On May 24 of this year I said in KC Johnson Now:
On [Apr. 1, 2006] the N&O published under [reporters] Anne Blythe’s and Jane Stancill’s bylines a story which began:A woman who wrote about seeing lacrosse players slamming down shots of alcohol and shouting "Duke Lacrosse" at a bar two days after they submitted DNA samples in a rape case said Friday that she is no longer welcome in the popular watering hole and has been kicked off the bar's softball team.I went on to say:
The reaction is one more example of flaring tensions from the investigation into whether a woman was raped at a Duke University lacrosse team party. …By the time Blythe and Stancill wrote that story, days had passed since the woman first peddled it in a Chronicle op-ed in which she said it “pained” her to write the op-ed because the lacrosse players were her “best friends.”I thought when I published KC Johnson Now that the Charlie’s Shot Slamming hoax was “a dead one.”
No one in the bar [, Charlie’s,] at the time of the alleged shot slammings and shouts has ever substantiated her charges and Blythe and Stancill offered no substantiation in their story.
People who were at the bar at the time in question and who have spoken publicly have said what the woman claimed was false; and that's why she was barred from the bar and thrown off the softball team.
Blythe & Stancill reported nothing from witnesses who denied what the woman said.
The two reporters & the N&O just went with a smear story they knew would add to the community’s “flaring tensions.”
After all, it had been so quickly and fully discredited back in March 2006 that not even Mike Nifong had used it against the lacrosse players.
But no matter.
Just a few hours after I posted KC Johnson Now, KC himself commented on the post thread at 8:57 PM:I have spoken to four other people who were in the bar that evening. Two corroborated--in no uncertain terms--the story in Blythe and Stancill's article. Two strongly dissented from it.If you read further down the thread you’ll see where I repeatedly show what KC was doing was, IMO, giving life to a vicious hoax the was all but dead until he said he had found two witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms.”
The reason that I never critiqued the article in DIW or UPI was [to avoid doing a post] on an article that could have been correct. (bolds added)
You’ll also see on that thread this from another commenter who said in part :… There was absolutely no scene of lacrosse players at "Charlies" yelling "Duke lacrosse" after the false allegations.I hoped KC would think about what S. Fogerty had said and that he might stop hyping what sensible people recognize was a hoax.
My daughter was actually at the bar that night with Steph Sparks-Bob Exstrand's sister in law-and 2 lacrosse players-one of whom is my son.(bold added) …
That was on May 25.
From that date until yesterday, despite a number of provocations on- and offline, I published nothing about KC Johnson’s “witnesses” who, if they’ve given him the same or a very similar account of what Hopman said, are false witnesses, as KC must surely know.
"False witness" is our term for a person who’s given witness that contradicts irrefutable facts or the truth of a situation. The false witness doesn’t have to be perjuring; he or she can be merely deluded
On July 6 UNC-Wilmigton professor Chris Halkides, a frequent commenter at KC’s DIW blog, returned to his own blog from what he said was “a hiatus.”
Halkides chose to reopen his blog with a post titled “John in Carolina’a Post, ‘KC Johnson Now.'” Halkides said:... I will examine two points that JinC raised, that KC Johnson banned Joan Foster and that Professor Johnson was untruthful about his sources that confirmed a Raleigh News and Observer (N&O) story from 1 April 2006. I will treat the second, more serious matter first.
On July 8 KC Johnson posted praising Halkides post and linking to it
Beyond pointing out in response to professor Halkides that expressing skepticism about what someome says is not the same as saying they are lying, I said nothing the Charlie's hoax and KC's false "witnesses" after Halkides' and Johnson's published their posts until yesterday when I posted Hopman's Charlie's Shot Slamming Hoax.
I waited until yesterday before posting in order to see if what's sometimes termed "the corrective power of the blogosphere" would show itself on Halkides' thread and at DIW.
There's been some of that, but there's also been a lot cheering for what Haldides and Johnson are doing along with a lot of distortion - some no doubt deliberate - of what I've said and posted.
I decided yesterday for reasons you can easily guess at and which I'll soon discuss in detail, that the time had come to set the record straight on the Charlie's Hoax and KC Johnson's false "witnesses."
I also hope many of you will consider and discuss why KC brought up his false "witnesses" in the first place; and why he and Halkides decided to promulgate the falsehood that the Charlie's events as described be Jill Hopman might really have happened.
I have the same feeling typing this now as I had when I first challenged the N&O for promulgating what the paper knew was the "wall of solidarity" falsehood which almost immediately morphed into the "wall of solidarity" falsehood.
I'm eager to hear what you think.