Still not getting too optimistic

March 28, 2009

But still having a real hard time. The jury had two questions today. From the Daily Camera.

A juror asked whether the newspapers had “set out” allegations made by persons outside CU so that an investigation could be legitimately launched against Churchill by the university on matters other than the 9/11 essay.

Carrigan said the university has no control over the press and had been the subject of many unfavorable newspaper stories in recent years.

Lane threw out an explosive allegation in response to the juror question, asking Carrigan if CU might have been in cahoots with the Rocky Mountain News to bring his client down.

He asked if it was unthinkable that CU law professor Paul Campos, who was a columnist with the now-defunct paper, might have acted as a go-between to tip the Rocky off to possible misconduct allegations floating around. After all, Lane said, Campos worked with CU Law School Dean David Getches — the person who first received the core allegation from New Mexico law professor John LaVelle that Churchill had fabricated evidence.

“And you don’t know how it is that the newspaper ended up in possession of the LaVelle allegations?” Lane asked Carrigan.

The regent said he didn’t.

“Even if those allegations are planted by a faculty member who wrote a column for the Rocky Mountain News?” Lane queried. “That’s all just a big coincidence?”

Classic. So CU has no control over the press, right?

I suppose that might hold more water had the press in question not been A MEMBER OF CU’S FACULTY.

The second question’s even better.

Earlier in the afternoon, the CU professor of communications testified that ghostwriting was an unacceptable academic practice because it didn’t properly credit those who are doing the work.

The juror, through Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves, asked Morley why he hadn’t yet informed the University of San Francisco, which employs professor Rebecca Robbins, that she had attached her name to an essay Churchill had written and claimed it as her own.

The juror wanted to know why Morley hadn’t tried to correct the academic record as quickly as possible by letting Robbins’ employer know what she had done.

Morley acknowledged that he had been inconsistent in that regard but assured the jury, somewhat sheepishly, he would do something about it within a month.

Churchill attorney Robert Bruce piled on, asking Morley how he couldn’t have found time in the last 22 months — to hammer out a quick email while watching a football game on the weekend — to inform San Francisco State of Robbins’ ethical lapse.

“Now that we’re in the 23rd month, you’re finally going to find the time, right?” Bruce asked sarcastically.


3 Responses to “Still not getting too optimistic”

  1. Zar Says:

    One of LaVelle’s assertions was that Churchill misunderstood whether a specific blood quantum fraction, or the concept of quantum, was proscribed by the federal law. A witness two weeks ago said Churchill got it right. So, was LaVelle totally wrong in his writingthen, or was he talking about a different law, or a particular regional or tribal implementation? Is there a 3rd source which clarifies?

  2. Ben, your participation is very welcome, although you already abundantly know Snapple, I thought you might enjoy one more round with him (I believe it may be a her, Katya G) — Snapple expects to be called to the witness stand:

    This is very funny material, and I am always glad for any bit of humour in such confrontations.

  3. […] “Still not getting too optimistic,” The Ward Churchill Trial, 28 March 2009. […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: