Monday, June 16, 2008

Journalistic Hit-Jobs

A paperback version of UPI will be published in September; it will include additional material updating matters since the hardcover book appeared. In the process of working on the update, I went back and looked through some of the early press coverage of events in Durham, and was particularly struck by two articles—columns that could be described as journalistic hit jobs. Unlike the biased work of the New York Times or the Durham Herald-Sun, these articles came from publications (ESPN, the New Statesman) that didn't do much work on the case. As a result, they could have been expected to have provided little original reporting. Instead, both articles made outlandish claims that proved unsubstantiated. And, of course, neither publication has run a correction.

The ESPN piece appeared as an insert column on April 11, 2006, the day after defense attorneys announced that the DNA tests Mike Nifong had promised would exonerate the innocent all had come back with no matches. Reported by Eric Adelson of ESPN: The Magazine, the column stated:

A source has provided ESPN with a detailed account of the exotic dancer’s arrival at the hospital the night of the alleged sexual assault at a party thrown by members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team.

The source, who asked to remain anonymous, was present at the hospital on the night of the alleged incident and says the woman was “beat up” but would not immediately divulge to anyone the identity of her alleged assailants.

“She was hysterical,” the source said. “She was crying, she was pretty banged up. She said she was sexually assaulted, but she didn’t say by whom.”

The source says the woman entered the hospital well after midnight March 13 wearing a red nightgown and nothing on her feet. She was walking on her own, but there were bruises on her face, neck, and arms.

A triage nurse attended to her, but the woman did not want him to touch her because he was a man. She was then examined by a sexual assault nurse.

There were injuries to the woman’s pelvic area, the source said.

According to the source, the woman did not immediately inform either the police or the hospital staff who inflicted the injuries to her.

“She never said one thing about Duke, any athlete or anything,” the source said. “She just kept hollering and screaming. She never said who did it.”

As the Attorney General's report made clear, no evidence exists to corroborate the claims of Adelson's single anonymous source—which, as a thread in the old Liestoppers convincingly argued, was probably former Duke Police Officer Sara Falcon. The italicized items above all appear to be false.

Several months ago, I e-mailed Adelson to ask if he stood by his story (a version of events that, to my knowledge, appeared in no other article). I recently e-mailed ESPN ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber to bring to her attention the errors in Adelson's story. Schreiber didn't respond; Adelson said he stood by his source.

An even more fantastic version of events came from New Statesman U.S. editor Andrew Stephen. He framed the case in terms that could have been ripped from the Group of 88's ad: the case, he wrote, "brings to the surface subliminal fault lines of the nation, which are historical in origin but still have present-day ramifications, and which Americans today prefer to forget: rampant class and privilege, poverty, master-servant racism and resentment, the forcing of sex by white men on black women, problem drinking, and the destructive jock culture that is so peculiarly unique to America."

Stephen's article—which appeared in late May 2006, long after Reade Seligmann's innocence was publicly known, along with much of Mike Nifong's prosecutorial misconduct—conceded only that "it is proving ever harder to establish what actually happened, and for many the truth will never be satisfactorily proven."

Nonetheless, he decided to provide UK readers with some "basic facts" of the case:

--41 members of the lacrosse team "were in full jock-party mode." [How does Stephen know this? And what is "full jock-party mode"? He never said.]

--"The 'performance' started at around midnight but within a minute or two got out of hand: according to the women, they were called 'niggers' and one of them was told, 'Hey, bitch, thank your grandpa for my nice cotton shirt.'" [Like Duff Wilson, Stephen falsely asserted that the racially charged argument occurred inside the house—"within a minute or two"—and ignored Kim Roberts' racially charged taunt initiating the exchange.]

--"Lacrosse is a sport almost entirely confined to private schools in the north-east, and very few white American kids, let alone blacks, ever get the chance to play it; the sport is a phenomenon of America's white elite, one with an aura almost like that of polo." [In fact, lacrosse is one of the fastest-growing sports in the country of which Stephen is his paper's editor.]

--"The father of the reputed ringleader, 20-year-old Reade Seligmann, is a Wall Street financier and the whole family summers at the $4.3m Seligmann home in the Hamptons." [Even Wendy Murphy never suggested that Reade Seligmann was the "reputed ringleader." The Seligmanns own no vacation "home in the Hamptons," or anyplace else for that matter.]

--"Despite appearances to the contrary, lacrosse is a violent game that attracts the most oafish jocks." [Stephen's evidence presented in the article? None.]

--"A tiny handful will go on to make huge sums in professional sports; the rest will almost certainly follow their fathers into boring, drudge jobs in the world of finance; then, in generational turn, they themselves will live vicariously through their own sons' jockish exploits." [Which lacrosse players make "huge sums in professional sports" Stephen never revealed. Despite his assault on the lacrosse players' parents' character, he never gave any evidence of having interviewed even one parent.]

--"In a determined and methodical media campaign to change minds before the case goes before a jury, the defence has also released photos from digital cameras with times imprinted on them, plus detailed mobile-phone records, which seem to indicate - quite convincingly, I must say - that Seligmann, at least, could not have been present when the rapes supposedly occurred." [So how, exactly, was Seligmann the "reputed ringleader," and what did that claim say about the perverse nature of Mike Nifong's case? Stephen didn't care to explore this question.]

Having penned a column filled with untruths, Stephen then proposed his "false-accusers-should-profit" solution: "Probably the least harmful denouement for all concerned would be a civil settlement in which the accuser(s) would be paid millions in exchange for withdrawing their allegations . . . It is a saga that says so much about America, and how its past can come back to haunt its present."

Unlike Adelson, Stephen's ideological bias was transparent—and the fact that he was so wrong about the Duke case didn't prompt any rethinking of his approach. In a recent column, he wildly asserted, "History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later." What is this new "McCarthyism"? The media's allegedly sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton—the same Hillary Clinton many in the very same media hailed as the inevitable nominee for most of 2007!

Stephen's tendency toward ideologically slanted factual inaccuracies established in his work on the Duke case continued unabated: "But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media's tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama."

Actually, the US media has regularly "taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over"—they did so with John McCain in 2008, John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000, and Bill Clinton in 1992. (Does Stephen even follow the media in the country to which he is U.S. editor?) Nor did "polls immediately show[] dramatic surges of support for Obama" after journalists (correctly) started asserting in early March that Clinton had almost no mathematical chance of capturing the nomination; indeed, one of the most remarkable elements of this political season was how stable the polling was. But why let facts get in the way of a good argument?

Having done their one-shot journalistic hit-jobs on the lacrosse case, neither Adelson nor Stephen appeared to have returned to it.


Anonymous said...

I would think than a suit for defamation, brought in a British court by Reade Seligmann ("the reputed ring leader") would have a great chance of success.

AFAIK, nobody ever even alleged that Seligmann as a "reputed ring leader".

Unlike American courts, British courts tend to take libel seriously, especially when it involves someone who is yet to stand trial and has not been convicted yet.

Debrah said...

This column by Andrew Stephen which was cited is outrageous.

He writes exactly like Duke's Gang of 88.......going back through ancient history to try to dramatize and whip up any kind of controversy possible.

This writer is a perfect example of how the Lacrosse Hoax got started and was sustained.

And to make excuses for Hillary Clinton using the idea that she was the victim of a media démarche of misogyny is simply ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

"Despite appearances to the contrary, lacrosse is a violent game that attracts the most oafish jocks."

Based on my ten years of experience teaching a number of these young men at Duke, the truth is the exact opposite. As a group, they are some of the most respectful, hard working, polite, and thoughtful students on campus.

Gary Hull, Ph.D.
Program on Values and Ethics
in the Marketplace
Duke University

Anonymous said...

The burden of proof is reversed in UK proceedings. The defendant would have to prove the truth of the statement, rather than the plaintiff proving it was false. Given the much stricter libel laws in the UK, I agree, a suit would have a very very good chance at success.

Anonymous said...

That is a GREAT idea on behalf of Reade Seligmann, and I hope that someone takes note!

As for the ESPN piece, I sent the following to Schreiber:

I recently re-read Eric Adelson's piece of April 11, 2006, on the alleged injuries of Crystal Mangum, the false accuser in the Duke Lacrosse Case. As you know, there literally was no truth in his story. None.

In fact, there was no bruising of her face, neck, and arms, no pelvic injuries, and no other discernible injuries. The North Carolina Attorney General, in his declaration of "innocent" for the three falsely-accused players, made it clear that Mangum's story was not true.

We do know now that many of the false medical reports came from a nurse, Tara Levicy, who claimed to have done an exam of Mangum, but in reality was not medically-qualified, so she stood by while Dr. Julie Manly did the exam. However, Levicy signed the exam form -- which listed NONE of the injuries that Adelson's supposed source claim -- as though she did the exam, which is a violation of federal law and subject to criminal penalties.

One can be fooled by sources, and it will not be the first time in journalism when a reporter depends upon a source who is wrong or even lying. However, in subsequent articles, the good journalist makes sure that he or she corrects the record when needed.

Unfortunately, ESPN never did that in regards to Adelson's false and misleading story. Make no mistake; this story was absolutely wrong, and it did real damage to the reputations of innocent people. Furthermore, it contributed to the hysteria in which three people were falsely charged with crimes that never even occurred. And it gave a corrupt prosecutor and lying police officers the cover that they needed.

One would hope that an organization like ESPN would want to set the record straight. If such a thing were done to you or one of your reporters, would you not try to make sure that ESPN reported the truth?

So, the longer you are silent, the longer you are endorsing something that is patently false. I do hope that someone at ESPN cares enough to make sure that you have not repeated lies as though they were the truth.

I await your reply.

William L. Anderson

Anonymous said...

Superb suggestion! I hope the lawyers are reading!

"I would think than a suit for defamation, brought in a British court by Reade Seligmann ("the reputed ring leader") would have a great chance of success."

Texas Mom

Anonymous said...

I share Anonymous at 8.25 am's enthusiasm for seeing journalistic excesses common to the lacrosse case tested in the more rigorous environs (with respect to libel and defamation) of a British court. It has always troubled me that outright fiction in the lacrosse case such as that peddled by Stephen has never been examined in a court room.

I also hope we get to discover Adelson's source in the course of the civil cases and that retribution will follow for that source. Of course, Adelson's irresponsibility in using the source to sell ESPN magazine will remain. This is another example that makes me a firm non-believer in journalistic source shield laws.


Debrah said...

"reharmonizer" is still obsessing about KC with a new post here.

He has a touch of criticism for Tim Tyson; however, his main goal is to nip at KC's ankles.

As if it will have any effect.

Debrah said...

The Diva response to "reharmonizer's" latest:


I’m so glad you have chosen to revisit the horrific subject matter of one Timothy Tyson.

This will facilitate the much-needed quest for the public to be made aware of the true oleaginous nature of this man before he tries to hawk a little film in 2009.

I’m very happy with this post!

Anonymous said...

Was there not a photo of Mangum that proved there were no facial or other visible bruises?

Dan Weber said...

The British system isn't necessarily something to which we should aspire. It's easier to prove libel, but it's also harder to have free speech when it's trivial for someone to force you to go to court to (expensively!) prove prove 100% everything you have written.

IANAL, but AFAIK it also requires some way of tying the case to Britain. Is this newspaper published there in any way?

If he did sue in England, I wouldn't blame Seligmann for going for the best venue for his case. But the rest of us shouldn't necessarily cheer.

Debrah said...

What world do these people live in?

This Ellah person at "reharmonizer's" place really believes that it was KC's job to "correct" Kristin Butler.

First, it would not be KC's responsibility to correct any columnist.

Second, in this case, it would be an outlandish idea......simply because Butler's column contained nothing which needed correction.

The Diva reply to Ellah--

())))))))))))))))))))) YAWN ((((((((((((((((((((()

Same old obfuscations and stale emollients.

Anonymous said...

Was there not a photo of Mangum that proved there were no facial or other visible bruises?

6/16/08 12:07 PM

Indeed, there was, and K.C. had it on his website in early 2007. But even though there was photographic evidence, that could not trump the nonsense of the True Believers.

Gary Packwood said...

At least Adelson and Stephen have taught me to be much more cautious about stories and articles floating around that appear to be what we call in Texas a Fencepost Turtle.

The Turtle didn't get up there by himself, he definitely doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just gotta wonder what kind of a idiot put him up there in the first place!

Thank God for good attorneys and UPI.

Debrah said...

This was reported on the WRAL website.

Wonder why the local papers didn't have it on the front page?

If a Duke student had been the perpetrator, it would have been all over the news.

Five people rob, assault Duke student

Posted: Jun. 14, 2008

DURHAM, N.C. — Five people robbed and assaulted a Duke University student on Anderson Street on Friday night, according to a press release on Duke's Web site.
The student was walking near the entrance of the Sarah P. Duke gardens around 10:15 p.m. when the attack by three women and two men occurred. One robber assaulted the student with a box cutter, according to the release.
The student threw money on the ground and managed to flee.
Police arrested three women matching the suspects' description on Elba Street, near a parking garage across from Duke Hospital.
One of the remaining suspects was described as a black male with dark complexion in his late teens, about 6-feet tall with a husky build. He was wearing a gold cap, a black t-shirt and blue jeans.
The second remaining suspect was described as a black male with dark complexion in his late teens, about 5-feet 7-inches tall with a stocky build. He was wearing grey and white sweats.
Duke University police were continuing to investigate.

Anyone with information about the incident was asked to call university police at 919-684-2444.

Anonymous said...

hmmm. While the New Stateman column is fairly slanted, it is also written to be lawyer-proof. So there is precious little which says "X did Y", i.e. little that is actionable. If it is untrue that the Seligmanns have a 4m home, that is not a cause for action. If he suggests that "things happened" in the party, that is not to suggest that any named individual did those things.

Those urging court action in the UK should also be aware that the loser of an action has to pay the court costs of the winner; costs which could easily be in excess of 1million GBP. Given that you can only win 200k for libel, that is a high price game of poker.

In the meantime, it probably is not too wise be too critical of the piece. After all, the third and second last paragraphs provide strong evidence to show the innocence of the accused, even though the author does not write from this perspective.

Debrah said...

Was it really a year ago today that Nifong was disbarred?

I can't believe it.

KC was in Raleigh posting from the courtroom.

OMG! It doesn't seem like that long ago.

Anonymous said...

is Adelson a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Hmmm... You didn't italicize the red nightgown part.

My first reaction to the description was to wonder whether the witness was describing a different ER patient. Journalists, after all, seem particularly gullible when it comes to witnesses -- they seem to think that as long as they transcribe the witness's story accurately, that makes the story accurate.

Anonymous said...

The long-thread of American history mentioned or rather the "sub-liminal fault line of the nation" appears to be one of "yellow journalism" of a kind filled with distortions and outright lies. The main stream media seems to be filled with this kind of casual, cowardly, caustic behavior of the kind evidenced in the writing of Stephen Andrew and Jayson . . . (who) of the NYT . . . a paper that also did some of this without regard to the facts. One thing that I might mentioned . . . the dancers in question understoond what they were about . . . the remark made by one of the dancers was done so to create a response that would allow the dancers to blame someone else for their behavior . . . it was done purposefully . . . the woman who did this knew what she was about. She was the one who kept her wits about her. It was her exit strategy . . . as if she were dealing with an 8th grade boy whom she did not like . . . Mangum was just drunk . . . her behavior allowed her not to be responsible for her actions. She was successful in this. Where are the Duke psychologists? Where are the feminist? The courts are aware, as is the majority of the public, of the facts. Mangum could have borrowed money to go to school. She could have lived a more honorable life . . . why is her behavior so unquestioned or excused . . . she has a responsibility toward her children and family to behave in a more responsible way . . . these questions are not right or left wing or wrong . . . rather, Mangum's behavior is a constituent absence that is always being excused . . . , but I find the behavior of the DukeGroup88 without excuse . . . they are privileged and protected and without responsibility in their own way.

Anonymous said...

Given everything that Stephen wrote in that article, I'm frankly surprised that he referred to it as an "alleged" rape.

Then again, it WAS a fellow Brit who authored the famous phrase "Sentence first - verdict afterwards!". Maybe it's endemic to our British cousins.

BGS, E-town, PA

Joey said...

I wonder if I'll be the only person not too lazy to post under Stephen's latest pieces, drawing attention to his May 2006 piece. His readers should know.

Anonymous said...

Great letter Bill.

Stephens said: "Despite appearances to the contrary, lacrosse is a violent game that attracts the most oafish jocks."

Lacrosse is the state sport in my state of Maryland.

Anonymous said...

It's so sad that you can print blatantly false information about innocent people and call it journalism.

I can only imagine how the Seligman family (and Reade's brother's and friends) felt when they read this pack of outrageous lies.

If he hasn't apologized and/or done his best to correct these lies which caused such great harm to a fine young man in Reade Seligman, Stephen is nothing but a piece of garbage.

Debrah said...

The Diva reply to "reharmonizer's" hit-job:

“Please don’t bother posting empty banter.”

Zimmerman, you will never understand that if you want to entertain an internet forum which ostensibly deals with controversial issues, it will not be your place to be the judge and jury of what is “banter” and what is not.

You have always used this insular tactic as a way to inhibit free speech…….avoiding the kind of replies to you and to your commenters that YOU do not like.

Tell me. Is this disease spreading?

Is this the mindset one is left with after snuggling too closely to Duke’s 88?

Listen, your buddy Ellah posted some pretty ridiculous things. One should have a right to say so.

Perhaps your other buddy RRH can explain this to you after you guys finish discussing the aspects of child-rearing.

Debrah said...


Auditor says university employees downloaded porn


Two investigative reports released today found two employees at N.C. Central University and one employee at N.C. State University misused University networks and computers by downloading movies, music, games, software and pornography.
N.C. Central Chancellor Charlie Nelms reported the misuse to UNC General Administration, which in turn reported it to the State Auditor’s Office, according to a release from the state auditor.

All three employees no longer work for the universities, the release said.

“Chancellor Nelms has shown a no-nonsense approach to dealing with the misuse of taxpayer funds at N.C. Central,” said state auditor Leslie Merritt in the release.

Other findings in the report on N.C. Central include the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials, unauthorized access to servers at another university, and the failure to properly verify new employee’s employment and education history, the release said.

Other findings in the report at N.C. State include possible violation of federal copyright laws, intentional deletion of information, to conceal inappropriate use, and an employee inappropriately granting a friend access to a university server.

These findings are being forwarded to the FBI, SBI, U.S. Attorney, Wake or Durham County district attorneys, Attorney General and Governor for possible investigation, the release said.

Debrah said...

The N&O along with its owner McClatchy have some real financial problems.

Debrah said...

More of Diva knocking "reharmonizer" off key:

Robert, you can “banter” and obfuscate all you wish.

However…….without the brilliant and sexy KC to criticize, you would rarely get a hit on Google.

And you and many other KC detractors who are in the same “blogger boat” know this so well.

Joey said...

Yup. I WAS the only one.

Debrah said...

Here's a column that was in the N&O by Mark Anthony Neal.....the paragon of virtue and go-to brotha at Duke.

I came upon it a few days ago and even though it provoked the same brand of heart wrenching Diva emotion as did the soap opera-esque NPR performance by Karla Holloway which I recently referenced, I chose not to bother with it at the time.

However, a revisitation convinces me that it serves as a great example of the fundamental mindset of the Gang of 88 and the oily way in which they use the local media---namely, the N&O with great frequency---to construct a facade of intellectualism and altruism when the majority of these people would be far better suited sifting through lesson plans on the campus of some community college.

Neal (aka) "thugniggaintellectual" seems to have leveled out a bit. He's come down from his mode of "intellectually choking the **** " out of someone.

And like some of his 88 compadres, he now seems to think that Obama is finally "black enough".

We all remember when many in the black community didn't support Obama.

Now "thug" wishes to place the enormous burden of convincing black fathers to stay home and take care of their children on the shoulders of Obama.

Perhaps someone should remind "thug" that Obama was raised by his strong mother and his stable and wheat-and-corn-fed grandparents from middle America.

Question is: Can the "thug intellectual" hang with such a reality?

Anonymous said...

Jousting is the official state sport of Maryland. Lacrosse is the official team sport.

Anonymous said...

So, KC, was your book remaindered?

Will the paperback version be remaindered, do you think?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Anonymous said...

Hi KC,

Will you be making any appearances related to the paperback release? We will be happy to have you back in NYC.

Debrah said...

What is Baker trying to hide?


Baker plans transfer for 2 city lawyers

By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun
Jun 18, 2008

DURHAM -- City Manager Patrick Baker plans to reassign two lawyers who work in the Durham Police Department to the city attorney's office.

The two police attorneys, Toni Smith and Arnetta Herring, now report to Police Chief Jose Lopez and are on the payroll to give legal advice to the chief and the department's officers and detectives.

The impending move likely will mean they'll report to Baker instead, after City Manager-designate Tom Bonfield arrives later this summer and Baker takes over as city attorney.

Baker said he would talk to Bonfield about the change before completing it. "I just want him to understand what we're doing," Baker said. "If he has concerns about it, we can address it with the council and make changes if need be."

But the groundwork for the move is in place because the city's fiscal 2008-09 budget will shift the money allotted for Smith and Herring's salaries from the Police Department to the city attorney's office.

Documents show that Mayor Bill Bell and City Councilman Farad Ali questioned the rationale for the move as council members were reviewing Baker's budget proposal.

Baker answered that the police attorneys "need to report independent of the Police Department and [city manager's] administration," according to a "flagged item list" from the budget review.

The city attorney in Durham and most other North Carolina towns works directly for the elected council, not the city manager. That means the manager has no hiring and firing authority over the attorney and his or her staff.

Neither the transfer nor the announced rationale for it are unprecedented in North Carolina.

Winston-Salem City Manager Lee Garrity ordered a similar shuffle in his city's organization last year in response to the findings of a report on the Winston-Salem Police Department's botched handling of the Darryl Hunt/Deborah Sykes murder case.

Hunt spent almost 20 years in state prison after being falsely accused and eventually convicted of raping and killing Sykes, a newspaper copy editor. Eventually, DNA tests exonerated him and pointed to the guilt of another man.

Winston-Salem officials have essentially conceded that a detective's inexperience and the poor supervision he received from his bosses contributed to Hunt's conviction.

The supervisory reforms Garrity ordered last year included the reassignment of the Winston-Salem police force's lawyers, a move he said on Tuesday helped eliminate any "conflict about who their client is."

But observers noted Tuesday that Durham's situation differs from Winston-Salem's.

Baker's decision to alter the Durham police attorneys' chain of command comes as city officials try to fight off a trio of federal civil-rights lawsuits stemming from the Duke lacrosse case. Baker is a defendant in all three lawsuits.

Smith was also a behind-the-scenes player in the early stages of the Durham police's spring 2006 investigation of what proved to be a stripper's false charges of rape.

The former Police Department sergeant who supervised the lacrosse investigation, Mark Gottlieb, said in his case notes that Smith advised detectives to follow orders coming from former District Attorney Mike Nifong's office.

Smith also attended at least one key meeting with the detectives, Baker and former Police Chief Steve Chalmers to discuss the investigation's progress.

A local lawyer and frequent critic of the Police Department, Alex Charns, said attorneys for the Duke lacrosse players now suing the city are likely to probe the rationale for the change if the city fails to get the lawsuits dismissed.

Charns said there were problems under other Durham city managers and police chiefs because there "was a perception the police attorney or the police attorneys were the personal attorneys of the police chief."

That belief "led to officers and staff at the Police Department not necessarily trusting the police attorney when there was discord or problems within the department," he said.

Altering the chain of command for the police attorneys could eliminate that worry, but given the current lawsuits it also could "lead to perceptions that there's a movement to get all the ducks in a row," Charns said.

Charns added that he's reserving judgment.

"In Durham, changes that seem like they'd be a step forward don't always work that way in practice," he said. "I hope it improves things over at the department, but after practicing here for 25 years and litigating with the city, I'll wait and see."

Asked about the lacrosse tie-in, Baker said "the people that think that are going to think it anyway" and added that officials started debating the merits of the change during former City Manager Lamont Ewell's administration.

Ewell favored assigning the police lawyers to the city attorney's office, but former City Attorney Henry Blinder preferred leaving them under the police chief, Baker said.

Anonymous said...

The 11:58 writes: So, KC, was your book remaindered?

The publication history of UPI is well known. There never were enough copies of the book to satisfy readership demand. A quick survey of the used book market confirms this: only 11 copies currently available and only one offered at a price below amazon’s, i.e., price points even for used copies of the book show that demand continues to exceed supply-- not a characteristic of a remainder-overloaded market. Inquiring minds knew this already.

Not only can’t the G88ers take it, they don’t dish it out very well, either.

dave in l.a.