Connell widow says considered restraining order for RS blogger

[creeksneakers2]

Or so she tells the Cleveland Scene

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/90/point-of-impact

After her husband was named as a witness in Arnebeck's lawsuit, Heather Connell was hounded by self-styled online journalists. Some sent threatening postcards. One, a reporter for the website Raw Story, handed Mike's daughter a slip of paper asking Heather to meet her in a nearby park. The cloak-and-dagger approach frightened Heather so much that Connell called his lawyers and had them prepare a restraining order. Until she spoke to Scene last week, Heather had taken to siccing her dogs on anyone who approached her front door. She spends a lot of time in her husband's basement office these days, chain-smoking thin cigarettes and drinking Diet Coke.

Also in the article......

Mike never intended to testify against Rove, says Westover, because he had nothing to say. "He thought the lawsuit was utter bullshit. He was caught in the middle. He just shrugged his shoulders and said, 'That's the dirty business of Washington politics.'"

None of Mike's closest friends remember him ever saying he felt threatened or that his plane might be sabotaged. The only time he canceled a flight was when he turned back to Akron when an engine made noises over Pittsburgh earlier this year. He had the engine serviced by local repairmen.

Also........

"I picked up parts of his body from the lawn where the plane crashed. I have them in a box upstairs. That's how concerned the police and coroner were in investigating it as a suspicious death."

[druidity33]

1. yikes! K&R... nt

[zbdent]

2. Ken Stewarts' Lodge in Bath is expensive ...

and now I know another reason why the aura of that place put me off, and I never went in there ...

The stench was not the sewers backing up ...

[we can do it]

5. Icky Rethug Overpriced Samonella Joint

[Dennis Donovan]

3. WTF???

Larisa from RawStory has been the one working on this - the article makes it sound like RawStory was harassing Heather Connell.:shrug:

[creeksneakers2]

6. I'm sure that's who Mrs. Connell was talking about

I don't put too much weight on her words though. There are some crazy things about her in the article.

[lala_rawraw]

11. you are assuming that Heather actually said this...

rather than the writer pulling this from his ass or altering it...

i never met her daughter... never laid eyes on her.

and... heather was not frightened of me, because what kind of "frightened" person shows up in a park alone to meet a stranger, talks with them for an hour?

and... i never sent her postcards or called her... during that ONE and ONLY ONE contact, i provided her with my number to give to her husband

so do you actually think she went home and tried to file a restraining order?

[Hissyspit]

9. Larisa is NOT a "self-styled journalist." She has broken major stories.

Probably more than the Cleveland Scene reporter has. That paragraph is dripping with bias.

And there is nothing wrong with slipping someone a piece of paper asking for an interview.

[lala_rawraw]

14. Hiss...

The guy is a nobody asshole. No journalist would include their opinion like that in an article. No journalist would make bogus claims in an article, not allow the other party to respond even, and not name the party but wink-wink allude to them. We called him tonight, my editor did. The guy refused to admit he made any mistakes. I kid you not. And he told John that he did not like online reporters and usually avoided talking to them. Nice response, eh? When I have made an error in any of my work, I have always wanted to correct it and always do. This guy is either writing a hit piece or he is so arrogant that he thinks he can make shit up and no one will call him on it.

Seriously, don't get upset hon... i love that you are sticking up for me, but don't get upset. If you ask any important reporter, well respected reporter, they know how I am and for the most part, they respect me and the work that I have done. No one knows who this guy is and after this article, no one is going to care... because for him to make the claims he did, not provide the name of this reporter hounding this family (or who it was that sent the supposed postcards or even producing the postcards), but identify that person in all but name, not give that person a chance to respond, and getting so many things wrong is just really bad work at best. I mean really negligent shit. If he is not forced to retract by his publisher by tomorrow night, I will be very surprised. We sent them a detailed letter pointing out every single error. I really want him to produce this so called postcard of threats and I would love for him to tell me which daughter I supposedly met and what she was doing when I met her. Because I never met any daughter or girl, small female or even adult female other than Heather of that household. EVER.

And I honestly believe that he is not quoting Heather correctly, because Heather was not frightened of me. I wonder if she told him about the bomb threat during my meeting with her. That was messed up.

Luv ya Hissy:)

[creeksneakers2]

47. James Renner should have let you tell your side

On the other hand, Since Renner is now accused, its fairest to find out what Mrs. Connell's take is on the article. Does she say its fabricated?

Are you still on good terms with her? I'm very interested in this story and think a follow up would make a very interesting piece.

One of the biggest questions I have about this whole thing is the outing of Mrs. Connell as a source. We are told that the Connells were both in great danger. Their house was being watched. Bomb threats occurred. Mr Connell confided that he was very afraid.

Yet, Mrs. Connell bravely went out to meet you in a park. From your reports, I gathered that you had positive feelings about Mrs. Connell.

If Mrs. Connell was in such terrible danger, and she was good to you, why did you out her as a source and expose her to all the dangers of Karl Rove and potential bombers and murderers? On top of that, why was she outed the morning following her husband's tragic death, when she had so much else to deal with?

I have to wonder if what you said is true, that Mrs. Connell might feel betrayed and needlessly endangered. She may be saying what she is saying now to retaliate.

Another possibility I thought of: Perhaps Mrs. Connell is terrified that she will be murdered for cooperating with you and passed on these remarks to distance herself from you, hoping that the assassins will think she's harmless and leave her alone.

With those possibilities out there, I think it would be only fair to get Mrs. Connell's side of this controversy.

[lala_rawraw]

50. as usual...

and i am done playing this game with you. think what you will and paraphrase in whatever way you choose. you are assuming she told him anything and you are assuming she felt betrayed. you assume a great deal, yet the majority of the time you spend trying to attack me... granted, this is one of your less aggressive posts. but others have already pointed this out to you. so, you don't get answers ahead of the class. deal with it.

[creeksneakers2]

55. I didn't assume anything

I merely raised some possibilities.

Nobody gets answers. Not that I've seen. I'm not the first to be attacked for asking.

I read a good piece by you that examined the stories about Connell's plane being sabotaged, and whether it was true that he called off two trips. The article also said the source of the story about Connell being warned couldn't be found or confirmed. The article was filled with facts and was very balanced. But in that article, you were questioning the work of fellow bloggers. Nobody said that was an attack or an attempt to destroy or work of trolls or anything like that.

So the rule is that everybody can be questioned but you. Why is that rule so necessary? Its not about me.

[lala_rawraw]

58. did you read my last article

on this... yes or no?

and your point is absurd about questions.

[creeksneakers2]

60. Yeah. I read lots of stuff about Connell

It was a great article. It even had diagrams of routes his plane took and lots of other good research. That's my point though. You critique the work of others. I'm saying that's good. There's nothing wrong with that. Its only when you are critiqued that the questioner gets attacked and insulted and gets demeaning brush offs.

Its not an absurd point about questions.

There is a MAJOR inconsistency in your story. Why would you out Mrs. Connell and put her life in danger after she helped you and had nothing of substance to add to the story? You can refuse to answer and twist this all back at me but that doesn't mean nobody else will see that point. Those who attack me are only a small fraction of all those who read the posts. What you have said doesn't add up at all.

[lala_rawraw]

63. i did not OUT

her... she was not a source. i went forward because I was worried about her safety and wanted to provide context. i have told you this. the safest place for anyone is in the light of day. now there is so much attention on this that she is safer than if no one knew. i also owed everyone the context, in fact felt obligated to do so. i did not have any agreements with her or promises of confidentiality. i met her once, provided my contact information for her to give to her husband. that is why Renner's article is a lie.

i have answered this question. you have asked it before when you claimed that you doubted i actually made contact with them. then you doubted me because i said he was coming from DC, but he was. and it continues. the point is, that it is not that you have questions that bothers me, it is that you insist changing what your questions are and claim I don't answer them that bothers me. you also make a great many assumptions and you refuse to respect boundaries. there are simply some things I cannot say at this time or maybe ever for reasons I am not at liberty to discuss with your anyone. this too I have told you before and you have claimed that I have used that excuse to avoid telling the truth.

it is not your question that offends me. it is the false appearance that you actually have a question that you want answered, when in fact, what you have been doing is attacking me. anyone who looks up your posts can see everything I just said is true. which is why so many people jumped on you when you posted this segment of the story. these are not people I know, with the exception of Hissy, whom I have met once. they are coming to their own conclusions. so, if indeed you are just a good person who wants questions answered, then my suggestion is that you start behaving as such.

[lala_rawraw]

59. Here you go, nearly 3000 words...

On the record, point by point, and debunking the Channel 19 report of sabotage...read it or perhaps you have already since you are following it so closely and are acting as though you don't know I have already debunked the sabotage report from Channel 19?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Foul_play_not_suspected_in_GOP_0113.html

Most of the sources (fire chiefs, troopers, coroner, etc.) on the record. Read it.

[creeksneakers2]

61. Those reports came out of Velvet Underground too.

[lala_rawraw]

64. lmao...

you have just proven my point. nighty night sweetie.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

106. creekersneeker2 was tombstoned, funny coinkiedink with you

eh?

And many others

[Jambalaya]

4. Merry Widow

"I picked up parts of his body from the lawn where the plane crashed. I have them in a box upstairs. That's how concerned the police and coroner were in investigating it as a suspicious death.".................I guarangoddam tee ya if my spouse had body parts on the lawn and the police and coroner were NOT interested in investigating any further I SURE AS HELL WOULD BE DEMANDING ANSWERS AND ASKING QUESTIONS OF ANYONE WHO WOULD LISTEN TO ME! AND I'D FURTHER MORE BE GRATEFUL TO OTHERS WHO WERE JUST AS CONCERNED AS ME!

[chill_wind]

8. Very bizzare disclosure. Some "investigation", eh? n/t

[lala_rawraw]

13. yes.. why does he not name me?

he makes allegations that are not true and does not name me, does not give me a chance to comment, but clearly implies me - as it is rather obvious

[chill_wind]

17. Exactly. It seems like an effort to discredit and chase away

any further interest. Who IS this guy and where did he come from?
What's his agenda?

[lala_rawraw]

18. don't know who this guy is...

really strange... there is a lot wrong in that story... perhaps we should look at his past work? another questions... why is the OP constantly posting this stuff about me?

[chill_wind]

20. Larisa, a couple links I just grabbed in post #19. n/t

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glitch]

26. That is the way it looks to me too. What a hit piece. nt

[lala_rawraw]

28. yeah...

Heather looks like a religious psycho, chain smoking, swearing white trash person. Arneback looks like a conspiracy theorist. Connell looks like both a saint and a devil. I look like a stalker. it is so strange though... it is like he did not have a handle on what the direction of his piece was. but what I want to know is if Heather did in fact get threatening postcards and what those postcards said? because that may be something that both Connell's attorneys and Arneback may wish to review for their case, no?

[glitch]

36. Hmm, I wonder if Arneback has seen this? Could be very interesting to him.

It looks like the author is trying to poison this subject from every angle so that no one wants to look at it. Creepy.

[lala_rawraw]

12. what is strange here too and which makes me think he is making it up

rather than using her own words is that both fire chiefs, state trooper, coroner, and funeral home all said the following:

1. Connell was not burned and was found away from the plane
2. He had to be identified by his firngerprints because his face was so badly hurt
3. He, his laptop, a rosary, and some religious literature were all found away from the plane and were all handed over to the family (after going through chain of custody)


Not a single one of them described him in pieces. So this is very strange

on edit: i forgot to say they all said so on the record

[creeksneakers2]

24. Just a guess

But maybe because of the trauma Mrs. Connell went through that she lost her senses, and thought items were body parts that in fact were not. Perhaps the investigators let her pick up what she wanted. Out of kindness they let her think what she wanted to think.

[lala_rawraw]

80. okay... this is the first sensible thing i have seen you type

and yes, that could very well be it. but the reporter's job is to verify, so he still dropped the ball here. or that he put in that Channel 19 report without a thought or a Lex/Nex search is beyond me. the whole thing appears to be aimed at confusing. anyway, this was a good question and did not involve me. if you can keep this up, then we can surely discuss the case.

[zbdent]

71. and then she goes on about how she has her husband's ashes in the house ...

(but she still has body parts in a box, too???)

And it sounds like they had all the "Left Behind" books ... it's not named specifically, but the article sounds like it ...

[bleever]

7. I'm not sure the heading "Cover Story" sends the message they want,

but hey, it's their publication.

[chill_wind]

23. ::Smack!:: That went right by me the first time I read it. :-)

[lala_rawraw]

10. this is the second time you have posted this

despite my telling you that what he says is not true. why are you doing this?

##

here is what i posted in your other thread:


We all know why you posted this particular part of the article.

But, Renner made loads of mistakes, in particular with regard to me. He never talked to me and got much wrong about what happened with Heather Connell, including me meeting her daughter. Never happened. His editors have already been contacted by my editor. I find it remarkable that he does not name me, but makes claims he cannot support and refers to me rather obviously. We have asked for him to correct his many errors. But I knew you would have this up in no time, and just this part too.

Don't you find it strange that a reporter did not seek comment from the person he is alleging things about? Or that he alludes to the reporter, even though he knows who the reporter is? Or that he leaves out entirely that Heather Connell met me of her own volition in a park - a stranger she did not know at all? Or that he adds a little thing called "self styled?"

Sounds to me like the guy has an axe to grind. Because if he really wanted to give the impression that Heather was indeed frightened of me, it would make sense that he omits that she met with me, alone, in a park for a good hour. He knows this, but left this out. When my editor asked him why he left this out, his response was "this is why I don't talk to online reporters." Strange don't you think?

The point is, not so much that this guy got it wrong, but that you were so eager to post only that part of it in your non-stop attacks on me... which others have made rather obvious already in this thread.

But I guess this sort of blows your earlier argument out of the water... that I had never met the Connell family.

##

you did not respond and others asked why you were doing this... instead you started a new thread... why?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4883435&mesg_id=4884659

[creeksneakers2]

35. I started 2 threads at the same time

I put in in General Discussion so that it could be seen by as many as possible. I also put it in election reform, because it would last longer there and more people there are following the Connell story. I followed the threads for awhile, but eventually went to bed. Your posts must have come after I went to bed.

[Hissyspit]

15. delete

[lala_rawraw]

16. what did you delete?

[Hissyspit]

33. It was incoherent. I was falling asleep at the keyboard.

I think it had the word 'fucking' in it.

I'm surprised I was able to type 'delete.' :D

[lala_rawraw]

40. ah...

well, then best to let it be:)

[chill_wind]

19. James Renner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Renner

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=44254020

[lala_rawraw]

21. seems kind of cool actually

no clue... maybe psychotic break? or maybe Heather lied?

[chill_wind]

22. Among other things, he fancies himself to be a debunker..

Here's one he wrote about 9/11 lampooning the "Cleveland conspiracy theorists".

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/14/20/plan-911-from-cyberspace

[clear eye]

114. Was the link to newamericancentury.org at the bottom of Renner's story

the website of Project for a New American Century of neocon infamy?

[lala_rawraw]

29. i wonder if she told him about the bomb threat at the park

on the day we met? that may explain why at one point she was frightened (as was I)... but at no point in time was t his woman ever frightened of me. And going to someone's door to request an interview is in fact called investigative journalism, and something that Woodward and Berstein did. so this is all very creepy. but at least the idiot in his confused way does confirm that I was in contact with Heather. i guess that is something, no?

[chill_wind]

46. Larisa, I just found some more that would interest you. See post # 45.

See especially the comments section.

[glitch]

25. Sounds like they are trying to discredit Connell, a la Martha Mitchell.

If more "articles" like this appear we'll know it.

[lala_rawraw]

27. this style reminds me of that local Alabama hack

who kept trying to discredit anyone who suspected the Siegelman prosecution as being a Rove hit. I cannot remember his name, but he was writing a book on it and so he took a leave of absence from the publication he worked for... blast, anyone remember his name?

so the style of the attack is similar, it paints everyone in a bad light, so no one wants to touch the story. i still don't understand why he did not name me, unless he thought that by not naming me, he could use a loophole in any defamation case because what he wrote is not true. very odd, but someone is clearly worried. i just don't get why the OP keeps posting stuff like this and anything negative related to me. any ideas as to why this may be since OP has not responded to my quetions?

[Hissyspit]

30. I've got his name somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

[lala_rawraw]

32. he was that guy who was at Horont's Alabama lecture

and who got up and had an argument with Horton... is it crawford or something like that?

[Hissyspit]

34. Eddie Curran.

[lala_rawraw]

38. yes... yep... that is him

does Renner not remind you of Curran?

[Hissyspit]

41. Yes.

[glitch]

37. Ha! That is what I just said in response to your other post.

"so the style of the attack is similar, it paints everyone in a bad light, so no one wants to touch the story."

They are so transparent, and that goes for the OP as well. Take it as a badge of honor that someone feels either you or the stories you work on (likely both) are important enough to discredit. :applause:

[lala_rawraw]

39. great minds...

:D

[Hissyspit]

31. Larisa is not an "RS blogger." She is a major American investigative journalist.

She happens to have a blog, as many mainstream print journalists do, but it is separate from Raw Story.

What is with the attack on her in your subject line?

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. since when is "blogger" an attack?

Josh Marshall was named Blogger of the Year by The Week, and also won a Polk. I don't know whether Larisa has done anything Polk-worthy, but I really don't know why it would be offensive to refer to her as a blogger.

[lala_rawraw]

51. um...

I did not say I was offended nor would I claim to have done anything polk-worthy... i think Hissy is speaking to the OP and their habits... long story, but I think that is what Hissy means.

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. certainly, you said no such thing n/t

[lala_rawraw]

79. but i am trying to

explain Hissy's reaction and that of everyone else... there is a reason for it... see my post near bottom. i hope that helps clarify some of this... as it must look strange if you have not been following the whole thing... all of the ER regulars have had something to say with regard to this person. don't take my word for it, really, don't. go back and read his/her recent posts. you will see the issue and why this is suspect.

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. my take, briefly

Obviously cs2 has an 'agenda' of expressing skepticism about the Connell story. I'm skeptical about the Connell story (I mean specifically the part about election fraud in 2004), too, although cs2 seems to personalize his skepticism more than I do. I understand that some people feel compelled to defend you; it just doesn't interest me that much.

In general, my own experience here has been that many people interpret skepticism as disruption regardless of the skeptics' intentions. It seems kind of silly to me. If someone is wrong, it's often easy to show how. And if someone is right, one can learn regardless of motives. That's how freedom of speech functions to promote collective learning, but only if people want to learn.

[lala_rawraw]

91. well we will agree to disagree then

:)

[Hissyspit]

65. Larisa does not "blog" on Raw Story.

She posts investigative journalism pieces. She does have a blog. I have a blog. I refer to myself as a blogger. But Larisa does not blog on Raw Story and the OP has a history and the article has an agenda. Context.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. huh?

You're slicing pretty fine here. It's true (AFAIK) that L.A. doesn't have a blog on Raw Story. Raw Story itself may not be a blog, but it is sufficiently bloggy to post: "Want a distinctive Raw Story logo that you can add to your blogroll or personal web page?" ETA: My point is that whether or not it's strictly accurate to call L.A. an "RS blogger," it seems pretty farfetched to portray it as an "attack."

"...and the OP has a history and the article has an agenda. Context."

So basically you're telling me that your conclusions are predetermined. Good to know.

What is the article's agenda? Why does it make no attempt to assess Spoonamore's claims, for instance? That would seem to matter more than what Heather Connell said, for purposes of figuring out what happened in 2004. (As for figuring out what happened to her husband's plane, I don't assume that she can help with that.) Analytically, it's just a mess. Beyond that (whether it actually fabricates quotations, for instance) I have no way of knowing.

[creeksneakers2]

43. My subject line just boils down to as few words as I could fashion

to describe what Mrs. Connell was reported to have said. While you see this as an attack I see it as putting something up for my side in what I think is an interesting debate. I've also posted articles about the crash investigation and other elements of this story that have nothing to do with Larisa, but bolster my case that the conspiracy theory isn't true. I posted paragraphs on this thread that weren't about Larisa.

I can't draw any conclusions based on the article. Larisa raised something I didn't think of, that the writer of the article might not be reporting fact. Even if the reporter only wrote what he heard, I get from the paragraphs that Mrs. Connell is quite understandably disturbed by her husbands death, so I'm not convinced she is reliable.

I've answered lots of questions but few if any of mine have been answered. I think finding out whether elections were stolen and Karl Rove murdered, or whether an elaborate hoax has built to the point in the blogosphere that at least 80 Google pages are about it, are far more important than who I am or what my motivations are. I'm a nobody. But on the other hand, I could be right.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. fallacy of the excluded middle?

I think finding out whether elections were stolen and Karl Rove murdered, or whether an elaborate hoax has built to the point in the blogosphere that at least 80 Google pages are about it, are far more important than who I am or what my motivations are.

The writer you quoted doesn't challenge the existence of a Connally anomaly, which I think is wrong enough to qualify as a "hoax" if it had been intended to deceive. But I have no reason to think that it was. As far as I can tell, it's just one among many bad ideas that won't go away. If Stephen Spoonamore weren't convinced that he saw weird number changes, would we even be talking about Mike Connell?

ETA: But I agree with your broader point: to me it would seem more progressive-like if folks stopped speculating about your motives and focused on figuring out what really happened.

[lala_rawraw]

53. as to your last point...

there is a reason why people take issue with the OP... there is a history. it is not the point the person is making now that is at issue, rather, it is the patterns that make this point seem not really in good faith.

[creeksneakers2]

56. You said that the first time I posted.

[lala_rawraw]

57. no... i actually was stupid enough

to try to answer your questions, thinking you were acting in good faith. but i don't need to say a word, people can search on your posts themselves and come to their own conclusions. you know this. so, let it rest.

[creeksneakers2]

62. I'm continuing to follow this story.

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. I couldna care less

I've encountered many people in election integrity work who act in ways that, to me, don't constitute "good faith." They may be abusive; they may be narcissistic; they may be astonishingly slipshod with facts; in some cases they seem to be sociopathic. Nevertheless, in many cases it seems unsafe to assume that the points they raise are incorrect. If I set out to disagree with all the crazy people, pretty soon I will notice that there are crazy people on every side of issue after issue, so the strategy doesn't work.

This guy(?) linked to an article, and it has sparked a bunch of handwringing posts about his motivations for doing so. I find that very, very unimpressive and uninteresting. Unfortunately, the article isn't very interesting, either. So the thread is pretty much a social psych case study at this point.

[lala_rawraw]

52. interesting...

did you link to my very detailed article that discredited the Channel 19 story about fear of sabotage? no. but in this whole article, the one part you cut and paste is what? exactly. and you are very right to suspect this reporter is not reporting this accurately. because he so obviously has an agenda it is rather clear. but despite that, he continues to push the Channel 19 story, even though we have debunked it. and then you say that you are just concerned about conspiracy theories being put out there? well then, this guy is your conspiracy theorist. why not devote some of your energy into why someone would write this article that he has written.

[chill_wind]

45. Questions raised by others about the cred of James Renner (book).

"Patti Ewald with the story behind the story"

http://pattiewald.blogspot.com/2008/11/mr-runkle-deserves-better.html

Some argue he plays very loose with his facts. Some also find one of his myspace sites a bit creepy, and he rebuts.

Read the comments section. It's quite an exchange.

[chill_wind]

48. Two more blogs of opposing perspective- more on Renner.

Another of Renner's blogs:

My Search for Amy Mihaljevic's Killer

Monday, November 10, 2008
BRING HIM IN!

http://amymihaljevic.blogspot.com/2008/11/breaking-news-wednesday.html

A blog maintained by a relative of the man accused.

James Renner is Wrong

A counter point to James Renner's unsubstantiated attack of Dean Runkle


http://renneriswrong.blogspot.com/2008/11/defense.html

[lala_rawraw]

54. wow... well

if his inability to get the basics in this recent story are any indication, then he is really a problem. this is just like that Curran guy, no? i swear i am having a feeling i was having this discussion before.

[L. Coyote]

66. And you post this hit piece here on DU because????

[creeksneakers2]

70. I'm not sure its a hit piece

The author went through what Arnebeck said without much checking. The parts about Mrs. Connell are buried at the bottom. Most of what Mrs. Connell said didn't have anything to do with Larisa.

I don't see this as an us against them matter. I want to arrive at the truth. Putting both sides out there increases the chances the truth will come out.

There are over 80 Google pages of stories about the Connell conspiracy theory. There are only a few trying to debunk it. Since the family is angry and says its not true, I think a debunker is something they might like to read.

I posted this thread twice. Once in General Discussion for a wider audience. Once in Election Reform so it would stay up for awhile and ideas would be explored more in depth. I'm very surprised the General Discussion thread has new responses.

[lala_rawraw]

72. well, i ask again...

i debunked the whole channel 19 sabatoge story... you did not link to it or bother to post once, let alone twice... why?

[creeksneakers2]

74. I called it a great piece

Of all the things written about the Connell mystery, I think that was the best article. It was very balanced, well researched and informative.

Here's the link.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Foul_play_not_suspected_in_GOP_0113.html

I didn't link to it because I only brought up the story to show that everybody gets scrutinized, even your fellow bloggers by you. Velvet Revolution was as behind the two scrubbed flights story as channel 19.

I wish to politely ask you if you would please answer some questions. Would you please?

When you spoke with Michael Connell about the threats and spilling the beans, was that before or after he testified on November 3?

Did Michael say he ever told his wife about the threats and spilling the beans? Was he planning to keep her in the dark until the truth exploded into the media?

What did Michael have to say about the bomb threat?

What did he say about his wife's attempt to go on the record and clear his name?

What did Michael say he was going to reveal? Who did he say he was going to reveal it to?

Do you think Mrs. Connell knows about Michael's guilt now?

[lala_rawraw]

77. wow, you really get around

Comment by creeksneakers2 on January 23, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

Will the interview with Larisa appear on this blog?


##

Here is what I am going to say to you. The above is from Mark Crispin Miller's blog. In fact, anywhere Connell is mentioned your search for the truth (snark) apparently only causes you to bring my name up. You don't actually seem interested in the bigger story at all. Consider that the above link - my article - nearly 3000 words with on the record sources, charts, graphs, photos and all you can say is give a thumbs up review and ONLY after I asked why you did not post it?

You don't appear to interested in the info lockdown that the fire chiefs (2, separate people) bring up. You don't at all seem curious about how the laptop and Connell ended up together and away from the plane. You don't apparently find it slightly fascinating that the security at the hanger where the crash pieces were taken was soooo secure, that we walked in and took photos. Nothing, apparently, NOTHING interests you about the Connell crash, or the larger story, nothing at all.

Even when you show up at MCM's blog and right under where he says that as soon as he has the interview ready, he will put it out, you ask the most insane question ...is it your need to simply type my name that causes you to go to Edsell's article or the Compuworld article or the countless of places I have seen you show up and all to talk about me? Seriously, you use your creakers name and people notice and send it to me. What is your deal? It would be one thing if you actually wanted to talk about the story, ideas for research, questions about what happened when and so forth, instead, you go from forum to forum to talk about me in a case you are apparently so absorbed in that you have to spend all of your time discussing me?

Or, let's go back to why you posted a snip from the same article twice (the OP). You left out the very interesting bits, the really fascinating stuff and instead posted twice the ONLY part that deals with me. You say you want facts, but 3000 words you can't find a single thing you so like about the article to even mention in passing? But you put up two posts in an article that has Connell praying several times a day, and going to daily mass, and Arneback saying he was murdered (in his opinion) and Connell being fired for dirty tricks, and so forth... you skip all of that and go directly to me. Why?

If you are so interested in this story, why is your entire interest focused on me? Seriously... why are you obsessed with me to the point of asking MCM the obvious... it is like him saying it will rain today and you respond with "do you think it will rain today?"

Show me one post you did that was not about me... or attacking me in relation to ER... okay? Can you accomplish this task? In the meantime, shall we have MCM issue you a personal invitation so you don't miss anything? Lord... whatever is going on here, stop with the "may i ask you questions respectfully"

It may work on someone who has not watched you do this over and over ... but many of us know your history and that you have an agenda. OTOH thinks you are just acting in good faith because they have not seen the crap you have been posting. But the rest of us see right through you. So have fun, I will be sure to let MCM know that you are waiting by your computer, counting off the seconds, unable to wait.

Night hon

[Peace Patriot]

73. Our election system is now run by private, rightwing corporations...

...from Diebold (former CEO a Bush/Cheney campaign chair), to ES&S (hair-raising rightwing 'christian' nut connections), to Sequoia (hired former Repub CA sec of state to peddle its voting machines), to Mike Connell and his various corporations and networks (for 'hosting' Ohio election data, or purging black voters from the voting rolls in Florida, or 'disappearing' Karl Rove's emails)--all run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with most information and processes (including vote counting) hidden from the public...

...and these two posters/commenters--Creeksneakers2 and OnTheOtherHand--are distracting an important election fraud/election reform reporter from the job she has committed to do--investigating electoral crimes against our democracy--with all this crap, forcing her to defend herself against this cheap, shitty, slanderous article.

That is what I see here, and it burns me up. 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting, and 'TRADE SECRET' voting lists and networks, are an immense danger to our country, not just as to the national security risk of the wrong candidates entering the White House or other positions of power, but also as to the potential impact of that 'TRADE SECRET' power even on candidates who actually did win. What it means is that rightwing forces can easily--EASILY--dis-elect them next time, shave their mandates, inflict them with asshole, rightwing colleagues who weren't really elected, and can distract the whole country with "divide and conquer" issues, such as the anti-gay measure in California, or prevent election reform voter initiatives from passing (as they did in Ohio in 2005).

Until we rid ourselves of all 'TRADE SECRET' code and all private corporate control of our election system, we are not safe, we cannot expect real reform and our efforts to elect good people will not result in good government, and will not prevent economic and foreign policy and Constitutional disasters, such as the Bush Junta has inflicted.

I want Larisa Alexandrovna to spend her time investigating election fraud, and not having to defend her name and reputation from these ill-intentioned and defaming posts.

Obstructors and detractors, begone!

[OnTheOtherHand]

75. wow, you have some nerve

I defy you to point to one comment in any of my posts that Larisa has had to defend herself against.

Fact-checking never was your forte, but goodness.

[Peace Patriot]

76. You did it twice (at least).

Hissyspit
31. Larisa is not an "RS blogger."

--

OnTheOtherHand
Response to Reply #31
42. since when is "blogger" an attack?

Josh Marshall was named Blogger of the Year by The Week, and also won a Polk. I don't know whether Larisa has done anything Polk-worthy, but I really don't know why it would be offensive to refer to her as a blogger.

--

lala_rawraw
Response to Reply #42
51. um...

I did not say I was offended nor would I claim to have done anything polk-worthy... i think Hissy is speaking to the OP and their habits... long story, but I think that is what Hissy means.

--

OnTheOtherHand
Response to Reply #51
67. certainly, you said no such thing n/t

--

Hissyspit
Response to Reply #42
65. Larisa does not "blog" on Raw Story. Updated at 9:32 PM

She posts investigative journalism pieces. She does have a blog. I have a blog. I refer to myself as a blogger. But Larisa does not blog on Raw Story and the OP has a history and the article has an agenda. Context.

--

OnTheOtherHand
Response to Reply #65
68. huh?

Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 03:43 AM by OnTheOtherHand

You're slicing pretty fine here. It's true (AFAIK) that L.A. doesn't have a blog on Raw Story. Raw Story itself may not be a blog, but it is sufficiently bloggy to post: "Want a distinctive Raw Story logo that you can add to your blogroll or personal web page?" ETA: My point is that whether or not it's strictly accurate to call L.A. an "RS blogger," it seems pretty farfetched to portray it as an "attack."

"...and the OP has a history and the article has an agenda. Context."

So basically you're telling me that your conclusions are predetermined. Good to know.

What is the article's agenda? Why does it make no attempt to assess Spoonamore's claims, for instance? That would seem to matter more than what Heather Connell said, for purposes of figuring out what happened in 2004. (As for figuring out what happened to her husband's plane, I don't assume that she can help with that.) Analytically, it's just a mess. Beyond that (whether it actually fabricates quotations, for instance) I have no way of knowing.

------------------

creeksneakers2 Thu Jan-22-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
Edited on Thu Jan-22-09 03:37 PM by creeksneakers2
43. My subject line just boils down to as few words as I could fashion
(First part not directly relevant to my point--PP)

I've answered lots of questions but few if any of mine have been answered. I think finding out whether elections were stolen and Karl Rove murdered, or whether an elaborate hoax has built to the point in the blogosphere that at least 80 Google pages are about it, are far more important than who I am or what my motivations are. I'm a nobody. But on the other hand, I could be right.

--

OnTheOtherHand Thu Jan-22-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #43
Edited on Thu Jan-22-09 04:10 PM by OnTheOtherHand
44. fallacy of the excluded middle?
(First part not directly relevant to my point--PP)

ETA: But I agree with your broader point: to me it would seem more progressive-like if folks stopped speculating about your motives and focused on figuring out what really happened.

--

lala_rawraw Thu Jan-22-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #44
53. as to your last point...

there is a reason why people take issue with the OP... there is a history. it is not the point the person is making now that is at issue, rather, it is the patterns that make this point seem not really in good faith.

---------------------------------

On two occasions on this thread, Larisa has had to defend herself in response to your remarks.

1. In one case, she feels compelled to defend someone who was defending her--Hissyspit's calling Creaksneaker on the attempted put-down of the "blogger" subject line. She ends up having to explain, once again, to you, why Creaksneaker's motives are in question, in posting this putrid article TWICE.

2. You agree with Creaksneakers2 that his/her behavior at DU, and the motivations for that behavior, are not an important issue. Larisa believes that it is. Creeksneakers's posts have been slanderous, and offensive. You "agree with" Creaksneaker's "broader point: to me it would seem more progressive-like if folks stopped speculating about your motives and focused on figuring out what really happened." This is just plain insulting to Larisa. She is an investigative reporter "focused on figuring out what really happened." Creeksneakers has lodged groundless, false, unfactual and distracting attacks against her at DU, repeatedly. She has a right to know why, and to ask why.

------------------------------

I also know you from the Election Forum, for relentlessly attacking the efforts of staticians, Ph.D.'s, and ordinary citizens like me, in trying to figure out what went wrong in 2004. So it does not surprise me to see you show up in one of Creeksneaker's foul posts, coming to his/her defense, in one more attack on Larisa--and sounding all "progressive-like," like you just want to know what really happened.

And now you have attacked me as well.

"Fact-checking never was your forte, but goodness."--OnTheOtherHand

Prove it! What facts?

[Peace Patriot]

82. I'm waiting for OnTheOtherHand to prove his allegation-"Fact-checking never was your forte."

Please provide examples of my poor fact-checking.

What do you mean by this?

And, while you're at it, what do you mean by this?

"I've encountered many people in election integrity work who act in ways that, to me, don't constitute "good faith." They may be abusive; they may be narcissistic; they may be astonishingly slipshod with facts; in some cases they seem to be sociopathic." --OnTheOtherHand

Please give examples of election integrity workers

--not having "good faith"
--being abusive
--being narcissistic
--being astonishingly slipshod with facts
--being sociopathic

It's hard for me to believe that you don't have an agenda here of further harassing an election fraud investigator, Larisa Alexandrovna.

And here's a third example from this thread of your wasting her time...

lala_rawraw
Response to Reply #44
53. as to your last point...

there is a reason why people take issue with the OP... there is a history. it is not the point the person is making now that is at issue, rather, it is the patterns that make this point seem not really in good faith.

OnTheOtherHand
Response to Reply #53
69. I couldna care less
(SNIP)
This guy(?) linked to an article, and it has sparked a bunch of handwringing posts about his motivations for doing so. I find that very, very unimpressive and uninteresting. Unfortunately, the article isn't very interesting, either. So the thread is pretty much a social psych case study at this point.

--------

You at once call her objection to slander, lies and wrong information "handwringing," and describe her concerns about this as "unimpressive and uninteresting," and her efforts to defend herself as "a social psych study"--because the OP article bores you, as if that were her fault.

You thus link her to all the epithets you have used above to describe election integrity workers--while providing no evidence whatsoever that these further slanders--of whole rooms full of election integrity workers, it seems--are abusive, narcissistic, sociopathic and so on.

Why does the OP article bore you? Because it doesn't fit your agenda of debunking election fraud. You're disappointed, because the OP article presents the election fraud lawsuit in a fairly straightforward manner, in the first half of the article. It is the second half of the article--about Mike Connell--that becomes bizarre.

Maybe you ought to do some self-reflection, and ask yourself if the words you use to slander the election integrity movement are not the result of incidents in which you provoked people by not listening, by not giving them respect and/or by calling them names.

[OnTheOtherHand]

86. what, you want me to wade through the archives?

Most recently, Wilms rebutted your insistence that Kevin Shelley was completely vindicated. Febble and I have tried to set you straight on basic facts and chronology about exit polls more times than I care to remember. You want me to dig up your errors and rebut them again? Feh.

You seem like a pretty smart person, so I think you must realize at some level that you must not care much about the facts, or else you would correct them when people correct you.

Please give examples of election integrity workers

--not having "good faith"
--being abusive
--being narcissistic
--being astonishingly slipshod with facts
--being sociopathic

You're requesting that I call lots of people out, so you can accuse me of attacking lots of people. I decline. It's a disruptive request, and again, I think you are smart enough to know that.

You may have noticed that several people have been banned from this forum, I think with good reason. But no one gets banned for being astonishingly slipshod with facts, because that isn't against the rules.

Self-reflection? Heal thyself.

[OnTheOtherHand]

87. malarkey

"1. In one case, she feels compelled to defend someone who was defending her...."

That's her prerogative, but it obviously isn't an example of her having to defend her name and reputation against me. She didn't "have to" explain anything to me. Are we not all adults?

"2. You agree with Creaksneakers2 that his/her behavior at DU, and the motivations for that behavior, are not an important issue."

Well, I would venture that much of the speculation about cs2's motivations violates DU rules -- but hey, let's not stand on principle.

My agreement with Creeksneakers2 on a specific point is "just plain insulting to Larisa"? And therefore she needs to defend her name and reputation against me?

Peace Patriot, you live in a world that I cannot enter. I will not await your apology for this bizarre and unsupported attack.

[lala_rawraw]

78. May I say something here?

I don't know you and you seem very reasonable and want to understand the situation. I can see that from your perspective it must look like we are all overreacting to what appear to be real and good-faith questions being asked. The problem is context. The OP has made incredibly ugly and libelous claims about me non-stop and not just here.

These are not good-faith questions. Let me give you a real life example. The person shows up with the claim: I don't believe Larisa that she met with the Connells because she said Mike Connell was flying back from DC and he was not, he was flying from PA. Yes, Connell went through PA air space if you really want to nit pick... he also flew through MD air-space... but his destination was Akron and his visit on the other side was DC. The point of this was not that Connell flew from here or there or what not. But that the OP was building a straw man and begins with "I don't believe Larisa..."

When that did not work. The OP tried another approach the "why would Connell or his wife choose to meet with you?" Now, do I need to tell you that not only is this a straw-man it is also a stupid thing to say? When I explained that "maybe it was because I went there." The OP's response was disbelief. When that failed, the OP began to make really ugly, false, claims about me and who funds me or owns me (depending on what you want to read into it).

And that was in one post a month ago. It has been this way no matter what is posted. Notice, now unable to say I did not meet with the Connell's, the OP now w ants to know something new, but the questions are structured as straw-men. The OP claims that they are simply trying to debunk CTs. Fine, why then did OP not write about my 3000 word article that does just that? Did not link to it, cite it, nada. Yet in this article and ONLY the section relating to me, the OP posts it twice.

The point is, the person is not interested in facts. They are interested in me for whatever reason and their questions - if you look closely - are designed to distort and confuse. They are not honest questions.

I hope that helps. If you still feel that Creaker is acting in good faith, I simply ask that you search his/her previous posts. They speak for themselves. And yes, they do matter as context because the person has an agenda and truth is not part of it.

[L. Coyote]

81. This whole stinking cesspool detracts from people doing real journlism and investigation

probably because that is the idea!

Ignore it, I say. Don't stomp out the fire if it's a flaming bag of crap!

[Peace Patriot]

88. Yeah, I understand your point (ignore it), but I entered a couple of this character's

threads, hoping to find more info on the Connell plane crash and the lawsuit, and found this obsessive poster slandering Larisa Alexandrovna, and her fighting back against it almost alone. I don't know Larisa, but I do know her work and have found her to be an excellent journalist. I also don't know Cliff Arnebeck, Brad Friedman or any other of C-2's targets, except by their work, which I find immensely valuable. So I simply couldn't tolerate this misuse of DU and wretched treatment of someone who is doing a courageous job on behalf of all of us and our country, and the slandering and dissing of other people whose work I respect. I mean, this might as well be Hannity or Limbaugh, for the lies and smears that this poster has been splattering all over DU. That is intolerable.

Perhaps we should all just post one comment on any future such threads: "Known lies." And let the thread gather dust. But Larisa, as an investigative journalist, cannot let lies about her work stand. And there is also the matter of these malevolent posts spreading disinformation. That is difficult to ignore. DU should be a reliable source for leftists and others. We should not sit idly by and to let DU be trashed like this.

Posters like this are also an opportunity to provide good information and analysis, in response. So it's a dilemma. There are enough trouble-making gadabouts at DU (including the same people in different guises) to keep up a considerable din of bullshit in threads like this, that disinform. Should we ignore it, if it's an issue of importance? The OP is garbage, but it's objective is to stink up other people's work that is not garbage, and that is, in fact, of fundamental importance to our democracy. Again, a dilemma.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, so I don't face this dilemma with them. They are polluting our PUBLIC airwaves--airwaves that belong to you and me, and that have been monopolized by their crap for too long. But that is not my interest. They wouldn't accept my calls anyway. But DU is supposed to be a progressive forum. I am generally uncensorious. I never put anyone on my "ignore list." I've never asked that anyone be banned. I like the free-wheeling discussion at DU. I welcome argument and debate. But I don't know how to deal with such blathery falsehood and obsessive attacks as this, except to try to bring some sanity, reason and information to bear.

We are all "on stage" here. People come here, to DU, looking for ways to understand our political world, looking for good information and interesting arguments. Sometimes they participate; sometimes they don't. There are many "lurkers." So, what are they going to think of an OP like this, if no one counters it? If they know little or nothing about the matter, they may think it's acceptable. And what will they think of Larisa's work, or election integrity work, if no one replies? They may think that there is some taint to it. They may think they don't have to worry about our election system. Or they may just think that DU is stupid or useless, and never return. So, although I see your point, I hesitate to take your advice.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

83. I smell sulpher in the OP

Its just my perception.

[creeksneakers2]

84. Quote

"so, if indeed you are just a good person who wants questions answered, then my suggestion is that you start behaving as such."

That statement turned out to be as valid as I figured it was. The questions I asked were simple questions that are just about basic facts. It doesn't matter about who I am. I listened to a radio interview of you on Brad Blog. You told them you couldn't answer most questions too. To get answers, I'm supposed to pass a good faith test. But to pass the test, I have to drop my skepticism. So the rule here is that skeptics can't ask questions. That's very convenient.

You keep attributing statements to me that I never made. I did say I had doubts about your first report on the Connell crash. That's because several details were inaccurate. When the Connell story broke, there was a rush of people trying to analyze the details. It was worth mentioning at the time that the details people were relying on were not necessarily accurate. You admitted shortly after posting your first blog entry that you got details wrong in a rush to get the story out. Getting details wrong is what raised my doubts about the entire blog entry.

One of those details was where you wrote, "I know he was going to DC last night, but I don't know why." Here's a link to your own blog: http://www.atlargely.com/2008/12/one-of-my-sources-died-in-a-plane-crash-last-night.html

You keep saying I made false accusations but the inaccurate statement is still up on your blog. I wrote that Mr. Connell was in fact coming from College Park, Maryland. I didn't say anything about Pennsylvania. Here's the link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3653385#3654112

I gave several good reasons for skepticism. One is that if Mr. Connell was facing his own death he would be unlikely to talk to reporters and risk getting himself killed. That's just common sense. Its also unusual that a lifelong Republican activist with give exclusive self damning information to a left wing blogger. Is skepticism prohibited? If somebody looks into your work to assess whether your claims are true, does that make the person some kind of deranged stalker? If you search what I wrote on the Internet, does that mean you are stalking me?

I have not accused you of lying. I've come close with my strong skepticism, but to this day I'm not convinced either way about whether what you said happened actually happened. Mrs. Connell verified in this latest article about her that you two at least talked sometime somewhere, so that part of my doubts no longer exists.

I have not libeled you. Throughout this, I'm the one who has been falsely accused. For example, I never made any dishonest claims about who owns you or funds you. I have no idea whether you even get paid.

If you search my previous posts, and even the ones at the link above, you'd see that I've often questioned other parts of this conspiracy theory that have nothing to do with you. Most often, I've questioned the early development of the conspiracy to threaten idea, since it made no sense under the circumstances and the source for much of the information was an anonymous tipster. I recently posted an article here in Election Reform that was about crash investigators finding causes for the plane crash other than sabotage.

I asked the MarkCrispinMiller blog if their interview would be posted because they wrote that they were going to "send out" the interview. I didn't know if that meant that it would be E-mailed to people on their mailing list or if the interview would be posted at the site.

I posted something at the one other blog that was something I wrote about the contradictions of the earliest forms of this conspiracy theory. What I wrote there didn't involve you, except a general statement that later versions of the conspiracy theory aren't backed up.

I'm willing to be questioned on what I write. Can you say the same?

[Peace Patriot]

89. Ah, the Grand Inquisitor is back! Answer his questions, or you're a liar.

Answer his questions, or you're hiding something.

Answer his perfectly innocent, oh so curious questions, or you stink as a journalist.

Answer his questions, and, like Tice says about the NSA, he can guess at, surveill, drop a dime on, figure out your sources, to what end, he will not say, along with who he (or she) is.

Answer! Answer! Answer! Or you are guilty...of something.

Answer me NOW! Neeyah!

Like Joe McCarthy, and every abusive interrogator, this poster is obsessed. He (she?) thinks he has a right to sources and details that journalists have gone to jail to protect, because it is a journalist's duty to make that judgement. Not some wag with a stage name.

And who is this poster? Nobody knows. All we know are the contradiction, falsehoods, smears and obsessiveness that are displayed here. We have only that to go on, because he writes about nothing else, and it is always that same theme: Answer me, Larisa! Answer me! Answer my questions NOW! Like an abusive parent. He says he is a "nobody," that his identity is not important. That makes me think that the opposite is true. His identity is quite important, because nobody without a grudge or an agenda would write like this. Nobody except someone who had very special reasons for trying to undermine this particular investigation and the lawsuit that is associated with it. Who would have such an obsessive agenda?

[JamesRenner]

90. Larisa

Yeah, here’s the thing. Once I actually read through Larisa’s posts on the blog, Raw Story, and after speaking to Mrs. Connell, I realized I could not trust her to be accurate or honest, so I opted not to contact her. I did her a favor by not naming her in the story. Just a bunch of kids playing reporter as far as I’m concerned. Her boyfriend even called me and threatened me. Oh well. More power to them.

[lala_rawraw]

92. Wow... Mr. Renner

You are lying. Everyone you discussed in your article thinks your a hack. What I am curious is how you managed to find your way here. And, some journalism. By all means Mr. Renner, continue to prove my point. Again, I am curious how you got here... Creaker?

No one called and threatened you. That is a lie. You know it is a lie. Just like you lied about that doctor and everyone else. You have serious issues.

[creeksneakers2]

94. I asked him for his reaction on his blog

So I'll cop to that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

93. my, my

I think we've reached the ad hominem quota for the thread, and then some. Since you're here, maybe you'd like to address some substantive points.

Your story reported, "At the same time, something strange happened in Southwest Ohio. Even though the Edison-Mitofsky exit polls had shown Kerry leading Bush, the returns from that area of the state suddenly began to favor Bush." Could you elaborate? Are you relying on Spoonamore for that? Has Spoonamore, or anyone else, elaborated on which returns "suddenly" shifted at what time?

By the way, since you mention the Connally anomaly, have you found any presidential-year Ohio Supreme Court election in which neither candidate received more votes than his or her presidential copartisan in multiple counties? That is, what is your basis for believing that the "Connally anomaly" is anomalous?

As for the present kerfuffle: it is your view that someone from Raw Story handed a note to Mike's daughter? How does that fit in with the visit to the house after which Heather Connell is said to have confronted her husband? Perhaps easier to resolve, can you verify the assertion that Connell's lawyers prepared a restraining order? (I won't ask about body parts.) If your story is accurate and I am reading it correctly, Heather Connell seems to have been ambivalent, at least.

[lala_rawraw]

95. I tip my hat to you sir

And I might ask too, if you don't mind an addition to your own questions, why a "reporter" would do someone "a favor" by not naming them after they have concluded that the person is dishonest, but identify them in any case. In addition, even if Renner thought I was being dishonest in my work (and the rule of thumb is that you notify the person's editor, as we did with him, and pointed line by line what the errors were), as a journalist you are still obligated to allow them to respond. I have my view of Karl Rove, but I STILL am obligated to give him a chance to respond to allegations. That is called journalism.

Finally, for all of Renner's strange claims, what I cannot figure is why he claims he never contacted me. He did so on 1/13 to ask if I was in Ohio and "what I thought about this strange case." Of course he did not a). list the allegations to which I could respond, b). did not tell me he was on deadline, and c). seemed to be rather pleasant. I responded to him on 1/15 and said I would enjoy meeting with him and gave him my contact details. He never followed up. So why would someone send that email, then say they "elected not to contact me."

The whole thing becomes more strange by the minute.

I should add too that Renner included that Channel 19 report that we had already debunked. There were no canceled flights. There was one confirmed aborted flight on September 18 and that was due to engine trouble, according to Mrs. Connell.

I would be very surprised if she is pleased with your article. And so everyone knows, we attempted to resolve this quietly by calling him. He insulted my editor on the phone. We then went line by line and issued a letter to his editor, who in turn sent as a two sentence response basically saying too bad. All of this was being done quietly so as to not get into a fight of this nature in public. But since they refuse to correct the record, or even allow me to respond, and since they refuse to remove me from the paragraph where Mrs. Connell is getting threatening postcards by some vague person or persons, they leave me no choice but to publicly address this. Renner admitting in a public forum that he started off never intending to let me respond underscores the lack of ethics. As I have said, even Karl Rove gets a chance to respond when I do an article - that is called journalism. My opinions of him do not matter.

[Ellipsis]

97. He has his moments.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

104. definitely some things a journalist would NOT write

In his story, Renner "reported" what he claims is a quote - something at the end where Ms. Connell supposedly utters a profanity laden exclamation.

I am just a blogger, not a journalist, but I do interact with journalists, and neither I nor they
would print unneccessary things like the emotional outburst of a story subject if it
had no value on the facts of the story and if it would mostly serve to embarrass that subject.

I would have left it out - it added nothing to the story and took advantage of the subject's raw emotions. Emotions expressed that later the subject may wish were not in print.

Grieving people often operate within a fog, and should not be taken advantage of.

There's a difference in investigative journalism and sensationalism.

[creeksneakers2]

98. Those are great questions

I don't know if he's going to answer. His previous response made it appear that he doesn't respect us enough to answer. He's very rude if he doesn't respond to you.

I hate when people throw things out there then refuse to answer questions. He says bloggers are like children, yet he, like a child, gives the kick in the shins and then runs.

If he doesn't answer, that makes me suspect everything else he's said.

Also: That's a great question because it sounds like Mrs. Connell was too terrified to be interviewed, but at the end Renner talks about Mrs. Connell confronting her husband about accusations she heard about in the interview. How can both be?

[lala_rawraw]

99. If you think that was bad...

You should have heard what he said to my editor when my editor called. It was so insulting that John was actually too shocked to respond and simply said goodbye and left. I don't understand this at all.

[Jim Sagle]

115. I see...it's not election fraud, it's just a kerfuffle.

Ken Blackwell, is that you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

117. late to the thread?

You evidently have no idea what I'm talking about, but don't let that stop you.

[Jim Sagle]

118. I know exactly what you're driving at, and no, I won't be stopped.

[OnTheOtherHand]

119. oh, bravely said!

Well, if factually challenged smears help you feel alive, I won't begrudge you.

[Jim Sagle]

120. We'd ALL feel much more alive if the obvious election fraud in 2004 were forced into the open and

acknowledged. Your rhetorical sabotage disguised as skepticism hinders the process.

[OnTheOtherHand]

121. la

It takes an odd frame of mind to call someone "Ken Blackwell" and then accuse him of "rhetorical sabotage," but I'm glad you're equal to the task.

As long as you're hijacking the thread, is there a point you'd like to make about the 2004 election? Or are you just trying for a pointless flame war?

[Jim Sagle]

122. Take a look at this whole thread.

Then realize how ludicruous your accusation of thread hijacking is. Not just ludicruous, but projective in the extreme.

[OnTheOtherHand]

124. I guess that would be, "No, no point"

I'm curious which post of mine you think is off-topic, and which post of yours you think is on-topic. But not very curious.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

123. welcome to the Election Reform Forum

and No, OnTheOtherHand is not Ken Blackwell by any means.

If you were familiar with the Election Reform Forum you would not have said
anything resembling that.

Those of us who have worked dilligently for years in election reform,
as has OTOH, know each other, and may quibble with each other, or disagree
and even agree - do not hurl names at each other.

[Ellipsis]

96. ...and you're all of 30 years old. I doubt very much...

her boyfriend called you. I don't doubt someone did given all the misdirection going on here.

Welcome to the board.

[Jim Sagle]

116. I read yer shit on the original link.

I've seen better reporting in the local ad paper.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

105. is this the same as sockpuppet Creekersneeker2?

odd coinkiedink, shows up where twin would have till the cement pizza arrived.

Along with a multitude of identities.

[creeksneakers2]

107. I'm not him

He's very recognizable. He posts the same thing about ?Brent Kimberlain?(sp) all the time. I guess he only made it to one post this time. Its that obvious.

[creeksneakers2]

100. There's a very interesting interview of Larisa on this subject

Its from Mark Crispin Miller. It answers many of the questions I've had to my satisfaction. It also contains lots of new information for Connell mystery buffs.

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2009/01/what-heather-connell-told-me-an-interview-with-larisa-alexandrovna.html

[lala_rawraw]

101. does anyone think

that the bomb threat was strange or am i being paranoid?

[Ellipsis]

103. No. Strikes me a message... someone didn't want you to interface.

It's like your own little "Warren County Lock down".


To those who aren't aware of what that is...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_mark_cri_080318_quasi_expose_on_lock.htm

[Ellipsis]

102. and a discussion thread in GD on all of this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4902646

[JamesRenner]

108. Larisa

I guess all I have to say is that Heather Connell has a very different interpretation of the events Larisa is talking about. I think Larisa must have assumed Heather would not talk to another reporter and so her version of events was safe and could stand as fact. I don't know what is leading Larisa to make such weird statements. I chose not to talk to Larisa because it became clear after talking to Heather and Randy Cole that Larisa's version of events could not be trusted for accuracy. For instance, Mike told Heather that he was never a willing source of information for Larisa (Larisa has made it sound like he was her DeepThroat), that Larisa had misconstrued what he told her in the past, and that he was afraid of her fanaticism (frankly, I don't blame him). He did contact his lawyers about getting a restraining order against her and her boyfriend, Kyle.

I would go so far as to say Heather Connell, Randy Cole, and myself, have a very different view of reality than Larisa. I feel a little sorry for the young lady, actually. I think she would have made a decent journalist if she had gotten in with a better crowd.
-James

[lala_rawraw]

109. By all means

Keep going. Intent to defame is becoming more visible. Remember, we had the defamation part, we just did not have the "intent" part. Your idiocy here is amazing, because you just proved it. And in addition to proving it, you have lied some more. By all means, keep talking. Really, I would really appreciate it Jim. I am sure Randy Cole will want to know the claims you are making here as well. Wow, amazing. And all you had to do was simply show me the courtesy that Mark Crispin Miller showed you - despite thinking little of you - and allowing you to respond. You would not let me respond and yet you want that right for yourself. Strange I think. But by all means, please keep going. All of this is usable in a legal case. Ask your lawyer, I am sure you still have the one that had to defend you in your last defamation case against the doctor you attacked? The only issue in that case was intent. But we are luckier, you have proved it.

And really, stop lecturing me on what a journalist is. Kissing a guy to get on TV because "all you want to do is make movies" is laughable. And just think, your one chance to make movies may have come through me (look me up). But you decided instead to lie, defame, and when John called you at home to simply ask you, to insult me and him. Why? So your arrogance did not feel stung? Simply allowing me to respond was all you needed to do, but you refused and now you are responding, which of course you have the right to do - which apparently according to you I did not.

As I have said, continue Jim. You are doing me a great favor.

[Peace Patriot]

110. You believe the widow of a man who worked for Karl Rove, who was Rove's high tech

guru, a man who is now dead, over an investigative reporter who has always been scrupulous about the facts? That's rich. And on the basis of this faith in a Rove employee's widow, you publish a lot of 'swiftboating' crap about this reporter without bothering to get her side of it? That's your story?

Your condescending tone gives you away, Mr. Renner. It was a hit piece. So tell us about this "bad crowd" that Larisa has "gotten in with." Please identify who you are talking about and why you think they are a bad influence on "the young lady."

[Ellipsis]

111. Dude, I'm not Larisa. Are you really James Renner? I have to tell you...

if you are James Renner you will be eating a lot of crow. Your inept story is about to go viral. Either you're complicit in this yarn or you're being used as a pawn. The disparitive personal nature of your post is certainly not professional journalism.

You write for a free regional alternative newspaper with a circulation of 60,000 procurred in June 08 by Times Shamrock Communications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times-Shamrock_Communications

Mission statement
http://www.timesshamrockcommunications.com/mission_statement.html

Are you indispensable? ...just a little perspective.

[Hissyspit]

112. It's on the DU front page, now.

[lala_rawraw]

113. mark's interview should be front page

not renner's creative writing (shrugs)