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.


  1. #1 Meyrick
    May 12, 2005

    Yep, when all else fails … “it’s a liberal conspiracy!”

  2. #2 Meyrick
    May 12, 2005

    Then again, what are the IP addresses for Lott’s numerous sockpuppets?

  3. #3 jet
    May 12, 2005

    “what are the IP addresses for Lott’s numerous sockpuppets?”
    Shit, I’m going to have to start using proxies to come here if IP’s are being published.

  4. #4 z
    May 13, 2005

    You can’t help but feel that AEI just isn’t giving Lott enough to do. He’s obviously motivated to do stuff to push his point of view, as are we all, and obviously got time, and it would seem self-evident that doing silly stuff like this seems to him at this point to be a better investment of his time and effort than putting it into whatever it is they are paying him to do. (If you can’t tell, I’ve been in that position myself). If only this could be harnessed for the good of humanity.

  5. #5 jre
    May 13, 2005

    Sometimes it seems as if this is what John Lott does with most of his time.
    At one point, he had a second (or third, or ninth) career
    editing the Wikipedia entry about him to remove all references to Mary Rosh.
    Ya know, it’s not the crime they get you for — it’s the cover-up.

  6. #6 TallDave
    May 13, 2005

    LOL even though I abhor gun control, I really love this continuing series.

    I also thought Tim’s defense of the “your 2.6 times more likely to be shot with a gun in the home” study quite persuasive and a good piece of work.

  7. #7 Satan luvvs Repugs
    May 13, 2005

    Well, I’m kind of an agnostic on the whole pro/anti gun debate. But if you’re dishonest in academic research, you deserve a megaton of shit falling on you from orbit.

    And Lott is about as dishonest as they come. His whole sockpuppetry, his lying and spinning about it, just completely blows whatever credibility he might have started with.

    With friends like Lott, the anti gun-control people don’t need enemies.

  8. #8 TallDave
    May 13, 2005



  9. #9 Harry Hutton
    May 17, 2005

    There’s a line in one of Steve Levitt’s studies about crime- “They may overestimate their own criminal abilities…”

  10. #10 markus
    May 24, 2005

    Shit, I was just about to apologize for casting doubt on your initial account. Seriously.
    But … the page you saves seems to contain no info linking it to economist123. On the page of economist123 it says at the top “Friends & Favorites > About economist123 > Wish List” whereas yours has JL instead of economist123. And looking through Amazon’s people listings, I find several users by the name of “JL” at least one of which also has an empty wish list.

    How can I verify that the page you saved is indeed by user “economist123”? Provided I have to take your word on it, could you at least point to one case where the directory listing in the form “Friends & Favorites > About JL > Wish List” on the wish list page does come from an “about page” from a different name? (To clarify: I believe it is possible to enter a real name in the “wish list information” bar on the right side, but I doubt it is possible to have an account by the name “economist123” and the directory of the wish list listed as “F&F > About JL > Wish List”. Which would mean you saved or uploaded the wish list of JL, not that of economist123.)

  11. #11 Tim Lambert
    May 24, 2005

    markus, you have to take my word that that was his wish list. I’m not the only one who saw it, see here, but I guess Doug M could be conspiring with me.

    As for the possibility of wish lists appearing under a different name, why not experiment for yourself? Create a wishlist, change your name and see what happens to the name on the wish list.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.