Reuters:

A judge who said he didn’t really understand the term “Web site” is fully computer literate and was merely trying to clarify complex evidence for the benefit of the court, the judiciary said on Friday…

…”The trouble is I don’t understand the language. I don’t really understand what a Web site is,” he told a London court during the trial of three men accused of inciting terrorism via the Internet.

In a statement, the Judicial Communications Office did not dispute that Openshaw had been accurately quoted. But it said the remark by the judge, now in his fifth week presiding over the trial, had been taken out of context.

“Trial judges always seek to ensure that everyone in court is able to follow all of the proceedings. They will regularly ask questions — not for their own benefit — but on behalf of all those following a case, in the interests of justice,” it said.”

Mr Justice Openshaw was simply clarifying the evidence presented, in an easily understandable form for all those in court,” the statement said.

“Mr Justice Openshaw is entirely computer literate and indeed has taken notes on his own computer in court for many years,” it added…

Think about it.  How often have we heard a judge, for the benefit of the assembled, ask a lawyer to lay out clearly detailed explanations of vital technical terms which the judge believes may not be happy common knowledge to everyone present?  Such is not uncommon.  That this judge might therefore simply have been similarly demanding the workings of the internet be provided on a level internet-comfortable people believe is ludicrous, while using “I” for the benefit of the court, is not an unreasonable explanation. 

Especially given that the judge in this case is said to be “entirely computer literate” himself, it would appear, absent other information, the preponderance of the evidence now is not with Reuters’ interpretation.  In short, the judge may not be quite the idiot he was made out to be.  But, unsurprisingly, “preponderance of evidence” means nothing to Reuters:

Reuters stands by its story. As reported earlier, prosecutor Mark Ellison responded to the judge by explaining the terms ‘Web site’ and ‘forum’ during exchanges in which Openshaw acknowledged: “I haven’t quite grasped the concepts.”…

Given that statement, it seems Reuters is responsible for the original story.  Slashdot had it late on the 16th (early on the 17th, UK time), and has a link to Reuters.  Both Sky and The Telegraph did not have it apparently until today, and their phrasing is much like that found at Reuters.  

Of course, Reuters has a right to “stand by its story.”  It believes apparently that what it reports as a verbatim quotation automatically reveals “truth”.  The rest of us also have a right to stand by our opinion that the above Reuters story constitutes merely yet another example of generally appalling Reuters “journalism“.