The Gates Episode & Duke Lacrosse

Andrew Breitbart makes a lot of sense when he says - - -

... Much of America is petrified to bring up race, especially in public forums - the media, in particular.

But for exactly the opposite reasons Mr. Holder, the Obama administration and the brain trust of modern liberalism assert.

Americans, especially nonblacks, are deeply fearful that the dynamic is predicated on an un-American premise: presumed guilt.

Innocence, under the extra-constitutional reign of political correctness, liberalism's brand of soft Shariah law, must be proved ex post facto.

Think not? Ask the Duke lacrosse team, which had 88 of the school's professors sign a petition that presumed their guilt before their side of the story was known.

Even though the white athletes were exonerated and the liberal district attorney who pushed the case was dethroned, disbarred and disgraced, the professoriate that assigned guilt to its own students still refuses to apologize.

Those signatories constituted 90 percent of Duke's African and African-American Studies Department, the subject-matter domain of Mr. Gates, Michael Eric Dyson, Cornel West and other tenure-wielding, highfalutin, iambic-pentameter-filibustering race baiters, and 60 percent of Duke's women's studies department, another hotbed of victimology posing as intellectualism.

While the media was front and center in preparing for the public executions of the three Duke lacrosse players, they scurried away when they were proved innocent.

The Democratic Media Complex, in its pursuit of Orwellian hate-crime legislation, reparations and sundry non-ameliorative resolutions to America's troubled racial past, pursues its victims with blood lust.

But it cannot act in good faith to redeem those it has destroyed in countless rushes to judgment. (Richard Jewell, R.I.P.)

The mainstream media choose to flaunt story lines that make white America appear guilty of continued institutional racism, while black racism against whites is ignored as an acceptable disposition given our nation's history.

This double standard provides a game board on which the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can thrive in perpetuity and ensures racial progress is slowed.

And that is why the Case of Sergeant Crowley vs. Professor Gates is so important.

As is expected from professional race baiters, Mr. Gates instigated a public brouhaha over race.

And Mr. Obama, a man who attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racist sermons for 20 years, used the bully pulpit to grant his friend a national platform to condemn a man for doing his job. ...

You can read the whole thing here.

Sgt. Crowley: A Very Powerful CNN Video

This is a very powerful CNN video that reflects well on Sgt. Crowley and the CPD.

UNC-Wilmington Prof Halkides “Taking a break”

This evening UNC- Wilmington professor Chris Halkides posted "Taking a break":

I am suspending blogging for an indefinite period.

During that time I do not plan to clear comments.

Thanks to all for their interest.

Chris

Why this “break?” Why so soon?

Just three weeks ago today professor Halkides announced his return from what he called “hiatus” in a post he titled: "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now.'"

Excerpts from professor Halkides' post in italics and parenthesis follow, with my comments in plain:

( In his post “KC Johnson Now” John has given a clinic in how not to blog. …

He questioned KC Johnson’s truthfulness twice but disclosed no evidence to support his innuendo. )

Folks, as you can all can see by reading KC Johnson Now and its thread, I did not question KC's truthfulness.

What I questioned was KC's judgment which led him to conclude an obvious hoax by Jill Hopman “could have been correct.”

I continue to question KC’s judgment which led him to give credence to Hopman’s hoax, just as I question the judgment of all those who give credence to Crystal Mangum’s and Tara Levicy’s hoaxes.

( Moreover, by accusing KC Johnson of making up sources, John has cast a shadow over on any work that Professor Johnson has done that involves confidentiality, this despite the fact that both John and Joan Foster claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case. )

Nowhere have I said KC made up sources. Halkides' statement is nothing more than a false charge KC Johnson made up and whick Johnson and Halkides have repeated.

You can all see that by reading my posts and what the two professors have said.

I wish both professors and their supporters would stop making that false charge.

( When called on some of these matters, [JinC] either ignored them or brushed them aside.

In doing these things he has made it a little bit harder for those of us who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism. ... )

“Traditional journalism?”

Is that what Halkides calls what the N&O did when trashing the lacrosse team, helping frame three of its members, and now still participating in a cover-up of what it did?

By "traditional journalism" is Halkides thinking of Dan Rather and CBS's Texas Air NG story based on forged documents from CBS's "unimpeachable" anonymous source who turned out to be a Democratic party activist and hater of President Bush?

( I wrote this post because [JinC] failed to live up to the standards of civility and adherence to the truth that he evidently expects of himself and others. )

Folks, the Irish have the right term for what professor Halkides is doing here: “pub blathering.”

I'll say more tomorrow about Halkides' "break."

Right now it's your turn.

What do you think caused this sudden "break" so soon after "hiatus?"

And please read KC Johnson Now if you haven't already done so.

John

Update 7/28/09 @ 6:59 PM:

In response to my question last evening about why he was taking a break from blogging, professsor Halkides this morning explained at his blog and on the thread of this post this afternoon:

"I need to concentrate on some professional responsibilities right now, including working on a grant proposal and trying to identify an unknown compound."

We can all wish Halkides well with his grant proposal and scientific research.

Ex-Prosecutor’s Wise Words Re: Gates, Crowley, Obama

If there's a prize for the Wisest Brief Comment on the story that began when Cambridge Police Sgt. Crowley responded to a breaking and entering call and the fallout since, I'll nominate Ex-prosecutor’s comment on the thread of Our Post-Racial President, Etc.

Police officers have a tough job. People call them for help and, then, want to fight them.

They never know when they'll be shot at or assaulted.

The surest way to get arrested is to be loud and argumentative or ask the magic question, as did Dr. Gates, "Do you know who I am?"

My experience with many, many police officers over the years is that arrest is a last resort for an argumentative citizen.

If Professor Gates had remained calm, he would not have been arrested.

In common parlance, his offense is called "contempt of cop."

President Obama was completely off base in his comments, as he is in much of what he does.

More Of Our Money To The Dems?

A WSJ editorial today begins - - -

Ever notice that those who endorse high taxes and those who actually pay them aren’t the same people?

Consider the curious case of Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who is leading the charge for a new 5.4-percentage point income tax surcharge and recently called it “the moral thing to do.” About his own tax liability he seems less, well, fervent.

Exhibit A concerns a rental property Mr. Rangel purchased in 1987 at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. The rental income from that property ought to be substantial since it is a luxury beach-front villa and is more often than not rented out.

But when the National Legal and Policy Center looked at Mr. Rangel’s House financial disclosure forms in August, it noted that his reported income looked suspiciously low.

In 2004 and 2005, he reported no more than $5,000, and in 2006 and 2007 no income at all from the property. (bolds added)

The Congressman initially denied there was any unreported income. But reporters quickly showed that the villa is among the most desirable at Punta Cana and that it rents for $500 a night in the low season, and as much as $1,100 a night in peak season.

Last year it was fully booked between December 15 and April 15.

Mr. Rangel soon admitted having failed to report rental income of $75,000 over the years.

First he blamed his wife for the oversight because he said she was supposed to be managing the property.

Then he blamed the language barrier. “Every time I thought I was getting somewhere, they’d start speaking Spanish,” Mr. Rangel explained. . . .

There’s more here.

But I’m ready to say, “Enough! Stop, Dems!”

What about you?

Did Hopman Have A “Feminist” Motivation?

Various people at various places have recently offered reasons for why Jill Hopman wrote her Charlie’s Pub hoax story.

From March ’06 when Hopman published it until May 24 of this year, I didn’t think much about her hoax or her motivation(s).

That was largely because her hoax was so quickly and thoroughly discredited that even Mike Nifong didn’t use it to slime the players.

When I did think about it, it was usually in conjunction with recalling how the Raleigh N&O, with no confirming witnesses, used Hopman’s hoax in a hit piece targeting the lacrosse players at a time when they were in great legal and physical peril.

When on May 24 of this year KC Johnson said Hopman’s story “could have been correct,” I thought more about KC’s motivations than Hopman’s.

And on July 6 when Chris Halkides endorsed what KC had said and castigated me for questioning KC’s “could have been correct” claim after which KC promptly linked to Halkides’ post, it was the two professors and not Hopman that I wondered about.

Since then I’ve listened to and read what many people, including many of you, are saying about Hopman, Johnson and Halkides.

I’ve said nothing about what I think Hopman’s motivations were.

When I’ve thought about motivations in connection with the Hopman hoax, it’s mostly been about the two professors’ motivations.

But I’ll offer one thought about Hopman’s "motivation" which I think is important to consider.

But first a few words about “motivation:” We should all get into the habit of using the plural “motivations.” It’s almost always an interacting complex of many factors – some much stronger than others – that lead us to act.

As to Hopman’s motivations, some have offered her “feminism” as one. Perhaps it was. I really don’t know.

But it’s a very safe bet there were many other feminists in Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006.

Yet only Hopman published a hoax piece. And no feminist in Charlie’s that night has ever come forward to publicly support the hoax.

So while I don’t rule out Hopman’s feminism as a factor, even a strong one, in impelling her to create and publish her hoax, I'm confident other factors contributed to what she did, and may have been more powerful motivators than "feminism."

That no other feminist in Charlie’s that night publicly endorsed the hoax and tried to hype it is to their credit, and a reminder that there are all kinds of feminists just as there are all kinds of bloggers.

I don’t plan to say more about Hopman’s motivations because there are many more important related matters to consider regarding the Charlie's hoax, with the motivations of Johnson and Halkides being two of them.

KC Johnson's 7-24-09 Comments & My Response

On Friday, July 24, 2009 historian and blogger KC Johnson, co-author with Stuart Taylor of Until Proven Innocent (UPI), an account of the Duke lacrosse case, made a lengthy statement on the thread of this post.

KC’s statement follows in full after which I offer my responses below the star line.

KC Johnson said...

As I have said on a number of other occasions, I became involved in this issue only when a Durham-based blogger attacked me for not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O. To my knowledge, this blogger (who publishes the John-in-Carolina blog) has never done any direct reporting on the incident. (He has said that he spoke with unnamed "crews" on the question, though I'm not aware of any media organization in which "crews" do reporting.)

I responded that in the course of researching the book, I had encountered a source who I trusted completely who said nothing happened; but that when I contacted Hopman, she stood by her story, and produced two other witnesses who confirmed her story. I considered my confidential source more credible than Hopman, who I don't know. So, as any readers of either DIW or UPI know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident in either the book or in my blog posts, since I didn't consider it likely or even probably to have occurred in the way Hopman described. At the same time, since Hopman and two others stood by her story, since my source wasn't in a position to talk to the N&O at the time the article appeared, and since there were dozens of articles that clearly did violate principles of media ethics, it hardly seemed fair to criticize the N&O, either. (I have, of course, repeatedly criticized the paper for its pre-Nov. 2006 editorials, and for its "all-false" interview with Crystal Mangum.)

This approach struck me at the time, and continues to strike me, as the appropriate one on this issue. Yet the Durham-based bloger has gone on and on and on--first suggesting that Hopman couldn't have provided me with sources, then conceding that these sources probably existed but couldn't be credible, then ruminating that my refusal to label Hopman's allegations a "hoax" meant that I probably believed the allegations, and (most recently) referring outright to Hopman's story as a "hoax." (Again, to my knowledge, this Durham-based blogger has done no original reporting on the issue, even to the minor extent of contacting Hopman, despite the enormous importance that he apparently attaches to the matter.)

While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger.

In the course of writing UPI, the entire manuscript had to be cleared by a libel attorney hired by the publisher. Even if I had been so inclined to label Hopman's story a "hoax," it's laughable to believe such a claim would have been allowed, with three people saying one thing (including one on the record) and one saying the opposite, and with a much tamer version of what strikes me as essentially an innocent event that conceivably could have been misinterpreted (a version that included a comment from a lacrosse parent) included in Newsweek.

Obviously, some bloggers are more cavalier when using an extraordinarily strong term like "hoax." Their credibility should be evaluated accordingly.

July 24, 2009 8:29 AM

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

Folks,

KC’s comments are in italics and parentheses; mine are in plain.

( As I have said on a number of other occasions, I became involved in this issue only when a Durham-based blogger attacked me for not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O. )

I did not attack KC for “not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O.”

The Stancill- Blythe article was one of a number of specific articles I cited in KC Johnson Now which illustrate the absurdity of this:

UPI claims “The N&O … distinguished itself after its lamentable first few articles in late March[.]” (p. 259, hardcover edition

I added:

That's an absurd statement. It grossly understates what the N&O really did in March.

It presents a characterization of the N&O's subsequent DL coverage which gives readers no hint of what the N&O's DL coverage was really like for weeks, and in some cases many months, after Apr. 1.

Folks, if you haven't already, please read KC Johnson Now. See for yourselves what I actually said.

( To my knowledge, this blogger (who publishes the John-in-Carolina blog) has never done any direct reporting on the incident. )

I can’t recall doing any reporting on what KC calls “the incident” before KC Johnson Now. I only began reporting and commenting on Hopman’s hoax when KC said he found her credible and thought her story could be "correct."

( He has said that he spoke with unnamed "crews" on the question, though I'm not aware of any media organization in which "crews" do reporting. )

News “crews.” News “teams” News “organizations.”

But KC Johnson's "not aware of any media organization in which 'crews' do reporting."

I had to smile. What about you?

( I responded that in the course of researching the book, I had encountered a source who I trusted completely who said nothing happened; but that when I contacted Hopman, she stood by her story, and produced two other witnesses who confirmed her story. I considered my confidential source more credible than Hopman, who I don't know. )

Yet KC also said Hopman “seemed credible” and that the “confidential witnesses” to whom she referred KC “corroborated in no uncertain terms” her story so that KC Johnson thinks it “could have beed correct.”

But he doesn't say that here, does he?

( So, as any readers of either DIW or UPI know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident in either the book or in my blog posts, since I didn't consider it likely or even probably to have occurred in the way Hopman described. )

Again, I didn’t criticize KC for not mentioning “the Charlie’s incident” in UPI or his DIW blog posts.

I wish he’d stop repeating that falsehood.

( At the same time, since Hopman and two others stood by her story, since my source wasn't in a position to talk to the N&O at the time the article appeared, and since there were dozens of articles that clearly did violate principles of media ethics, it hardly seemed fair to criticize the N&O, either. )

Here KC's offering another variant of his false claim I attacked him for not publishing on the Stancill-Blythe story. He doesn't make the slightest attempt to respond forthrightly to what I actually said.

KC brings to mind Reagan’s gibe to Carter: “There you go again.”

( I have, of course, repeatedly criticized the paper for its pre-Nov. 2006 editorials, and for its "all-false" interview with Crystal Mangum. )

I wish KC had said he's praised the N&O for withholding for 13 months statements Mangum made during the Mar. 24, 2006 interview.

Mangum's statements included her claim the second dancer, Kim Roberts, was also sexually assaulted at the party but hadn't reported it for fear of losing her job. Also, that Roberts would do anything for money.

( This approach struck me at the time, and continues to strike me, as the appropriate one on this issue. )

I don’t doubt KC’s convinced what he’s done is “appropriate.”

But thoughtful people, including many close to the DL case, are asking why, against all the evidence to the contrary, KC concluded Hopman’s obvious hoax story “could have been correct?”

We don’t even know how KC determined his "witnesses" he apparently didn't communicate with until more than a year after "the incident" were even in Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006.

And KC's said nothing about interviewing any of the lacrosse players or their parents.

When is he going to talk about that?

( Yet the Durham-based bloger has gone on and on and on--first suggesting that Hopman couldn't have provided me with sources, then conceding that these sources probably existed but couldn't be credible, then ruminating that my refusal to label Hopman's allegations a "hoax" meant that I probably believed the allegations, and (most recently) referring outright to Hopman's story as a "hoax." )

I’ve already responded to all the rehashing KC’s doing here except the red herring he tosses out about my use of “hoax.”

In reading KC Johnson Now and my comments on its thread, you’ll see I never gave any credence to Hopman’s story. It was and is a false story meant to mislead. That’s what a hoax is.

I plan to continue using the term "hoax" and trying to persuade others that, contrary to what KC and Chris Halkides are saying, Hopman's story is a very obvious hoax.

( Again, to my knowledge, this Durham-based blogger has done no original reporting on the issue, even to the minor extent of contacting Hopman, despite the enormous importance that he apparently attaches to the matter. )

KC’s right about my not contacting Hopman. But then I didn’t contact Crystal Mangum before reporting she was a hoaxer.

On the matter of how much importance any of us should place on KC’s assertion he has witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” Hopman’s story which he believes “could have been correct” I’ll say much more soon.

And for now here are just two things I'm sure many of you know also:

1) - - - KC’s conclusion expressed on May 24 that Hopman’s story “could have been correct” and his persistence in that belief since tell us something important about his judgment.

2) - - - His “Charlie’s incident” claims have already been clipped and saved by attorneys for defendants accused of trashing the lacrosse players. Who would have thought even a few months ago that those attorneys would come to rely on KC Johnson and to a lesser degree Chris Halkides?

( While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger. )

There he goes again.

If KC thinks repeating that falsehood often enough will get people to believe it, he’s right. Some do.

On the other hand, fair-minded people who’ve looked at what I’ve said don’t.

( In the course of writing UPI, the entire manuscript had to be cleared by a libel attorney hired by the publisher. )

Sure. That’s routine for a book such as UPI.

( Even if I had been so inclined to label Hopman's story a "hoax," it's laughable to believe such a claim would have been allowed, with three people saying one thing (including one on the record) and one saying the opposite, and with a much tamer version of what strikes me as essentially an innocent event that conceivably could have been misinterpreted (a version that included a comment from a lacrosse parent) included in Newsweek. )

You don't need me to tell you KC’s flailing here.

What he says brought to mind Raleigh N&O editor Linda Williams claim the N&O had to withhold Mangum's statements out of libel concerns.

Attorneys can say more about what KC says.

( Obviously, some bloggers are more cavalier when using an extraordinarily strong term like "hoax." )

I use “an extraordinarily strong term like ‘hoax’” only when it’s called for as it is for the stories told by Crystal Mangum and Jill Hopman.

( Their credibility should be evaluated accordingly. )

Most of you know people are wise to evaluate all bloggers credibility post by post.

Folks, thank you for reading and your support.

John

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.