Precisely. There's not a single bit of information in this article that we here didn't already know. And now the NandO has finally caught up to the 21st century...
There are a few things I didn't know in there. Not only couldn't she pick anyone out of the previous line-ups but she said she was only 70% sure Reade was there. Then a few weeks later she ID's him with 100% certainty as one of the attackers.
Also Precious said Kim stole $2000 from her. She's got "Matt" at 270 pounds and getting married the next day.
In the search warrant affidavit Himan stated Kim said the players claimed they were on the Duke baseball and track teams but his own notes say Kim mentioned they were on the lacrosse team.
And on the day of the first two indictments, Nifong has the police trying to figure out if there were any other things that could have caused Precious' diffuse edema. But, I thought he believed her? *sarcasm*
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.