|
May 23, 2007
"Internet accounts have exaggerated aspects of the crime"
In what is described as "their first extensive interview" with the AP, the family of rape and murder victim Channon Christian are saying that the Internet mutilation accounts are exaggerated: The Christians said Internet accounts have exaggerated aspects of the crime, particularly accounts that the victims were mutilated. "Seventy-five percent of the stuff you are reading on the Internet is fallacies," Gary Christian said. "They are stretching it out of proportion. (Though) it was horrific and they were tortured."There's no question that they were tortured, but an important question is how far that torture went beyond the kidnaping, rape, and murder. While a lot of people are reciting a lot of grotesque details, I have spent a great deal of time trying to verify the numerous allegations of pre-mortem sexual mutilation, without success. As best as I can determine, the earliest recital of the claims was by a notorious racist named Hal Turner, but the first actual journalist to report the claim was the University of Marlyand's Stefanie Williams. Other than that, trying to verify the allegations is an exercise in futility. Links simply go to other links which go nowhere. The more people link these words, though, the more the mutually-linked words appear to be true, because of the nature of the Internet. This is not new (and I've seen it before), but whenever I see it, I try to point it out. There was a nonexistent retired political science professor (and former Nixon and Reagan official) named "George Harleigh," and there was the notorious Air Force Regulation 160-23. Both were alive on the Internet, but nowhere to be found in reality. (I consider it a sort of "blogger responsibility" to point such things out when I run across them, but I also see it as an individual human responsibility -- one arising out of the natural distaste I feel when I am being lied to.) In logic, of course, the inability to verify something does not mean that it did not happen or does not exist. On the other hand, should people be reciting unverifiable information and claiming it constitutes facts? I don't think so -- especially when the allegations are highly imflammatory, and involve a case which has not yet gone to trial. The Christian family's claim that the facts are exaggerated made me think of something else so obvious I don't know why it never occurred to me before, and that is this: if the pre-mortem sexual mutilation occurred, why aren't any of the suspects being charged with it? I haven't researched the law, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal in Tennessee to sexually mutilate living people, whether by cutting off penises or cutting off breasts. If there is any evidence that such crimes committed, why hasn't anyone been charged with the crimes? It's not as if there hasn't been enough time to conduct detailed medical examinations. If I may speculate for the sake of argument, if we assume the horrific pre-mortem mutilation occurred, for some reason the authorities in Tennessee are failing to charge anyone with the crime. (And they're covering it up as well.) Unless additional charges are pending, this doesn't make sense. Again, I wish people would stop reciting things that cannot be verified, because it isn't helping what is a very serious case. Those who complain about the lack of media coverage ought to be especially concerned. Again, facts matter. (Even on the Internet.) UPDATE: I have just received an email from Stefanie Williams, who believes that I treated her unfairly: Since I see you made it a point to cover what I sad in my e-mail inFair enough. I'm not playing self righteous blogger here, but I wish I'd had a reply earlier. If Ms. Williams does not consider herself a journalist, fine. Lots of people were relying on her column, which was one of the few sources cited by links that went anywhere at all. It struck me as the only reliable report in existence, and I looked. I never accused her of lying, nor hypocrisy, nor having an agenda, nor did I ever insinuate a connection to David Duke or the Klan. I only wanted to verify these reports. As to Cash Michaels and Wendy Murphy, I haven't written about them, and maybe I should. There are a lot of things I've never written about and maybe should. While I don't think all of the above criticism is well-founded, I decided to post this in order to be fair to Ms. Williams. I'd still like to know the facts, though. MORE: Since the subject was raised, readers who are interested in reading about Wendy Murphy could probably start here and here. AND MORE: Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds linked a column by the distinguished John Leo -- a journalist by any standard, for whom I have the highest respect and whom I have cited in this blog on a number of occasions. Writing in the New York Sun, here's what John Leo says: Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, were out on a dinner date in Knoxville, Tenn., on January 6, when they were carjacked, kidnapped, raped, tortured, sexually mutilated, and killed.While John Leo is right to criticize the mainstream press for not wanting to report this story, he is himself reciting the unverified facts -- which are (in my opinion) the most emotionally inflammatory details in the case. Considering John Leo's status as a sort of senior statesman in the business, the fact that he did the same thing that Stefanie Williams did hardly makes her look bad; the only difference is that she wrote about the details before John Leo did. While I wish they'd both said "according to unverified reports," I'd still like to know whose "reports" they were, because knowing the source of the reports is an aid in evaluating their possible validity. It is still possible that they'll turn out to be true. But if (as Nicholas Stix condends) they in fact originated with the notorious Hal Turner, I think that's unlikely. AND MORE: Also via Nicholas Stix, there's this report that the District Attorney's office says the sexual mutilation allegations are false: Similarly, claims made over the Internet that the couple were sexually mutilated are "absolutely not true," John Gill, special assistant to District Attorney Randy Nichols, said Friday.I don't know how to confirm that, but if it is legitimate (as it appears to be) people should just stop reciting these allegations. MORE: A web site called the Council of Conservative Citizens is taking issue with Assistant District Attorney Gill's claim that the couple was not sexually mutilated: Assistant District Attorney John Gill claims that the couple was not sexually mutilated. Well, John Gill, what do you call hacking off a woman's breasts and a man's penis while they are still alive? While the details of the crime have not been widely reported, they are well documented. Christian was forced to watch her boyfriend brutally tortured and then shot. She was then raped repeatedly for four days and tortured until she died. The suspects are also alleged to have purchased Viagra so they could continue raping the girl. Truly this was one of the most horrific hate crimes in US history.I guess this means that according to some people, the failure to file torture charges and the denial of sexual mutilation is all part of a coverup. If the details "are well documented," please, tell me where. Show me one document! Anyone? MORE: I'm now accused of "defending" the awful perpetrators in the comments below. Far from it; I hope they get the death penalty, and I certainly hope the circulation of inflammatory rumors doesn't help the defendants. It's beginning to look like some people care less about the facts (and less about the prosecution's case, even) than their partisan interests. UPDATE (06/03/07): I just returned from vacation and found this email from Stefanie Williams, the text of which I thought merited an update: So as I am on summer break, our news editions don't begin until June posted by Eric on 05.23.07 at 10:57 AM
Comments
This is hardly surprising, but very interesting. The internet has a startling tendency towards outlandish exaggeration that seems to stem from the redundancy of information. Saul · May 23, 2007 01:35 PM Regarding Stefanie Williams, see my previous post in which I discussed my attempt to contact her (which could have cleared this up) and my additional email exchange with Mike Gaynor, who had relied on her as a source, and who, stated that he has been in contact with Ms. Williams and "discussed her source(s) with her" but that "it would not be appropriate for me to reveal more." http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/04/post_313.html Previous to that, I had not been confident that there was a Stefanie Williams, as names of sources are tough to confirm especially when emails aren't answered. As to whether Stefanie Williams is a journalist, I think anyone who writes a column in a newspaper that is then quoted and relied on is a journalist. I also think bloggers are journalists. Assuming that the above comment is from Stefanie Williams, I will note that she does not consider herself a journalist. Eric Scheie · May 23, 2007 02:28 PM You say they were tortured, but not tortured as bad as accounts on the internet. What kind of a defense is that. "Oh they were only brutally tortured to death a little bit." The girls body was found in multiple trash bags. She was mutilated. You can't fit a body in multiple places without mutilating it first. It has also been reported repeatedly on Knoxville television that the beasts purchased Viagra during the four days they were gang raping her. The sexual torture was initially reported on the Knoxville evening news. This article from the Christian Broadcast Network reports what was reported on the Knoxville news. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/159841.aspx "On Saturday January 6, 2007 Hugh Christopher Newsom, age 23 and Channon Gail Christian, age 21, both students at the University of Tennessee went out on a date. They were driving in Channon’s Toyota 4-Runner when they were carjacked at gunpoint. Suddenly the crime turned far more savage than an armed car theft. Chris and Channon were kidnapped and driven to 2316 Chipman Street where they were forced into the home at gunpoint. While Channon was forced to watch, her boyfriend was raped prison style and then his penis was cut off. He was later driven to nearby railroad tracks where he was shot and set afire. But Channon’s hell was just beginning. She was beaten; gang raped repeatedly in many ways, had one of her breasts cut off and bleach poured down her throat to destroy DNA evidence—all while she was still alive. To add to Channon’s degradation the suspects took turns urinating on her. They too set her body afire, apparently inside the residence, but for some reason left her body there—in five separate trash bags." Kyle Rogers · May 23, 2007 04:54 PM Defense? Are you serious? I hope the perps get the death penalty. But circulating false and inflammatory accounts does not help the prosecution's case at all -- nor does it help to attack the prosecution for denying the false reports. What you linked above, BTW, goes to a Flopping Aces blog post, not Knoxville news. Eric Scheie · May 23, 2007 05:18 PM What is she arguing? That she doesn't have to get her facts straight because she is not a journalist? That is a pretty low standard. M. Simon · May 23, 2007 05:54 PM She seems to be arguing that she's young and dumb so she should be cut a break, and also that because she's not a journalist there is no implied promise that she'll know wtf she's talking about when she writes something for publication. Also that other people suck more than her, so Eric should discuss them instead. Also she makes the "truthiness" argument. Lol. Harkonnendog · May 23, 2007 09:31 PM The standards for the award of an English degree must be at an historical nadir, but that's just my "OPINION!!" "Maybe before you attack someone, you should have all YOUR facts straight first." I believe that it is abundantly clear by all of the time and effort that Eric has spent "reporting" (that term must be a trademark now, just as "journalism" no longer means "material written for publication in a newspaper") the available facts of this crime that he has performed due diligence. Further, I posit that it is philosophically impossible to have "all [of] YOUR [sic] facts straight" without being a partcipant or witness of the event in question. Parsing righteous indignance may be nit-picking, but it doesn't alter reality.
skh.pcola · May 24, 2007 02:00 AM All exaggeration and unproven allegations aside, isn't this much certain: The attackers kidnapped, held, raped, tortured, brutalized, killed and set fire to their victims. Does mutilation really add that much to the list of evil already performed? In the US justice system, a guilty verdict on the mutilation might get a few years extra in jail... Which will be nullified when the perps are released on 'good behaviour'. First-time cons who committed crimes of passion are one thing; killers who relished in the pain and humiliation they caused will do it again as soon as they have the chance. They will not be reformed if their whole existence is geared towards enjoying the sufferings of others. I'll wager you the password to my blog on that. As I have said before on another blog's comments: I sincerely wish it had been the NYPD and LAPD who apprehended and detained the criminals; and that they are tried for first-degree murder, hate crimes, genocide, treason and terrorism in Guantanamo (wihtout the Michael Moore advertised health care) and then given sentencing in Texas. After that, it’s on to deal face-to-face with the LORD Himself. Paint the perps or victims black or white... The blood is still all red. The blood of righteous anger fills my eyes with red right now. Scott · May 24, 2007 04:03 AM Does mutilation really add that much to the list of evil already performed? In the normal scope of things, there is no crime worse than murder. But there are degrees of savagery which make some murders worse than others. Rape might come a close second to murder, but when you add cutting cutting off a man's penis while his girlfriend was forced to watch, and torturing the girl for four days and cutting off her breast, I think this increases the severity and the emotional appeal -- and very dramatically. I also think that these particularly heinous atrocities are what drove (and continue to drive) the story emotionally -- to the point where people became far more hysterical and less willing to be logical than they'd have normally been. I keep warning that this can only redound to the benefit of the defendants. Now that the DA and the family have cleared things up, where are the retractions and corrections? I'm not seeing a correction at this Flopping Aces post: http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/05/13/rape-mutilation-and-murder/ Nor at CBN which recited it: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/159841.aspx Nor in other large blogs like these: http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/in_memory_of_channon_and_chris/ Maybe it's unreasonable to expect corrections, but I'd like to think the continued recitals of these details would at least stop in the future. Eric Scheie · May 24, 2007 07:43 AM I was at the Christian/Newsom rally. phil white · May 31, 2007 10:05 AM |
|
July 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2007
June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
But who are they?
No stomach for censorship! Think air travel couldn't suck more? Think again. Mildly Dangerous Victorian Boys Sail Near The Wind "Transitional Problems of Morale, Attitudes And The Quality of Life" Benignly Neglectful Victorian Parents Mars Inc Real Americans Love Fireworks Taking Liberties With The Indians Your President Is Lying To You
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"In logic, of course, the inability to verify something does not mean that it did not happen or does not exist. On the other hand, should people be reciting unverifiable information and claiming it constitutes facts?"
-She says "in some reports". She does not claim it as fact. Should people who are reading her column understand that there were some accounts where these gruesome details were said to have actually occured? Yes, people deserve to know everything that is being said about a case that received no media attention.
-Does a college English major who wrote a bi-weekly OPINION column constitute a "journalist"? I don't think so. Opinions and news are two separate things. Are you lying to your blogging public that Stefanie Williams is in fact a journalist? Does she have a degree in journalism? Does she even major in it? Does she do news reporting for the Diamondback? Has she ever done a news based column that was meant to provide complete and accurate facts to disperse the news to the public? Or was she merely an English major who had a bi-weekly section of the opinion page and the ability to write her opinion about something she saw as an injustice? Should we consider every person who writes "op-ed" submissions to local newspapers as journalists? If their opinion isn't founded in facts, should we ream them out for months on end, because of their opinion on information they were given? Should they be paid? Are you in fact lying to your public that Stefanie Williams is a journalist? Can you verify she is a journalist, a news reporter for the Diamondback? Or are you just assuming?
Maybe before you attack someone, you should have all YOUR facts straight first. Because as you so poetically said; facts matter, even on the internet.