You said: The closest thing to info about the witnesses was where Burtan said, the police said, that one of the 6 said that the attack was provoked. Jeez, Larry: that's hearsay of hearsay (hearsay of hearsay of hearsay, if you note that the newspaper is claiming that Burtan said it).

Here's the original story once again, with emphasis added:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A local soldier back from the war in Iraq said he was beaten at an area concert because of what was printed on his T-shirt, NBC 4's Nancy Burton reported.

Foster Barton, 19, of Grove City, received a Purple Heart for his military service in Iraq. He almost lost his leg last month after a Humvee he was riding in ran over a landmine.

Barton said he was injured again Friday night in a crowded parking lot as he was leaving the Toby Keith concert at Germain Amphitheatre. The solider was injured so badly that he can't go back to Iraq as scheduled.

"I don't remember getting hit at all, really," said Barton, a member of the 1st Calvary Division. "He hit me in the back of the head. I fell and hit the ground. I was knocked unconscious and he continued to punch and kick me on the ground."

Barton and his family said he was beat up because he was wearing an Iraqi freedom T-shirt.

"It's not our fault," Barton said. "I'm just doing a job."

According to a Columbus police report, six witnesses who didn't know Barton said the person who beat him up was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers, Burton reported.

One witness, a friend of the alleged attacker, said Barton hit first. Police said they do not think that witness is credible since the six other witnesses said Barton was hit from behind.

Barton's mother said she has a message for her son's alleged attacker, who police said ran into the crowd after the incident and was not arrested.

"He needs our prayers, just like the insurgents, because he's a coward," Cindy Barton said.

After a two-week leave, Barton was supposed to return to Iraq Tuesday. But his broken nose will delay his return.

Barton is waiting for doctors to tell him when he can return to active duty. He said wants to go back as soon as possible because his unit was just attacked. Eleven soldiers were wounded and two were killed, he said.

Unlike the incident in West Virginia, there is a police report. The reporting appears to be pretty sloppy (gee, what a surprise), with the first phrase highlighted above. Which is the reporter citing, the police report or Burton?

If the reporter is citing the police report (as he should), then the report references 7 witnesses, 1 who was a friend of the alleged attacker and 6 who did not know Barton. That isn't hearsay, that's eyewitness testimony.

If the reporter is merely quoting Burton talking about the police report, then it would be hearsay. Which would beg the question, why didn't the reporter do his job and get a copy of the police report?