And never forget that the NAACP did get something like a gag order from Judge Titus. I still don't know what to call his unauthorized ruling -- other than a travesty. And Nifong didn't even have to ask for it.
This case has really turned the legal system upside down! We've seen winning motions via the news media by the NAACP -- even if the organization has nothing remotely close to standing. We've seen the application of the Professional Responsibility Rules to non-lawyers. Of course this was necessary so that the alleged victim wouldn't be deprived "of her legal rights to a fair trial."
And no one in the MSM challenges any of this. Have these people not heard of the Constitution? Maybe they should try reading it. Then maybe they'd understand how ignorant they sound.
The Wilmington Journal had another editorial on this matter today:
http://www.wilmingtonjournal.com/News/article/article.asp?NewsID=75485&sID=34
In some ways it is not a bad editorial and in other ways it is a threat to the AG.
Ironically editorial asks,
"You have to be willing to also charge anyone else who may have committed a crime (like who went into the accuser’s bag and took the $400.00 in cash she was just paid?"
I wonder how the editorial board would like it if the AG's special prosecutors, investigated thoroughly, found Roberts [aka Pittman] had $400 unaccounted for dollars in a deposit that night and charged her? She has a record as a thief. She says Mangum said to her she had her money when they were leaving. So that leave one person with motive, opportunity and a prior, unless you want to charge a member of the DPD, Durham Accces or Duke University Hospital ER.
The MSM fully understands the First Amendment, which was in play in the NAACP's gag order motion. But like all things left, they want it selectively, not fully, adhered to in order to advance their own agenda. And that agenda is very obvious in this case.