Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
20 comments:
I don't think I have to read it to answer your question.
Duff?
Duff Wilson has shown exactly what he is all about during this case. Hey, here's a compare and contrast: Was the Duff Wilson story on the front page (now that the truth is indisputable)? Bet not. That's the New York Times.
Duff Wilson and the New York Times are now fully deprived of their politically correct takedown. There is little left for them to write short of an apology. Since that hasn't happened, don't believe a word you read from that rag. You are NOT their intended audience. I really hope they get sued.
I hope those left-leaners who formerly had faith in the New York Times' veracity remember this abominable, calculatedly deceptive hoax coverage.
To paraphrase a distinguished jurist whose name escapes me, if you disbelieve their stories in one part, you've got to disbelieve them in another part.
Do the folks at the NYT give a damn if folks like me never waste a buck-fifty on their paper?
Nah. Didn't think so.
My two cents? I'd hesitate to train a puppy on their paper. Might be toxic to his feet....
I loved this comment from the Beard article: "We don't typically force-feed reports to clients," Meehan said. "When he was ready for a final report, we thought he would let us know."
Translation: I was willing to hide exculpatory evidence unless Nifong asked for it, which of course I knew would never happen.
At the very least I hope that he will be sued once all this is over.
Maybe the Duffer is simply playing devil's advocate.
Pay me $10 per word, I'd have the governor volunteering to be Nifong's character witness.
The Duff interpretation is bad enough but the tortured syntax of the first sentence is unforgivable. He is a terrible writer.
Brad Bannon Video
KC Video spot
I don't recall Meehan mentioning anything about an interim vs final report during his 12/15 testimony. Then he stated that he and Nifong had agreed to withhold the information about the non-LAX DNA his tests found. That was why that testimony was such a bombshell going off in the courtroom.
So which is it? Was Meehan lying then or is he lying now? My guess is given the 6 months he's had to create fiction out of thin air since he got hammered in December, he and Nifong cooked up the interim vs. final report gambit to try to get out of the stinky situation they are in.
Not. Buying. It.
Meehan is a complete weasel and should never be allowed to get anywhere near a lab again.
Oh, he should be free to be in any lab that will have him.
The state, on the other hand, should ensure that his company gets no forensics work until he is removed from the staff and they can demonstrate that they both have and enforce proper procedures.
Sent to Duff Wilson:
Your continued biased reporting does a disservice to the Times, yourself, and the MSM in general. At what point will you either recuse yourself from reporting on this case or present the facts absent your extreeme slant towards the prosecution?
It is reporting like yours that continues to undermine the reputation of the Times.
These three Duke students were found by the NC AG to be factually innocent of the charges -- the NC AG did not just say that the case was un-winable with the evidence. You are still beating the same drum you did in 2006, and it is really a disgrace. You, sir, a based hack, not worth or deserving of the column-inches you polute.
Once again, the NY Slimes shows its agenda. The Newspaper of Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, and Judith Miller continues to give us its slanted and dishonest coverage.
By the way, the Newspaper of Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, and Judith Miller also continues to bury the story, a stark contrast to what it did a year ago when it was acting as the press agent for Nifong.
KC, nice interview. I hardly recognized you without your bowtie. :-)
It is the stories where the public gets unfiltered access to news and events that show the careless disregard of the MSM to report anything at variance with their preordained agenda. Such is the case with the telecast of the proceeding providing the background against which to evaluate the reporting of Duff Wilson, and some AP reports as well.
Since everyone has the NTY number at this point, Duff Wilson is irrelevant.
My concern from your posts this morning, KC
>will the panel see through all of the huffing and puffing and find enough substantive information to disbar Mr>Nifong? From his previous attempt to get this hearing dropped, I had hope that they would not allow him to nit pick during the trial, but they seem to be letting him have his way with people like Mr. Meehan and dragging the innocents through the mud.
If you can give us a sense of the panel, that would be great. I do think you are being very careful to be factual in your coverage so understand if you do not want to nuance at this time.
It's been great to have your wrap up. Thank you.
8:57
Don't hold your breath, I've sent Duff Wilson several emails, none of which were ranting or racist and never got a response. I also sent a email to the author of the Times kinda sorta mea culpa where they kinda sorta admitted Duff gave too much credence to the memory report, and got no response.
I have in the past though gotten responses from NYTimes writers so I know its possible.
I couldn't get past the first
paragraph without feeling nauseous.
That was 'nough Duff.
I grew up revering the NYT. Religiously reading it, getting as informed as possible.
Eventually I started taking a closer look at their coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Day after day I witnessed unbelievable lies, contradictions, and omissions against Israel.
Somehow I am still shocked at their corrupt journalistic practices.
"So which is it? Was Meehan lying then or is he lying now? My guess is given the 6 months he's had to create fiction out of thin air since he got hammered in December, he and Nifong cooked up the interim vs. final report gambit to try to get out of the stinky situation they are in."
Perhaps I missed it, by why wasn't Meehan absolutely crucified on the stand with a barrage of tough, pointed questions comparing his current lies to what he said under oath in December?
Even Elvis wants to know!
Post a Comment