Kevin Drum suggests that the large scale of the Lott/Rosh deception suggests that Lott maybe could have carried off a conspiracy with this witness. Sorry, but I still don't buy it. Lott's a liar, but he's a clumsy one. He could have saved himself most of the embarrassment of this Mary Rosh affair, if he had lied and had "Mary" admit to being Lott's wife. Kevin also comments on Lott's fishy statistics.
Tom Spencer also doesn't think Lott is off the hook and seems rather unimpressed by the silence of Clayton Cramer and Glenn Reynolds. Over in the comment section at Hit and Run Glenn explains why: he doesn't think that Julian's revelations are "actual news".
And people are still enjoying themselves with Mary Rosh: At Electrolite, soundbitten, Roger Ailes, Eschaton (twice), PostPolitics, The Liquid List and godofthemachine.
Yesterday I described the Mary Rosh escapade as a side-note, but on reflection I realize it isn't. Posting under a pseudonym is perfectly OK. Inventing a few personal details to explain why Mary was so familiar with Lott's work I also consider fair game in maintaining the pseudonym. The fact that "Mary" would follow me round on Usenet, follow-up to my postings and accuse me of dishonesty has had me rolling around on the floor, laughing. But, and here is the important point: when Lott wrote
"I have not participated in the firearms discussion group nor in the apparent online newsgroup discussions",
he was lying. And not about something major. It was really a minor point in his response. He could have left it out if wanted to be truthful. Instead, he lied because he thought he wouldn't get caught. He lied for some trivial advantage because he thought he would get away with it.