Airborne In Normandy   FAQs   Links    Homepage     Contact     About    WWII Research

To Judi Walsh Emma Moody who is the Standards & Ethics Editor of the WSJ.
News Editor, Newsroom Standards

This is an update to the Jack Port article. 

It's Worse Than We Thought

The Wall Street Journal supports Stolen Valor. 

Take a look at the March 2019 Press Release from the Wall Street Journal Matt Murray.  The Ethical, fact-based news they speak of doesn't exist in this case.  There is no doubt that Port wasn't there on June 6 yet Moody still stands by the WSJ story.  All you need to know is below.  The Walls Street Journal is not "fact-based news" in the June 6, 2019 article.

I will be surprised if Emma Moody lasts long at her new job.  It is plain to see she doesn't want to correct the article even with the documentation. 

Here is the key that proves that Jack Port wasn’t in Normandy until June 14, 1944.

These pages are from Jack Port with his signature stating that

“I certify that the information and remarks contained herein this Temporary Service Record are True and Accurate”.  Jack Port signed this October 18, 1945 and shows what date he entered and left countries in Europe.  This includes arriving in France June 14, 1944 and leaving France September 7, 1944.

This information was sent The Wall Street Journal to no avail.  Judi Walsh stopped communication with me when I provided this document.  Sounds the WSJ is covering their you know what. 

Even worse is what happened here this year in Normandy

The Prime Minister of France Edouard Philippe accompanied Port to the memorial to lay down the wreath at 4th Infantry Division Monument.  The Prime Minister of France obviously didn't know that Port was not there on June 6, 1944 but the 4th Infantry should have vetted someone like Port and didn't.

The Wall Street Journal in its wisdom decided that documents aren’t enough to correct the article that Ms. Noemie Bisserbe wrote June 5, 2019 as they still say Port was in Normandy June 6, 1944.  Below is the correspondent concerning this issue with Judi Walsh and Emma Moody.

When presented with the documentation that Port wasn’t in Normandy until June 14, 1944 Ms. Walsh from the Newsroom Standards said this;

“It can be interpreted several ways”.  I then asked what that meant.  Ms. Walsh responded with; “It's possible that he did land on June 6, and he joined the other group later in the month”.  The WSJ just said “It's possible”.  That’s not news, that’s conjecture and in this case not true.

I will try and dumb it down even further so the WSJ can understand the records.  Even though there is nothing but page after page of documentation showing when Port came to Normandy (June 14, 1944) The Wall Street Journal clings to the notion that Port was in Normandy June 6, 1944.  Attached are the documents mentioned above showing that in fact that Port came to Normandy June 14, 1944 as a replacement.   

The following records came from the Army and the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis.

This is the cover sheet for Jack Port’s Service Record along with yet another documents that show he came ashore in Normandy June 14, 1944.  Saying that Port might have been with a different unit is not possible.  On this page it shows that Port was assigned to Headquarters Company 2nd Battalion 12th Infantry 4th Infantry Division June 15, 1944. 

This link shows that Port was assigned on June 15, 1944.  That was the only unit he was part of in Normandy.  There is a difference between Assigned vs. Attached assigned means that this soldier is part of that Company.  Attached means that they are there only until they become assigned to a permanent unit, in this case Headquarters Company Second Battalion of the 12th Infantry Regiment.

I think that the WSJ is confused about the Service Record too.  Because the pages were scanned individually they think it’s possible that the pages are from someone else.  That is not true either as all of those “pages” is actually all together.  When reading a book in Kindle the pages are read one page at a time but they come from the same book.  So it’s hard to believe that the WSJ doesn’t understand this.

The WSJ is also confused thinking that because Service Records for Jack Port were partially burned in the 1973 fire in St. Louis that these might not be his.  If you read the cover of Port’s Service Record the only part missing is his last name and Army Serial Number.  You can see his first name and that he has no middle name and the dates September 21, 1942 to October 25 1945.  This information all matches up with Port’s Discharge Paper the 53-55.

There are two Service Record booklets for Port and they both match up.  They both say that he came ashore June 14, 1944.  I’m not sure what more the WSJ needs to admit they made a mistake.  This is willful blindness trying to cover up that the WSJ doesn’t do fact checking.

Brian N. Siddall
August 3, 2019

Any (Jack) Port in a Storm?

Newspapers and TV outlets have shown once again they don’t know how to do basic researcher before publishing an article.

Article after article has Jack Port as being on Utah Beach June 6, 1944.  Once again another, I was there, (but really wasn’t).  This time it's Noemie Bisserbe from the Wall Street Journal.  Bisserbe has Port on the beach on June 6.  I have reached out twice to her and no response.  When the Wall Street Journal screws the pooch it makes it look like Fox News. 

A year ago Logan Jenkins of the San Diego Union-Tribune had Port on Utah Beach on June 6, 1944.  If they had just done an hour or two of research they would have realized he wasn’t there on June 6, 1944.

Jack Port arrived in Normandy on June 14, 1944, and joined Headquarters Company Second Battalion of the 12th Infantry Regiment 4th Infantry Division June 15, 1944 as a replacement.  His Military Operation Specialty for most of the war was Typist/Messenger/Code Clerk. 

Jack Port received a Bronze Star Medal for Valor December 1944 while the 4th Infantry Division was in Luxemburg.  Just like the most recent article about Arnald Gabriel; Port didn’t have to lie and yet it wasn’t enough for him.  There must be some allure for people to risk their reputation by lying.  He had already been in some of the ugliest battles in Europe in the fall and winter of 1944/45 and yet it wasn’t enough.

In the end, it doesn’t matter.  Port wasn’t in Normandy on the day of days, D-Day June 6, 1944.  There are so many soldiers who were in Normandy on June 6, 1944 for someone to look up to but some look up to liars like Plumley, Port and Cook

Bottom line, Port didn’t get to Normandy until 8 days after D-Day.  Some people will say so what, he was there in Normandy, close enough.  That is like saying “hey, I was at the Twin Towers in New York City in September 2001” but then you find out they were there September 3, 2001 8 days before 9/11.  Dates matter, always has, always will. 

Here is a link where Port admits he lies but passed it off as a joke.  We have to wonder about everything he's ever said about his time in WWII. 


Brian Siddall
July 20, 2019
(Updated August 24, 2019)

Copyright © 2002-2024 Airborne In Normandy Research - All rights reserved.
Website design by airborneinnormandy