Tuesday, June 12, 2007

N&O Video Gallery

The N&O has a video gallery up of today's proceedings.


Anonymous said...

Nifong's lawyer...

"Mr Nifong did not create the media interest in the Duke case"

Said with a straight face - If that's the best he has to offer, we are witessing one very slow death here.

Anonymous said...

I made a kind of a weird connection watching this. Remember the two lawyers whose dog killed their neighbor? Well besides the fact that they were totally immoral; they were also stupid and totally incompetant as lawyers. They did absolutely boneheaded things like blame the victim. And when they went to trial, they had a totally incompetant lawyer defending them. (She was also batshit crazy.)
Seeing this makes me think: when bad lawyers get in trouble, they hire bad lawyers to defend them. How many times did Freeman say "um" in his opening statement? It doesn't seem this guy can litigate himself out of a paper bag.

Anonymous said...

We want the Victoria Peterson video! :)

mac said...

Yeah, we want the video!
Evidence of an alien life-form!
Maybe we can get pictures of
Polanski, while we're at it!

I sure would like to see the one
where she pops her head into
the viewfinder!

JWM said...

To Anon @ 8:21,

I'm no Nifong fan and have said for many months that he should be disbarred and very likely tried for criminal acts.

That said, Nifong didn't "create the media interest in the Duke case."

That was done by the Raleigh News & Observer.

Remember, Nifong didn’t begin speaking publicly about the case until Mar. 27, 2006.

On Mar. 24 the N&O "broke" the Duke lacrosse case with a front page story in which the accuser was repeatedly described as "the victim" without the N&O using "alleged" even once.

So in the first story the public and the rest of media read about the Duke Hoax, the N&O cast Mangum as "the victim" and the Duke students as her victimizers.

On Mar. 25 the N&O ran the fraudulent "anonymous interview" story about what in front page headlines above the fold it said was a night that ended "in sexual violence."

The N&O described the anonymous accuser as a young black mother and student who was "so scared" when, performing for the first time as an “exotic dancer,” she found herself before a group of boozing, barking white racist Duke male lacrosse players, three of whom then gang-raped, beat, robbed and chocked her for thirty minutes, after which their teammates formed "wall of solidarity" to cover up for them.

That story “went national.” By the evening of Mar. 25 the networks were broadcasting it and newspapers were laying the N&O’s fraudulent story out for their Sunday editions. And the satellite trucks were gassing up to head for Durham.

On Mar. 26 the N&O reported on a vigil by Duke faculty and students, religious groups and community organization (never named) in support of “the victim” and demanding the students “break their silence”

On Mar. 27, a Monday, the N&O ran a story on a demonstration outside the house on N. Buchanan Blvd. The N&O said activists were demanding with signs and shouts that the students “confess.” The N&O didn’t mention the activists gathered under a large “CASTRATE” banner.

That same day an N&O news columnist, Ruth Sheehan, said the team’s silence was sickening and that “good guys” didn’t cover up.

By Mar. 27 the N&O had, for four days, been in a full throated mob cry savaging the students, laying out the false script (frightened black mother raped by drunken, racist, privileged white males) Nifong would make his own, and poisoning the public’s mind against that students.

Only after all of what you’ve just read did Mike Nifong on Mar. 27 begin speaking to the public.

And when he did, Nifong said what we’d been reading in the N&O since Mar. 24, and what the rest of media had been sheep-like repeating.

Nifong even, like the N&O, made no mention of the extraordinary cooperation the players had provided police. In fact, he followed the N&O’s lead and promulgated what the N&O and Nifong both knew was a deliberate falsehood: the players hadn’t cooperated.

Again, I want Nifong disbarred. I think he should be investigated for committing criminal acts while he and others pursued a frame-up.

But, please, don’t tell me Nifong “create[ed] the media interest in this case.”

John in Carolina

Anonymous said...

JinC: Who set up the N&O interview? Is it possible/likely that someone in DPD or the DA's office fed this to them? If not, any idea if anyone outside the N&O had a hand in shaping things?

Anonymous said...

JIC then why did Nifong refer to the media attention as free advertisement for his re-election?

Anonymous said...

New(?) info about the Victoria Peterson incident:

"According to sources in the courtroom, Maryellen Finnerty, the mother of Collin Finnerty, one of three men indicted and charged in the Duke lacrosse case, felt threatened when Peterson started speaking loudly."


Anonymous said...

JIC get real. Remember Nifong looked at the intitial report at a fax copier and said holy shit and went straight to the media with it.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Are you saying the DA's office had no role in getting the N&O info, access, generally excited about the story ? That's SOP for these guys.


Anonymous said...

It isn't the "Duke" case, it is the Nifong/Mangum case.

Anonymous said...

'Fong cannot be having a good night's sleep. He knows the jig is up. He knows his license is toast; he knows civil suits are coming; he knows that he faces the possibility of a criminal investigation. Can you imagine this worm squirming in a deposition? Durham better start budgeting for a huge tax increase because the check will be huge. It has the 'Fong to thank for that.

None but his most ardent defenders will stand by him now. He has the unmistakable stench of a loser.

GaryB said...

Nice interview with Pressler

JWM said...

To Anon @10:17,

You ask very good questions. I'm not ready to post on them, but hope to in a week or so.

Meantime, take a look at this post at Liestoppers. It's by Montothree but they head it as "Our Collective Voice." It touches on some of your questions and is, IMO, a breakthrough post:


Anon @ 10:22,

We can agree Nifong welcomed and used the publicity.

But he didn't crate the media interest.

Do you even wonder what might have happened if the N&O hadn't repeatedly called Mangum "the victim," and had reported in the Mar. 25 story that the players had been cooperative, and had reported that Mangum had told the N&O the Kim Roberts was also sexually assualted at the party but couldn't report it for fear of losing her job and, what's more, said that Roberts would do anything for money?

Anon @ 10:34,

You say: "JIC get real. Remember Nifong looked at the intitial report at a fax copier and said holy shit and went straight to the media with it."

What "initial report" are you talking about at what "fax copier?"

If Nifong "went straight to the media with it," on what day did that happen? Where can I read a report of it?

I don't see why, based on your comment, it's me that needs to "get real."

To 8:21 commenting at 11:39,

I don't know whether the DA's office had a role in getting the N&O interested, etc in the story.

I don't have a solid answer to that question yet.

I'm inclined to think some person or person's on what I call the "Nifong/DPD investigative team" did.

As you say, DA offices often provide media with "background." So do cops.

That typcially, as you know, isn't considered a professional ethics violation of the type that is one of the charges Nifong faces.

I hope you take a look at the Liestoppers post I mention above.

BTW - If you read the N&O's Joe Neff's recent five part series you may recall he reports Nifong first learned about the case on Mar. 23 when he "discovered" the NTO on his office copier.

As near as I can figure, the next time Neff tells us anything about Nifong is on the afternoon of Mar. 27 what Neff describes a meeting Nifong has with defense attorney Bob Ekstrom.

That gap from the 23rd to the 27th interests me. I'm guessing it does you, too.

John in Carolina

Anonymous said...

Someone should really look into getting a copy of the video of Victoria Peterson interjecting herself into the live newsfeed on WRAL outside the courtroom after she was ejected.

It was fantastic.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

John in Carolina is there are particular editor at the N&O who might have pushed their early coverage?

JWM said...

Dear JLS,

Good question.

At this time the best answer I can give you is there were a number of editors pushing their early coverage.

You don't, for example, at a newspaper the size of the N&O get a story like the Mar. 25 "anonymous interview" story placed on page one, above the fold, with headlines five columns wide on a six column page without a good number of editors working on the story and agreeing to give it what years ago in the newspaper used to be called "the war's declared" treatment.

I hope you and others keep asking the N&O questions such as the one you just asked me.

Now I'm signing off this thread. I've enjoyed "talking" with folks here.

John in Carolina

Anonymous said...

All you have really said is that the list of extremely guilty parties is more extensive than Nifong and his Ass.
I have no problem with that. It might well take a lot of trials and prosecutions to get anywhere near justice in this case.

mac said...

I'd guess the Nifong household
is about like the Tuileries
on the night before the royal family attempted to flee in
the French Revolution.

Anonymous said...

Hasn't the N&O earned some redemption by their subsequent coverage?

If it wasn't for Neff and his consistently detailed stories the national media might never have turned on Nifong.

They've issued their mea culpa and have done a better job since they saw the light than any other outlet in the country.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for interesting article.

Anonymous said...

Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!