Readers' Note:The post below is a follow up to the post, “Questions for Two Profs,” and comments which appeared on its thread. If you’re not familiar with that post and the comments, I encourage you to read them.
John
________________________________________
First, as most of you realize, the reason I responded to Duke University Professor Broverman’s email had to do primarily with what she didn’t say. From my email to Broverman:
Nowhere in your email do you say you agree with NC Attorney General Roy Cooper’s conclusion: “Innocent.”Given that in her detailed email Broverman had not said, “Yes, they’re innocent,” I also questioned Professor KC Johnson’s response to her email because he said he agreed with everything she'd said in it, and he hadn’t called her on the absence of a “Yes, they’re innocent.” KC, as all of you know, has been a leader in the fight for justice in the Duke Hoax/frame-up case.
Do you?
If not, why not?
KC responded promptly. Here in full is his response:
John,I thank KC for his response.
Given that Prof. Broverman says she was contacted by the newspaper about another matter and that the reporter promised to get back to her after Cooper's remarks and didn't, I was inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt--especially since the paper in question was Newsday, which in the last couple of weeks has published several articles highly and unfairly critical of the lacrosse players.
On prosecuting rape cases, I share your opinion. This case, obviously, is an extreme example--but it is frightening that under NC law, Reade Seligmann's ability to absolutely demonstrate his innocence was not in and of itself enough for a judge to dismiss all charges right off the bat.
On the Duke case, one thing I hope would bother all scientists, including Prof. Broverman, is Nifong's almost casual dismissal of the forensic evidence. Given the specifics of the allegations of Mangum and the fact that she immediately went to hospital (as opposed to most rape cases), the DNA in this case should have been dispositive.
KC
If Broverman resplies to my email, I will, as promised, publish it.
Also, if AMac gets a response from Newsday and passes it on to me, I’ll build a main page post on it, if that’s OK with him.
I want to thank all of you who at KC’s DiW and here at JinC civilly and with informed care invoked principles of science and/or common law precepts to question and/or refute what Duke University Professor Sherryl Broverman said and didn’t say in her email about the indicted Duke students; and what Brooklyn College Professor Robert KC Johnson said in response to Broverman's email.
In a few minutes I’ll leave a brief comment on the thread of the “Questions for Two Profs.” Besides thanking those of you I’m just thanked I plan to say Broverman is fortunate so many of her science colleagues stepped forward to remind her of the limits and proper uses of the scientific method. I’ll end with a special word of thanks to those of you who refuted the commenter who seemed to infer I’d unfairly “slammed” KC Johnson.
5 comments:
You did not slam KC = What was this other matter Newsweek asked her about? Not like this gal is on the top of the "Opinion You Need to Have List" I would not be surprised if she called Newsweek to give her essai on the team. I found her explanation not credible. Kc is a very forgining guy - part of our respect for him,
John --
If and when I hear back from either Newsday reporter, I will let you know. In the past, I have had brief email correspondences with other Tribune Co. reporters that have been civil and informative.
Journalists tend to be quite sensitive to suggestions that they have misquoted interviewees or taken their words out of context, so I think it is likely that there will be a response to my query.
I don't see that Boverman's response clarifies anything. Her explanation is just an elaboration of the Newsday quote, which seems to be a fair summary of her position.
That being said, I find her analogy to scientific experimentation to be misleading. A better analogy would be if you had a hypothesis you wanted to investigate, you would do a preliminary investigation before doing a full blown experiment. Except that your preliminary findings turn out to be so strong that you now have all the evidence you need to conclude your original hypothesis was wrong. There is no need to go any further and perform a full experiment. I believe this would be better analogy to the Duke investigation.
Anon 12:13pm at Part 1 --
There are two hypotheses that Prof. Broverman might have had in mind, and there are two relevant time frames.
Hyp. #1: "The evidence I have seen clearly demonstrates that no felony assault took place, thus the Duke Lacrosse team is factually innocent."
Hyp. #2: "The evidence I have seen is clearly too weak and tainted to support a felony prosecution of members of the Duke Lacrosse team."
Time A: The day before the AG's announcement (when Broverman was quoted).
Time B: The day after the AG's announcement (when Broverman emailed Johnson).
If Prof. Broverman expressed her acceptance of Hyp. #1 at Time A, her meaning was distorted by the Newsday reporters.
If Prof. Broverman was expressing her acceptance of Hyp. #2 to the reporters, her words would seem to have been properly quoted.
(But the article implies that Broverman spoke after hearing the AG, which we know is incorrect.)
In her email to KC Johnson, Broverman appears to be discussing her then-current view. This Time B belief is not clearly stated. In any case, it may be different from her Time A view.
Subsequently changing one's mind isn't grounds for claiming to have been misquoted.
Sorry, John, but Professor Johnson missed the boat here. Ms. Broverman took the time to send a "claricication" both to KC and the Duke Chronicle. This clarification, by anyone's reading (seemingly by everyone's reading but her and a few devotees) makes clear her doubts about the technicalities of the dismissal, and proclaimed, official innocence of the lacrosse players. KC Johnson's response to you is lacking in the pointed analysis he usually makes of others who are practiced in the art of obfuscation.
Post a Comment