RE: The Evolutionist: Liar, etc. -- The Rest

Kevin L. O'Brien (klob@lamar.colostate.edu)
Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:17:44 -0700

Haeckel's confession suggests that the court ruled he had been inaccurate and careless, not that he had deliberately tried to deceive anyone. Such a ruling would be embarrassing, and it could even damage his reputation, but it wouldn't be serious enough to fire him or even censure him.

The bottom line is that this "court" would not count as a real court of law, so its finding could not be used by Joseph to prove his claim that "it is common knowledge that Haeckel committed fraud". But then, since the court apparently did not reach that conclusion in any event, it would not prove Joseph's claims even if it was a real court of law. (In fact, a real court of law would have found Haeckel no guilty, because inaccuracy and carelessness are not criminal offenses.)

Kevin L. O'Brien

"Good God, consider yourselves fortunate that you have John Adams to abuse, for no sane man would tolerate it!" William Daniels, _1776_