The Hinrichs Case: The WSJ's "Debunking" Debunks Nothing

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

Michelle Malkin notes a Wall Street Journal article by Ryan Chittum and Joe Hagan about the Hinrichs "suicide bombing" -- or, more precisely, about the blog coverage of Hinrichs's death.  Malkin accurately describes the Wall Street Journal as advancing a "bloggers-are-reckless crackpots narrative."  The most significant aspect of the Journal's article is its alleged "debunking" of some of the rumors that have surrounded Hinrichs's death:

To that unsettling set of facts, blogs and local Oklahoma TV stations added several apparent inaccuracies, including:  that Mr. Hinrichs was a Muslim and visited the mosque frequently; that he tried to enter the stadium twice but was rebuffed; that he had a one-way airplane ticket to Algeria; that there were nails in the bomb and that Islamic extremist literature was found in his apartment.

None of these claims are true:  Mr. Hinrichs's family, university officials and the Federal Bureau of Investigation say Mr. Hinrichs suffered from depression, and the explosion was an isolated event.

This apparently satisfied CBS News blogger Vaughn Ververs, who wrote that Chittum and Hagan "put[ ] to rest some of the rumors that have been circulating."  My guess is that Ververs hasn't been following this story closely, and was persuaded by the confidence of the Journal's prose.  But, in actuality, the Journal's "debunking" debunks nothing.  A few notes:

1. I've previously noted that one of the problems with knowing the truth in this case is that so many local reports attribute their information to "sources" without telling us who those sources are, or why they should be believed.  The Journal's debunking is likewise based on unnamed sources.  I see no reason to believe unnamed set of sources #2 over unnamed set of sources #1.
2. The warrant that Chittum and Hagan provide for their claim that the rumors are untrue does not, in actuality, refute any of them.  Their warrant is that "Mr. Hinrichs suffered from depression, and the explosion was an isolated event."  Does Hinrich's depression mean he wasn't a mosque-frequenting Muslim?  Do depressed people avoid entering stadiums?  And if the explosion was an "isolated event" (read:  not connected to any terrorist cell) does that mean that this wasn't an act of Islamic terrorism?  Of course not.  There have been a number of freelance acts of Islamic terror in the United States over the past decade, including El Al shooter Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet.
3. This dovetails with a broader flaw in the FBI's approach to the Hinrichs case.  The Bureau's public statements indicate that in trying to determine whether this was an act of terrorism, the investigation has centered on whether Hinrichs was connected to any terrorist groups.  But that is not the relevant question.  As Daniel Pipes wrote, "surely the key question is not whether he was getting directions from a cave in Afghanistan or whether this was an 'individual act,' but what his intentions were.  Was he just taking his own life or intending to kill others?"
4. Moreover, Chittum and Hagan are demonstrably wrong in saying that we know that some of these rumors aren't true.  For example, they write that it's false that Hinrichs tried twice to enter the stadium.  According to Rep. Tom Cole, the FBI hasn't reached this conclusion.  Rather, the special agent in charge of the Bureau's Oklahoma office told Rep. Cole:  "We may never know.  We have no evidence of a plan to do that, but we also couldn't tell you definitively he didn't try to do it and was rebuffed.  We just simply don't know."
5. Chittum and Hagan also place too much reliance on certain sources.  For example, they cite Hinrichs's father as definitively proving that Hinrichs wasn't Muslim.  Normally one's family is a good source for this, but Hinrichs might not have been very close to his family.  An article from the Colorado Springs Gazette states:  "Hinrichs last visited his family this year, when he stopped by for about a half hour while on a road trip, his father said."  If Hinrichs didn't have much contact with his family such that they're telling the press about a half-hour visit, it's entirely possible that he converted to Islam without telling them.  In fact, his father's very broad reasoning about why Hinrichs wasn't a Muslim ("He was very curious, but he was very skeptical and about as impressionable as a tree stump") suggests that he lacked first-hand knowledge.

This isn't to say that there hasn't been some rumor-mongering in this case.  That's why, the last time I weighed in on the Hinrichs case, I chastised those bloggers who were jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  This time I'm chastising the other side.  The only thing that the Chittum and Hagan article proves is that even the WSJ isn't above publishing sloppy reporting.

Joel Henry Hinrichs III:  Case not closed.

TrackBack