Friday, December 22, 2006

The Last Enablers

Over the past few years, the New York Times has waged a crusade against anonymous sources. According to Public Editor Byron Calame, the newly tightened rules state that "readers are to be told why The Times believes a source is entitled to anonymity."

The Times piece on Nifong's latest manipulation of the evidence includes the accuser's new version of events, "according to a person close to the investigation who would only speak on condition of anonymity."

Fair use of anonymous sourcing. But Duff Wilson (of course!) then gives the source the cloak of anonymity to interpret the legal significance of the new version of events.

"With the absence of DNA and her not knowing what was going on, it’s the right thing to do and it probably makes the rest of the case stronger," the source said.

What rationale exists for the Times allowing anonymous legal analysis?


Anonymous said...

Little by little! The case is slipping away

Anonymous said...

Let's just hope Irving Joyner can create something out of this mess. Come on Irving, I sat in your evidence class long enough to know when you're bluffing. What a crock of sh**.

Anonymous said...

Where Gonzalez??????

DOJ ....Is there any one there?????

Nifong and his prejudice stinks!

If ever a DA was trying to fit evidence around no crime this is it. Nifong is CORRUPT and ROTTEN TO THE CORE!!

Still NOTHING from NC State Bar, Cooper , Easy "Easley" and the DOJ ? All of the above have known from the start this was a complete charade and that the Stripper was making false accusations.

IT was these folk that has allowed NC and Durham to beome the CESSPIT of corruption it .

Side note:
Durham City.

They alledgedly , falsely sent water samples for testing so the high lead levels would not show !

Durham has become a "Boil on the backside of humanity" !

Anonymous said...

Of course its an anonymous source. Who would say that on the record?

Anonymous said...

More than that what reason does the NYT have to use an anonymous source who obviously has not read the pleadings in the cae. No one who has read the defense motions would conclude that the case is on a stronger footing. Geesh

Anonymous said...

I KNEW it had to be the water in Durham:

The city of Durham withheld drinking water samples with dangerous amounts of lead from test results it sent to the state and could end up failing to meet federal water standards.

Lead can cause brain damage in young children!!

Anonymous said...

Thanks KC for your efforts on reporting this case. All along, we could only hope for a rational application of the law. Through your work, one can clearly see that Nifong's behavior has been truely contemptible.

Although I gave up on them long ago, Duff Wilson and the NY Times continue to mislead through willful ignorance, incompetence or worse. From their latest article:

"A week ago, a laboratory director admitted in court that in the wake of an agreement with Mr. Nifong, he had violated his own procedures and withheld results showing that none of the lacrosse players’ DNA had been found on or in the accuser’s body."

No Duff, that's not an accurate account. Exculpatory evidence was withheld that showed matches to multiple men - only none happend to be any of the lacrosse players or the boyfriend.

Why is this so hard for the NY Times to get right?

El Gringo said...

You tell 'em KC! Thanks for all your work on this!

Anonymous said...

See, I told you all that Nifong doesn't need DNA to find the 3 of kidnapping. Now he gets all the DNA tossed.

Granddad said...


When I retired last night, I mentally composed a thank you to send today. In light of today's unexpected events, it is even more important that it be said. Thank you so very much for being one of the crucial good guys who has given those of us with a special interest in the case comfort and understanding through your excellent disection and analysis of the situation. We are deeply grateful to you for keeping the truth before your large audience. Best wishes for a wonderful Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

A proud Duke Lacrosse grandparent

Anonymous said...

"With the absence of DNA and her not knowing what was going on..."

So, the evidence of a crime is WHAT?

Anonymous said...

Well TheMan you demonstrate your stupidity once again given the fact that she supposedly performed oral sex on one of them. I'm sure at least in that case given her expertise in that area she'd be able recognize a penis ejaculating in her mouth.

Anonymous said...

The amazing thing is that the "Newspaper of Record" continues to hold onto hope all the way until the end. I hate to tell Duff Wilson and company, but the rape charge was the STRONGEST of all the charges, for the other charges were ancillary. That is, they were filed so that if there were a rape conviction, these two charges automatically would kick in, so the defendants would get more jail time.

Without the rape charges, the case is much weaker. Keep in mind that what she told the police is public record and can be used in a trial.

Oh, yes, there will be no trial. There is no way that Nifong is going to be willing to go with what he has -- which is nothing. Nor will dear Precious ever go on the witness stand.

The writer from Sports Illustrated, like Duff Wilson, is convinced that "something happened" that night, and he thinks there will be guilty pleas. He does not know this case, and certainly does not know the attorneys involved.

Anonymous said...

There was also no DNA in her rectum, mouth or person. There was no evidence of condom debris - no evidence of wood splinters or injury to her rectum or vagina.
Nifong must be crazy - but does have a gift of gab. He must be the greatest snake oil salesman ever. HELP DOJ

Anonymous said...

I see the Times interviewed Victoria Peterson. Duff Wilson truly is desperate. Truly pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Dan Adams and Tucker - I had basically chaned new channels due to your insistance on having Wendy Murphy and Georgia Gooslee, I cane back as I thought you had thrown them off. Now, here is Murphy again - see yo.

Anonymous said...

The notion that dismissing the rape charge makes the case for the other charges stronger is truly stupid.

The accuser's prior statements will be brought into evidence because they speak to her credibility and the addition of another version will undermine her credibility further (if that is possible).

Further, the DNA results indicating frequent sexual activity will be introduced for at least two reasons: (1) to impeach her statements that she did not have sex with anyone except her boyfriend and (2) to explain the results from the SANE's report.

Interestingly, the SANE's report does not report any assault injuries (other than vaginal swelling (which would occur with multiple sexual encounters) and the cuts and bruises that existed before she arrived at the party - as captured by various photos.).

Thus, what evidence is there of sexual assault...or of kidnapping? Is there a single corroborating witness - none of which I'm aware.

IMO, retaining the "assault" and "kidnapping" charges is simply an attempt for Nifong to gain leverage for plea bargains (IMO - that won't happen) or to go to trial and obtain a hung jury (which, IMO will occur unless there is a change of venue). The hung jury will be Nifong's defense against charges of misconduct.

Anonymous said...

duff wilson is going to bet a prize for good reporting he knows that a rape happened and he will prove it

Anonymous said...

to theman,

OK, i know your 1st name is kareem--what's your last name? your IQ?

Anonymous said...

Well, dismissing the rape charges does make the other charges stronger in one sense--the other charges don't depend on DNA, and therefore, there may be a slightly greater chance of making them stick if they are not coupled with a rape charge that clearly doesn't fly given the lack of evidence. I suspect that is what the anonymous source (and I gather Wendy Murphy?) meant to suggest. (Of course, this is a separate issue from the credibility of the accuser, which can't be helped by this development.) That is a strategic issue and obviously something quite different from the "strength" of the charges in terms of the truth of what actually happened. At least Nifong may believe he could actually take thes other charges before a jury and not totally humiliate himself. On the other hand, this may be an intermediate step towards a complete dismissal (and/or a complete recantation by the accuser--who I suspect never anticipated what a huge mess this became--she was mainly interested in staying out of jail and getting her $400), with the thought that a gradual backing off will be less embarrassing for both accuser and DA.

Anonymous said...

Explain this

I thought Nifong had read a report proving rape. Yet now there is no corroboratin evidence

More lies

Anonymous said...

Hey folks...let's not be too hard on the NYT. It is one of the best papers around for house training young puppies and lining dog cages.

Anonymous said...

i just finished watching greta's show, "on the record" and i'm so thrilled.

nifong got in bed with a bunch of blacks and now that the case is going over the edge, they're leaping off the bus and throwing him under it. jakki, the false accuser's cousin (and greta and hannity) are trying to make the FA nifong's victim.

wow. this shows two things. first, that these people can NEVER, EVER take responsiblity for their actions. the accuser here is a victim of nothing other than her own greed and foolish actions. But second, blacks show that they have no loyalty. nifong pressed this case because victoria peterson and that fat albert naacp leader urged him to. they got him reelected. now nifong is going to see what its like when he can't do their bidding. oh, the irony is rich, truely rich.

Anonymous said...

How sneaky of Nifong. Now there is not even a need for any mention of DNA at a trial, should there be one or no mention of Meehan and their shady dealings, because now it's an object not a body part. He is a snake. Can there be a case based on just what the accuser states happened?

Anonymous said...

Joe T.:

For at least fifty years, the New York Times has been nothing more than the New York Bureau of 'Pravda.' Only now, though, is the public at large finally beginning to catch on, due to the rise of the blogosphere and other alternative media. The NYT, in fact, was never more accurate in its reporting years ago than it is today, nor did it adhere to any higher standards of journalistic integrity or ethics. It only seems that way because up until very recently almost no one had the menas to independently verify the paper's accuracy. It is my fervent hope that people everywhere will now come to recognize the true definition of JOURNALIST -- noun, any idiot with a printing press.

-- SteveDinMD