Back in 2003 I reported on The Case of the File from the Future, where Lott tried to destroy some incriminating evidence, but did it so ineptly that he made things worse for himself. Well, he’s done it again.
After I posted the story of Economist123 and his book reviews, “Tom H” (one of Lott’s sock puppets) popped up to argue that Economist123 was not John Lott and had just happened to repost a John Lott review. Unlikely, but just possible, so, at 12:06 I pointed out another damning piece of evidence:
So, Tom H, you claim that Economist123 is just somebody else who reposted Lott’s review. Trouble is, if you look at Economist123’s wish list, it reveals that his initials are “JL”.
At 12:26, someone using one of the IPs associated with Lott visited the page containing my comment. At 12:46, Xrlq posted this comment:
Where? I followed the link but couldn’t find any personal information at all.
Now, the page containing the incriminating information hadn’t changed for months, but within minutes of my posting the link, the incriminating stuff was gone. Good thing I saved a copy.
By deleting the incriminating information Lott managed to incriminate himself beyond a shadow of a doubt. I mean, if Economist123 was some other economist that happened to have the same initials as Lott, why would he delete his wish list as soon as I linked to it? If he wanted to protect Lott from embarrassment, all he would have to do is come forward and prove that he wasn’t Lott.
After Lott deleted his wish list, “Tom H” (remember, he’s really John Lott) came back and accused me of dishonesty because the information was not there:
Why did Tim say the reviewer had signed the review when he knew it was a Wall Street Journal letter? He should not have cut out the beginning of the review that made that obvious. That was very dishonest. He makes up one claim that is easily seen to be false. He must believe that no one will check the post. Now he makes yet another equally false claim in the same discussion about personal information that is not there.
Kind of takes your breath away, doesn’t it?
Also of interest is Xrlq’s defence of Lott. He argues that it’s all a big coincidence. Eventually he decides that it’s too much of a coincidence even for him to swallow and decides that obviously Lott must have been framed.