Note: This Flog is approximately eight minutes in length, and requires audio.LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog5.html
It is shameful the power that the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants continue to hold over the mainstream media. The most recent disgraceful example can be found in the July 12, 2011 online article posted on wral.com titled “Father gains custody of Duke Lacrosse accuser’s children.”
One wonders how such a topic could once again focus on expressing the innocence of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants… but it does. WRAL follows the lead of many recent Duke lacrosse related stories in misleading the public with regards to the source of the defendants’ innocence. Initially, wral.com, and other media outlets stated that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, in his April 11, 2007 promulgation, found the three partygoing defendants “innocent” of sexual abuse charges related to the March 2006 beer-guzzling, stripper ogling bacchanal.
It wasn’t until this blog site repeatedly pummeled the media with the fact that the attorney general belongs to the executive branch of government, has no judiciary powers, and is incapable of the legal pronouncement of “innocent” or “guilt,” for that matter, that media types stopped naming the attorney general as the source of the boys’ exoneration.
Time and time again this blog enlightened readers, and e-mails informed media-types that, as former Campbell University law school professor Tony Baker stated, “Only a jury, or judge in lieu of a jury” can decide innocence or guilt.
So the media continues to morph its statement regarding the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse triad by stating, quote: “state officials (plural) later declared the players innocent,” unquote. This is a flagrant, bald-faced, in-your-face, two-faced lie. Fabrication. Prevarication. A blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… or at least the vast majority who do not bother to engage their gray matter and are easily susceptible to Jedi mind-tricks.
By using the plural when citing “state official” wral is trying to give credibility to its claim that the boys were found innocent. I have spoken to media-types about this very issue in the past, and the only source given for the proclamation of innocence has been A.G. Roy Cooper.
Now, although the article was attributed to reporter Erin Hartness and Matthew Burns, the web editor, I doubt very seriously that either one of them is responsible for the misinformation about who was responsible for proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent.” There is probably policy in place at WRAL, as well as in other media outlets, as how to phrase the innocence statement. Just as there most assuredly is a policy in place to bring up the alleged “innocence” of the Duke Lacrosse defendants whenever an article even remotely touches on someone who is somehow related to the Duke Lacrosse case.
Not only that, but you can bet that certain topics related to the Duke Lacrosse case are strictly off limits. For example, the fact that the three defendants and their avaricious attorneys shook down Duke University for $20 million each and are seeking an additional $10 mil from the city of Durham, is never broached.
Likewise, Reade Seligmann’s alleged failure to pay close to $7 million in taxes is kept hush-hush by the media.
The expunged record of Collin Finnerty’s assault charge against two men he mistook for being homosexual in Washington, D.C. is glossed over.
And the fact that Dave Evans’ mother, Rhea Evans, worked for more than a decade as an executive at CBS News, was and is never disclosed… not even during the CBS broadcasts of “60 Minutes” during which the Duke Lacrosse case was featured, and in which Ms. Evans and the Carpetbagger parents of the two other Duke Lacrosse defendants were interviewed.
It is no doubt that Ms. Evans’ connections with the media, and her professional role as a highly successful founder of a Washington D.C. public relations firm have served the Carpetbagger Jihadist’s agenda well. How else can you explain wral.com’s perpetual and false assertion that “state officials later declared the players innocent.”
Instead of continuing to consent to the whims of the Carpetbagger Jihadist agenda, it is high time for wral and all media sources to begin reporting truthfully and objectively when it comes to stories with even the slightest connection to the Duke Lacrosse case.
79 comments:
This flog is an appeal to the media to report responsibly.
" For example, the fact that the three defendants and their avaricious attorneys shook down Duke University for $20 million each.."
This is a flagrant, bald-faced, in-your-face, two-faced lie. Fabrication. Prevarication. A blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public.
keep trying, sidney, you get funnier and funnier.
it just keeps getting better! it's like hit parade....for the galactically STUPID! i think Sid wears aluminium foil inside his baseball cap.
A. You are wrong, Sid.
B. Nobody gives two hoots what you think or what your brand of enlightenment may be
c. You, despite your inflated ego
micro intellect, cannot hide
your racism
D. Should take a creative writing
class; the fiction you dream
up is bound to sell at least
as much as Sister's book.
Dont you love the phrase "carpetbagger jihad" that sid uses??!! Lets see. Southern muslim holy war soldier? Islamic overseer? Yankee terrorist? What are we going for here,sid? Oh yeah the jedi mind trick. Love that one too. Sid. You really need to work on some new stuff. Your tap dancing routine is getting kinda old.
Anonymous said...
"Dont you love the phrase "carpetbagger jihad" that sid uses??!! Lets see. Southern muslim holy war soldier? Islamic overseer? Yankee terrorist? What are we going for here,sid? Oh yeah the jedi mind trick. Love that one too. Sid. You really need to work on some new stuff. Your tap dancing routine is getting kinda old."
This is a typical response that dances around the issue. Greg Taylor was declared "innocent" by a three judge panel. Erick Daniels was declared "innocent" by Judge Orlando Hudson. The three Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared "innocent" by Attorney General Roy Cooper. Which one is bogus? If you believe the attorney general has the power to declare innocence and guilt, then there is no need for a judicial branch of government... right?
In this country you are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. So the Duke Lacrosse defendents were likewise presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. Now, Nifong was PROVEN guilty BY A JUDGE of lying; as well as generally trampling all over these defendents rights and their presumption of innocence. The AG stepped in and did his own REAL investigation (something Nifong, et. al. Never bothered to do properly) and came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove a crime was comitted. By this action the Duke Lacrosse defendents were still INNOCENT as originally presumed. Period. End of story. QED!
Hey Sid, it has become very obvious that you are nothing more than a one trick pony.
Amen to the 5:33P! However, Sid is not going to own up to the truth here, because then....friends and neighbors....what would he have to whine about? Cooper said far more than the statement about innocence, Sid. Go back and watch the news conf. video again, Sid. After months of investigation by attorneys (some of whom you now laud for their lack of bias), it was determined there was NO EVIDENCE and NO CASE. Nifong was a "rogue prosecutor". You just can't stand it, can you, Sid? Still sticks in your gut that rich white bastard boys (your stereotype) were innocent of ALL charges brought by a scumbag prosecutor, based on the lies of a sex worker. (she had FIVE different male samples in and on her, NONE of which were from men at the party). She was and is a liar. You just can't get over that in this situation, your "black equals victim, white equals oppressor" worldview was WRONG.
Shame on you, Sid. As a person of color, I find your remarks disgraceful. One of the 88 wrote an email to one of the accused player's mother. He said words to the effect that she had given birth to a farm animal. (I will not repeat word for word, out of respect for her.) He, like you, is an educated man who happens to be black. Your refusal to face the truth of what happened that night puts you in the same class with the man who wrote that email.
Anonymous said...
"In this country you are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. So the Duke Lacrosse defendents were likewise presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. Now, Nifong was PROVEN guilty BY A JUDGE of lying; as well as generally trampling all over these defendents rights and their presumption of innocence. The AG stepped in and did his own REAL investigation (something Nifong, et. al. Never bothered to do properly) and came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove a crime was comitted. By this action the Duke Lacrosse defendents were still INNOCENT as originally presumed. Period. End of story. QED!"
Answer me this: Has any attorney general in the history of this country ever proclaimed a defendant "innocent" during a pre-trial phase? What Cooper did was unprecedented, and will never happen again. What is disgraceful is that the media is using his worthless proclamation to mislead the gullible and trusting public. Cheshire was very clever in forcing Cooper to make that statement, for it was his purpose early on to utilize Rae Evans's connections with the media to use this propaganda on the people.
Anonymous said...
"Hey Sid, it has become very obvious that you are nothing more than a one trick pony."
I don't understand your meaning. Could you further elaborate?
Anonymous said...
"Amen to the 5:33P! However, Sid is not going to own up to the truth here, because then....friends and neighbors....what would he have to whine about? Cooper said far more than the statement about innocence, Sid. Go back and watch the news conf. video again, Sid. After months of investigation by attorneys (some of whom you now laud for their lack of bias), it was determined there was NO EVIDENCE and NO CASE. Nifong was a 'rogue prosecutor'. You just can't stand it, can you, Sid? Still sticks in your gut that rich white bastard boys (your stereotype) were innocent of ALL charges brought by a scumbag prosecutor, based on the lies of a sex worker. (she had FIVE different male samples in and on her, NONE of which were from men at the party). She was and is a liar. You just can't get over that in this situation, your 'black equals victim, white equals oppressor' worldview was WRONG.
Shame on you, Sid. As a person of color, I find your remarks disgraceful. One of the 88 wrote an email to one of the accused player's mother. He said words to the effect that she had given birth to a farm animal. (I will not repeat word for word, out of respect for her.) He, like you, is an educated man who happens to be black. Your refusal to face the truth of what happened that night puts you in the same class with the man who wrote that email."
What Cooper said in his April 11, 2007 promulgation other than that all of the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants would be dropped, is irrelevant.
Furthermore, your statements of my "worldview" are total fabrication and without basis. My advocacy is focused on "equal justice for all."
Thereby, go ye enlightened.
one word....to you, sid. BULL
The young men were innocent and Nifong knew that all along.Although a race traitor he was still a white man and he knew none of the lacrosse players would ever want to have sex with Crystal Man-gum who is soon to be a convicted murderer.A real discredit to her race and by that I mean the human race.
"My advocacy is focused on 'equal justice for all.'
No Sid, your advocacy is for special treatment for Mike Nifong. There IS a different.
Go ye therefore enlightened.
Sid's advocacy is for SID.....and his bigotry, racism and refusal to face the truth....because he needs this silly blog to occupy his time. The real reason Sid praddles on and on about Nifong has nothing to do with Nifong. Sid just can't stand it that those lacrosse guys didn't rape Sister.
Anonymous said...
"The young men were innocent and Nifong knew that all along.Although a race traitor he was still a white man and he knew none of the lacrosse players would ever want to have sex with Crystal Man-gum who is soon to be a convicted murderer.A real discredit to her race and by that I mean the human race."
Referring to Mr. Nifong as a "race traitor" says alot about you... unfortunately none of it good. Race did not enter into Mr. Nifong's decision to prosecute the Duke Lacrosse defendants... his pursuit of justice did.
Also, how can you be sure that a sexual assault did not take place? There was a lot of alcohol being imbibed and ogling of the flesh, not to mention under-aged drinking, obscene comments and gestures... and, yeah, the racial epithet.
It took courage for Mr. Nifong to do the right thing.
Anonymous said...
"Sid's advocacy is for SID.....and his bigotry, racism and refusal to face the truth....because he needs this silly blog to occupy his time. The real reason Sid praddles on and on about Nifong has nothing to do with Nifong. Sid just can't stand it that those lacrosse guys didn't rape Sister."
Enlightening, and secondarily, entertaining people about the social and criminal injustices in the Tar Heel State is a full time and worthwhile mission. And I advocate not only for Mike Nifong, but for Erick Daniels, Greg Taylor, James Arthur Johnson, Carletta Alston, and others who have been victimized by a state which adheres to a tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color."
Thereby, go ye enlightened.
The AG "proclamation" as you like to refer to it was nothing more than publically confering on the Duke Lacrosse defendents that which was ALREADY theirs! INNOCENCE-until proven guilty. This concept, while at the heart of American jurisprudence, has been forgotten by the likes of Nancy Grace and other rogue and lazy prosecutors. Unfortunately it has also been overlooked by many in the media and lay public. Good for AG Cooper for reminding you and others that if there is NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME, then you or anyone else is presumed innocent. It doesn't get any simpler. The fact that it bends you out of shape tells us about your bigotry.
Sid said:
"Furthermore, your statements of my "worldview" are total fabrication and without basis. My advocacy is focused on 'equal justice for all.'"
Sid I've been following this blog for a year now, and I have an extremely accurate assessment of your "world view" (at least when it comes to legal matters).
You are an advocate FOR defendents in this country who are put at the mercy of over zealous and unethical prosecutors and have no real recourse-WHEN AND ONLY WHEN-they fit your RACE AND CLASS requirements. Your bigotry has bled through your writing time and time again by those you choose to advocate for and against. And as for prosecutorial misconduct, you actually get it right 90% of the time EXCEPT when it comes to NIFONG which again tells of your preconceptions based on race, class, gender and wealth. I guarantee...GUARANTEE...that if only the races were reversed in the Duke Lacrosse case we would see it as one of your blogs screaming of prosecutorial, police and judicial misconduct!
How can I be sure no sexual assault took place? Look at a photograph of Crystal Man-gum.No white man would ever want to have sex with her and the bathroom was too small as pointed out by AG Roy Cooper on 60 minutes.
Anonymous said...
"The AG 'proclamation' as you like to refer to it was nothing more than publically confering on the Duke Lacrosse defendents that which was ALREADY theirs! INNOCENCE-until proven guilty. This concept, while at the heart of American jurisprudence, has been forgotten by the likes of Nancy Grace and other rogue and lazy prosecutors. Unfortunately it has also been overlooked by many in the media and lay public. Good for AG Cooper for reminding you and others that if there is NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME, then you or anyone else is presumed innocent. It doesn't get any simpler. The fact that it bends you out of shape tells us about your bigotry."
The media is misleading the public by stating the Duke Lacrosse defendants were "declared innocent," the inference being that a jury or judge in lieu of a jury declared them innocent. Gregory Taylor was declared innocent by a three judge panel. Erick Daniels was declared innocent by Judge Orlando Hundson. Their declarations of innocence carry legal weight, unlike that of the attorney general. Also A.G. Cooper's declaration of innocent was unprecedented, inappropriate, and unheardof in the annuls of the history of juris prudence.
Defendants are supposed to be given the presumption of innocence prior to trial, but they are not declared innocent prior to standing trial. See the difference?
Anonymous said...
Sid said:
"'Furthermore, your statements of my 'worldview' are total fabrication and without basis. My advocacy is focused on 'equal justice for all.''
Sid I've been following this blog for a year now, and I have an extremely accurate assessment of your 'world view' (at least when it comes to legal matters).
You are an advocate FOR defendents in this country who are put at the mercy of over zealous and unethical prosecutors and have no real recourse-WHEN AND ONLY WHEN-they fit your RACE AND CLASS requirements. Your bigotry has bled through your writing time and time again by those you choose to advocate for and against. And as for prosecutorial misconduct, you actually get it right 90% of the time EXCEPT when it comes to NIFONG which again tells of your preconceptions based on race, class, gender and wealth. I guarantee...GUARANTEE...that if only the races were reversed in the Duke Lacrosse case we would see it as one of your blogs screaming of prosecutorial, police and judicial misconduct!"
With all due respect, your observations could not be further from the truth. I advocate for justice regardless of the class or color of the victim of injustice. It just so happens that in our society, most of the victims are people of color from poor social class standing. It is certainly no secret that I was a supporter of Gregory Taylor. I stood in front of the courthouse with his family and other supporters when he was incarcerated. I wrote letters on his behalf. I did what I could to help him receive justice. He was fortunate to have a great support system, and his battle was nearing an end when I got involved. I have also been a staunch supporter of Alan Gell, who is serving time on a vendetta charge. I have written letters and blogged and posted articles on my website about the injustice he has faced... and have done my best to see him released. It is my understanding, though, that he will be released sometime next year... and he has a large settlement to help compensate him for his wrongful incarceration. I also lashed out about the brutal treatment of Timothy Helms, who was attacked by prison guards. His head was used as a battering ram against the concrete block wall, and he sustained two skull fractures and was a quadriplegic afterwards.
Injustice is not limited strictly to the poor and people of color, and I attack it wherever it rears its head... period.
Thereby, go ye enlightened.
Sid wrote: "It is shameful the power that the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants continue to hold over the mainstream media."
That is your foundational mistake. The families have no hold over the media. You are experiencing the problem that all purveyors of a demonstrable lie encounter. Once the media does find out the truth of the matter, they are unwilling to further a lie.
Walt-in-Durham
"Defendants are supposed to be given the presumption of innocence prior to trial, but they are not declared innocent prior to standing trial."
Sid, what you can't seem to understand is that the Duke LAX 3 should never have been defendants - there simply was no evidence to suggest that there were guilty of the charges brought against them. They are innocent of these charges.
While the Duke lacrosse players did not have enough convincing evidence against them for a sexual assault, some members of the team were guilty, by their own admission, of using racial, sexual and class epithets, stealing Crystal Mangum's money and refusing to give her back personal items. They treated not only her but the other dancer by any objective viewpoint atrociously. Much of the protests before indictment was fueled by this provable and admitted behavior. The only illegal behavior was the stealing of Mangum's money.
What's troubling about the proclamation of innocence by the AG which holds no legal weight is that many people and media take this to mean the players were not guilty of anything. This washed away all their, maybe not all illegal, but still despicable behavior. And that's unfortunate.
Anonymous 2:15 says "Look at a photograph of Crystal Man-gum.No white man would ever want to have sex"
That statement is pure racism. Now who's going to defend it?
How do overzealous defenders of the lacrosse team feel about aligning with straightout racists? Is it uncomfortable to stand shoulder to shoulder with them? Even though you agree on this issue? Seriously wondering.
KC Johnson has admitted his discomfort.
What troubles me about the proclamation of innocence by an Attorney General is the political way the AG was pressured to proclaim them innocent.
The Defense attorneys, producers at 60 Minutes and other media as well as politicians (and a letter-writing campaign) pressured Cooper. CBS held out access to Cooper for a future run for Governor at that point in time.
Cooper went to the hospital the day before thinking he was having a heart attack and it turned out to be a panic attack. He knew he was in a very unsettling ethical position. His staff and PR people discussed this action he was pressured to take for days. And how this would effect his political future negatively. They decided it would effect his political future in a positive way. And they were right.
The question for all of us is, is this how we want our justice meted out? Forget about this particular circumstance. Do we want lawyers and television shows and politicians holding a carrot for future political position to determine what our elected Attorney Generals do in our name?
Since none of the lacrosse players had any physical contact with Crystal Mangum or were ever in a bathroom with her they are completely innocent of the charges that were brought against them which Nifong knew were baseless.He might have believed something happened at first but after he got the DNA results he couldn't possibly believed it.He went to the grand jury and got indictments knowing the young men were innocent and that makes this much worse than other cases of wrongful prosecution.Roy Copper could have taken the easy way out and simply said there wasn't enough evidence to proceed but he did what was right and declared them innocent which they always were.
Racism is pretending that obviously innocent young men were guilty of a crime they didn't commit simply because they are white.That's what Jesse Jackson,the NAACP,and dozens of Duke professors did and none have ever apologized.
What's troubling about the incessant carping about the behavior of some players is the implication that the this behavior is as serious as the abuse of power committed by members of the prosecution team. Underage drinking and misdemeanor theft are equated with a deliberate frame attempted by Nifong and the DPD. And that's unfortunate.
Anonymous 1:51, I agree. The anonymous 2:15 comment is racist.
Why have you concluded that the commenter is a lacrosse defender?
The commenter is a troll, who adds nothing to the discussion and is best ignored. On the other hand, the commenter may be a sock puppet of a Nifong apologist, such as Sidney, The Great Kilgo... or even you.
"What troubles me about the proclamation of innocence by an Attorney General is the political way the AG was pressured to proclaim them innocent."
Are you equally troubled by "the political way the AG was pressured to" ignore the evidence and take the case to trial by those who seemed to view the case entirely through a racial lens, such as the Wilmington Journal and Cash Michaels?
While the Duke lacrosse players did not have enough convincing evidence against them for a sexual assault...
You are being disingenuous. Nifong has conceded there was "no credible evidence" to support the charges.
No credible evidence.
Not "enough convincing evidence."
No credible evidence.
No credible evidence means no probable cause. No probable cause means the prosecution was unjustified. And that's unfortunate.
Sidney: This flog is an appeal to the media to report responsibly.
The media is misleading the public by stating the Duke Lacrosse defendants were "declared innocent," the inference being that a jury or judge in lieu of a jury declared them innocent.
I will agree that the AG’s conclusion that the defendants were innocent could be phrased more clearly if you agree to clarify your posts and comments where your phrasing is either unclear, inaccurate, misleading or omits important information and you live up to your agreement. I am sure that you agree that you should be held to the same standards to which you hold others. If you do not clarify your own statements and correct your own inaccuracies and omissions, you have no moral right to criticize others.
While I do not believe that a statement to the effect that “Cooper declared the defendants innocent” can reasonably be read to imply that a judge or jury declared the defendants innocent, I agree that it could be improved. More careful phrasing would avoid a misunderstanding by those not familiar with the justice system, that Cooper’s statement did not in any way change their legal status.
I am sure that you agree that the intense media scrutiny of this case required that Cooper explain his decision to drop charges. Many observers have suggested that Cooper should have released a considerably more detailed report and more evidence (you apparently agreed with this criticism when you inaccurately complained that Cooper “sealed” the file; as you know, the investigative file is never released in its entirety, particularly in cases that do not go to trial).
I agree that the media would have better served their readers with a more detailed explanation. My suggested language follows in the next comments.
My suggested media explanation:
“After an extensive investigation, the special prosecutors concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the allegation that the crimes for which the defendants had been charged had even occurred. Moreover, the investigation uncovered additional affirmative evidence that the crimes alleged did not occur.
The prosecution depended almost entirely on the accusing witness. The special prosecutors found the accusing witness not credible because: (1) her testimony would have been contradicted by other evidence; (2) her testimony would have been contradicted by other versions she had previously told investigators; (3) no testimony or physical evidence would have corroborated her testimony; (4) her identifications of the defendants were obtained through unreliable procedures; (5) her identifications were inconsistent with descriptions she previously had provided to investigators; (5) she misidentified as a party attendee with “100% certainty” a player known not to have been in Durham that night; (6) she had failed to identify any suspects in two earlier procedures; (7) her identifications were inconsistent with those earlier procedures; (8) physical evidence demonstrates that she was significantly impaired at the party, having admitted to having consumed two large beers beforehand; and (9) her medical history and previous encounters with law enforcement would have made her testimony suspect.
No DNA evidence or medical evidence confirmed her allegations. The lack of DNA disproved her specific allegation that one of the alleged assailants had ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. The SANE based her opinion that the exam was consistent with the allegations largely on Crystal’s demeanor and complaints of pain, rather than on objective evidence. In addition, the special prosecutors found credible and verifiable evidence that the accused individuals could not have participated in an attack at the time it was alleged.
My suggested media explanation continues:
Because they concluded that these crimes did not occur, they concluded there were no perpetrators. Because of the intense media coverage of this prosecution, triggered in part by statements made by Nifong and the DPD, the AG and the special prosecutors believed that it was in the best interest of justice to clarify that they believed that the defendants were innocent of the charges. The investigation found that this was not a case in which there was “insufficient evidence” to proceed with a prosecution, this was a case in which there was “no credible evidence” to support the charges and significant additional evidence to support the conclusion that those crimes did not occur.
The belief by the AG and the special prosecutors that the defendants were innocent does not have any legal effect. In the US justice system, defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Because no court found the defendants guilty, they were and remain innocent under the law. The AG and special prosecutors’ opinions of their innocence are merely their personal conclusions, which are based on the results of an extensive investigation.”
I understand why the media prefers “declared innocent” (it is far more concise), but I agree that it is less informative.
I ask that you correct references to Crystal as the “victim,” the “inference being that a jury or judge in lieu of a jury” found the defendants guilty. While I understand your reluctance to refer to Crystal as “false accuser” (although some statements have been proven false), you may not properly suggest a court has established guilt. You may use “alleged victim.”
In order to provide context, I suggest references to Crystal as alleged victim should contain my suggested language. In that way, you can provide your readers with information that permits an understanding of why prosecutors decided not to try the case. The failure to provide this information risks misleading your readers, who may otherwise conclude that there was no basis for that decision. By providing the prosecutors’ reasoning, your readers may decide whether they find it convincing. They may also use it to judge your criticism.
You may note that much of the evidence is available from Nifong’s disbarment, including DPD reports, the DNASI report, a videotape of Crystal’s identifications and written statements from Crystal, Kim and the captains. Depositions and testimony provide more information. I suggest that you post this information. You can suggest that your readers examine the evidence directly and not rely on the special prosecutors’ or your analysis.
When you have demonstrated fully the same commitment to clarity and accuracy you demand in others, the quality of your blog will be unsurpassed.
Sid: So the media continues to morph its statement regarding the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse triad by stating, quote: “state officials (plural) later declared the players innocent,” unquote. This is a flagrant, bald-faced, in-your-face, two-faced lie. Fabrication. Prevarication. A blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public…
Roy Cooper. James Coman. Mary Winstead.
Three qualifies as plural.
I will not accuse you of “a flagrant, bald-faced, in-your-face, two-faced lie. Fabrication. Prevarication. A blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… ” You made a misstatement of fact. While your error is of little consequence, you made a big deal about the number of state officials involved in the declaration. You accused others of lying.
You should make corrections to both your blog and your flog.
This provides you an opportunity to demonstrate that you are “dedicated to the pursuit and presentation of facts and related events objectively without prejudice or spin” as you claim and that you provide full information to your readers, adhering to your rule: “No disclosure is deceptive journalism.”
Has any attorney general in the history of this country ever proclaimed a defendant "innocent" during a pre-trial phase? What Cooper did was unprecedented, and will never happen again.
Cooper spoke as the prosecutor, not as the AG. I found two cases: a proclamation by a prosecutor in one and a police chief in the other.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/21/
news/mn-58111
[Prosecutor] Pfingst, after reviewing 2,000 pages of documents, concluded that Golding is "factually innocent." [pre-trial, asking to set aside a grand jury indictment]
http://courthouseforum.com/forums/
view.php?id=1066141
[Police Chief] Reese said the case demonstrates the value of DNA from two perspectives. "This time it cleared an innocent person and got someone who we think is a danger off the streets," he said. [pre-trial, prosecutor asked court to drop charges and charge another party]
Walt said...
"Sid wrote: 'It is shameful the power that the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants continue to hold over the mainstream media.'
That is your foundational mistake. The families have no hold over the media. You are experiencing the problem that all purveyors of a demonstrable lie encounter. Once the media does find out the truth of the matter, they are unwilling to further a lie.
Walt-in-Durham"
Walt, are you aware that Rae Evans worked as an executive at CBS News for a decade? Of course she has media connections, and Joe Cheshire made sure that they were put to good use. Why else do you think it was so important for his underling Bannon to pressure the Attorney General into making an unprecedented and inappropriate proclamation that the Duke defendants were "innocent." Cheshire, as well as all attorneys and media-types, know that that statement carries no legal weight. But he wants to mislead the general public with all those stories which claim that the "Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared innocent." Nothing but hogwash.
Anonymous said...
"'Defendants are supposed to be given the presumption of innocence prior to trial, but they are not declared innocent prior to standing trial.'
Sid, what you can't seem to understand is that the Duke LAX 3 should never have been defendants - there simply was no evidence to suggest that there were guilty of the charges brought against them. They are innocent of these charges."
Although I don't necessarily agree with you regarding the Duke LAXers, there are many people who have served years in jail who had no evidence against them... Greg Taylor, Erick Daniels, James Arthur Johnson, Floyd Brown, Alan Gell. Why is it that the Governor's Executive Clemency panel has denied a pardon to Erick Daniels? Can you explain that to me?
Anonymous said...
"While the Duke lacrosse players did not have enough convincing evidence against them for a sexual assault, some members of the team were guilty, by their own admission, of using racial, sexual and class epithets, stealing Crystal Mangum's money and refusing to give her back personal items. They treated not only her but the other dancer by any objective viewpoint atrociously. Much of the protests before indictment was fueled by this provable and admitted behavior. The only illegal behavior was the stealing of Mangum's money.
What's troubling about the proclamation of innocence by the AG which holds no legal weight is that many people and media take this to mean the players were not guilty of anything. This washed away all their, maybe not all illegal, but still despicable behavior. And that's unfortunate."
Thank you for your very intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful comments.
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous 2:15 says 'Look at a photograph of Crystal Man-gum.No white man would ever want to have sex'
That statement is pure racism. Now who's going to defend it?
How do overzealous defenders of the lacrosse team feel about aligning with straightout racists? Is it uncomfortable to stand shoulder to shoulder with them? Even though you agree on this issue? Seriously wondering.
KC Johnson has admitted his discomfort."
Thank you for your comments on this issue. I am in full agreement with you on it.
Anonymous said...
"What troubles me about the proclamation of innocence by an Attorney General is the political way the AG was pressured to proclaim them innocent.
The Defense attorneys, producers at 60 Minutes and other media as well as politicians (and a letter-writing campaign) pressured Cooper. CBS held out access to Cooper for a future run for Governor at that point in time.
Cooper went to the hospital the day before thinking he was having a heart attack and it turned out to be a panic attack. He knew he was in a very unsettling ethical position. His staff and PR people discussed this action he was pressured to take for days. And how this would effect his political future negatively. They decided it would effect his political future in a positive way. And they were right.
The question for all of us is, is this how we want our justice meted out? Forget about this particular circumstance. Do we want lawyers and television shows and politicians holding a carrot for future political position to determine what our elected Attorney Generals do in our name?"
Another brilliant observation and comment. Thank you for enlightening us all about this. There is no doubt in my mind about the accuracy of your statements.
Anonymous said...
"What's troubling about the incessant carping about the behavior of some players is the implication that the this behavior is as serious as the abuse of power committed by members of the prosecution team. Underage drinking and misdemeanor theft are equated with a deliberate frame attempted by Nifong and the DPD. And that's unfortunate."
Mr. Nifong is a prosecutor, and it is his job to prosecute individuals he believes to be guilty of a crime. Relying on the statements of the victim, as many prosecutors in other criminal cases do, he pursued the prosecution as he was legally obligated to do by law.
Harr Supporter said...
"Sidney: This flog is an appeal to the media to report responsibly.
The media is misleading the public by stating the Duke Lacrosse defendants were 'declared innocent,' the inference being that a jury or judge in lieu of a jury declared them innocent.
I will agree that the AG’s conclusion that the defendants were innocent could be phrased more clearly if you agree to clarify your posts and comments where your phrasing is either unclear, inaccurate, misleading or omits important information and you live up to your agreement. I am sure that you agree that you should be held to the same standards to which you hold others. If you do not clarify your own statements and correct your own inaccuracies and omissions, you have no moral right to criticize others.
While I do not believe that a statement to the effect that “Cooper declared the defendants innocent” can reasonably be read to imply that a judge or jury declared the defendants innocent, I agree that it could be improved. More careful phrasing would avoid a misunderstanding by those not familiar with the justice system, that Cooper’s statement did not in any way change their legal status.
I am sure that you agree that the intense media scrutiny of this case required that Cooper explain his decision to drop charges. Many observers have suggested that Cooper should have released a considerably more detailed report and more evidence (you apparently agreed with this criticism when you inaccurately complained that Cooper “sealed” the file; as you know, the investigative file is never released in its entirety, particularly in cases that do not go to trial).
I agree that the media would have better served their readers with a more detailed explanation. My suggested language follows in the next comments."
All Attorney General Cooper need to say was that "he was dismissing the charges because he felt that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to trial." Period. End of sentence. Fini. No mas.
Sidney claims: All Attorney General Cooper need to say was that "he was dismissing the charges because he felt that there was insufficient evidence to take the case to trial." Period. End of sentence. Fini. No mas.
And you and all of the other Nifong apologists would have accepted that vague resolution as final?
If not, then your suggestion has no merit.
As noted earlier, many observers had hoped that Cooper would have provided a considerably more detailed report and more evidence. You appeared to agree with this sentiment when complained that Cooper did not release the entire file (the entire investigative file is almost never released).
I am confident that a release of additional evidence would have provided further support for the conclusion that the crimes for which the defendants had been indicted never occurred.
Sid,
Nifong never believed Crystal.
Except for his self-serving statements, there is no evidence to support that claim.
He never discussed her allegations with her. The DPD never conducted a real investigation. Nifong never insisted on one.
If he believed her, why didn't they try to solve the crime?
If you think Nifong believed her, you must think he is an absolute moron.
Sid wrote: "Walt, are you aware that Rae Evans worked as an executive at CBS News for a decade?" Of course I know that. I also know that she was long gone from CBS when the hoax took place. And, it is totally meaningless that she once worked for CBS. Initially, CBS and the rest of the media, reported Nifong's statements as truthful. They even fawned over his lies. Indeed, Nifong claimed all the free publicity he was getting was worth a million bucks.
"Why else do you think it was so important for his underling Bannon to pressure the Attorney General into making an unprecedented and inappropriate proclamation that the Duke defendants were "innocent." " Because it was true and the state of North Carolina had gone a long way to destroy the lives of three innocent young men.
"Cheshire, as well as all attorneys and media-types, know that that statement carries no legal weight." This is correct, but not in the way you intend it to be. All people stand before the bar of justice, innocent until the state proves otherwise. However, you are flat wrong, and you know it, when you say only a judge and jury can proclaim innocence. Judges and juries have only two options, Guilty or Not Guilty. Of course, I have come to understand that when it comes to whitewashing Nifong, you are a stranger to the truth.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said...
"Sid wrote: 'Walt, are you aware that Rae Evans worked as an executive at CBS News for a decade?' Of course I know that. I also know that she was long gone from CBS when the hoax took place. And, it is totally meaningless that she once worked for CBS. Initially, CBS and the rest of the media, reported Nifong's statements as truthful. They even fawned over his lies. Indeed, Nifong claimed all the free publicity he was getting was worth a million bucks.
'Why else do you think it was so important for his underling Bannon to pressure the Attorney General into making an unprecedented and inappropriate proclamation that the Duke defendants were "innocent." ' Because it was true and the state of North Carolina had gone a long way to destroy the lives of three innocent young men.
'Cheshire, as well as all attorneys and media-types, know that that statement carries no legal weight.' This is correct, but not in the way you intend it to be. All people stand before the bar of justice, innocent until the state proves otherwise. However, you are flat wrong, and you know it, when you say only a judge and jury can proclaim innocence. Judges and juries have only two options, Guilty or Not Guilty. Of course, I have come to understand that when it comes to whitewashing Nifong, you are a stranger to the truth.
Walt-in-Durham"
Just because Rae Evans was not working for CBS News when the events at the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party took place, does not mean that she did not have strong ties with CBS and other media network officials.
Initial reports on the Duke Lacrosse case may have begun in a more objective manner, but after Cheshire set up Cooper to make the "innocent promulgation" and worked with Rae to use her connections, the media reporting was blatantly anti-Nifong all the way.
And as far as the Attorney General goes, he is no more capable of legally pronouncing one's innocence or guilt as are you or I. And I'm not the only one who says so... Law professor Anthony Baker has said so, as well. I have yet to hear an attorney give legal credence to the A.G.'s statement.
as far as the Attorney General goes, he is no more capable of legally pronouncing one's innocence or guilt as are you or I… I have yet to hear an attorney give legal credence to the A.G.'s statement.
You continue to make a straw man argument. Cooper did not claim his declaration of innocence had legal effect. No one has made this claim.
The declaration was an explanation for his decision to drop charges. The highly charged environment required an explanation. This was not a case in which there was “insufficient evidence” to proceed (implying there was credible evidence, just not enough); this was a case in which there was “no credible evidence” to support the claim that the crimes for which they were indicted had even occurred and significant additional evidence that those crimes did not occur. The announcement was also an attempt to undo damage from earlier guilt-presuming statements and media coverage. Cooper practiced restorative justice, a concept to which you give lip service.
Attorneys have supported Cooper’s statement (not your caricature), but in the way it was intended. I give two examples.
Patrick Baker, on behalf of the City of Durham, stated:
“…let me acknowledge the City’s concurrence with AG Roy Cooper’s decision to dismiss all of the charges… as well as his declaration that these young men are innocent of the charges for which they had been indicted.. the allegations of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping were unfounded.”
An attorney familiar with the case explained:
The defendants “were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they were under indictment. Surely, they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward with the rest of their lives. And that is what the attorney general tried to give them in his declaration that they are innocent.”
No one has claimed that Cooper’s statement had legal effect. Your repetition of a straw man argument can be seen as “a blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… ” I suggest you clarify your discussions of this subject to clarify that the point you debate has never been questioned.
If you must criticize the AG, criticize what he was actually trying to do.
There was no stripper ogling party.The photographs taken at the time show the young were disgusted and found Crystal Mangum unattractive as any white man would.There is no way they would want to have sex with her much less go to all the trouble of raping her in a bathroom that was too small.
Sid, I can't believe you wrote: "Initial reports on the Duke Lacrosse case may have begun in a more objective manner,"
Seriously, the initial reports were blatant lies. Subsequent reports were worse, as the truth about DNA tests were already coming out. Yet the media continued to repeat Nifong's lies uncritically.
"... but after Cheshire set up Cooper to make the "innocent promulgation" and worked with Rae to use her connections, the media reporting was blatantly anti-Nifong all the way."
No, the media finally started looking at the case objectively long after it was obvious that Nifong was lying. Lies that he continues to repeat, but that no one believes. The fact that you and Nifong are willing to repeat his lies only undermines your credibility. But, I am always pleased to point out how incredible Nifong's lies are.
Walt-in-Durham
Harr Supporter said...
"as far as the Attorney General goes, he is no more capable of legally pronouncing one's innocence or guilt as are you or I… I have yet to hear an attorney give legal credence to the A.G.'s statement.
You continue to make a straw man argument. Cooper did not claim his declaration of innocence had legal effect. No one has made this claim.
The declaration was an explanation for his decision to drop charges. The highly charged environment required an explanation. This was not a case in which there was “insufficient evidence” to proceed (implying there was credible evidence, just not enough); this was a case in which there was “no credible evidence” to support the claim that the crimes for which they were indicted had even occurred and significant additional evidence that those crimes did not occur. The announcement was also an attempt to undo damage from earlier guilt-presuming statements and media coverage. Cooper practiced restorative justice, a concept to which you give lip service.
Attorneys have supported Cooper’s statement (not your caricature), but in the way it was intended. I give two examples.
Patrick Baker, on behalf of the City of Durham, stated:
“…let me acknowledge the City’s concurrence with AG Roy Cooper’s decision to dismiss all of the charges… as well as his declaration that these young men are innocent of the charges for which they had been indicted.. the allegations of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping were unfounded.”
An attorney familiar with the case explained:
The defendants “were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they were under indictment. Surely, they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward with the rest of their lives. And that is what the attorney general tried to give them in his declaration that they are innocent.”
No one has claimed that Cooper’s statement had legal effect. Your repetition of a straw man argument can be seen as “a blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… ” I suggest you clarify your discussions of this subject to clarify that the point you debate has never been questioned.
If you must criticize the AG, criticize what he was actually trying to do."
Patrick Baker's statement that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent, is false and misleading as well as that of the attorney general. The major problem is that the media took A.G. Cooper's statement and used it to meal "legally innocent." The media is the one actually misleading the people. Cooper was coerced into making that statement by Cheshire's underling Bannon for that very purpose. Tell me if you've ever heard any attorney general proclaim a defendant to be innocent.
"Patrick Baker's statement that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent, is false and misleading..."
Same tired old argument here Sid. Anyone who claims that the LAX 3 were innocent are lying with you as the final arbiter of truth, with absolutely no truth to back your claims. It didn't wash in 2008 when you started this blog and doesn't wash now.
You're a waste of time, Sid. Nothing more than a condescending pseudo journalist who thinks the answer to all Durham's racial issues is a nice white man, Mike Nifong, showing dem po ol' coloreds how to maneuver thru a mine field of cross burnin, sheet wearin Dukies to the promised land.
Go ye therefore enlightened.
Patrick Baker's statement that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent, is false and misleading as well as that of the attorney general.
Based on his review of the evidence, he expressed agreement with the AG’s opinion.
The major problem is that the media took A.G. Cooper's statement and used it to mean "legally innocent."
Your interpretation is incorrect. The media summarizes Cooper’s opinion that the defendants were innocent based on a review of the evidence. Please explain why your interpretation is different than that of virtually all of your readers.
The defendants are legally innocent. Cooper had no effect.
The media is the one actually misleading the people.
Your coverage is far more misleading.
You have failed to clarify your characterization of Crystal as “victim” in the lacrosse case. Given your sensitivity, one would expect you to avoid this mistake. You mislead your readers, the “inference being that a jury or judge in lieu of a jury” found the defendants guilty.
I ask that you correct these statements and provide the necessary context. A failure to do so will lead many to believe that your error is intentional. If you fail to make corrections, you have no moral right to complain about media bias. One will conclude that you believe that rules do not apply to you.
Cooper was coerced into making that statement by Cheshire's underling Bannon for that very purpose.
You have made this allegation previously, but provided no support. Provide evidence.
Tell me if you've ever heard any attorney general proclaim a defendant to be innocent.
I have previously provided examples of prosecutors, police chiefs and attorneys general who made declarations, some prior to initial hearings and some prior to appeals. When defendants had not previously been found guilty, a court dropped charges. When defendants had earlier been found guilty, a court verdict set aside the earlier verdict.
Sid. Sad racist sid. You and bathrobe boy deserve each other.
I am busy working on several important projects, including two upcoming flogs. Will keep you posted.
How else can you explain wral.com’s… assertion that “state officials later declared the players innocent.”
They read the report.
It concludes: “the Attorney General along with his special prosecutors, Senior Deputy Attorney General James J. Coman and Special Deputy Attorney General Mary D. Winstead, believed it was in the best interest of justice to declare these three individuals innocent of these charges… based on the… evidence… the Attorney General and his prosecutors determined that the three individuals were innocent of the criminal charges… ”
I find it bad enough that you accuse others of lying due to your careless research. I find it unconscionable that you fail to correct your errors when they are identified.
A poster identified this error four days ago. You failed to acknowledge, let alone correct it.
I call on you to (1) correct both your flog and your blog; (2) apologize to those you slandered as liars; and (3) apologize to your readers for any inconvenience or misunderstanding resulting from your mistake and, more importantly, from your failure to correct it in a timely manner.
You are factually incorrect.
Sid thinks he is intelligent. Wrong.
Sid thinks he is funny. Wrong
Sid thinks he is a good writer. Very wrong.
Sid thinks he is a skillful "lay advocate". My Aunt Myrtle's hind end.
Sid thinks he is clever and analytical. Wrong.
Sid thinks he actually has "readers". Yep, Victoria, Wahneeeeena, Linwood and Jackie just can't wait for the next installment.
Sid thinks we give a hoot what he thinks. Sure we do.
Sid thinks his racism does not reveal itself. WRONG
Sid Owes Another Apology said...
"How else can you explain wral.com’s… assertion that “state officials later declared the players innocent.”
They read the report.
It concludes: “the Attorney General along with his special prosecutors, Senior Deputy Attorney General James J. Coman and Special Deputy Attorney General Mary D. Winstead, believed it was in the best interest of justice to declare these three individuals innocent of these charges… based on the… evidence… the Attorney General and his prosecutors determined that the three individuals were innocent of the criminal charges… ”
I find it bad enough that you accuse others of lying due to your careless research. I find it unconscionable that you fail to correct your errors when they are identified.
A poster identified this error four days ago. You failed to acknowledge, let alone correct it.
I call on you to (1) correct both your flog and your blog; (2) apologize to those you slandered as liars; and (3) apologize to your readers for any inconvenience or misunderstanding resulting from your mistake and, more importantly, from your failure to correct it in a timely manner.
You are factually incorrect."
What James J. Coman and Mary Winstead believed and thought is one thing. They never publicly declared the Duke Lacrosse defendants "innocent." Only A.G. Cooper did. And the media jumped on the chance to use it as though it was legal gospel... playing Jedi mind-tricks on the vulnerably weak-minded Tar Heelians.
To write that "state officials declared the boys innocent" is not only incorrect, but when it comes down to it, irrelevant... as is Cooper's promulgation... bearing no legal weight.
Thereby, go ye enlightened.
Sid wrote: "Patrick Baker's statement that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent, is false and misleading...."
No, for once Baker got something right. The statement is true and not at all misleading. It is interesting to see how Nifong's mind twists reality into lies though.
Walt-in-Durham
Ever hear of "Innocent until proven guilty",Sid? Were the lacrosse men proven guilty? Were they, Sid? When? I must have missed it. If they were not proven guilty, then they were and are innocent. Take medication, Sid. It's past due. Cooper expressed an opinion, based on the EVIDENCE reviewed, that the men were innocent. He NEVER said or implied that his team's findings were a VERDICT, Sid. Know why you can't get off this point, Sid? WE do. Because it just bleeping' sticks in your craw, doesn't it, Sid......that Sister lied, Nifong lied and.......liar liar pants on fire....finally caught up with them. Just really frosts you, doesn't it, Sid. Keep choking' on it, Sid. The truth is a tough pill to swallow sometimes.
What James J. Coman and Mary Winstead believed and thought is one thing. They never publicly declared the Duke Lacrosse defendants "innocent."
This statement is demonstrably false. Coman and Winstead made this declaration in the report they released publicly. Their declaration was quoted in the comment to which you replied, so you cannot pretend it does not exist.
the Attorney General along with his special prosecutors, Senior Deputy Attorney General James J. Coman and Special Deputy Attorney General Mary D. Winstead, believed it was in the best interest of justice to declare these three individuals innocent of these charges…
You really should be ashamed of yourself. Your response must be seen as “a blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… ”
You have now failed to correct your error for 6 days.
I call on you to (1) correct both your flog and your blog; (2) apologize to those you slandered as liars; (3) apologize to your readers for any inconvenience or misunderstanding resulting from your mistake and, more importantly, from your failure to correct it in a timely manner; and (4) apologize to your readers for your transparently false response.
Once again, you are factually incorrect.
Your characterization of Crystal as the “victim” in the case is misleading, the “inference being that a jury or judge in lieu of a jury” found the defendants guilty. There was no “guilty” verdict.
Given your sensitivity to this particular issue, one would expect you to have avoided this mistake (I would not raise it except for the position you have taken consistently on the declarations of innocence of the defendants). I believe your mischaracterization is an inadvertent mistake, rather than “a blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… ”
A commenter identified this mistake 7 days ago. You failed to acknowledge, let alone correct it.
I call on you to (1) correct all blogs and comments in which you make this statement and provide adequate context to explain to your readers why the special prosecutors indicated they made the decision to drop charges; and (2) apologize to your readers for any inconvenience or misunderstanding resulting from your misleading statements and, more importantly, from your failure to correct them in a timely manner.
If you fail to correct this error, I may be forced to alter my opinion of your intention.
To write that "state officials declared the boys innocent" is not only incorrect, but when it comes down to it, irrelevant... as is Cooper's promulgation... bearing no legal weight.
You continue to make a straw man argument. Cooper, Coman and Winstead did not claim their declaration of innocence had legal effect. No one has made this claim. Your repetition of a straw man argument can be seen as “a blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… ”
You have now failed to acknowledge this issue for 4 days.
I call on you to (1) clarify all blogs and comments in which you discuss the declaration of innocence to make clear that the point you debate has never been questioned by anyone; (2) admit that your posts were designed to distract your readers from focusing on the real point of the declaration, namely the results of the special prosecutors’ investigation; and (3) apologize to your readers for any inconvenience or misunderstanding resulting from your reliance on a straw man argument intended to mislead them.
Sid Owes Another Apology said...
"What James J. Coman and Mary Winstead believed and thought is one thing. They never publicly declared the Duke Lacrosse defendants 'innocent.'
This statement is demonstrably false. Coman and Winstead made this declaration in the report they released publicly. Their declaration was quoted in the comment to which you replied, so you cannot pretend it does not exist.
the Attorney General along with his special prosecutors, Senior Deputy Attorney General James J. Coman and Special Deputy Attorney General Mary D. Winstead, believed it was in the best interest of justice to declare these three individuals innocent of these charges…
You really should be ashamed of yourself. Your response must be seen as “a blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… ”
You have now failed to correct your error for 6 days.
I call on you to (1) correct both your flog and your blog; (2) apologize to those you slandered as liars; (3) apologize to your readers for any inconvenience or misunderstanding resulting from your mistake and, more importantly, from your failure to correct it in a timely manner; and (4) apologize to your readers for your transparently false response.
Once again, you are factually incorrect."
I received correspondence from wral.com which confirmed that although reporter Erin Hartness made references to "state officials" (plural), Attorney General Roy Cooper was the sole source of their statement. All of the media types attribute the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse defendants solely to Cooper, and not Coman or Winstead.
To reiterate, it is the duty of the prosecutor to charge and prosecute defendants, not sit in judgment of them. That is the lone province of the jury or judge in lieu of a jury. Cooper's "Innocent Promulgation" of April 11, 2007 is meaningless... carries no legal weight. Gregory Taylor and Erick Daniels, on the otherhand, were truly proclaimed innocent. The Duke boys are not in that category, no matter how much you would like to pretend.
Thereby, go ye enlightened.
Sorry that there has been a paucity of blogs recently, but I have been working hard on some very interesting and groundbreaking flogs. They will be interactive and allow the view to stop the documentary at certain times by clicking a button to enable closer examination of documents.
The first ever interactive flog will be posted, hopefully, some time this coming week. It is sure to educate, enlighten, and entertain.
Sid,
I don't believe your claim about having received correspondence from wral.com. Post it.
Your claim that ALL the media rely on Cooper's statement is almost certainly false. Many observers reached the conclusion that the defendants were innocent through a review of the evidence. As you know, much is publicly available.
Stop it with the straw man arguments. No one has claimed Cooper's statement had legal weight. Your use of straw man arguments is misleading. You owe yet another apology to your readers.
Sid Owes Another Apology said..."Your characterization of Crystal as the “victim” in the case is misleading...."
Exactly right, without Crystal's opening lies, the fiasco would noever have gotten off the ground.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said...
"Sid Owes Another Apology said...'Your characterization of Crystal as the “victim” in the case is misleading....'
Exactly right, without Crystal's opening lies, the fiasco would noever have gotten off the ground.
Walt-in-Durham"
Without Duke Lacrosse hosting one of its typical beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling parties, with under-aged drinking laced with racial epithets and other debachery for which the Duke Lacrosse team is known, then Crystal Mangum would not have been caught up in this mess.
Sid Owes Another Apology said...
Sid,
"I don't believe your claim about having received correspondence from wral.com. Post it.
Your claim that ALL the media rely on Cooper's statement is almost certainly false. Many observers reached the conclusion that the defendants were innocent through a review of the evidence. As you know, much is publicly available.
Stop it with the straw man arguments. No one has claimed Cooper's statement had legal weight. Your use of straw man arguments is misleading. You owe yet another apology to your readers."
I will respond to this in my next mini-blog which I plan to post tomorrow.
"Without Duke Lacrosse hosting one of its typical beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling parties, with under-aged drinking laced with racial epithets and other debachery for which the Duke Lacrosse team is known, then Crystal Mangum would not have been caught up in this mess."
Crystal was a mess waiting to happen, Sid. That you cannot or will not see this says a great deal about you. Your just another elitist liberal. Before this fiasco, You would've crossed the street if she were walking your way.
You REALLY want to do something? REALLY want to help? She's got what, 3(?) kids that need someone to raise them.
Sid's response to an apology will be: "I'm not going to apologize as doing so would be worthless if I don't real mean what I'm saying..." This all despite the fact that he has been shown to be DEMONSTRABLY telling falsehoods in this blog.
Anonymous said...
"'Without Duke Lacrosse hosting one of its typical beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling parties, with under-aged drinking laced with racial epithets and other debachery for which the Duke Lacrosse team is known, then Crystal Mangum would not have been caught up in this mess.'
Crystal was a mess waiting to happen, Sid. That you cannot or will not see this says a great deal about you. Your just another elitist liberal. Before this fiasco, You would've crossed the street if she were walking your way.
You REALLY want to do something? REALLY want to help? She's got what, 3(?) kids that need someone to raise them."
To my knowledge, the children's father has been given custody of Crystal's children.
Besides I am heavily involved in other matters where the crusade for justice is in dire need. One of which is Governor Bev Perdue's refusal to grant a pardon to Erick Daniels. A major flog on the topic is upcoming... hopefully within a week. It will be the first of-its-kind interactive flog, in which the viewer can control the events.
One thing that cannot be denied is that this blog site is on the forefront of innovation.
"To my knowledge, the children's father has been given custody of Crystal's children."
In other words, you don't know and don't care. But hey, as long as you get to flog yourself, it's all good, right Sid?
I can't take someone seriously about inaccurate reporting when he himself fills the air with lies. Tough luck J4N, you just look like idiots
Post a Comment