What John Carroll said in Berkeley: "If you read [Thomas' biography], you'd be amazed
you'd never heard of this man, because he pretty much single-handedly
won World War 2 for us. It was a preposterous book, and our review of
it was an investigative review and debunked many of the claims in this
book, and had some fun doing it...

When you put yourself out into the public and make claims that
are preposterous, and publish a book on it, you're likely to get a
reviewer who will look into that and set the record straight.

We were sued by [Thomas], and the lawyers presented their case in
preliminary proceedings, and the case was dismissed. And the case was
so weak that [Thomas] not only had to pay his own
legal fees, he was ordered by the court to pay ours...

Then his legal team became a PR team, set up a web site, set up slick
brochures ... saying that the paper
did something terrible. I'm very proud of that story. We haven't
retracted a word of it; we don't intend to, because it was true."

Mr. Rivenburg may assert that Michel Thomas getting the Silver Star "has absolutely nothing to do with the issues discussed in my article" but any fair reading of the article reveals that its thrust was to question Thomas's accounts of his World War II experiences, to suggest that he fabricated or exaggerated them. His editor's defense of his work did not include any discussion of the factual issues raised in the lawsuit, or on our web site. It was merely a blanket affirmation of his reporter's work. Comforting, no doubt, but beside the point.

If Mr. Rivenburg is prepared to defend his story, we would be most interested in his answers to the following questions, posted here in March, but never answered.

1) Why did he ignore so much of the evidence he was presented about Michel Thomas's WWII experiences, such as the photos Michel Thomas took at the Dachau crematorium, for which he still retains the negatives? What about the original signed statements of the crematorium workers, in German, that Thomas showed him: did he assume these were fakes? If so, why?

2) Why did Mr. Rivenburg focus on a technical detail such as Thomas's acknowledged lack of a US military ID number, and never mention in his article his interview of Ted Kraus, Thomas's still-living Army comrade who served with him in Germany during 1945-46 as a fellow Agent in the US Counter Intelligence Corps? Why did he ignore the many WWII-era letters from Thomas's superiors commending his superior perfomance in combat intelligence and with the Army's Counter Intelligence Corps, such as the letter that just led to Mr. Thomas getting the Silver Star?

4) In suggesting Thomas was a phony Dachau liberator, Rivenburg quoted Felix Sparks, the Lt. Col. who led the first troops into Dachau, as saying that Thomas was not with his troops that day. Yet Sparks later signed a letter stating that Thomas could very easily have gone to the camp that day without his knowledge -- the letter is posted on our website. Sparks further stated that Rivenburg said to him, "This guy Thomas says he was with you when you went into Dachau" -- but Thomas never made any such statement, and had never heard of Felix Sparks until he read Rivenburg's article. How does Rivenburg explain this apparent attempt to mislead a source in order to elicit a damaging quote about Thomas?

5) Rivenburg used a similar tactic with Hugh Foster, an expert on the liberation of Dachau. Foster also signed a letter -- again posted on our website -- suggesting Rivenburg misled him by not revealing crucial evidence Rivenburg knew but did not reveal to Foster. Foster pulled back from his statements quoted by Rivenburg and said he is satisfied Michel Thomas was at Dachau on the day of liberation. Why did Rivenburg not reveal so much crucial information to Foster when he contacted him? Does Rivenburg still claim there is any doubt that Thomas was in the camp on April 29, 1945?

6) Rivenburg implied that Thomas' account of rescuing the Nazi Party's worldwide membership card files in May 1945 was bogus. Thomas says he found the mountains of documents in a paper mill near Munich, where the SS had sent them to be pulped in the closing days of the war. One of the leading experts in the world on captured German war documents, Robert Wolfe, reviewed extensive documentation at the National Archives, and examined a key document -- an original letter bearing Himmler's signature -- that Thomas took from the paper mill and has kept to this day. Wolfe has written an extensive scholarly evaluation of the evidence and states that he is confident Michel Thomas's account is true. He also testified to that effect at the mock trial held at Berkeley's law school last April, calling Thomas's rescue of the files a "historic contribution." Does Rivenburg still insist that Thomas did not rescue these files? If so, how can he argue away the detailed and scholarly opinion of Robert Wolfe?

7) Conrad McCormick, whom Rivenburg interviewed and quoted in his article, signed a sworn Declaration -- again, posted on our web site -- stating that he never wrote a Letter-to-the-Editor which the Times published over his name in their Letters column in early May 2001. McCormick stated that he recognized some of the text of the letter from email correspondence he exchanged with Rivenburg prior to the article's publication. Did Rivenburg convert McCormick's emails to him into a phony Letter-to-the-Editor, apparently expressing approval of his own article? If not, how did that Letter appear in the paper?

8) Even if Mr. Rivenburg were to somehow establish some discrepancy in Mr. Thomas's accounts of his WWII experiences -- to my knowledge he has not done so to date for even the most trivial issues -- what purpose was served by an attack on an 87 year-old man whose family was murdered by the Nazis, whose WWII service was never before questioned, and who has now been lauded by the U.S. Army, two prominent Senators, the Ambassador of France, and nearly half a dozen former WWII comrades?

I find it funny that a humor columnist (Roy Rivenburg) would do one serious story “Larger than Life” about Michel Thomas. I guess he was trying to make a name as a serious reporter. When his research is shown to be faulty both he and his editor claim it to be a humor piece. If the article about Michel Thomas was supposed to be a humor piece then Rivenburg really did a poor job with the article. If the article was a serious scholarly work then Rivenburg didn't do his homework, or intentionally manipulated the story and his experts to reach the conclusion he desired. How can one ignore eyewitness statements as well as documents provided by experts? I think the Michel Thomas website is to kind to you. Which is it Mr. Rivenburg? Is it a humor article or an article written by someone with an agenda, not willing to keep to the facts?

If you look at that web site at www.michelthomas.org, they have posted an affidavit by a Conrad McCormick, stating that the L.A. Times published a letter over his name which he says he never wrote. McCormick states that he was interviewed by Rivenburg, who apparently lifted quotes from their email correspondence and made them into a Letter-to-the-Editor indicating approval of his own article. Doesn't the Times have some system of vetting such letters to make sure they are not plants? If so, how do they explain how this letter got into the paper?

The whole thing looks awfully desperate and pathetic to me.

Rob, you should reread the afidavit. McCormack does not claim he "never wrote" the letter. He says he didn't send it with the INTENT it would become a "letter to the editor." Big difference. I find it hard to swallow that the newspaper would make up a letter but be dumb enough to sign it with the name of a real person who could be traced.

From what Alex Kline above wrote and the website, it looks like the Times or Rivenburg cobbled together emails to make the letter to the editor. Seems like that should be some kind of ethics violation, plagiarism at the least. How do they explain that? Is there an ethics watch group?

Pete, read the afidavit. All it says is that the letter wasn't sent with the intention of being printed as a letter to the editor. It does not state the letter was cobbled or plagiarized or made up. That's rhetoric from a clever attorney.

If the website is twisting and parsing on something as minor as that, what are they doing with the big evidence, I wonder.

SCH In the declaration McCormick wrote that he exchanged emails with Rivenburg. He says he never wrote a letter to the editor. How can anyone with a conscience take someones emails that were written before the article was published and assimilate them into a letter to the editor that say he agrees with the article, an article he hadn't seen when he wrote the emails. That is totaly unconscionable! What kind of person would do that? How can you possibly defend that?

Pete, obviously you're not an attorney. The afidavit is parsed very carefully. Ignore the website's rhetoric and read what the afidavit SAYS. It does not state the email was plural and does not state when it was written. Nor does it contain one word about the content of the letter being cobbled or falsified. It only states the letter was not written with the intent that it be printed as a "letter to the editor." Since the letter that appeared in the newspaper referred to the article in the past tense, it apparently was written after the article was published, correct? And since the afidavit does not state that McCormack disagreed with the words in the published "letter to the editor," how is it made up? The website's interpretation looks like a lot of blowing smoke. If they blow this much smoke on a minor matter, what is up with the rest of their evidence?

Get a grip Croft. Or a clue. Yes it would be unethical, unconscionable and stupid to make up a letter and run it. End of that controversy. Nobody disagrees. Next question: did the Times do it? Put another way, did people at the L.A. Times put their jobs on the line and conspire to write a fake letter, stupidly put a real person's name on it so it is easily checked and debunked, then put it in the paper, all to embarrass an old guy almost nobody has heard of who was only worth a story in the feature section to begin with? I vote probably not. And funny enough, there is no credible evidence that it happened.

Well how did the the letter get published? McCormick says he recognized part of the "letter" as being from emails he sent to Rivenburg. He wrote and signed a sworn affidavit that he didn't write the letter. You could argue that someone else wrote the "letter" except for the fact the McCormick says that that he recognized some of the letter as coming from his emails. Obviously the only people that had access to the emails were McCormick, he swears he didn't write it, and Rivenburg and the Times. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Yes, we can tell it seems obvious to you.

Here is the text of Mr. McCormick's sworn Declaration:

DECLARATION OF CONRAD R. McCORMICK

I, Conrad R. McCormick, declare and state as follows:

1. I am an Archivist at the U.S. Army Intelligence Museum in Fort Huachuca, Arizona. I also served as an Agent in the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. Sometine prior to April 15, 2001, I was contacted by Mr. Roy Rivenburg, who identified himself as a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, regarding the article he was writing about Michel Thomas. I spoke to Mr. Rivenburg by telephone and also exchanged e-mail correspondence with him regarding Mr. Thomas and CIC. I was quoted in the article about Mr. Thomas that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on April 15, 2001.

3. On May 7, 2001, the Los Angeles Times published a Letter to the Editor in the newspaper’s “Letters” column, with my name as the writer of that letter. The letter was signed “C.R. “Mac” McCormick, Sierra Vista, Ariz.” To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person with that name in Sierra Vista, Arizona. A true and correct copy of that Letter to the Editor is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

4. I did not write any letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times. I recognize some of the contents of the letter published with my name as text from e-mail correspondence that I exchanged with Mr. Rivenburg, in the course of our contact regarding his inquiries for the article. However, it is not my practice to write letters to the editor, and whatever words of mine that appeared in the alleged Letter to the Editor attached hereto as Exhibit "A" were not written to Mr. Rivenburg or the Los Angeles Times, with the intent that they would be published as a letter to the editor.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 8 January, 2001 at Sierra Vista, Arizona.

Signed: [Signature of Conrad R. McCormick]

Thanks, Grodin, for injecting a dose of sanity and logic to the proceedings. Your "vote" about what happened is, of course, correct. There was no phony letter, and the analysis of the affidavit is spot on.

Grodin's version reminds me of Martha Stewart's defense: "how could anyone believe I would do something that stupid?" What it does not do is explain how that letter got published as a Letter-to-the-editor, when Mr. McCormick has made a sworn statement that he never wrote any such letter.

Again, Mr. Rivenburg, perhaps you could enlighten us, since Mr. McCormick states that he recognizes some of what was published over his name from emails he exchanged with you prior to the article's publication. Maybe he is not recollecting things properly. You are in a position to set us straight. Why not do so?

Alex: I and some of the other posts above already have set you straight. And so have the courts. A federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed Mr. McCormick's affidavit, as well as the rest of your selectively presented evidence, and unanimously threw out Mr. Thomas' lawsuit as having no merit.

Roy:

You are correct that the Times won the case, and of course we have never disputed that. The point we have been trying to make since the case ended is that the implications of your article about Michel Thomas were false and misleading, and if you and Mr. Carroll take your paper's ethical pronouncements seriously, we cannot understand how the evidence that was put forward would not have convinced you, and John Carroll, that in publishing a hostile article that suggested Mr. Thomas had fabricated or exaggerated his WWII experiences, you had not only done a grave disservice to Mr. Thomas, but also to the 'sovereign readers' Mr. Carroll has cited as the most important group that the paper serves.

You can continue to say that your victory in court answers the questions we have posed, but you are either being disingenuous or you do not understand that the court's ruling never reached any issues concerning the truth or falsity of the derogatory implications of your article. The essence of the courts' rulings was that the article was not defamatory, and we of course disagree with those rulings. But the legal issues are not what we are asking you to address. Now that you are responding, will you answer the questions we have posed? Thus far, you have not. Until you do, we will keep petitioning your newspaper, and the press at large, and the general public, to insist on some substantive answers.

You should be aware that there are many who feel that your refusal to respond, and more importantly, Mr. Carroll's and your newspaper's refusal to acknowledge the well-documented facts of Mr. Thomas's life, raise some very serious issues about the integrity of the paper. Mr. Carroll is, as you know, widely acknowledged as one of the leading newspaper editors in the country, but I believe that his intemperate attack on Michel Thomas in February may well come back to haunt him, as there is more of a spotlight shone on this matter. After last week's events, it's not just the small circle of a few hundred 'Friends of Michel Thomas' who are upset about this. There are many others. I have just returned from Washington, DC where I spoke to a number of influential people about this case, after Mr. Thomas was honored by the U.S. Army, Senators Dole & Warner, the French Ambassador, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. There were many raised eyebrows, and there have been some significant organizations that have inquired about following up on this story, as you will soon see.

As I just posted elsewhere on this site, because Mr. Roderick has objected to our using up his bandwidth to discuss these issues, we have just set up a bulletin board at www.michelthomas.org. I hope you will take advantage of it to defend your article and your professional reputation. In spite of my sincere efforts to engage in a civil dialogue with you for nearly a year and a half, it has been a one-way conversation. Why not take the opportunity to defend yourself that we have now provided?

According to our reporter, Thomas got used and abused by both the LA Times AND Mel Gibson. That's an unusual two-fer. see the link....

What link?

New York's Newsday debunks Michel Thomas' claim to have been in the Army: http://www.laobserved.com/archive/002222.html

Newsday should also expose Thomas' claim that he was a citizen of Germany. Under the Reich Citizenship Law passed in 1935: "A Reich citizen is a subject of the state who is German or related blood, who proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit to serve the German people and Reich. A Reich citizen is the sole bearer of all political rights."

Thus Thomas not only was NOT a member of the US Army, as demonstrated by the pioneering and brave reporting of Roy Rivenburg, but as a Jew he was not a citizen of the countries where he lived during WWII: Germany and Vichy France. He therefore had no rights, and bureaucratically speaking, he effectively ceased to exist as a person. The bureaucratic imperatives of the Reich were not uniformly enforced, and authorities failed to enforce compliance with the law with a handful nonpersons in the countries they occupied, among them Mr. Thomas.

Surely a journalistic award awaits the crusading reporter who will expose this crucial misrepresentation of another Jew who managed to get away, and continues to this day to insist he was a lawful citizen of the country where, as the law clearly demonstrates, he did not in fact exist as a person.