Stevenspin
Never one to miss an opportunity to distort the truth when it comes to carrying water for Defendant Nifong, the Snooze Room’s John Stevenson strikes again with this gem:
“Critics of Nifong contend he rushed to judgment in the lacrosse case. They say he got the three suspects indicted without sufficient evidence, before he knew DNA results would not help the prosecution and might prove favorable to the defendants.”
Had Stevenson been interested in more accurately portraying the criticism of Nifong to his readers, the sentences might have read:
“Critics of Nifong contend he rushed to judgment in the lacrosse case. They say he got the three suspects indicted without sufficient evidence, AFTER he knew DNA results would not help the prosecution and might prove favorable to the defendants.”
Had Stevenson been interested in most accurately portaying the condemnation of Nifong to his readers, the words should have read:
“Critics of Nifong contend he abused his prosecutorial discretion in the lacrosse case. They say he got the three suspects indicted despite evidence of their actual innocence, AFTER he knew DNA results had exonerated the defendants and AFTER he conspired with the DNA lab to withhold those results from the defendants.”
Considering that the results of SBI testing were released well before the first indictments were brought and that DA Nifong met with DNA Security, Inc. lab director Brian Meehan to discuss the results of the second round of DNA tests a full week before the first indictments and more than a month prior to seeking the final indictment, it is blatantly false for Stevenson to suggest that Nifong is being criticized for merely rushing to judgment before knowing that DNA testing “might prove favorable to the defendants.”
The difference between what Stevenson suggests and the reality that Nifong is being condemned for proceeding with indictments despite knowing, beforehand, that the defendants had been exonerated by DNA testing is monumental. Adding Stevenson’s glaring omission, of the conspiracy to withhold those results, to the false assertion, we again see that Stevenson is unwilling to accurately report items that are critical of Defendant Nifong.
5 comments:
Great point, LS.
I especially liked this one:
"On the paternity question, Smith gave oral orders last month -- before the accuser gave birth -- for tests to determine if any of three sexual-offense case suspects was responsible for the woman's pregnancy.
But those orders were not put into writing, so the tests were not done.
No, Stevenson, you dipshiite, it was a Contingent Order, and the baby had not yet been born.
I apologize to Joan!
Philip:
If you want to talk about false accusations, lets be real. You continue to let posts stand that call the victim a prostitute. There is no record of prostition of the victim.That Philip,is FALSE, so why aren't those posts deleted.The victim may be very sexually active but there is no charge or proof of prostitution. Contrary to what you believe about her, does NOT make it absolute truth.
Lets talk about vulgarity. Other posters have written words that are vulgar and you let them stand. That is being bias toward duke supporters and you know it or you just don't care.
Some posters have even attacked my reputation, calling me scandalous names just because I support the victim. But you let that post stay. You don't know me or my life.
How can you possibly accuse me of false accusations and vulgarity and NOT others? You, Philip are condoning racial attacks on the victim and blacks for that matter. Ignoring others that do the same and deleting my post is nothing short of racial hatred of a race that is different from yours.
Letting other posters spew poisonious hatred and made-up lies about the victim is wrong.
Plilip you are guilty guilty guilty.
Give the guy a break. So, he got his timeline wrong. Not a particularly strong testament to his journalistic cares or skills. But, there is no reason to believe that this was anything other than an mistake by Stevenson. Remember Hanlon's Razor:
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
justice58, aside from her boyfriend, the accuser had DNA from 5 as yet unidentified men in her or on the underwear she was wearing. The two things we know for sure about them are that they are not Duke LAX players, and the accuser denies having had sex with them.
So either the accuser is a prostitute, or she has a _very_ active social life.
BTW, the time she is now claiming she was raped doesn't fit the established facts. Part of that time, she hadn't shown up yet, the rest, the other dancer was with her. And all of it is _before_ the dancers started stripping. Unlike her previous stories which said the "attack" was after the stripping and she left right after the attack.
So she is now claiming to have been wrong about having been raped, wrong about the non-existant rape happening after the stripping, wrong about her leaving right after the attack.
Her new story is that she was attacked, penetrated in every oriface and beaten, then went out to do the striptease. And hung around the house where she was attacked for another 40 minutes after that.
Does that new story sound even remotely plausible to you?
Of course it sounds plausible to you, you are delusional.
j58 -
The accuser admitted to the N&O to "one-on-one dates" a couple of times per week. She told PD that she performed with a vibrator for a couple prior to the party/dance at 610. JJ's statement clearly details her 'activities' at
hotel(s) and stripclub(s) the weekend prior to 3/13. She had DNA from at least 5 men other than her boyfriend in and on her.
What do you suppose she was doing on those one-on-one dates?
You can make your own judgement as to her profession... mine, based on the facts as stated above, is that she was being paid for sex.
Post a Comment