I know there is a risk of giving this more traction that it deserves, but I have seen it mentioned twice now and I assume it will become one of the talking points of the pro-LA campaigners. Better to have it out now and in the open.
As some of you may know, in March 2006 Selena Roberts, then a reporter with the New York Times, wrote a very polarized article about a group of predominantly caucasian Duke University lacrosse players allegedly involved in the gang rape of an African-American stripper. I won't link it as there are a million links to be had with a simple Google search.
The players vehemently denied the allegations made against them by the dancer. Roberts took the "we wouldn't be giving their story much credence if they were black" angle and basically said they were guilty as charged, but was proven terribly wrong when the truth surfaced: that the dancer's story was a sham, the boys were innocent, and the case had been manipulated by the corrupt local prosecutor Mike Nifong (the only person who actually went to jail over the entire mess).
It looks like the Pharmstrong crowd are now attempting to correlate the recent SI article by Ms. Roberts with the prior Duke fiasco.
In essence, they weill say, we have a reporter who is more than willing to write a personally biased piece without fully researching the facts, but heavily introducing her own opinion.
The differences, of course, will be conveniently overlooked:
1. Mike Nifong was a local DA, not the federal Justice Department, and he had well-known political asperations.
2. Nifong controlled the entire prosecution, while the federal case is being presented to a Grand Jury. They alone will decide if indictments are handed down.
3. Roberts has a co-author this time.
4. Most of what is included in the article has ALREADY been corroberated prior to it's publication.
4. The SI article is the result of endless hours of reserach and interviews with many, many witnesses and people knowledgeable, whereas Niifong controlled most if not all of the prosecution's evidence and there was only one witness for the prosecution (the dancer).
Nevertheless, I will bet we will see more of this angle against Roberts taken in the very near future. As I said, better to get it out now and discussed.
As some of you may know, in March 2006 Selena Roberts, then a reporter with the New York Times, wrote a very polarized article about a group of predominantly caucasian Duke University lacrosse players allegedly involved in the gang rape of an African-American stripper. I won't link it as there are a million links to be had with a simple Google search.
The players vehemently denied the allegations made against them by the dancer. Roberts took the "we wouldn't be giving their story much credence if they were black" angle and basically said they were guilty as charged, but was proven terribly wrong when the truth surfaced: that the dancer's story was a sham, the boys were innocent, and the case had been manipulated by the corrupt local prosecutor Mike Nifong (the only person who actually went to jail over the entire mess).
It looks like the Pharmstrong crowd are now attempting to correlate the recent SI article by Ms. Roberts with the prior Duke fiasco.
In essence, they weill say, we have a reporter who is more than willing to write a personally biased piece without fully researching the facts, but heavily introducing her own opinion.
The differences, of course, will be conveniently overlooked:
1. Mike Nifong was a local DA, not the federal Justice Department, and he had well-known political asperations.
2. Nifong controlled the entire prosecution, while the federal case is being presented to a Grand Jury. They alone will decide if indictments are handed down.
3. Roberts has a co-author this time.
4. Most of what is included in the article has ALREADY been corroberated prior to it's publication.
4. The SI article is the result of endless hours of reserach and interviews with many, many witnesses and people knowledgeable, whereas Niifong controlled most if not all of the prosecution's evidence and there was only one witness for the prosecution (the dancer).
Nevertheless, I will bet we will see more of this angle against Roberts taken in the very near future. As I said, better to get it out now and discussed.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram