Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Marlette and Anderson letters text

Two outstanding letters appear in the Dec. 7 Durham Herald Sun. One is by Professor William Anderson whose writings on the Duke Hoax injustices many of you have read. The other is by someone I don't know, Graham Hayes Marlette.

Both letters are available now online at the H-S's site. However, the H-S generally "pulls" letters off its site after a day or two.

Since letters to the editor are not subject to newspaper copyright, I'm republishing the letters in full below so they'll remain available online.
__________________________________________________

The truth in Brooklyn

Duke professor Thomas J. Crowley, in his letter of Dec. 1, is right to apologize for his uninformed remarks about the Duke lacrosse case. As a strong supporter of Duke and its faculty, I have been appalled to read opinion pieces by academics who apparently know nothing about the rule of law. Their writings about this case, mostly in The Herald-Sun, reveal a callous disregard for the suffering of the accused students and their families.

Just as the foundation of our justice system is the presumption of innocence of any accused, the foundation of learning must be the quest for truth, the search for evidence in order to support a given position. Instead, what we read from the worst of these writers are self-righteous platitudes, dripping with political correctness that is based on nothing but their personal dislike of male athletes and the bizarre notion that it is not possible for a woman to lie about being raped.

Professor Crowley is also right to call for the lifting of "standards of justice" in Durham. There is a law professor at Brooklyn College who is teaching a course about prosecutorial misconduct and the miscarriage of justice based entirely on the facts of the Duke lacrosse case.

Perhaps these uninformed academicians could take a sabbatical to Brooklyn so that they could find out what is actually going on here in Durham.

Graham Hayes Marlette
Durham
December 7, 2006

Free the 'Duke 3'

In reading The Herald-Sun editorials and letters to the editor, I see how the paper has framed the Duke lacrosse case and evidence, especially exculpatory evidence.

For example, we hear that the accuser told multiple stories, and that constitutes "proof" that a rape occurred because she must have been so traumatized that she could not remember what had happened.

Then we are given Sgt. Mark Gottlieb's 33-page account, from memory, that claims the accuser told a consistent story. That too, according to many in Durham (and The New York Times) constitutes "proof" that the "Duke 3" are guilty of rape. Of course, those two different accounts are mutually exclusive, but we are told that both are equally true and valid.

Likewise, we hear from District Attorney Mike Nifong that the accuser was too badly injured to work. When we find she was on the job immediately, we are told that people who are raped go right back to work. Two mutually-exclusive statements, both are said to be "proof" of a rape.

In other words, if there is exculpatory evidence, then it is explained away by an insistence that mutual exclusivity means both things must have happened simultaneously, which is a logical absurdity and in most cases would be seen as evidence that there was no rape.

So, let's face it. The Herald-Sun, and Durham in general, simply want to railroad a conviction, not find the truth. No wonder Professor K.C. Johnson calls Durham "Wonderland."

William L. Anderson
Cumberland, Md.
December 7, 2006

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson - Good letter, a bit surprised that it was published in the H-S, given the editorial slant of that paper, and the fact that you're an 'outsider'...

Graham Hayes Marlette - GREAT letter, thank you! We don't know you (yet), but appreciate your support.

(Graham Hayes Marlette) doesn't show in a search of the Duke site, btw)

Anonymous said...

I called Greg Childress and we had a good and friendly talk. I'm surprised it went up as quickly as it did, but Greg came through, and for that I am grateful.

Anonymous said...

That's great to hear, Bill. All the main DukeLAX bloggers have been pretty tough (deservedly) on the print media, esp the H-S. But, you, KC, the LieStoppers crew, and JiC have done it in such a way that the focus is on the facts for the most part, and y'all have earned & maintained the respect of a lot of the print journalists. Good job!

I was reading Trudy Rubin's latest column The latest casualty is detailed foreign news, wherein she makes some good points, but asked the question "Or will most Americans come to view the world through the prism of partisan bloggers who don't feel the need for facts?.

Clearly, the mainstream media is scared shiiteless of the bloggers. Imagine a member of that group taking bloggers to task for bias, mush less accuracy.

Y'all are certainly giving bloggers a good name, or perhaps more accurately, showing that this new media belongs.

Anonymous said...

Thanks John

Great to see you giving credit to those that deserve it.

Anonymous said...

The American reporters can not be depended upon to give facts without their own bias. Like amny others I get the overseas papers on line daily - the horses moth so to speak. I doult that President Bush does not read newspapers - he probably gets them online also.
Many of these reporters are so anti - american, in a earlier time would be accused of treason.

Anonymous said...

Prior Graham Marlette letter posted by Michael Gaynor:

Graham Marlette, who not only rightly answered no to whether Blacks should trust Mr. Nifong, but persuasively explained why:

"Kudos to Ed Bradley and '60 Minutes' for exposing the injustice of the rape allegations against the Duke lacrosse players. Distinguished law professor James Coleman is correct: Nifong played the race card to get elected, among his myriad transgressions, and any possible conviction would likely be overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct. Here is the dilemma for those who are seeking justice in this case: the accuser seems to have vanished. Nifong can drag this out as long as he wants, barring judicial intercession, and when the time for the trial arrives, the accuser might stay in hiding and refuse to testify. Then Nifong might say, 'The victim is too traumatized. Sorry, boys, no witness, no trial.' The indicted lacrosse players are then left to twist in the wind with no opportunity to 'prove their innocence.' The short-term solution is for Durham voters to (1) elect Lewis Cheek and (2) have the movers and shakers in the Democratic Party confer with Governor Easley and persuade him to appoint a responsible and responsive district attorney and (3) locate the accuser and have her either swear to testify or, better yet, recant her false allegations. The long-term solution must be punitive toward a public servant who has failed so miserably to serve the public. As Professor Coleman points out: since this prosecutor used his power so recklessly to indict well-to-do white students, what's to prevent him from going after a poor, innocent black man if it should suit his political agenda?"

Anonymous said...

Graham Marlette on Nifong, as reported by Liestoppers:

Some time ago, Durham resident Graham Marlette referred to Mike Nifong as a human piñata.
“Night after night on cable news and blogs, he is the human piñata in this on-going drama of the rape that never was.”

Anonymous said...

6:53 & 6:56 AM Anon:

Thanks for the further info on G Marlette. Can you link to the sources, I'd love to see the entire letters. Thanks

Anonymous said...

Guess I found them:

Duke Case: Durham Is NOT an Appropriate Jury Trial Venue


and...

Oct 21, 2006 - Does Ashley Read His Own Paper?

JWM said...

To you all,

This is a wonderful comment thread.

I'll come in now as the dumb one: how can I link to the articles gprestonian references @ 10:32?

Thanks and again, well done.

John

Anonymous said...

JWM:

Sorry about that, I fooked up the html in those links!

Here they are again:

Duke Case: Durham Is NOT an Appropriate Jury Trial Venue

and...
Oct 21, 2006 - Does Ashley Read His Own Paper?