EFTA00812337.pdf

TO: Carla Mehnke, OEI From: Lawrence M. Krauss, Aug 2;28, 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. Notice the ghost images caused by the movement trail to the right of my fingers, and also the ghost image of my jacket on my arm. fA-ghost-anage-is-what-happens-when-a-piature is taking-when-someene-is obizet.1 It would be impossible to create these if my hand and arm were moving to the right because the !thirst tillages trail the movement, they don't go in front of it! This is thus not a photograph of me reaching toward the woman's body, but rather moving it away from her. ireeleat-how-my.-Arigets appear-longer-than-they-shoot-beeause-the raiting-awas4asre-moving towacd-horrm.IL.wrPittl-would-appeaf-loaser pear-shocter tl.c ghost :image s, aiL. tl.e Metriinitart, rn.,eedc I have now shown this to other colleagues who have confirmed this analysis—I-would-be happy4siv.e rva-people-if-. . The photo itself is not evidence of my reaching to grab anything on the woman. It thus provides no evidentiary support for MelapieThmson12 / -the claim that I crabbed this woman immediately after this photo, and moreover demonstrates this is a false claim.. It-thes-prevides-ftesttppett-m-all-fer-dte-elaira-ef-heidental-or intentional-tette-NitrThe only evidence it does provides is;i Commented UDR]: I think les a mistake to say a. The woman in question-the photo was leaning toward-back against me at there was no accidental touching. Remember, she was upset after. You definitely touched her. I realized that the time takingtelfteshe took the selfie you're making a more refined point (this shows no _Melanie Thomson lied-was wrong about what happened immediately after touching at all). but you cant arguments like the photo was taken. Quoting from the ASU Investigative Report: that. Keep the attack on version, not on whether you touched her at all. "Thomson described that she witnessed Respondent, 22reach over her Justin Dillon [anonymous female's] right shoulder and clamp his right hand firmly on 2018-08-2808:01A0 her right breast moments after she [the anonymous female] took the Commented UDR]: Here's the thing: like many photograph— (emphasis mine). people who aren't used to dealing with witnesses, you are b. As you can see, that's not true at the time the photo was taken, my hand too quick to assume that an innocent misrecollection is a lie. I don't think Melanie was lying about when the photo was not touching her, and it was moving away, towards me. -This-Stirkge6tS was taken. I think she lust doesn't remember. It all dmt I...ay hen she bt....ped :nte n.c to L.k.. happened very qukkly. and human memory Isn't a video the-piettmarlikely-beeouse-she-made-me-siumble. and then-taken-the-photo recorder. So I actually don't think using this to accuse her when.4.4vasaLt_reaoh-as4-trie440.4teadym54i, 141. of lying about this is very effective. I think you might ^b0w the better use it to attack her memory, or something like that. s of,,I.,s.c, ...ake th..1 .annot .how that-1 after But going as far as to say she's lying about the timing of ttte-photo-was-takearMelanie Thomson -was w long when ,The said Oval— the photoseems less effective to me. Her concern is the it fesfid-se-inush-Getrtaintiabegt-ii-ftial 144t,-14apd-fti-b4itwe-that (act of the grope, not when it happened in relation to the photo. That's what she would have bee focused on. Mr3 art Inmest atistak-use of this photo to attempt to substantiate her Pusan Dillon 2018.08.28 08:09:00 EFTA00812337  claim was disingenuou as-bad-as-possible., 2. Melanie Thomson recorded a podcast after ASU released the results of your investigation, which she subsequently forwarded to the press. Here is the link. (http://files.secmtagencies.com.au/Episode)12.mp3) On that podcast she lies repeatedly about various aspects of her claim compared to the information she either gave to you, BunFeed magazine, or in numerous other public statements about this event and also contradicts the testimony of the other witnesses in your investigation. In particulari a. She reiterates that what prompted her complaint to ASU was not the event in question but other concerns she had about me as a result of both objections to something she thought I said on the radio, and to cajoling by a woman at Case Western Reserve University in the US who contacted her in April, who coached and framed what she should say. She admits to colluding with other witnesses to :!send a message::: not simply to report an incident. As she points out that in preparing the claim to ASU, "WE managed to get people together with BuzzFeecr. b=She states the other witness quoted by ASU ,Michael Marshall did not witness the breast touching itself, countering his claim made 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. b. 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-questionls-'s breast—a claim she repeated to the ANU investigators but could not produce such a photo even after repeated requests from them. This blog further demonstrates willingness to embellish or lie. https://drmelthomson.wordpress.com 4. A witness contacted after Melanie Thomson submitted a second selfie to Erin Ellison at ASU which she claimed was evidence of photobombing, and taken one day after the event in question, reported that Melanie said of me at the time "I hate that man," suggesting malicious motivation for making a complaint. Note that she did not refer at all to any settle when making that statement, and it confirms a deep prejudice against me that as far as I am aware, was not adequately taken into account in your earlier investigation. 57—In the interim I have received further email from someone at the event claiming to see no inappropriate behavior at the banquet that evening, (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. EFTA00812338  5. This new information should increase your reliance on the two actual participants in the event: myself and the anonymous woman in the photograph. The woman essentially corroborates my claim that the-whatever interaction may haverif-it-eeeatreti-at-all; occurred associated with the selfie was a clumsy accident, for which she did not feel victimized or worth reporting to you. I believe that this new evidence is cause to re-open the investigation, and can change your conclusion about the likelihood of a possible 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 aft is more likely than not" that any possible touching that may th ..gray ..et have occurred associated with the settle 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.e-with-a ne4v-deterM4OatiOli:m4hes-matterregartling-whethec-you-will-reopen-your-iavestigation about-this-matte: Commented UD3]: Egon little softer here. Justin Dillon LawrenDe-Ma.-namso 2018.08.28 08:12:00 EFTA00812339