Nate Noy just lost his case against Jean Schmidt. In what I will take as a vindication of my own analysis back when the story broke, the Ohio Elections Commission ruled unanimously to dismiss Noy’s complaint alleging that Schmidt’s marathon photo was fake.

COMMISSIONER “VERY DISAPPOINTED” IN NOY

Jon Craig at the Politics Extra blog provided outstanding live coverage of the hearing. Craig wrote:

“Quite honestly I gave you the benefit of the doubt,” Elections Commission member William Booth, said to Nathan Noy…. Booth said he was disappointed that Noy did not call his own witnesses to testify to the authenticity of race photos, as he promised last month.

THE HAYSLETT PHOTO IS THE SCHMIDT PHOTO?

Dennis Hayslett, who initially refused to supply his photo of the 1993 Columbus Marathon, finally sent it to Ohio, and there’s a reproduction of it up on the Cincinnati Enquirer site. Hayslett’s photo doesn’t merely corroborate Schmidt’s photo; if the Enquirer cutline is right, and they didn’t just mix up the pictures, Hayslett’s photo is exactly identical to Schmidt’s photo.

Look at the Hayslett photo on the Enquirer site, and compare it to the contested Schmidt photo which started it all. These are not two pictures shot a fraction of a second apart from one another; they are two identical prints from the same negative. I’ve never participated in a marathon, but it does make sense to me that runners who finish approximately together might get the same photograph.

OR IS THAT A BAD CAPTION?

Even though the Enquirer identified their photo as coming from Hayslett in the caption, the accompanying story actually says Hayslett’s photo was “taken one second before Schmidt’s.” Either the story is wrong, or the cutline is wrong. Not that it matters much at this point, as long as Hayslett’s photo really does corroborate Schmidt’s.

[UPDATE: ENQUIRER CUTLINE IS WRONG

After reading this, it’s certain that Hayslett’s photo cannot be identical to Schmidt’s: “[A] new, original photograph of the finish-line… shows a grimacing Schmidt trailing two other runners.” Obviously the Enquirer posted Schmidt’s photo, and misidentified it as Hayslett’s photo.]

WHO REALLY WON? BLOGGERS!

Also in the Enquirer story, Dennis Hayslett finally sent his picture because, get this, “he grew tired of being defamed by Internet bloggers.” I didn’t see any defamation going on, but some of those bloggers were pretty rough on him. But if that’s what got him to submit the evidence solving this case (and he says it was), I reckon that’s a good thing. Yay, bloggers!

WAS NOY’S COMPLAINT FRIVOLOUS?

The OEC has deferred a decision on whether to find Noy guilty of filing a frivolous complaint, but the chairman pointedly asked Noy, “I told you the potential consequences, did I not?” and added ominously, “It’s close to being an abuse of process of this body.”

UPDATE: I spoke with Noy tonight, until the battery in my phone died. I will post a follow-up on this story tomorrow.