To protect migration routes, wildlife biologists at the University of Wyoming are capturing mule deer by helicopter to learn exactly where they go, what they eat and how healthy they are.
See, also, Article: For Mule Deer, an Incredible Journey @ NYT.
It’s been over nine months since Chancellor Richard Telfer suspended former UW-Whitewater wrestling coach Tim Fader, and later effectively fired him (Fader’s contract was not renewed).
In April 2014, a woman alleged that a wrestling recruit assaulted her, and Fader has consistently said that he contacted the Whitewater Police Department about the incident, and that he (Fader) had someone accompany the accused recruit to the WPD at our municipal building.
In these many months since, Mr. Fader has been vindicated in his principal claims, (at least) five times over:
1. Fader was exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing (this never should have been even a question, truly, based on the circumstances of the allegations).
2. Fader, did, as he claimed, see that an assistant coach escorted the alleged assailant so that the accused recruit would speak with officers of the Whitewater Police Department.
3. A university committee assembled under Chancellor’s Telfer’s direction recommended changes to the wrestling recruiting program, but recommended no sanctions or disciplinary action against Coach Fader.
4. The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, in reviews comprising three-hundred pages of documents, recommended or imposed no sanctions against Coach Fader or UW-Whitewater’s wrestling program.
5. Athletic Diector Amy Edmonds, in published remarks from 2.18.15, admits that after the NCAA and WIAC reports, specific changes have not been made to recruiting visits.
So, here we are: Chancellor Telfer and A.D. Edmonds ended a career, but by Ms. Edmonds’s reported account, she made no specific changes to recruiting.
Chancellor Telfer & A.D. Edmonds rushed to suspend, and soon thereafter to terminate, and announce as much, but now?
Now, Ms. Edmonds implicitly contends that although she effectively fired an award-winning coach, there was no substantial basis for that action.
More concerning, here’s how Amy Edmonds, a publicly-employed athletic director at a leading UW System Division III school, describes her responsibility to open government and accountability:
“Certainly we weren’t as transparent, if you want to say that,” Edmonds said. “We didn’t have all these wonderful links and documents and such on our website. Now we’ve done that to allow anybody and everybody to take a peek at what our practices are.”
Transparency of public employees at a public school supported at public expense: you know, it’s just ‘wonderful links, ‘documents’ and ‘such’ on a website.
Ms. Edmonds generously offers that others may now ‘take a peek’ at all this.
Honest to goodness, could Athletic Director Edmonds speak more glibly and cavalierly if she tried?
Does our university not deserve greater seriousness and commitment from an athletic director than ending a career the way Ms. Edmonds has done?
Does our university not deserve greater seriousness and commitment from an athletic director than these light and flippant remarks about open government?
Does our university not deserve greater seriousness and commitment from an athletic director than these light and flippant remarks about providing prudently and legally-significant information about keeping students safe?
The very official at UW-Whitewater who acted promptly and practically to alert authorities to an alleged assault is a person who is no longer employed at UW-Whitewater.
That person would be Timothy Fader.
Good morning, Whitewater.
It’s a cold Thursday in town, with winds of 5 to 10 mph, wind chill values between -15 and -25, and a high of just one degree. Sunrise today is 6:44 and sunset 5:32, for 10h 47m 10s of daytime. We’ve a new moon.
Happy (Lunar) New Year —
The Police and Fire Commission is scheduled to meet tonight at 6:30 PM.
There’s a new Dr. Seuss book to be published this July:
For the first time in 25 years, a new book by Dr. Seuss will be published this year from an original manuscript and sketches discovered in the home of the beloved children’s author, Random House announced today.
What Pet Should I Get? captures the excitement of a classic childhood moment—choosing a pet—and features the brother and sister characters that Dr. Seuss introduced in One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish. The new book, to be published in July, was likely written between 1958 and 1962 as the brother and sister are the same age in both stories.
The box filled with pages of text and sketches was found shortly after Ted’s death in 1991 when his widow Audrey Geisel was remodeling her home, according to a release. At that time it was set aside with other of Ted’s materials. It was rediscovered in the fall of 2013 by Mrs. Geisel and Claudia Prescott—Ted Geisel’s longtime secretary and friend—when they were cleaning out his office space. They reviewed the materials, finding the full text and illustrations for What Pet Should I Get? among other work.
On this day in 1868, a noted photographer is born near Whitewater:
1868 – Photographer Edward S. Curtis Born
On this date Edward Sheriff Curtis was born near Whitewater. As a young boy, he taught himself photography. His family eventually moved to the Puget Sound area of Washington state. He settled in Seattle and opened a photography studio in 1897.A chance meeting on Mount Rainier resulted in Curtis being appointed official photographer on railroad magnate E.H. Harriman’s expedition to Alaska. Curtis also accompanied George Bird Grinnell, editor of Field and Stream magazine, to Montana in 1900 to observe the Blackfoot Sun Dance. After this, Curtis strove to comprehensively document American Indians through photography, a project that continued for over 30 years.
Working primarily with 6 x 8-inch reflex camera, he created over 40,000 sepia-toned images. His work attracted national attention, most notably from Theodore Roosevelt and J. Pierpont Morgan, whose family contributed generously to his project. His monumental work, The North American Indian, was eventually printed in 20 volumes with associated portfolios. Curtis’ work included portraits, scenes of daily life, ceremonies, architecture and artifacts, and landscapes. His photographs have recently been put online by the Library of Congress.[Source: Dictionary of Wisconsin Biography, SHSW 1960, pg. 892]
Here’s the Thursday game in Puzzability‘s Oscar Losers series:
|
This Week’s Game — February 16-20
|
|||||
|
Oscar Losers
|
|||||
|
Sometimes when you lose, you lose big. For each day this week, we started with a nominee for the Best Actor Oscar who didn’t win it in at least one year (though he may have won it in another year). We then removed all instances of the letters in OSCAR, though not all five of the letters necessarily appear in the name.
|
|||||
|
Example:
|
|||||
|
HINFD
|
|||||
|
Answer:
|
|||||
|
Harrison Ford
|
|||||
|
What to Submit:
|
|||||
|
Submit the actor’s name (as “Harrison Ford” in the example) for your answer.
|
|||||
 |
|||||
|
Thursday, February 19
|
|||||
|
Yesterday, I posted about an appellate court decision that reversed a juvenile’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. See, Injustice in Walworth County Wrongly Sends a Fourteen-Year-Old to Jail.
Today I’ll post several questions concerning the decision and two published accounts about of it.
The appellate decision (“Appellate Decision”) is online at State v. Charles C. S., Jr., No. 2014AP1045, unpublished (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2015), available at https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=134396;.
The two published stories are from the Gazette, at Appeals court calls for Walworth County new trial in juvenile arson case (“Gazette 021315”) and Walworth County DA says detective, prosecutor acted correctly in juvenile case (“Gazette 021615”), subscription req’d for both Gazette stories.
This case concerns a burglary and arson at the Bethel United Methodist Church in Sugar Creek. Three boys – of whom Charles was just one – were suspected in the case. The crime is serious; the legal question isn’t one of seriousness, but of culpability under the law.
The question isn’t whether someone damaged the church – the question is whether the Walworth County District Attorney acted wrongfully to obtain the particular conviction of a particular boy (rather than, for example, one of the other two).
1. Isn’t it persuasive that Walworth County Detective Jeffrey Recknagel gave, as the appellate court found, “demonstrably false testimony that Drake [another boy] had been honest with him ‘every time’ “? (Appellate Decision, ¶. 17.)
Here’s a portion of the transcript (from redirect examination, during the State’s exchange with Recknagel):
Q: And as a detective have you had any training on
detecting honesty?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And from your interview with Drake [], did you feel
that he was being honest with you?
A: Absolutely. And I haven’t had just one interview with
Drake, I had more than one interview and I believe that
every time he was being honest with me.
(Appellate Decision, ¶. 17)
Despite his trial testimony, Recknagel later admitted in a post-disposition proceeding that “Drake lied to him at least three times.” (Appellate Decision, ¶. 9)
2. Do Walworth County D.A. Necci and Walworth County Sheriff Picknell think that there’s no difference between honesty every time and dishonesty at least three times?
If so, does that mean that Messrs. Necci and Picknell get to utter at least three lies of their choice, with impunity?
3. Gazette reporter Frank Schultz writes that “Necci said that he has read the trial transcript, which shows that Recknagel was saying that people always lie to him at first, but after the initial lies, Drake and Robert consistently told the truth.” (Gazette 021615.) How does Necci’s interpretation contradict or negate the testimony the appellate court cited in Appellate Decision, ¶. 17?
Recknagel plainly and clearly says ‘every time’ in the trial transcript, and later admitted he, Recknagel, knew the other boy did lie to him, at least three times.
What prior testimony of Recknagel could make the actual, verbatim transcript testimony cited in Appellate Decision ¶. 17 any less false?
4. Although this is a case involving a juvenile, and subject to concerns of confidentiality, if D.A. Necci thinks other portions of testimony somehow rehabilitate Recknagel, then why doesn’t he seek court permission for publication of the relevant passages he’s supposed to have discussed with Gazette reporter Schultz? For that matter, why not seek court-authorization and publish the full transcripts, subject to necessary redaction?
5. When Necci reportedly tells Schultz that other trial testimony somehow supports Recknagel (Gazette 021615), did reporter Schultz ask to see those transcripts? Did he see them?
6. When Necci reportedly tells Schultz that other trial testimony somehow supports Recknagel (Gazette 021615), did reporter Schultz even ask Necci to read aloud to him the passage that Necci says supports Recknagel? Did reporter Schultz just take Necci’s word for it?
7. In the second published news story (Gazette 021615), D.A. Necci’s quoted as saying he has the “utmost respect” for Recknagel. This is after the appellate court conclusion that Recknagel gave “demonstrably false testimony.” (Appellate Decision ¶. 17) If that’s an occasion to have the ‘greatest possible amount, degree, or extent’ of respect, what would Recknagel have to do to give Necci any pause at all?
8. Gazette reporter Schultz quotes Necci as saying that he, Necci, “just can’t agree with the notion that my prosecutor took advantage of the defense attorney” who is a licensed attorney who should know the law, Necci said.” (Gazette 021615. As District Attorney, does Necci believe that his office has no independent duty to justice, to offer truthful testimony or sound arguments, apart from a defense attorney’s own statements?
If Necci doesn’t believe his office has an independent duty of justice, then how does he explain SCR CHAPTER 20, Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, SCR 20:3.8 Special responsibilities of a prosecutor?
9. Does D.A. Necci believe that having a law license is justification enough to try a case – that is, once licensed, an attorney is always capable and competent?
If he does believe that a mere license is enough, then does D.A. Necci believe that there should be no possible claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as a matter of law?
If he does believe that a mere license is enough, then how does D.A. Necci explain SCR CHAPTER 20, Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, SCR 20:1.1 Competence?
Isn’t it clear that every lawyer is ethically obligated to know that a license is not enough, and that “[c]ompetent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation”?
10. In the 2.16.15 Gazette story, Necci contends that the appellate court decision is “over the top” and “unnecessarily inflammatory.” What portions does he think are “over the top” or “unnecessarily inflammatory”?
Is his objection merely to tone? Isn’t it clear the decision (see the embedded document, below) rests on a finding of wrongful presentation and testimony, not mere rhetoric?
By the way, if it’s all a matter of rhetoric, does D.A. Necci mean to imply that the appellate court might have been legitimately inflammatory, but then went too far, and became unnecessarily so?
That would be something like, “Please don’t unnecessarily inflame me, bro.”
11. From the beginning, wasn’t the case against Charles – a juvenile who spent over a year in jail – weak and without direct evidence? From the uncontradicted observation of the appellate court, “[t]he State did not have any direct evidence that Charles was at the church.” (Appellate Decision, ¶. 2.)
The DA’s case rested merely on the claims of two alleged, juvenile wrongdoers that a third person was also culpable.
12. How strong was the pressure to find someone – anyone – to blame and convict for a church fire? If this crime had been against someone’s trailer, would the Walworth County D.A. have relied on a case without any direct evidence, and the testimony only of other juveniles?
13. Does the Walworth County D.A. think that a burglary and fire in one building over another – a shack versus a mansion, for example – necessarily make the case against suspects strong or weaker?
14. In the first Gazette story, Sheriff Picknell contends that, pending an inquiry into Recknagel’s testimony, he, Picknell would give Recknagel his “full support.” (Gazette 021315.) Considering that an appellate court found Recknagel culpable of “demonstrably false testimony,” what does that say about Picknell’s impartiality and neutral decision-making?
Isn’t it closer to the truth to say that Picknell’s response looks like a company-man’s wagon-circling?
If you’re Recknagel, and Picknell is your leader, don’t you and all your colleagues now have free rein to say whatever you want to a court, even under oath?
15. In the Gazette story of 2.16.15, what message does D.A. Necci send to his assistant prosecutors and law-enforcement witnesses when he backs them publicly and wholeheartedly against even an appellate court’s judicial rebuke for false testimony and impermissible argumentation?
16. Walworth County developed a national reputation a decade ago for having one the worst district attorney’s offices in America. See, A poisoned prosecution at the Center for Public Integrity. Does Mr. Necci’s office’s handling of this case, and its response to it, provide any reason to think conditions are better now?
17. Charles C. S., Jr., a fourteen-year-old boy, was confined for over a year, convicted through the actions of men and women found to have offered false testimony and legally-prohibited arguments. Should that have happened to him? If his family had been powerful or connected, would it have happened to him?
In any event, should reasonable people be confident in the fairness and thoroughness of work like this?
Good morning, Whitewater.
Wednesday in town will be partly sunny and cold, with a high of four degrees. Sunrise is 6:46 and sunset 5:30, for 10h 44m 24s of daytime. It’s a new moon today.
On this day in 1885, Mark Twain publishes Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in the United States:
Twain initially conceived of the work as a sequel to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer that would follow Huckleberry Finn through adulthood. Beginning with a few pages he had removed from the earlier novel, Twain began work on a manuscript he originally titled Huckleberry Finn’s Autobiography. Twain worked on the manuscript off and on for the next several years, ultimately abandoning his original plan of following Huck’s development into adulthood. He appeared to have lost interest in the manuscript while it was in progress, and set it aside for several years. After making a trip down the Hudson River, Twain returned to his work on the novel. Upon completion, the novel’s title closely paralleled its predecessor’s: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Tom Sawyer’s Comrade).[13]
As it relates to the actual body of text during the time of publication, Mark Twain composed the story in pen on notepaper between 1876 and 1883. Paul Needham, who supervised the authentication of the manuscript for Sotheby’s books and manuscripts department in New York in 1991, stated, “What you see is [Clemens’] attempt to move away from pure literary writing to dialect writing”. For example, Twain revised the opening line of Huck Finn three times. He initially wrote, “You will not know about me”, which he changed to, “You do not know about me”, before settling on the final version, “You don’t know about me, without you have read a book by the name of ‘The Adventures of Tom Sawyer’; but that ain’t no matter.”[14] The revisions also show how Twain reworked his material to strengthen the characters of Huck and Jim, as well as his sensitivity to the then-current debate over literacy and voting.[15][16]
A later version was the first typewritten manuscript delivered to a printer.[17] Demand for the book spread outside of the United States. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was eventually published on December 10, 1884, in Canada and the United Kingdom, and on February 18, 1885, in the United States.[18] The illustration on page 283 became a point of issue after an engraver, whose identity was never discovered, made a last-minute addition to the printing plate of Kemble’s picture of old Silas Phelps, which drew attention to Phelps’ groin. Thirty thousand copies of the book had been printed before the obscenity was discovered. A new plate was made to correct the illustration and repair the existing copies.[19][20]
In 1885, the Buffalo Public Library’s curator, James Fraser Gluck, approached Twain to donate the manuscript to the library. Twain did so. Later it was believed that half of the pages had been misplaced by the printer. In 1991, the missing half turned up in a steamer trunk owned by descendants of Gluck’s. The library successfully proved possession and, in 1994, opened the Mark Twain Room to showcase the treasure.[21]
In relation to the literary climate at the time of the book’s publication in 1885, Henry Nash Smith describes the importance of Mark Twain’s already established reputation as a “professional humorist”, having already published over a dozen other works. Smith suggests that while the “dismantling of the decadent Romanticism of the later nineteenth century was a necessary operation,” Adventures of Huckleberry Finn illustrated “previously inaccessible resources of imaginative power, but also made vernacular language, with its new sources of pleasure and new energy, available for American prose and poetry in the twentieth century.”[22]
Here’s Puzzability‘s film-inspired Wednesday game:
|
This Week’s Game — February 16-20
|
|||||
|
Oscar Losers
|
|||||
|
Sometimes when you lose, you lose big. For each day this week, we started with a nominee for the Best Actor Oscar who didn’t win it in at least one year (though he may have won it in another year). We then removed all instances of the letters in OSCAR, though not all five of the letters necessarily appear in the name.
|
|||||
|
Example:
|
|||||
|
HINFD
|
|||||
|
Answer:
|
|||||
|
Harrison Ford
|
|||||
|
What to Submit:
|
|||||
|
Submit the actor’s name (as “Harrison Ford” in the example) for your answer.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Wednesday, February 18
|
|||||
|
On February 11, 2015, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II, reversed an order of the Walworth County Circuit Court, and ordered a new trial for a minor child, identified as Charles C.S. Jr., aged fourteen at the time of his conviction. See, State v. Charles C. S., Jr., No. 2014AP1045, unpublished (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2015), available at https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=134396.
Charles spent a year incarcerated after an unjust conviction in which the appeals court found that
(1) a Walworth County Sheriff’s Department investigator gave “demonstrably false testimony” under oath about conversations with a witness,
(2) a Walworth County Asst. District Attorney introduced clearly inadmissible evidence and argued evidence that was not true, and
(3) Charles’s defense counsel was deficient for failing to object to the false testimony or legally-prohibited prosecution arguments.
At the end of this post, I have embedded the written decision of the appellate court, as dated and filed on 2.11.15.
I’ll write more about this matter tomorrow, with a series of questions for those involved.
Today, I’m posting the appellate court decision and order. There are two reasons for posting the ruling, mostly on its own, today.
First, the court’s reasoning and ruling speak for themselves.
Second, in our area, we seldom see original documents like this published, as the pressure against the local press for displaying them causes those papers to shy away.
Americans are, and should always be, of stronger stuff than that.
Good morning, Whitewater.
Tuesday in Whitewater will be mostly cloudy with a high of thirteen degrees. Sunrise is 6:47 and sunset 5:29, for 10h 41m 38s of daytime. The moon is a waning crescent with 3.3% of its visible disk illuminated.
Common Council meets tonight at 6:30 PM.
On this day in 1972, Nixon leaves for China:
President Leaves on Trip to China; Stops in Hawaii
Throng at White House Sees Him and First Lady Off on Historic Journey
HE SAYS UNITY IS GOAL
Tells Crowd Way is Sought to Have Differences With Peking Without War
By Tad SzulcSpecial to The New York Times
Washington, Feb. 17 — President Nixon left for China today.
He is to reach Peking on Monday morning, China time (Sunday night, New York time), for a week’s stay on the mainland that is to include two conferences, with Chairman Mao Tse-tung and meetings with Premier Chou En-lai.
Addressing ‘Vice’ President Agnew, the leaders of Congress, members of his Cabinet and a large crowd assembled on the White House lawn this morning to bid him farewell, the President said in a brief statement that the United States and China must “find a way to see that we can have differences without being enemies in war.”
If We Can Make Progress
“If we can make progress toward that goal on this trip,” he declared, “the world will be a much safer world and the chance particularly for all of those young children over there to grow up in a world of peace will be infinitely greater.”
Puzzability‘s Tuesday game is about the Oscars:
|
This Week’s Game — February 16-20
|
|||||
|
Oscar Losers
|
|||||
|
Sometimes when you lose, you lose big. For each day this week, we started with a nominee for the Best Actor Oscar who didn’t win it in at least one year (though he may have won it in another year). We then removed all instances of the letters in OSCAR, though not all five of the letters necessarily appear in the name.
|
|||||
|
Example:
|
|||||
|
HINFD
|
|||||
|
Answer:
|
|||||
|
Harrison Ford
|
|||||
|
What to Submit:
|
|||||
|
Submit the actor’s name (as “Harrison Ford” in the example) for your answer.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Tuesday, February 17
|
|||||
|
For years, local conservative insiders (often big public spenders, always big talkers) have walked around this town like they owned all the city. Along the way, they’ve told anyone who would listen that they’re men of influence, movers and shakers, and people of particular importance.
Gov. Walker has now proposed his latest biennial budget, and both UW-Whitewater and the Whitewater public schools are likely to experience considerable cuts.
So, to the town squires who’ve insinuated their own importance, these recent years, with the Walker Administration and GOP-led legislature: If you are truly what you’ve said you are, then why so little clout with state officials?
All those intimations of importance now look no more credible than those of a drunk at the end of a bar, insisting that he once piloted a lunar lander to the moon’s surface, or that he dated Heidi Klum until he got sick of her, etc.
It’s possible that some of these proposed budget cuts won’t come to pass.
It’s certain, though, that truly influential insiders would have been able to prevent those proposed reductions at the first instance.
So there’s that tiny benefit, one of certainty: one may now be confident that the pretensions of those men to wider influence are unfounded, and laughably so.
Last week, Gov. Walker declined to answer Englishman’s question about whether he, Scott Waker, believed in evolution.
Today, in the Journal Sentinel, one learns that Assembly Speaker Robin Vos does believe in evolution.
(I’ll bite: I was raised in a liturgical, high-church tradition that taught that the theory of evolution was consistent with faith. I was well into my teens before I even met someone who contended otherwise.)
Yet, let me ask this question, faith-and-evolution-reconciling man that I am: does it truly matter to the immediate politics of our state whether Walker or Vos believes similarly?
If you’re a conservative, do you feel less inclined to either Walker’s or Vos’s policies knowing that Walker won’t answer affirmatively, but that Vos will, on a question about evolution?
If you’re a liberal, do you feel more inclined to either Walker’s or Vos’s policies knowing that Walker won’t answer affirmatively, but Vos will, on a question about evolution?
Let’s assume that Walker rejects evolution, and Vos accepts it.
What practical difference will an answer make – this year, in this budget, for the next biennium – to our state?
The answer does have meaning; I see that.
It’s simply that it doesn’t matter in a way that changes our politics (or should change our politics) between now and the next state fiscal year.
There’s a budget proposal before us; it’s the allocation of those billions, for millions of Wisconsinites, that’s the key question in the months ahead.
Good morning, Whitewater.
We’ll have a partly sunny day in the Whippet City, with a high of eighteen. Sunrise is 6:49 and sunset 5:28, for 10h 38m 53s of daytime. The moon is a waning crescent with 8.9% of its visible disk illuminated.
On this day in 1923, treasures see light again, after millennia being hidden from sight:
Tut-ankh-Amen’s Inner Tomb is Opened Revealing Undreamed of Splendors, Still Untouched After 3,400 Years
KING IN NEST OF SHRINES
Series of Ornate Covers Enclose Pharaoh’s Sarcophagus
WHOLE FILLS LARGE ROOM
Mortuary Chamber Opens into Another Room, Crowded With Great Treasure
EXPLORERS ARE DAZZLED
Wealth of Objects of Historic and Artistic Interest Exceeds All Their Wildest Visions
The Times (London) World Copyright, by Arrangement with the Earl of Carnarvon. Copyright, 1923, by The New York Times Company.Special Cable to The New York Times
Luxor, Egypt, Feb. 16 — This has been, perhaps, the most extraordinary day in the whole history of Egyptian excavation. Whatever any one may have guessed or imagined of the secret of Tut-ankh-Amen’s tomb, they surely cannot have dreamed the truth as now revealed.
The entrance today was made into the sealed chamber of the tomb of Tut-ankh-Amen, and yet another door opened beyond that. No eyes have seen the King, but to practical certainty we know that he lies there close at hand in all his original state, undisturbed.
Moreover, in addition to the great store of treasures which the tomb has already yielded, today has brought to light a new wealth of objects of artistic, historical, and even intrinsic value which is bewildering.
It is such a hoard as the most sanguine excavator can hardly have pictured, even in visions in his sleep, and puts Lord Carnarvon’s and Mr. Carter’s discovery in a class by itself and above all previous finds.
Official Opening Sunday
Though the official opening of the sealed mortuary chamber of the tomb has been fixed for Sunday, it was obviously impossible to postpone until then the actual work of breaking in the entrance. This was a job involving some hours of work, because it had to be done with the greatest care, so as to keep intact as many of the seals as possible, and also to avoid injury to any of the objects on the other side which might be caused by the falling of material dislodged.
Puzzability begins a new week’s game, about those who didn’t win an Academy Award (at least in the year the game has in mind):
|
This Week’s Game — February 16-20
|
|||||
|
Oscar Losers
|
|||||
|
Sometimes when you lose, you lose big. For each day this week, we started with a nominee for the Best Actor Oscar who didn’t win it in at least one year (though he may have won it in another year). We then removed all instances of the letters in OSCAR, though not all five of the letters necessarily appear in the name.
|
|||||
|
Example:
|
|||||
|
HINFD
|
|||||
|
Answer:
|
|||||
|
Harrison Ford
|
|||||
|
What to Submit:
|
|||||
|
Submit the actor’s name (as “Harrison Ford” in the example) for your answer.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Monday, February 16
|
|||||
|
