One more post on Elspeth Reeve (Beauchamp)

I ran across a suitable postscript for my tentative final assessment of the Elspeth Reeve portion of the TNR/Scott Thomas/Scott Beauchamp saga.

I had judged that Elspeth Reeve shares some of the fault for the problems at TNR for not taking note of the ethical quagmire of fact-checking hubby's stories.

In an interview Friday, U.S. Army private Scott Thomas Beauchamp's wife Elspeth Reeve, a former reporter-researcher at The New Republic, told the Observer that she was excited when someone at the magazine assigned her to fact-check one of her husband's dispatches from Iraq.

“I was like, 'Sweet! I can talk to Scott on TNR’s dime!'” Ms. Reeve said.
(The New York Observer)

The blurb above attaches to a subsequent story also printed in the Observer. It makes Reeve appear a bit flakier than I suspected since she appears to stand behind Beauchamp's stories and provides no indication that she realizes that she stepped in ethical doo-doo by accepting the fact checking assignment. Though TNR rightly gets top billing in the blame department on that one.

clipped from www.observer.com

Best wishes to the happy couple; may they leave the TNR snafu far in their wake. And consider careers outside of journalism.

*****

TNR stepped in it

The explosion of commentary in the wake of Franklin Foer's final take on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp saga has begun.

I've only read through the second page of Foer's epic discourse, but I was brought up short by TNR's admission that they let Elspeth Reeve fact-check Scott Beauchamp's third published piece--that's after she was also known (albeit not widely) as Mrs. Scott Beauchamp. As I noted here, there's no way TNR should have ever let that happen.

But there was one avoidable problem with our Beauchamp fact-check. His wife, Reeve, was assigned a large role in checking his third piece. While we believe she acted with good faith and integrity--not just in this instance, but throughout this whole ordeal--there was a clear conflict of interest. At the time, our logic--in hindsight, obviously flawed--was that corresponding with a soldier in Iraq is logistically difficult and Reeve was already routinely speaking with him. It was a mistake--and we've imposed new rules to prevent future fact-checking conflicts of interest.
(TNR)

Foer writes that Reeve performed her fact-checking in good faith and I trust that is true at this point, pending the specific exposure of fact-checking errors. There is a problem with the defense of Reeve, however. She should have known she shouldn't be fact-checking Beauchamp's stories. Off with her head? Of course not. Both Reeve and Beauchamp are redeemable figures.

Simply put, however, Reeve does emerge with a dinged reputation. She published a story using her school chums (Beauchamp was one of them) as sources without revealing their relationship, and fact-checked hubby's published work. While TNR should not have allowed it in the first place, she should have protested regardless.

More when I get time.

*****

TNR breaks the suspense, comments on Beauchamp

Since our last statement on “Shock Troops,” a Diarist by Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp that we published in our July 23 issue, we have continued our investigation into the article’s veracity. On Wednesday, for a brief period, The Drudge Report posted several documents from the Army’s own investigation into Beauchamp’s claims. Among those documents was a transcript of a phone conversation that TNR Editor Franklin Foer and TNR Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic had with Beauchamp on September 6—the first time the Army had granted TNR permission to speak with Beauchamp since it cut off outside contact with him on July 26. During this conversation, Beauchamp refused to discuss his article at all: “I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything,” he said. In light of that phone call, some have asked why The New Republic has not retracted “Shock Troops.”
(The Plank at The New Republic)

That, and why TNR said nothing about the conversation.

The explanation goes on to say that TNR just wanted to get out the truth. Apparently not the truth that Beauchamp was free to talk to the press but chose not to talk to the press, however. The update admits that Beauchamp's words in the phone converation "raised serious doubts" but not enough for TNR to tell anybody about it.

The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.

So how's that investigation going?

"I'm saying that I'd rather you not to talk to the Washington Post, Newsweek or whoever else until we put our final judgment on your piece."
(leaked document)

*****

The obligatory Scott Beauchamp update (Updated)

No new observations from me at present; just noting that the Drudge Report claims to have documents from the Army's investigation into the events described by Scott Thomas Beauchamp in his "Baghdad Diarist" series for The New Republic.

I'll be more interested when copies of the documents are posted at the Smoking Gun or the like.

Update: Drudge has posted supposedly leaked documents detailing phone conversations between Scott Beauchamp and TNR folks (including Franklin Foer).

If this stuff is legit, then it's curtains for TNR.

clipped from michellemalkin.com

As bad as I could have imagined, from the look of it.

Beauchamp, in my opinion, redeems himself somewhat with the attitude of looking out for those around him (I assume he means his Army buds) and making that his overriding focus. Maybe his service in the Army will change his life positively in ways he did not expect.

*****

Elspeth Reeve gone from The New Republic

Elspeth Reeve, the reporter/researcher whose connection to Scott Beauchamp helped lead to the publication of his Baghdad Diarist series in The New Republic, apparently no longer works for the magazine.

Confederate Yankee reports via Patrick W. Gavin that Reeve was doing a 1-year internship at TNR. Confederate Yankee helpfully pointed out that Reeve was first published in early May of 2006, yet remained on the masthead through July of 2007.

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation, even if it involves a screw-up.

Reeve has now gone absent from the TNR masthead.

In fact, it looks like I get to add a little bit to the story. Not only is Reeve gone as a "reporter/researcher" but the entire group listed from July of this year is gone. Isaac Chotiner and Bradford Plumer also went bye-bye.

So, that leaves us to wonder: Does TNR leave its research to interns (all of whom experienced the end of their internships at approximately the same time), or did TNR find their work unsatisfactory?

Searching a few hits for "Chotiner" put me back at Patrick W. Gavin's site, at the page I couldn't quite connect to from Confederate Yankee:

Of the two other reporter-researchers, Isaac Chotiner left for the Huffington Post and Brad Plumer was promoted to assistant editor.
(mediabistro.com)

One can hope that Plumer's promotion was accounted for by something other than poor research.


*****

An unsurprising update on the Beauchamp saga

Mixed signals on the nature of the findings of the Scott Beauchamp investigation, courtesy of Michael Goldfarb's account of Col. Ricky Gibbs from a bloggers' roundtable.

In response to the first question, Gibbs said that he had directed an investigation into Beauchamp's allegations and determined them to be false. "The incidents did not take place," Gibbs said. And Beauchamp "admitted that himself" to the investigating officer. For clarity, I asked Gibbs again, did Beauchamp admit the stories were false? "He did admit to the investigating officer that the incidents did not take place."

At the end of the call, Gibbs returned to the subject of Beauchamp's confession to say that "Beauchamp did not recant," but that "he does not stand by the story." This caused some puzzlement among the folks on the line.
(The Weekly Standard)

The Armed Services aren't really distinguishing themselves any better than The New Republic on this one, though of course the Army has different purposes in mind than a political magazine. It may fall to Scott Beauchamp to offer the details of the investigation, putting us right back where we started.

... the wheels of the investigation snagged a dog, which was dragged alongside the investigation for about a half hour ...


*****

Beauchamp appendix: Pajamas Media interviews Major Cross

Bob Owens interviewed Major John Cross for Pajamas Media. Major Cross led the investigation into the events Scott Beauchamp, writing as "Scott Thomas," reported in a series of stories for The New Republic.

Of note:

Owens: Do you think it is likely that some soldiers may have told The New Republic one story, and then provided a different story to investigating officers?

Cross: I can’t speculate about anything involving The New Republic, but I can speak to our procedures. When conducting the investigation, I focused on the information and evidence collected from the Soldiers in PVT Beauchamp’s unit in the form of written and signed affidavits, which did not support the events portrayed in the story. As all of the Soldiers interviewed during the course of the investigation made sworn statements, they understand the consequences of making false official statements.

(read the rest at Pajamas Media)

My source said that everything Beauchamp wrote was true (apparently including the FOB Falcon location for the mess hall incident). Evidently he wasn't part of the investigation. Or maybe Major Cross just doesn't remember.

Let's play "Detect the Irony"

Read this recent entry from The New Republic's "The Plank" blog:

Let's say you're Carl Cannon and you're sitting down to write your review of Stephen F. Hayes's hagiography of Dick Cheney in the New York Times. How do you deal with the fact that the book you're reviewing has, shall we say, credibility issues?
(read the whole thing--recommended)

What kind of credibility issues has Hayes got? Josh Patashnik, who wrote the entry, doesn't say. He does quote Carl Cannon to the effect that Hayes had "an established view of the vice president," however. And after that quotation he adds "So even if you can't really trust anything Hayes says ..."

So, let me get this straight.

If a journalist has an established view on something, then you can't trust anything he says about it?


So why did TNR hire Scott Thomas Beauchamp, again?

My rigorous fact-checking confirms Scott Beauchamp's stories

Sublime Bloviations can now reveal that everything that Scott Beauchamp wrote was perfectly true. We have conducted our own investigation, communicating via Haloscan with one of Beauchamp's co-workers.

I work with Scott Thomas Beauchamp on a regular basis. he has helped me in more ways than one! We have gone through alot of the same things and have been there by each others sides and helped keep our heads up. I can honestly say that everything he wrote was completely true. As for the other comments about this great and wonderful man, is a complete outrage. Half of these people have no idea what happens in Good'ol Iraq. I my self have witnessed everything has writen about. He is one of my best friends and would trust my life with him any day. He is an oustanding person and a great husband. To slander his name for telling the truth about something is completely uncalled for. Unless you were then and know exactly what happened. then your comments mean shit!
(Anonymous)

There you have it. Chew on that, Weekly Standard.

The IP address stemmed from Virginia, for what it's worth.

Reviewing Richard Miniter on TNR and Scott Beauchamp

Richard Miniter, in part, followed much the same path in reporting the Scott Beauchamp story that I followed.

Here is an updated timeline reflecting Miniter's reporting of the wedding location.

• Scott Beauchamp and Elspeth Reeve associated at the Missouri School of Journalism (~2005)
  
• Beauchamp in Europe by June of 2006--probably already in the armed services
• Beauchamp develops relationship with girl in Germany
• Beauchamp deployed to Kuwait by September 2006, engaged to girl in Germany
• "War Bonds" published in TNR 1/29/07
  
• Beauchamp serves in Iraq from Sept. 2006 through April 2007, at which time he receives 2 weeks R&R.
• Marries Elspeth Reeve (in the United States) rather than the aforementioned fiancee, returns to duty somewhat after he was supposed to arrive.
• "Dead of Night" published 6/7/07
• "Shock Troops" published 7/13/07
• Criticism of "Shock Troops" begins and builds
• Beauchamp publicly identifies himself through TNR
  
• Army takes away his laptop and telephone
  
• Foer confirms for Howard Kurtz that Beauchamp is married to a TNR staffer (7/27/07)

Not much of Miniter's reporting is news to me, but he and I reached very different conclusions regarding the role of Elspeth Reeve. I am not prepared to declare Reeve free and clear before the evidence is all in, but Miniter has not added enough for me to alter my opinion that Reeve deserves the benefit of the doubt until the evidence declares otherwise.

Miniter offered the following reason for suspecting Reeve of malfeasance:

In the days after the party, Elspeth Reeve received the sympathetic attention of editors and fact-checkers at The New Republic’s offices. They did not blame her for escorting a fabricator into the magazine’s inner sanctum, who hoodwinked them and body-slammed the magazine’s reputation, according to McGee. Apparently, they did not ask what responsibility she might bear.

Reeve certainly knew enough about Beauchamp’s strange history of lies to lead her to be careful of his journalism or to speak up when other editors fact-checked his work. Beauchamp’s odd personal history directly bears on his credibility and on Reeve’s fiduciary duty as an editor to flag potential problems.

(Pajamas Media)

TNR published Beauchamp before he and Reeve were married, and the only additional step Beauchamp took into the "inner sanctum" was via his marriage to Reeve--if that even counts. Many businesses, including media outlets, have policies against hiring more than one member of the same immediate family. If TNR has such a policy, then Beauchamp and Reeve set up an obstacle between Beauchamp and the "inner sanctum." He would likely be no more than a freelance contributer so long as she worked there.

I've already noted that Reeve was a fact-checker for TNR (Miniter's announcement that she was one of only three was news to me), but I've already noted that TNR would have been absolutely nuts to let Mrs. Beauchamp fact-check Mr. Beauchamp. There is no reason at present to see anything wrong with Reeve fact-checking Beauchamp's first story for TNR.

Having engaged in it myself, I understand Miniter's interest in the potential failures at TNR, particularly in whether or not Reeve was particularly involved. Reeve is not a sympathetic figure, in terms of abruptly replacing Priscilla as Beauchamp's bride-to-be, but it's too much to lend total credence to Priscilla's report that Reeve knew of Beauchamp's former engagement arrangement without additional reporting. In other words, I doubt that Priscilla heard directly from Elspeth Beauchamp. Most likely her information came from Scott Beauchamp, who doesn't currently have the greatest reputation in the world for telling the truth.

Miniter's tentative indictment of Reeve supposes that she was aware of Beauchamp's duplicity in leading on Priscilla. That is the cornerstone of his argument, in fact. I don't find that foundation strong enough to support the implication that stems from it. Not at this point, anyway.

TNR weighs in again on Scott Beauchamp

I haven't rushed to respond to TNR's latest response on the topic of Scott Beauchamp. The commentary made it look like there really wasn't much new.

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ promptly gave a fairly comprehensive response, but I'm going to go ahead and file a few notes anyway.


TNR acknowledged the legitimacy of concerns over accuracy.

This is why we have sought to re-report the story, in the process speaking with five soldiers in Beauchamp's company who substantiate the events described in Beauchamp's essay.

This phrasing looks suspicious. TNR's recounting of its re-reporting made it look like details surrounding the events described had received some corroboration. The phrasing here tends to suggest that five soldiers jumped aboard with every detail. The current apologetic doesn't jibe with TNR's earlier justifications. I suspect they would have communicated more accurately with "who substantiated various details in Beauchamp's account."

TNR complains that the Army isn't allowing any examination of its investigation. That's a perfectly legitimate complaint. I made known the fact that I'd very much like to know the content of any sworn statement made by Pvt. Beauchamp. A blanket statement by the military that Beauchamp's stories were false is no better than TNR's claim that five (anonymous) soldiers substantiated Beauchamp's claims.

Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles.

Did he describe the nature of the statements at all for his editors? What sort of statements having nothing to do with contradicting his articles would necessitate "pressure" tactics?

Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth.

The above is nonsense.

You stand by a writer who is not able to defend himself if the facts warrant the defense. You also stand by a writer who is not able to defend himself if you know him well enough to vouch for him. Elspeth Beauchamp is probably the only person at TNR who knows Scott Beauchamp well enough to use that basis for defending him.

And that's where TNR's errors come in. More than defending Scott Beauchamp, they have their own errors with which to deal. The details in Beachamp's stories don't add up, and TNR's attempts to re-report the story look like little more than thin justifications (standing by a writer who can't defend himself regardless of the facts).

From the look of things, TNR tried to skimp on fact-checking by choosing a writer based on personal connections. What started out as a hedge against inaccuracy is looking more and more like a self-made trap that has ensnared the magazine.

The return of Pong: The Beauchamp saga in the news (Updated)

Not by much trailing the Weekly Standard's announcement that Scott Beauchamp had recanted his "Shock Troops" claims, the New Republic weighed in with another statement at The Plank:

We've talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, "I have no knowledge of that." He added, "If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own."
(TNR)

So, at least one of the publications will get egg on its face regarding its publishing standards--and possibly both! This back-and-forth is getting funny.

The announcement at the Plank doesn't refute the report from the Weekly Standard, of course. It simply tells us what we already knew--that the report wasn't yet official--and that Major Steven F. Lamb doesn't know the outcome (assuming he's telling the truth).

clipped from www.e-oss.net

Time will tell.

Update:
And maybe sooner rather than later (hat tip to Michelle Malkin)

This morning, military officials said their review is over. "The investigation is complete and the allegations from PVT Beauchamp are false," Maj. Steven Lamb, a spokesman for Multi National Division-Baghdad, says in an e-mail to On Deadline. "Anything that may or may not happen from his actions are personnel related and we don't share that publicly."
(USA Today)

To explain the obvious, which Michelle Malkin declined to do for understandable reasons, USA Today is claiming to have confirmation that Beauchamps claims were false from the same source that the New Republic is using to debunk claims their man Beauchamp peddled bunkum.

Refer up a few paragraphs to the graphic, and prepare for the next volley.

What of Elspeth Reeve?

This is all opinion.
***

In an earlier post, I wrote that Elspeth Reeve/Elspeth Beauchamp's communications with Scott Beauchamp would be an interesting issue if the latter's stories were factually undermined.

For now, my sense on that issue is that it wouldn't be interesting except in terms of human interest.

From what I've seen of Reeve's writing--and I've surveyed a decent amount--she hews tight to proper journalistic standards with the possible exception of the story she wrote about the abortion protest in Washington (featuring personal acquaintances as sources?). I'd find it hard to believe that she had anything to do with Beauchamp's handling of fact, working for now on the assumption that Beauchamp's retraction is what it seems to be.

My best guess is that Beauchamp began to smell glory and tried to impress TNR (and Mrs. Beauchamp). I doubt TNR gave Elspeth Beauchamp any role in fact-checking hubby's stories. That would be beyond reckless.

Expect the fault to fall on Beauchamp for embellishing his stories with exaggeration and/or lies, and on the editorial staff at TNR for not having sufficient olfactory powers to flunk Beauchamp themselves on the sniff test.

The Weekly Standard: "Beauchamp recants"

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.
(The Weekly Standard)

Hmmm. That didn't take long.

I'll admit that I find it a bit odd that Beauchamp offered his recantation via signing a sworn statement. I'd have expected the admission to come through verbal testimony. But maybe I just don't understand the way the military operates.

Though this is the outcome I expected (exaggeration based on a germ of truth), I'm keeping the book open on this one.

I expect to see more on this story from the other side, including the New Republic. Plus I'd like to see a more complete story from the armed services, including the text of the sworn statement.

Kevin Drum not quite up to analyzing TNR fact check

SCOTT THOMAS FOLLOWUP....Remember Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the soldier in Iraq who wrote a piece last month for the New Republic in which he recounted stories of (a) mocking a disfigured woman, (b) a fellow soldier who wore a piece of a child's skull he had found, and (c) another fellow soldier who ran over dogs with his Bradley fighting vehicle? Well, TNR has just put up their investigation into Beauchamp's piece, which included talking with "current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively, [and] five other members of Beauchamp's company."

The result? They "all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously." The only error they uncovered was that one of the incidents apparently took place at an Army base in Kuwait, not Iraq.
(CBS News, Washington Monthly)

Oh, well if TNR says everything checked out then end of story. In fact, we must wonder why anybody questioned the story in the first place. After all, if it appeared in TNR then it must be true.

Drum's apparent disinclination to examine the nature of TNR's statement, and his failure to make his own mention of the admitted inaccuracy of the Thomas story is jaw-dropping.

I wonder if his inability to sniff out inconsistency and irrelevancy in an official statement characterizes his entire career in journalism?

TNR makes a statement on Scott Beauchamp

The New Republic surprised me by updating their examination of Scott Thomas' Beauchamp's "Shock Troops" story.

Beauchamp's essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: "We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right."

The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp's on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.
(The New Republic)

I am slightly surprised that TNR calls it an "important discrepancy." It's true that it's an important discrepancy, because of how it works into the time line of events. As Spree at Wake up America noted, the Kuwait location puts the incident prior to Beauchamp's participation in hostilities, and just a short period of weeks (or even days) after leaving Germany. The digression of character, at least in the case of Beauchamp, preceded his involvement in armed hostilities. Perhaps his friend had previous service in a war zone.
The friend's report contains an additional and more subtle discrepancy. Where Beauchamp describes an "unusually crowded" dining area, the anonymous supporting witness says "I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right." That seems like an unusual detail if the hall were unusually crowded.

TNR claimed a degree of corroboration for the graveyard tale:

More important, two witnesses have corroborated Beauchamp's account. One wrote in an e-mail: "I can wholeheartedly verify the finding of the bones; U.S. troops (in my unit) discovered human remains in the manner described in 'Shock Troopers.' [sic] ... [We] did not report it; there was no need to. The bodies weren't freshly killed and thus the crime hadn't been committed while we were in control of the sector of operations." On the phone, this soldier later told us that he had witnessed another soldier wearing the skull fragment just as Beauchamp recounted: "It fit like a yarmulke," he said.

I wonder how the second witness contributed to the corroboration?

My problem with this story has always been the problem of having a child's skull fragment fit an adult's skull "like a yarmulke." The skulls of children, at least in my experience, tend to be smaller than those of adults. I need more than anonymous verification to accept that detail. I don't rule out the possibility that it could happen, but I'm certainly skeptical. Maybe the adult had a tiny head, and the fragment came from a child with a great big skull. Not likely, but conceivable.

Spree also rightly noted that it was a stretch at best for TNR to claim that the Beauchamp account was consistent with a report of a "children's cemetary" appearing in The Weekly Standard. The anonymous witness improved on the Beauchamp account by refraining from placing the origin of the burial in the Hussein era. TNR, nonetheless, double-checked with a forensic pathologist the possibility of tufts of hair clinging to a "long-buried" skull. It seems to me that the "rotting flesh" was a bigger problem than the tufts of hair. I wonder what the forensic pathologist had to say about that?

He observed that he was grateful his hair had just been cut--since it would make it easier to pick out the pieces of rotting flesh that were digging into his head.
(TNR, "Shock Troops" by Scott Thomas)

It's possible that the "joker and troublemaker" made the statement attributed to him by Beauchamp even if there were no bits of rotting flesh left on the skull. Or Beauchamp could have embellished his account.

TNR did a nice job clarifying the maneuverability of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle--but I still have a problem with that account, also.

The Bradley has tracks, like a tank.

If I'm an editor for this story, I'm wondering how an animal can be "dragged" by a track vehicle by having its extremity caught in the tracks.

He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road.
(TNR, "Shock Troops" by Scott Thomas)

Run the video and try to imagine it.

If the dog is caught in the tracks, the only dragging that will happen is when the body is pulled from the rear of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle with the top portion of the track. That type of dragging would be worthy of some description in an account with the type of theme that Beauchamp apparently intended.
Could the dog be caught other than in the tracks? I don't see how (and Beauchamp doesn't describe it other than being caught in the tracks), but perhaps a veteran with Bradley experience can shed some light on that point.

This one reads to me like the type of embellishment a mechanically disinclined person might imagine (when he's not thinking that people commit suicide by sticking their heads in the oven via the heat of the oven).

The doubts about this story are too substantial to be treated with anonymous and incomplete corroboration.

A Scott Beauchamp time line

Scott Thomas Beauchamp, writing as "Scott Thomas," had three stories published in the New Republic. The last of the three, "Shock Troops," caused a stir of criticism from people who found the accounts unbelievable (for a variety of reasons).

As the criticism mounted TNR editor Franklin Foer defended the reliability of the author, then only known to the public as "Scott Thomas," and pledged to verify the accounts.

Staffers at TNR have vacations coming up, so it appears that the verification of fact will not occur imminently.

Aside from the issue of veracity, TNR has made itself vulnerable to criticism regarding its choice of Beauchamp as its war correspondent. With the idea of assisting that debate, I offer the following time line (OK, it's not a "line" as such but it sets forth a rough chronology).

• Scott Beauchamp and Elspeth Reeve associated at the Missouri School of Journalism (~2005)
  
• Beauchamp in Europe by June of 2006--probably already in the armed services
• Beauchamp develops relationship with girl in Germany
• Beauchamp deployed to Kuwait by September 2006, engaged to girl in Germany
• "War Bonds" published in TNR 1/29/07
  
• Beauchamp serves in Iraq from Sept. 2006 through April 2007, at which time he receives 2 weeks R&R.
• Marries Elspeth Reeve rather than the aforementioned fiancee, returns to duty somewhat after he was supposed to arrive.
• "Dead of Night" published 6/7/07
• "Shock Troops" published 7/13/07
• Criticism of "Shock Troops" begins and builds
• Beauchamp publicly identifies himself through TNR
  
• Army takes away his laptop and telephone
  
• Foer confirms for Howard Kurtz that Beauchamp is married to a TNR staffer (7/27/07)
  

A great many details did not warrant mention, since they do not obviously relate to Beauchamp's relationship to TNR.

One detail should stand out, however. A number of commentators have suggested that Beauchamp was chosen because of his marriage to Reeve, or at least on the basis of his romantic relationship to Reeve. Most likely, Beauchamp knew that Reeve was employed at TNR. A number of the students in the Missouri School of Journalism appear to have maintained ties. It doesn't really matter whether Beauchamp contacted TNR because of Reeve or vice-versa. It appears that the initial contact was probably prompted by platonic familiarity rather than because of a romantic relationship.

On the other hand, the romantic relationship seems to have rapidly flowered with the onset of the professional association in spite of the problem of distance. Perhaps one day somebody will tell that story.

Within six months of deployment, Beauchamp is published as "Scott Thomas," and a scant four months later, by all appearances, he had wed Ms. Reeve (about 8 months after Beauchamp announced his intent to marry the girl in Germany).

Does this have any relevance to TNRs professional relationship with Beauchamp? That's hard to say, at this point. It seems that Beauchamp and Reeve must have communicated with one another extensively, or else it seems difficult to explain how Beauchamp could dump the girl in Germany for Reeve.

Could Reeve have coached Beauchamp regarding his stories, helping them conform to the TNR template in terms of style if not in terms of tone and theme? That question turns rapidly interesting if Beauchamp's account is factually undermined. For my part, I don't think the public (including me) has enough information yet to render sound judgment.

Update on the Elspeth Reeve MySpace link Updated

In an earlier post, I suggested that I had probably identified Elspeth Reeve's MySpace account, based on the timing and content of some comments posted to Scott Beauchamp's MySpace page near the time the two married.

I still think that "a real spicy braudra" is probably an account used by Elspeth Reeve, but it is apparent that the "mouse" account was intended as her primary MySpace identity.

Jun 11 2007 7:48P

Happy Birthday Elle! Sorry about the lateness, but I hope you have a good one!

Without going into the details, I think that the photo of "a real spicy audra" is a body-painting by an artist named Audra using Elspeth's back as her canvas (or maybe her midriff if she lacks a navel). The nickname ends up being a pun on the artist's name.
This hypothesis is by no means certain. Though Audra is rare as names go, there is an Audra involved in the arts in NYC (in addition to the artist already mentioned, that is), and she also has ties to the city of Atlanta.

clipped from profile.myspace.com "Squirrels are how God punishes us." Female 25 years old Washington DC United States Last Login: 7/28/2007 View My: Pics | Videos

Nobody should consider harassing her via either of these accounts, by the way. There's no evidence that she did anything wrong.

Update: The "a real spicy braudra" MySpace account probably doesn't have anything to do with Elspeth Reeve, despite the coincidences that led me to conclude otherwise.

Filling in some of the history on Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Over the past year Scott Thomas Beauchamp appears to have gone AWOL, as well as dumping a girl to whom he was engaged in favor of the union with Elspeth Reeve of the New Republic.

A member of the jilted girl's family offered an account of Beauchamp that had him shipping out for Iraq in September of 2006, after entering into an engagement relationship with "Priscilla" (as she is called on Beauchamp's MySpace page).

In April, according to this source, Beauchamp was granted two weeks of R&R. He used the time to travel to Germany, without informing his fiancee in spite of their proximity. Beauchamp apparently married Elspeth Reeve during this span of time, and evidently his failure to report for duty on time resulted in his demotion from SP4 to PV2.

Yo Champ, let me know where your at, moon said you should have been back already. well just let me know. later
("majmaj", at the Beauchamp Myspace page, May 16 2007 8:51 a.m.)

***
Know as little as I do about military rank?

E1. . . PV1 PVT. . . . . . Private
E2. . . PV2 PVT. . . . . . Private
E3. . . PFC . . . . . . . . Private First Class
E4. . . CPL SP4. . . . . . Corporal / Specialist Four
E5. . . SGT SP5. . . . . . Sergeant / Specialist Five
(NoQuarter.org)

Fleshing out the Beauchamp-Reeve marriage hypothesis

My original post on the Beauchamp-Reeve marriage hypothesis was a bit lacking in detail in support of certain details. That was because I was posting late at night and mainly just wanted to publish the apparent connection between "a real spicy braudra" and Elspeth Reeve--a connection that hadn't been made in the reporting up through that time, from what I can tell. [Update: it turns out that a connection isn't likely after all]

Ace of Spades is still uncertain about the time-line, but he can be more confident in his reconstruction than he thought.
I'm not going to document each of these points, since the marriage has already been confirmed.

• Ace noted the existence of a registry, anticipating an October wedding
• Ace noted the connection between the two at a Missouri college
• Beachamp's blogging contains a report of his marriage (apparently in Germany)
• "a real spicy braudra" posts to Beauchamp's blog, expressing love and longing

Other comments indicate anger at Beauchamp, referring to him as an "asshole," for instance.
I considered that the complaints might have indicated anger at the early wedding; one post talked about how lousy of Beauchamp it was to do something during graduation week [actually before finals--BW].

All of the anger, however, seems to stem from one group of ladies.

And all of them seem to be in Germany.

So, I'm not sure what to make of it, but one possibility is that Beauchamp romanced "Priscilla" while he was away from Elspeth. Then he married Elspeth, with the result that Priscilla's family got torqued. Yeah, just guessing.