Blowout

March 24, 2009

You can often tell how a trial’s gonna go by the questions asked by jurors.

And if that’s the case for the questions asked today, then we can start dancing on CU’s grave right now.

From the Denver Post.

4:37 p.m.

Judge Naves has now asked several questions of Churchill, all submitted by jurors.

Question one: You mentioned that you e-mailed your questions to Mimi Wesson at investigative committee meetings and she would ask the questions sometimes altered. Was the meeting recorded by the Privilege and Tenure Committee, if so, do you have records of what you submitted? How was it altered and how might it have changed the outcome of the response?

Churchill response: “Yes, there was a transcript that was made,” Churchill said. “I’m sure audiotapes exist as well, not a videotaped record made .I can’t tell you how they altered the responses – they had an effect how much of an effect, I don’t know.”

Question two: There was talk of a ‘major’ essay that you indicate was not major essay that had errors and there was a major essay that corrected the non-major piece. When was it written? Was the Privilege and Tenure Committee given the corrected essay to review?

Churchill response: He answered that the minor essay, “Nobody’s Pet Poodle,” was published in 1991. The subsequent piece I call major essay published in the American Culture and Research Journal and I am thinking in 2001. I may be wrong about that and the information should be here in the report.”

Question three: Did you turn in the work for Rebecca Robbins to be published or did you send work to Rebecca Robbins and she turned it in to be published?

Churchill response: “It was the latter. It was sent to her and she did whatever she did with it and it was submitted for publication by her.”

Question four: Would all of these allegations have surfaced if it was not for the 9-11 essay?

Churchill response: “I think the easy answer in that one is no. They would not. In fact, some of these having to do with the Indian Arts and Crafts Act and the Indian Allotment Act had been known by the individual who had forwarded it in the form of a formal complaint. It had been known since 1999. John LaVelle had provided a copy of the article that the allegations were made. He did that shortly after the piece was published.”

Hell, I couldn’t have written better questions myself.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: