Tough Travel Day: No Blogging Tonight

You know there are good and bad days.

Today was a bad one.

I was barely able to keep up with email and posting comments.

Look for more tomorrow by noon.

John

Blogging Resumes Early Saturday Evening

I’d a very heavy work load yesterday and will be traveling from now until late afternoon.

Blogging will resume tonight.

In the meantime, if you haven’t done so already, please read the following posts and their very interesting and informative threads:

Hopman Told A Hoax

Our Post-Racial President, Etc.

If the gods of transportation cooperate I may get a chance to clear some comments around noon today but no promises.

Chris Halkides’ post "Charlie’s" is filled with specious reasoning but you may want to take a look at it anyway.

If you do, I hope you read its thread which includes a broad array of comments including some which belong in the “not so” category and others which belong in the “very worthwhile” category.

There’s an extensive comment on the "Charlie’s" thread from KC Johnson which I’ll respond to tonight at JinC with a briefer comment sent to Halkides for posting on his "Charlie’s" thread.

I hope you’re back tonight or tomorrow morning.

And thanks to all of you who’ve been commenting here.

John

About Our Post-Racial President, Etc.

Here's Mike Williams' letter today - - -

Pictured below is tenured Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. being arrested for disorderly conduct by the Cambridge police.

You can read the actual police report here.

Obama himself weighed in last night during his press conference, saying the police acted “stupidly” after first admitting that he didn’t know the details of the case.

Patterico has probably the most informed posting I’ve read here.

I’ll give Ed Morrissey the last word for today on this one.

On Obamacare, the President’s sales pitch apparently fell flat. Both Reid and Pelosi have deferred Congressional action until the fall. That’s apparently now OK by Obama.

Allahpundit at Hot Air:

Well, no, champ, it’s not okay. It’s a huge, potentially crippling setback, and a personal embarrassment for him that his big health-care pep talk last night — which even his fans in the punditocracy are panning — was greeted this morning by Harry Reid deciding to pull the plug before the “deadline.”

No problem for the O, though; watch as he segues effortlessly into the new reality.

Too bad he didn’t falsely claim that he never expected to have a bill by August, though.

I’m at the point where I kind of look forward to those Orwellian “but let me be clear, I have consistently said” lies when he has to reverse himself on something.

Note his admonition to the Senate to “just keep working” while they’re getting ready to, um, take a month off.

Exit question: If health-care reform is such an urgent national priority, why aren’t the Democrats suspending their vacations to pass it?

Mike

Two Trillion Tons - A Parody

Hat tip: AC

Hopman Told A Hoax

Readers Alert: As first published this post linked to a Google map showing both Charlie's Pub and the house where the lacrosse party was held. Truth Hurts 001 let me know the link was rotten.

I've removed it and thank Truth Hurt 001 for the heads up.

John
________________________


If you’ve read JinC posts here, here and here, you know many of the reasons why, notwithstanding KC Johnson’s claims to the contrary, you can be sure Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story is a transparent hoax.

But some people still aren't convinced it's a hoax. So here are more reasons and reasoning which I hope will help persuade at least some of those people to decide Hopman's story was indeed a hoax.

By the evening of Saturday, Mar. 25, 2006 the members of Duke’s Men’s lacrosse team were certain:

They were innocent of charges made by Crystal Mangum. No felony crimes occurred at a party many of them had attended. What's more, they'd cooperated to an extraordinary extent with police investigators.

But despite that, the DPD spokesperson was repeatedly telling media “horrific crimes” had been committed by some of them and none of them were cooperating with police.

So the players knew for certain police were lying about them and setting them up for framing and heaven knows what else.

Folks, have you ever been in a town where you knew the cops were calling you and your teammates a bunch of violent felony criminals and whipping up public outrage;

And representing you falsely as a bunch of privileged, violence-prone drunken louts;

Where the regions major newspaper had that morning front-paged a story saying you and your teammates hosted a party that ended in “sexual violence;”

Where the paper's story said the “victim” of your "sexual violence" was a frightened, young black mother gang-raped by three members of your team with the rest of you now covering up for the rapists;

And that in a town with a very large black population;

Where the news story ended with a professor at your university’s law school saying the sport you played was one of “violence;”

Where you knew that despite knowing you and your teammates had been extraordinarily cooperative with police, your university president had just issued a statement about the charges leveled against your team in which he said nothing about your cooperation;

But in which he instead made comments stoking what you knew was the fast-spreading “wall of silence” lie?

Folks, for Hopman's story to be anything other than a hoax, about half the lacrosse team that Saturday night had to decide to go to a crowded bar and start shot-slamming and shouting; acting for all the world exactly like the people wanting you framed were falsely claiming you were.

While I'm confident the lacrosse players knew the great majority of Durham people would respect their persons, they certainly also knew they were at risk of physical harm from unstable, angry individuals. It only takes one.

Charlie’s is a little more than a 1/2 mile away from the house where the party was held and from which three members of your team have fled for their personal safety.

That evening a rally called a “vigil” was held in front of the house during which the lies meant to inflame the community and which were endangering the players were repeated and endorsed.

The team’s parents, a great many of whom were then in Durham, understood the dangerous situation their sons were facing.

Wouldn’t they have kept their sons close to them? Did KC Johnson ever ask any of the parents whether what Hopman wrote could, as he says, “have been correct?”

To further illustrate how beyond belief Hopman’s story is, let’s imagine that somehow about half the lacrosse team did show up at Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006 and began, as Hopman described it in the Mar. 28 Chronicle:

. . .order[ing] 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(sic) drunk snobs they look like?" to "I hate Duke students and this is exactly why."

If anything like that had actually happened, don’t you find it incredible that in this world of cells and blackberrys no one seems to have either: 1) called any of the lacrosse parents to let them know what jeopardy their sons were in; or 2) called 911 to complain about the players?

How easy it would have been for Durham Police to respond to a “noise” or “public drunkenness” complaint and enter the bar.

The police could have asked each of “the 20 or so” lacrosse players to show proof of age.

Even if – again we’re only imagining the players were in Charlie’s to show how beyond belief Hopman’s hoax is - even if the police found all the players of age and none drunk, the police being called to Charlie’s and the public drinking and shot slamming of about half the lacrosse team which outraged the other patrons in the bar would have been a front page story.

Where were Charlie’s staff and management during what Hopman says happened?

Hopman makes no mention of staff trying to quiet the players.

Or reminding them of the grave jeopardy at which they were placing themselves.

Or encouraging them to head home and out of the hostile atmosphere described in Hopman’s hoax story.

Hopman makes no mention of staff and management trying to reassure the other patrons that they’re doing something about the players.

In North Carolina, a tavern owner and staff can be held civilly libel for what later happens if they serve patrons who are obviously drunk.

Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story is as obvious a hoax as Crystal Mangum’s bathroom story,

Journal Mess At Duke Law

Legal tabloid Above the Law headlines:

Duke Law's Notification Process for Journal Acceptance Is A Total Train Wreck

In the tabs’ story we read:

. . .The system for notifying students of whether they had been accepted to journals was flawed.

Some people were told they were accepted by a journal when, in fact, they were not.

Others were given placement on journals they didn't apply for. …

The story includes an email from Duke Law’s Director of Publications.

And yes, it's all the fault of “a new computer program.”

Dear All

For the first time, this office used a new computer program intended to improve the efficiency of the process to assist in making the selections for journal membership. Selection lists generated by the program were distributed to the journals on Thursday.

After this distribution, we discovered, and for reasons the publications office does not yet fully understand, the program generated significant errors.

As a result some students who should have received offers for journal membership did not receive those offers, or did not receive offers to join their preferred journal. Some of the offers extended for journal membership were extended in error and will have to be reconsidered.

We are working to redo the selection process as quickly as possible, and will be working through this weekend. We expect to have this process completed by the end of the day on Monday and have the corrected selection lists sent to the journals then.

I very much regret these mistakes and the obvious upset and uncertainty these errors are causing you. Please accept my sincere apology.

Be sure to read the comment thread. Here's the first comment:

It was fun being on DLJ for a day.

Hat tip: A Duke Law friend

Now NPR's Liasson Tells Us

The BBC reported today - - -

... At a regional summit in Thailand, Mrs Clinton said the US was prepared to bolster the defence of Gulf allies if Iran developed nuclear weapons.

A US Gulf "defence umbrella" would make it unlikely Iran would be stronger or safer with a weapon, Mrs Clinton said. ...

Later, speaking on Fox News, NPR correspondent Mara Liasson said the Obama administration would be irresponsible if it didn't prepare for a nuclear-armed Iran.

I don't remember presidential candidate Barack Obama promising that during his first months in office he would prepare for a nuclear-armed Iran?

Do you?

And I don't remember Liasson and NPR telling us last October if Obama was elected he would - - you know - -

Now they tell us!

US Debt Clock

Even if you think you're keeping up, prepare to be shocked here.

Sorry To Be Late With Postings

Folks,

I'm late with promised postings.

One was due Locomotive Breath. I hope he'll give me a little more time.

I'm also late with the post I promised in Chris Halkides' Important Opportunity.

Chris and others, please be patient. I want what I offer you all the best I can do.

That's taking time.

There's also this - - -

Offline I've made to some folks posting commitments which I've not yet met.

I'm sorry about that and count on those folks knowing I appreciate their support and will "carry through."

If tomorrow things go as expected, I'll post in response at least to LB and to Halkides' embrace of KC Johnson's claim of credibity for what's obviously a hoax perpetrated by Jill Hopman.

Thank you for your understanding.

John

Cks From The Hague

Cks is in The Netherlands completing a National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar for Teachers.

For those of you who have been reading cks’ “letters,” here’s her latest followed by my response below the star line.

___________________

I cannot thank the US taxpayers enough for funding such a program that allows teachers the opportunity to study a particular period of history in depth as well as the ability to visit many of the museums which hold items to which they refer in their classrooms; and to visit those places that have played such an important role in the development of our own civilization.

Going from London to a small, leafy suburb in the Netherlands has been in some ways a culture shock. Riders on horses clip clop outside my apartment window during the day. I bicycle into the small town nearby or can walk (though I have not yet) to the North Sea beach that is about three miles away.

We have been on walking tours of both Amsterdam and Den Hag. Tomorrow I am off to Doorn to visit the castle and resting place of Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Mostly, at this phase of the seminar program, I am expected to (and am working on) writing a paper that relates to what we have read and observed.

This coming week we are off to northern Netherlands to see the polders and dikes as well as the industries of that region. Our last site visit is the following week to Leiden and Haarlem.

While in the Netherlands, one is in a position to take side trips to visit many places - however, for me, until I am finished with my writing and reading, such meanderings will be put on hold.

Thank you again for your suggestions (and those of others) of places to see while in London.

If you have any suggestions of places in the Netherlands or Belgium to visit I am open to them as well.

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

Dear cks,

Thanks for keeping us informed.

My favorite part of Amsterdam is the Canal district. It’s not heavily commercial or touristy. It's largely a residential area great for casual strolling.

Almost all the buildings are old, architecturally harmonious and appealing, at least to me.

The area has many nice cafes and restaurants locals favor.

Don’t miss the side streets between the main canal streets. You'll find in those streets many interesting shops.

Breda is a small city not far from The Hague. Most tourists overlook it, but it’s a jewel.

Check it out on the Net to see if you think it might appeal to you.

If you go, don’t miss the Grote Kerk.

Good luck.

Keep in touch.

Best,

John

Why Is Hoaxer Hopman “Credible” To KC Johnson?

On Mar. 28, 2006 in a Chronicle guest commentary Jill Hopman, an ’05 Duke grad, told an obvious hoax story.

She claimed to have witnessed 20 or so Duke Men’s lacrosse players (the team had 47 members) behaving at a popular Durham bar just like the arrogant, aggressive, booze-swilling tavern louts the players’ most reckless critics were then saying they were. (Some of those critics still make such false claims.)

Here’s part of what Hopman said (all bolds following are mine):

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.

Hopman’s story was so quickly and fully discredited that not even Mike Nifong tried to use it against the players.

But KC Johnson later said:

… Jill Hopman, stood by her story to me and seemed credible[.]

Questions: Why did Hopman seem “credible” to KC?

Why didn’t she seem incredible, as in unbelievable?

Chris Halkides' Important Opportunity

Correction: The post which follows contains a number of references to KC Johnson's claim the hoaxer Jill Hopman's story "could have been correct."
As first published, one of those reference's said "could have been true."

That reference has now been changed from "true" to "correct."

I'm sorry for my error.

John
___________________

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

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

And my posts:

KC Johnson Now

Hopman's Charlie's Shot Slamming Hoax

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

About The Charlie's Hoax, We Should Agree

John

_____________________________________

Folks,

What follows is the full text of a comment Chris Halkides left on the thread of About The Charlie's Hoax, We Should All Agree followed by my response below the star line.

I'll send Chris a link to this post as soon as I post it.

Chris addresses me and begins - - -

When I posted a piece at View-from-Wilmington that discussed the Charlie’s incident, I did so solely because you had expressed skepticism about KC Johnson’s confidential sources in your post, “KC Johnson Now.”

It appears to me that you have altered your position slightly; at the end of “Hopman’s Charlie’s shot slamming hoax” you wrote “I don’t find it difficult to believe KC Johnson found two people who said they were in Charlie’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.”

I have no problem with altering one’s stance: My own position on what happened at Charlie’s has shifted in subtle ways, due to much intelligent commentary at VfW and JinC. It is worth bearing in mind what John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Although you and I are not in agreement based on the quote above, I consider the issue I first raised to be settled now.

However, I do want to be clear about one thing. Nothing I have written on this matter or any other DL issue is ever intended to keep a story going to embarrass the DL players or their families in any way. Whatever minor misdeeds one or another player may have committed, RCD and the whole team were paid back one hundredfold by Duke, the MSM, law enforcement, and others. On that, too, I trust that we are all agreed.

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

Now my interlinear response.

Dear Chris,

You say - - -

When I posted a piece at View-from-Wilmington that discussed the Charlie’s incident, I did so solely because you had expressed skepticism about KC Johnson’s confidential sources in your post, “KC Johnson Now.”

That’s not correct as anyone can see by reading your post here.

Among other things you say:

[John] questioned KC Johnson’s truthfulness twice but disclosed no evidence to support his innuendo.

I didn’t question KC’s truthfulness.

I questioned and continue to question why KC said he has two confidential witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” Jill Hopman’s Charlies story, an obvious hoax, but which KC said “could be correct.”

It appears to me that you have altered your position slightly; at the end of “Hopman’s Charlie’s shot slamming hoax” you wrote “I don’t find it difficult to believe KC Johnson found two people who said they were in Charlie’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.”

I have not altered my "position slightly" regarding KC's Charlie's hoax witnesses.

Since KC first said they "corroborated in no uncertain terms” Hopman's Charlie's story which he said "could have been correct," I've made clear I think those witnesses couldn't corroborate something that didn't happen.

I still believe that.

I've also asked how, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, KC could say Hopman's story "could have been correct?"

I’m still asking that question. I hope KC answers it.

I have no problem with altering one’s stance: My own position on what happened at Charlie’s has shifted in subtle ways, due to much intelligent commentary at VfW and JinC. It is worth bearing in mind what John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Although you and I are not in agreement based on the quote above, I consider the issue I first raised to be settled now.

What issue do you think is “settled now?”

The issue, as you put it, of my “fail[ing] to live up to the standards of civility and adherence to the truth that he evidently expects of himself and others?”

Or something else?

However, I do want to be clear about one thing. Nothing I have written on this matter or any other DL issue is ever intended to keep a story going to embarrass the DL players or their families in any way. Whatever minor misdeeds one or another player may have committed, RCD and the whole team were paid back one hundredfold by Duke, the MSM, law enforcement, and others. On that, too, I trust that we are all agreed.

Chris, what follows is the most important part of my response.

I believe you when you say you didn’t intend to “embarrass the DL players or their families in any way.”

I also believe you didn’t mean to make things more problematic for them.

Your post was about me; they were simply and unfortunately “collateral damage.”

The most important thing you can do now is to take another look at Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story and conclude what the players and their parents know and what most of us believe: It’s an obvious hoax.

If you conclude it is, there’s something I hope you’ll then do.

That’s to publish a stand-alone post unequivocally labeling Hopman’s story a hoax and explaining why you’re now convinced of that.

I plan to put up at least one post late this evening or tomorrow morning concerning why we can all be sure, KC Johnson’s claim notwithstanding, that Hopman’s Charlie’s story could not have been correct.

I hope you’ll take a look at it.

A stand-alone post such as I’ve described is, IMO, due the players, their parents and those now working to develop as true an account as possible of what happened in Durham in Spring ’06.

It will also reflect well on you.

Best,

John

“The U.S. Steers Left on Honduras”

Who’s surprised by that WSJ headline?

The story ends with an example of what the Obama administration calls “smart diplomacy:”

Mr. Chávez understands that Mr. Zelaya's star is fading, which is why he called Tom Shannon, the State Department's assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere at home at 11:15 p.m on July 9.

Mr. Shannon told me that Mr. Chávez "again made the case for the unconditional return of Mr. Zelaya, though he did so in a less bombastic manner than he has in the past."

Mr. Shannon says that in response he "suggested to him that Venezuela and its [allies] address the fear factor by calling for free and fair elections and a peaceful transition to a new government." That, Mr. Shannon, says, "hasn't happened."

Nor is it likely to. Yet the U.S. continues exerting enormous pressure for the return of Mr. Zelaya. If it prevails, it is unlikely that Mr. Zelaya's mobs or Mr. Chávez will suddenly be tamed.

A Brief Note To Locomotive Breath

Dear LB,

I'm holding your comment because I want to respond to it on the main page.

That will be one of the first things I do tomorrow, Monday, morning.

I count on your understanding.

Best,

John

An Email to KC Johnson on 7-19-09

Readers Note: For background to the email to KC Johnson which follows, please read my KC Johnson Now and KC's Durham-in-Wonderland post here.

John
___________________________________

KC,

I promised to be back to you regarding criticisms you’ve made of me and my blogging.

Let’s start with your June 30 Durham-in-Wonderland post which included this:

[T]he blogger who posts under the pseudonym "John in Carolina" slimed me by claiming that I had "banned" a commenter.

I take it you were referring to what I said in KC Johnson Now:

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. All Joan did was to civilly and persausively disagree with KC over his ridicule of Prejean.

After a look at all the related material I can find, I can see that you never said you'd banned Joan.

If I’d have checked first with you and Joan, I know you both would have told me that.

I’m sorry I didn’t do that.

As for whether my saying you’d banned Joan was a slime, people can judge that for themselves.

The hour is late. I’ll say more soon.

John

Some Days You Just Can't Win

Folks,

Here in italic is part of a comment KC Johnson admirer skeptical left on the thread of Why Are KC Johnson & Halkides Hyping The Charlie's Hoax? followed by my comments below the star line.

John,

I am confused. Weren't you the one who resurrected the "Charlie's" story in your "KC Johnson Now" attack?

The way I understood it, you were criticizing KC for going easy on the N&O and you used the "Charlie's" episode as an example.

Then KC explained why he had left out the "Charlie's" incident from UPI-- because he had different stories from different sources.

I am not sure why you are criticizing KC for "hyping" the "Charlie's" incident when you were the one who brought it back. …

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

Folks,

I didn’t bring Jill Hopman’s Charlie’s story “back” because it’s never been “away.”

Her Charlie’s story, really a hoax, has been mentioned by major news organizations.

It’s known to people who’ve closely followed the DL case.

If the suits go forward, which I think they will, every statement, claim, piece of evidence and much else will be reexamined again and again.

The players, parents and many others supporting them know that.

One of their hopes is that the intense scrutiny the suits will generate will this time produce a truer account of events in Durham in Spring ’06 than the one which emerged the first time.

With that understood, let’s be clear about what I said and what KC and Chris Halkides subsequently said and did.

I said on May 25 in KC Johnson Now:

No one in the bar 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 think most of you will agree what I posted isn’t hyping a story; it’s knocking it down.

Now here on the thread of KC Johnson Now is part of KC's response to what I said about the hoax and the N&O’s story:

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.

In the same comment KC also said Hopman’s story “could have been correct.” (bold added)

But, in fact, Hopman’s Charlie’s hoax story was so quickly and thoroughly discredited that not even Mike Nifong tried to use it against the players.

Now three years later on the Internet of all places KC Johnson claims it “could have been correct.”

Then Halkides embraces KC’s claim in this post.

KC in turn links to Halkides.

And after they do all of that, skeptical says I hyped Hopman's story.

Some days you just can’t win.

In any case, you have the facts now.

I plan to persist.

Thanks for reading.

John


UPDATE @ 9:10 PM EST:

Anon @ 6:54 commented:

Sceptical did not say you hyped the story. He said "you were the one who brought it back." There's a huge difference there.

As we can all see looking back, skeptical said:

I am not sure why you are criticizing KC for "hyping" the "Charlie's" incident when you were the one who brought it back. …

I think Anon has offered a distinction without a difference.

But judge for yourselves.

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.