Updating the Dog-Stoning Sentence Story . . .
Regarding the story in the Pro Edition post of June 20 (below):
[UPDATE (posted 6-22-2011): The Israeli newspaper Maariv has now walked back the story a bit, but I don't read Hebrew so I don't know exactly how much. One prominent U.S. commentator wrote that it's a full walkback. I still don't know. As reported in the above AFP link, an Israeli daily supposedly got confirmation of the "sentence" (if not the whole backstory) from a "court manager," thus bypassing this Maariv thingie. If I had known about Maariv walkback, I would not have used the story . . but that does not mean that the gist of the story isn't true.]
[UP-UPDATE (posted 6-23-2011): Here's a better rundown, from the Christian Science Monitor. Even CSM ignores what now appears to be the key fact: that Agence France-Presse misreported its verification of the story. AFP wrote that it had indeed "confirmed" the original, loosely-sourced story, from "a court manager." Either AFP did not do so, or over-credentialed the "court manager." That doesn't automatically earn AFP a spot on Yr Editor's Watch List, but it also doesn't dampen my joyful enthusiasm that Ultra Orthodox rabbis are capable of anything!]