Unlike MSNBC, Duke University, and most media types, when I err, I move quickly to apply principles of “restorative justice” in response… which means accepting responsibility, apologizing, correcting the mistake and doing whatever possible to see that it doesn’t recur.
Regarding the previous blog, on February 10, 1997, Keith Richardson picked Shan Carter out of a photo lineup, and not a physical lineup as I had assumed. The police were aware at that time that Shan Carter had been arrested for breaking and entering Richardson’s residence earlier that month, and that Richardson carried around a photo of Carter and was seeking information about him. Police most likely and sensibly concluded that Richardson was the aggressor in the February 5, 1997 incident, as no charges were brought against Carter for that shooting.
Just to clarify, it was Louis Tyson and not Shan Carter who suspected that Kwada Temoney and Julius Jones had broken into Tyson’s home and wounded him in the leg with a gun.
Finally, and most importantly, Attorney Richard G. Miller, who was the capital defender for Shan Carter in the Brunson murder trial, was not asked by Shan to obtain, copy or secure records of pay phones which Demetria Green used prior to leading Lakeisha Carter to an interview with detectives. Carter first learned at trial about use of the pay phone by Demetria while on the way with Lakeisha's grandfather to meet with authorities for the interview with Lakeisha. Attorney Miller never even brought up the possibility of the significance of the use of the pay phone as being a vital link to establish the collaboration between the detectives, prosecution and FBI agent and Demetria Green, who was obviously charged with the task of bringing Lakeisha Carter into town for the videotaped interview. Carter began to seek records of the pay phones in 2000 from his appeals attorney Edwin L. West III, who made no attempt to retrieve them, despite their importance. Carter's subsequent attorney Sharon Smith, hired in 2003, investigated the pay phone records in 2008 (at which time she was told that they had been destroyed.)
With the above errors explained in full, I suggest you re-read the blog posted previously (on December 15, 2010) to get a fuller and more accurate understanding of this case… with all of its twists and turns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Maybe instead of bragging about what you perceive is behavior that sets you apart from Duke, MSNBC et all, you should just have your facts straight when you come to the table. If you think these people and their reporting is so bad then why be so proud that you are "better?" Fact is, you aren't trying to do anything correct, you're just listening to a liar and passing on facts and ideas before you even stop to think about how ridiculous they are. Maybe you don't want to think the facts through. Didnt for Nifong. Didnt for Mangum. Not doing it now. Pitiful.
Sid,
We are waiting for your insights into yesterday's happenings at CGM's trial. Care to coment on the judge finding your buddy, Jackie Wagstaff, in criminal contempt?
Anonymous said...
"Maybe instead of bragging about what you perceive is behavior that sets you apart from Duke, MSNBC et all, you should just have your facts straight when you come to the table. If you think these people and their reporting is so bad then why be so proud that you are 'better?' Fact is, you aren't trying to do anything correct, you're just listening to a liar and passing on facts and ideas before you even stop to think about how ridiculous they are. Maybe you don't want to think the facts through. Didnt for Nifong. Didnt for Mangum. Not doing it now. Pitiful."
Admitting errors and following the principles of restorative justice is what I consider to be the high ground, and it is what I will continue to do... unlike Duke and MSNBC. I don't profess to be perfect, and do the best I can, however, Shan Carter is not readily available for me to consult to reassure the accuracy of a point in the article.
Are you satisfied with MSNBC's Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan fabricating a lie which she then purposely uses to attack a man's character? Are you okay with MSNBC refusing to acknowledge and correct mistakes it makes?.. I'm not.
Anonymous said...
"Sid,
We are waiting for your insights into yesterday's happenings at CGM's trial. Care to coment on the judge finding your buddy, Jackie Wagstaff, in criminal contempt?"
I will post a blog about the findings in the case in the next day or two. Briefly, I feel that the misdemeanor convictions were a direct result of having the trial in Durham. There should have been a change of venue. Briefly regarding Ms. Wagstaff's treatment, I feel that the punishment of ten days in jail for contempt was excessive.
Have been busy working on the comic strip, "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper." This educational comic strip will begin its run on Sunday, January 2, 2011, and I still have about 20 of 102 strips remaining to do.
Are you okay with MSNBC refusing to acknowledge and correct mistakes it makes?.. I'm not.
When are you planning to acknowledge the rest of your mistakes? You generally ignore readers' comments on your errors.
In the past, you have refused to do so because too many mistakes had been identified.
Anonymous said...
"'Are you okay with MSNBC refusing to acknowledge and correct mistakes it makes?.. I'm not.'
When are you planning to acknowledge the rest of your mistakes? You generally ignore readers' comments on your errors.
In the past, you have refused to do so because too many mistakes had been identified."
I have no compunction about addressing factual errors that I make and taking responsibility for thme. However, just because someone interprets an event or information differently than I do, does not make my opinion or statement invalid. Also, media sources and information used by commenters is often incorrect... so I will not automatically take the position that my statement is in error.
The next post will explain my position about the Crystal Mangum trial and events leading to it. I welcome your comments, as always.
Sid -- You blogged on August 10, 2010 that one Dillon Tart had been placed on house arrest (no bond) while awaiting trial.
A number of posters showed this to be false, yet you neither corrected the statement or acknowledged those posters who were more familiar with the Dillon Tart situation.
I ask you now -- post the documentation to support your original claim, or admit that you lied in your post simply to bolster your argument.
Anonymous said...
"Sid -- You blogged on August 10, 2010 that one Dillon Tart had been placed on house arrest (no bond) while awaiting trial.
A number of posters showed this to be false, yet you neither corrected the statement or acknowledged those posters who were more familiar with the Dillon Tart situation.
I ask you now -- post the documentation to support your original claim, or admit that you lied in your post simply to bolster your argument."
I believe that I saw an interview with Dillon Tart at his home on a television news station that stated that he was under house arrest. I believe that it was ABC 11 News. Try looking it up in the archives of their website.
I may, on occasion, get a fact wrong, but I never lie, as that requires purposeful intent.
Sid -- Getting a fact wrong just means you're human. Refusing to make corrections after you're shown that your fact is wrong means you're a liar. So does blaming others for your mistakes.
Post a Comment