Talking To Regulars & Recent Commenters

(This is a post in the old web log tradition of notes for those familiar with the material. Don’t look for links or background explanations.)

Folks,

My on- and offline email traffic yesterday and today have been heavier than usual.

Some emails are lengthy and deal with sensitive matters which, in part or whole, call for a considered and prompt response.

I’m behind on those emails, but I’ll get to them. Sorry for the delay.

The emails that call for a main page response will get one.

Other emails have been the kind that are usually deleted for the usual reasons.

Regulars know the kind of email comments which get deleted.

If you're new to JinC and don't know, look around. I think you'll understand.

If you don't like a blog that doesn't publish certain things, consider yourself lucky. There are millions of blogs, among which there must be hundreds to your liking.

Tonight or tomorrow morning I’ll post linking to documents that refute sceptical’s unfortunate and prima facie erroneous assertion concerning KC Johnson's and Chris Halkides' hyping of the Charlie’s hoax.

As most of you know, I promised KC Johnson that I’d respond by this weekend to his requests for apologies, admissions of errors, etc.

I plan to have that post up by tomorrow evening.

I’ll try to blog more posts this weekend but no promises.

Right now my intention is to respond to emails by professor Halkides and One Spook after I finish the tasks I’ve just mentioned.

But no promises on that.

You know things happen fast and something else might come up.

To all of you who’ve sent emails or called with expressions of support for my recent blogging, thank you.

Best,

John

About The Charlie’s Hoax, We Should Agree

that:

1) - - - In Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax? I said about Jill Hopman’s hoax story concerning Duke lacrosse players’ alleged drunken behavior in a Durham bar the night of Mar. 25, 2006:

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. (bold in original)

2 - - And that KC Johnson said @ 8:57 PM on the thread of KC Johnson Now:

. . . “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. (bold added) "

“The reason that I never critiqued the article in DIW or UPI was not because of a partiality to the N&O but because I had no clear grounds for attacking the article.

"My general approach, given that there were so many articles worth criticizing in the case, was not to do posts on an article that could have been correct.” . . . (bold added)

We can agree on those two quotes, right?

And we should all be able to also agree KC knows that in her Chronicle op-ed Hopman said:

. . This past Saturday night, days after the lacrosse story appeared in newspapers, I was at Charlie's having a drink with my local softball team when about 20 lacrosse players arrived.

Some were my close friends at Duke. Some are absolutely amazing athletes that shouldn't be tainted by the unfortunate and extremely sad events of this month. Most should not be guilty by association.

Nevertheless, they ordered round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!" At this point, the bar started buzzing. Comments were flying all over from "How does Duke not have these guys under lockdown?" to "Do they realize what unremorseful drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why."

One of the men on my team, a cop, leaned over to me and said, "See A, B and C? They are police officers."

Ten minutes later, one of the other guys on my team, a photographer for a Raleigh newspaper, leaned over and said, "See X,Y and Z? They are reporters."

The players had no idea who was intensely analyzing them, nor did they really seem to care. While I drank a Corona, watching them get plastered and stumbling, yelling about Duke lacrosse, the rest of the bar looked on with derision and repulsion.

Needless to say, it was hard to stomach how their actions conveyed a sense that the severity of the situation is lost on them.

Regardless of guilt, there is a degree of gravity that is not met by simply closing facebook profiles to the public. This is not about hazing or underage drinking or even cheating. And this cannot be contained inside the proverbial Duke bubble or under a blanket of silence. …

It would seem a simple matter for us to agree on all of the above.

What KC Johnson’s Doing Now

Readers Note: For background to the post below you should be familiar with the following posts and their threads:

KC Johnson Now

Hopman's Charlie's Shot Slamming Hoax


Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax?

John
___________________________________________


Folks, I want to respond to a few parts of a comment KC Johnson left this morning on the thread of Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax?

KC’s in italics; I’m in plain.

KC begins - - -

This is the oddest post I have read in the long line of quixotic posts demonizing those who do not share the blogger whose publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina's overwhelmingly negative appraisal of the N&O’s overall role in the case.

KC, you frequently say you don’t get into name-calling and ridicule..

But you're doing that now.

You used to call me simply John or John in Carolina or JinC.

Now in post after post I’m “the blogger whose (sic) publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina.”

What caused the change? What’s your purpose?

As those who have either read UPI or followed DIW know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident or the article in question. I have only responded to unfounded allegations on the point from the blogger whose publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina.

What “unfounded allegations” with regard to the Charlie's hoax are you talking about?

I have already noted his move into outright factual inaccuracies on matters substantial (the alleged banning of infrequent DIW commenter Joan Foster, the alleged insertion of something “new” into an April post) to minor (the claim that I “sent” him an “email”). These errors have either remained uncorrected or acknowledged in an ungenerous fashion.

KC, I’ll get back to the above paragraph this weekend.

Right now I think most people reading this want to focus on the Charlie’s hoax or what you call “the incident.”

“Hundreds” of members of the media were in Durham? The blogger whose publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina doesn’t specify, but “hundreds” presumes at least 200. Really? Take the three local papers (N&O, H-S, Chron.) and the four local TV stations. Generously, in late March 2006, they might have had 35 reporters on the case. Add to that five cable networks (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, HLN, and CourtTV), the NYT, the AP, the LAT, USA Today, and Newsweek, all of which had a reporter or at most two reporters in Durham. Perhaps 20 total reporters there? Add in, to be on the high side, 10 reporters from other media sources who occasionally sent in a reporter for a story. That’s 65, total—a lot of reporters, but not 200 or more. So where are the other 135+ reporters of which the blogger whose publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina wrote?

KC, you’re providing a significant underestimate.

You mention only “three local papers (N&O, H-S, Chron.).” Did you consider in your estimate The Independent and NCCU’s student newspaper, The Campus Echo? Both gave considerable coverage to the DL case during Spring ’06.

So did North Carolina’s very active African-American news organizations which you also don’t mention

You make no mention of the great many “freelancers,” “stringers,” and independent photographers who rushed to this city hoping to take a photo or pick up “a story angle” they could peddle to the MSMs.

Any one of those folks who could have corroborated Hopman’s story would have had at payday and big-time notice by a possible future employer. The person would very likely have been on a few cable “news” shows, too.

Remember hearing about all the satellite trucks surrounding Duke and the Durham County Courthouse?

Most of those vehicles are owned by independent contractors who sign on with a news organization for a particular story. The trucks usually have a crew of two or three. Some crew members have journalism backgrounds; others come from tech backgrounds.

I talked to many of them at the time of the Charlie’s hoax. All said they and members of other crews as well as many news organizations had tried to confirm Hopman’s story but couldn’t. All those I talked with rightly concluded it was a hoax.

KC, if you had been in Durham the week The Chronicle published Hopman’s hoax story, I hope you’d now agree: “Hundreds of members of media were in Durham covering it. They scrambled hard to confirm Hopman’s story but soon concluded it was a hoax.”

A lot of people are asking: Does KC Johnson really believe there’s any chance what Hopman described in The Chronicle actually happened?

I don’t blame them; in fact, I’m one of them.

Based on your assertion you have two witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” Hopman’s story, what else is a person to believe than that you think her false witness might be true?

Why haven't you said you talked to two people about "the incident" in Charlie’s the night of March 25, 2006 who agreed with Hopman's story, but that based on all the other evidence available, you don’t believe what your "witnesses" are saying?

Many of us did something like that very early in the Duke lacrosse case as regards statements by another false witness, Crystal Mangum.

Your saying you have no reason to challenge the falseness of what Hopman claims reminds me of those people who were saying – and in some cases continue to say – they “can’t be sure what happened in the bathroom” because they weren’t in there at the time.

Only in your case, KC, you claim you can’t say Hopman’s story's a hoax because you have two "witnesses" who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” what the woman said.

I don’t believe the KC Johnson of 2006 and into 2007 would have put himself in such a position.

John

Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie’s Hoax?

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.

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. …

I went on to say:

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.”

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.”

I thought when I published KC Johnson Now that the Charlie’s Shot Slamming hoax was “a dead one.”

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.

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)

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.”

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.

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) …

I hoped KC would think about what S. Fogerty had said and that he might stop hyping what sensible people recognize was a hoax.

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.

Hopman’s Charlie’s Shot Slamming Hoax

March 28, 2006 was a very difficult day for the members of Duke University’s Men’s lacrosse team and their families. And for the players themselves it was also a dangerous day.

Since March 24 the Raleigh News & Observer had been running a series of biased, racially inflammatory and, in some instances, fraudulent stories casting the players as a bunch of drunken, out-of-control rich white boys, three of whom had beaten, strangled and gang-raped a frightened young black mother while their teammates stood by and did nothing.

The N&O’s March 28 front page carried a story in which Mike Nifong, then DA, called the players “hooligans.”

The front page also contained “the priors” story about previous misdemeanor charges such as underage drinking and public urination brought against 16 of the players, all of whom the N&O named, including one who’d been found innocent of the charge against him.

The N&O’s editorial that day called the accuser “the victim.” It praised her “courage” in coming forward to make her charges. The editorial also demanded suspension of the team’s season until the case was resolved.

On that same March 28 Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published a guest op-ed, “Acute embarrassment,” in which Jill Hopman, a first-year law student at UNC-Chapel Hill and an ’05 Duke grad, claimed that on the preceding Saturday, March 25, the day the N&O ran its now discredited story about what it said was a night ending in “sexual violence,” about 20 Duke lacrosse players entered Charlie’s Pub in Durham and:

“ordered round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!" At this point, the bar started buzzing. Comments were flying all over from "How does Duke not have these guys under lockdown?" to "Do they realize what unremorseful drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why." . . .

By March 28 the Duke lacrosse story had drawn national and international attention. Hundreds of members of media were in Durham covering it. They scrambled hard to confirm Hopman’s story but soon concluded it was a hoax.

Hopman’s allegations were so quickly and fully discredited that not even Mike Nifong or the Durham Police investigators working the case used it when trashing the players.

On May 24 of this year I said in the post KC Johnson Now:

…"no one in the bar at the time of the alleged shot slammings and shouts has ever substantiated her charges and [N&O reporters] Blythe and Stancill offered no substantiation in their story."…

Some hours later KC Johnson responded on the post thread at 8:57 PM:

That statement actually is untrue. 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. (bold added)

The reason that I never critiqued the article in DIW or UPI was not because of a partiality to the N&O but because I had no clear grounds for attacking the article. My general approach, given that there were so many articles worth criticizing in the case, was not to do posts on an article that could have been correct.(bold added) …

Folks, here’s part of Hopman’s op-ed:

This past Saturday night, days after the lacrosse story appeared in newspapers, I was at Charlie's having a drink with my local softball team when about 20 lacrosse players arrived.

Some were my close friends at Duke. Some are absolutely amazing athletes that shouldn't be tainted by the unfortunate and extremely sad events of this month. Most should not be guilty by association.

Nevertheless, they ordered round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!" At this point, the bar started buzzing. Comments were flying all over from "How does Duke not have these guys under lockdown?" to "Do they realize what unremorseful drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why."

One of the men on my team, a cop, leaned over to me and said, "See A, B and C? They are police officers."

Ten minutes later, one of the other guys on my team, a photographer for a Raleigh newspaper, leaned over and said, "See X,Y and Z? They are reporters."

The players had no idea who was intensely analyzing them, nor did they really seem to care. While I drank a Corona, watching them get plastered and stumbling, yelling about Duke lacrosse, the rest of the bar looked on with derision and repulsion.

Needless to say, it was hard to stomach how their actions conveyed a sense that the severity of the situation is lost on them. Regardless of guilt, there is a degree of gravity that is not met by simply closing facebook profiles to the public. This is not about hazing or underage drinking or even cheating. And this cannot be contained inside the proverbial Duke bubble or under a blanket of silence. …

Folks, in any of you agree with KC Johnson that what Hopman alleged "could have been correct," how do you explain the fact that none of the hundreds of media then in Durham who tried to confirm Hopman's allegations could find any corroborating witnesses?

How come they couldn’t find any corroborating witnesses after Hopman alleged a cop who played on her softball team pointed out three others in Charlie's he told her were also cops?

Hopman alleged a press photographer friend pointed out three members of the press who witnessed the alleged shot slamming, shouting and the other patrons' reactions of disgust and openly expressed criticism.

If that was actually the case, why didn’t any of those press members report what they witnessed? Why didn’t their fellow members of media interview them as corroborating witnesses?

Folks, you can’t really substantiate or corroborate something that didn’t happen, can you?

Sure, a second witness may agree in no uncertain terms with what the first witness said.

But if the first witness’ statements are false, then the agreeing second witness is also a false witness.

I don’t find it difficult to believe KC Johnson found two people who said they were in Chalie’s Pub the night of March 25, 2006 and witnessed the events Hopman described.

But I find it both hard to believe and very sad that KC Johnson now gives any credence to people parroting the Charlie’s Shot Slamming hoax or to the hoax itself.

Welcome Back, Ken From Dallas

Ken,

I'm very glad you're once more around and commenting.

Best,

John

I Owe Sceptical

Many of you know sceptical blogs at Liestoppers Meeting.

I've twice in recent days said I'd respond to comments sceptical's made.

I've not done that yet.

I want sceptical to know I'm sorry for my delay but I've not forgotten and will comment soon.

Sceptical also knows something I don't know and don't need to know if sceptical will help me.

Sceptical, will you please contact JSwift and let JSwift know I still intend to respond to the comment JSwift left here?

Thanks,

John

Cks’ Final Comment From England

A number of you have said on- and offline how much you’ve enjoyed cks’ comments from London where she’s been studying as part of a National Endowment for the Humanities grant which also includes study in the Netherlands.

Here’s her final comment before leaving England after which I add a few comments below the star line.

Cks said - - -

I just want to say that my time in London ends early tomorrow and I am off to the Netherlands. Thank you again for directing me to the Churchill War Rooms Museum as well as to choral evensong at Westminster Abbey.

While I never made it to the Grenadier Pub, I did find several (some near where I stayed and others where I happened to be at mealtimes) that served delicious food. The English, I believe, get a bum rap for their cuisine.

Today I just walked in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. A lovely day to reflect on how much the United States and Great Britain owe to each other and to be thankful that their enduring alliance has so far managed to keep the world a better place to live.

******************************************

Cks,

We owe you thanks for sharing your experiences.

You're right about America and Great Britain (by which I’m sure you mean the Commonwealth countries as well) managing “to keep the world a better place to live.”

Have we and they ever; and at what great sacrifice.

John

KC Johnson Sends A Comment

Readers Note: Earlier today I posted KC Johnson Sends An Email.

I urge you to read it for the background information it provides for the post which follows.

John

__________________________________

A short while ago I received via email the following comment:

KC Johnson has left a new comment on your post "KC Johnson Sends An Email":

It is unclear to me what "email" the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina" refers: I did not send him an email yesterday, nor did I send one to him today.

I did submit a comment yesterday, and, when that comment wasn't cleared, I took the liberty of resubmitting the comment--noting, as is clear from my wording, that I was sure there was a technical problem with its lack of posting.

I offer this comment merely to correct the factual error in this post regarding my having allegedly sent an email. But, as we all have learned over the course of this bizarre string of posts, it is no longer reasonable to expect factual accuracy from the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina."


Posted by KC Johnson to John In Carolina at 2:51 PM

*********************************************

Folks, this from Blogger’s How do I moderate comments at my blog? page:

Enabling comment moderation then drops down an email form.

This lets you moderate comments via email without affecting your regular comment notification setting. It is optional, since you can always moderate comments through the Blogger interface. (bold added)

Because I travel a fair amount I use Blogger’s email option which lets me moderate comments “on the fly” using a laptop in airports, hotel lobbies, etc.

So KC’s comment, like all reader comments, came to me in email form.

KC Johnson’s obviously very angry but I don’t see that in calling what he sent an “email” I did anything terribly wrong, much less “bizarre.”

If in the future I receive in email form a comment from KC, I’ll try to remember when referring to it to say “comment,” not “email.”

As for his sending me his comment twice, as I said in KC Johnson Sends An Email I received it only once.

KC recently explained his posting an horrendous comment attacking Joan Foster for which he was sharply criticized by saying he'd accidentally hit the Send button when he meant to hit the Delete button for the comment authored by Debrah.

As regards what he says is the first comment he sent me, perhaps he accidentally hit the Delete button when he thought he was hitting the Send button.

I Hope You All Read This

Readers Note: I’ve received both considerable support and criticism for posting KC Johnson Now.

With some exceptions the sources of support and criticism that I can identify have been as I expected. The same holds for the ways in which the support and criticism have been expressed.

That said, I’m republishing below an excerpt from KC Johnson Now for three reasons:

1) - - - So everyone can see that despite claims KC Johnson Now concerns matters I brought up only “at the last minute,” major portions of it deal with matters years old. What you’ll read below, for example, concerns matters which occurred no later than December, 2007. You can confirm that by reading the email to which I link, which is addressed to KC.

2) - - - So people who think KC Johnson Now is about “small potatoes” can consider again whether, to take one example, Ruth Sheehan’s statements that Nifong was the anonymous source for her “Team’s silence is sickening” column is “small potatoes.”

3) - - - I hope the excerpt will encourage people who haven’t read KC Johnson Now to read it. I also hope those who haven’t read it in a while will reread it.

John

_________________________________________

EXCERPT FROM KC JOHNSON NOW - - -

Nifong & the N&O worked together. (All bolds in this excerpt are in the original.)

Besides serving as [Sheehan's anonymous] source, it's reasonable to believe, as many journalists I've talked with do, that Nifong, members of his staff and certain DPD officers "assisted" the N&O by, among other things, tipping the N&O when and where the players would show for DNA testing and helping "arrange" the interview with Mangum.

That arrangement almost certainly involving an assurance to Mangum it would be what journalists call "a friendly" that would serve her goal at the time of shaking down the players for a big cash settlement.

I'm sure that during the civil suits discovery we'll learn Nifong and others aiding him were an important reason why the N&O’s Mar. 24 to 27 coverage presented in detail the same false story of a drunken party, gang-rape of a “frightened young mother,” and stonewalling by racist DL players who were covering up for three of their teammates who committed the rapes which Nifong began telling in public for the first time on the afternoon of Mar. 27.

Sheehan’s disclosure also raises questions about Nifong’s June 2007 State Bar trial testimony during which he said he only learned of the case late on the afternoon of Mar. 23 [I believe he knew about it days before.]; that he talked briefly with Durham police on Mar.24; and that he then met with DPD investigators on Mar. 27.

Nifong said nothing in his testimony about serving as an anonymous N&O source by at least Mar.26 and very possibly before.

The State Bar's attorneys quite properly didn’t ask him, Sheehan or others about it. The Bar trial’s purpose was to judge Nifong on other matters.

But we can be certain of this: if, as seems likely, we get to discovery in the civil rights violations suits in which Nifong is a defendant, the plaintiffs' attorneys will want to learn all they can about Sheehan’s claim Nifong was an N&O news source before he ever started speaking publicly about the DL case on Mar. 27.

Now what about KC’s interest in what Sheehan said about Nifong?

This Q&A is part of a Dec. 2007 email in which KC responded to some of the questions I posted at JinC, including one asking why UPI said nothing about Sheehan’s revelation:

Q: It’s Not About The Truth goes into considerable detail quoting Ruth Sheehan’s claims that Mike Nifong was the anonymous source for her notorious 3/27/06 “Team’s Silence Is Sickening” column.

According to Sheehan, Nifong’s source information was passed on to her by someone(s) in the N&O’s newsroom when she phoned in on 3/26/06 with a column she’d already written for the next day on another matter.

But, according to Sheehan, the information the newsroom fed her was so strong she dropped the column she’d already written and started to work on “Team’s Silence Is Sickening.”

UPI doesn’t mention any of that. Why not?

A: UPI and It's Not About the Truth are different books with different areas of focus.

INAT is, in large part, Mike Pressler's story; Pressler and Yaeger argue that Sheehan's column played a key role in Brodhead's decision to fire Pressler. It's unsurprising, therefore, they spend a good deal of time on the piece.

Pressler's dismissal is not the central (or a central) story of UPI. It therefore is unsurprising Stuart and I spent less time on the column. We mentioned the column, and mentioned the key line and how it captured the rush-to-judgment mood--as Sheehan herself conceded when she apologized.

As you can see, KC’s answer is mostly red herrings that don’t address my question.

The only part of his answer that does - - “UPI and It's Not About the Truth are different books with different areas of focus” – - is, at best, a very weak rationalization for ignoring such an important matter.

It appears even weaker when you read his June 2007 review of INAT at DIW.

KC's review covers many matters including anecdotes from INAT that reveal Nifong’s personality – Nifong gets angry with a person who interrupts him at lunch; he refuses to shake an intern’s hand because “I don’t shake hands with interns.”

But KC tells DIW readers nothing about Sheehan’s disclosure.

Even if you agree KC and Taylor should have ignored in UPI Sheehan’s disclosure because UPI had a different focus than INAT, can you explain KC’s not mentioning it in his DIW review?

I can’t. …

KC Johnson Sends An Email

Readers Note: For background to this post you should be familiar with the following posts and their threads:

KC Johnson's "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center,"

Chris Halkides' "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'"

and my posts:

KC Johnson's Response To ":ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:"

and

Something New At KC Johnson's DIW.

John

___________________________________


This morning when I started checking email I found the following had arrived during the night.

KC Johnson said...

I had previously submitted this comment, but somehow it did not appear. Knowing the high ethics of the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina," I'm sure it was accidentally deleted, and that he did not follow a policy of attacking someone in a post and then refusing to allow the attacked party to respond. I therefore took the liberty of reposting it. [KC didn't repost his comment; at least not at JinC. - - JinC]

--

To the blogger who posts under the pseudonym of "John in Carolina:"

The item to which you refer is an automatically generated message from the blogger software, which appears whenever anyone attempts to comment in a closed thread (as, I assume, you know from your own experience with blogger software).

It was not written by me, nor is it anything "new." In contrast to the erroneous statement in your post, it does not appear now, nor has it ever appeared, when a reader goes to the following URL: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html. Nor does it appear at the URL: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html#comments.

It only appears when a reader tries to comment, as any reader--including Ms. Foster or, indeed, you--would have discovered anytime after April 27, 2009, at 3.05pm. That is why there were no more comments in the thread.

I would have been delighted to have provided you with this information via email before you wrote your post--but, as we know, your habit on this matter has not been to verify facts before posting.

2:47 AM

***********************************************

Folks, this is the first email I’ve received from KC concerning the Blogger closing message which I first saw only yesterday morning, and which Blogger message professor Halkides first mentioned only yesterday morning.

Had I received KC’s “previously submitted” email, I would have posted it on the comment thread of Something New At KC Johnson's DIW which is what I did a short while ago with KC's email you see above.

I would also have moved the comment he says he "previously submitted" to the main page to increase the chances of people seeing what KC wrote and my response to it.

On the chance that I might have accidentally deleted an email KC sent, I checked under “Recently Deleted” and found no such email.

Early yesterday morning I sent a comment to professor Halkides for posting. You can find it on the thread of "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'". I said in part:

…There now is posted at the end of the thread: "NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR."

But this morning is the first time I saw it.

And you only mentioned it just now.

When did you first see it?

I've received about 20 comments totaling thousands of words defending KC's evolving claims concerning Joan Foster and banning.

Almost all of them made the point KC was really just closing down the thread.

But NOT ONE of those comments mentions the notice you and I found there at DIW this morning.

Folks, I use two computers at home. A number of times before my wife and I left for a trip last Wednesday I used both computers to read the "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center," thread where Joan’s final comment ends with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:” and KC responds "To Joan."

I never at any time saw the Blogger notice at the end of the thread before leaving home last Wednesday after shutting down both computers.

When my wife and I got home yesterday afternoon I turned on the computers. It was then that for the first time I saw on both screens the Blogger notice.

Does anyone know why the Blogger notice didn't show on either screen before we left home last Wednesday, but did show on both screen yesterday, Sunday?

Back on May 24 I posted KC Johnson Now in which I said:

“I think DIW lost something important when KC barred Joan Foster, one of the people who's been most effective from the first in the fight for DL justice.”

KC responded @ 8:59 PM:

I didn't "bar" Ms. Foster; I closed down the thread.

But KC made no mention then of a Blogger notice stating new comments had been disabled.

In the 7 weeks since KC Johnson Now was posted, no one submitting comments here has mentioned the Blogger notice. Even professor Halkides doesn't mention it in his July 6 "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'" post.

Strange.

KC wanted his comment posted. I've obliged and provided some context.

To JinC Regulars

I was traveling for 5 hours today.

When I got home this afternoon, there were emails and VM requiring responses.

I commented on a few threads and will say more tomorrow.

Now I'm heading to Mystery Theater and bed.

But not before I say "thank you" to so many of you who've expressed support.

I've not posted your comments because, IMO, it made more sense to let others have their say first.

I'll say more tomorrow.

In the meantime, did anyone find a posted statement about the "closure" notice at KC Johnson's blog before professor Halkides found it there this morning?

See you in the AM.

John

Something New At KC Johnson's DIW

This morning I left two comments on the thread of professor Halkides' "John in Carolina' post, 'KC Johnson Now" post.

Here's the first - - -

Anonymous said...

Here’s the full text of KC Johnson’s comment on the thread of http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/04/suggested-panels-for-stone-center.html.

It's the last comment of the thread and he makes it immediately following Joan Foster ending her comment with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:”

_______________________________

KC Johnson @3:05 AM 4/27/09

To Joan:

My best wishes to you.

I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.

Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.

____________________________

Folks, notice KC comments directly “To Joan” and only “To Joan.”

And notice that, despite subsequent claims by KC and others that he was announcing the closing of the thread, in his actual comment KC says NOTHING about closing the thread.

John in Carolina

July 12, 2009 9:07 AM

*******************************************************

Now my second comment which responds to a comment by Halkides in which he says he's satisfied KC meant to close the thread because there's now an announcement at the end of it that says that. My comment has not yet been cleared.


Professor Halkides,

I don't know anyone who disputes KC said AFTER I posted "KC Johnson Now" that he had shut down the thread.

There now is posted at the end of the thread: "NEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DISABLED FOR THIS POST BY A BLOG ADMINISTRATOR."

But this morning is the first time I saw it.

And you only mentioned it just now.

When did you first see it?

I've received about 20 comments totaling thousands of words defending KC's evolving claims concerning Joan Foster and banning.

Almost all of them made the point KC was really just closing down the thread.

But NOT ONE of those comments mentions the notice you and I found there at DIW this morning.

Why do you think that is?

Have you asked KC when he posted it?

John in Carolina