- This topic has 3 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 9 months, 1 week ago by mods-cm-org.
September 8, 2020 at 17:05 #59133NoTwoReally
Reference is made here to QCs named Lewis and Summers, first names James and Mark respectively. I think Craig has rather unfortunately substituted one first name for another, putting one in mind of an earlier legal battle.September 8, 2020 at 19:04 #59136mods-cm-org
On a skim read of the article, it isn’t obvious that the names have been confused anywhere. Can you please specify exactly where you think the confusion occurs?September 9, 2020 at 00:26 #59160reader1
“For the US government, Mark Lewis QC replied that more scrutiny was needed of this request. The new matters in the indictment were purely criminal. They do not affect the arguments about the political nature of the case, or affect most of the witnesses. If more time were granted, “with the history of this case, we will just be presented with a sleigh of other material which will have no bearing on the small expansion of count 2””
James Lewis, not Mark Lewis.September 9, 2020 at 04:16 #59218mods-cm-org
Great! Many thanks for alerting us. Similar name mix-ups happened during the Salmond trial.
The initial versions of Craig’s articles occasionally include trivial spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and random typos, but they’re usually fixed by the mods within an hour or so. Factual errors (like name confusions or misattributions) are harder to spot.
Sometimes the errors reappear if Craig saves the original, uncorrected, version of the article before closing his edit window. (There were about 30 errors in one of the Salmond articles, and the corrections were inadvertently overwritten 4 times; correcting errors can be a Sisyphean task!) The mods are usually busy monitoring and moderating the early stream of comments, so sometimes we don’t get time to read the article in full and rely on readers to alert us to typos. Generally it’s best to leave a grace period of an hour or so before notifying us, as we may already be on the case.
Early yesterday the entity formerly known as Habbabkuk posted some badgering requests for a specific correction (“supervising indictment” > “superseding indictment”), and tried to claim credit when the amendments were made – but in fact those errors and several others had already been identified and corrected, and the corrections were awaiting release of the article for editing. When a number of other eagle-eyed readers started posting alerts about other typos, we eventually had to seize control of the article to make the changes; and thankfully, they haven’t been overwritten (so far, anyway).
So thanks for notifying us about this, and for using the appropriate forum to do so.