[Content removed – See correction notice.]
In regards to the now discredited work of Associate Professor David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D there are more questions to ask. Were the findings peer reviewed, if so by whom? Which administration officials were involved in commissioning the work and/or authorizing publication? The list of questions is long, and I intend to get a statement from university officials Friday morning.
Update: I have been in contact with university officials, who are reviewing the situation. Here is there initial response:
We can assure you that no one in the administration requested that this project be undertaken. Dr. Hailey, working on his own, undertook this project to determine whether the Bush memos could have been produced by a typewriter of that period or were digitally produced. The University did not remove his site, and, in fact, we have asked Dr. Hailey to put it back up. He has done so. Dr. Hailey, as with any faculty member, has the academic freedom to pursue research topics and scholarly projects.
Further contact with the our source indicates that while the university was aware of the research, they did not specifically request it. As both our source and the university have denied that they requested the work, we stand corrected.
Paul, as noted in the initial article, contacted university officials about Hailey’s work that intended to prove the documents used by CBS were created on a typewriter. Between the time of that call and the initial publication of our story, Hailey set out to cover his tracks by changing his documents to explain away our findings. We weren’t kidding about having copies of everything, it just took us a while to get them up and available for comparison.
Pavel, whose questioning helped propel our rushed coverage, has now seen what we saw 2 days ago and has created a PDF difference file (wicked cool, BTW) that verifies everything Paul said about the good professor trying desperately to cover his tracks.
Paul Adds There has been some confusion during this whole event. To try to be brief, I called the University with my concerns and after I wrote my initial post, the Professor edited his work.
Within seconds of learning this I made a post saying I’d evaluate his “new evidence.” While his new updates did make it clear he was not claiming they were actually physically typed, unfortunately for the professor, they exposed critical flaws in his methodology and to be frank, appeared to damn him more.
To fully understand the whole thing you must read all the updates on the original posts and reading the 200 or so comments would not hurt either. -P