogger uses a standard called "Atom" which is, apparently, the losing standard. Think Betamax or Diesel engines for cars.

There is a way to change it to RSS but it involves putting special blogger code into your template. Which I am reluctant to do, for obvious reasons.

I will try a few things that are non-destructive and see what I can figure out.

We may need to wrap this into your long-delayed site redesign. Take a look at www.find-the-boots.com and see what you think of the design.

I'll keep you posted.

John

This reader “gets” me and most of you, too

Readers’ Note: The Anon reader/commenter below is describing exactly what I seek to do here; and how I try to respect you while making the case for things I believe in.

My guess is that most of you reading the comment are going to say something like: “That’s right. And that's why I visit at JinC.”

I also think Anon’s “here’s a suggestion” is very good advice.

John
________________________________________________

anonymous 9:08 PM wrote:

...in their hearts, your audience knows that what I have said is true...

Not really, anonymous. You, along with most of the reporters covering this case are missing one of the important elements of blogging: the hyperlink.

What John in Carolina says Pres. Brodhead says doesn't mean that much in and of itself. He links to accounts and sources. (If Brodhead posted transcripts, he'd link to them.)

John in Carolina's reader can follow those links. We can follow analyses and links provided by other bloggers, notably KC Johnson, on the same and related topics. Thus, we can decide for ourselves (1) whether John in Carolina is a generally trustworthy source and analyst, and (2) whether we agree with his interpretation on any given point.

Readers judge my comments by the same standards.

Now for the bad news. Your contributions also get evaluated this way.

anonymous 9:08 PM, here's a suggestion. Rather than continuing down the nanny-nanny-noo-noo route in John in Carolina's comments section, why don't you start a blog of your own (it's free)? You'll be in complete control of what you post; no deletion threats. Then you can apply this powerful tool (the hyperlink) to your arguments, the way John does for his.

In my opinion, John, KC Johnson, and the other prominent bloggers covering the Duke Hoax have shown themselves to be open to differences of opinion. You'll have no trouble leaving polite comments, offering readers links to your posts. People will click through and see what you have to say.

Then you can lose the victim pose that permeates your last comment, and focus on what you think the issues really are.

My two cents.

The Tar Heel Made Me Smile

Classes at UNC – Chapel Hill started weeks ago. So I smiled when I read on the Sept. 15 front-page of Carolina’s student newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel, the headline :

FACULTY READY TO START WORK

Talk about a laid back group!

But the story which followed seemed to clear things up. It began :

The Faculty Council will meet today for the first time under new leadership.

Or did the story clear things up, I wonder?

The very able DTH editors surely knew they could have headlined :

FACULTY COUNCIL TO START WORK

So why didn’t they?

Could it be that DTH editors are miffed at their faculty? Is it possible for instance that the

FACULTY READY TO START WORK

headline is payback by editors only carrying A averages who know they really deserve A+ averages?

I decided to ask the DTH editor. I’m sending him an email that includes a link to this post.

I’m promising him I won’t say a word about anything he tells me except to all of you.

I’d hate to get him and the other editors in trouble with the faculty just as its starting work for the year.

Duke lacrosse: Brodhead Information Wanted

I have a few questions Duke President Richard H. Brodhead and his top administrators can easily answer.

But it’s the weekend, so I hate to bother them now.

Maybe one of you can help me.

This morning I was researching for a post documenting President Brodhead’s responses to racist slurs and threats that are part of the Duke lacrosse case.

You’ll recall that on Mar. 13/14, the night of the party, a 911 call was made by a woman who claimed racist remarks were shouted at her and a companion as they passed the house where the party was held.

The public only became aware of the tape’s existence in late March when we were told the caller was unknown to police, something we now know to be false.

The caller, Kim Roberts, “the second danser,” had ID'ed herself to police more than a week before the tape became public.

After listening to the tape, President Brodhead on Mar. 29 issued a written statement :

I have now had the opportunity to listen to the tape. It is disgusting. Racism and its hateful language have no place in this community. I am sorry the woman and her friend were subjected to such abuse

In subsequent days and weeks Brodhead continued to speak out and condemn the racist slurs Roberts described.

So documenting Brodhead’s responses to Roberts’ allegations is very easy.

What I need your help with is documenting Brodhead’s response(s) to the racist threats, including death threats, Reade Seligmann was subjected to on May 18; first, as he walked to the Durham County Courthouse; and then, shortly afterwards, in the courtroom.

No doubt many of you watched and heard as racists repeatedly shouted “Justice will be served, Rapist” at Seligmann as he walked to the courthouse.

I’m told Court TV picked up more shouts of “Justice will be served, Rapist" as well as the death threat "Dead man walking." The reporter for The Guardian gave this description of the courtroom scene:

"From the gallery one onlooker shouted: 'Justice will be served, rapist!' Seligmann largely ignored the taunts, but as he left came the call 'Dead man walking!' and he blanched."

What a terrible day it must have been for Seligmann and his family.

As regards Brodhead's response(s)to the racist threats, including death threats shouted at Seligmannn, I’ve been unable to find any documentation.

I've read every one of President Brodhead's statements at Duke's lacrosse case web page. I've searched Duke's website using its engine and various combinations of the input words: President, Brodhead, Seligmann, New Black Panthers, racist, racial, death threat, statement, comment, and condemnation.

All that searching turned up nothing as regards Brodhead speaking out forcefully as he did after listening to Roberts' 911 call. Or for that matter, speaking out at all about the horrendous racism and death threats to which Reade Seligmann and his family were subjected on May 18.

I next tried the Raleigh News & Observer's archives. I did a customized search for the period May 18, 2006 to June 15, 2006 using the input word: Brodhead.

That search was no more successful than my other searches.

I'm sure you see why I'm asking for documentation of so extraordinarily important a matter.

If I don't have documentation by tomorrow, I plan to contact Brodhead directly.

Thank you.

John