EFTA00812329.pdf

TO: Carla Mehnke, OEI From: Lawrence M. Krauss, Aug 27, 2018 Reopen Investigation into Australian Skeptics Meeting allegation I am writing to ask you to reopen your investigation yet again, on the basis of new evidence. At least three crucial new pieces of evidence now exist: 1. An analysis of the photograph that Melanie Thomson submitted with her claim, which she stated occurred moments before I allegedly touched the breast of the woman in the photograph, actually shows my hand and arm moving awayfrom the woman, not toward her. It thus provides no Commented VDU: I think you need to explain, using the ghost-Image stuff, why that Is. You could lust evidentiary support for her claim, and moreover demonstrates this is a cut and paste it from the appeal If you'd like. false claim. It thus provides no support at all for the claim of accidental or login Dillon intentional touching. The only evidence it does provides is; 2018-08-27 08:11:00 a. The woman in question was leaning against me at the time b. Melanie Thomson lied about what happened immediately after the photo was taken. Commented (M2]: You should explain why that Is—go back to the report and quote exactly what she says 2. Melanie Thomson recorded a podcast after ASU released the results of your about II, then explain (In conclusion, as a reminder) why investigation, which she subsequently forwarded to the press. Here is the the ghost-Image analysis shows that can't be true. link omp://files.secietagencies.com.au/Episodel I2.m23) On that podcast she login Dillon 2018-08-27 08:12:00 lies repeatedly about various aspects ofher claim compared to the information she either gave to you, BuzzFeed magazine, or in numerous other public statements about this event and also contradicts the testimony of the other witnesses in your investigation: a. She admits that the motivation for submitting this claim was NOT the seriousness of the event in question, but rather due to i. her objection to something she thought I said six months later and with which she disagreed, deciding I needed to be punished. As she put it, upon hearing this, "I lost my mind". She subsequently realized that the words were not mine in a blog she updated (see below), but did not mention this in her podcast ii. She also admits that she was manipulated and coached into making the complaint by a woman from Case Western Reserve University who first approached her after reading her blog of April 2017 (see below). Melanie admits to colluded with this woman in framing the form and content of her complaint b. She makes it explicitly clear that neither she nor anyone else made any complaint at the time. Commented UD3j: I don't find any of this c. She admits to meeting and colluding with other claimants, to 'send a persuasive, at least not as an argument reopen, for which the standard is going to be fairly high. To me. It reads like, message, not simply to report an incident She points out that in 1 thought he was a creep and had seen what happened. preparing the claim to ASU "WE managed to get people together with then I eventually decided enough was enough and I had BuzzFeed", implying collusion with other 'witnesses'. to do something about IC d. She states the other witness quoted by MU ,Michael Marshall did Pusan Dillon not witness the breast touching itself, countering his claim made 2018.08.27 08:14:00 EFTA00812329  to you. She says explicitly she was the only eye-witness to the event. Either she is lying, in which case this further impugns her testimony, or Michael Marshall was lying, which impugns his. Either way they cannot both be credible witnesses. Commented 1JD4]: I think this is a strong point. lustin Dillon 2018-08-27 08:15:00 3. Melanie Thomson confirmed in the interview that her blog post in April 2017 is what initiated the complaint process. This post, which is defamatory, makes other false claims for which there is no evidence—including that there is a photo with my hand on the woman in question's breast This blog further demonstrates willingness to embellish or lie, and thus further undermines her credibility as a witness. https://drmelthomson.wordpress.com Commented LIDS]: I don't find this persuasive. It shows your hand in her breast area-1 think she was 4. A witness contacted after Melanie Thomson submitted a second selfie to Erin speaking imprecisely. Ellison at ASU which she claimed was evidence of photobombing, and taken Pugin Dillon one day after the event in question, reported that Melanie said of me at the 2018-08-27 08:15:00 time "I hate that man" suggesting malicious motivation for making a complaint Commented LIDS]: I think this Is worth saying; you should ask her to ask Thomson about her bias, etc 5. In the interim I have received further email from someone at the event lusun Dillon claiming to see no inappropriate behavior at the banquet that evening, 2018-08-27 08:16:00 (which confirms the statement of the conference organizer regarding his observations of the evening) claiming I was a perfect gentleman who tried to meet and greet as many people as I could in the short time I was there. I submitted a copy of that email to the President in my appeal of the proposed University disciplinary action as a result of this complaint. Commented UD7]: This is fine to keep. Justin Dillon 2018.08.27 08:16:00 This new information strongly discredits the significance of the two people who claim to be eyewitnesses other than myself and the anonymous woman in the photograph. The anonymous woman essentially corroborates my claim that the interaction, if it occurred at all, was a clumsy accident, for which she did not feel victimized or worth reporting to you. I believe that on the basis of new evidence, it is appropriate to reopen the investigation to include this evidence, and be prepared to change your conclusion about the likelihood of a violation of University Policy. Having already done this once before there is already a precedent for this. As a result of this new evidence, a reasonable conclusion would be that "it is more likely than nor that any possible touching that may or may not have occurred associated with the selfie in Australia was at worst an accident, and not intentional, and clearly not sexual in intent. I look forward to hearing from you or the Provost at your earliest convenience with a new determination in this matter. Commented UD8]: Enke to line edit this once we Lawrence M. Krauss decide what you're going to keep and what you're going to throw out, but no need to do that now. Pusan Dillon 2018-08-27 08:17:00 EFTA00812330