I think you entirely misrepresent Ms. Sheehan's article. True she did make the assertion but it is of secondary, if not marginal, importance to the main point in the article. Let's focus on the things that are more unequivocal, namely, Mr. Nifong's behavior and the facts of the case, including past patterns of behavior of both AV and those attending the event where the alleged crime took place.
It is of primary importance to the credibility of the News & Observer coverage of this case.
Apparently, by her own statement this writer has privately slandered at least one or more individuals for years ON THE BASIS OF NO EVIDENCE BEYOND HER ASSERTIONS.
She now publicly extends this slander to a group of individuals with the blessings of her editors and management.
That is EXACTLY what both the Brawley case and the Duke LaCrosse case are about.
And it bears scrutiny in EXACTLY the same way.
She wrote the column.
Let her answer for her assertions.
Best regards,