tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post1109947636514047785..comments2024-01-04T07:21:18.243-05:00Comments on John In Carolina: What KC Johnson’s Doing NowUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-19330821472229348122009-07-18T11:17:22.654-04:002009-07-18T11:17:22.654-04:00To KC,
I respond more fully to this comment Sunda...To KC,<br /><br />I respond more fully to this comment Sunday evening.<br /><br />In the meantime, recall you said on the KC Johnson Now post thread at 8:57 PM:<br /><br /> "I have spoken to four other people who were in the bar that evening. <br /><br />"<b>Two corroborated--in no uncertain terms--the story in Blythe and Stancill's article.</b> Two strongly dissented from it.<br /><br />...<br /><br />"The reason that I never critiqued the article in DIW or UPI was [to avoid doing a post] on <b>an article that could have been correct.</b> (bolds added)<br /><br />JohnJWMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08275423713054782480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-66242952811655595732009-07-18T06:28:33.738-04:002009-07-18T06:28:33.738-04:00The blogger who publishes under the pseudonym of J...The blogger who publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina asks, "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."<br /><br />I can only assume that he doesn't even read his comment threads, since I had already written, "My perspective on what did or did not occur is precisely sceptical's," who had written earlier in the thread, "My hunch is that there might have been athletes that day at Charlies (there usually are), but they were not necessarily from the lacrosse team and their behavior was exaggerated by Hopman."<br /><br />But, again, why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?<br /><br />In both the book and the blog, I criticized members of the media when I had the facts on my side, not solely on the basis of my beliefs or hunches. Obviously, other blogs use different standards. That's their right, and they have to deal with the hits to their credibility that their standard creates.<br /><br />It is quite true that, in the grand scheme of the case, I consider the Blythe article a tangential event. Based on the fact that he has now done repeated posts on the issue, the blogger who publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina appears to believe otherwise. That raises the question, of course, as to why he didn't do the reporting work of tracking down the people who were at the bar that evening, confronting Hopman with their testimony, and disproving the article. But I suppose it's easier simply to assert supposition as fact, and attack others for not doing likewise.<br /><br />As I have stated repeatedly, I made no mention of this incident in DIW or in UPI, quite deliberately, and my first discussion of it only came in response to what is now a long series of attack pieces from the blogger who publishes under the pseudonym of John-in-Carolina.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-36678017243048364452009-07-18T00:17:45.036-04:002009-07-18T00:17:45.036-04:00Is The Chronicle part
of the Hoax now, too?Is The Chronicle part<br />of the Hoax now, too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-41562794799082876422009-07-17T18:51:17.657-04:002009-07-17T18:51:17.657-04:00What is wrong with JinC making criticisms of KC?
...What is wrong with JinC making criticisms of KC?<br /><br />I appreciate what he's doing. He's opening my eyes to a lot of things I hadn't noticed before.<br /><br />So it's upsetting KC's supporters. <br /><br />That's to be expected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-28005540877143348672009-07-17T16:37:51.953-04:002009-07-17T16:37:51.953-04:00John:
KC appears to be under some type of stress....John:<br /><br />KC appears to be under some type of stress.<br /><br />Ken<br />DallasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-24200927923001960302009-07-17T15:12:21.390-04:002009-07-17T15:12:21.390-04:00John,
I agree with you that KC Johnson's repe...John,<br /><br />I agree with you that KC Johnson's repetitive use of the phrase "the blogger who posts under the pseudonym John in Carolina" is done in a disrespectful manner (although it is technically true).<br /><br />I also agree that the Hopman story is either total fiction or (more likely) an exaggeration.<br /><br />However, I do not understand what appears to be your vendetta against KC Johnson. <br /><br />I would hope the two of you could disagree on the role of the News & Observer without lowering yourselves to whether a message was an e-mail or comment (Johnson), or the number of reporters in Durham covering the frame-up (Johnson), or whether just stating that there were two corroborating witness is an endorsement of their veracity--which it is not(John).<br /><br />I agree with other commenters that the Hopman allegations were an umimportant blip in the coverage of this case. I do not understand,John, why you are making such a big deal over something trivial. KC did not include the incident in UPI and did not comment on it until you attacked him in the post "KC Johnson Now."<br /><br />I do not always agree with KC and I find his over-use of sarcasm annoying, but I do not think he deserves the disdain you heap upon him. His writings should be open to criticism, but I don't agree with personal attacks either by you or by him. <br /><br />Perhaps a truce is in order?<br /><br />scepticalscepticalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-4458495099905573402009-07-17T13:22:36.790-04:002009-07-17T13:22:36.790-04:00Re: the Hopman controversy:
Her 3/28/06 Chronicle...Re: the Hopman controversy:<br /><br />Her 3/28/06 Chronicle Op-Ed described an incident that happened at Charlie’s on Saturday, 3/25/06. Hopman doesn’t specify the time beyond “this past Saturday night” – say, between 6:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. This makes eyewitness denials hard to credit--few people stay planted to a barstool for that length of time.<br /><br />In a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mjkd8n" rel="nofollow">comment here</a>, KC explains that Hopman stood by her story, and put him in touch with two corroborating eyewitnesses.<br /><br />KC -- Have any of the three supplied a narrower window for the incident?<br /><br />For its 4/10/06 issue, Newsweek <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/45921/page/2" rel="nofollow">picked up</a> Hopman’s story, but bowdlerized it, while adding an alternative version. In its entirety, Newsweek reads --<br /><br />“Almost two weeks after the event, in a bar called Charlie's Pub, recent Duke grad Jill Hopman was startled to see some Duke lacrosse players she recognized slamming down shots and calling out ‘Duke lacrosse!’ (A source close to the families who did not wish to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter said there were three players in the bar and they made a single, regretful toast to the team, whose season is on hold for now.)”<br /><br />KC – Did the witnesses Hopman supplied corroborate the details of her account, or Newsweek’s much vaguer version (with rebuttal)? Did they independently recognize members of the lacrosse team (more on that, below)?<br /><br />The 4/1/09 <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/423966.html" rel="nofollow">N&O article</a> by Stancill and Blythe doesn't add anything to the account of that night.<br /><br />S. Fogarty <a href="http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/05/kc-johnson-now.html?showComment=1243360274286#c4179584801752896835" rel="nofollow">commented at JinC</a>, saying –<br /><br />“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 Ekstrand's sister in law-and 2 lacrosse players-one of whom is my son.”<br /><br />S. Fogarty -- The meaning of the denials by your daughter, Steph Sparks, and the two lacrosse players depends on when they were at Charlie’s, versus when Hopman claims the incident took place. When did they arrive and when did they leave?<br /><br />The above points might seem niggling, but Hopman provided a wealth of detail <a href="http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/03/28/Columns/Acute.Embarrassment-1751335.shtml" rel="nofollow">in her Op-Ed</a>. Paraphrased, her claims are --<br /><br />“Saturday night, about 20 lacrosse players came to Charlie’s. Some were my close friends; some are amazing athletes. They ordered round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!" A cop on my softball team pointed out three other cops in the bar. Another teammate, a photographer for a Raleigh newspaper, pointed out three reporters. All were taking in this scene. As the lacrosse players got plastered, stumbled, and yelled about Duke lacrosse, the rest of the bar looked on with derision and repulsion.”<br /><br />Are KC’s witnesses corroborating Newsweek’s tepid version? If that is all they will do, Hopman is out on a limb, alone. On the other hand, a credible confirmation of Hopman’s Chronicle narrative brings to mind the ugly archetypes of "I Am Charlotte Simmons."<br /><br />Following <i>sceptical</i>’s earlier remark, I’ll offer a speculation of my own. Is it possible that “about 20” Duke students who were <i>not</i> lacrosse players behaved crudely that night at Charlie’s? If so, Hopman was wrong to claim that they included close friends of hers on the lacrosse team—-and that is the detail that gives her story such a punch.<br /><br />KC’s two witnesses might well recall Hopman gasping, “OMG! That's the LAX team! Those guys are my friends!” These witnesses might not realize that their belief in the identity of the misbehaving students was based only on Hopman’s incorrect hearsay.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13073631.post-61775759083190557252009-07-17T12:48:53.804-04:002009-07-17T12:48:53.804-04:00Please accept my congratulations for a magnificent...Please accept my congratulations for a magnificent piece of work exposing KC Johnson now.<br /><br />Not That Duke AlumAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com