ADN

That was random.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

The Language of Lynching


One of the great things about being a Duke student right now is that no matter where you are, as soon as someone finds out you go to Duke, you will be asked about it. For example, last week while in line for my passport, the post office person saw that I went to Duke and asked me about the lacrosse case. As soon as I began speaking, I found myself answering questions from people in the line and other post office workers. The tens of thousands of Duke current students and alumni have become mini press agents for and against the school.

While I think the arguments surrounding the case have been fair (for the most part), I have been bothered by some of the language choices of people writing about Nifong and how he's handling the case. Jeff Taylor over at Reason compared the case to a low-tech lynching. One conservative blogger also compared it to a lynching of the rich, white, and the privileged. Others have thrown the shoe on the other foot and say that the case represents a "high-tech lynching" of the rape victim. This flippant use of lynching was also recently used to describe the situation with the Marines in the Haditha incident. Nicholas Kristoff threw in his own ridiculous parallel, comparing the Duke lacrosse members to the Scottsboro boys of the 1930's. Unfortunately, KC Johnson over at my virtuo dad's blog legitimizes these comparisons by mentioning them with approval.

While I do (on some level) feel bad for Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, what they have endured cannot be compared to a lynching or the plight of the Scottsboro boys. Have these three been burned to death? Have they had their respective penises cut off and shoved down their mouth while being doused in gasoline and burned to death? Have any of them had their their hearts' or kidneys' or livers' or tongues' cut out and sold on the open, local market as a souvenirs? Have photos of their lynchings and bodies been used as post cards?

Have they been strung up before mobs of black women and children ranging in the thousands in a carnival like atmosphere to be shot and burned before a cheering crowd? Have any of these black men who lynched them written on their respective chests "This lynching is in Defense of Black Womanhood?" Will Collin, or Reade, or David's pregnant wives and girlfriends be strung up from a tree, have their bellies cut open, and have their unborn children stomped upon by a mob of young boys and men?

With regards to the Scottboro boys, have these three endured a mob of African-Americans with pitchforks outside their jail cell eagerly awaiting to kill them? Have they been sentenced to death like the Scottsboro boys? Will it take decades to free them from an actual prison?
I don't think they have, yet you would think so the way columnists have been piling on to defend these three boys.

I do wonder though whether Jeff or any of the new Duke defenders felt the same level of outrage when Darryl Hunt was convicted by an overzealous prosecutor and freed decades later? Did they care when Rudolph Holton was freed after 16 years in prison after being convicted by yet another overzealous prosecutor who chased cameras? Or how about James Tollman who was freed after 16 years in prison after being wrongly accused of rape? Why is their outrage reserved only for when these three are convicted in public by an overzealous prosecutor?

The fact is Mike Nifong isn't the only overzealous prosecutor this country has ever had. In fact, hundreds have been convicted in the public eye by overzealous prosecutors and no one has called for the Attorney General's of those states or the Governors of those states to remove them.

These boys do not deserve to be railroaded, but they have million dollar attorneys and come from million dollar families who will have the resources to get them off when they are proven innocent. Why not save the ink or typing power to passionately defend everyone's right to be free of overzealous prosecutors?

Lastly, Collin, David, and Reade, while they will indeed suffer from these wrongful accusations, they will still be rich, still be powerful, and still come from great families. There lives are not over unlike those that were lynched and those of most of the Scottsboro boys.

What has happened is indeed wrong, but its always important to put anything we fight against in historical context. Compared to all the injustices inflicted by our justice system upon individuals, the Duke Lacrosse scandal barely registers.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006


Duke lacrosse: I ask reporter & editor, "Was that a fake story?"


Readers†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢ Note:

Yesterday I posted "Duke lacrosse: A fake Herald Sun story?"

I said I†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢d send emails to the reporter, John Stevenson, and his editor, Bob Ashley. They follow.

I†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢ll let you know what, if anything, I hear back.

John
__________________________________


Reporter John Stevenson
Durham Herald Sun

Dear Reporter Stevenson:

Your Aug. 1 story, †™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬¢‚¬¦¢¢¬…œLaw

yers haggle over DNA matches," appears to be based on a "repackaging" of information that's been in the public domain for over three months.

See the Apr. 11 Raleigh N&O story and the WRAL.COM Apr. 10 story referenced in this post:

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com ... story.html

It seems you were not reporting on "previously undisclosed [DNA] matches" as you claimed in your story.

If I'm in error, please correct me with information I can verify.

If I'm correct, will you please explain to me and to your readers in a follow up story why you made the "previously undisclosed claim" and repackaged "old news?"

Also, in your story you fail to identify attorney and N. C. Central University Law School Professor Irving Joyner's connection to the Duke lacrosse case.

It is a very serious violation of legal ethics for an attorney to speak publicly about a case he's involved in without disclosing that involvement.

I have no doubt Professor Joyner observed proper ethical practice.

Shouldn't you have identified Joyner's connection to the case and also let readers know about some of his previous comments, hardly those of a disinterested party?

I plan to post this email, along with one I'm sending Editor Bob Ashley, at my blog.

I'll publish your response in full.

Overall, I think your reporting on Duke lacrosse has been quite good.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

___________________________________

Editor Bob Ashley
Durham Herald Sun

Dear Editor Ashley:

I sent the email below to Reporter John Stevenson.

I'm asking you the same questions I asked him.

But I want to ask you another question: Why did you decide to expand your "support Nifong/ignore injustice" agenda from the editorial pages and start running it in the news columns?

As in the case of Stevenson, I'll publish your response in full.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

posted by JWM at 10:42 AM

QUOTE(Buffmaster)That was random.

ROFL, I don't know what method of trickery that was, but the post I saw before I typed it said something along the lines of "This guy should be shot," or something like that...

So, it was random, but, not THAT random, LoL...

I am still blown away by this case...Fucking bitch...

I gotcha.lol

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Semen? Specimen? New Tests? Old?

Today, the News & Observer followed the Herald Sun's lead to continue the DNA results non-story into day two. While the N&O does add the additional information of Matt Zash being the source of semen found on the floor of the infamous bathroom, the greatest difference between the two articles is that one article refers to the matched DNA samples as being from semen while the other refers to one sample being semen and the other being from a "specimen" of some unnamed type. Clearly the use of the word "specimen" in contrast to the more incriminating word "semen" seems to imply that the specimen was not semen.

In Benjamin Niolet†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢s article, he states:

"Investigators looking into allegations of rape at a Duke University lacrosse party recovered two positive DNA specimens from players who lived at the house, according to a defense attorney....One of the DNA samples, semen recovered from a bathroom where the woman said she was raped, belonged to Matt Zash, a team captain...Another specimen matched to Evans was recovered from a towel found in a hallway near Evans' room and the second bathroom in the house."

No where in his article does Mr. Niolet inform us that this match to Evans is from semen. He appears to take pains to avoid the mention of the semen word with regard to Evans. Is this telling us that it was not semen or is the article imprecise on this detail.

In John Stevenson†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…

¾‚¢s article he states:

"Semen found in the house where three Duke lacrosse players allegedly raped an exotic dancer matches the DNA of two team members...According to the sources, semen on a towel was DNA-linked to Evans."

Clearly, Stevenson is very specific in his characterization that the source material on the Evan†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢s match was semen. As much as we like to pick at Mr. Stevenson for his tendency to spin his coverage in Mr. Nifong†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢s favor, it is difficult to imagine that he would get this item wrong even accidentally. Mr. Niolet†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢s report, however, seems far more in line with previous coverage from all sides. Could this discrepancy indicate that Mr. Stevenson†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…

¾‚¢s sources are more forthcoming that Mr. Niolet†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢s? If this is the case, does it give us clues as to where those sources may reside? Did Stevenson simply get it wrong? If so, was this error accidental or intentional?

In any event, we remain convinced that the "new" reports are non factors and the reporting in both instances appears to be woefully insufficient. Whether the answer be semen or specimen, neither article alludes to the fact that the DNA matches were contained in the first DNA report and disclosed by defense attorneys on April 10th, immediately after they received that report. In fact, reading both articles it is reasonable to assume that they are talking about additional tests.

As pointed out by several people yesterday, including John in Carolina ,not only did the defense attorneys disclose this information in a press conference, but that fact was immediately reported by both WRAL and the News & Observer and is available for all to see.


News & Observer, April 11th

They also found no DNA on the woman's clothing or belongings, players' attorneys said. The tests found DNA matches to two players, from a towel outside the bathroom and on another object, Cheshire said.One sample was from a player's semen and another was a different type of DNA, Cheshire said. He said that was to be expected in a bathroom shared by the three men who lived in the house.

WRAL April 10th

Answering questions from reporters, defense attorney Joe Cheshire did say that DNA of two of the men was found on a towel and on the floor of the bathroom, but that it was not in any way related to the DNA found on the alleged victim."The bathroom where this DNA was found happened to be the bathroom of the two boys," Cheshire said. "And any expert and any person in the world will tell you that your DNA is in your bathroom."

As evident from these articles, Joe Cheshire clearly stated the following things:

(i) there were two matches, including semen
(ii) one match was on the floor of the bathroom and the other was on a towel
(iii) the two matches were to players who lived in the house

Yesterday, and today, the Herald-Sun and the News & Observer have reported this information as if were new. The Herald-Sun used the more egregious language about "previously undisclosed" matches, but the News & Observer used an equally misleading headline "Two DNA Tests Are Positive." The only new information in the articles is that the towel had semen matching Evans, according to one, and the floor had semen matching Zash, according to the other.

If anything, this information, despite the contradictions, should be positive for the defense because it is Zash's DNA actually on the floor of the bathroom, not Evans'. Yet, that is clearly not how either newspaper reported the information. In addition, the Herald-Sun half-disclosed/half didn†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢t disclose the fact that the bathroom DNA matched Zash. The article stated, "Lawyer Bill Thomas, who represents an unindicted lacrosse player -- but not the one whose semen was discovered on the bathroom floor -- agreed. †™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬¢‚¬Å¡‚¦Lawyer Kerry Sutton, also representing an unindicted lacrosse player, [hmmm, perhaps the one whose semen was on the floor?] said essentially the same thing.".

At least the N&O explicitly stated that fact, instead of just strongly hinting. The omission of the fact that Cheshire revealed this information in April is extremely important because defenders of the District Attorney have told the public to wait for the trial because the defense is either lying or spinning evidence. The District Attorney himself has made this claim in at least two of his extrajudicial comments (both of which were made after arrests were made, which is when Nifong claims he stopped talking to the press).

First, after his primary election he told WRAL the following: "My guess is that there are many questions that many people are asking that they would not be asking if they saw the results," Nifong said. "They're not things that the defense releases unless they unquestionably support their positions," Nifong said. "So, the fact that they're making statements about what the reports are saying, and not actually showing the reports, should in and of itself raise some red flags."

"Nifong: Defense Attorneys †™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬¢‚¬¹¦¢‚¬Å“Don

†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾‚¢t Know What My Timeline Is."

Second, in Nifong's e-mail to Susannah Meadows, he said the following:"As an example, when those attorneys held press conferences to announce that the first round of DNA testing "completely exonerated" the players (a claim that, on its face, is rather preposterous), I saw not a single report that any reporter had actually seen the test results (none of them had), or had asked to see them and had that request denied (which is what happened to those who bothered to ask)."

By reporting the DNA results non-story as new "previously undisclosed" information, the Herald-Sun and, and to a lesser degree, the News & Observer are supporting the District Attorney's story of deceptive defense attorneys. They are also failing to report the real story of a deceptive prosecutor. These articles indicate that both newspapers are doing their best to keep Nifong†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬‚¢¢¢¬…¾

‚¢s lies alive and ensure Durham will get a spectacle of a trial. They also indicate that both publications believe their readers are (i) stupid, (ii) not following the case very closely or (iii) incapable of internet research.

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun

[email protected]

Jul 31, 2006 : 9:22 pm ET

DURHAM -- Semen found in the house where three Duke lacrosse players allegedly raped an exotic dancer matches the DNA of two team members, but lawyers disagree about its potential impact on the unfolding case.

The previously undisclosed matches, one involving indicted rape suspect David Evans and the other involving a player not charged, have been confirmed by several sources close to the case.

According to the sources, semen on a towel was DNA-linked to Evans.

The towel was retrieved from a hallway at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., where Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann are accused of raping an exotic dancer during an off-campus lacrosse party in mid-March.

The towel also contained non-semen-based DNA from someone else, the sources said. They said the other DNA did not match the alleged rape victim or any of more than 40 Duke lacrosse players who gave bodily samples for analyses.

The implication is that Evans had sex with someone other than the accuser, then used the towel to clean himself, defense sources contend.

The only previously reported DNA link to Evans involved a fake acrylic fingernail found in a trashcan at the North Buchanan Boulevard house.

Tissue "consistent" with Evans' genetic makeup was on the fingernail, but the match was not 100 percent conclusive, earlier reports indicated.

The sources said that, in addition to the Evans connection, semen from an unindicted lacrosse player was discovered on the bathroom floor -- the same bathroom where the exotic dancer claimed she was raped.

Attorneys disagree on the impact of the new DNA information.

Some say it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

If the exotic dancer's claim that she was raped without condoms, sodomized and beaten is true, the lawyers reason, some of her DNA would have been found in the bathroom, and DNA from the suspects would have been left in or on her body and clothing.

But extensive testing reportedly turned up no DNA from the accuser at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. And the only semen found inside her was from someone other than a Duke lacrosse player, defense lawyers have said, citing information they received from District Attorney Mike Nifong.

The source of that semen is thought to be the woman's boyfriend.

Nifong did not respond to a request for comment for this article. Attorneys for Evans had no comment.

"It means nothing," said veteran defense lawyer Mark Edwards, who is not involved in the case. "These are college-age males full of testosterone. So what if there is semen found in the house? If the accuser's story was true, their semen should have been found in her, too."

Lawyer Bill Thomas, who represents an unindicted lacrosse player -- but not the one whose semen was discovered on the bathroom floor -- agreed.

"Every person who uses a bathroom on a daily basis will have his DNA present in that bathroom in some form," Thomas said. "But in this case, none of the accuser's DNA whatsoever was found. The only significant DNA is semen from a third party unconnected to the case. There still is no evidence whatsoever linking any of these [lacrosse players] to allegations made by the accuser."

Lawyer Kerry Sutton, also representing an unindicted lacrosse player, said essentially the same thing.

"Finding a healthy young man's semen or DNA on a towel near his bedroom or in his own bathroom couldn't possibly be less shocking," she said. "It would be more surprising if you didn't find it."

But not everyone thinks the semen evidence is unimportant.

Lawyer John Fitzpatrick, who is not connected to the lacrosse case and who teaches periodically at the UNC School of Government in Chapel Hill, said Monday it could have great impact for the prosecution.

"If there is semen there that matches one or more of the players, I think it's crucial," he said. "It is evidence to show that some kind of orgasm occurred. It gives more credence to the prosecution's theory that something happened. It is a potential link to a crime. It is a big thing.

"The prosecution can say the semen was there because the alleged victim was right. Of course, the defense will probably try to explain it by saying the guys just masturbated."

N.C. Central University law professor Irving Joyner also said Monday the semen evidence should not be automatically discounted.

"It would tend to support the prosecution's case," he said. "Of course, the prosecution will need to establish how the semen got there and its relevance to the young lady. There are still some hurdles, but this will help the prosecutor. The defense will have to go some lengths to explain it."

At the same time, Joyner said the previously unreported evidence "would not be conclusive."

"There are plenty of ways the semen could have wound up there," he said.

Details about the previously unreported DNA matches were included in more than 1,800 pages of documentation Nifong provided to the defense team.

Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann are free under $100,000 bond each as they await a trial that is projected to begin during the first half of next year.

All contend they are innocent. Seligmann's lawyers say he has an airtight alibi: telephone, taxicab and bank ATM records indicating he was otherwise occupied around the time of the alleged rape.

Did the Durham Herald-Sun try and regurgitate some old Duke lacrosse news to fabricate a new controversy? John in Carolina makes a very compelling case that is indeed the situation.

It sure looks like The Herald-Sun tried to spice up a previously digested story about spurious DNA on a towel found at the Duke lacrosse house and pass it off as new news in their story: "Lawyers haggle over DNA matches."

Shame on the Durham Herald-Sun.

John in Carolina then hammers The Raleigh News & Observer for their shoddy coverage of the Blinco Sports Bar assault story.

People on the message boards have been talking about the potential police coverup at Blinco for awhile now. But, it doesn't seem that important a story to the local newspapers.

Do you see a trend here?

The internet and guys like Craig Newmark of craigslist are eating the classified ad revenue and readers that in the past allowed newspapers to operate as Le Grand Fourth Estate. Are newspapers now running on fumes? As John points out:

Editor Bob Ashley came to Durham less than two years ago. His first act was to fire scores of dedicated, honest journalists and others like them who worked at the Herald Sun.

Ashley told the community not to be concerned. †™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬¢‚¬¦¢¢¬…œJus

t wait until you get to know me,†™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬? he said. "Wait until you see what I do with the paper."

Well, people in Durham have. And guess what? The paper's circulation is down more than 25% since Ashley took over, and by all reports circulation's continuing to decline.

Fire old expensive journalists, hire fewer new inexperienced reporters for low wages, and pretend all is well in newspaper land. The reality is that we are probably expecting too much from these local newspapers like the Durham Herald-Sun and The Raleigh News & Observer. The newspaper business ain't like it used to be. Newspapers as businesses are going belly up, how can anyone expect good solid journalism out of them anymore?

Recently we asked the question: where do we find new Ben Bradlee's, Bob Woodward's, and Carl Bernstein's? The fact is that there won't be newspaper people like that anymore. The real investigative work will probably be done by producers on cable news channels and passionate bloggers.

The Duke lacrosse rape hoax is the canary in the newspaper coal mine. It signals the beginning of the end of local newspapers as credible forces in serious investigative journalism.

Someone play taps here.

sources:
Duke lacrosse: A fake Herald Sun story? [John in Carolina, Aug 1, 2006]
Lawyers haggle over DNA matches [HeraldSun.com, July 31, 2006]
Blinco police assault story makes the N&O blink [John in Carolina, Aug 2, 2006]
My Trip to Blinco's - Potential Coverup? [Boards.CourtTV.com]

BLINCO'S
---------------
Okay, I went to Blinco's tonight. I had a coke and some food and looked around - and talked to three employees. I had spoke with a Manager at Blinco's previously.

The first point is that I don't think it's credible to believe that there were two different groups of Durham Police officers in that bar and that one group didn't know the other group was there. I believe someone was being insulated from the investigation totally (no name in the paper or even routine questioning), in my opinion. Himan ? someone else? I don't know.

The place is not that big for 5 or 6 Policeman (some in their twenties) to be drinking and partying and that no one in one group saw anyone in the other group (remember, they were all in a different city too). There's only one floor.
There's basically 1 large room with a bar and two smaller rooms on each side of the bar - there's glass separating the rooms, so that you can see into (and out of) the bar area. I was there on Saturday night - and the place wasn't that crowded. The room to the right had only one table occupied. The incident happened around 11:40 ish or so. I think it's reasonable to believe the Police spent a couple hours at the bar. One Police officer reportedly said that the others were drunk. So, unless they were drinking pretty good before they arrived (and drove there under the influence), it would take these Large men some time to get intoxicated. If you factor in the fact that the place isn't that big (I've been in Sport's Bars four times as big), and the group was there for some time - to me, it makes it extremely unlikely that people described as regulars - traveling to another city - totally avoid and are unaware of the other DPD officers in a Bar that isn't crowded. I spoke with an employee that was present that night - and I was told it wasn't busy. Steady - not crowded, I was told.

Some of the people working at the bar knew these guys were DPD, too. They are regulars supposedly. Even if two groups of men drinking moved in perfect synchronization to precisely avoid each other (all but impossible, IMO), the Manager or receptionist may have said - 'Did you see who's over there?'

So, this statement below makes me extremely suspiciuos. I wonder why someone didn't want to be indentified as being there that night - or even have their name connected to the incident, because ostensibly any investigation would have cleared this uninvolved group.

" Investigators know that there were other Durham officers in the bar "who were not involved in this incident and DIDN'T KNOW there were other officers present," Hodge said. "

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-755378.html


Location
-------------------
I've been there before, but thought things may have changed.
The place is pretty nice and it's in a nice area. The outside is lit up - not dark in the least. You have no trouble seeing in the area of the alleged assault.

One of the employees I spoke with, whom was there the night of the incident, walked outside with me and showed me exactly where it happened. I was surprised by how small the area was. I had envisioned a parking lot and the empty spaces behind the building, but that's not how it is. There's a parking lot on both sides, however, it funnels into a two lane "driveway" in the area where the incident occurred. On both sides of the walkway and door where the cook was, there is this two lane driveway - just wide enough for two cars to pass each other. This area is well lighted and the employee confirmed that it was the same way on the night of the incident (they didn't add lights or anything). The distance from where the employees stand and smoke on break to the street is small. It's maybe 9 ft of flat sidewalk and you're in that paved "driveway." The exit to the street where the truck sped out is pretty close too, closer than I had imagined. This is a fairly tight condensed space. The public road that you exit onto from that driveway is a small access road - and not 1 car went up or down that road the entire time I was out there. I can understand how people could surround someone pretty fast in these close quarters. Since the Parking Lots on both sides feed into this area, vehicles could have come from both directions - it's been reported that 4 cars were involved.

Incident
--------------------------

Not surprisingly the employees didn't want to speak to me. As soon as I said the Cook, they started looking around and changed demeanor. One employee told me they couldn't discuss it. The last employee I spoke with told me they weren't allowed "to disclose anything" and seemed perturbed.
One employee, with a little coaxing, acted like they were helping me with something else and spoke with me in a hused tone. The individual walked outside looked around and then quickly walked with me to the back of the building. I was shown the exact spot. The person said I've have to go back in and left abruptly. I looked around and then returned to the bar.

In a couple minutes, the employee returned and spoke with me further. I asked if (this person) knew who the Bald guy was. I got a coy expression and a look away and up. I wasn't getting an answer. I asked if (this person) knew who was driving the black truck - "Gary Lee, I think that's his name," was the reply. I said he's the guy that ripped his shirt off? and he/she nodded YES.

I ordered an appetizer and when the individual returned, I continued. I asked if he/she had been questioned by Police, Yes, I was told. I asked if he/she has spoken about the incident with the Cook - Yes, he/she replied.
I asked do you believe the Cook?, he/she replied, Yes - emphatically.
When the individual returned to table, I said, just one more question,
since you've spoken with the Cook, what do you guys think about the Police investigation and arrests? The employee replied, "there's going to be more arrests, because it's all going to come out in court."

Should we believe this?
------------------------------------------------
You decide. When I thought about it as I left, I remembered that only TWO of the men had retained lawyers (probably more post-arrests), but during the investigation, it was reported ONLY TWO of the men had retained Lawyers - Gottlieb and Gary Lee. They BOTH retained the same Legal firm.

This employee seems to think that Gary Lee was the Driver (big shirtless drunk guy allegedly). The Bald guy was the passenger in that vehicle - reportedly.

That report would put Gary Lee and a BALD Man in a black truck. It would have the BALD man yelling racial epithets and being the alleged Ring-leader.

It would have the BALD man poking the Cook and pointing/predicting/threatening that Gary Lee was going to attack him (allegedly) - and Gary Lee doing just that.

Then, out of 6 men, Gary Lee and Mark Gottlieb are the only to go out and retain lawyers - at the same law firm.

Does it make more sense now?

The McClatchy Company owns the Raleigh News & Observer. It also sponsors the Editor's Blog, where the N&O's exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, is supposed to respond to questions and commentary.

Lately readers have been asking Sill a slew of questions about the N&O's failure to report on critical questions concerning an alleged assault by Durham police officers a week ago last Thursday.

The incident occurred just before midnight in the parking lot of Blinco's, a popular Raleigh sports bar frequented by some Durham police officers who witnesses at the scene described as "regulars."

Raleigh police have charged two Durham police officers with assault, but the alleged victim, a cook at Blinco's, says Raleigh police charged the wrong brother officers.

The cook described one of his assailants as fat and bald, a description which fits Durham police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, principal investigator in the Duke lacrosse case, who was at the scene of the assault. Photos of the two officers charged show them with full heads of hair.

Pruitt's Raleigh N&O, which only a few months ago searched courthouse records to find any misdemeanor charge leveled against anyone whose name appeared on a Duke Men's lacrosse roster going as far back as 1999, just can't seem to work up any interest in finding out about the police assault at Blinco's or the bald, fat officer.

Trying to get news about the incident from Editor Sill or any N&O reporter is like asking them why they deliberately called the accuser "the victim" in their Mar. 24 and 25 "news stories" or why on Apr. 2 the N&O printed and distributed the infamous "vigilante" poster

I think everyone understands why the N&O now refuses to answer questions about it's deliberate framing of the Duke lacrosse players, but why is it silent about a story on its own "doorstep?"

Well, one things for sure: Readers aren't folding like rented chairs or N&O reporters.

Just look at what they're saying and reporting on the comment thread of "A few responses on Duke lacrosse."

All the comments are worth reading, but scroll down to the comment from Markie on 7/27/06 at 17:47 and read down from there for the most recent material.

You'll see readers point out what the N&O isn't telling them: That the bald guy in the police assault on the cook at Blinco's sports bar the cook mentioned as an assaulter was not charged; that two guys with hair were; that the cook then said Raleigh PD had charged the wrong guys; and the N&O ignored it all.

You'll see where a reader does what the N&O may have done but hasn't reported on so far: Visit Blinco's and try to determine how likely it is that a Durham Police deputy chief's statement that the two groups of Durham police at Blinco's at the same time just before the incident didn't know each other were police is true.

The reader/ reporter (doing the job an N&O reporter should have done) concludes that given the relatively small size of Blinco's, it's not very likely that two groups of cops in plain clothes could have been there at the same time without each group not knowing the other was there.

Not very likely.

The small size of Blinco's makes it virtually impossible the two groups didn't recognize each other.

There are two other reasons why it's virtually impossible the two groups didn't know the other were police:

1) Whenever off-duty police out of uniform enter a bar, they almost always identify themselves to the bartender/mgr/owner for all sorts of reasons; not least because they want the bartender/mgr/owner to know that if something happens in a flash (a robbery, for instance) and they needed to draw their guns, the bartender/etc will know they are good guys, and not fire on them with a gun the bartender/etc might have.

2) Again, if one group of officers need "in a flash" to draw their guns, the last thing they want is for another group of officers to take them for "bad guys" and start firing on them.

So off-duty cops always let barkeeps know they're off-duty cops, and always make sure to know who in the bar might also be off-duty cops.

Why is the N&O avoiding reporting critical aspects of this story?