ZT
This is a comment posted by Albert at the comments section of Tatlow's article. Anyone who is serious about pursuing the truth should learn from this comment.
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/true-or-false-the-tussle-over-ping-fus-memoir/

Didi Kirsten Tatlow did an excellent job as a responsible American journalist. Her news article in International Herald Tribune, as well as her blog in New York Times, are informative and entertaining. She deserves credit for discovering relevant evidence on whether Ping Fu narrated self-contradictory life stories in two different worlds (China and the United States), two different languages (English and Chinese), and two different space-time continuum (1996 in Hong Kong and 2012 in North Carolina).

Ms. Tatlow did exercise her professional responsibility by contacting the Albuquerque Police Department to follow up on the alleged kidnapping of Ping Fu in New Mexico, and confirmed the absence of such police records. We are lucky to live in a country that gives us the legal rights to access publicly available information from government agencies, through the Freedom of Information Act and similar state laws (e.g., New Mexico's Inspection of Public Records Acts). While China has made tremendous progress in giving its citizen's legal rights, at times taken for granted by some Americans, Chinese law-makers and law enforcement officials can still learn a lot from New Mexico State Legislature and the Albuquerque Police Department on how to respond to a news reporter's inquiry on an alleged kidnapping that purportedly happened almost 30 years ago.

Ms. Tatlow's blog on New York Times also give her readers a public forum for information exchange. As an ethical reporter, Ms. Tatlow remained objective and impartial in her reporting of ongoing controversy on Ping Fu's Bend, Not Break. She did what a good news report should do-focus on factual reporting in an unbiased manner, quote her sources where applicable, promote additional fact finding, and not get personally involved in advocating for Ping Fu or her critics. While some of her readers might not have appreciated Ms. Tatlow's contributions, and made critical comments about Ms. Tatlow's professionalism, I am impressed that Ms. Tatlow was able to preserve the civility in her New York Times blog discussions. Freedom of speech can better be promoted through civility.

In addition to prompting Ping Fu to disclose her first American marriage in 1986, Ms. Didi Kirsten Tatlow indirectly made a major progress toward discovery of truth. By giving her readers a public forum in her NYT blog, we now know, through Ms. Tatlow's readers, that Ping Fu published a memoir in Chinese (Piao Liu Ping - Lu Mei San Ji), sixteen years prior to the publication of her recent memoir (Bend, Not Break). Ping Fu's 1996 memoir indeed contains various factual contradictions to her 2012 memoir. When other reporters follow up on the inconsistencies between two memoirs written by Ping Fu, credit should be given to Ms. Tatlow's articles and her blog.

I look forward to reading more articles on "Ping Fu's nightingale moments"-a phrase coined by Ms. Tatlow. From a literary point of view, it is brilliant and entertaining for Ms. Tatlow to use Mary McCarthy's Memories of a Catholic Girlhood to Ping Fu's Bend, Not Break.

Regardless of which version of Ping Fu's life stories we believe,we should remind ourselves that Ping Fu's has Constitutional rights to express herself. As a naturalized American citizen, Ping does have her freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We live in a country where each individual has the right to his or her Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. In most states, convicted criminals still have the legal rights to financially benefit from their memoirs-while the readers of such memoirs can exercise their freedom of speech to express their views on the morality of profiting from such memoirs and the advisability of exposing such memoirs to their children at home.

In some states, including North Carolina, there are Son of Sam laws prohibiting convicted criminals from publishing memoirs for profit. However, Ping Fu is not a convicted criminal. Therefore, she is legally entitled to profit from both of her self-contradictory memoirs - 1996 memoir in Chinese, and 2012 memoir in English. It is the social responsibility of reporters and news media, not controlled by any government agency, affiliated with any political party, or unduly influenced by Corporate America, to help American readers in deciding whether to use their purse strings in purchasing and supporting Ping Fu's Bend, Not Break. Didi Kirsten Tatlow did exercise her social responsibility and showed us that, contrary to some stereotype, American journalists as a group are defenders of our Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness-the American way of life.

Supporters of Ping Fu should also observe civility in this ongoing discussion, and respect the fact that critics of Ping Fu are also guaranteed certain Constitutional rights under the First Amendment, including the right to make comments anonymously. In Talley v. California, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the United State Supreme Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature.

While many of Ping Fu's readers, classmates and acquaintances are willing to support or criticize "Bend, Not Break" by providing their real names and contact information, we should not make negative comments about those seekers of truth who prefer not to be personally embroiled in a public controversy.

Requiring public disclosure of personally identifiable information as a prerequisite to free speech is tantamount to requiring a voter to sign his or her name (or "its" name a la "Sir Harold Evans's hermaphrodite") on the ballot in order to vote in federal and state elections, regardless of whether Sir Harold Evans, a British national, might or might not agree with this American principle. Such requirement of personal identity would discourage free exercise of Constitutional rights, earned by American people after the American War of Independence to protect individuals from unwarranted intrusion into ordinary people's private lives under British imperial rule.

Finally, all of us should be grateful that we are living in the United States. Without the legal protections we enjoy as American citizens, few of us would have the courage to freely express our thoughts and observations.

*****

Postscript:

As a member of the State Bar of California, I believe that Didi Kirsten Tatlow can safely conclude that the alleged kidnapping in Albuquerque, New Mexico did not in fact happen from the absence of police records of such alleged incident.

In the United States, police reports and 911 phone calls are required to be kept by law enforcement officers in the regular course, at or near the time of the alleged incident. Police officers are required to make incident reports, even if the victims of crime (or victim's family members) are not will to press criminal charges against the alleged perpetrator. (Of course, for religious, moral or other personal reasons, victims and their family members can choose not to sue the alleged perpetrator/tortfeasor in a civil tort/personal injury lawsuit for monetary damages.) Such incident reports are given by law enforcement officers to government prosecutors (e.g., district attorneys, state attorney general, United States Department of Justice), who decide whether a criminal action should be brought against the accused criminal.

Had Ms. Tatlow made her Freedom of Information Act request in writing (by e-mail, fax or letter) to the Albuquerque Police Department, Ms. Tatlow would receive an official written response (letter signed by the Albuquerque Police Department's custodian of records) certifying that no record of the purported kidnapping incident could be found after diligent search. Such official letter, from the Albuquerque Police Department, would be admissible in court to prove the absence of the alleged kidnapping. A challenge to the admissibility of the police custodian of record's letter is not likely to succeed, given Ping Fu's story of her life in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as written by her (without MeiMei Fox as co-author) in her 1996 memoir (Piao Liu Ping).

When a regularly kept official record fails to contain a record of a particular event (e.g., the alleged kidnapping of Ping Fu in Albuquerque, New Mexico), and the circumstances are such that had the alleged incident taken place, the records would probably have reflected it, the evidentiary issue is: May the absence of an entry be introduced as evidence that the alleged kidnapping did not occur?

Most courts would allow the absence of the official records as evidence of the non-occurrence of the event. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, absence of a public record is admissible evidence. " Testimony - or a certification under Rule 902 - that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if the testimony or certification [can be] admitted to prove that: (A) the record or statement does not exist; or (B) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind." See Federal Rule of Evidence 803(10).

Presumably, standards of admissibility applicable in American courts are higher than reasonable conclusions that can be responsibly made by journalists. Therefore, Didi Kirsten Tatlow, as a socially responsible reporter, can take the further step in concluding, in her next news report, that the alleged kidnapping of Ping Fu in Albuquerque, New Mexico did not in fact happen. It is reasonable to presumption that the Albuquerque Police Department, as well as police departments throughout the United States, would not have responded to an alleged 3-day kidnapping without keeping any record of 911 phone call or incident report.