In the summer of 2023, a fervent advocate for mistreated dogs got emotional on social media about a case in Fresno that was frustrating her.

In the process of trying to arouse outrage, she made a suggestion which turned out to be false. Wrong. A dangerous lie.

In an online video she suggested that a Thai restaurant next door to the place where a dog was tied up might be killing dogs and serving their meat. “Something needs to be investigated, because yeah now – heartbreaking as it is, it makes more sense that they are eating the meat and selling the meat – it is just – Oh my God, I can’t even…” She posted the address. She asked people to go there and check on the dog. She said the name of the restaurant. (“‘Thai’… I don’t know how to say that word. It’s connected to the house…. I think they’re the same owner.”) The video spread widely.

Wrong. She was completely wrong. The restaurant had nothing to do with the place next door. No one was selling dog meat. No one was eating dogs. No one was killing dogs.

A dog it is okay to eat, if you like cake.

As for the dog whose case had caught her attention, the Fresno police investigated and found the dog was not being abused, and also that it had since been returned to its original owner. They told her to stay away from the location or be charged with harassment. She posted, “I’m not staying away. I am gonna keep going… Something needs to be done, and I guess – breaking the law per se – by [air quotes] harassing, if that’s what they call it, it’s going to get everyone’s attention, so be it. And I think we should all do the same.”

The false accusation had caught the attention of people who were so angry at the idea of dogs being eaten that they threatened people at the restaurant. WHERE DOGS WERE NOT BEING EATEN. NO ONE WAS EATING DOGS. Often they tied the false idea of dog-eating to racist ideas about people from Thailand. They posted vicious fake reviews. Mostly they called or emailed to make threats but sometime they hung around the outside of the restaurant.

The owner, David Rasavong, was especially bothered by an elderly woman caller who screamed at him and then said. “Go back to the country you came from, you dog-eating motherfucker.” Even more, he was afraid for his parents, elderly immigrants who had been helping him in the restaurant.

He replied to all public comments he could find. He posted a video assuring people that the restaurant had nothing to do with the original dog complaint, and OF COURSE WE DON’T SERVE DOG MEAT, but it didn’t help. Because the racist fury continued, he closed the restaurant. Permanently.

More cake.

After a few days, the dog-welfare advocate posted on social media, asking people to leave the restaurant and its owner alone. She posted denying that she was racist. Because while she had mobilized people to harass the restaurant, other people were harassing her for that. They attacked her on social media, reposted her videos, and put up insulting fake profiles of her.

She was invited on local TV. She defended her actions. “I never once reached out to that restaurant and posted anything negative or not even… on Yelp.” The interviewer pointed out that she had posted on Facebook that she believed the restaurant was selling dog meat.

“At the beginning, yes. A lot of people believed that. A lot of people thought that they [the two buildings] were related and that they were connected together. Yes, a lot of people they believe that,” said the dog-welfare advocate. Then she backtracked, and said she never said that. “Now we’re demanding an investigation,” she said. “We’re demanding to make sure that the dogs are okay and it’s falling on deaf ears…” (It’s not clear how the one dog became “dogs.”)

She was upset that people said her remarks were racist, in connecting the idea of a Thai restaurant and the idea that people there might be serving dog meat. “Not once have I mentioned Asians in my videos, not once have I talked about a race…” She was not asked if she would have jumped to the same conclusion about an American-style restaurant.

She did apologize. In a video she said, “The situation got out of hand. I’d like to apologize. This is not the person I am. …It’s been a hard situation to handle…. I am sorry that David [the restaurant owner] and his family are going through this. There’s no justification for the hate that this has spit out. …It was not my intention for it to go this way.”

That’s a terrible apology. She doesn’t say what she did, and she doesn’t take responsibility. She doesn’t take the chance to say IT WASN’T TRUE. THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. She’s sorry for herself.

On another occasion, she posted, “You accuse me of hate and what are you doing to me? …How hypocritical is that?”

This dog? Also a cake.

It’s a story about how a false racist rumor destroyed a small business. SorryWatch didn’t post about it when it happened. The accuser did not seem to be in good shape. It was too late to go to the restaurant. But recently the incident came to mind again, and we looked at more recent news stories, and found a [happy outcome].

During the dark times after the accusation (which was FALSE, please remember), owner David Rasavong felt isolated. He says even some reporters on the story assumed the accusation was true.

However, most people didn’t fall for the ridiculous story, and many wanted to support the family and their business. A property manager at a shopping center offered to let Rasavong take over a location vacated by another restaurant. A designer, an interior designer, and a painter donated their services. In late fall of 2023 the new restaurant, Love & Thai, opened to great acclaim. People especially praise the crispy pork belly.

We’re posting about this now because of a recent outcropping of vicious accusations that People from Other Places are eating dogs and cats. Accusations that are shutting schools, triggering death threats, and making innocent people live in fear. This is timeless slander to hurl at people in other groups. Not just Haitians, as in this recent calumny. Not just Thais or people from other Asian countries. Not just immigrants, either. Sumac remembers the late comedian Charlie Hill (Oneida Nation of Wisconsin) describing his surprise when he went to public school with White kids who insisted that his family ate dogs.

People with troubled minds sometimes find satisfaction in spreading this rumor – eating pets is horrible! People who eat pets are horrible! Let’s speak out against them! For the sake of the animals, let’s get up a mob!

We’d like to think that such accusations have a short life, that the destruction they cause will end soon. We must hope.

Apology #1: Camp issued a statement apologizing for causing “significant pain” to the complainant and saying he felt bad if (you know how SorryWatch loves the “if” apology!) his words made rape victims less likely to prosecute their rapists:

I am speaking particularly to those who hesitate to come forward to report abuse of any kind and who are reluctant to give evidence about abuse, sexual or otherwise. To the extent that what I have said discourages any person from reporting abuse, or from testifying about it, I am truly sorry. I will do all in my power to learn from this and to never repeat these mistakes.

He also promised to undergo sensitivity training. Cool, since the qualifying phrase “to the extent” is pretty insensitive! Get rid of “to the extent,” bub. What you said DOES discourage people. Not just victims. It discourages all people who value justice and the law (not the same thing) to believe that justice can be served in Canada.

At the hearing itself, Camp apologized for his words and said “I wish I hadn’t said them.” (We do too.) He said, “I struck the wrong tone in counsel submissions. I was rude and facetious.” (Bro, “tone” is not the problem here. Content is.) He continued, “I didn’t realize the implication that came with those words.” (What words? Name them. Also, it is suspicious that you did not understand the implication of calling the accuser the accused.)

He went on, “I held onto the myth that women were supposed to fight off aggression” and noted that he was from South Africa, so he didn’t necessarily understand Canadian rape law. (Uh, you’re a judge in Canada. A justice and a law professor testified that Camp hadn’t been properly trained in Canadian sexual assault law or in how to conduct a sexual assault trial in Canada, but if I run over a little old lady with my car, I don’t get to blame my 10th grade driving teacher.) Camp also said, “I’ve let my family down. I’m sorry for the embarrassment I’ve caused to my wife and daughter.” (Nice subtle invoking of the women in your life, but you didn’t just embarrass them. You need to apologize to all of Canada.) Finally, he apologized to “the accused,” causing an audible gasp in the courtroom. The judge had to point out to Judge Camp what he’d just said. He corrected himself and said he apologized to the complainant. (A 19-year-old homeless indigenous woman, she’d said she wanted to kill herself after the trial.) “I’m very sorry that, on reflection and rereading what I said, that I intimidated her, using facetious words.” (You need reflection to realize this? Also, say you’re sorry for failing to uphold the law, when you’re a friggin’ judge.) “I’m a lot better than I was,” he affirmed. “I’ll always be vigilant. Perfect, I’ll never be.” (Saying this at the hearing about whether you deserve to keep your job is…not encouraging.) Finally, he assured the court “I was very unhappy with myself.” Well, OK then!

The judicial council decided, despite Camp’s apologies, that he should be removed from the bench. This is a very rare thing in Canada — only two judges have been asked to step down since the council was created in 1971.

The council observed that Camp had maintained that he shouldn’t be axed because 1. He’d apologized. 2. His legal decisions were reasonable and in accordance with criminal codes. 3. He’d provided evidence of remediation. 4. Removing him from the bench would be disproportionate punishment. As we are not a legal blog, but rather an apology blog, we will only look at #1 and #3.

The council pointed out that Camp’s argument rested on the fact that “removing him would mean that sincere apologies and extensive education are incapable of restoring public confidence in a judge who displayed unconscious bias.” The committee responded: “[T]he Judge is correct. Apologies and education may not be sufficient in certain instances.” (Is there not a slight edge of eyebrow-raisedness in that response?)

The fact that Camp said he didn’t know he had prejudices held no water. The council noted that his knees-together and “sink your bottom into the basin” queries were “not simply attempts at clarification. He spoke in a manner that was at times condescending, humiliating and disrespectful. The Judge’s misconduct was manifestly serious and reflected a sustained pattern of beliefs of a particularly deplorable kind, regardless of whether he was conscious of it or not.”

As for Camp’s attempts at remediation, the Council said, basically, nah. “The Committee’s residual doubt about the Judge’s understanding of the issues implicated by his conduct and the extent to which he fully absorbed what he said he had learned could be said to have some support in the record, including his reluctance to characterize himself as ‘sexist.’” So: While it’s cool that he’s undergoing sensitivity training (“after Council initiated a complaint against him, many months after the trial” — snarky, again, right?), and cool that he now seemingly “understands the reasons behind the evolution of the law of sexual assault in Canada and the hurtful effect of his comments,” it’s NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) formally apologized for decades of harassment of female members. The apology was accompanied by a $100-million (approximately $75 million American) settlement, ending two class-action lawsuits against the force. And it is a very good apology. 

Bob Paulson became the RCMP commissioner in 2011. In 2013, he spoke up about the  “cultural dysfunction” of the force and said he was devoted to improving the climate for women. He told the Guardian that an apology had been in the works for years, “but had been delayed by the desire to heighten it with some sort of compensation.” (Which is good, since 500 members and former members of the force were suing for having experienced crude jokes, unwanted sexual touching, threats and rape.) The settlement will compensate any woman who’d served in the RCMP since 1974, when women were first allowed to become full-fledged police officers.

A settlement is a good form of restitution, which can be an important part of an apology. But here, the words themselves were superb. Here’s Paulson’s full statement, and here’s the bit I found most powerful:

Instead of succeeding and thriving in a supportive and inclusive workplace, many women have suffered careers scarred by gender and sexual discrimination, bullying and harassment.

Some of these women left the RCMP, heartbroken, disillusioned and angry. Others stayed and were forced to find ways to cope with this inexcusable condition since they did not see an organization that was willing to change.

Still others courageously tried to make themselves heard by management only to find they were denied movement and opportunity or judged adversely and punished within the RCMP for their efforts.

The impact this has had on those who have experienced this shameful conduct cannot – must not – be solely understood as an adverse workplace condition for which they must be compensated. For many of our women this harassment has hurt them mentally and physically. It is has destroyed relationships and marriages, and even whole families have suffered as a result. Their very lives have been affected.

Harassment and the lack of effective systems and processes to have prevented it and eliminated it from our workplace is absolutely at odds with what the RCMP is supposed to be. It is at odds with what we all need the RCMP to be.

To the representative plaintiffs here today: Janet Merlo, who has so courageously taken the lead to represent so many women who have been adversely affected, and to Linda Davidson and all the women you represent; indeed to all the women who have been impacted by the Force’s failure to have protected your experience at work, and on behalf of every leader, supervisor or manager, every Commissioner: I stand humbly before you and solemnly offer our sincere apology.

You came to the RCMP wanting to personally contribute to your community and we failed you. We hurt you. For that, I am truly sorry. You can now take some comfort in knowing that you have made a difference. Because of you, your courage and your refusal to be silenced, the RCMP will never be the same.

I must also apologize to all Canadians. I know how disappointed you’ve been with the Force as you heard some of these very public and shameful examples of disgraceful conduct within our ranks.

Why is this so good? Paulson used the words “I’m sorry.” He clearly indicated that he understood the impact of what the Force did. He spoke to the women directly. He showed the kind of human emotion that’s hard to fake.  (The Globe and Mail wrote, “With a quiver in his voice, the top Mountie looked directly at two retired officers who spearheaded class-action lawsuits against the RCMP in British Columbia and Ontario, Janet Merlo and Linda Davidson. All three had tears in their eyes.”) He apologized to all Canadians, not just women on the force. He made clear that everyone should have high expectations of their police force, and everyone is hurt when representatives of the force behave shamefully.

“Sexy Mountie Costume” KILL ME NOW

Finally, immediately after the apology itself, he noted that organizational changes and new initiatives were underway to create a better culture. An independent claims process had begun for women who’d been affected. This isn’t just an attempt to “move on”; it’s an attempt to make things right, and to create lasting change. As Merlo, one of the plaintiffs, noted, “It’s a good day for the RCMP. This is the beginning of a new era.”

A former RCMP officer, Heli Kijanen, who left the force because of bullying, discrimination and harassment, talked to her local paper in Thunder Bay, Ontario, after Paulson’s appearance. “I just felt such wonderful feeling and hope for the future,” she said. “For Mounties, and females who want to join and work in a society where they are accepted and they don’t have to over-prove themselves, they don’t have to be dragged under the system because it’s a boys club.” She noted that she hoped to go back to the RCMP. “I would be one of those members that would be more than willing to go back into the force and make real change,” she said. “I want to tell everybody out there: if you fight for something long enough that you firmly believe in, if it’s right and it’s just, it will happen and to never give up. I congratulate all the female Mounties out there.”

You can watch a short clip of part of the apology, and the response of some of the female officers and former officers, here:

O, Canada. May you one day make this little girl in her official RCMP-licensed unisex onesie proud.

You all know Brock Turner? Convicted three-count felon? Stanford swimmer? Recipient of an astonishing, articulate and heart-rending victim impact letter, read aloud in court by the woman he sexually assaulted? Dude who could have gotten 14 years in prison but was sentenced to six months, of which he’ll probably serve three? His dad has issued some words that generally go along with apologies but in this case are not apologies. 

Just to refresh your memory, the judge in the case, a Stanford alum, said he was sentencing Turner to only six months because he wasn’t a danger to others and because “a prison sentence would have a severe impact on him.” (Yes, that is generally the idea.) The judge said that character references, including that of the criminal’s father, in addition to Turner’s lack of a criminal record, helped convince him that Turner was no danger to others.

A jury, however, had convicted Turner — who was caught mid-act by passing bikers who spotted him in action behind a Dumpster — of sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object, assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman, and sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object.

Here’s the full letter from Dan A. Turner. It was read aloud in court and sent to the judge. It was obtained by Michele Dauber, a Stanford Law professor who helped lead the process to revise Stanford’s sexual assault policy back in 2013, and who has been tweeting about the case. As for the SorryWatch-relevant bits, here goes:

First of all, let me say that Brock is absolutely devastated by the events of January 17th and 18th 2015. He would do anything to turn back the hands of time and have that night to do over again. In many one-on-one conversation with Brock since that day, I can tell you that he is truly sorry for what occurred that night and for all the pain and suffering that it has caused for all those involved and impacted by that night. He has expressed true remorse for his actions that night. Living under that same roof with Brock since this incident, I can tell you firsthand the devastating impact that it has had on my son.

Regular readers of this site know that this is not how you apologize well. You apologize for specific offenses not for “what occurred.” You apologize specifically to people you hurt, not to “all those involved and impacted by that night.” (What night? What happened? What was the impact? Do you apologize to the pine needles and dirt in the woman’s vagina? Are they impacted?) What “actions” does Brock express “true remorse” for? The fact is, these words of apology are so nebulous as to say nothing.

The letter goes on to talk about how athletic, gentle and wonderful Brock is, and how much inner strength he has (“a major reason for his ability to cope over the last 15 months” — he’s a hero!) It talks about how excited Brock was to go to a school famous for Olympic swimmers, and how he got in and got an athletic scholarship despite the school’s 4% admissions rate. But the school’s “culture of alcohol consumption and partying” was bad for him! It was “modeled by many of the upperclassmen on the swim team and played a role in the events of Jan 17th and 18th 2015”! Way to take ownership of your son’s own actions, Mr. Turner!

Let’s ponder. What “events” might those have been? Whatever they were — and who can know, really? — it was obviously the fault of the culture. Not Brock. Brock was credulous and lonely and sad, only doing what the bigger kids were doing. “Looking back at Brock’s brief experience at Stanford, I honestly don’t believe it was the best fit for him. He was ready academically and athletically, but it was simply too far from home for someone who was born and raised in the Midwest.” You see, his wonderful midwestern values did not fit with those of the wild people of Palo Alto. Homespun Middle American realness is what leads to sexual assault. I read it online.

Mr. Turner concludes by saying that Brock will never be his “happy go lucky self with that easy going personality and welcoming smile” again. [Sic. Mr. Turner loves rapists, hates n-dashes.] Brock doesn’t love steak the way he used to!

These verdicts have broke and shattered him and our family in so many ways. His life will never be the one that he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. This is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life. The fact that he now has to register as a sexual offender for the rest of his life forever alters where he can live, visit, work, and how he will be able to interact with people and organizations. What I know as his father is that incarceration is not the appropriate punishment for Brock. He has no prior criminal history and has never been violent to anyone including his actions on the night of Jan 17th 2015. Brock…is totally committed to educating other college age students about the dangers of alcohol consolation and sexual promiscuity. By having people like Brock educate others on college campuses is how society can begin to break the cycle of binge drinking and its unfortunate results.

Having to register as a sex offender is kind of what happens when one has committed a sex offense. Despite what Mr. Turner believes in his son’s case, “20 minutes of action” should indeed have a steep price — pulling the trigger of a gun takes much less than 20 minutes, and somehow people (some people) are punished for it. As for the whole “never been violent to anyone including his actions” on the night of the rape, well, it sounds as though the medical personnel who catalogued the bloody scrapes, contusions and abrasions on the victim’s body, and the dirt inside her body, might disagree.

Palo Alto Dumpster, daytime. Pine needles not shown.

The true capper here, though, is that Brock wants to educate other college students about “the dangers of alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity.” Alcohol consumption is not the issue. We’re not talking about liver damage. We’re talking about sexual assault. And by using the terms “alcohol consumption” and “sexual promiscuity,” Brock’s father is divvying up responsibility equally between his son and the victim. Arguably he’s blaming her more. (People rarely use the term “promiscuity” about dudes.)

Most importantly, there is NO ownership — by either Brock or his father — of Brock’s actions. Taking responsibility is the single most important part of an effective apology. As we’ve noted many times here on SorryWatch, the other elements are explicitly saying what you’re sorry for, expressing regret, acknowledging the effects of your actions, and trying to make things right. That last one means 1) making it up to the individual you’ve wronged and 2) explaining how you’ll ensure that you won’t do this to anyone else again. Brock’s dad’s use of “sorry” and “remorse” here have nothing to do with apology.

I understand that this letter is supposed to serve as a character reference and not a formal apology. I’m sure there are legal reasons for Mr. Turner to imply that his son and the victim bear equal responsibility for the “20 minutes of action” and “alcohol consumption” and “sexual promiscuity.” Except again: Brock has been convicted of sexual assault. A litany of description of Brock’s suffering, and the unfairness of having to be called a sex offender, and the fact that he didn’t steal his dad’s Doritos while awaiting trial (unspoken: hey, maybe Brock was more concerned about going to jail than consumed with remorse for having to be stopped by Swedish bike riders while penetrating an unconscious woman, one of whom was sobbing so hard after seeing what he saw that he could barely tell the cops what he’d seen) — all these statements, combined with the absence of apology TO THE VICTIM, indicate Mr. Turner has merely shown where his son’s sense of entitlement came from.

On the subject of an upcoming Black Lives Matter march scheduled for Martin Luther King Day in St. Paul, MN, someone who called himself “JM Roth” posted on Facebook. JM Roth had advice for people who were inconvenienced.

Don’t run them over

“Run them over. Keep traffic flowing and don’t slow down for any of these idiots who try and block the street. Here is the deal, you continue to drive and if you hit someone make sure you call 911 to report the accident and meet the cops a block or two away and you can justify stopping further away because you feared for your safety since in the past people in this group has shown a propensity towards violence. Since they are trying to block the street and/or cross where there is no crossing you should not be charged with anything. Now, these idiots could try and sue you in civil court, but remember that it will be jury trial and so most likely it will come out in your favor.”

Run them over.

People in the Twin Cities who monitor police evildoing (=misconduct) were familiar with the JM Roth persona. On various locally-oriented websites, JM Roth angrily attacked anyone who criticized police evildoing, saying they didn’t know anything about what it’s like to be a police officer. This wasn’t even the first time he had explicitly recommended running people over. (Think about that. “Run them over.”) Now he was offering advice on getting away with running people over.

Don’t run them over

It wasn’t very hard for activist Andrew Henderson to figure out that “JM Roth” was a nom de guerre for Sergeant Jeff Rothecker, a member of the St. Paul police for 20 years, and a vice-president in the Minnesota Fraternal Order of Police. “I was concerned it was him inciting violence rather than just berating people,” Henderson said. He showed his evidence to Internal Affairs at the police department (and had himself filmed doing so).

Run them over? The St. Paul Police Department was unable to stand behind that advice.

Rothecker was put on leave while they investigate. Rothecker, reportedly with the help of a PR firm, issued this apology:

I am extremely sorry for posting what I did. I understand that the post was insensitive and wrong. My poor choice of words conveyed a message I did not intend and am not proud of. Shortly after submitting the post, I re-read it and deleted it. As a law enforcement officer, I would never intentionally encourage someone to commit a crime. I very much regret my actions.

I apologize to all the citizens of St. Paul, the department, my fellow law enforcement professionals and my family for the scornful attention my mistake has brought upon them.

I apologize for exposing all law enforcement officers to increased scrutiny, during this difficult time of ongoing conflict between officers and members of the community.

I apologize to the community members who participated peacefully in the protest. –Sergeant Jeff Rothecker

He “would never”? But he did.

A classic example of the “that’s not me” defense. What, you have an evil twin?

Don’t run them over.

It’s a terrible apology in many ways. He’s vague about what he did. You can tell it’s something about seeming to encourage some kind of crime, but there’s nothing about RUN THEM OVER. And he doesn’t address the fact that he gave ‘here’s how to get away with it’ advice.

He minimizes whatever it was. Insensitive! A poor choice of words!

It also looks like a lie. He says he didn’t intend that message, but it turns out this isn’t the first time he’s posted along these lines. “They should’ve ran them over…. It’s their fault and not that of the driver,” he posted in November. It’s not even the first time he gave legal advice on what to do after you commit the crime he suggests and how (in his (stupid) opinion) you can get away with it. I think he meant what he said.

Just to put a smiley face in the froth on the latte, there’s even a bit of “poor me” in the phrase about the “scornful attention” his “mistake” has produced.

You know what? We’re all sick and tired of having people block roads when we’re trying to get somewhere. But still don’t run them over.

Should have hired a better PR firm.

Let’s not speculate about Rothecker’s mental condition, let’s just glance at his record. He seems to be a mess of an officer, with a history of complaints and departmental discipline. And peeking at online records for no good reason. And three car accidents on duty. Which is relevant, because after the St. Paul police fire him, as I expect they will do, the state might want to consider taking away his driver’s license. Before he runs anybody over. Really.

On Christmas, my non-SorryWatch-non-Sumac colleague Mark Oppenheimer published a piece in the New York Times about a New Age spiritual leader named Marc Gafni. Gafni advises such luminaries as John Mackey (of Whole Foods), John Gray (of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus) and Arianna Huffington (of Fuck You, Pay Me). He uses words like “integral wisdom” and “meditation” and “renaissance,” and mentors business types in their quest for “conscious capitalism,” which is a thing. But Mark’s story shows that Gafni (born Mordechai Winiarz) also has a long history of statutory rape and sexual abuse allegations and all-around sexual manipulation. A former Orthodox rabbi, he had his ordination rescinded by the prominent rabbi who ordained him. What is relevant to our purposes here is that he apologized for his conduct, then RESCINDED the apology, which means we have a lot of SorryWatching to get to! My shakti is ready!

But first, read Mark’s entire piece in the Times and the longer foll0w-up piece in Tablet. (You can also read a heart-rending essay by one of his three ex-wives here.) Basically, the dude worked as a rabbi in both the Orthodox and Jewish Renewal branches of Judaism and kept leaving positions in the wake of scandal. (Mostly sex stuff, but there was some plagiarism thrown in there too.) He has acknowledged repeated sexual encounters with a 13-year-old girl — with whom he says he was “in love” and who he called “14 going on 35,” and who we we call victim of statutory rape, and he has been accused of getting naked, getting into bed with and repeatedly groping a 16-year-old girl — who he called “highly initiatory” and who we call a victim of statutory sexual abuse, you foot-faced predatory dickweasel.

But you know, tomato tomahto.

After these events, Gafni moved to Israel, changed his name, and became the leader of a mystical community. It fell apart when numerous women in it said he’d been sleeping with them and swearing them all to secrecy (Gafni told Mark he’d asked for “privacy,” not “secrecy”). One of the community’s other founders said that Gafni had acknowledged having “a monogamy problem.” Another noted that he just has a lot of shakti.

The fact is, many powerful folks have excused his behavior over the years. Men’s rights activist Warren Farrell said, “Orthodox communities are pretty sexually repressed, and Marc is not sexually repressed.” Conservative book editor Adam Bellow said that folks sometimes change their minds after the fact about what they’ve previously voluntarily engaged in. “We obviously cannot know for certain what occurred between two people—as the Hill/Thomas case amply demonstrates, memory is a very tricky thing and an experience that might seem benign or acceptable at one time in a person’s life may look very different in hindsight,” he emailed Mark. A female associate of Gafni’s, a member of his think tank and writer about Eastern philosophy, noted that Gafni is a wonderful teacher for “mature students” and not someone that “young, susceptible women should take as their teacher.” (Way to blame the victim, sister.)

And now that I’ve wiped the bitter disbelieving spittle off my monitor, ON TO THE APOLOGIES!

After Gafni’s spiritual community in Israel imploded, he moved to Utah and published this online apology, beginning, “To My Holiest Friends.” (Apparently the less holy don’t deserve apologies.)

I want to say I understand I have made grave mistakes. I made choices that clearly hurt people I love. I am infinitely saddened and profoundly sorry for the pain I have caused.

I take full responsibility for all the pain I have inflicted. Clearly all of this and more indicates that in these regards I am sick. I need to acknowledge that sickness and to get help for it. That is what I am doing in this letter.

He goes on to say he’s “entering treatment” (where, what kind, for how long?) and committed to “making healing the number one priority in my life” (healing whom, exactly?). He concludes, “I apologize with all of my heart and soul to everyone,” and signs off, “With love and pain beyond words.”

SUCH WRONGNESS, WOW. A letter of apology needs to start with the apology, not end with it. Apologies need to say you’re sorry to everyone, not just to the people you hurt. Predatory teachers and spiritual leaders hurt everyone, so apologize to everyone. Be specific about what you did. This letter is so vague, it could be an expression of regret for using the synagogue’s meat cutting board to slice cheese. Stop repeating that you’re “sick,” which is a way to evade responsibility: it’s not you who did this, it’s your illness! And ending with “love and pain beyond words,” again, makes this about YOU. It’s not about those whose lives and community you destroyed. Your suffering is not relevant to an apology.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

Gafni later took back his apology. His explanation, on his web site, must be read to be believed.

But the highlights: “Why, if these complaints were not true, did I sign a letter that took all responsibility for what happened onto myself and attributed what happened to my ‘sickness?'” (Nice use of “scare quotes,” as we call them in the biz!) “My initial response emerged from a place of radical shock, confusion, trauma, and fear. All products of the mind’s illusion, yet painfully real at the time.” (Why do New Age people love the term “radical” so much? Whatevs, his wrongdoing was merely an illuuuuuuusion — please say that in magician Doug Henning’s voice.)

“I felt that as ‘Captain of the Ship’ I needed to take responsibility for any sickness that appeared in a system that I had created.” Ooh, his beloved word “sickness” is back, but this time it is not aimed inward. It’s in the system, and its presence has been invoked in the passive voice (sickness appeared! like a rabbit inside a top hat!). This aligns with the theory of spontaneous generation, in which ancient cultures believed that life could arise out of non-living matter, like maggots materializing in rotten meat and mice appearing in sweaty underwear.

“I also recognized that the clash between my post-conventional values and the values of the systems in which I lived, and the holding of privacy to resolve that tension, made me vulnerable to attack.” Post-conventional values is like “post-racial society.” And Gafni is the victim, of course, vulnerable to evil-doers. (Cosby-esque crazy bitches, gold diggers, politically motivated resentful power-hungry monocle-wearing villains — your choice.) He refers to the “unconventional nature of his relationships” being held against him by narrow-minded unimaginative sexually repressed loserfaces (I paraphrase), and says he found “the notion of engaging in a sensationalist conflict in the public realm so abhorrent and defiling to both my heart” that he chose to fall on his own sword. (His metaphor. And by sword he does not mean penis.)

Also, everything happened so fast he got confused! There was a rush to judgment. He felt despair and shock and paralyzing grief and he could not breathe. He had NO IDEA all those women he was sleeping with and swearing to silence were “unhappy with our relationships.” (Those were not relationships. Relationships, including polyamorous ones, are consensual, dude.) “Not in my wildest nightmare did I ever imagine the absurd possibility that someone would file a false complaint against me for sexual harassment,” he writes. Absurd! He was “abandoned,” a victim of “hysteria” (you know women with their hysterica, it’s a KNOWN FEMALE PLUMBING THING, related to fallopian tubes or the uterine lining or something). Ominously, the “feminine shadow [was] manipulated behind the scenes by masculine shadow, that is to say women encouraged and manipulated by men.” So often these false-accusation-y victim-y lemming-y women are easily led by penis-havers, like tiny Konrad Lorenz ducklings.

Also someone erased his hard drive so he couldn’t prove his innocence. And in Israel “unlike any other country in the world,” sexual harassment is a criminal offense. You can be jailed for it! That is cray! So he left. (He didn’t flee. He totally asked the police first and they didn’t care what he supposedly did, so pay no attention to what he said a few sentences ago about the possibility of being jailed.) His only flaw was that he “believed it legitimate for [him] to have a private life.”

“The image of my children seeing me go to jail for an offense that I never committed, simply because I was unable to disprove the complaints, dominated my consciousness and guided my actions in the following weeks―until I was able to reconnect with my center, my natural love and authentic self, and walk through the fear. I wrote the letter in an attempt to give myself time to do this. I did not fully realize that writing the letter would be taken as a confession that the complaints were true. They are not.”

So there you have it! Un-apology unlocked! Watch out for the feminine shadow! Go to Whole Foods and try the organic cruelty-free $23.99 almond butter!

There’s this host of an Outdoor Channel show, who also does shooting tips for a shotgun company. While on a bear-hunting trip for the show, the star messed up in a big way, shot too many bears, and cooked up a scheme with the guides to make it look like it never happened.

They all look alike, amiright?

The penalty for the cover-up is greater than the penalty for the crime, and it got all of them in trouble.

And none of the media covering the story can talk about it without saying “beauty queen.”

(You know. Your parents talk you into trying one tiny pageant, and you never live it down. Ask Emmy Lou Harris about being Miss Woodbridge. Maybe better, don’t ask her. Anyway, Sarah Palin doesn’t play up Miss Wasilla. You’ll never hear Donald Trump mention Little Mr. Queens.)

Unable to tell if Reinhold Nibuhr is credited.

The star is Theresa Vail, Miss Kansas 2013. Her pageant history is actually more relevant than usual, since that’s how she got in the public eye and promoted her love of hunting (and support for the NRA).

Vail was a bowhunter when she vied for Miss Leavenworth County in 2012 She intended her display of talent to be archery. A few days before the contest, she learned that talents could not involve projectiles. (They lost too many judges?) She decided to sing, found the aria “Nessun Dorma” on YouTube, and learned to perform it “in 48 hours.” She won.

She won Miss Kansas in 2013, and in 2014 went for Miss America. She had refined her message, which was “Empowering Women: Overcoming Stereotypes and Breaking Barriers.” She said going hunting with her father as a kid had given her the confidence to stand up under bullying so severe she “nearly took my own life.” She said she wanted to break stereotypes, with the hunting stuff, and with the fact that she was in the Kansas Army National Guard and chose not to use concealer on her giant Serenity Prayer tattoo.

The young Vail with her father.

She made the top 10, and was eliminated after the talent section in which she again sang “Nessun Dorma.” Which by then she’d had time to work on. Many people were impressed that she tried to sing opera, or impressed by her vocal range, but others were less charmed. They said she was shrill. Screechy. They said her lack of training showed. The Schmopera blog confined themselves to saying “predictably not great.” That wasn’t snobbery about beauty pageants: they liked Laura “Miss Wisconsin” Kaeppeler ‘s performance of “Il bacio” in 2012, and Betty “Miss Georgia” Cantrell’s version of “Tu? tu? piccolo iddio” in 2015.

Her enthusiasm for hunting and shooting along with her message of empowerment were attractive to “sporting” industries. She told Fox411 “The Second Amendment is my life.” She also speaks well of God.

Pro Tip: Immediately report your game violations.

The Outdoor Channel created a show around her, Limitless with Theresa Vail. It “presents the compelling story of a young, grass roots, red-blooded, all-American woman who is on a mission to overcome stereotypes, break barriers, and use her life story as a platform to help transform people’s opinions of all the things a woman should, could and can be.” (I am personally inspired by her hatred of pink camo.)

Watch to see Vail do “a 26.2 mile trek in the Bataan Death March in New Mexico, climb Wyoming’s notorious “Devil’s Tower,” head to the coast of British Columbia in search of grizzlies, and skydive with the West Point Parachute Team.”

Franchi, an Italian gun manufacturer and a sponsor of Limitless, hired her as a “prostaffer” to do videos giving tips on how to make a crossing shot when shooting doves, how to make a straight-away shot, and how to choose a choke tube for your shotgun.

During the shoot for the above-mentioned trip “in search of grizzlies,” which went to Alaska instead of BC, Vail got a tag to shoot a grizzly. With experienced guides Michael “Wade” Renfro and Joseph Miller, she sallied forth, and encountered at least two bears.

She shot and wounded a male bear (boar). To finish him off, she shot again, but instead hit another bear entirely, a female (sow). Exactly what happened has not been told, but both bears ended up dead. Alaskan law specifies that is legal to kill an adult sow bear unless she has cubs with her, but it also says you can’t kill more than one bear a year (or every 4 years in other parts of the state).

Oh hai, Mr. Bear. Oh, Ms. Bear? Sorry, Ms. Bear.

Breaking game laws might be interesting television, but it isn’t good publicity for anyone.

Vail, Renfro, and Miller illegally obtained a second tag, which was backdated, presumably to the previous year. That made it look as if both bears had been legally killed.

A week or two later, Vail and the crew told the Outdoor Channel – and the State of Alaska – what had happened. Outdoor Channel pulled the episode from upcoming shows. The State charged Vail with taking a brown or grizzly bear without a tag, and with second-degree unsworn falsification. Misdemeanors. Renfro and Miller were charged with failing to report a hunting violation, with committing, aiding or allowing a violation, and – in Renfro’s case – second-degree unsworn falsification.

A hearing in December, has been put off until January. In the meantime, Vail made an apology:

This May, during an Alaskan guided bear hunt, I unintentionally harvested a second bear while attempting a follow up shot. I then followed poor advice and allowed the second bear to be improperly tagged. A few days later, the film crew and I reported the incident and have since fully cooperated with the proper authorities.

I am deeply sorry for my mistakes.

A bad apology. She dodges full responsibility. Without naming names, she blames those who gave her poor advice on this guided hunt. She minimizes the event. Saying she “harvested” a bear instead of shooting or killing a bear is such routine wording that she probably didn’t realize it’s a euphemism. She doesn’t say she did anything wrong, she just “allowed” wrong things to be done. But “improper” minimizes the faking and lying to get the second tag. “A few days” is also minimizing, since the hunt was from May 18-27 and the violation was reported to Alaska Wildlife Troopers on June 3^rd.

I have a lot on my shoulders right now.

It’s probably true she got poor advice, but she made the poor decision to follow that advice.

Maybe she’ll do a better apology in January.

I am personally maddened by the vagueness. How do you shoot the wrong bear? Did the female throw herself in front of the male? Did the injured male hide behind the female? Did the two of them run off at high speed, forcing a distant shot at a fleeing target? We may never be told, if the same level of vague description is permitted in court.

A shame, for those of us who are seeking hunting tips.

(Thanks to Emily Gertz, for pointing us to this one.)

(Also, I made up the thing about Little Mr. Queens.)

Hugo Solano was killed by a violent teenager. Left behind were his wife Ana Solano and their two children. When the teenager, Juan Martin Garcia, was on trial Ana Solano was asked what sentence she thought he should get.

She didn’t know what to say. She said she felt bad for Garcia. “But to forgive your enemies is very difficult. I can’t say. That is why the jury is here and there is established law. All I know is that my husband is not coming back here.”

They probably asked her that because she and her late husband were Christian missionaries.

Juan Martin Garcia

Garcia was with three other guys when they approached Solano as he headed out to work. Later Garcia said it was another guy’s idea to rob Solano. He also said that Solano resisted. “He punches me. First thing that came through my mind is that the dude is going to try to kill me. He grabbed the gun with both of his hands and it discharged.”

It “discharged” 4 times. The robbers got $8 from his wallet and fled. Eleven days later, Garcia was pulled over for a broken headlight. When he got out of the car, he dropped a gun. The police let him go (taking the gun), but arrested him when they found it was the gun that killed Solano.

Hugo Solano died in 1998. Juan Martin Garcia was found guilty and sentenced to death in 2000. Of the other three guys, one got 55 years for aggravated robbery, one got 30 years for aggravated robbery, and one got a life sentence for capital murder.

The State of Texas killed Garcia last month, by which time he was 35 years old. He had fought his sentence on various grounds, but had no luck with his appeals or with his final clemency petition.

A New York Times story put it this way: “Over the years, Garcia had refused to apologize and had mounted legal appeals hinging on flimsy excuses, saying he was high on drugs at the time of the crime and, in his stupor, had thought Hugo Solano was going to kill him.”

“Flimsy excuses.” “Discharged.” “Aggravated.” There are a lot of interesting word choices in this story. “Refused” is another one, since there’s no evidence anyone asked him to apologize. And perhaps, like so many people and business entities, Garcia didn’t apologize because he feared it would hurt his case.

At any rate, he apologized before his execution. He apologized to Ana Solano and her daughter, in Spanish. We’re told he cried and said:

That harm that I did to your dad and husband … I hope this brings you closure. I never wanted to hurt any of you all.

Ana Solano and her daughter cried too. Ana Solano accepted Garcia’s apology because it came “from his heart.” She has come to believe the death penalty is wrong. She told an Associated Press reporter that murderers should live so they can teach others to avoid their mistakes. “It’s about God. It’s about Jesus,” she said.

It sounds like he apologized for what he did, to the living people most directly hurt. He acknowledged the impact.

I wish we had more of the text of Garcia’s (translated) apology. But I think it’s a good one.

It’s possible to be harmed by peanuts even if you don’t have a peanut allergy. In 2009 a widespread salmonella outbreak was traced back to the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA). Hundreds of people got sick when they ate tainted peanut butter or products made from tainted peanuts or peanut butter. Nine people died.

Probably a lot more people got sick without the cause being figured out. Most cases of salmonella aren’t reported. Peanut meal and paste are used in a lot of products where their presence might not be suspected. The infection spread as far as Happy Tails Multi-Flavor Dog Biscuits. Lots of sick dogs and sick people never hit the radar.

Parnell declining to answer questions in Congress in 2009, on his lawyers’ advice.

There was a huge recall – thousands of products. PCA declared bankruptcy. There was a congressional hearing at which PCA owner/president/CEO Stewart Parnell appeared, but refused to speak, citing the advice of legal counsel.

There were investigations by the FDA, the FBI, and the states of Georgia, Texas, and Virginia. Parnell, his brother Michael Parnell, PCA’s Blakely plant quality control manager Mary Wilkerson, and a former PCA processing plant manager Samuel Lightsey were all indicted.

There’s more than one way to lose a customer.

They were charged with defrauding corporations which bought their peanut products and turned them into such things as peanut-butter crackers and dog biscuits. At trial, evidence showed that Parnell was far more interested in making money than in running a clean peanut operation. The PCA plant in Blakely was infested with pests and had a leaky roof. Some batches of peanut product were never tested for salmonella but were shipped with fake records saying they were uncontaminated. Others were tested and came back positive, but were shipped anyway. (Unsurprisingly, PCA paid only minimum wage and did not like to waste money on repairing things.)

At the end of the trial, victims and survivors were given the usual chance to speak. “My mother surely beat cancer and died from eating peanut butter,” said Jeff Almer. “You took my mom, you kicked her right off the cliff.”

Jacob Hurley, now 10, had been violently sick for 2 weeks when he was 3. He’d eaten peanut butter crackers. Hurley testified that it would be fine with him if Parnell spent the rest of his life in jail.

Parnell, probably taking a different view, apologized. He hadn’t done this before, keeping silence. It’s possible – in fact likely – that his lawyers had instructed him not to say anything, including apologies. Even though that was probably bad advice. “Too little, too late,” said a man whose grandmother died. (Peanut butter crackers.)

Seemingly so innocent.

I find slightly different versions of Parnell’s apology. The Guardian has him saying “It’s just been a seven-year nightmare for me and my family. All I can do is come before you and ask for forgiveness from you and the people back here. I’m truly sorry for what happened.”

This uses the always-fatal ‘the one who’s really suffered is ME’ argument. Didn’t work for former BP president ‘I’d like my life back’ Tony Hayward, didn’t work for Parnell. And when he says “for what happened,” he’s avoiding saying what he did.

WALB-TV has Parnell complaining of a “several-year nightmare,” and adds that he said, “To the victims, I apologize tremendously.”

Several sources say Parnell began by saying “First, I want to apologize to all of our consumers.” Consumers. Who identifies as a consumer? I’ll argue that with “consumers” Parnell puts distance between himself and those who got sick or had relatives die. Maybe a tiny bit of blame. ‘We just sold it, they consumed it.’ (And Food Safety News snorts, “it’s very unlikely that he will ever sell another peanut again.” How cruel.)

Michael Parnell said, “To the families of the victims, I apologize tremendously. I am truly sorry for you guys’ problems.” He asked for a lenient sentence, saying “I beg you to be as merciful as possible.”

Why does “you guys’ problems” rub me the wrong way? Let me point out , Mr. Michael Parnell, that the fact that you are pleading for leniency suggests that it’s YOUR PROBLEM TOO.

Also requesting leniency was the Parnell boys’ mother, Zelda Parnell. She told the judge the lads had “suffered for years.” She said, “They lost their income, all their material things and worst of all, their pride.”

Not sure that was helpful. Though it could have been worse. According to Food Safety News, which I am sure has followed the trial with close attention, a Parnell sister, Beth Falwell, was ejected from the courtroom. Apparently she had been making “obscene gestures to the outbreak victims.”

Trust, but verify.

(This brings up the whole issue of family members who wish to show support, and may opt to do so in ill-advised ways, and who will never apologize even if their over-the-top behavior causes the judge to have you tased and shackled when all you did was call out, “Dad, cool it, please!” Maybe that hasn’t happened to all of us – yet – but we can all imagine it, right? My point? That part was not Stuart Parnell’s fault.)

Anyway, the judge wasn’t so lenient. Parnell got 28 years. Michael Parnell got 20. Wilkerson got 5. (Lightsey earlier took a deal and testified at the trial.)

Peanuts are amusing and other people’s rambunctious family members are funny. But food safety regulation is serious business. We have that particular kind of red tape – and prosecutions for dodging it – for a reason. It saves lives, and oh yes incidentally, it builds trust in the food supply. (I’M LOOKING AT YOU, CHINA.)

Joseph Sledge stole some T-shirts from a department store. Shoplifting. Is a crime.

In middle school, high school, and college, I knew kids who shoplifted. Naming no names. Little did we realize how that leads to a lifetime of suffering.

Free to go.

For his evil deeds, Joseph Sledge was sentenced to four years in a North Carolina prison work camp. (Like any of the kids I knew when they got caught? Oddly, no. Different place, different race.)

One day, on the work crew, another inmate attacked Sledge, cracking his skull. The authorities revoked the attacker’s “honor” status. Then, after six months, they put him back on the same crew as Sledge.

Sledge was afraid the guy would kill him. Somehow he didn’t think prison officials worried about his safety. He jumped a fence, hid in the woods, and walked to Fayetteville.

Escaped convict!

This immediately made him a suspect in a horrible double murder, rape, and robbery that happened the next day in nearby-ish Elizabethtown.

The police picked him up and questioned him. He cooperated, retracing his route for them. They sent him back to prison, because he had taken those T-shirts. But they had no evidence connecting him with the crime. There were lots of fingerprints at the crime scene, but not his. He was still in prison shoes, and there was no blood on them, although the person who killed mother and daughter Josephine and Aileen Davis had left bloody shoe prints at the crime scene.

Months passed. The Davis murders weren’t the only murders in the area, and pressure mounted for the police to do something. A reward was offered. Armed vigilante groups patrolled the area. Police and prison officials began interviewing inmates who’d been housed with Sledge.

Soon they had two guys who said that Sledge had confessed – even boasted about – the crimes to them. A year after the murders, Sledge was charged.

At trial both inmates swore they had not been promised better treatment or a share of the reward money for testifying against Sledge. The primitive forensic science of 1978 was on the order of ‘Yes, those could easily have been his hairs. It was some black guy.’ After a mistrial, Sledge was convicted and sent to prison (no cushy work detail this time). He got two life terms, to be served one after another.

No one cared that Sledge said he was innocent. He wrote a lot of letters asking to have someone look into his case. Nothing. Years passed. Decades passed.

In 2003, Sledge (unaided by any lawyer), filed a motion to have DNA testing done on the old evidence at the crime scene. Those hairs. A court ordered a search for the evidence. But it’s not clear that anybody actually searched. They didn’t find them, so they couldn’t be tested.

“I’ll never forget this day as long as I live.”

In 2012 a Columbus County clerk was cleaning the evidence vault. Clean is good. She actually got on a ladder to get those high shelves. She noticed an envelope lying flat on an upper shelf. With the hairs from the crime scene inside. 2012. Recall that Sledge had been asking for those hairs to be tested since 2003. He’d written to judges, prosecutors, police. Yeah yeah yeah yeah another letter from a guy who says he didn’t do it. 2012.

It happens that North Carolina established an Innocence Inquiry Commission in 2006. (Does your state have one of these? Is your state North Carolina? It’s not? Then no.) The Commission examined Sledge’s claims. The hairs were tested, and what about that, they weren’t Sledge’s. They voted that exoneration might be in order. They were aided by attorneys for Sledge from the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence.

Another thing the Commission did was look into the matter of the inmates who’d testified that Sledge confessed. One was dead, but the other one said it had all been a lie. He lied in return for lenient treatment on a drug charge. Plus reward money. Also, the police had supplied him with details of the crime scene that had not been published, which he put into his lies about Sledge’s “confession.”

They discovered old police notes that had supposedly been destroyed. They also found that the prosecutors knew, but didn’t tell the defense, about another suspect. This person lived about 500 yards from the scene of the crime, and had been dropped off near there on the day of the killings. The police had reported that there was a shoe print near this person’s house similar to the bloody shoe prints at the scene. (Why didn’t they go after him? Might it be because he hadn’t been in prison, so they weren’t able to get prisoners to claim he’d confessed to them? Dunno.)

A special session of Superior Court was arranged. Three judges agreed that Sledge was innocent and should go free.

Some relatives of the murdered woman were not pleased. A granddaughter of one victim read a statement: “We, the family, are heartbroken by this decision. District Attorney Jon David states that he will be reopening this case, and we, the remaining family members, are shocked by this change.”

Two years earlier, another granddaughter had expressed incredulity that the evidence against Sledge was being examined. “I heard about it, but I don’t believe it,” she said. “I just don’t, because he’s the one that done it.” She was the one who discovered the bodies.

A grandson had taken a different view, saying if Sledge was guilty, he should stay in prison. But if not, the grandson would be angry at law enforcement for punishing the wrong person, and letting the guilty person go free.

Jon David, the county’s current district attorney, spoke to the court about what had gone wrong in Sledge’s case. The technology had been greatly inferior. Sledge’s escape, and the testimony about his “confession” made it an open and shut case. (David is not the one who prosecuted Sledge so long ago.)

“There’s nothing we regret more to our values as prosecutors than to believe an innocent person is in prison,” David said. “There’s nothing worse for a prosecutor than convicting an innocent person.”

Let me just be the first on behalf of the State of North Carolina to apologize to Mr. Sledge.

and:

The ‘sorry’ is imperfect to convey the magnitude of what happened with respect to this man’s life.

He said he would request the state re-open the case. “The system has made a mistake. The wrong man is in prison.”

That’s nice. Back in 2013, when the Innocence Commission had the new DNA evidence and the changed testimony about the ‘confession,’ David was adamant that Sledge was the murderer and filed documents opposing the claim. He said the evidence wasn’t so relevant and had little validity. A first lab that looked at the hair samples found they were too “degraded” (because old) to test.

And David didn’t think anyone should be impressed by the jailhouse snitch’s new testimony. “The circumstances surrounding the defendant’s obtaining the alleged ‘recantation are important for the court to consider when evaluating what, if any, credibility to assign Mr. Baker’s recent affidavit. Mr. Baker’s physical and mental state are also legitimate subjects of inquiry,” he wrote.

Sledge used the word ‘sorry’ too, not in an apology but in sympathy. He told the victims’ relatives, “I’m very, very sorry for your loss. I hope you get closure in this matter.”

Joseph Sledge went free. He was embraced by his sister, his brother, a nephew he’d never met, and by his lawyers from the Center on Actual Innocence. They took him out for oyster stew. He’s due $750,000 for 36 years in prison. I want him to live happily ever after.

David’s apology is a good precedent, but not a good apology. It’s not a performative utterance, in that he says he’s apologizing to Mr. Sledge, but doesn’t actually say “I apologize, Mr. Sledge” or “I’m sorry, Mr. Sledge.” There’s too much about the suffering of prosecutors.

‘What happened to you was awful. We totally hate when that happens, worse than anything! Hate it! It hurts us here.’

Yet, bad as it is, it counts for a lot. And re-opening the case is the right thing to do, even though it’s awfully late.

I will argue that more apologies are due. Obviously Sledge is the individual who suffered the most from this miscarriage of justice. (Unless – the actual killer then killed more people after the DA’s office said Sledge was the culprit.)

All citizens are owed an apology for the framing of the wrong guy, and for the real killer going free. We’re owed an apology for the degradation of our justice system.

One of Sledge’s attorneys from the NC Center on Actual Innocence, Christine Mumma, made this comment on the envelope of hair samples that Sledge asked to have re-tested for so long: “I understand the shelf was high, but there was a ladder.”

We’re owed efforts to make the system better. For example, I want to hear about ways to prevent convictions on the basis of jailhouse snitches who will make money and go free if they give false testimony. (Mr. David?) Not a new idea. It’s why the supposed confession-hearers testified at Sledge’s first trial that they had not been promised better treatment or a share of the reward money for testifying. Because everyone knows that could influence what people say. There were people who knew that was perjury, and didn’t speak up. People who had offered the better treatment and reward money.

What happened to Sledge was so devastating that some people will say “What good is an apology? It won’t give him back 36 years. It won’t give him back his youth.” It’s true no one can give him back that time. But we can give him some satisfaction: that of knowing that everybody knows what happened to him was wrong. Even the agencies that did it to him admit it was wrong.

“This is about 25 years’ worth” of doing pushups in prison.

Frank O’Connell, a man who was wrongly convicted of murder in Los Angeles and spent 27 years in prison, is suing LA county. As reported in The New Yorker, he said, “I will accept twelve million with a public apology, or fourteen million with a private apology to me and my family, or eighteen million with no apology whatsoever.” He wants them to take responsibility for framing him. “If they would say, ‘I was wrong, and I’m sorry,’ I would say, ‘I forgive you.’”

That’s probably similar to the thinking of many exonerated prisoners. O’Connell simply made it explicit.

Think of what these men lost. Think of how much it means to them to get an apology. Think of how much government agencies are willing to pay not to apologize.

Don’t tell me apologies aren’t important.