Correcting the Record — Once Again:
Oranchak's Narrative vs The Facts
Over the past month, David Oranchak has had a great deal to say about our investigation — the cryptographic methodology behind it, the newly discovered evidence, the media coverage it has drawn, and me personally. Criticism is fair game, and I welcome it as always. But some of his comments have crossed from criticism into something else entirely. One example: his suggestion that my March 3 photo shoot with The Times of London at the West Virginia Capitol, and the reporting tied to it, was fabricated and even a farce to mislead our followers and supporters.
Oranchak added:
“Maybe Baber was speaking hypothetically about all these big stories like his linguistic database.”
The record, however, reflects an entirely different set of facts.
On March 3, I met with a photographer representing The Times of London for a professional shoot connected to the international coverage the paper was preparing. It happened exactly as I’ve previously described. The photographs are real, the journalist is real, and the reporting was done with due diligence.
The expanded article that came out of it ran this past weekend, on June 21st, in the premier Sunday edition of the most prestigious newspaper in the United Kingdom — after its editors vetted the piece, including Oranchak’s recent accusations.
I reached out to David Oranchak to once again express my concerns regarding the reliability of information he has been circulating publicly, particularly information originating from certain sources he has relied upon in making personal claims about me as well as our investigation. Given the circumstances and the impact those claims could have had, I respectfully requested a public apology and correction of the record, which I believe most reasonable people would expect under similar circumstances.
This was his response:
I do commend David for acknowledging at least one of his many mistakes. However, two days later I have yet to see a public apology or correction issued.
Simply saying, “I don’t know why he told me that,” is not an adequate explanation. A recurring issue appears to be that numerous individuals have provided him with inaccurate information.
Throughout his attempted smear campaign, Oranchak has made claim after claim about virtually every aspect of this matter, and they have failed to withstand even the most basic scrutiny.
That said, the issue extends well beyond a single article or accusation.
His claims regarding People magazine have been directly refuted, with screenshots of emails and text messages with the reporter, along with legal documentation concerning the unreliable “sources” he relied on.
His claim about Vanity Fair — that the magazine believed we were trying to “scam” them — has been rejected by the reporter who worked that interview for months. Their account does not match his, and they were unhappy to see their work covering our investigation characterized that way.
None of this rests on my word alone. It can be easily checked and verified. When someone publicly insists otherwise, the burden of proof sits with them, not with me.
Our position hasn’t changed since day one: scrutinize the evidence, bring in independent review, hold it to every professional standard you’ve got. Challenge all of it. Just don’t repeat assertions you can’t support, or present them under false pretenses to listeners or readers — because a factual claim is a factual claim, and it holds to the same standard no matter whose mouth it comes from.
So here is the simple part. When a public presence or commentator says something demonstrably false, the honorable move is to acknowledge it and set the record straight in public. That isn’t weakness — it’s about integrity. And it wouldn’t require Oranchak to agree with our broader conclusions; reasonable people land in different places, and that’s fine. That’s the work. It would only require him to continue to correct what’s false — and he could start with his misleading statements about The Times of London.
UPDATE: Killer in the Code season two is in production. We have three upcoming panels scheduled nationwide and several interviews covering new evidence with new cases on the horizon. My thanks to everyone — including members of the press — who has taken the time to weigh what’s claimed against what’s real.
Our next Substack article will reveal the personal grievances driving several of Oranchak’s sources, and why readers should carefully consider the motivations behind the claims they’ve advanced.