Why would Schiffman have wanted to keep his comments to NYU officials secret? Was he aware that what he was saying about Norman Golb's work may well have been false?
What I find particularly interesting here is that Schiffman is "forbidding" the recipients of the letter from showing it to anyone else. Thus, even if they wanted to show it to Norman Golb, these NYU officials (it would be interesting to know who they were) were "forbidden" from doing so. They, in turn, despite their apparent superiority in rank, politely acquiesced in being "forbidden," rather than drawing the logical conclusion. Did it not even occur to them that it was inappropriate for a faculty member to seek to prevent them from confirming the truth of the information he was providing them with?
To be fair, there is a difference between showing an actual letter, containing its specific wording, and confirming the underlying assertions contained in the letter by querying third parties about the veracity of the essential contents of the letter. I would point out that, unless I'm mistaken, Prof. Schiffman did not 'forbid' NYU officials from confirming or refuting the contents of the letter, only from showing it directly to third parties.
Dr. Frederics, although we do not have the complete letter, I trust Professor Golb's interpretation of it. Thus it sounds to me that Schiffman tried to muzzle the NYU officials, and succeeded in doing so. The NYU officials thus became accessories.
On reading Mr Brietbarts cross-examination of Dr R Foley, in August 2008 Dean of the Faculty of Arts at NYU, Foley's shortcomings in not carrying out his duties become very apparent. He did not investigate the accusations made against Schiffman by professor Golb correctly or sufficiently. Here is one that must be culpable.
(See http://raphaelgolbtrialtranscripts.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/foley.pdf )
We do have the full text of Schiffman's secret letter to NYU officials. It is published here with a copy of two e-mails sent by Schiffman to John Bandler, a New York District Attorney: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/schiffmancorrespondence.pdf
On p2 of his secret letter dated August 29 2008, Schiffman writes: "The present attacks stem from a supporter of Golb's whose identity is fairly certain."
On p9 of his secret letter dated August 29 2008, Schiffman writes: "Robert Cargill, a recent UCLA Ph.D, has shown that the bloggers involved are all one person and the entire thing is traceable to this individual."
In an e-mail of Thursday, August 21 2008, 10:33 am (published at the site mentioned above) to John Bandler, a New York District Attorney, Schiffman writes: "It is generally suspected that this is done (the sending of e-mails under aliases) by Norman Golb or his son."
It is quite clear, by the avoidance of mentioning the name of Golb's son, that on August 21 when he first wrote to John Bandler, Schiffman knew who he was going after. It was a named individual.
Then in a subsequent letter of Schiffman’s to John Bandler, sent about two hours later, on Thursday, August 21 2008, at 12.20 pm, Schiffman wrote more definitively, having receive a positive response from Bandler to his earlier letter:
“Mr Bandler, Thankyou very much for speaking to me this morning. The suspect is Raphael H. Golb, born in 1960, graduated from NYU law school in 1995, living at 206 Thompson St. a block and a half from my office at NYU.”
1. Schiffman already knew who had sent the e-mails, and Norman Gold wasn’t his suspect, as he wrote earlier.
2. Schiffman knew who he was REALLY gunning for, and it wasn’t Raphael Golb. This was to be sweet revenge on Norman Golb.
3. Later when Schiffman produced his secret letter to NYU Officials he made no mention of his suspicions about Norman Golb’s son as in the first letter to Bandler, and in the second letter in which he gave the actual name. He had even taken the trouble to find his middle initial, date of birth, the year he graduated, where he graduated from and precisely where he lived, 206 Thompson St. – only “a block and a half from my office at NYU.” Schiffman’s devious and vindictive character is thus revealed.
Although his name is not mentioned in Schiffman's secret letter, did Dr R Foley know that Schiffman had already revealed to Bandler the name of Raphael Golb? Was his name brought-up in discussions about the secret letter with Schiffman and other officials?
Why would Schiffman have wanted to keep his comments to NYU officials secret? Was he aware that what he was saying about Norman Golb's work may well have been false?
ReplyDeleteWhat I find particularly interesting here is that Schiffman is "forbidding" the recipients of the letter from showing it to anyone else. Thus, even if they wanted to show it to Norman Golb, these NYU officials (it would be interesting to know who they were) were "forbidden" from doing so. They, in turn, despite their apparent superiority in rank, politely acquiesced in being "forbidden," rather than drawing the logical conclusion. Did it not even occur to them that it was inappropriate for a faculty member to seek to prevent them from confirming the truth of the information he was providing them with?
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, there is a difference between showing an actual letter, containing its specific wording, and confirming the underlying assertions contained in the letter by querying third parties about the veracity of the essential contents of the letter. I would point out that, unless I'm mistaken, Prof. Schiffman did not 'forbid' NYU officials from confirming or refuting the contents of the letter, only from showing it directly to third parties.
ReplyDeleteDr. Frederics, although we do not have the complete letter, I trust Professor Golb's interpretation of it. Thus it sounds to me that Schiffman tried to muzzle the NYU officials, and succeeded in doing so. The NYU officials thus became accessories.
ReplyDeleteOn reading Mr Brietbarts cross-examination of Dr R Foley, in August 2008 Dean of the Faculty of Arts at NYU, Foley's shortcomings in not carrying out his duties become very apparent. He did not investigate the accusations made against Schiffman by professor Golb correctly or sufficiently. Here is one that must be culpable.
ReplyDelete(See http://raphaelgolbtrialtranscripts.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/foley.pdf )
As an example of a lack of investigation, p305:
ReplyDelete2 Q. My question though was did you go outside, did you do anything outside the NYU community to investigate the claim?
3 A. No, we did not.
Matters were kept within a small circle of NYU officials.
We do have the full text of Schiffman's secret letter to NYU officials. It is published here with a copy of two e-mails sent by Schiffman to John Bandler, a New York District Attorney: http://www.sirpeterscott.com/images/schiffmancorrespondence.pdf
ReplyDeleteOn p2 of his secret letter dated August 29 2008, Schiffman writes: "The present attacks stem from a supporter of Golb's whose identity is fairly certain."
On p9 of his secret letter dated August 29 2008, Schiffman writes: "Robert Cargill, a recent UCLA Ph.D, has shown that the bloggers involved are all one person and the entire thing is traceable to this individual."
In an e-mail of Thursday, August 21 2008, 10:33 am (published at the site mentioned above) to John Bandler, a New York District Attorney, Schiffman writes: "It is generally suspected that this is done (the sending of e-mails under aliases) by Norman Golb or his son."
It is quite clear, by the avoidance of mentioning the name of Golb's son, that on August 21 when he first wrote to John Bandler, Schiffman knew who he was going after. It was a named individual.
Then in a subsequent letter of Schiffman’s to John Bandler, sent about two hours later, on Thursday, August 21 2008, at 12.20 pm, Schiffman wrote more definitively, having receive a positive response from Bandler to his earlier letter:
ReplyDelete“Mr Bandler,
Thankyou very much for speaking to me this morning. The suspect is Raphael H. Golb, born in 1960, graduated from NYU law school in 1995, living at 206 Thompson St. a block and a half from my office at NYU.”
1. Schiffman already knew who had sent the e-mails, and Norman Gold wasn’t his suspect, as he wrote earlier.
2. Schiffman knew who he was REALLY gunning for, and it wasn’t Raphael Golb. This was to be sweet revenge on Norman Golb.
3. Later when Schiffman produced his secret letter to NYU Officials he made no mention of his suspicions about Norman Golb’s son as in the first letter to Bandler, and in the second letter in which he gave the actual name. He had even taken the trouble to find his middle initial, date of birth, the year he graduated, where he graduated from and precisely where he lived, 206 Thompson St. – only “a block and a half from my office at NYU.” Schiffman’s devious and vindictive character is thus revealed.
Although his name is not mentioned in Schiffman's secret letter, did Dr R Foley know that Schiffman had already revealed to Bandler the name of Raphael Golb? Was his name brought-up in discussions about the secret letter with Schiffman and other officials?
ReplyDelete