Jezebelle: I don't see where they performed any actual investigation.
abb: Precisely. There's not a single bit of information in this article that we here didn't already know. And now the N&O has finally caught up to the 21st century...
Me: I agree with both of you. I didn't see anything new in here that we haven't known for at least two months. And if we knew it, then the N&O could (and should) have known it.
First, the N&O could have interviewed Abrams, who had reviewed all 1800 pages of the discovery documents. There's nothing "unjournalistic" about following a story that has been broken by another reporter. You attribute the source. It's done all the time. Instead, we had the MSM, including the N&O, ignoring Abrams' report as if it didn't exist. How many times did we hear: "We don't know what Nifong has"? Well, yes we did. And this is the whole case.
According to N&O: Much of the district attorney's evidence is contained in more than 1,800 pages of documents he has made available to the defense under a recent state law requiring prosecutors to open their files before trial. Those documents are only part of the evidence that could be introduced in a criminal trial. They do not include information still being gathered or testimony that might occur under oath.
Information still being gathered? This is a five-month old rape case. Ain't no more information to be gathered at this point.
Testimony under oath? And if any testimony under oath contradicts statements already given, that testimony isn't going to carry much weight -- under oath or not.
Second, the N&O could have found this information if it had bothered to read the defense motions. It was all in the supporting documents filed two months ago.
Yep, jezebelle and abb, I agree. This was hardly "investigative reporting." However, let's give the N&O credit for compiling this information and slapping it in its Sunday edition. For many in Durham, this IS new information.
hich brings me to the key question: Why now? Granted, it's August -- the slowest news month of the year. Although with the mideast and Mel Gibson, there is other news out there.
So why now? And how did the N&O get its hands on the 1800 pages of discovery? What about that quasi-gag order?
Anyone think that the N&O is preparing its readership for the dismissal of this case? And anyone think that that dismissal is very soon at hand? Sorry this was long.
Jezebelle and I thought the term "admitted" would fit better, lol...
"Anyone think that the N&O is preparing its readership for the dismissal of this case? And anyone think that that dismissal is very soon at hand?"
Maybe. But let's make sure that by the time the next "setting" in August rolls around, any judge who wants to let this case continue
another minute, is going to look like a fool idiot with
donkey ears pinned on him; because by then everyone
will/should know just how vacuous this case realy is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13438728 (The Abrams Report, June 19, 2006)
BTW, the N&O admitted they did no investigation. They admitted a state law required that the DA make discovery available to the public before the trial.
They got the discovery. There are so many holes in this case they found a couple of new ones, Mangum descriptions that do not match the indicted and that something having happened to her being suggested to before she said anything. They emphasized these previously unreported weaknesses.
Now it is good that ran this story. It is good they emphasized weakness we did not previously know about. They should have been doing a story a day on weaknesses in this case. They should not have pounded the drums to encourage this railroading previously. But better late then never and we did learn important new things about this case in their this article.